Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Single-pole Lavvu

On the Lavvu article there is a discussion whether the "single-pole lavvu"/"Bell-tent" should be included or excluded in the article. I, as one of the two involved parties, argue that it should be included since it is a commonly used term, and is used by several companies selling lavvu's such as [1] or [2] (note that most of the links I provide are in Norwegian where single-pole lavvu = enstangs lavvo). In addition, there are several blogs using the term: [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Finally, the largest camping magazine in Norway has an annual test of the different single-pole lavvu's: [7].

The other party, User:Dinkytown, argues that "There has never been a history of a "single-pole lavvu". Only until a manufacture puts the name "lavvu" on a bell or conical tent design within the past ten years has there been this conflict. The lavvu is Sami - not Norwegian. There was never a "en-stangslavvu" ten years ago. Those who claim to have a NPOV on this subject have an economic interest in calling their tent a "lavvu". Dinkytown 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)" (quote from comment on Talk:Lavvu).

Two RfC has been posted, but unfortunantely has not received many comments: Talk:Lavvu#RfC: Can a lavvu have a single pole and Talk:Lavvu#RfC: Do commercial websites hold the same weight and historical value as a source when they conflict with centuries old primary documents and common knowledge?.

So the question is what can be considered as a reliable source for either excluding the single-pole lavvu as a lavvu, or inlcuding it as a lavvu?

Thanks.Labongo 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Single-pole Lavvu 2

On Talk:Lavvu there is a second issue regarding what type of sources can be used. The following RfC thread (that has not received any comments) from the talkpage summarizes the issue:

"Should the article include a table containing the weight, size, materials, etc, for different lavvu designs? [...]

  • Comment from one of the parties: yes since it is useful to compare these properties for the different contemporary lavvu designs. Also, the table is intended for illustrative purposes and not as a complete list of all lavvu’s ever produced, and not a complete list of all possible design parameters.Labongo 10:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from one of the parties: No - it has not been proven that this single-pole tent satisfies any requirement of the historical definition of a lavvu (see "Definition" in main article), it satisfies all the requirements of the definition of the bell tent (see "Controversy" of article) so comparing one tent with another is a mute point. In addition, there was erroneous information with this data (40cm diameter tent?!). This is the 'lavvu' wiki page, not 'comparing tents' page. These specifications are not on the tipi page, so why are they here? Dinkytown 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)" from Talk:Lavvu#RfC: Should the article include a table of specifications.

A revision of the Lavvu article containting the table in question is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavvu&oldid=169353581

Thanks. Labongo 10:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:DR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliable sources blanked out in neo-Nazism article

The following references (and perhaps more) have been blanked out of the neo-Nazism article because the sources support a point of view that two editors wish to suppress, that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology, not just a movement:

  1. "Neo-Nazism is the name for a modern offshoot of Nazism. It is a radically right-wing ideology..."
  2. "Neo-Nazism: An ideology which draws upon the legacy of the Nazi Third Reich..."
  3. "Where parents and teachers have fallen short of educating German children about the horrors of their past, as well as the dangers that come with allowing neo-Nazism to continue, the promoters of neo-Nazi ideology and organizations have been able to make inroads."
  4. "...the ideology of neo-Nazism is secondary
  5. "None of the suspects admitted of embracing the neo-Nazi ideology"
  6. "...their movement offered a new approach to the neo-Nazi ideology"
  7. "They are dedicated to the neo-Nazi ideology..."
  8. "The ADL report suggests that the neo-Nazi ideology combined with the gang lifestyle provides..."
  9. The neo-Nazi ideology is made very attractive to the young...
  10. At the beginning, racism and neo-Nazi ideology were (generally speaking) unknown within skinhead subculture.
  11. What is a fact is that in the Czech society there is quite a significant minority of youngsters who like the neo-Nazi ideology...
  12. "They are dedicated to the neo-Nazi ideology and attracted to violence."
  13. At the same time, the denial of the Holocaust is a central component of the neo-Nazi ideology.
  14. It is appropriately symbolic, given the neo-Nazi ideology of many of those involved..."
  15. ...the law enforcement authorities recognized the neo-Nazi ideology behind these crimes...
  16. "...to pay homage to the memory of millions of Holocaust victims and join forces in combating the neo Nazi ideology"
  17. documented at least 8 acts of vandalism motivated by the neo-Nazi ideology...
  18. ..."denial stirrings are closely connected with the neo-Nazi ideology and the rise of the radical right in politics
  19. A common characteristic of "Blood and Honour" and Hammerskins is the neo-Nazi ideology..."Barkun, Michael. [1994] 1997. Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Movement, Identity. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
  20. Berlet, Chip, and Stanislav Vysotsky. (2006, Summer). Overview of U.S. white supremacist groups. Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 11-48. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner).
  21. Berlet, Chip. 2005. “When Alienation Turns Right: Populist Conspiracism, the Apocalyptic Style, and Neofascist Movements.” In Lauren Langman & Devorah Kalekin Fishman, (eds.), Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium: The Evolution of Alienation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  22. Berlet, Chip. 2005. “Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism.” In Roger Griffin, ed., Fascism, Totalitarianism, and Political Religion. London: Routledge.
  23. Blazak, Randy. 2001. “White Boys to Terrorist Men: Target Recruitment of Nazi Skinheads.” American Behavioral Scientist 44:982-1000.
  24. Blee, Kathleen. 1999. “Racist Activism and Apocalyptic/Millennial Thinking.” Journal of Millennial Studies 2:1. Retrieved July 4, 2004 (http://www.mille.org/publications/summer99/blee.PDF).
  25. Blee, Kathleen. 2002. Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  26. Burghart, Devin and Justin Massa. 2001. “Damned, Defiant and Dangerous: Continuing White Supremacist Violence in the U.S.” Searchlight July, online archive.
  27. Burghart, Devin, ed. 1999. Soundtracks to the White Revolution: White Supremacist Assaults on Youth Music Subcultures. Chicago, IL: Center for New Community [in cooperation with Northwest Coalition for Human Dignity].
  28. Dobratz, Betty A. 2001. “The Role of Religion in the Collective Identity of the White Racialist Movement.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:287-302.
  29. Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 1995. “Conflict in the White Supremacist/Racialist Movement in the United States.” International Journal of Group Tensions 25:57-75.
  30. Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 1996. “Ideology and the Framing Process in the White Separatist/Supremacist Movement in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Ideology 19:3-29.
  31. Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 2000. “White Power, White Pride!” The White Separatist Movement in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  32. Dobratz, Betty A., Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds. 2001. Research in Political Sociology 9: The Politics of Social Inequality, edited by. Amsterdam: Jai/Elsevier.
  33. Durham, Martin. 2000. The Christian Right, the Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
  34. Durham, Martin. 2002. “From Imperium to Internet: the National Alliance and the American Extreme Right” Patterns of Prejudice 36:50-61.
  35. Durham, Martin. 2004. “The Upward Path: Palingenesis, Political Religion and the National Alliance.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 5:454-468.
  36. Eatwell, Roger. 2003. “Reflections on Fascism and Religion.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 4: 145-66.
  37. Gardell, Mattia. 2003. Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
  38. Goodrick-Clark, Nicholas. [1985] 2004. The Occult Roots of Nazism. London: I. B. Tauris.
  39. Goodrick-Clark, Nicholas. 2002. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. New York: NYU Press.
  40. Green, D. P., D.Z. Strolovich, and J.S. Wong. 1998. “Defended Neighborhoods, Integration, and Racially Motivated Crimes.” American Journal of Sociology 104: 372-403.
  41. Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
  42. Griffin, Roger. ed. 1998. International fascism: Theories, causes, and the new consensus. London: Arnold.
  43. Griffin, Roger. 2003. “From Slime Mould to Rhizome: an Introduction to the Groupuscular Right.” Patterns of Prejudice 37:27-50.
  44. Griffin, Roger. 2004. “Introduction: God’s Counterfeiters? Investigating the Triad of Fascism, Totalitarianism and Political Religion.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 5:291-325.
  45. Kaplan, Jeffrey and Tore Bjørgo, eds. 1998. Nation and Race: The Developing Euro-American Racist Subculture. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
  46. Kaplan, Jeffrey and Leonard Weinberg. 1998. The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
  47. Kaplan, Jeffrey. 1997a. Radical Religion in America: Millenarian Movements from the Far Right to the Children of Noah. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.
  48. Ridgeway, James. 1995. Blood in the Face : The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads, and the Rise of a New White Culture. New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press.
  49. Shanks-Meile, Stephanie. 2001. “The Changing Faces of the White Power Movement and the Anti-Racist Resistance.” Pp. 191-195 in Dobratz, Walder, and Buzzell, eds., 2001.
  50. Vysotsky, Stanislav. 2004. “Understanding the Racist Right in the Twenty First Century: A Typology of Modern White Supremacist Organizations.” Paper, American Sociological Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA.
  51. Whitsel, Brad. 1998. “The Turner Diaries and Cosmotheism: William Pierce’s Theology of Revolution.” Nova Religio 1:183-197.

