Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Patents that contradict other sources

RE Cold Fusion. We have an unquestionalbly source that states the patent office does not grant a type of patent. Someone has found a patent that, while it does not use the exact language that the patent office says they do not allow "cold fusion," does grant a patent on a method of generating energy by repeating the steps that "cold fusion" entails (dipping metal in water and running a current through it.) The patent is located at [1]. How do we deal with this? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In this context the patent is a Primary Source. You need an independent WP:RS which says that there is a discrepancy. Until then you are doing Original Research by synthesis based on your interpretation of the patent, the process, and the patent office policy.Martinlc (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we see what the debate was? You could maybe use it to say something like "while the USPTO has not accepted cold fusion patents since XYZ year, it has accepted patents for related technologies such as electrodes." But you'd have to word it very carefully so as to not introduce any original research that isn't in the sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian debate on persecution and toleration

The other involved editor went with this to ANI, but I think this is rather a reliable sources issue. When I need a lead and had to summarize 2 millennia of a debate within Christianity, I went for this version:

This article gives an overview about historical cases of persecution by Christians, also taking a look at cases of religious warfare and religious violence. Important Christian theologians had, during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, advocated religious persecution to various extents. However, Early modern Europe witnessed the turning point in the Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration, and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension."(ref: Coffey 2000: 206.)

Coffey's book was the first introductory textbook on the topic that I could find. What has provoked strong opposition by (at least) one particular editor is the last part of the paragraph, that "all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration." I think that Coffey is quite explicit on this, the whole quote can be found on the article talk page, but to take concern about this into account, I reworded it to something more verbatim. But, the disagreement continues, because the other editor thinks that other sources would disagree. I could completely grand this point, under one condition. He needs to bring the reliable sources that do this forward on the talk page (or simply add them to the article) which so far simply hasn't happened. Those sources that he brought forward simply aren't good enough. Currently it appears as if this hasn't been made obvious enough, so I would appreciate it if someone from this noticeboard could look at the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right place for this, and if it's being handled elsewhere it's probably best to handle it there. (But the claim that "all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration." is just a POV of that editor and cannot be used to overrule what reliable sources say, provided they are reliably cited. DreamGuy (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:British National Party

A dispute has a risen over two areas. They both revolve around wiither or not a ource is accurate if it attributes to anotehr source something that source does not claim. The first is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299533096&oldid=299532753 The dailey Express article claims that the BNP constutution bans membership to those not native after 1066. The current constiution makes no such claim. Indead the user who posted the comment even seems to admit that this is true. However http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299653734&oldid=299653388. Though he does not provide that source (IE the constitution he has seen). The second instance is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299532753&oldid=299301330. Here the situation is less clear cut. The EHRC letter does say that "Failure to do so may result in the Commission issuing an application for a legal injunction against the BNP." but does not state that it will. As such to claim that it has been considerd cannot be verified by the source. It cannot even be demonstrated that they have actualy discused it (as no decision seems to have been made). Nor is the letter clear that any breach of the law has occured, so again it makes it hard to demonstrate that there is any clear posibility of legal action. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A similar question arose recently here. If you scroll down a bit there, you will find advice from user:Jennavecia that I consider pertinent, useful and authoritative.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are accusations permisable if reliably sourced? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299682602&oldid=299682360.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I see… in this case it is not immediately apparent to me that the secondary source is wrong. For example, is it possible that the text of the BNP "constitution" has changed and that the media reported on an earlier version which did indeed contain that statement? If we do not know this then we may not be able to say with certainty that the secondary source is wrong, hence it cannot be excluded for being uncontrovertably false. This is not a black or white situation. However, if the secondary source with the "pre-1066" claim is included, care should be taken to determine wether other secondary sources exist that say otherwise and if so these should likewise be included.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But surley the only constitution that matters is the one currently inforce, not one that is no longer is in force. Using the same argument a source that says that the USA allows slavery within its constitution is a true statment because at one time the US constitution did allow slavery. Moreover the constitution is question was writen in 2005 http://bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf the article that is in dispute four years latter http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/109619/BNP-leader-face-jail-for-ban-on-non-whites-. Nor does this article make it clear that this must refer to an out of date constitution (at least four years old) indead the tone implies it is the current ruling. In addition the disputed article is about the Equality and Human Rights Commission leter, which makes no mention of 1066. Nor does the letter state (as the article claims) that this is against the law as the letter is refering to the current constutution of the BNP, not earlier ones. Moreover this seems to be the only major news outlet that makes the claim. This does not look like sterling fact checking to me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Use http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8114619.stm the BBC as a source instead. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Query

A quick query regarding Texas Tech University and asking for a few more eyes on the subject: What do we do if reliable sources are wrong? Not-so-hypothetical question: 2 normally reliable sources claim something, but simple observation of the object in question shows these sources to be wrong, but no one has published anything else in another reliable source to "prove" otherwise. WP:V seems to indicate we should only include the "reliable" source information, but policies aren't a suicide pact and Jimbo Wales stated "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". Seeing as it is misleading information, how should we address it? Remove it altogether? Note that it is a campus legend? Note that it is a campus legend and it is false? Cite WP:IAR and just fix it? etc?

I have no issue with the other people involved; we're just trying to reach a consensus and appropriately annotate the legend. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See the section above for the link to advice by user:Jennavecia:

If you know for certain that the information is inaccurate, do not include it. Verifiability not truth is good and well, but we don't intentionally publish false information about living people just because the sources that disprove it are not considered reliable by our standards. If there's no RS correcting the error, then just don't include the information at all.

Note, she wrote "know for certain", not "think you know". I take that to mean that John Q. Public will review the evidence and agree with you. I don't have the time to research whether this is indeed the case for the statue on campus but it seems you have made a strong case for it. Also note that in the example I quote above, the article was a bio of a living person which requires us to be even more diligent than usual about not republishing false information from a "reliable" source, whereas in the case of a statue there is no special urgency to get it right immediately. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pajhwok Afghan News

Pajhwok Afghan News is cited through the encyclopedia ([2]). Is this a reliable source? How about for non-negative information about living persons? Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it should be treated with caution as it may not meet the standards of the most reliable media sources such as the BBC, The Times, The New York Times. Mind you, those organisations are not 100% reliable - few are. It is always good to cross check with other sources wherever possible. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The about page makes it look like it's probably reliable, but it's a bit vague. It says " It is staffed, managed, and led entirely by Afghan leaders in local media who are not affiliated with political parties or figures, or commercial enterprises", for what it's worth. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the information in question was also confirmed by Michael Yon. The major news agencies haven't picked up the story yet. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, are you asking for a retropsective reexamination of how the David S. Rohde case was dealt with ? If so, wouldn't it be more honest to mention that upfront instead of phrasing your inquiry in present tense ("haven't picked up the story yet") ? My apologies in advance, if I have misread the situation, and you do have a current dispute in mind. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for using the people who responded already as test subjects. Obviously, I am. Given that the pre-alert responders were perfectly clear that it was, on it's face, reliable, that pretty much wraps things up for me. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I too agree (as I wrote below) that the source is perhaps reliable in general, but I am disappointed in how you approached this issue. You should have trusted the RSN responders to provide their honest opinion, even when they know all the facts of the particular case. Anyway, let bygones be bygones; however I have removed the "resolved reliable" tag that you placed since I believe that label is simplistic and does not represent the responders' opinion. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

20/20 hindsight proves the source is reliable. Only a hypothetical forward-look provides a fair review - anyone with today's information looking back can state with absolute certainty "The source is substantially more reliable than the New York Times with respect to kidnappings in the Middle East. Use without question." Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are confusing "being correct" with "being reliable". Pajhwok was certainly correct in this instance as was Yon; however that does not make them more reliable than NYT as far as wikipedia is concerned. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In that I disagree. On the subject of "Kidnappings of Journalists", The NYTimes fails a prime test. They lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," as it is well known that they will choose not to report on things that they would otherwise report on (contrast to their reputation for accuracy on the subject of "Kidnappings of Soldiers" or "Kidnappings of White Women"). Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the New York Times falsely reported something or that they didn't report something? These are entirely two separate issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree but since this discussion seems to be getting ideological, and is not relevant to any current wikipedia issue, I'll bow out. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

AFP, The Guardian and Foxnews have cited its stories + its content is indexed by Lexis-Nexis. This would suggest that it would be usable in general. There may be exceptions when there are redflag or BLP concerns in which case it could be used with attribution (as in the Foxnews article), or not at all depending upon the specifics of the case. Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo says it's not a reliable source. I'm not sure if he meant that in a WP:RS sort of way. I'm glad no one took this to this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I have not cast any aspersions (nor praise) upon this source in general. The question of reliability in sourcing is not a binary one with a simple on/off switch. It depends in any given case on the full context of knowledge.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, are you saying that the NYTimes misquoted you when they said you said "We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source... I would have had a really hard time with it if it had." It appeared at [3]. This source was removed from the article here and here. Given that the source in question is far more reliable regarding kidnapping issues than the New York Times, which will distort it's reporting to defend it's employees, I think it's reasonably clear you must have been misquoted or misinformed. Hipocrite (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was neither misquoted nor misinformed, that's not my point. My point is that reliability in sourcing is not a binary one with a simple on/off switch. It depends in any given case on the full context of knowledge. If there is one report, from a lesser known outlet, from a difficult area for reporting, where there are many contradictory reports all the time, and it is not followed up on by other reliable sources at all, then it is reasonable to suppose there must have been an error and to treat the source as unreliable in that context. That's how it generally works. Also take note that the reliability of sources depends critically on context in many many other areas. An article in Reader's Digest outlining a new theory of physics is not a reliable source. An article in the same publication on an issue more within their domain of reliability could be. To say that a publication is not a reliable source in some context, is not to cast aspersions on them generally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are aware, now, however, that Pajhwok Afghan News is a reliable source on Middle Eastern Kidnappings, right? A far more reliable source than pretty much any other? In fact, with 20/20 hindsight, you are aware that when you were calling Pajhwok Afghan News an unreliable source regarding Middle Eastern Kidnappings in the New York Times, an unreliable source on Middle Eastern Kidnappings, Pajhwok Afghan News was considered far more reliable than pretty much any other source? I just wonder how you can justify your statement at the time you made it. Perhaps you meant to include a temporality statement, or a statement that it was just the limited minority who actually looked at the article who thought it wasn't reliable - since the consenus of editors now, obviously, would find it extremely reliable, and probably if the anonymous informed railroaded editor had raised his complaint, the community would have found it reliable. By the way, have you apologized for the behavior of your handpicked adminstrators to the anon contributor who was just trying to "create ... a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," whilst your handpicked adminstrators had a slightly different (and possibly equally or more noble) goal of procting the public from getting information that, if the public knew, would be harmful. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion is now somewhat moot. I've completely rewritten the article, and Pajhwok is now used only as a source for what Pajhwok did at the time. It's obviously a reliable source for a statement about its own activities, though I wouldn't care to use it as a source for anything else. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be moot if this was the only time the freelancer, Shahpur Arab, or Pajhwok was used but given Pajhwok is linked to from a number of articles related to this region then this suggests that we would have to go through and tag those as unreliable. That sounds bizarre. For Pajhwok to be unreliable it must either use unreliable sources or add its own spin in a systemic way that makes what it is reporting untrustworthy. I don't think this is the case. The Reuters sponsored AlertNet here presents Pajhwok in good light "Another good site is Pajhwok Afghan News, the country's largest local news service. The news is broad-based and some of the reporters benefit from a wealth of local contacts, but inaccuracies sometimes pop up. Note that you have to pay for access to some of the material. The service runs stories in Dari, English and Pashto.". Now it does say that "but inaccuracies sometimes pop up" which is true for ALL media but it doesn't call it "unreliable" or intimate it is a poor source. Calling a news source or a reporter unreliable is a fairly damaging accusation. The area this agency and their freelancers operate in is pretty shitty so I'd expect inaccuracies to sometimes pop up but unreliable means systemic problems and AlertNet doesn't highlight this as a concern.

The freelancer that Pajhwok was citing, Shahpur Arab, for instance reported on the 13th August last year that 4 workers of the IRC were killed including 3 women and the IRC confirmed this was true here. Oddly enough that same freelancer is under threat too e.g. see here.

Please show support for your claims about this newsagency because I have highlighted that a reliable source calls that same newsagency a "good site". Yes, I wouldn't expect them to report the Indy500 with any great depth but I suspect that what they publish from this area then they are reliable and, more importantly, I can show a reliable source that says this. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, let's please reject the binary "on/off" model of reliability, as it fails to do justice to the complexity of proper editorial judgment. There is no reason to go around questioning the validity of this reporters work, and indeed, this incident has surely and quite properly elevated the credibility of his work substantially. You have it exactly right when you argue that although we might in some cases reject a particular story as being a valid source (due to, for example, it making claims that are not picked up elsewhere), this is not a reason to cast aspersions on the reporter more generally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's. The New York Times might be reliable for many things, but for Middle Eastern Kidnappings, they are depreciated. We should rely on sources that don't color the news for their own ends, like Pajhwok Afghan News for Middle Eastern Kidnappings. Hipocrite (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Jimbo is arguing against the principles of WP:RS that have been being applied on this noticeboard. If the reliability of a source depends on whether we believe what it says at that moment on a specific topic, we have no criteria to judge it. I and others have been arguing that the policy logically defines RS as such, so that we would decide "Reader's Digest is not an RS" or "BBC News website is an RS" once and for all, based on the editorial process etc that was applied. Are we wrong?Martinlc (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your understanding is incorrect. The reliability of source always depends upon the context i.e., what it is being used to support. This is completely consistent with policy and how it has always been interpreted on this noticeboard. See WP:RS, "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." (emphasis in original) A source can be considered reliable for one subject or statement, and not reliable for another. See for example:

• WP:MEDRS, which lays down pointers on how to judge reliability of sources for medical articles, and deprecates sources that would be considered reliable in some other fields.
• WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP areas demand an even higher level of sourcing.

Hope that helps. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that this source for this claim was reliable. We say that a source is reliable for a claim when it is sufficiently trustworthy for supporting the claim, as described at RS (roughly, authors are reputed to be accurate in the domain at hand and the publication is OK, this is the case here), and this is independent of extraneous factors like whether other news outlets have reported this too. In this case, the "multiple" factor comes in, essential for the evaluation of notability for example, but most of the time not required for specific claims in articles, though always preferred. We have countless of statements sourced to only one RS, with no other RS which could do so, most of the time it's OK, not because of reliability considerations, but verifiability considerations. Verifiability, contrary to reliability, is an editorial judgment, and depends on the circumstances, for which the 'multiple' RS is a factor. That source was reliable for this claim as we define it at RS, but was it enough to assure verifiability ? The lack of other reliable sources reporting this is essential in this evaluation of verifiability. So in short, I believe that the reliability of the source for this claim is assured, and it was a mistake to say it was not, however whether it was sufficient to make the claim verifiable is another story. And it may very well not be, in the circumstances of media blackout. So if we were to defend those actions, the lack of verifiability would be the point to make, but not the lack of reliability. Cenarium (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

While I wouldn't use the terminology in precisely the way you do, I agree with the essence of your point. If, in some future case, we have this same source reporting on a kidnapping, and no other sources picking up the story, I would still argue that this is not sufficient to include it. The lack of confirmation from other sources is a confounding factor, and in my mind, confounding enough to argue against inclusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Related to the David Rohde discussion, though not to the reliability of Pajhwok Afghan News, I have made a draft proposal at Wikipedia:News suppression. The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this also simply be a valid use of Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT ? Why didn't NYT use Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight like everyone else ? Heck anyone can use oversight. Something like that allows suitable admins to redact without people having to make silly claims to support their reverts. In this case admins got lucky because the only reason it didn't stick in Wikipedia wasn't due to WP:RS (i.e. not as in “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,”) but some naive IP based editor who didn't follow or know WP policies on establishing sources. As an aside I have updated the article on the Pajhwok Afghan News showing it's original formation, funding and the internationally known awards that its director and deputy-director have won, just so that in future people will be less likely to doubt what it publishes. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I believed at the time, and believe now, that this was not a proper time to use OVERSIGHT for a number of reasons. It is not clear to me that the information presented would meet the normal standards for oversight. And therefore, the use of it might have drawn unnecessary attention. It was very important to me that we try to do the ethical thing while simultaneously following policy. I think we did.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We talk often about systematic bias in articles, but it strikes me that the same applies to sources. It is clear that the Afghan Agency does not have the same international standing of Reuters or AP, or the fierce independence and reliability of the BBC, Pajhwok is (as has been proven itself in the Rohde case and before), reliable. Having been asked by the NYT to suppress the story merely confirms the reliability, and should have stopped the officially-sanctioned removal of this news. While Jimbo may believe he acted in a responsible and ethical manner, I feel that he was merely conniving with the conflict of interest of same. Objectively, there is no proof either way that Rohde would have seen freedom any quicker (or slower) because the article had been censored. By the same token, it can never be proven (without being in the heads of the abductors), now or in the future, that exposure of such news would hasten (or slow down) a captive's demise under those circumstances. Now, it's all over the papers that WP censored the news. The Foundation can spin it as a humanitarian gesture, but I think it sends out the wrong message: Wikipedia censors reporter kidnapping - Founder Jimmy Wales authorises cover-up. The only positive side is that no financial motivation was apparently involved for Jimmy or the foundation. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This stuff is way beyond the scope of this noticeboard. I'm not sure where the conversation is, but it's probably raging somewhere as we speak. If someone knows where, a link here would be nice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is at the WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Censorship_at_David_Rohde. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pray, tell - in what way is systematic bias not an issue here? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we just say that it's a reliable source, and that, as always, care should be taken with BLP and other extraordinary claims, like all RSs? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

MusicMight

Musicmight is a reliable source? Thanks. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Ok, how do we check? Go to the site. First thing I see on the left is

Join the MusicMight community to add information REGISTER HERE

Oh dear not looking good, anyone can add information by merely registering it seems. Then I check out the About us link:

About MusicMight: Musicmight is a Rock database established online by Garry Sharpe-Young in 2001. Want to add information to this database? Just register - it's simple!