I, and another Wikipedia editor argue that these sources meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable references, and should not be dismissed as "not good enough" and deleted from the article simply because they contradict the personal opinions of two other Wikipedia editors. Please advise. Spylab 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another comment:
An editor at Neo-Nazism is insisting that when the author of a reputable published source is "wrong," that no further discussion is required. When I suggested that "we need to rely on reputable published sources," the response was "Not if they cannot differentiate between Neo-Nazism, Ku Klux Klan, and 'hate groups' and based on that, claim that Neo-Nazi groups are ideologically not homogeneous."[8] I have tried an RFC [9], the page was locked for edit warring, and within a few hours of the page protection expiring, two editors had reverted back to the lead that was being disputed. I tried a compromise edit that blended the two positions...reverted. I am really trying to avoid another time-consuming mediation. I really think an admin calmly explaining how the Wiki guidelines on reputable published sources work would help this situation.--Cberlet 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Spylab, what is the point of listing 51 sources here? Are we going to discuss the merit of each one? Of course Neo-Nazism is an "ideology" as well as a movement. This is apparently a question of WP:SYN, not WP:RS. Revisions like this are clearly nonsense (I find it funny that it was Elias reverting it, since he used to try the exact same tactic of heaping up footnotes instead of presenting a summary of varying opinions). Can somebody explain what this is about? Is the question, is Neo-Nazism 'one' or 'several' ideologies? What sort of dispute is that -- I would ask you up front whether this is a question that is even debated in reasonable literature, or whether this is just a homegrown Wikipedia controversy. If a controversy doesnt exist in academia, we cannot present it as one on wiki. If it does exist, try to cleanly point out the competing positions instead of spin doctoring. dab (𒁳) 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Spylab and I have tried every conceivable way to have a serious discussion, and two editors simply dismiss our cites because the authors we cite are "wrong." This is an example of two editors taking over a page and not allowing other views to be considered. Here is an NPOV lead that takes into account both positions in the dispute:
"Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) refers to several post-World War II political movements and ideologies that promote in a variety of ways an updated or revised version of Nazism. Many of these groups seek to revive the ideology of National Socialism. Other groups have gone off in different directions and devloped variants on the original Nazi ideology. The term Neo-Nazism is rarely used by Neo-Nazis themselves."
Reverted. But there is no real debate in academia over this. It is an issue where for many years Neo-Nazism was almost exclusively a revival of Hitler's national socialism. But in the last ten years, the scholars I cited all suggest this has changed, and Neo-Nazi groups are today much more complicated. This is simply rejects as "wrong." What are we supposed to do. These editors are violating multiple Wikipedia policies. It really is a form of edit warring. These same authors were involved in edits on Nazism that got me blocked for 24 hours for "sterile edit warring" whatever that is supposed to mean. It was ludicrous to block me and not the other editors. Now the same thing is happening on this page, and I don't want to be blocked again. Why can't an admin just go to the page and explain [[WP:RS]? I am trying to avoid mediation.--Cberlet 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The point of listing 51 sources is that all 51 sources are being dismissed out of hand by two POV-pushing editors, who swear up and down that neo-Nazism is not an ideology, and that any source that claims it is an ideology are "wrong" and should be ignored. There has been an extensive debate on the talk page, attempts at rewording the article as a comprimise, a Request For Comment, and a posting on the administrators notice board, and nothing has been resolved.Spylab 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If there is good proof in the form of diffs that the edit-warriors are doing what they're doing with no real basis, then you probably should consider filing an arbitration request. Persistent edit-warriors have been topic and/or site-banned when their edit-warring has become obvious. Of course, before the ArbCom will take the case, be sure to show that the talk page, RfC, etc. have all been tried first.Ngchen 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to file an arbitration request, and do not know where the page is to make that request. The reason I posted my message on the Reliable Sources page is because another editor (possibly an admin) linked to this page after CBerlet posted a message on the admin noticeboard page. Spylab 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You will have to pursue dispute resolution. Yes, it is time consuming, but it is the only way we have in Wikipedia to resolve disputes that involved editors cannot resolve by themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't an admin just go to the page and explain [[WP:RS] in a neutral way? I am trying to avoid mediation. This whole dispute is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of [[WP:RS].--Cberlet 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The link for filing an arbitration request is here. Reliable sources is something that POV pushers tend to use to suppress everything they don't like. That being said, does anybody want to go through the list and identify each different source so we can debate the reliability of each one. After all, it is possible that some of the 50+ sources are fine while others are not. Glancing through the list, it seems that a bunch of them have common authors and publishers, so their reliability would rise or fall as a whole. BTW, if there is a genuine misunderstanding of reliable sources, then going to the ArbCom is premature.Ngchen 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Taking this to ArbCom is a very radical decision. This is a content dispute, no need to overdo it with extreme measures. I've taking this to RfC, but we have gotten no response from those guys. Really, this is just a simple debate that more Wikipedia editors need to get involved in. So far, it seems only four Wikipedia editors have been (for the most part) discussing this issue, and it is only me and another guy who agrees with me, and Spylab and Cberlet. Really though, what we need is more Wikipedia editors engaging in the discussion, so that we can reach a consensus. And blocking and banning users and stuff like that, is not necessary. Whoever blocked Cberlet for it should apologise. Personally, I think I'm raising some serious concerns about the factual accuracy of the article, and these concerns should be taken seriously and not be viewed as a user who is simply trying to stir up an edit war. At the end, this content dispute will most likely improve the quality of the article once we've agreed on what's what. WP:DR could also work. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion about image use and WP:NOR

Please come participate in the discussion here. It involves image use policy issues far beyond the template itself. Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GameSpot and CNET

I have used GameSpot and have considered it a reliable source until Jeff Gerstmann got fired. Many other gaming blogs are showing that other sites with sources inside GameSpot are showing that he got fired due to his review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, and due to the fact that Eidos, the game's publisher, demanded that CNET fire him or lose Eidos's advertisement contracts. Apparently, GameSpot surrendered. Should GameSpot and other C|Net-commissioned publications after Mr. Gerstmann got fired no longer be considered reliable sources due to this controversy? I know about the idea of innocent until proven guilty, but GameSpot's reputation is ruined and will stay ruined unless the manager who fired Gerstmann himself gets fired or someone within CNET or GameSpot comes clean on why Gerstmann got fired. As of right now, nobody within CNET or GameSpot who is willing to disclose their identities are willing to explain why and settle the matter once and for all. If these allegations are proven, GameSpot's name will be ruined until the manager who surrendered to Eidos's demands is fired, and anything Gerstmann writes in the future will be considered a really reliable source, because he has shown that he will tell his honest opinion and the truth no matter what.

No matter on how we rule on this issue, articles written before the firing should still be considered reliable. Jesse Viviano 10:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem with what sources can be used for video game materials. I have an article we are currently debating on whether the developer can be used as a reasonable source for references. See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-19_World_War_II_Online. If we similarly can't rely on game media, that leaves nothing as a source. I'd appreciate some others reading this note to comment on the mediation cabal case, as well. I'd really appreciate some broader input on this issue.
It's an unfortunate fact that authors with POV issues (and there are many for video games) use verifiable source issues to force selective text to be removed from articles, even with no reason to believe it's not valuable to the article -- just unverifiable.. But I'm rambling...Warthog32 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am just saying that one particluar source has gotten poisoned by Josh Larson, who is the manager of GameSpot who does not know that a Chinese wall needs to exist between the advertising department and the editorial department except in very extreme cases like when a reporter proves an advertisement to be fraudulent or misleading where the bad advertisement needs to be pulled. He fired Gerstmann because some of GameSpot's advertisers were unhappy with his reviews of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men and Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. He believes that there should be synergy between the two departments, not a Chinese wall. This works in Maxim, Larson's former employer, where the main focus is the women in teasing clothing are the main focus and not the articles, but not in a magazine involved in serious journalism, even if it is niche journalism.
There are other competing major sources, like 1UP.com, that are not tainted by this mess that we can use for sourcing new articles. It is unfortunate that we must exclude recent articles from GameSpot as reliable sources due to Josh Larson's apparent ignorance or moral bankruptcy. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the source being used for? Even the very best review is still an opinion, and as an opinion I can't see Wikipedia citing it separately from other outlet's reviews, which will immediately show up any issues with GS' copy. They aren't going to be unreliable with factual copy either as they have a host of competitors that will, again, immediately show them up for it. Within Wikipedia's remit, I don't see why Gamespot shouldn't continue to be a citable source. --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just a preemptive move. There are plenty of links to GameSpot on Wikipedia for references before the firing. They are fine. What I am concerned about is if new references to GameSpot after the firing are used as references, some people will laugh off the article as depending on a game journalism site whose management has shown that it will compromise editorial integrity, meaning that the article will be based on a source whose reputation is ruined. I am not active in writing video game articles (except to correct the obvious error I run across). Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not insulting the editors at GameSpot in my comments above. They are some of the best reviewers around. It is just that GameSpot's reputation is considered ruined due to a manager who apparently either is unethical or does not know better about keeping advertising and editorial departments separated by a Chinese wall with extremely limited exceptions like an editor shooting down a false advertisement. Without this Chinese wall, game reviewers will have a conflict of interest between keeping their jobs by not making the advertising department angry at them and doing their jobs properly by slamming games that are high profile and are utter garbage with bad reviews. Jesse Viviano (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the exact policy, but I expect that Wikipedia is better off considering the facts of whether a source is reliable rather than its reputation. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tom Edwards. In addition I believe there is no way to tell if other magazines/websites do not have similar conflicts of interest, but that they are better at keeping it secret. I assume the idea of having references to the reviews is to tell the readers what the biggest and or most respected reviewers think of the game, so as long as GameSpot has "many enough readers" it should be included. Labongo (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