You can add as much or as little information as you'd like. We are actively seeking potential "Guardians", those dedicated fans that have enthusiasm, knowledge and commitment to oversee key areas of the database. If you think you're the person to look after all NWOBHM acts, Finnish Death Metal bands, all Californian AOR bands or whatever - get in touch with us!

Fairly straightforward, isn't it? Not a reliable source as it does not meet any of the criteria suggested at WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not quite as straightforward as that. The content of the site is edited by Garry Sharpe-Young, who has published something like a dozen musical reference books and biographical works through commercial, third-party organisations (I have three on a shelf in front of me published through Cherry Red). The MusicMight website (Rockdetector as was) was originally a web-based version of the content of several of these books, which leads to the slightly unusual situation that the content is certainly reliable if one quotes from the book, but might be deemed unreliable (despite being word-for-word identical) if published on the website. The second problem is that of user-editing (a recent change to the site); it all rather depends on whether Sharpe-Young (who is a verifiable authority on the subject) is individually editing all content additions/changes (which would make it pass WP:RS) or whether it is now a free for all (in which case it most certainly would not). In any case, the situation is certainly not an open and shut one as suggested above. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the current site and its current content, the fact that users can add content and no editorial checking is mentioned menas that it is not an RS.Martinlc (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, we are talking about the website here, not a published book.. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely fair enough. A couple of final points: the books obviously pass WP:RS. I'm also assuming a webcached version of Rockdetector (pre user submissions) is also still an RS. My question is, given the contributors to the current MusicMight site are listed to the right of any given article, are those uniquely attributed to Garry Sharpe-Young (an extremely well-established rock and metal journalist) still acceptable? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having looked into it (by signing up to the site myself), it appears that there is editorial checking [4]. I assume this means Sharpe-Young or one of his appointed team. Not sure whether that changes anything. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And then, I can use this site as a reliable source? (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

The Times of London

The Times of London published an article about Lyndon LaRouche's AIDS initiative, California Proposition 64 (1986). It includes a report on verbal harassment of a local minister and his mother by LaRouche supporters. The excerpted text is at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources#1986 2nd half (search for "minister"). An editor has asserted that the source is simply wrong, but he hasn't offered any source that disputes the reporting. This concerns a draft, at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS, intended to replace the material currently at Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS. (While we're here, the editor has also complained about using similar reporting from the Frederick Post.) So the question is: are these two mainstream newspapers reliable sources for reporting these incidents?   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a comment that the text as excerpted by Will from the the Times article probably contains a simple journalistic error. The excerpt reads: In the middle-class community of Ventura, LaRouche supporters have set up tables outside post offices and supermarkets with their petitions denouncing homosexuals. One local minister who refused to sign was called 'a queer' and his mother a 'lesbian'. The title of the article is "California extremist whips up Aids crusade / US public health debate stirred up by controversial politician Lyndon LaRouche." LaRouche is not from California, and the AIDS initiative was not a "petition denouncing homosexuals," Despite the otherwise sterling reputation of the Times as a reliable source, the possibility that the Times sent a stringer to Ventura and found that the petitioners there were circulating something other than the well-known ballot initiative seems remote to me.

The point, however, is moot; I am not disputing the reliability of the Times, or, for that matter, of the Frederick Post. I am contending that Will is using material from these sources to defend his own unpublished theory about the "views of Lyndon LaRouche" in violation of WP:SYNTH. If there is an Original Research Noticeboard, that will be the appropriate venue for this discussion. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're agreeing that both newspapers are reliable sources for this material?   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Both sources are reliable and usable in the article. If there is a dispute over whether the newspaper articles are reliable sources for a specific statement, we can handle it here. Other noticeboards such as WP:NORN, WP:POVN or the (hot off the press!) WP:CNB, may also be relevant depending upon the exact nature of the dispute. Happy forum shopping! ← is in jest :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. to address Leatherstocking's assertoin that the sources are reliable bu the summary is an improper synthesis I've followed Abecedare's advice and started a fresh thread at WP:NORN#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-published source on De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium

I am seeking assistance in resolving a dispute on the talk page of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. The sources cited in the article for two lists whose accuracy has been disputed is this book and this archived copy of a page formerly carried on the author's personal web-site. Since the book was printed by Xulon press, which produces and distributes books at their authors' expense, it would appear to be a self-published source. While the author, Olivier Thill, seems to be an enthusiatic, erudite and well-read amateur historian, he does not appear to be recognised as an established expert on the history of science. On the back cover of his book, he describes himself as "a computer engineer and specialist of the European Renaissance", and here he describes himself as a "Computer programmer, amateur historian of Copernicus, Descartes, and Peiresc."

Since the editor who cited these sources says "I don't think this list appears in the book" he apparently has not actually checked it. So until somebody does so, the web page is really the only source we have as supposed support for the cited lists.

I would appreciate any opinions on whether either the web-site or the book can be regarded as reliable sources.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

They'd only be reliable for that person's opinions, which do not seem notable enough to be cited in an encyclopedia. The background alone isn't enough to disqualify him (as lots of amateurs do good work and eventually get recognized for it), but seeing as how he's not been recognized as reliable by others in the field he is writing about we cannot recognize him as reliable either. DreamGuy (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence that Thill is regarded as a recognized scholar on Copernicus's work by other recognized scholars in the field, his opinions or conclusions do not warrant mention in Wikipedia. His self-published book and self-published web site plainly are not reliable sources under our standards. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that Thill's translation of Gassendi's biography is reliable. Finell (Talk) 22:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a recognised 'expert' on the De revolutionibus, if only a very minor one, and an amateur historian of science, albeit a professionally trained one, and I find the lists from Oliver Thill less than helpful. Not knowing his book and having never come across references to it I have bought a copy via the intertubes and await delivery. However I don't think that reading his book will change my opinion that the lists should be removed.Thony C. (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Times, Associated Press, etc. as sources on legal questions

A little matter of contention over on 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis: Are the New York Times and the Associated Press reliable sources concerning legal questions? We have one user claiming that because such newspapers and services called what transpired a coup d'etat, we should also because they are reliable sources. I contend that they are not reliable in this context, in that legal scholars and specialists in Honduran law are neither reading nor checking the articles. Which is correct? Bkalafut (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at any point of time we should use the most authoritative available sources on a topic, assuming that these sources at least meet the minimal threshold set by WP:RS. NYT and WP certainly do that, and at the moment they may be the best available sources - although we should also check what official organizations like UN, OAS etc call the recent events and add (rather than replace) that to the "coup" label that seems to have been universally adopted by mainstream media. Of course, if in a few months/year time historians and legal scholars finally determine that this was something-other-than-a-coup, we should prefer their terminology.

Btw, do you have an alternate label in mind that is backed up by other reliable sources ? If so, that can also be mentioned in the article. Abecedare (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Following up on my own suggestion:

The Thirty-Seventh Special Session of the OAS General Assembly adopted a resolution strongly condemning the coup d’Etat in Honduras and demanded the immediate and unconditional return of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales to his constitutional duties.OAS News

The General Assembly today condemned this weekend’s coup d’état in Honduras, calling for the restoration of the democratically-elected President and constitutional Government. UN News

Abecedare (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

But we have the Supreme Court of Honduras, also an RS, and many of the major Honduran news sources insisting that it is not a coup. At best, then, RSes are in conflict--OAS and Honduran Supreme Court disagree--and calling it a coup would then be NPOV, right?Bkalafut (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the Honduras Supreme Court is an actor in these events (just as Zelaya is), and neither is a neutral third-party source. As such, while their opinions and characterizations of the events are certainly noteworthy and worth mentioning in the article, neither should be necessarily adopted by wikipedia. As WP:RS says, "articles should be based primarily on third-party sources" and therefore we should currently rely on sources like NYT, AP, Reuters, etc, and later down the line use more academic sources once they are written. Abecedare (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Q: Since when is Coup d'Etat a particularly legal term? Yes, NYT and AP are RS for such a claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress are treating this as a legal removal (with possibly illegal irregularities) of a President in violation of their Constituion and who defied Supreme Court rulings. Whether or not what transpired is a coup d'etat hinges on whether or not they are correct, which is a legal question. As far as I can tell, NYT and AP are not set up to address that legal question and are using "coup" as a sort of slang term for what happened. Bkalafut (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my reaction—this characterization doesn't seem like a question of law. At any rate, Abecedare is correct. The Honduras Supreme Court is an actor, so it's not a reliable independent source, although their opinions are quite noteworthy. The New York Times is reliable in this context. Cool Hand Luke 08:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also note that Bkalafut's characterization that "one user" claims that NYT, AP (they left out UN general assembly, OAS, EU, etc...) are RS on this question is simply wrong, as any random sampling of Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis will show. So wrong that it really stretches my WP:AGF, though not quite past the breaking point. Homunq (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Complex question

There seem to be two different questions here. One of them is whether mass-market newspapers such as the New York Times are reliable sources for the events on the ground in Honduras: that is, the "who-what-when-where" of the situation. A second question is whether mass-market newspapers are reliable sources for interpretation of these events, and specifically whether these events are accurately described as a "coup d'état" -- a word which may have technical meanings in international law, military history, etc.

It seems to me that the answer to the first question is assuredly yes. Although the mass-market press sometimes makes factual errors, we have nothing better to go on. The second question is more difficult: whether the crisis in Honduras "is" a coup is not a matter of physical fact but of historical and political interpretation and judgment. Pointedly, it appears that supporters of Zelaya universally call it a coup and his opponents universally do not. Is the New York Times a reliable source for such judgment? That is not so clear. It seems to me that we should stand off from such judgments, refer to the situation as a "crisis" or as the "deposing of Manuel Zelaya", and point out that different writers of different political views refer to it as a coup d'état or not. --FOo (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack Livesey

He's kinda turned out not to be telling the whole truth about himself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8130351.stm

However we use his books as refs in a few plages eg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=Jack+Livesey+Armoured+Fighting+Vehicles+of+World+Wars+I+and+II&fulltext=Search&ns0=1

Is this likely to be a problem?©Geni 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Norfolk Mills

Resolved

 – Grey area. Discussion indicates that Norfolk Mills is a self-published tertiary source that compiles archival reliable sources. Not necessarily reliable on its own, but possibly acceptable to refer to only the referenced and quoted content if the original 19th century sources cannot be found (provided it is non-controversial and unchallenged). Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has questioned the reliability of the Norfolk Mills website. I've opened a discussion at the Mills WikiProject and would appreciate input on the question there. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

musicabrasileira.org

This is a Portuguese-language Brazilian music website. Is it a WP:RS for WP:BLPs of Brazilian musicians? It apparently takes content from Brazilian newspapers, and doesn't look like a very good source to me - especially for controversial claims about musician's beliefs and private lives. This came up from discussion at Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira, which has unrelated WP:BLP and WP:OR problems, being discussed at BLPN here and on the talk page. Verbal chat 10:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

From the About Us section of the website:

We are consumers just like you and not professional critics -- even though you might have seen our names in other publications. That is why most of the reviews you will read here are positive. We tend to buy the music we review and only write about the good ones. Yes, of course we have made bad purchases, but we will keep those on our shelves.

Pretty clearly not a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But the links Iused form them comes from her interview., not form the website. And as you yrself said they amke available texts form major magazines and newspapers. I can easily find the smae texto on th emagazine and the newspaper cited. Do you wan t me to? And this has no relation to her spisituality. Jackiestud (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It fails WP:RS so yes you'll have to find sources that do meet WP:RS. Verbal chat 13:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

citing trusted forum poster

I want to cite the source given in the second post of [5] . Optiboard is a respectable site. A user with 6000 posts is probably a respectable poster. Can I cite a forum posters source? I assume not, but given that he gave us the book's name, authors, and page number someone should be able to look it up easily. Do we have a mechanism to facilitate this? (Perhaps a list of specific facts with the specific sources that require verification?) I have detailed my specific issue at Talk:Human eye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoteric Rogue (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

someone should be able to look it up easily Why don't you go to a library and look it up? And don't forget to sign your posts. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

One can't just cite a book based on the claims of a forum poster. The forum poster might have inadvertently misread the book. One has to check the book oneself to make sure the statements being attributed to the book are really in the book. I agree with Jezhotwells. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources for the claim that Michael Jackson's pet chimpanzee Bubbles attempted to commit suicide?

Resolved

Our article on Michael Jackson's pet chimpanzee, Bubbles, claims that this chimpanzee attempted suicide but was rushed to the hospital and saved. The cited sources are The Times of India and The Telegraph. While these sources are generally considered reliable, I was skeptical. How would a chimpanzeee even try to commit suicide? Slit its wrists? Overdose on medication? A gunshot wound to its head? Anyway, I posted the question "Can a chimpanzee really commit suicide?" on the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. Of those who took the question seriously, none thought it was likely and one chaulked it up to sloppy journalism. I added a {dubious} tag to the article on the grounds that a suicidal chimpanzee seems like an exceptional claim and that these are just reporters writing entertainment articles and probably don't have a background in primatology and therefore aren't qualified to make this claim. The discussion can be found at WP:Talk:Bubbles_(chimpanzee)#Suicide. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, treat with extreme scepticism . Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of stating it as fact, say who said it. I could imagine a chimp banging its head against a wall or something. I doubt it took too many pills or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it, but I don't believe it. Those are two good newspapers. Anyway the Telegraph article went into more detail about the chimpanzee and said it was "according to reports in 2003". Maybe we can start searching for stories on Bubbles from that timeframe and see where this came from. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A chimpanzee who knows what death is, that he will die, and that certain actions on his part can bring on death. I'm not buying it. And what's wrong with the AfD process that this chimp has an article about him anyway?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a goldfish who jumped out of his bowl once... Anyway I couldnt find anything about "suicide" from 2003 when Bubbles was sent to live on a ranch. But I did find more media, i.e. LA Times, quoting the Times of India for this story. So I have no idea where the story came from but it seems we're going to have to at least mention that such a thing was published if it's all over the media. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's back in the article with more cautious wording and an extra source. I'm satisfied with the change and I have removed the {dubious} tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Slashdot

is it a reliable source for articles such as LokiTorrent? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, pleas try reading WP:RS. This is a blog, and nothing about it makes it reliable, Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I read WP:RS, which is why I am asking for clarifications here. Slashdot says "It features user-submitted and editor-evaluated current affairs news " - so I though it satisfy the requirement that the source have editorial oversight. I am quite willing to accept that it is not a reliable source. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk)`

How about the other source used prominently in that article - afterdawn.com ? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You could argue that Slashdot has editorial oversight. Many, many stories are submitted to Slashdot in a given day, but only a handful are picked by a board to be posted. Of course, that does not apply to the hundreds of comments that appear after a story. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What about afterdawn.com ? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Afterdawn looks reliable within its subject area. But watch out for BLP issues. The WP article has a lot of weakly-sourced speculation about what people involved with the site were doing, and we shouldnt have accusations like that on Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Slashdot links [6] and [7] provide much illumination here. (Basically they point to the speculation about the fate of the site which was occuring elsewhere on the web). Here we have one unreliable source providing a summary of other unreliable sources. The Slashdot postings did give a pointer to Google News, which eventually yields a link to a a Washington Post report which seems not to be in the article yet. I suggest that it be added. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Slashdot summaries above are useful for backing up claims for which day the site went down, or to show why something that Slashdot quoted from a blog or a primary source is important. Just remember that it's only the paragraph-length leads which are reviewed; everything else is just a blog. I'd recommend when linking to Slashdot to crank up the comment threshold to 3 or so so that at least the "me too" type comments are screened out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Google News Archive and advertisements

Google News is now indexing advertisements. This is extremely useful for academic research purposes in general, but not so good for us. It adds a lot of noise for using it to find news articles to use as reliable sources. See, for example my search to see if there were any decent sources for "color-net" a real estate sales network, [8], which turned up such items as [9]. We already know there is pure PR in there, so everything has to be screened anyway, but this certainly makes using raw counts from it absurd. I use GN archive a lot for finding book reviews--now I'll have all the advertisements to sort out as well. DGG (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yea it sucks now. They've really lowered their admission standards for material. I've seen a bunch of blogs on there too, so this is no surprise Corpx (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

They also allow opinion pieces, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just checked and they index examiner.com too (discussion about that site above) Corpx (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Raw Google counts were abusrd as an argument for inclusion even before this, so it shouldn't change anything. Blogs and press releases and entertainment and parody sites have all already been in those links for a long time. In fact, this newest change might even help us by forcing the people who use bad sources on a regular basis to more readily realize that the links found there can be totally useless for our purposes. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What you guys are seeing is some of the archived newspapers are being indexed by scanning and OCR'ing old issues page by page, just like they do with the books. I was surprised the first time I saw ads being indexed but I was also glad that they made archives available free where most of the time you have to pay to see old newspapers. You may be able to exclude those by manipulating the date range; it seems to be mostly content before about 1998 or so that's scanned text.

But as far as Google News's admission standards, they were never meant to serve the same purpose as our RS. Google News is supposed to include "raw" news which can include corporate press releases, citizen journalism, off-the-beaten-path political sources, and so on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Tucker Max

Hi, I recently edited the Tucker Max article and stated that he appeared on Sirius Radio, referencing his own website as a source. This was quickly reverted and McJeff kindly told me that I needed third party sources. After searching the net, I found that his radio appearance is on YouTube and it is mentioned on another website with a biography about him, as well as being referenced to in a couple forums (links at the bottom). My question is this: are these reliable enough sources to prove his radio appearance?

I would greatly appreciate any feedback as I am still new and would like to know how to contribute more to Wikipedia.

Sources:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1w5ZOBQF8
Biography: http://en.allexperts.com/e/t/tu/tucker_max.htm
Forums: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=39677 and http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=443270
Not to mention his own website.