News and Policy

There's a discussion going on at Moneybomb about whether or not newsandpolicy.com can be used as a reliable source. Specifically, this article is being cited. The criticism is that the site is a blog, not a reliable news source. What do you guys think? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. They aspire to be a reputable news source according to this, and claim their writers are experienced journalists. It does look like a blog though, and unless it has achieved a reputation as a reliable source, it can't claim to be reputable. On the other hand, try looking beyond whether or not it's a blog in getting a consensus. For example, the writer's website spells out her cred as a legit journalist, and not just some blogger. Also, the article is a reprint from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which claims to be the biggest newspaper in Ohio. On that basis, I'd say unequivocally that it's a reliable source, whatever its editorial. bobanny (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

non Wikipedia Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

I have a couple of other editors telling me that Dictionary and Encyclopedia entries on a subject aren't usable as sources that we have to use papers by scholars for sourcing. What argument can I use against this? Alatari (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If the dictionaries and encyclopedias are published by real corporate publishers with a decent reputation, then they are reliable. Something like the World Book Encyclopedia would be reliable, but something like the (fictional) Encyclopedia of Irreproducible Results wouldn't be.Ngchen (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm talking about Merriam-Webster and others. What WP policies do I quote? They only want to use college professors research, museum curators statements and some other texts. Alatari (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The reliable sources policy should be good enough. Also point them to this noticeboard. One would have to be totally unreasonable to discount secondary sources such as reputable newspapers, dictionaries, and the like. The only caution is to make sure to avoid novel, original synthesis of previously published material.Ngchen (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's generally best to use secondary sources where possible. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, i.e., based on secondary material, and therefore a degree away from the most authoritative source. That's not to say they're not reliable, but ideally encyclopedia sources should be limited to uncontroversial material. I don't know why dictionaries would be considered unreliable. Of course, it all depends on the situation, and I suspect the issue is more a matter of the best source, not whether these are reliable sources generally. Is there a specific debate you could point to? bobanny (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't want to cite a specific debate for fear of silencing these comments. I'll use your advice above if the debate reopens. Alatari (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mondegreen examples

Can somewhat please step in? Regrettably, An anonymous editor and I seem to be embroiled in an edit war about whether I should be removing all examples of mondegreens without references. This editor's ideas about what constitutes a reference are very different from mine. Check our my last edit summary[10] and the editor's edit summary in response[11]. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and famousamericans.net discussion on WP:AN

There have already been a variety of related discussions about spam, coi, copyright, and link quality in different places, so I started a more centralized discussion of all aspects these links at:

I'm leaving this entry here to point WP:RS/N regulars to the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion. Your inputs there on the reliability of this stuff would be helpful. --A. B. (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Times - "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party"

  • Staff (December 2, 2007). "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party". Gulf Times. Gulf Publishing and Printing Company. Retrieved 2007-12-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • I would like to hear some feedback from individuals who regularly post/monitor this Noticeboard, (not from the editors who regularly post at Talk:Prem Rawat) about whether or not this citation can be used in Wikipedia articles. Thanks, Cirt 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
Are there lists within Wikipedia of newspapers that are considered reliable or unreliable sources, and is there a procedure for a newspaper to be placed in either list? --John Brauns (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Tabloid beat ups like this have no place in Wiki or any other serious encyclopedia.Momento 08:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion of the Gulf Times and London Evening Standard is noted. I would like to hear some feedback from individuals who regularly post/monitor this Noticeboard, (not from the editors who regularly post at Talk:Prem Rawat). That is precisely why I posted this notice at this noticeboard. Thanks, Cirt 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
I think you should be more candid with us. This attempt to have an appalling, mistake riddled article deemed reliable is another attempt to circumvent Wiki policy and guidelines.Momento 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting for comment from someone from this noticeboard who is not a regular poster at Talk:Prem Rawat. Cirt 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Not a regular contributor to this noticeboard, but I would assume that whether the newspaper is reliable depends on how it is used. It is not a reliable source in that everything it says is true, but it is a reliable source for that something has been reported in the media. That is it cannot be used to state that the followers have infiltrated the event, nor that they have been asked to inflitrate the event, but possibly that they have been accused of infiltrating the event, and certanly that they have been accused of being asked to infiltrate the event. Labongo 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the response, that helps a bit. Cirt 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

A tabloid cannot be used for any of these claims in a BLP, in particular as it is misleading and obviously factually inaccurate and sensationalistic. The event was a a gala dinner a private event by invitation only, and could not have been "infiltrated". Tabloids, and other such yellow journalism cannot be used in Wikipedia to assert claims such as these. That is obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I would tend to agree. TimidGuy 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay. We have heard from two regular posters from Talk:Prem Rawat, and two who do not regularly post and edit Prem Rawat. I think that is fine for now. Thanks for your responses. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

laroucheplanet.info

Three editors at United States v. LaRouche wish to link to this site. The argument is that the site includes a transcript to a court document. However, the site more generally is anonymous and contains material which would clearly violate WP:RS and WP:BLP. Arguments have been made on both sides, citing various aspects of WP:EL. I'd like to get the views of people on this board.--Marvin Diode (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

External links dont necessarily have to be as reliable as citations as long as the info is relevant and correct. Is the document's authenticity in question? --Neon white (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Not by me. But I am concerned that it is just being used as a Trojan Horse to get "LaRouche planet" linked to the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously if it seems like it's an attempt to promote the website that's a different issue. But as i does contain relevant info it can't be said to be solely promotional. --Neon white (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The same could be said for any external link. The site in question has valuable historical documents whose veracity isn't questioned. Many sites have parts that aren't entirely reliable. A linked forum doesn't invalidate a site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
While any external link might be considered an attempt at promotion, most of the websites in question don't pose big problems with BLP and other core policies. WP:EL is ambiguous on this sort of thing: "Links normally to be avoided" includes Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". On the other hand, "links to be considered" includes Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. The "LaRouche planet" site appears to fall into both categories, so it is a tough call. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What misleading information are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few examples: [12][13] I can't say for certain whether they are misleading, but they are certainly unverifiable. When such vitriolic attacks are posted without listing any author who accepts responsibility for them, it arouses suspicion. --Marvin Diode (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New perspectives and other hitherto unused primary sources.

While trying to do a solid audit of citations used in an article, one of the references (a book) used has very little information about it on the internet. Book reviews are short, but what is noticeable on this book review, done by the University of Hawaii Press, is the new perspectives and other hitherto unused primary sources:

The Philippines Under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction

ed. by Ikehata Setsuho; Ricardo Trota Jose
Distributed for Ateneo de Manila University Press

Although much has been written on the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, one aspect of that period has remained uncovered: the Japanese point of view. This book, written by Japanese scholars and a Filipino, attempts to provide that point of view, presenting new perspectives of the Occupation based on Japanese and other hitherto unused primary sources.

Is this a Reliable Source or Original Research?

Used in this article: Yamashita's gold Jim (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing a secondary source which uses primary sources is best practice and is not OR at all. If the book was printed in a reputable university press and was well-reviewed by knowledgeable reviewers than it is an excellent source, exactly the kind we want on Wikipedia. Of course, it should not be combined with other sources to advance a previously unpublished point, as that's against policy. And information which is supported by a citation to the book must closely match what the book itself says. I know that the Yamashita's Gold article is having problems with people pushing fairly kooky theories from a non-scholarly book as if they're reality, but in principle The Philippines Under Japan is an excellent source. <eleland/talkedits> 01:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I have that book on order, and it should arrive soon. If upon reading that particular book, if there is no mention as to the claim in the Yamashita’s gold article, am I justified in removing it, like I did the fiction novel previously? Jim (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"extremist" source?

In 2002 Gujarat violence, User:Bakasuprman has removed a report authored by Concerned Citizens Tribunal as an "extremist source". the citizen tribunal consists[14] of two retired Justices of the Indian Supreme Court (one of them - V. R. Krishna Iyer heads the tribunal), two retired judges of the Bombay High Court, Aruna Roy, Tanika Sarkar and 3 others. its work has been widely reported[15] and has been relied upon by, among others; Christoph Antons, Volkmar Gessner, Globalisation and Resistance: Law Reform in Asia Since the Crisis, 2007, Hart Publishing, Isbn: 1841136808 and Rowena Robinson, Tremors of Violence: Muslim Survivors of Ethnic Strife in Western India, 2005, Sage Publications, Isbn: 0761934081. the copy of the report linked to, published by Sabrang Communications, is the one that the Tribunal itself links to[16]. independent news sources reporting on the publication of this report have been included in the article text.

this has been pointed out to him, to no avail. Doldrums (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because a source was used in a book (along with hundreds of others) really does not give any rubber stamp of approval. Sabrang, is an unreloable source, since it is funded and published by Teesta Setalvad, who was accused by a victim of the violence, Zaheera Sheikh of coercion to falsely implicate 21 people. The organization is controversial in the media, and some allege is has been used for embezzling foreign funds. Also of note is that it is an Advocacy Group. There is really no logical way that Sabrang can possibly fit under WP:RS, noting all this obvious controversy that surrounds it. When writing an article as contentious as 2002 Gujarat violence, it is obvious that only reliable, non-controversial sources should be used. Using a political ideologue in an NPOV article is nonsensical. This has been pointed out to him, to no avail.Bakaman 01:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
such grave allegations! are they true? how do the BBC, the New York Times, AFP or mainstream Indian news sources regard this supposedly "extremist" "unreliable" "controversial" "falsely implicating" "embezzling" person? where does WP:RS or WP:V impose a blanket ban on "advocacy" and "controversial" sources, irrespective of how notable it is and how many independent reliable sources regard it as reliable? Doldrums (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's good enough for the people who quote it, it's good enough for us too, providing we do as they do and say where the information is from. So, yes, reliable in this context as a source for whatever it is that the report says: just summarise, paraphrase or quote the report as necessary. Where other sources disagree, note this. You should not attempt to draw your own conclusions from the report, or judge which source is right when they may disagree. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

We are looking for confirmation that each or all of the following are or are not reliable sources to support a statement like: Quackwatch articles are not subject to peer review.

  • The Consultant Pharmacist - Website review: A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation.
  • When You Can’t Critique CBP In The Peer-Reviewed Literature, You Can Always Send Your Article To Quack Watch - Instead of challenging them in the appropriate scientific forum (peer reviewed index-medicus journals) Dr. Barrett and Allen Botnick, DC have elected a forum for which there is no recourse other than Dr. Barrett's. My perspective is that Dr. Barrett and Botnick and the like would lose a formal debate with CBP® Researchers if forced to follow the scientific etiquette of peer-reviewed journals.
  • Quackwatch Mission Statement - Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request.

Any input from this noticeboard would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have never seen this web site before, and so am assuming the current copy of the Quackwatch article is mostly correct. The ASCP link says "For all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." This is a fair criticism, but the article is from 1999, so the question is, is there now peer review of articles? The Quackwatch article says "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request." So, it seems that there is in effect a peer review system, but it is reactive rather than proactive. By that reasoning, I would conclude that the literal statement "Quackwatch articles are not subject to peer review" is not supported by the sources.
BTW Quackwatch appears to be functioning by itself as a reliable secondary source. Unless they are conducting their own research and arguing against established medical and scientific consensus, they would not be expected to submit secondary source articles to another journal for peer review. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch (QW) is not a reliable second source as it has been deemed by ArbCom as a partisan site. The articles are primarily one-sided POV. The references cited are largely 'cherry-picked' to further that partisan POV. Alternate POVs are not fairly reflected or represented.[17] By QW own mission page, they are not peer-review. Peer-review is not a some time process. Either it is or it isn't. Otherwise QW would state on their website that they are peer-reviewed. An accurate rephrase of the contentious statement would be Some Quackwatch articles are subject to peer review.--Anthon01 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right in that peer review should occur before publishing. They are doing, as they admit, review after the fact, and they're upfront about it. But they aren't publishing fundamental research and thus one wouldn't normally expect their articles to be peer-reviewed, though it would certainly strengthen their arguments. The more important question is, are they exercising editorial oversight? What did they do when alerted to the issues brought up by the paper you cite? Ignore it? Or investigate and possibly correct the articles? No publisher is perfect, and if they have investigated and corrected the articles in question, it would add to the argument that they could be considered a reliable source. And as for the ArbCom ruling, they found that one editor had inappropriately used Quackwatch as a bad reference. I don't think that is the same as ruling that Quackwatch is not a reliable source for anything, ever. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Chris, thanks for your input. We have decided to go another way with this information and are now only citing the first source but noting that this is the author's opinion. If you (or anyone else) would like to come to the article and give your input here or there or anywhere, I would appreciate it. Thanks again! -- Levine2112 discuss 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