Articles should be based primarily on third-party reliable sources. However, self-published sources are allowed in articles about themselves. As long as there is no controversy about the claim (Tucker Max appeared on Sirius Radio), his official web site (not a fansite) is acceptable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Which channel on Sirius? Its likely that the station or show has a website of its own and may show a schedule of guest appearances. Another possible source could be a transcipts service like BurrellesLuce. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

World Net Daily

How reliable is WorldNetDaily (http://www.wnd.com). Can they be trusted to represent facts as fact and to represent opinions as opinion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WND has been discussed several times on this board and has been determined to be unreliable. See, for example, here, here, here and here. Abecedare (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed several times, but it hasn't been dismissed conclusively. The writing is heavily slanted towards a paleoconservative and Christian Fundamentalist point of view. On many issues the facts may be right but the analysis may advocate an unusual point of view. However, there are some issues where WND's opinion became notable in its own right, for example they were notable in the debates over Obama's citizenship. I certainly wouldnt go to them for an unbiased opinion on Obama's eligibility, but their opinion became notable in its own right and some of the primary sources they came across, such as his Indonesian school registration form, may be good information on his early life though maybe not in the way WND intended. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that slant means it would only be reliable for its own viewpoint and not for any facts, which means in most cases there'd never be a reason to cite it. The only case would be if there is already news coverage calling WND's views or actions notable on a certain specific topic. DreamGuy (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, basic facts generally don't get slanted; opinions and analyses do. For example, I could see citing WND for the fact that "Obama's school registration from Indonesia appeared in an AP photograph", but ignoring WND's analysis that the form's listing him as Indonesian nationality and with the name Soetoro was anything other than a formality. I might not agree with their analysis, I might give their opinion a passing mention, but I might use their mention of the photo to justify a primary-source cite of the photo itself, which I see as a rather neutral thing that's of interest to any biographer of Obama's early life. Background: the photo didn't run in any mainstream papers, but it does appear on a reliable image-aggregation page as an AP photo taken by an AP photographer.[10] (Daylife.com, requires Javascript ) Citing WND is one way to mention this primary-source photo in an article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sonoran News

The Sonoran News is a Weekly newspaper published in Cave Creek, Arizona (near Phoenix). Their website says

Sonoran News is published weekly by Conestoga Merchants, Inc. dba Sonoran News, and distributed free of charge to 43,000+ homes and businesses throughout the Cave Creek, Carefree, Desert Hills, New River, Tatum Ranch, Rio Verde, N. Phoenix and N. Scottsdale areas including Desert Mountain, Terravita, Legend Trail, Winfield, Troon, The Boulders and Pinnacle Peak, all of Zip Codes 85331, 85327, 85377, 85255, 85262 and 85266

Their website lists about 50 Arizona Newspapers Association Awards in various areas, going back to 1996[11]. I have had an editor remark of them, "Maybe I should have bolded the words reliable sources when I was asking for examples. That hardly qualifies as such." Are they considered a reliable source? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

IIRC the source has been previously discussed at the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎ page. IMO it is not a reliable source, and some factors to consider while evaluating the source are:

• It clearly has a POV, advertising itself as The conservative voice of Arizona and Community watchdog
• It has no paid circulation and is distributed for free
• The awards you mentioned are given out by a local state trade group and are not high profile or notable journalistic awards like the Pulitzers. Many of the awards are of the type, Best Color Ad, Best Headline etc. To see how many such awards are handed out see this list. It hasn't won any notable journalistic awards as far as I can see.
• Finally and most importantly, the weekly's articles simply do not stand up to scrutiny, either in terms of factual accuracy or neutrality. See for example, this article, in which the writer repeatedly refers to Barack Obama as Barry Soetoro; or this article, which concludes, "So, as the evidence piles high to indicate Obama is unqualified to hold the office of President of the United States, the Electoral College, regardless of warnings, either voted purposefully in disregard of the Constitution, voted blindly or to avoid a $1,000 fine, elected Obama on Monday.". Redflags all around.

In summary, not a suitable source for a BLP, especially when the topic is so well covered by far better sources. Disclosure: I have been involved in editing the concerned article, so other further scrutiny by uninvolved editors is also invited. Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This paper bills itself as "The Conservative Voice of Arizona", and it is and has long been an aggressively muckraking publication--here's a New Times article from 2001 describing the paper's attitudes and tactics.[12]. On the Obama issues, specifically, this paper has run a lot of stuff that "respectable" conservative papers have not, including lots of articles promoting and supporting the "birther" cases. This doesn't mean that what the paper reports is automatically wrong, but it does suggest that on subjects of political controversy, its factual reporting should be reviewed with some skepticism. This is all the more so for its reporting on national issues, because this is not a paper with national reporting expertise or capabilities--it's fundamentally a local paper whose strength is opinionated coverage of development controversies in the ritzy suburbs north of Phoenix.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I just weighed in on WND above, and assume there's a spat brewing on the Obama articles. Remember, there's nothing wrong with a news source advocating a particular point of view; we cite political watchdog groups all the time, just remember to cite them with attribution. Especially on a page about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎, it's kind of important to cite the conspiracy theories. Now I know that a lot of people here on WP love Obama, and I like him as much as the next guy, but I also think it's important to demystify some of these conspiracy theories, because citing them doesn't necessarily help them, and people aren't going to forget them just because someone censors them from WP. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Second opinions requested

The site exampleproblems.com is linked to from several articles[13]. As the site violates WP:EL (it's a wiki and not a reliable source per our normal standards) I was going to nuke these links but they appear to have been added by established user Tbsmith (talk · contribs). So, rather than cause a potential conflict with this user I'd like a few second opinions on this. Am I being too strict here or should I nuke these? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You could try discussing this with the other editor and perhaps at WP:Wikiproject Mathematics. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally think they should be nuked, but whether that decision sticks or not depends if you can get the other editors of the articles in question to go along with it. If it comes down to just a you versus Tbsmith thing, I think if he added them then the onus for proving they should be there is his, not the other way around. DreamGuy (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

softwaretop100.org

Softwaretop100.org attempts to list companies by software revenue. I first noticed this cited on the Ubisoft page, and searching wikipedia gives 25 results. Viewing the source, I happened to notice that Sony was excluded, with no plausable reason given in the site's disclaimer. Since I estimate Sony to be at 5th place, I think this is a gross omission which discredits softwaretop100.org . Esoteric Rogue (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Sony not being there makes any difference whatsoever, but from looking at the site I see no reason to think that it is a reliable source. The about page makes it look like a bunch of high shchoolers did it as a project or something. DreamGuy (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Master TV

A contributor to List of vegetarians is pushing to use "Supreme Master TV" (http://www.suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=ve&wr_id=25) as a source for validating claims about people. I have challenged this on the basis that it's not a valid source. The Supreme Master is a Chinese spiritual leader and these are broadcasts from her organisation. I object to their use on the basis that they clearly promote an agenda and there appears to be no journalistic objectivity (Jesus Christ pops up as a renowned vegetarian too which as a Catholic is news to me!). I wouldn't mind so much if these films actually had interviews with the people themselves or even recognised authorities on the subject (in fact I would accept them as sources in those cases). I could be wrong on this so I would appreciate an impartial opinion. This is the second time I'd had to remove this source and obviously I don't want to keep removing it if I'm in the wrong. Thanks to anyone who taks a look at the site. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Using an old book as a reference

We're working on wikipedia-spotlight on Marco Polo but we don't have many reliable source on the web. We have however access to the 1947 edition of Venetian adventurer By Henry Hersch Hart which describes Marco's life in a very scientific and scholarly level. It has also received a good review and is cited by many other books. The problem is that the book was written in 1947 and I was wondering if that would pose a problem when nominating the article for GA or FA, thank you.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find a lot of good sources on the internet. Try this link. Also if you have access to on-line journals through a college or public library there should be lots more. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

These are good sources that I couldn't find easily with general search. Thank you for providing them. Would the use of this book pose problems? It covers the subject very deeply and makes finding more info easier. There is a 2007 and 2008 edition of the book. However I don't have access to those.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's helpful to be cognizant of the fact that the easier it is for someone to follow your citation, the more useful it is. However, there's no rule that says we can't cite books, nor should there be. The point of citing sources is to allow someone who is interested to follow your research; there's no requirement that it be available in a click or in a non-university library or anything like that. Croctotheface (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Books are excellent sources. The only problem with using a book written in 1947 is that there is likely to have been subsequent research and analysis done on the topic since it was written. As long as you account for such subsequent research and analysis, however, there is no reason not to use an old source.

It really depends on the topic and the source. Some "old" works are considered are considered passé and outdated. Others are considered the definitive works on their topic, even after fifty or a hundred years have passed. Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is celebritywonder.com a WP:RS?

Is celebritywonder.com a reliable source for non-controversial biographical information? Specifically, is the following article[14] a reliable source for actress Jamie Chung's birthdate? Celebritywonder.com is owned by UGO Entertainment (a division of Hearst Corporation) whose 1up.com website is generally considered to be a reliable source. Celebritywonder.com does have a Contact Us page with a physical address, but it redirects to Ugo's main Contact Us web page. They appear to have a professional editorial staff but again it redirects to Ugo's main editorial staff[15]. It's currently referenced by about 110 Wikipedia articles.[16] It doesn't appear to be cited by very many established reliable sources. Opinions? Comments? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that as a source for anything. No sign that anyone takes the site seriously, and it's a pretty hard site to take seriously on the face of it. It probably doesn't purposely give out false information, but there's no reputation for fact checking that I'm aware of.—Kww(talk) 13:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was that last test, its reputation for accuracy and fact-checking that holds me back, too. The sad thing is that is the best Web site I could come up with for a WP:RS for her birthdate. The ironic thing is that I didn't even know who she was until someone else came to the WP:RSN on this very same issue. I'm finding it annoying and unfathamoble that in this day and age of the Internet that for an actress who appeared on a major television show to not have a single WP:RS for something as simple as her birthdate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My gut reaction was, this is just a site of birthdays and pretty pictures, how could it be a reliable source? But after thinking it over, it seems to be a sub-website of UGO, so UGO's reputation, if not Hearst's, would govern. Remember, it's not a self-published site where fans can enter the birthdates. The material on that site is probably coming from agent's press kits, with some checking by UGO's staff. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Tom Goldstein and SCOTUSblog as sources for Supreme Court articles

Tom Goldstein is a notable and highly respected Supreme Court practitioner and court watcher. His blog, SCOTUSblog, is also notable and highly respected. Both are regarded as reliable sources by the media. E.g. [17][18][19][20][21] Is a post by Goldstein at SCOTUSblog about a justice of the Supreme Court a reliable source for purposes of that Justice's Wikipedia article?

Although blogs are troublesome as sources at Wikipedia, they are not entirely banned. WP:SPS allows that "[s]elf-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article," as Goldstein is, if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," as Goldstein's has been (e.g. [22]; indeed, he was wheeled out as a court expert on The News Hour tonight!).

Furthermore, WP:GAME and WP:WL are explicit that the language of a policy should give way to the policy's purpose. Even if the text of WP:SPS seemed to rule out SCOTUSblog as a source (it does not, as we have seen), the purpose of the policy supports inclusion. The concern underlying WP:SPS is explicitly-stated: that "[a]nyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason," emphasis added, self-published sources such as blogs are frowned upon as sources. But it would be ludicrous to pretend that a court expert (indeed, practitioner) as esteemed and established as Goldstein is not an expert in the relevant field, viz. the court.

Goldstein posted an assesment of the term just concluded, and made some remarks about Justice Clarence Thomas. Since Goldstein is an expert on the court, his assesment of Thomas might be thought to have some weight, a fortiori to the extent it is an admission against partisan interest (Goldstein has made it quite clear that he disagrees strongly with Thomas, but his assesment was complimentary):

“ No other member of the Court is so independent in his thinking [as Thomas]. The irony of course is that there remains a public perception, rooted in ignorance, that he is the handmaiden of other conservative Justices, particularly Justice Scalia. I disagree profoundly with Justice Thomas’s views on many questions, but if you believe that Supreme Court decisionmaking should be a contest of ideas rather than power, so that the measure of a Justice’s greatness is his contribution of new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate, then Justice Thomas is now our greatest Justice." ”

I therefore added it to the section of Thomas' article about his recent years on the court.[23] user:RafaelRGarcia has now removed it twice on the pretext that it is "irrelevant to section, non-notable, blog, entirely opinion, undue weight."[24][25] Argument has ensued.[26] It seems clear to me that SCOTUSblog generally and Goldstein particularly are reliable sources for articles about the Supreme Court and its members. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate having some more pairs of eyes on this one in case I'm the one being the WP:DICK. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Scotusblog is reasonably reliable, even for BLP's, with attribution, see its article for its notability and reputation.. That particular post and quote can also be cited to The New Republic, at [27], so discussion of Scotusblog is not strictly necessary here, though the common publication also helps suggest Scotusblog's reliability. Of course it is more an (interesting) opinion than fact, and the question is more one of editorial judgment. Maybe the using whole quote is too much?John Z (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

SCOTUSblog is read and is considered authoritative by leading appellate lawyers who practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. Likewise, Goldstein is sufficiently notable and respected that his conclusions and opinions are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (although not necessarily the last or only word on an issue where experts differ). Finell (Talk) 07:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Samvel Karapetian

I was tracing a particular dispute over Church of Kish, which involves Samvel Karapetian. This scholar does not seem to be a third-party and this largely affects the neutrality of the related article on church. Furthermore, Karapetian hardly passes any of the criteria per WP:ACADEMIC. The head of the Yerevan branch of Research on Armenian Architecture does not sound like a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. I think Norwegian scholar Bjornar Storfjell, whom I mentioned at church's talk, is more authoritative and reliable. Brandt 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Brandmeister has been topic-banned from all pages related to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran, and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area (all broadly construed) for 6 months.

On top, Karapetian is a recognised historian. Sardur (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Typical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sardur (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like only by Armenians. Not even our article lists mainly Armenian resources, but also Google. Brandt 04:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are gaming your topic ban, but I will still answer you. Bjornar Storfjell is more authoritative and reliable than Karapetian? LOL! He's from the Thor Heyerdafl Research Center, from the article on Wikipedia: The controversy surrounding the search for Odin-project was in many ways typical of the relationship between Heyerdahl and the academic community. His theories rarely won any scientific acceptance, whereas Heyerdahl himself rejected all scientific criticism and concentrated on publishing his theories in popular books aimed at the general public.

Heyerdahl claimed that the Udi ethnic minority in Azerbaijan was the descendants of the ancestors of the Scandinavians. He traveled to Azerbaijan on a number of occasions in the final two decades of his life and visited the Kish church. Heyerdahl's Odin theory was rejected by all serious historians, archaeologists, and linguists. [28]

It's the same 'research center' which was engaged in another church (Armenian Church) restoration and this was accompanied by the erasing of a long and important building inscription in Armenian above its entrance and Armenian inscriptions on gravestones in the church's graveyard. The destruction was strongly condemned by Norway's ambassador to Azerbaijan, who refused to attend the church's reopening. That's the notable and more 'reliable' Bjornar Storfjell, who BTW could not even tell you the differences between a Church and Monastery. And had Brand read the discussion here he would have seen a 19th century non-Armenian source, naming it Armenian and calling it St. Elisheus Church. The official returns were provided too. - Fedayee (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not gaming the topic ban, there is no injunction on such pages. Now why are you citing Heyerdahl here? Karapetian was neatly discussed, read Tom de Waal's report on him. And he was recently questioned again by another user. Also, I highly doubt that Karapetian is peer-reviewed somewhere else than Armenia. An uninvolved, 3rd-party scholar (Storfjell of Andrews University, Ph.D., is a Professor of Archaeology and History of Antiquity) in such issues is always better. It is always easy to mudsling rather than present serious arguments. Brandt 23:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are gaming your topic ban. You were topic banned from the talkpages too, which means you are banned from 'discussions' too... you are continuing the discussion elsewhere because you can't in the talkpage. You are making yourself look funny, Storfjell worked for Heyerdahl, his interest with that church was exactly to research that udin theory which is a fringe one. This man has no specialization in the architecture of the region, he could not even tell the difference between a monastery and a church. Note that the previous altar was replaced by a reproduction of this to sustain the claimed Udin theory. Clearly against UNESCO charter, he later backtracked claiming it is a Georgian Church. Tom De Waal does not qualify as a reliable source, he is a journalist and the quoted position of him here regarding NK clearly shows his side taking which was confirmed when he co-authored with Tabib a report to minimize Armenia's refugee crisis (higher per population) and boosting those of Azerbaijan. The Institute of War and Peace's reporting for which he worked for was called tainted. In fact, nowhere does he comment on Karapetian's scholarly work but rather comments on his political positions just to create a possible historiography of criticism against Karapetian to discredit his works which deal with architecture, something which De Waal has exposed himself of not having a clue about in his book.