TMZ.com

TMZ appears to be in most respects a gossip site, but they have broken a number of celebrity related news stories. The reliability has led to some contentious discussion on The Hills, especially in regards to the criticism section. The articles cited often refer to the folks involved in not-so-neutral terms, and often quote anonymous "insiders." Is TMZ a reliable source for citing evidence of possibly less than honest "reality television?" --skew-t (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can you establish that this site has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? What have other reliable sources said about the site? Do they publish corrections when a mistake is noted? If not, then it isn't a reliable source. TMZ themselves say "TMZ.COM DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE MATERIAL, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, FACILITIES, SERVICES OR OTHER CONTENT IN TMZ.COM OR ANY SITES LINKED TO TMZ.COM IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE."[18] If they don't make any representation regarding the correctness and accuracy of their content, then they are definitely not a reliable source - they aren't even claiming to be reliable.
BTW it shouldn't really matter - if any of the news they publish is notable and accurate, then it is almost certainly going to be also reported by a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That's just a standard disclaimer that many publishers have. I think it's fine to quote TMZ, but if it's a contentious issue some editors may prefer to phrase it as "the entertainment newsmagazine TMZ says ..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that TMZ references are probably going to be used in news about celebrities, WP:RS#Biographies of living persons and WP:BLP#Sources both apply, in particular "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." and "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias, emotional arguments and reliable sources

I'm working on the puppy mill article because it seemed really vague and could have used some citations. As one might imagine, the entire issue is emotionally charged, with tons of OR online. I've found that I have a hierarchy of preferred sources with this issue:

  1. Good, unbiased, but a little light on material - American Kennel Club and Westminster Kennel Club, anything .gov
  2. Well established organization making no extraordinary claims - ASPCA
  3. Sites that obviously intend to inflame an engender action but may have factual information via 'undercover investigations' - Humane Society of the U.S. (see [19]), In Defense of Animals ([20])

Would the members of group 3 be considered reliable sources by the community? Does the age of the organization matter? Should either be cited in an online encyclopedia? —Rob (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to restrict group 3 to "organisation Y claims that..."
Also consider using non-US sources. There are similar UK organisations for example The Kennel Club (UK)
Mayalld (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... the legislative section that's coming will cover the U.S., U.K. and Australia (so long as info can be found). The trick is writing an article that sounds both non-biased and not like a shock site, which is pretty much both of #3's sites. I've found that some newspaper articles tend to call on HSUS as a source, too. —Rob (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Whilst Puppy Farms are an issue in the UK as well, there doesn't seem to be the same degree of hysteria about it, so you may have more luck getting soem sensible sources in the UK, Canada, Australia and the like. Mayalld (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags of the World

FOTW is used in several places as a source for flags of relatively difficult to pin down areas/peoples, some of whom probably don't have a legal or cultural flag - consider this. It looks to me like a contributory website, a wiki of sorts. Thoughts? Relata refero (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Relata - yes, I have known about this site for several years and I too used it as a first-stop flag source. I also was confused if it was a contributing site, but used it anyway to track down info, since they provide their own sources, citations and bibliography. I still don't know how they contribute to it - if at all. The site that I studied the most was here. Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

John Safran vs. God a reliable source for Temple garment?

John Safran vs. God is a satirical documentary, so can it be used as a source about LDS beliefs? // Liftarn (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you can establish that John Safran is noted for his reliability and fact checking by other experts, preferably in the field of religious studies. On the other hand, if it's just "John Safran said xxx in his documentary", then this should only be used as a reliable source for an article on John Safran, or the documentary itself. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is IMDB a reliable source for its polling and statistics in a film article?

Two groups of editors have gone around in circles on this one. There was a consensus that it wasn't a reliable source in a previous discussion at WikiProject Films. But trying to remove references to it led to this backlash on Talk:Films considered the greatest ever, with another group arguing that IMDB should be considered a reliable source.

The argument comes down to two opposing points of view:

  • If you want to include these statistics in a third party article that isn't specifically about IMDB, then you should be able to show that IMDB is considered a reliable source for polling statistics.
  • It is a reliable source for the statement "IMDB users voted xxx". We don't have to show that it's considered a reliable source in any other sense, as IMDB is notable enough to be included on its own merits.

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.straybullets.org

I can't find any info on editorial policy or the nature of this publication, it seems a little amateur. It calls itself a 'Cyber Webzine' and only produced three issues the last one being in june, possibly making it inactive. My initial thoughts are that it is a one man fanzine and therefore not particularly reliable but i wouldn't mind a second opinion as there doesnt seem to be much info on it. --Neon white (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any evidence of an editorial policy or a reporting staff. I'd need to see some third-party commentary on this magazine before I'd consider it a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The only other mention of the site i can that seems related is a myspace page [21] but it doesn't seem to reveale a lot more than the site itself and hasn't been logged into since october. --Neon white (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Websites allowing self published material ?

Resolved

Hi, I removed text with a reference to the Libertarian Communists website, which has now been resurrected along with a load of other dubious references. I'd appreciate some comments before this escalates. The undo to my change including new references is - [22]

Some selected quotes from the websites, for more, see the help/guides/disclaimers sections -

"The libcom group is a small collective of libertarian communists based in and around London, we maintain libcom.org, and as individuals are involved with a number of other groups and activity."

"The most important thing is that we want content. If you have an article you think would be good on libcom.org let us have it in whatever form you can. If necessary we can edit it so that it fits our guidelines and any random bits and pieces we can put in our Library."

http://libcom.org/notes/style-guide

"The Messenger Institute for Media Accuracy (Mess Media) is a web based media research and analysis center committed to ensuring the accuracy of media reports concerning messengers. Mess Media monitors, analyzes and corrects media reporting errors and bias that are all too common when the media shines the spotlight on messengers. Mess Media will also applaud those reports that include the facts."

http://www.messmedia.org/about.html

"Certain areas of the Inc.com Web site contain information supplied by visitors and others. Inc.com is not responsible for comments, advice, information, or any other posting made by visitors or others in these areas."

http://www.inc.com/about/disclaimer.html

Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 13:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Organizations representing couriers often accuse the employers of manipulating employment law to keep overheads down" is overly broad and uses WP:WEASEL:weasel words. The use of multiple citations, neither of which directly argues the cited text, looks like WP:SYN.
libcom.org looks like a web site run by a politics student in Brighton who self-publishes articles from himself and his friends; not a reliable source. The citation to inc.com refers to a single legal dispute in 1994, and wouldn't support the broad statement being made anyway. The messengers.org citation appears to be legal advice from someone who isn't named (again, it looks like a single person website); it is probably not a reliable source.
Anyway, the onus is on the person adding these citations to show that they're reliable sources. That means that professionals and other publications in the bicycle messenger industry cite them as being reliable, with a clear reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The onus is on the editor adding the disputed text to establish this. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
These sites are not only in breach of WP:RS they would break WP:EL too, becuase the content provided by them is unverified or unverifiable--Cailil talk 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
the lib.com ref was used because it held an true copy of a pamphlet called 'the couriers are revolting', which is a history of the Despatch Industry Workers Union. I accept that the statement "Organizations representing couriers often accuse the employers of manipulating employment law to keep overheads down" is overly broad, but the accusation has been made by the San Francisco Bicycle Messenger Association, the New York Bicycle Messenger Association, as well as the DIWU. So I would welcome guidance on how to incorporate the fact this criticism is made often.
Messmedia.org is frequently consulted by working bicycle messengers, and is trusted by them.Buffalo Bill talk to me 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
To quote WP:RS "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.". It would be better to just say who this accusation has been made by, cite your reliable sources (presumably, if there's been some controversy or legal action, then this will have been written about in the press), and let the facts speak for themselves. Please discuss your changes with the other editors that reverted them on Talk:Bicycle_messenger. Thanks. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
All citations from messmedia.org were unreliable and replaced, usually with the same article directly from the publisher. In several instances the rebroadcast of articles on messmedia.org reflected the site owner had removed the name of the author of an article, replaced the author's name with their own, ignored specific copyright information, modified the content of articles published elsewhere and rebroadcast on messmedia.org, incorrectly cited municipal, provincial and federal law with no source reference, manipulated information from the US Department of Labor. Every citation had a major problem listed here, and this is why "one-man sites" should be heavily scrutinized by both contributors and users of Wikipedia. Generally speaking, when you find a source that claims to be an "Unbiased Media Institute" as does the owner of messmedia.org, but is not accredited as any such thing and turn out to be one person only you should try to find another source to form your citation. Generally speaking, again, individuals that find themselves working alone but represent themselves as a group usually are that way for a very good reason and are best to be avoided at all costs.
Buffalo Bill, if that site is truly frequently consulted by bicycle messengers and is trusted by them, it is a mistake, a sad one. It's one of the worst "one-man sites" I've seen outside of hate groups in the context of manipulated, convoluted, incorrect and outright false information represented as fact.

Reliable sources In a BLP

I'm having a bit of trouble telling whether a source is adequate in a bio article. The sources seem weak to me but I'd like other opinions. The article is Donald Michael Kraig and the only source of note is a bio on his publisher's website here. The second source apparently only confirmed that he was at the WinterStar Symposium but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment since I get a 404 error.

My question is how to treat a bio from a publisher about one of their writers, particularly when that seems to be the only source in the article. Such bios are often written by the authors themselves which can be a questionable source for accuracy. Input on this is very welcome because it would help me resolve similar problems with a bunch of articles I'm going over. Cheers, Pigman☿ 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this biography is a reliable source. Reading the Donald Michael Kraig article gives one a walled-garden feeling that people within a movement write about each other, invite each other to conferences, etc., without any of them ever being covered in a mainstream publication. The article on his publisher, Llewellyn Publications, *does* have a criticism section, but even the sources quoted there aren't reliable. The Llewellyn article does have one citation to Publishers Weekly that counts as reliable. Some of these articles may deserve to be nominated for deletion, or at least shortened to remove material that has no evidence of any reliable recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I think you're right on the money about the, um, inbred nature of the Neopagan community. I've often tried to stress that, just because someone is well known in this particular community, it doesn't necessarily mean they are notable by Wikipedia standards. WP:RS and WP:V are the policies I quote most often to people. (yes, I know RS is a guideline not a policy but it complements V so very well.) Unfortunately, many of the bio articles I'm having these questions and doubts about their sources are connected to an editor who is very WP:OWN-ish about some articles. Since I brought him to Arbcom on related issues a year ago, I suspect he will not look kindly at edits of this sort from me. The moment a "citations needed" goes on one of these articles, no matter how obvious it might be to many experienced editors, he'll call it harassment. Sorry, don't mean to unload and I don't want to name the editor because that's not the point. I just wanted some confirmation that my perception of the problem with this sort of sourcing was accurate. Cheers, Pigman☿ 07:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I really believe these articles could benefit from more outside and independent eyes evaluating their sources as well as generally going over them. I'm not going to list them all here but if you go to this thread on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, there is a sizable list in the third post down the thread. Not all of them have sourcing problems as bad as the Donald Michael Kraig article but many have problems of various sorts. Thanks, Pigman☿ 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a lot of work. If you feel that these articles have many sourcing problems, why not pick one that you feel to be one of the worst and take it to AfD? (As a test-case AfD it would probably be OK to announce the discussion in a number of places, including here). If other editors agree that the article is bad, that might give some ideas for how to deal with the others. If other editors don't agree, then drop that plan and consider some other reform idea. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't asking just you to do all the sourcing for these articles! Not at all! I just figure maybe some other people reading the thread might be so inclined to check them out. I know it's a lot of work but I'm just putting the idea out there because "many hands make light work" and all that. I'm certainly thinking of taking a couple to AfD just to get a sense of other people's judgment on their content, notability, and sources. More eyes will certainly improve those that can be improved. If good sources can be dug up and added, I'd be happy. If not, deletion doesn't preclude re-creation with better sources in the future. Really, I didn't intend to lay the whole bunch on your shoulders. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Book Review – Reliable Source?

How can a book review been seen as a Reliable Source, when the reviewer is using the materials inside of that book, as the reference material?

If the book says XYZ happened, and the book reviewer mentions in his review that XYZ happened (or might have happened), how is it that XYZ suddenly is valid, and has a Reliable Source? Jim (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Though you did not provide a context, I imagine this question arises from Talk:Yamashita's gold#Third_opinion, where a book review by Chalmers Johnson appears to have more credibility than the two books he was reviewing, by Sterling Seagrave and Peggy Seagrave. The text of the Yamashita's gold article should be toned down due to the weakness of the sources, and it should express more caution when presenting the claims from the Seagraves. This may not be answering the exact question you raised, so please be more specific, or give the actual example. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Newbie on board, sorry.