You claim that another user raised it, but read Eupator's comments again here, with a source of the 19th century giving the name of the Church, another source for the tax returns, showing the only Christians in there were Armenians... all of which are the things that Karapetian has been saying all along. - Fedayee (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is a gaming, complain, otherwise don't misinterpret Wikipedia's policy. Where the rest of allegations come from? who called the Institute of War and Peace tainted? Armenians? I've read the link, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics does not say the church initially had an Armenian name, though the reference uses Armenian transliterations of Azerbaijani placenames. All in all, we are discussing Karapetian here and he is no better than Ayvazian, Donabedian and Chorbajian, who are aleady excluded as references to Nagorno-Karabakh per consensus. Even RAA's website writes on Karapetian's Javakhk: "The book treats the history of the region as well as all the historical monuments, irrespective of their national belonging". I can insert Azerbaijani scholars into Kish Church too, otherwise let's drop double standards. Brandt 09:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy Archive

There's currently a dispute at Tui T. Sutherland about use of the Jeopardy Archive as a source. The objections are that it's "self published" or "run by fans." However, the site exercises a high degree of editorial control and is extremely accurate. I fully expect that the site has considerably fewer inaccuracies than any edition of any major newspaper. The fact that it's run by fans should not invalidate the incredible degree of accuracy and information contained there. There would be no objection to a throwaway local newspaper article or local TV report being cited for the same kind of information, yet it's much more likely that those kinds of local news reports would get their facts wrong with respect to what happened on the show than this website would. It has been cited by numerous authors, such as Ken Jennings and Bob Harris (writer), who have written books about Jeopardy. Croctotheface (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's "created by fans, for fans". What editorial control is there, that Croctotheface can point to? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No fans are capable of exercising editorial control? Better make sure that no sports magazine editors are sports fans, then. Had they just omitted that "by fans, for fans" line, you would not contest that this source is reliable? I suspect that there are more errors in today's Washington Post than there are on that database. There is not a better resource for finding out what happened on Jeopardy, as Jennings and Harris would likely attest if you asked them. Croctotheface (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If that line were removed, it would make no difference. There is nothing at the site that indicates how the compiler verifies their information. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to prove that Jeopardy Archive is a reliable source by find reliable sources that cite it and comment on its reliabilty. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob Harris's book Prisoner of Trebekistan and Ken Jennings' book Braniac both use the archive as a source. Harris said of the site, "The J! Archive is becoming nothing less than the memory bank of the world's greatest quiz show. It was indispensable in researching my book." This is obviously a niche source, but it's reliable. To the extent that there exist full length books about Jeopardy, this is at the top of the list of their sources. Croctotheface (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's cited as fact by reliable sources, that goes a long way in establishing a reputation (and perhaps those cites should be mentioned in our article about the Jeopardy Archive ). It's still something of an odd duck in that it appears to be a self-published source, not a secondary-source review of Jeopardy, a primary-source TV listing or a tertiary-source guide. The closest would be to deem this site as self-published by "experts" on the game show. I know some have tried to restrict SPS to published academics, but I would advise against painting ourselves into a corner with academic standards. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Australian News Weekly.

Its article sourcing a BLP seems to be quoting someone without any fact checking at all. After a quick look at other articles, it seems like a poorly checked tabloid. Any Ozzies know it better? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-07t17:58z

Not an Ozzie, but this statement [29] about the publishers, the National Civic Council, means that it is likely to be highly POV. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Most news sources (even "highly reliable" sources such as the New York Times) have a distinct POV and are often accused of bias in their reporting. Being POV or biased does not make a news source un-reliable. The problem with tabloids has more to do with their reputation for inaccuracy in reporting (in favor of sensationalism) than with POV or bias. If the Australian News Weekly has a reputation for poor fact checking, then there is a problem. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a tabloid to me.[30] There's a somewhat conservative point of view, but that certainly doesn't make it unreliable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

http://theory.tifr.res.in

Can http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/physical/climate/ be considered reliable for details on the Climate section of Mumbai. The website is of a very popular research institute in Mumbai - Department of Theoretical Physics (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research). Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 10:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. The pages contain no explicit organisational affiliation, the authorship of individual pages is not clear, third party references to the site are limited. There should be good RS available about the climate.Martinlc (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can a Juvenile Non fiction book be considered reliable?

Can a Juvenile Non fiction book like Global Cities (Mumbai) be considered reliable for some general claims about people as below.

• Mumbai suffers from the same major urbanisation problems seen in many fast growing cities in developing countries: widespread poverty and unemployment, poor public health and poor civic and educational standards for a large section of the population. With available space at a premium, Mumbai residents often reside in cramped, relatively expensive housing, usually far from workplaces, and therefore requiring long commutes on crowded mass transit, or clogged roadways.
• Many residents live in close proximity to either of the Mumbai's transport systems: train or bus, although Mumbai's suburban residents spend significant time travelling to the main commercial district located in the south.
• Contemporary art is well-represented in both government-funded art spaces and private commercial galleries. The government-funded institutions include the Jehangir Art Gallery and the National Gallery of Modern Art.

Not for History, Climate and other important sections. Only for the above claims. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's address this in general first... many (not all) books written for the juvenile market can be considered reliable. However I would say such books are unlikely to be the most reliable sources out there (and our goal should be to use the best sources possible). In other words, juvenile books are allowed, but not recommended.

With that said, let's address the specific source... I think it fits what I said above. It seems reliable (at least it does not seem unreliable), and I don't see any reason to disallow it... but if there is a better source for the information use that instead. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree; it is what has stopped me from improving Liberty Bell, most of the books on it are intended to kids. Such books may emphasize "facts" of questionable truth, be badly researched, certainly don't have a notes section, and may omit matters not deemed suitable for children. I'd avoid.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are the only other options. Other options include Travel Guide books. But then compared to a Newspaper article, I think this Book is much better. Kensplanet^T_C 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Gee whiz, what's wrong with newspaper articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to readers that if this wasn't a FA issue, then people probably wouldn't mind, FAC requires "high-quality" sources beyond basic RS. As for the juvenile thing, eg, high school textbooks can have oversimplifications that can compromise the technical rigour of the article, eg, many high school physics textbooks talk of "mass increases at higher speed" when talking about momentum". With uni textbooks, this is generally not the case. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, then do newspapers meet the above high quality requirement. Kensplanet^T_C 13:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, the reason for not using newspaper articles, is sometimes even they are declared as low quality in FACs. Kensplanet^T_C 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found newspaper articles notoriously unreliable, and I use them only when nothing else is available. Is the book in question for Mumbai? Not to advance the article to GA or FA. I guarantee the juvenile nonfiction will be fodder for opposing if the article gets to FAC. Much better sources are available to discuss the intimate issues of Mumbai. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, newspaper may be misleading for History, Geography, or Climate. However, I don't think it may be unreliable for the details on how the people live in the city, which festivals they celebrate, etc...Kensplanet^T_C 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Depends on the newspaper. At least for FAC purposes, I tend to stick to major city dailies that are usually accepted as authoritative, NYT, WP, LAT. For purposes of history in matters not covered by larger papers, sometimes smaller papers are needed. However, this is plainly not the case here. Why can't you find a better source for what seems like very commonplace claims about Mumbai?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a question of reliability of sources, but of quality of sources. Quality is not really an issue for this noticeboard. Suggest that this be continued on the article talk page or at FAR. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A History book on a city is reliable for the History section, but unreliable for Geography. Depends on the application. Kensplanet^T_C 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not make overly broad sweeping statments here... a history book might be unreliable for geography... but, on the other hand it might be very reliable on that front (for example, an analysis of Geography is often a key element in military histories). It really depends on the individual source in question. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a general essay at User:YellowMonkey/FAR as I found that the same queries might be brought up by a lot of people. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

iranhumanrights.org

Is this a reliable source for material about living people? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

They seem like a notable activist group and one of the western media's go-to groups for opinions: [31], [32] Since mainstream publications cite them as a source, I don't see why Wikipedia wouldn't be able to... but it should be in the style of, "According to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Bob Smith is..." --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that's helpful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Geschiedenis a reliable source for List of Bilderberg participants

Geschiedenis is being used as a reference for participants from the Netherlands. Bearing in mind that any mention of Bilderberg is usually used as an attack on the person, is the reference enough? There's a constant struggle on the Bilderberg pages about sources. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a Dutch television channel. On the question of whether a broadcast meets WP:V, are there archives or transcripts of the footage available, or was a name simply mentioned on the air one time? Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are archives, it looks like the broadcasts may be there. Hard to verify, not necessarily impossible, but probably needs verification. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Economist's Pocket World in Figures

Does anyone have an insight into the reliability of this book (ISBN 9781846681233)? Is it, like The Economist itself, to be treated in questions of fact as gospel unless contradicted?  Skomorokh  13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would think that this is a tertiary source - Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. - and should be treated as such. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you outline the article and statement for which the reliability of the book is being disputed ?

General comment: The book seems fine for non-controversial facts-and-figures. As is the case with all reliable sources, apply due caution and common sense - for example, the book contains a ranking of countries by "Innovation index", which it describes as "a measure of the adoption of new technology, and the interaction between business and science sectors. It includes measures of investment into research institutions and protection of intellectual property rights." Clearly that is a subjective and ill-defined scale and should be used only with proper attribution, and even then may be undue. Abecedare (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy between secondary source and primary source

There is a long discussion about this here. The problem boils down to this: how does wikipedia handle discrepancies between a claimed original source and that actual original source? For example, the New York Times claimed that someone said something at a certain time, but the official record does not show this. Specifically, Craig Smith, in his article, quotes Li Hongzhi as saying, in his 1999 lecture to Australian practitioners of Falun Gong, that "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." A search of the database (search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&ics=1&pid=a) of Falun Gong teachings does not turn up this quote. Nor does a search of the lecture in question. Two other remarks attributed to Li by Smith are also not present in the database of Li's teachings.

The article currently includes the paragraph from the first page of Smith's article quoted in full. After this quotation, I sought to add a sentence which said "The words "spawn," "intervention" and the quote attributed to Li do not appear in the online database of Falun Gong teachings, however." This was removed by another editor as "not-notable." Prior to this I had sought to paraphrase the parts of the quote that were apparently inaccurate, but the other editor was unsatisfied with this, and preferred or insisted that the paragraph be quoted fully.

What is the precedent for treating cases where there is a discrepancy between what a secondary source claims a primary source said and what that primary source actually said? I would have thought to simply say "NYT says X. Falun Gong website says Y," and leave it at that, but this approach is being disputed. What is the precedent?

The diffs start here, and we jaust for a while before settling on the current version, which is when I come to seek clarification. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliability does not care if a source is Primary or Secondary. Both types of sources can be reliable and both types can be unreliable. Before answering your question... this sounds very like someone is playing "gottcha" with quotes to make a point... consider this: does this quote really need to be discussed in the article at all. Is it crucial to the article to mention it? (in other words... would it harm the article to simply ignore the entire issue?) If the answer is that it does need to be mentioned, then you are correct in saying that it is best to mention what both sources say without saying which is correct. See WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As I mentioned, it would be simpler to not actually include the faulty citation in the first place, then the discrepancy would not need to be cited, either. It wastes space. The other editor insisted that the quote remain in its entirety. I'm not gonna argue with him. If he wants the quote, the inconsistency needs to be pointed out. Anyway, he wasn't happy with that either and now I have made a 3RR report. This is a matter of respecting community guidelines and basic values of courtesy and correct processes of argumentation, in my view. After linking to this section here he just stopped discussing things on the talk page and went for the revert war approach. Let's see what others think about his conduct and attitude.--Asdfg12345 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is now a pending request for comments on this issue. Please see the talk page for details. Thank you.Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Talk:Pauley Perrette.

There is disagreement over the verifiability of the sourcing for this BLP, comments welcome on the talk page. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-09t17:56z

I thought it would be more helpful to post this issue here rather than ask others to blog through reading a long discussion leading up to coming here. On the article Pauley Perrette, I added a statement made by Perrette on the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson about the places she had lived "Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and Los Angeles".[33] It was already sourced reliably (through an online cite) that she was "born in New Orleans and raised all over the southern United States."[34]

The other editor removed the more specific listing of states saying the source was not reliable or verifiable. An extensive discussion ensued where I (think) I established that an interview on Late Late Show met the requirements under reliability and that the show wasn't a passing "ephemeral show" as the other editor described it, that it is a long-running show on a major U.S. television broadcast network (CBS) and also pointed out that facts from her official CBS biography are included and not challenged. I did a lot of searching, since at one time, the Late Late Show had a clip of the actual interview posted on the show webpage, they then had released many episodes for viewing on its YouTube channel and used to be available for public viewing in conjunction with the CBS library. I've finally discovered where the actual tapes are now archived, which is at the Paley Media Center. Just for clarity here, this is my assessment of the issue and the points which are met with this source:

Per WP:V, the episode and/or a reliable transcript of it must be available for verification, but it does not mean that any source must be available on demand at a moment's notice online to be verifiable. WP:BURDEN says clearly "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The burden of proof is met with the source given, which is the exact episode specifications I gave, which said "here is the episode number and date, here is the show, here is where one can go to view the episode in order to verify it." Just as if it was written in a book that was published and available at some given book store, although the book itself is not available right now for someone to click a link and read it. I've given more than is required to allow for verification, including an opportunity for someone to click a link and listen to the same words, just as a point of information, not asserting that the clip that was available on Youtube is considered a reliable source. I gave a link to it so the editor who was questioning the source could hear it right away. The existing citation also meets the requirements for WP:V. WP:RS#Overview specifically says "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party [CBS Television Network Corporation in this case] and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." So:

• A) The source is a video material recorded for Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, a long running television talk and interview show broadcast by one of the four major broadcast television networks in the United States.
• B) The episode in question was in fact broadcast on CBS and has been rebroadcast. The date, episode number and other production specifications were cited for the episode in question.
• C) An archived copy of the episode exists. At one time it was posted on the actual CBS website for the show and was available for viewing at the CBS library. Now it is archived at the Paley Media Center and available for user viewing [35] along with the next appearance of the article subject [36].
• D) Although that actual site does not have the episode posted for online viewing, just to allow the editor questioning the source to immediately verify the words themselves as they were spoken, I offered a link for her to hear it [[37].
• E) It meets WP:BURDEN, a section in WP:V, in that the source is cited clearly and precisely to allow a reader to find the episode in question to verify it. I've met those requirements.

At this point, I can see no valid policy or guideline based reason why this is not an allowable source. Is the content necessary? Maybe not, but there's not much out there to make the article interesting. The issue at point here actually has wider application because it does blanketly challenge broadcast television interviews as sources if this isn't permitted. Thanks for your thoughts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem accepting the interview from Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson as a source with regard to the states Perrette has lived in. I assume in good faith that the YouTube video, which I have watched, is an actual excerpt from the episode even though I have not seen an "official" broadcast of the episode. Perrette should be considered a reliable source as to the issue of what states she has lived in unless there is reason to believe otherwise. Her list of the states where she lived appears to be provided as a true statement rather than a joke, and there is nothing controversial about that statement. Nor does it appear to be a self-serving statement (one which she would have reason to make out of bias or self-promotion). So unless some evidence turns up, say, claiming that Perrette never lived in North Carolina, I would leave the statement cited to this Late Late Show episode in place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I tend to agree. It is congruent with the other statement that she grew up all over the south, and her childhood (and her father working for Bell Telephone) is something she has talked and joked about on other talk appearances ("well, he said that's who he worked for, his shirt was blue and had a little bell insignia..."). Other points in the article support the inclusion of Los Angeles and New York as residences. I'll support it as something I personally heard her say when I watched the original broadcast, acknowledging that "I know, I heard it myself" isn't a reliable source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Zitwer

An anon IP is questioning all of the refs I have used for this article and has twice tagged it with a 'Notability" tag. I believe it meets all notability criterias. Could someone please take a look??--Beehold (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

She's certainly notable but you could do with a few better sources. Just be careful with WP:BLP--Insider201283 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Beehold removed the material below from this noticeboard. I wonder why? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise anyone had replied. I thought no-one had noticed my post and so shortened it and moved it to the bottom. Really sorry, cos just noticed your comments. Thought any info would be at bottom - not after each ref! Sorry! Your info is much appreciated.--Beehold (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As the anon listing the concerns with the sourcing, the tag is for notability. i.e. Meet the coverage directly in detail about the subject. I'm not suggesting the sources are universally unreliable and indeed some of the sources may be fine as primary sources for uncontroversial facts. Indeed in my listing I more of less say that when I state "...although it maybe useful as a source for the article...". I'm not sure if there is an understanding that not every source which is reliable for verifiability is useful for meeting the general notability guideline. I also seem to be making little headway in explaining that tagging of article in such a way is as much a call for improvement as anything else. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Anon IP may believe they "have a point," but a film producer with credits including Vampire's Kiss, starring Nicholas Cage, and a future film starring Julia Roberts, as referenced to the New York Times, surely qualifies as 'notable' in most people's opinion. I have already suggested that, if this IP feels so strongly about the situation, that they should PROD/nominate the article for AFD to allow for further discussion. The IP has done neither, merely retagging the article instead. A 'notability' tag is not "a call for improvement as anything else," as they are trying to claim, it is a allegation that the subject of the article is not notable. A totally different meaning. And that is why i came here, to this page, to try and clarify the situation.--Beehold (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I give up this is my last post on the subject. There is a difference between sources which are considered reliable for meeting verifiablity and those required for the general notablity guideline I haven't said all the sources are unreliable. I have stated that I belive the person is probably notable, I don't seem to be able to get across the difference between an article not currently meeting the required standard, which we improve or tag for improvement such as this, and ones which can't possibly meet the rules which we list for deletion. Nor do I seem able to get across why the particular tag exists and is widely used rather than just people listing stuff for deletion. Perhaps someone here will have more luck. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Zitwer

An anon IP is questioning all of the refs I have used for this article. True, I have used IMDB for few details - but I thought that was OK for non-controversial movie listings, rather than biographical facts. I have just removed the 'Notability' tag that the IP put on the article, as I truly believe that subject of the article to be WP:Notable (film producer/literary agent/playwright), but I just wanted to check in with you lot as well. Thankyou. The disputed refs are here - together with the IP's comments.My comments are in italics underneath:

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0957297/ - imdb is not a reliable source in many instances as it relies on user submitted content. That aside this is non-trivial coverage as basically a directory style listing/

(The details of the films are listed on numerous other sites, but individually, rather than in a neat list at IMDB - so I went for the neat list. The details are non-controversial and all reported elsewhere.)

Please see what Wikipedia:Notability_(films) has to say about IMdB. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've read every WP discussion dating back to about about 2005/6 on this, and the situation is still very unclear to me. As far as I can work out, the 'film listings' are OK, but not biogs. Like I've used it for.

• http://webdelsol.com/Algonkian/interview-bj.htm - As an interview this is essentially a primary source it lacks the independence requirement to one degree or another, although it maybe useful as a source for the article it wouldn't hold up as the sole source for meeting WP:GNG

(Interviews may be considered primary sources, but they are allowable - especially if providing/supporting non-controversial facts)

But the website is not an WP:RS, appears to be a writing school. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200611/1162662872.html - This is not a reliable source as it is user submitted content and so has no editorial control. That aside it isn't anything more than trivial coverage on Barbara Zitwer.

(This is a press release containing non-controversial details - used for supplementary details)

Once again the website is not an RS, and Press releases are self published sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/379245/The-Friday-Night-Knitting-Club/overview - Very sparse, about the film and the only mention of Barbara Zitwer is a credit as exec producer - again trivial coverage.

(This is the New York Times - one of the most WP: Reliable sources going I would imagine).

Passing mention, no indication of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.publishersmarketplace.com/members/alicea/ - Not independant, and trivial in coverage of Zitwer (it's about the agency)

(This is an independent website - despite what the IP claims. It is viewed as "the bible" of the literary world...apparently)

Still not an RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It maybe independant but as member details which are presumably entered by the member the information itself is not independant. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.barbarajzitweragency.com - Not independant

(A primary source perhaps - but again providing non-controversial facts).

Self published source. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

--Beehold (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Compass Direct

How reliable is compassdirect.org for news? Can it be trusted on articles about living people? Cheers.VR _talk 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like an advocacy website/organization than a news source. See for example, their tagline, "News from the frontlines of persecution" or their self-description: "Compass Direct is a Christian news service dedicated to providing exclusive news, penetrating reports, moving interviews and insightful analyses of situations and events facing Christians persecuted for their faith."

Ironically, the first link when searching for Compass Direct on Google News is another unreliable source, WND (see discussion below). No mainstream news source seems to have written about or cited Compass Direct as far as I can see. In short, there is no indication that it has a reputation for trustworthiness, and it should not be used on wikipedia especially in a BLP. Abecedare (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks.VR _talk 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. What is the article in question. The source seems to be connected with the Christian missionary movement, and may have some unique reports from parts of the world such as Africa where the conventional media is spread rather thin. There may be a point of view, but their style seems closer to Amnesty International than WorldNet Daily. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 18 articles that use it either for reference or external link. Many news sources give a "unique" perspective. The question is of reliability.VR _talk 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked around, and their reports have been cited by the BBC[38] and the Washington Post[39] for information on troubles happening around the world. That suggests a reputation for good news coverage. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to have a POV. In fact, most sources have a POV of one sort of another. What matters is the source's reputation for accuracy and fact checking. A source with a good reputation for fact checking should be considered reliable, a source with a poor reputation should not. Having a point of view, even a distinct bias, does not necessarily equate to unreliability.

That said... it is true that many unreliable sources will allow their POV or bias to dictate which facts they report and how they spin those facts... but what makes them unreliable isn't the fact that they have a bias, its the fact that by doing this they earn themselves a poor reputation. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Books is also showing a number of decent nonfiction books citing Compass Direct[40]. My take is, if it's good enough for the BBC, the Washington Post, and several books, all citing it for statements of fact, it's good enough for the Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not correct about google books. Google books is as good as google: both contain reliable and non-reliable sources. BBC is a different matter, it is a widely acknowleged reliable source.

My question is then the following. It is no doubt alright to quote Compass Direct, when its quoted in reliable sources like the BBC. But if a source is quoted a few times in reliable sources, does that it give it blanket reliability? I.e. can we quote compass when its not quoted by any other reliable source, and no other reliable source covers the story but compass?VR _talk 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is whether it's treated by other sources as a reliable source. Is it being cited by other sources for reporting news or for making news? For instance, it would be appropriate to quote even Rense.com if we cite the BBC referring to it in an article on conspiracy theories, because it's being used as a primary source in an article partially about Rense.com. But in that case the BBC wouldn't be citing them as fact, and wouldn't count towards reputation of the source. On the other hand, the BBC, the Washington Post, and some of those books were earnestly citing Compass Direct for information on what was happening in remote areas of the world, and that counts for reputation. As far as Google Books, there are good books and poor books, and it depends on the individual book. A quick glance showed some reputable-looking books citing Compass, we can dig into those if the BBC and the Post aren't reputation enough. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I dug into BBC and WP's citations of CDN and the lesson is "Beware of Google News hits" when you cannot read the article itself! Despite appearances ([41], [42]") Compass Direct News has never been used as a source by BBC or Washington Post. Let me explain:

• The Washington Post hit ("A Chinese Facade") is a letter to the editor.
• All the BBC hits are to BBC Monitoring which monitors local media reports to show what news they are reporting and how, i.e., not articles under BBC's direct editorial control. In particular:
  • "Uzbekistan clamps down on religious freedoms" is translated report by Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta
  • "ROMANIA: Protestant radios facing closure" is a report by Adventist World Radio newsletter 'AWRecorder'
  • "Hindu militants attack jailed Christian in south India - Pakistan agency" is a report by Associated Press of Pakistan
  • "Jordan's Lower House commends church council's reply to US news report" is a report by official Jordanian news agency Petra and the relevant quote is, "The Lower House of Parliament applauded a statement issued by Leaders of the Council of Churches in Amman in response to an article published earlier this month by the US Compass Direct News (CDN) alleging that the Jordanian authorities expelled Christian expatriates. 'The CDN article includes wrong items and distorts the fact and above all offends Islamic-Christian relations in Jordan,' said a statement issued by the House of Deputies on Thursday."

The above information is from Lexis-Nexis. Note that Lexis-Nexis itself does not archive CDN; in fact no major US or World publication indexed in that database has ever directly cited CDN as a news source or reported on its activities, with one exception: A January 26, 2000 article in Washington Times headlined "Saudi Arabia tops group's list of worst Christian persecutors" reports about a list released by CDN (Quote: A "world watch list" released by a watchdog religious persecution group named Saudi Arabia as last year's "worst persecutor of Christians.").
My conlcusion is that CDN does not seem to be reliable independent source, although as a "watchdog religious persecution group" its views may be notable if they are cited by other reliable sources as listed above. Abecedare (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I missed one (because it's in Arabic and didn't show up in the Lexis search): This report is by BBC (and not BBC Monitoring), but according to Google's translation it is an item about a report released by CDN and subsequent events, rather than a news story relying on CDN's reporting. Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's see what we have here. We have a couple of foreign newspapers quoting it for on-the-ground reports in neighboring countries. We have an article in the Washington Times which does describe Compass as a watchdog group, but they also seem to trust them for their watchlist. I'm taking your word for the article content; no flat-rate Nexis here. We also have an Arabic BBC article which may be "about" the CDN report, but it does seem to credit it with first breaking a story about foreign residence permits not being renewed. On another hand we have the official news agency disputing either the facts or the tone of the CDN report.

From only those two articles it's difficult to tell what the root of the Jordanian matter was, but from subsequent reports in CBN.com (also quoting CDN), the California Chronicle, and the AFP, it appears that while Jordan has no problem with domestic and foreign Orthodox and Catholic groups, proselytizing is frowned upon and this has led to conflict with Evangelical Protestant groups, and even official annoucements say that people were deported for carrying out missionary activities. None of this conflicts with the original report from CDN which goes into quite a bit of detail on the matter.

If that's only a small number of sources, we can go to the books. Other than some obvious specialty Christian publishing, Google Books does show some titles citing Compass for fact. Religious Freedom in the World, Radical Islam's Rules, Freedom in the World from Freedom House, and China by Human Rights Watch were in the first few results.

So I would say that Compass is definitely viable as an RS. It may have a point of view but that's why we don't base our articles on a single source. i.e. if we had an article on those Jordanian deportations, we could very well use it for factual reporting on the matter, but we would use other sources to settle whether or not missionary work is legal under Jordanian law.

Now as for BLP, WP:BLP has some caveats about being unbiased that go beyond RS, for example negative information about a person may need to be backed up by other sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Band fansites

Hello all. Another user and I encountered a conflict when it came to citing sources on band pages. Many band pages (and articles relating to them such as of band members, albums, and singles) such as System of a Down, Korn, Children of Bodom and until recently, Disturbed cite fansites. Wikipedia doesn't allow fansites to be cited, because they aren't reliable, since anybody can make one. Although this is true, many of the articles wouldn't have much context, or even exist if fansites weren't cited. I admit that I have two band fansites, but did not intend to use Wikipedia to self promote it (I had no decrease in traffic after the links were taken off). The official site(s) often delete information after a while, and sometimes it isn't on the Archive. Should fansites be continued to be cited against policy, or should the info just be taken down in its entirety, or should the articles just have the cites replaced with until the information is deleted/another source is found? Thanks for your time, ^TheWeak_Willed 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that band fansites are very often wrong. That being said, there are bands who, well, aren't as communicative as they should be.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is simple... if no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. This includes bands and other "pop" topics. Wikipedia is not a place to promote bands. In fact, if the only sources that exist are unreliable fan sites, the band probably isn't notable enough for inclusion. Perhaps it will rate an article at some point in the future, but not now. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the bands in question certainly are notable, but their official sites rarely provide information about the bands history. For example http://disturbed1.com and http://korn.com barely have any history about the band, and don't even mention previous members. Sites like http://kornspace.com have the complete history of the band. While other sites such as http://last.fm may have the entire biography, it is usually what the record label sends out and doesn't take into account interviews with band members and things said by band members at live shows (ex the drummer shouting "I hate playing this song live" or whatever.^TheWeak_Willed 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain, as the main contributor to the article Simple Plan, and there are things, such as the absence of the bassist from the last two shows of last year's tour, that the band never released information on (though certainly it was known to the fans, announcements were made from the stage, I took a picture of them as a four piece, that kind of thing). I'd welcome a solution as well, but it may well be that such bands are not going to have GA's for articles. Or else, relatively short articles!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. And even on the Simple Plan page, there is a link to a fansite, and without that fansite, there is no source for the band Reset. Another thing when it comes to fansites, the people that edit the article often, will know which info is right and what is wrong. The user that removed the links I was posting told me that he KNEW that the info was correct, it was just that a credible source wasn't sourced. ^TheWeak_Willed 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What if a fansite builds up a reputation such that's its often cited by the media? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be possible for a fansite to rise to the level of being a reliable source. If you could show that most of the media was treating a fansite as a source of reliable, credible, and well-checked information, it would meet WP:RS. It's the reputation for fact checking and the financial and editorial independence from the subject that's crucial. You won't find many fan-sites that ever get there, and I'm not aware of any that are there.—Kww(talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliablity of US Navy Source Documents

Are the US Navy primary source documents of log book, action reports, war diary, and cruise reports considered reliable for Wikipedia use?

The four documents are standard US Navy documents and were created aboard ship by the ship's staff and signed by the ship's commanding officer. These documents are a record of ship activity without personal opinions. They are in a neutral point of view of who, what, where and when. The questions of why and how are not involved.

Log Book - covers a every important aspect of ship activity

War Diary - is an abbreviated version of the log book

Action Reports - records the detail of a ship's combat operation

Cruise Reports - a chronological listing of the ship's movements

In the Battleship Texas wiki article, the aforementioned documents are needed to correct errors in secondary sources that are cited in the article. I have posted excerpts of the documents in the Commons area with the needed information to make the corrections. The needed information are times, dates, geographical location of the ship, names of objects and names of people. The action reports are the most used documents and the full documents are posted on an internet site of mine at http://users.hal-pc.org/~cfmoore/. Further information as to my extensive knowledge of the ship can be found on another webiste of mine at http://www.bb35library.usstexasbb35.com/

Use of the ship's primary source documents above does not constitute original research. This was the consensus of a discussion in the No original research notice board. Based on the that consensus, one of the two article primary editors (TomStar81) will allow me to use the documents as a source if there is a consensus that the documents are reliable.

I posted the reliability question to the article's discussion section but TomStar81 said I should post the question here.IronShip (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Those websites certianly look a labour of love. In general I personally wouldn't have too much trouble with cautious use of these documents, however I'd be happier if there were for example more obvious links back to catalogue entries for the original records at NARA (if possible, I'm reasonably familiar with the level of detail and so on in the catalogue at The National Archives (UK), I haven't really looked at much on teh US side though). This would allow anyone who realy wanted too to verify the authenticity of the documents you present more easily. Some indications of other reliable suorces citing your websites would also help build confidence in how you've handled the documents. Where there are discrepancies between the secondary and primary sources, it may be worth opinting these out in the article, eg something like "while Smith says the ship was off someplace on this day, the log gives its position as otherplace". This would particualrly be true if the log is itself cited as a source by the secondary sources concerned as this may imply the secondary source had good reason to disregard the primary sources you have. David Underdown (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources such as these are generally reliable, but I can see that they would have limitations. I would suggest you use in text attribution such as "According to the ships Log Book, the ship ran out of coffee on the third day of the deployment and had to towed back into port<cite to log book>." Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/n0000000.htm has links to several sections of my site when the site was on a previous server. The links though were not update when I moved the site but the same information is at the present domain name. GWPDA posted to it's site several documents that I provided to them with myself cited as the providing source, Charles (or Chuck) Moore. The needed corrections for the years 1918, 1944 and 1945 have two sources. None of the secondary source errors cite primary BB35 documents as the source for the secondary source fact. IronShip (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the US National Archives and Records Administration does not have an online catalogue for these records. I also scanned and placed the complete 130 page War Diary for 1944 on the BB35Library. I also the have thee complete 1945 War Diary but it has not yet been scanned. IronShip (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to MyWikiBiz deleted

Hi - I would like to query the removal of a link to a scanned in version of book III of Ockham's Summa Logicae (Sum of Logic. Two editors have now deleted it on the grounds that the text is on a 'personal website'. However, given that the text is a primary source, simply a scanned-in version, why should it matter that the website is 'personal'? It is certainly verifiable, as you can look at the original 13th century text in any reference library and see that the online text matches the other. There is no other version of book III on the net, and it seems a shame to delete.

Also, if we are going to remove links because it is a 'personal website', why not remove all the other links? For example, why not also remove the links to here [43] which is books I and II of the same work?

Why not remove the link to Paul Vincent Spade's translation of the first book [44], since that is his personal website? Why not remove Ed Buckner's translation of sections of Book II, [45] given that appears also to be a personal website? If we follow the 'personal website' logic, 90% of links to medieval philosophy and logic will disappear. Peter Damian (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If I am interpreting the edit history at Sum of Logic properly, the link (Book III Part I now at MyWikiBiz) is not being used as a source at all, but only as an additional resource for an interested reader to look up the Latin text of the third book. Right ?

If so, this is not really an issue of a reliable vs unreliable source, but rather an issue of whether the external link is ok. In my view the link is acceptable, though it belongs in the External links section rather than the See also section (see WP:LAYOUT for what goes where). Secondly it may be possible to import the text from mywikibiz site to Latin wikisource, which is our sister project and already has a partial copy of the book - but you'll need to confirm this with someone who understands GFDL/CC-BY-SA licensing issues better than I do. Abecedare (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is quite correct. The link is not being used to support any claim made in the article, but rather for the interested reader (who is able to read Latin). Peter Damian (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to comment, I have a similar situation where I have a very popular blog post that gets about 10-15 page views (from natural search) per day. It is (as far as I know) the only free site on the Internet that assembles the publicly disclosed customer churn rates of various companies across many industries, all with cited documentation. I briefly asked on the Wikipedia article talk page if it would be okay to include a link as an External link. Nobody objected, so I added it to the article. I was receiving about an additional 15 click-throughs per day from Wikipedia -- obviously Wikipedia readers were craving additional information. Then the link was deleted, because the blog and its author aren't famous enough (or other reasons). I have since found that a reliable published source has even cited my blog post in print. Still, no dice. So, I shopped the content over at Wikisource, but they too rejected it. Then I went to Wikibooks, and while they were more open to the idea, still buried it in caveats that put me to flight. Click for more details. -- Thekohser 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser your walking a very fine line by participating on an RS thread about one of your companies domains. I ask that you withdraw from any further discussion if not remove your posting all together.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage you to point me to the guideline or policy that supports your warning, and then to take this matter to a formal request for community discussion. It may help you to see that nobody agrees with you. I have not promoted my company's domain in this discussion. I have offered evidence regarding an unincorporated blog that I run for leisure. Seriously, keep pushing on this point, and I will enjoy watching the community's response to you. I couldn't ask for a critic more beneficial to me than you, Promethean. Oh, and, by the way... it's "you're". -- Thekohser 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be mindful of your civility restriction: "You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack." Your last comment arguably intrudes upon that restriction (as does this). -->David Shankbone 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Shankbone speaks the truth. In all of my new article creation, and article improvement efforts since being provisionally unblocked, I had forgotten the letter of the restrictions on me. I should have seen all of these attacks for what they are -- attempts to goad me into "failing" the terms of my unblock. Thank you, David. Sincerely. (I'll have to restrict all of my retaliatory feuding, quarreling, and personal attacks to outside websites.) -- Thekohser 17:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

After Peter Damien restored the link, I started a discussion at Talk:Sum of Logic#MyWikiBiz link. Why isn't this discussion first taking place there instead of here? As to the blog link, I removed it per the discussion you started on my talk page#Churn rate resource (which also should have taken place on the article talk page), and while I debated the use of "non notable" to describe the blog and its author, I used it because I would have in any other instance. Kohs seem to have no noted authority on this subject, and while it may be pointed out that I don't either, I do have expertise in researching external links and reliable sources, and this page or blog doesn't meet either one. And to be plain, fame doesn't translate, even in the place you're famous for...chances are good those links from Wikipedia came from editors checking up on Thekohser's edits. I have no animosity toward or history with this editor or MyWikiBiz, and TheKohser has shown no animosity in his discussions with me, so I hope that my comments are taken to be about the edits in question, not aimed at editors or an attempt to bait. Flowanda | Talk 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz was recently discussed on the talk page of WP:EL and found to not meet the rules for external links. Based upon the discussion there, I can't imagine how it would meet WP:RS either, for situations where that would be relevant, which it is not in this case. And, as an aside, 10-15 views a day is a far cry from being a "very popular blog post", not that alleged popularity has anything to do with meeting WP:RS or WP:EL anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

George Trenholm biography

In the George Trenholm biography, an editor inserted his fringe theory that the fictitious character Rhett Butler in the novel Gone with the Wind is modeled after George Trenholm.

I tagged, challenged and removed the fringe theory almost one year ago. There are simply no reliable sources on this subject, other than the self-published book by the creator of this theory. Just recently, another editor believed the theory should be included in the biography, and inserted:

It is claimed that novelist Margaret Mitchell patterned her fictional character, Rhett Butler, on the life of Trenholm

The references given are:

• The publisher of the fringe theory
• Confederate Charleston by Robert N. Rosen…page 151..”There are those who believe that Margaret Mitchell based her fictional hero, Rhett Butler, on Trenholm”
• Ashley Hall, SC by Iieana Strauch…page 10…”Trenholm was a man of charm and is rumored to be the man after whom Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind as modeled”

This has lead to an edit war, as the references given are not solid enough to be included in an historical figure biography. The references are repeating hearsay/rumors and do not go into explanation on the matter. The 3O who is trying to assist is on the fence, but cited WP:UNDO and the claim/rumor should be dropped if no WP:RS could be cited.

Discussion here: Talk:George_Trenholm

Jim (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this should be treated as info about Gone with the Wibnd rather than Trenholm, as a literary theory. In that context the theory may be sufficiently notable and well-soruced for inclusion.Martinlc (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your imput. Could you please note your opinion on the talk page to help with the edit war? Jim (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Left and right wing politics, definitions

There is an argument on the left and right-wing politics whether a book British politics today (ISBN 9780719065095) is a reliable source for defining "left-wing" and "right-wing". Source for the definition is an appendix of the book in which the authors describe how are the terms usually used by political scientists. One of the two authors, Dennis Kavanagh, is a Professor of Politics at the University of Liverpool and the book was published by the Manchester University Press. Is this a reliable source? -- Vision Thing -- 13:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly a reliable source for a statement as to how Kavanaugh defines those terms... but... I don't think it is reliable source for a universal definition. Other reliable sources define the terms in other ways. Those other definitions need to be discussed as well. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that all definitions should be presented on equal basis? As I understand the WP:V and WP:RS, this should be one of the most reliable sources on this topic. -- Vision Thing -- 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and No... (see WP:NPOV and especially the Undue Weight section of that policy). Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a good source because the book is not about the political spectrum, the appendix on the political spectrum is not sourced, no academics rely on or cite this appendix and it has not been peer-reviewed. Furthermore since the appendix was written for students of contemporary UK politics to explain terms used in the textbook, there is no reason to believe that the authors intend the definition to apply to other countries or time periods. It is far better to use an article or book that specifically addresses the political spectrum or at least the Left or the Right. Also, since there are several models for the political spectrum, no one model should be presented as the "correct" one. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends what it's being used for. Of course this book is an RS, the only issue is that there's tens of thousands of RS's that talk about the political spectrum, and if this is a new or unique view we have to avoid undue weight.

The text under debate is Political scientists usually associate the Right with tradition, individualism, liberty and free enterprise., which is a basic sketch you might put in the lead paragaph and which is perfectly appropriate to source from an appendix in a college textbook on politics.

On the other hand, an opposing group of editors is trying to push a POV-laden multiparagraph section that starts off with "The conflict between the Right and science ...". To me, that's something that we have to watch for undue weight on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to reopen discussion on examiner.com

Hi, I do not normally edit here at reliable sources, but I missed the discussion about examiner.com and I would like to have the opportunity to contribute. The archived discussion is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#examiner.com_.3D_paid_blogging.2C_no_editorial_oversight

Below are some comments that I have prepared on criticisms from the archive. However, the most pertinent point is this: the examiner.com company uses Internet technology to harness the efforts of hundreds of writers, just like Wikipedia, and has credibility issues, just like Wikipedia. I think it is a big mistake to throw out examiner.com on the basis of the criticism I have read thus far without also criticizing Wikipedia identically.

The quality and qualifications of examiner.com writers is all over the map, just like Wikipedia's. Quality contributions bubble to the top here, and so do they at examiner.com. I am not suggesting that the entire site should be accepted unquestioningly, but it seems very much an overreaction to condemn the entire site based on a few ill-conceived perceptions and a couple of bad apples. It always strikes me as unjust when such happens to Wikipedia, and I think the same justice should apply when deciding the fate of examiner.com.

My specific comments on the archive criticism:

• examiner.com masquerades as a newspaper - examiner.com is owned by a publishing company, but I can't find any evidence of any deceptive statements or practices.

• examiner.com consists of "blog pages" - Perhaps we need a definition of "blog pages", because the same could be said about virtually any newspaper website: Thomas L. Friedman--NYTimes.

• examiner.com writers "passed a very brief initial test" - First, I would like to see where Wikipedia specifies the hiring process of individual news sources or publishing houses in its hierarchy of verifiability. That is an editorial policy decision and outside of (or perhaps assumed by) the purview of Wikipedia’s reliability determinations. For example, what are the criteria to be hired at the Idaho Statesman? Further, the "very brief initial test" consists of submission of writing samples that prove writing skill and subject area knowledge, and are evaluated by professional editors…much the same way I imagine the process to be at the Idaho Statesman. Examiner.com conducts background checks before hiring. Finally, the examiner.com hiring and editorial process differs in no way that I can see from that of Huffington Post (except for the background check), another author “blog site” that appears not to have the credibility questions that examiner.com has here.

• No editorial oversight - Each major section has at least one professional editor. Editorial guidelines are provided to authors. Monthly editorial guidance is provided. Editors provide scheduled conference calls several times a week for authors. Most editors use newsgroups to post editorial guidance and provide feedback, example from an editor here: http://groups.google.com/group/newspolitics/msg/536b8571b1521737?hl=en. Huffington Post provides none of this supervision and services to its writers.

• Articles are published that do not receive editorial oversight - I am sure this is true, however I do not know if it is also true at the Idaho Statesman. I will point out the numerous scandals at national papers and magazines were stories were published with completely ficticious facts. All examiner.com pages have a "report" button at the top, where any story can be flagged by anybody for examination by an editor. I have been told that examiner.com editors take these flags very seriously.

• "Examiner FAQs from examiner.com, showing that they recruit locals based upon certain topic areas a bit vague on the details and written to promote themselves, but it's clear these are not employees of any newspaper (and if you pop over to a list of them, you'll see a huge mass of them on specific little topics just in a local area)" - I don't understand how this is a disqualification. What qualifies the local newspaper restaurant reviews over someone else in the community who is either more qualified or a better writer? The view that the first is more qualified by working for a newspaper is quite a strange requirement coming from a Wikipedia editor.

• "Bloggers wanted for Examiner (Fort Worth metro)" info from Craigslist "writing gigs" post -- note "Pay is up to you and your ability to self-promote your material and increase page views" - I know for a fact that many perhaps all reporters perform marketing activities to get their own page views up, and newspapers have entire marketing campaigns that do the same. Further, many examiner.com writers are also reporters at newspapers. They use their marketing expertise to drive traffic to their real employers, who don't care as long as pageviews go up.

• ""Writer Admits She Spun Crazy-Ass Nonsense For Examiner.com -- And Didn't Get Caught Until Lawyers' Letters Showed Up" sfweekly.com with examples of just how the process works in practice... no editorial oversight whatsoever, no reliability, and basically spamming links" - Et tu, Wikipedia. It happens here all the time, someone posting nonsense and then publishing some big mainstream story about how long it took for someone to catch it. What childish BS. We eventually catch the vandals, but they are hard to catch because they are good writers who are trying to stay hidden. I suspect that few examiner.com writers are in this category. Assume good faith.

• Credibility of examiner.com writers - Many examiner.com writers are published authors and have extensive expertise in the fields they cover. There are many, but a couple of quick examples:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner

http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner

In addition, there are more than a few examiner.com writers who are also current or former writers for Huffington Post.

• "The "new" Examiner.com is a user-generated site, as DreamGuy says, and its writers' dependence on page views for income makes Wikipedia a potential target for abuse" - I agree with this criticism wholeheartedly and it goes the opposite direction as well. A Wikipedia author could get a job at examiner.com then write his or her own references. This type of abuse should be watched for closely. By the way, the exact same criticism is true of Huffington Post.

That’s it for now. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.Jarhed (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Et tu, Wikipedia. It happens here all the time" - which is why Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia follows encyclopedia standards, are you actually asserting that Wikipedia has no reliability *whatsoever*?Jarhed (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No I am saying that per Wikipedia guidelines and policies (specifically Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability) Wikipedia should not be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. Specifically Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia states "Wikipedia itself is self-published. Therefore articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources.". Guest9999 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but I don't see how you get from "someone posting nonsense and then publishing some big mainstream story about how long it took for someone to catch it" to "which is why Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia." It seems that you are asserting that since Wikipedia references are not allowed on Wikipedia, then it follows that examiner.com is therefore not allowed. I don't understand your logic. Could you please elaborate?Jarhed (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If the argument is "I think it is a big mistake to throw out examiner.com on the basis of the criticism I have read thus far without also criticizing Wikipedia identically." then you have no argument. We do criticize Wikipedia equally, and Wikipedia content (either here or other language editions or on sites mirroring our content) explicitly is NOT allowed a reliable source. And, considering whereas Wikipedia at least has the opportunity for others to check end edit the work and examiner.com does not, uif there were a hierarchy of unreliable sources, examiner.com is less reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I am not arguing anything, I am asking all interested editors to reopen discussion on a source because I believe that I have new information. Examiner.com has a professional staff that provides editorial oversight. Considering the volume, I doubt that every single post is edited, but professional guidelines are certainly provided and adhered to. In addition, every single examiner.com has a "report" button that allows anyone to alert section editors to objectionable content. In addition to readers, examiner.com authors have a vested interest in the reliability of their medium, making the site essentially self-policing, in much the same way Wikipedia is. And remember, many examiner.com writers are professionals. This self-policing is in addition to the editorial staff.

Perhaps what I am suggesting is that editors at ‘reliable sources’ are losing sight of the changes that are occurring in the newspaper publishing industry. It is in flux, and innovative publishers are seeking out new business models. Examiner.com may be a bust, or it may be on the vanguard of a new business model for journalism. None of us knows, and I think that Wikipedia editors, especially Wikipedia editors, should be more deliberative and proactive about such potential sources, rather than simply throwing them out because they don’t fit in an existing reliability category. It just seems so curmudgeonly for a site that itself is such an innovator.Jarhed (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jarhed, You seem to be arguing that wikipedia shares many of flaws of examiner.com. We all agree and consider neither of them to be reliable sources in general. Can you make a positive argument as to why you think examiner.com has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ? Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that examiner.com is not reliable in general but I believe it can be easily demonstrated that it meets reliability requirements in specific. I would understand if Wikipedia disallowed examiner.com as a source because of the overhead of checking the reliability of a particular article, but really, that seems to go against ‘reliable sources’ practice. Isn’t an article’s talk page the proper place to dispute a reference? How do ‘reliable sources’ editors justify taking those decisions away from individual editors?Jarhed (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jarhed, you say that "it can be easily demonstrated that it meets reliability requirements in specific" instances. Can you do so for any particular case that is currently of interest and under dispute ? Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is easy. I have followed many reference disputes on talk pages. I am not an expert on this particular subject matter, but just picking at random, this article and author appear authoritative on the specific subject of the article:

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m6d25-Student-strip-search-unjustified-says-US-Supreme-Court

At the very least, if someone disputes the reliability of this author or article, it is worthy of discussion.Jarhed (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 (page does not exist) on that link. DreamGuy (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Tried three times, as soon as I posted that it started working again. Let me take a look. DreamGuy (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK: No indication that the source is an expert in any way or considered authoritative per our standards, and certainly any article here about this particle topic would find far, far better sources. It's just a well known news story rewording/summarized by some blogger. And while reloading I got another 404 error and then a "page not published yet - wait 15 minutes" error, which seems odd for an article on something that is already old news. DreamGuy (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which standards you are talking about, would you mind providing a pointer?Jarhed (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is a blog. Per WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.

"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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

At best, Examiner.com can only be used as a self-published source and only if the author is an established expert on the topic whose work in the same field has been published by a reliable third-party publication. On the whole, The Examiner is not a WP:RS but it's possible that there might be specific articles by specific authors that can be used as SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:V, blogs hosted by newspapers may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. "Hosted by newspapers" may be a hoary requirement, since I see very little difference between the qualifications between the average print reporter and the average writer at Huffington Post, or much of a difference between their editorial oversight. Further, there are print newspapers that have moved their entire operations to websites, for example, http://www.indenvertimes.com/. It seems to me that the distinction between print and online news sources is being blurred and will need to be examined more thoroughly, although the issue may not yet be ripe for Wikipedia.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think that it would be fair to say that Huffington Post is usually a questionable source, especially for facts, and that if better sources are available, they should be used instead. What I also think would be fair is that examiner.com be considered of similiar reliability, based on similiar qualities of the average authors and editorial oversight.Jarhed (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blogs as sources might be of interest, although it isn't a policy or guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com isn't a newspaper. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither is Huffington Post.Jarhed (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The last few times the Huffington Post came up, opinions were mixed, but the majority of editors did not view it as a reliable source for statements of fact. [46] [47] [48] [49] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The writers at examiner.com clearly are not professionals and their blogs are not anything close to subject to the newspaper's full editorial control... the newspapers owned by the same parent company doesn't even enter into it and there is no editorial control to speak of. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "clearly are not professionals" because I have gone to some effort to show that is not the case. Also, maybe we should come to some agreement about what "full editorial control" means. Finally, I don't understand how you can assert that "being owned by the same parent company doesn't even enter into it." Examiner.com is owned by a company that publishes newspapers. Do you have any evidence that they are not attempting to establish a bonafide online operation? Jarhed (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You did not even attempt to show that the bloggers there are professional writers, you just pointed out three examples (out of thousands of bloggers on the site) that you claim are pros... and those three clearly aren't professionals either. On top of that, being a professional writer doesn't indicate reliability for the topics they are writing on, and there's no evidence that there's any attempt to ensure that they are true experts on the topics... and lots of contrary evidence. As far as evidence that they aren't attempting to establish bonafied online expert system, this has already been covered above, and you already replied to those posts. You seem to just ignore anything you don't want to admit. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jarhed, arguments like examiner.com is not any worse than wikipedia (as you said in your earlier posts) or huffingtonpost.com (as you are arguing now) are not the way to establish that a source is reliable. To judge reliability we need to show that examiner.com has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I searched for analysis of its accuracy and the only somewhat relevant link I found is this article which gives qualified praise to its pro-am model. Do you know of any other or more detailed analysis ?
Secondly, at RSN we rarely (if ever) pronounce a source to be always or never reliable and it would be a mistake to do so in this instance; for example, examiner.com can perhaps be used as a source for its contributors' biographical articles on wikipedia, just like any SPS.
Thirdly, we should always endeavor to use the best available source and not the source that just-about-clears some imaginary "reliability bar". In general (as I said before) examiner.com will be very down on the totem pole of reliable sources (for all the reasons listed above, including in your original post) and whether it can be used at all will depend upon the wikipedia article, availability of alternate sources, author and form of the examiner.com article, and the statement that is to be cited. If you have an actual (rather than hypothetical) dispute on the use of the website in a particular wikipedia article, please feel free to bring it up here, now or later. Cheer. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your substantive reply. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but at present examiner.com cannot be added as a reference on Wikipedia. I believe that it would be fair and consistent if the ban were lifted and the source could be added as a reference and discussed on article talk pages in the same manner as Huffington Post. I see no reason why this should not be done.Jarhed (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any "newspaper" that would promote a guy who thinks the LCROSS moon mission will mean war with aliens and doesn't put a parody tag or something on the page should really not even be close to a reliable source. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You just can't see the truth due to "Cognitive disonance". :-) Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This one's even better.[50]. The author manages to cross 9/11 conspiracy theories with aliens from another dimension. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point. Wikipedia has articles on all of those subjects. Are you saying that impeaches the credibility of Wikipedia? Examiner.com is obviously trying to draw readers. That is not a goal for Wikipedia, but it is for any commercial enterprise. It is a business model, and I don't see how their business model is relevant in a discussion of their reliability.Jarhed (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not sure of your point." The point is that they publish obvious nonsense.

"Wikipedia has articles on all of those subjects." Perhaps, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to advocate fringe theories. Articles on alien abduction, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. should contain thorough debunking per WP:NPOV.

"It is a business model, and I don't see how their business model is relevant in a discussion of their reliability." Nobody said anything about its business model except you. If you don't think their business model is relevant, why do you keep bringing it up?

Do you have anything else you would like us to consider that you haven't mentioned already? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why you keep going back to comparing that site to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for articles on Wikipedia, precisely for that reason. Examiner just looks like a portal for people to publish their thoughts with very little (if any) fact checking or editorial oversight. This is no different than opening up a blog at blogspot Corpx (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is I who doesn't understand why "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for articles on Wikipedia" is relevant to examiner.com being a reliable source for articles on Wikipedia. It makes sense to compare examiner.com to Wikipedia in many instances, for example, Wikipedia has many editors who are authorities in their specialties. What is missing from Wikipedia is personal accountability and editorial oversite, which examiner.com has. Blogspot does not require employment applications or background checks; examiner.com does. It would be easy for examiner.com to assemble a group of writers that are far more qualified in their niches than any average newspaper reporter. I don't think it is either fair or beneficial to Wikipedia to ban examiner.com outright. Sources such as it and Huffington Post should have a position in the hierarchy of citation reliability that is somewhere higher than zero.Jarhed (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at this in some detail now, I consider examiner.com an unreliable source in most instances, and it should be used with caution only in exceptional circumstances when a positive argument for the reliability of a particular article can be made. Note also, that its FAQ says:

Our most successful Examiners spend time marketing their content to their social and business networks using tools like Twitter, Digg, Email lists, message boards, and good old-fashioned word-of-mouth. If all of this sounds new, Examiner.com provides the resources you need to learn and use these tools to master online marketing.

and we should be wary of wikipedia being used to spam examiner.com links. Note that the website is linked from over 1000 wikipedia pages including several BLPs, and each of these mainspace link needs to be reexamined. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to see who inserted these links? I'd imagine that there's a lot of COI involved with the insertion of these links Corpx (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that; perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam would be able to help. Currently we don't have any evidence that there is a concerted effort to spam wikipedia with examiner.com links, and we need to AGF while keeping our eyes open. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of those cites might be innocent mistakes. What's the best way of notifying the community to not use The Examiner? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already mentioned the possiblity for abuse and I don't want that either. I just would like to see that goal accomplished without an outright ban. Would it be helpful to see if examiner.com would instruct its writers that Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for advertising?Jarhed (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, no writer at examiner.com would care about a normal citation being added to a normal Wikipedia article, and I think that concern is way overblown. The income from that link would be miniscule. Any abuse comming from examiner.com would be an attempt to generate lots of hits, and would be an obvious ploy.Jarhed (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the issue of spam links is not unique to examiner.com. Any newspaper reporter has a vested interest in increasing hits on his blog and articles. How is that potential for abuse different from this?Jarhed (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the issue, as I see it: Examiner.com is obviously working to drive hits to its member pages, which are advertising supported. It would appear (judging from some of the pages pointed out above) that if you can write and have a hook they think would drive hits, you'll be accepted to write for them. This means you get a mix of professionals who are serious about it, wanna-be pros who can string sentences together, and whackadoos. I could write them and say that I wanted to do something on leading-edge science topics, they'd probably say 'okay!' and give me a page. I could then wander off and write a treatise on how it's possible to break the speed of light through oral application of caffeine-added sugar syrup to a ferret on a miniature treadmill, and, if we considered examiner.com as a reliable source, it could conceivably be citeable on caffeine, ferret and speed of light. This is why we don't allow blogs except in certain cases, and why any links from examiner.com must be examined very closely before they're okayed. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand all of that and I agree 100%. What I don't agree with is the total ban. I don't think it is fair or beneficial to Wikipedia.Jarhed (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the best way of notifying the community about The Examiner?

Given:

• As stated above, Examiner.com is a blog and can only be used as a self-published source if the author is an established expert on the topic whose work in the field has been published by a reliable third-party publication. Even then, caution should be exercised. On the whole, The Examiner is not a WP:RS but it's possible that there might be specific articles by specific authors that can be used as a SPS.
• External Links returns 1,264 uses of www.examiner.com[51] as of this writing and is likely to increase.

What's the best way of notifying the community that The Examiner is not a reliable source unless the author is an established expert per the above definition? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, any reasonable interpretation of the guidelines at WP:RS would show that it is mostly not reliable. You have to use your own judgement and talk to other editors as you are doing here. Also see others use sources, especially in WP:Good articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that when I first brought this up as a problem just a short time ago there were only about 300 or so links to examiner.com and now there are apparently more than 1,200 there has to be spamming involved for it to have jumped by that much in that short amount of time. I submitted a request for the XLinkBot to remove the links (any admin want to go add it to the list, please?), but we could be needed a total spamblock soon. This is insane. DreamGuy (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A substantial amount (probably most) of those links aren't in articlespace. II | (t - c) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick look shows nothing close to being most. Many on that last page are non-article links (but probably not a majority) but the earlier pages (1-1,000 of the 1,270+ links) are very heavily article space links, and none of the ones I've looked at are anything close to appropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose adding it to XLinkBot Agree to adding it to XLinkBot The Examiner is a company. What is publishes has some level of editorial oversight - the company can pull the stories (has it ever?). Like all media companies, it's looking for traffic, but it also has a basic reputation to maintain. The people who work for it writing articles can be considered part-time journalists, and they do use their real names. It might be on par with a small-town newspaper - in some cases worse, in some cases better. Anyway, can't agree to blocking the domain. Editors can decide on a case-by-case basis whether articles from it make sense. Spamming from it could be a problem, but that's a problem we have with a lot of things. See updated thoughts a couple responses below. II | (t - c) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We clearly have a serious problem here. How do we address it? Is there a bot that can automatically insert a {verify credibility} tag anytime someone adds a cite to Examiner.com? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding it to XlinkBot but not the blacklist, the same as we do with many blogging sites. I've seen a few Examiner pieces that were pretty good, for example this one about the recent auto warranty telemarketing problem [52], where I learned quite a bit about how auto registrations were available to marketers until the mid-1990s. At least with XlinkBot if editors really want an Examiner article they can revert it. The blacklist on the other hand is highly unweildly and involves persuading the powers that be to whitelist each and every time you want a link, even as a primary source in an article about the site. I've had trouble myself editing the article on Lulu Press which was somehow swept onto the blacklist with a bunch of other sites and very little discussion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again and thinking about it, and particularly seeing this story on alien abductions, I agree that it should be added to XLinkBot but not the blacklist. II | (t - c) 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A review of the examiner.com links shows that virtually all of them are to local articles. It is quite possible that the reference being linked to is not available anywhere else. Once again, especially for local niches, it is easily possible that the local writer is more authoritative in a niche than the average newspaper reporter. I don't know what LinkBotX is, but whatever is done should also be done to Huffington Post, which by this definition is also a blog. I know for a fact that examiner.com has pulled stories and fired writers; virtually all firing has been for plagiarism.Jarhed (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Examiner, and most blogs is that they are never a primary source to reporting an event. Almost never will you see these kind of bloggers get any kind of press credentials or be present at the scene of the story. What they do is read columns written by real journalists, and then proceed to rehash the story while interjecting their POV. These kind of sources should not be used in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I would not oppose removing all the examiner links, as the worthwhile ones could be readded. Jarhead, I'm just wondering if you have any connections to the website in question (if you write for them or work for them). Corpx (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how any reporter can avoid POV, but at least at examiner.com, the POV is clearly labeled. For example, I don't see why a reference by the writer for the LA Clippers should be automatically excluded because POV is the LA Clippers. I have no relationship with examiner.com, I just think it is a brilliant idea, I think it could be harmed by an outright ban by Wikipedia, and I only want that to happen if it is really fair and neccessary, not just an arbitrary bias.Jarhed (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't WP:NPOV; it's WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, because I was responding to a point by Corpx about NPOV. Guys, I said in the very first sentence of this section that I am not an expert on Wikipedia sources like you are. I would appreciate a little bit of consideration for my inexperience. Ordinarily I could not care less about sources and standards other than to follow them. This is the first and probably the last issue I will ever bring up.Jarhed (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The first story in the above link deals with a rumor that he picked up from another blog (ClipsNation) and he just rehashes the rumor while adding his thoughts ("I figured I'd give my two cents on this idea"). This cannot be considered as a reliable source to reference material from. There is no editorial oversight to verify the rumor and John is no different than any other Clippers fan who opens up a blog at blogspot.com. I highly doubt that the Clippers organization gives him any sort of credentials, or if he has any connections to the players or management. Just watching Clippers' games on TV and reading media articles about the team (and other blogs) does not make him an expert, or a reliable source, to warrant inclusion of his thoughts to Wikipedia Corpx (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That was just a random example of POA, there are hundreds of writers on the site, many of whom are published authors and reporters. We have already agreed that examiner.com is a questionable source for facts.Jarhed (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Clippers example is the same situation as Huffington Post or umpteen political blogs we don't blacklist either, where people simply watch debates and then post their opinions all over the net. On the other hand, there will be some articles of local or specialized interest where the Examiner writer actually will have firsthand experience with the subject matter, and it may be appropriate to cite an Examiner article for noncontroversial information. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But only if they're established experts whose work in the relevent field has been published by third-party, reliable sources and even then they should be used with caution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need for needing a qualification standard for reliable sources. However, I have pointed out several times that in many cases there is little difference between the qualifications of the average newspaper reporter and the average examiner.com writer. Merely being a reporter at a newspaper does not make a writer an established expert on the subject being reported, nor does it necessarily make one a good writer. It is not necessarily the case that the quality of reporting is going to be the same from the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal as it is from the The New York Times. I am merely saying that it can be possible for examiner.com to meet or exceed Lubbock Avalanche-Journal quality.Jarhed (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Squidfryerchef) But why should we trust anything examiner.com publishes, when there does not seem to be any editorial oversight or quality control (as evidenced by straight-faced reporting of the kidnapping of a billion humans by aliens) ? Lets say they report that Michigan State University defeated University of Michigan in a lacrosse game and the article is written by a graduate student. Should we trust even such an non-controversial report ? Is an unknown student suddenly a "local expert" ? Would we allow a blogspot blog to source that information ? The answer in both cases is no as per WP:RS, since neither sources have any reputation for trustworthiness, and we cannot simply go by what "looks ok to me". I may personally believe the report (just as I enjoy reading many blogs), but its use on wikipedia is a distinct issue.

On the other hand, lets say Richard Dawkins files a report for examiner.com on a science conference he attended; using that as a source is allowable since Dawkins' public reputation is at stake on the article being basically factual. In short, we should treat examiner.com just as any other WP:SPS, and use it cautiously under narrow circumstances, when the expertise of the writer is clear (i.e., not just a self proclaimed local or niche expert), the fact is non-controversial, there are no better sources, and no BLP concerns. Unless all these conditions are met, the website should not be used as a source on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the precautions. I must not be seeing what you guys are seeing regarding the qualifications of examiner.com writers, because everywhere I look I find many that appear to be tremendously qualified in their niches, at least based on my understanding of what you are looking for. For example: A. Lawrence Chickering. He seems to be authoritative in any venue, not just the low-standard newspaper one I discussed above.Jarhed (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:Jarhed, do you have a WP:COI we should know about concerning Examiner.com? DreamGuy (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I invite anyone to review my contributions and make their own determination.Jarhed (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It was in reviewing your aggressive comments here that prompted me to ask the question. If you know the WP:COI rules and are following them then that's all that needs to be said. DreamGuy (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I appreciate the tone of that comment. I am the one who asked for a review of this topic and who has responded to comments. I suppose someone could consider that "aggressive". But as someone else has already pointed out, the same could be said of you.Jarhed (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We could ask the same of you in regards to articles on JTR. Maybe stop the cheap shots. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the action, the dialogue between/about/among Arcayne and DreamGuy needs to stop given their recent unsolved ongoing acrimonious exchanges. Please...there is enough going on with this discussion without having to referee. Arcayne, I'm asking you to step back and work with an admin to champion your concerns. Please. I have no issues with you or DreamGuy, but this has been an issue he's been vocal about. Again, please. Flowanda | Talk 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Dialogue" and "exchanges" are only appropriate descriptions when there is a back and forth. Arcayne's actions here have been decidely one-sided. When I get attacked out of the blue it's distressing to see someone come along and tell me to stop. DreamGuy (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the comment was intended for Arcayne, and I should have taken it up on his talk page, not here. Flowanda | Talk 17:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not per his comment of 05:41 UTC [53] 86.44.40.87 (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see that one buried in there. Thanks for the pointer. DreamGuy (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Would posting a notice at the Village Pump be a good idea/appropriate? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and placed the following notice at the Village Pump: [54]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How long does it usually take for a site to be added to XLinkBot? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Town's website contradicts scholary sources

The website of Kołobrzeg says that a Slavic settlement existed there since the 5th and 6th century. Scholary sources say that Slavic settlement in the area took place in the 7th century (Piskorski et al 1999, Harck et al 2001) and that the actual settlement near modern Kołobrzeg was built in the 9th century (Harck et al 2001, Schich et al 2007). The cited scholars are historians who are experts for both the region and the respective time period. The dates published by them are not a revolutionary new theory, but based on long known archaeological findings. In the 5th and 6th centuries, when the website claims a Slavic settlement at modern Kołobrzeg, the area was part of the Dębczyn culture, which is also long established (source eg RGA).

Schould the website be treated as a reliable source and its position be included in the article as if there were diverging views on the origin of the town, or should the website be treated as an unreliable source and thus be excluded? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Either there are sources which support the website (in which case the source should be cited), or there aren't, in which case the website's statement is not worthy of inclusion.Martinlc (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion of previous discussions was that as long as the city website is directly attributed ("according to the town's website...") and is not contradicted by scholarly sources then inclusion is ok. BTW, there was a mistake in how the town website info was presented and correcting it eliminates any kind of "contradiction" with other sources. Still, the town website has additional information and should be kept.radek (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Before any further comments on this topic are made, it should be noted that this is (at least) the FOURTH time that Skapperod has brought this to question to this board. In each of the THREE previous times, editors disagreed with Skapperod, and the general gist was that town websites can be treated as reliable, though self-published, sources, as long as this is properly attributed (as in "the town's website states that...") - please see here [55], here [56], and here [57].

I think it's not going to be taken as a violation of AGF here if I ask Skapperod to read policy on forum shopping. In particular: This also includes bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession (e.g. the village pump, RFC, admin board, deletion discussions, etc.) because the debate on the first forum did not yield the result you wanted, bringing up the same issue at the same forum multiple times

Forum shopping falls under the category of "Inappropriate canvassing" and according to "Responding to disruptive canvassing"; The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, and to block the user(s) only if they continue, to prevent them from posting further notices.. I think since this is the FOURTH time that this is being done makes that last part applicable. Hence, Skapperod, will you please stop trying to restart the same debate again and again until you get the "right" answer?radek (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a shame Polish language books are mostly unavailable in GBooks. However, even snippets can be informative, and a brief search suggests that there are quite a few Polish scholarly sources discussing settlements near Kołobrzeg that existed in 6th and 7th centuries. Here are some examples:

• Tadeusz Gasztold, Hieronim Kroczyński, Hieronim Rybicki, Kołobrzeg: zarys dziejów, Wydaw. Poznańskie, 1979, ISBN 832100072X
  • p.8: "Kołobrzeg należał — obok Wolina, Szczecina, Kamienia, Wołgoszczy, Gdańska i Trusa - do najstarszych miast na Pomorzu. Na miejscu ukształtowania się grodu kołobrzeskiego istniały dwie wcześniejsze osady, o których niewiele jednak możemy powiedzieć. Pierwsza z nich, pochodząca z VI — — VII wieku, znajdowała się w północnej części Wyspy Solnej i prawdopodobnie związana była ze znajdującymi się tam źródłami solanki. Druga, datowana na wiek VIII lub..."
• Lech Leciejewicz, Miasto zachodniosłowiańskie w XI-XII wieku: społeczeństwo, kultura, Polska Akademia Nauk. Oddział we Wrocławiu, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1991, ISBN 8304037564
  • p.160: "Kołobrzeg sięga swymi początkami VII/VIII w. "
• Gerard Labuda, Władysław Filipowiak, Helena Chłopocka, Maciej Czarnecki, Tadeusz Białecki, Zygmunt Silski, Dzieje Szczecina, Państwowe Wydawn. Nauk., 1994, ISBN 8301043423
  • p.524 : "przy ujściu Parsęty w Kołobrzegu, gdzie w pobliżu najpewniej już od VI — VII eksploatowano miejscowe solanki"
• Gerard Labuda, Marian Biskup, Ars historica: prace z dziejów powszechnych i Polski, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 1976
  • p.303: "Rzecz ciekawa, że osiedle o najstarszej metryce, zapewne już z VI wieku, położone było własnie obok źródeł słonych na tzw. Wyspie Solnej w Kołobrzegu"
• Władysław Łosiński, Poczatki wezesnośredniowiecznego osadnictwa grodowego w dorzeczu dolnej Parsety, VII-X/XI w, Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawn. Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1972
  • p.91: [Okdrycia areologiczne datują] "...początki osadnictwa na Wyspie Solnej mniej więcej na przełom VI/VII w."

I hope this is enough to put an end to the allegations that Kołobrzeg's city website contradicts academic literature. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the question is not existence of a settlement, but existence of a Slavic settlement. I don't read Polish - do your sources specify the ethnicity of the settlements in question? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it is the existence of a settlement that is under question - since if one was there at the time it almost certainly would've been Slavic. But here's a source which explicitly mentions that the settlement was Slavic (already provided at [58]):

[59]"under its Slavic name: Kolobrzeg, which literally means: "the bent bank. ... Slavic tribes which moved to the Occident starting in the sixth century" - The Slavs, Francis Conte, Marie-Pascale Bos, pg 24 (not a Polish source, either English or French as far as I can tell)radek (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly as in the previous cases, there is no problem if we use clear attribution of sources - reporting "X says Y" is verifiable and sourced It is the difference between reporting verifiable information (as WP:V instructs we should) and synthesis of selected sources to draw original conclusions and judgments (as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH forbid). I hope this fundamental distinction is now crystal-clear. Knepflerle (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Crystal clear attribution of sources is always good, but there's also the question of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT -- If the promotional town website is the only place making that claim (and I leave it tot he people fighting that out to determine that), it's not particularly notable. Expert sources always trump marketing/promotional ones. If there are conflicting claims, consider the sources and go with the encyclopedic ones. A town website (in general here, any town) does not have a reputation as being an expert on history and thus is not a reliable source for this topic.

I can understand the frustration people have with someone forum shopping, but I can also understand the frustration of an editor having some people try to tell him a clearly bad source should be treated as a good one.

From the sources cited above, it looks like experts say 6th century while the site says 5th and 6th. Just go with 6th, as that's what's been documented reliably. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

False information on inside covers of books

I would have expected that inside covers of books ought to tell the truth at least, but in the case of Roland Perry, the inside covers of his books and his publisher says that he won the UK Cricket Society book of the year in 2006. I presume that it was a typo and meant The Cricket Society, but a look at the website shows that someone else won the award and a google search shows that Perry's book was not in the shortlist. Do inside covers of books tell upfront lies about the CV of the author?? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not generally, considering what's written there is under scrutiny by a lot of people. I'd say it was a typo (can't find any "UK Cricket Society"). The society's website should be given precedence here IMO. Aditya ^α _ß 11:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the "Uk Cricket Society" doesn't seem to exist and "The Cricket Society" says that Perry wasn't even nominated, whereas his inside cover says he won YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen book blurbs outright lie (at least for books from reputable publishers), but they often use selective quotes and information to boost the book and author, just like elided reviewer quotes in movie posters. So it may be best to treat them as POV SPS, and not rely on them for information that is dubious, as in this case. Abecedare (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of author's blurbs lie, and many stretch the truth to the point where it's essentially a lie. Lots of "presented for the first time" when the books they cite clearly precede them with the same info, "finally solved" (when it's clearly just wild guesswork and sometimes not even enough to solve anything even if what it claims turns out to be true) and 'nominated for ____ (some prestigious award)" (when that award doesn't even have nominations as such). All promotional material from the author or publisher -- book blurbs, cover copy, press releases, etc. -- needs to be treated as self-published POV material. DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision Articles

I should probably have posted this here before. RfC on the reliability of sources such as ESCToday, oikiotimes is open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The second RfC on sourcing for Eurovision articles has now being running for several weeks. In order to help gauge the spread of opinion and draw conclusions from this discussion a straw poll has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Straw poll. Rationales are still encouraged in the main discussion area above the poll, and participants can add appropriate new sources or options to the poll as they wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Does reference of self published websites in scholarly or peer reviewed sources make those sources reliable?

An interesting issue came up in the MLM article. Several of the papers I found that are scholarly and/or peer reviewed use self published websites to back up their claims. Here are two just as samples.

Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic uses MLM Watch website. "Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher".

Sandbek, Terry "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology

Four issues come to mind.

If a self published website is used in a scholarly or peer reviewed source as reference in support of statements and/or conclusions is it a reliable source in its own right that can be used directly?

If the reference source has been put on the author's own website can it be used directly since it was referenced in a scholarly or peer reviewed source? Must it be in its original form if this allowable?

If an author is used in many scholarly or peer reviewed source and at least one uses his self published website in addition to what scholarly or peer reviewed material he has produced is the site now a reliable source?

Finally, on URLs in general if a scholarly or peer reviewed source use a url of a page that has updated since the paper wed published is the reference used a reliable source? Or do we have to use internet archive and hope that the version the scholarly or peer reviewed paper source used is there?--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: a closely related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#When does an person become enough of an expert that we can used his self-published material?. Jakew (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know but I thought the issue was large enough that it's more general implications should be looked at. As more and more journals start going toward web based multimedia versions of themselves this is could start becoming more and more of a problem and I thought that we should at least start thinking about some guidelines regarding such sources though some of this may have to be thrashed out over at Wikipedia:PRIMARY.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To deal with the marginally easier one first, if an author provides a copy of a peer-reviewed paper on their own website, we are into the territory of WP:Convenience links. The actual peer-reviewed journal may not be free to access, whereas the copy provided by the author could be, so ideally a link would be provided to both, so that those without access to the peer-reviewed publication can at least see the contents of the paper, those who also have access to the journal (or whatever) can further verify taht the convenience copy is a true copy (editors also need to bear in mind WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). I suppose this also has a bearing on the question of linking to archived versions, I think in the sort of instance described here it probably would be best to link to the closest available archive to when the peer-reviewed paper cited it, and if this is not available, comment to this this effect in the citation and say that the contents of the website may have changed.

On the wider issue, depending on the size of the community of experts, I'd think a site would need a higher density of references in peer-reviewed sources for us to say taht those who publish it are recgonsied as experts by that community. It may also be worth looking at things like Intute, if the website concerned is recommended in such a directory, taht might be sufficient for us to condlude it was sufficiently relaible for us to rely on it as a source. David Underdown (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

David, Bruce isn't talking about using a peer-reviewed paper convenience link, he wants to use to a self-published, non-peer reviewed PDF as a source based on the fact the PDF has been mentioned in one peer-reviewed source and the website mentioned in a handful of others. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I did misunderstand the question slightly there, sorry. I think the second point I do address, it is possible taht a source could become regarded as reliable if "sufficient" peer-reviewed (or otherwise relaible) sources obviously regard it as reliable. (though to be clear, based on the discussion here and on the talkpage, it seems unlikely that this point has been reached in the case of the specific example cited over on the talk-page). David Underdown (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Insider is misrepresenting my position. I want to use items that have already been favorably referenced in peer reviewed articles that are on the author's personal websites. Even though I had already stated Cruz was peer reviewed Insider claimed it wasn't and then I showed beyond a doubt is was peer reviewed. The statistics used in Cruz that came from Taylor have been independently backed up for particular MLMs in at least one court case (BERR vs Amway) and through Newsweek (where only 0.1 percent of MonaVie distributes make over $100 a week)--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, how did I misrepresent your position? You've just said exactly what I said. You want to reference a self-published source, claiming it's allowable because it's been referenced by a handful of other people of various levels of quality. The point remains that SPS are to be avoided. The criteria isn't that someone has been cited, it's that they themselves have been published by reliable, verifiable, 3rd parties. As I have pointed out ad nauseum we have a multitude of other sources to use. Indeed, in at least one of the places you have insisted on including these SPS as references, the article already has quality references to support the point. One has to fairly ask why you are so obsessed with getting such references into the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Insider, you are misrepresent your position the SAME way you misrepresented Cruz (incorrectly claim non-peer status when he was as I original stated peer) and now Berkowitz (who I noted was through Inter press service--“largest and most credible of all ‘alternatives’ in the world of news agencies” (Boyd-Barrett, Oliver and Rantanen, Terhi; eds. (1998) The Globalization of News. London: Sage Publication)). I should mention that Sage Publication is the EXACT SAME PUBLISHER as for Grayson, Kent (1996), “Examining the Embedded Markets of Network Marketing Organizations,” Networks in Marketing (Dawn Iacobucci, ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 325 - 341 one of the references Insider201283 provided.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really something that we can make sweeping determinations on. A lot depends on the specific sources and the context of the reference... a source could be referenced by multiple journals, but in a negative context, in which case all those references really are an argument for the source being unreliable. This has to be determined on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember my first question was "If a self published website is used in a scholarly or peer reviewed source as reference in support of statements and/or conclusions is it a reliable source in its own right that can be used directly?" I did that exactly because I realized that reference can used and then countered or just used as a passing example.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Clawson and history

Our article on him indicates that he is primarily an economist, affiliated with Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Although the article is a stub, it does not show the relevance of Iranistics to him either. And indeed, Clawson's publications deal mainly with policy and security, this is probably why his notions in the Greater Iran in particular look explicitly biased and out of his scope. A good example is: Iran today is just a rump of what it once was. At its height, Iranian rulers controlled Iraq, Afghanistan, Western Pakistan, much of Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Many Iranians today consider these areas part of a greater Iranian sphere of influence. Quite an overbold statement for economist and Near East politics expert. Actually Clawson is cited six times in the Greater Iran, including one-sided and highly disputable excerpt, which further exposes his stance and one-sided approach to historical issues: At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Azerbaijan, Armenia, much of Georgia, and Afghanistan were Iranian, but by the end of the century, all this territory had been lost as a result of European military action. This sounds odd even for a history hobbyist and I believe the further usage of Clawson in historical issues will corrupt the neutrality and proper weight. Brandt 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

pyramidschemealert.org

I'm breaking this, and several more RS/N posts to come, out of a more generic discussion elsewhere on RS/N[60]. Two editors are wishing to use www.pyramidshemealert.org as a source on the Multi-level marketing article. At present, this specifically includes the article Why the FTC Lets MLM Run Wild in America". as a source for "many pyramid schemes try to present themselves as legitimate MLM businesses". The argument against allowing it as a source is three fold -

(1)Self-published works should be avoided where possible. It is a self-published article on POV website, and the author is not "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" as per WP:RS. The author has had no work at all published by reliable third-party publications.

(2)There are non-controversial references available for the fact it is being used to support. One of these (ftc.gov) is already used in the article. Inclusion of the link smacks of POV link spamming.

(3)The article doesn't even disscuss the fact as stated.

The arguement for allowing it is that

(1)the author *is* "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". This is based on the fact the self-published works and/or personal website of the author have been cited (not published) in a small number of ostensibly reliable sources.

More details on that discussion can be found here. 3rd party input appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Same as the MLM site, below. Looks like a (fairly crappy) private website with alarmist writing, probably legitimate concerns, and a beg for donations on the side. No notability nor stature; they are a PAC type organization and not a respected source of accurate information. Sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

mlm-thetruth.com

Similar to the above, two editors are wishing to use the website mlm-thetruth.com as a source for the Multi-level_marketing article. Specifically -

• TOP TEN Things I Learned from Ten Years' Research on Network Marketing or MLM and
• Shocking MLM stats

The first reference is being used to support the assertion "many pyramid schemes try to present themselves as legitimate MLM businesses". The brief arguments for and against it's inclusion are much the same as for pyramid scheme alert, above as well as the poor scholarly quality of the article itself.

The second source is being used to support the claim "There are even claims that the success rate for breaking even or even making money are far worse than other types of businesses" and "Based on available data from the companies themselves, the loss rate for recruiting MLM’s is approximately 99.9%; i.e., 99.9% of participants lose money after subtracting all expenses, including purchases from the company."

The brief arguments for and against it's inclusion are much the same as for pyramid scheme alert, above. In addition arguments against are the poor scholarly quality of the article itself, many of which have been addressed by others[61][62].--Insider201283 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

bump for this and the above requests. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a crappy source to me - who publishes this? Have they any standing at all? It appears to be a private website, well intentioned but not notable or reliable for WP's purposes. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your opinion on the one above, pyramidschemealert.org, also appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Repost, need opinion, Teachings of Falun Gong dispute

• Note: Originally posted as "Discrepancy between secondary source and primary source," above. Only one person responded and his view was disregarded by the other editor in this dispute. I would like to kindly request that more people carefully look at this. Most helpful would be those who provide an opinion showing that they have looked into the details (diffs, etc.) and evaluated the issue referring to some wikipedia policy, and explaining how the issue fits that particular policy.

There is a long discussion about this here. The problem boils down to this: how does wikipedia handle discrepancies between a claimed original source and that actual original source? For example, the New York Times claimed that someone said something at a certain time, but the official record apparently does not show this. Specifically, Craig Smith, in his article, quotes Li Hongzhi as saying, in his 1999 lecture to Australian practitioners of Falun Gong, that "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." A search of the database (search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&ics=1&pid=a) of Falun Gong teachings does not turn up this quote. Nor does a search of the lecture in question. Two other remarks attributed to Li by Smith are also not present in the database of Li's teachings.

The article currently includes the paragraph from the first page of Smith's article quoted in full. After this quotation, I sought to add a sentence which said "The words "spawn," "intervention" and the quote attributed to Li do not appear in the online database of Falun Gong teachings, however." This was removed by another editor as "not-notable." Prior to this I had sought to paraphrase the parts of the quote that were apparently inaccurate, but the other editor was unsatisfied with this, and preferred or insisted that the paragraph be quoted fully.

What is the precedent for treating cases where there is a discrepancy between what a secondary source claims a primary source said and what that primary source appears to have actually said? I would have thought to simply say "NYT says X. Falun Gong website says Y," and leave it at that, but this approach is being disputed. What is the precedent?

The diffs start here, and we joust for a while before settling on the current version, which is when I come to seek clarification. Thanks.

PS: To Simonm223: if you find the above characterisation of the issue lacking, please supplement it below, rather than dismissing it again. Since you did not explain what was wrong with it, I've just gone ahead using the same characterisation. I'm not sure what else to do. I expect you'll be proactive in supplementing anything I have left out this time.--Asdfg12345 16:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Asdfg12345 is trying to push a pro-FLG POV by modifying quotes. There is presently an RfC on this issue. Please review history for real details.Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What? One way I suggested resolving the conflict between primary/secondary sources was to paraphrase part of the quote, not to modify the quote. You can't modify quotes for goodness sake. You rejected that approach out of hand, anyway, so now we are talking about keeping the quote in tact. Given that, the issue now is how the discrepancy between the secondary and original source is best to be represented. This is a technical matter; there ought to be precedents for it. That's what we're getting peoples' opinions on.--Asdfg12345 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, as the editor who responded, earlier... let me expand on my comments.

The New York Times is considered a very reliable source.

The website of Falun Gong is a reliable source for Falun Gong's beliefs and teachings.

In other words... we have a classic case of "he said, she said" between two sources that in this instance should be considered equally reliable. According to WP:NPOV, when two equally reliable sources disagree, we should present what both sources say, giving them equal weight. So, something along the lines of "Craig Smith in the NYT quotes Li Hongzhi as saying 'X'. The Falun Gong website quotes him as saying 'Y'", without inserting our own judgement as to which quote is "correct", is the right approach here. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not looking too closely, but maybe he said it somewhere other than in that speech? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I consider this post sufficiently remote from editing FG articles, thus I comment - I vowed to stay away. In addition to agreeing with Blueboar above, I would perhaps suggest there could have a temporal dimension. I do not consider Clearwisdom a reliable source at all, except for the position of FG at the point in time when the information is consulted. The Epoch Times may be marginally better, but I cannot be sure. During my time editing FG articles, I seem to recall there having been quite a lot of discussion (can't remember exactly what aspect) about Falun Gong having revised text after it had been put out. In other words, what is posted on Clearwisdom today may reflect what FG believes today, but may not represent the views they held at the point in time when the NYT cited Li Hongzhi or his representative. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There has never been any discussion about Clearwisdom or Falundafa.org revising text by Li Hongzhi. I remember the case OhConfucius is talking about. Some Clearwisdom editor had removed a chapter from some news article that described Falun Gong in negative terms. I e-mailed them about that, the guy who replied hadn't realised it (the editors are working independently of each other), and he said that they definitely do not support this kind of behaviour. One big reason is that there's no management, so these kinds of things have occurred. Nowadays they're being talked about more and more, and I know the general consensus is that Falun Gong practitioners should aim at truthful, accurate reporting and adherence to Western journalistic standards. Still, translators have always been very careful when they deal with Li Hongzhi's speeches. Words or chapters are definitely not removed afterwards. There's no reliable source that has ever claimed such things taking place. You can compare the English version of the lecture with any other language, and you will see that the content matches. These translations have been made independently of each other by local practitioners. If something has been released on the website, there's no way to fix every version of it that is spreading out there. Your conspiracy theories are extremely implausible, and moreover, as long as all of this is wild speculation, I don't know why we're even discussing it seriously. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no "conspiracy theory", I was merely speaking of my recollection. I know it's there, and the incident described by Olaf is not the one I was referring to. However, I guess I had better shut up because I have no inclination to waste my time on Falun Gong, or arguing further against a propaganda machine which is a match for the People's Republic of China. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this in the negative... it is certainly possible that FG "edited" Li Honzhi's comments after the fact. It is equally possible that the NYT article misquoted him. But that simply means both sources are potentially equally unreliable, and leads us back to presenting the two sources equally, without passing judgement as to which is "correct". Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that one could reasonably expect that Li Hongzhi would demand a retraction, or possibly even sue for libel if the NY times misquoted him as saying racist things. He has never taken any such action.Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Li Hongzhi has never sued anyone, even though some people have beyond any doubt misquoted him. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm, we can not take the lack of a demand for retraction as evidence that the NYT accurately quoted him (some people don't go about demanding a retraction when they are misquoted). Nor could we take a demand for retraction as evidence that they did misquote him (some demands for retraction are unwarrented, and simply issued to save face). About the only "evidence" that could be conclusive here would be an audio tape of the lecture, demonstrating that he did or did not utter the words attributed to him. Barring that, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the NYT says he said X while the FG website says he said Y. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Dim Mak

This article cites no reliable sources about anything! Needs eyes, and citations.Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Xinhua News reliable?

I'd like to gather some opinions regarding Xinhua News. It's a well known Chinese news agency which is used in many articles in Wikipedia. However, I've read recently that it has been described by RSF as the world's biggest propaganda agency. The way I see it, it means it shouldn't be used at all on WP since any facts coming from it is most likely distorted in favor of the PRC (and against China's main enemies). I'd be interested to know what you think about it - do you think the source can be used at all? or should it be systematically removed from articles? Laurent (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Every source has a point of view. It's possible that in some articles about the PRC Xinhua could be considered a primary rather than a secondary source, but in no way should we be running around removing it from articles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

From observation of Xinhua over the years, I'll be a little more negative than Squidfryerchef on this one. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole on some topics: Green Dam or Tibet for example. On international topics, it derives its news from international wire services, and it is better to reference the original wire service than Xinhua. There's no need to go on a campaign purging Xinhua from Wikipedia, but it is best avoided: when it is the primary reporter, it's too biased to be used, and when it's a secondary reporter, there's no reason to use it.—Kww(talk) 13:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about this with regard to wire services. Our own article on Xinhua says they maintain over a hundred news bureaus all around the world, and a staff nearly eight times the size of Reuters. They also have a reputation for analysis especially in the internal publications they produce for Chinese VIPs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Xinhua is a reliable source. Just be careful if your using them for something that the PRC would want slanted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Xinhua is reliable, as long as one keeps in mind that it does have a pro-PRC bias. So for articles where the PRC would have a vested interest (say Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, related articles) in it, IMO material drawn from Xinhua needs to be clearly noted as being from there. Xinhua actually can give a useful perspective on what the PRC's leaders feel about a topic. Ngchen (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from propagating the PRC point of view it is completely unreliable for political, international politics, social issues etc. It will never be allowed at FAC, for example. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it any less reliable than other government-funded media, and who is blocking it from featured articles? I wouldn't expect them to be candid on the question of Tibet, but I would only expect the official opinion on Northern Ireland from the BBC or of Guantanamo from the Voice of America, and cite them as primary sources. For uncontroversial information within China, or about international relations in area where China isn't rooting for either side, there is no reason to avoid Xinhua. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is not government propaganda, unlike Xinhua YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But if no one can think of a reason why Xinhua should be slanting things, why avoid it? Everything is biased, neutrality requires multiple points of view. Here is a well known scholar and journalist's blog praising their Israel-Palestinian coverage, for instance. State run media have the virtue of having obvious and therefore more easily neutralizable bias. When the question of state run media has come up before, I think most thought that eliminating them would lead to less neutrality than using them, always with the appropriate grain (or ton) of salt or course.John Z (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)