In this article, Yamashita's gold, the book review reference (as well as the book reviewed) is used as a reference source in:

  • Several historians have stated that Yamashita’s gold existed
  • The Seagraves and other historians contend…….
  • The Japanese government intended that….
  • Many of those who knew the locations of the loot were killed…..
  • According to various accounts…..

In these cases, the book review is being used, as “Several historians”, “other historians”, somehow knew the intensions of the Japanese government, assumed those knowing were killed, and the book review is used as a “various account”. This information is only found in the Seagrave's publication and the book review. Jim (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If the person who originally added this text possesses the Seagrave books, you could ask him for more specifics. Or you could try to obtain the Seagrave books yourself and see which other historians they quote from. I notice that a bunch of sources are piled up in Footnote 1 of the article, but it's hard to know which book is said to support what claim. From the article's talk page, I notice what seems to be excessive reliance on the Seagrave books, and also some bad blood between you and the other editor. I hope that further discussion can focus on the facts at issue and not so much on the personalities. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That is the point I am trying to make. The Seagrave’s publication is only source claiming this conspiracy theory exists, there are no reliable sources supporting their theory, or other historians. The Yamashita’s gold article is using the book review(er) as a reliable source, even though the review(er) discredits the Seagrave’s as historians. If you take away the book review, you simply have the Seagrave’s making these claims, and you no longer have “some historians” and “other historians” in the equation. Jim (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tyr (journal)

Please review. I argue that this article fails WP:BK, and that there are no independent reliable sources discussing it. This is problematic, since we end up with an article on a publication essentially based on the publisher's self-view. That the topic is politically sensitive (neo-fascism) doesn't help any. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Which sources in particular are you asking about?
  • Tyr: Not a reliable source for other articles. Could be considered a reliable source for itself, but even then used with caution, if your assessment that it's extremist is correct.
  • fluxeuropa.com: Looks like a single person web-site for mainly self-publication. The fact that it's now closed because that one guy doesn't want to do it anymore would support this argument.
  • Northvegr: Is there any evidence that this is a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Their WP article is very bare, and I can't find any reliable sources (academics, newspapers etc.) talking about it. Although at a (very) quick glance, their web site appears to have a range of material, but they appear to be self-publishing research (translation of medieval texts etc.), which would be a big no as a reliable source, unless the authors have an established reputation already from previous publication in 3rd party respectable sources. So on the face of it, I'd say no as a reliable source. As usual, the onus is on the person claiming this is a reliable source to demonstrate that to be the case.
  • Willamette Week: This looks like it would be considered a reliable source for local news. But a 300 word review of a locally authored writing does not indicate that the writing is notable - local papers cover tens of thousands of stories a year throughout the world; most aren't notable.
Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily

See also: #Is FrontPageMag.com a reliable source?

There is currently a controversy on Islam in the United States over the inclusion of information that is thought to be irrelevant by some and relevant by others. Setting aside the issue of relevance since it isn't pertinant here, there has also been a concern raised about the reliability of the sources used as references for the disputed information. I will reproduce the disputed paragraph below with its two references so that those commenting here have some context. Note: I'm not asking for help or advice about the relevancy issue since that is a content question and not a source question. Thanks.

  • According to Paul Sperry, the Pentagon has also criticized Islam at least on one occasion. He writes that after a detailed project undertaken to study Islam, Quran and Hadiths, the Pentagon has concluded that "Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)." In its briefing paper titled "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers", the Pentagon has concluded that "Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor. The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise where 'beautiful mansions' and 'maidens' await him." It also describes 'Zakat' the Muslim charity as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." The paper also says that the actions of Prophet Muhammed could be considered quite radical by today's standards.[23] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52184].

While the main issue on the talk page has been relevance I was hoping to get some help on the secondary issue of reliability, either in this particular case or more broadly for those two media outlets. Are FrontPage Magazine and/or WorldNetDaily reliable sources for news in this context? In general? How are these media outlets classified? What are they comparable to? Other than the fact that some editors identify a bias in these sources and other editors deny any such bias I don't think any of us have a good understanding of the reliability issue. Any help would be great. Thanks.PelleSmith 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
  • WorldNetDaily has a reputation for publishing fringe theories. FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda. Neither site has a reputation for accuracy, nor high standards of journalism. In the example above, there is no way these would be reliable sources. Try the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. If the Pentagon took such a position, it would be reported widely. - Jehochman Talk 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ditto to what Jehochman noted. WND and FPM demonstrate very little in terms of evidence of reliability. ITAQALLAH 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jehochman. If the Pentagon had made that point, it would've been widely reported. → AA (talk) — 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jehochman. They are both right-leaning rumor mills. Ngchen 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jehochman. --Aminz 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. Note that they are good sources for opinion, where that is warranted. Arrow740 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. There was a well-documented case of them verbatim reporting from an Onion article about Harry Potter's satanic ties. --Haemo 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Um... This caught my eye, and there is less there than Haemo seems to think. Them is WorldNetDaily, btw, not FPM. There is no particular reason to believe the author got the quote directly from the Onion, and WND seems to have corrected it in some fashion (whether with just an excision or with an errata, I don't know). Chasing the chain of custody of quotes to the root has been a problem on occasion for both the WP and the WSJ, I think. Not arguing strongly for WND's reliability here -- just saying the proffered example doesn't prove much. Andyvphil 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Question

Does anyone know what standards these magazines have for oversight and fact checking? That is to say what is known about how they operate in terms of how reliable they are? Thanks again.PelleSmith 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue with their standing among "peers" and mostly appear to be op-ed pieces.--Tigeroo 16:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to contrast this discussion with the one on Counterpunch above. Beit Or 20:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now in the archive. But, yes, as with Counterpunch, Media Matters, FAIR, etc. FPM should be citeable, but with appropriate caution. The subject here is politics, not particle physics, and the borders between opinion and fact are correspondingly blurred. In this area a damned lot of nonsense is published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and that's just the way it is. Andyvphil 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not how we work. Relata refero 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not that dissident publication on the left and right should not be considered reliable sources. Some are, some are not. The problem is that both FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily have a long history of publishing material that is hysterical, unsupportd with documentation, and later shown to be factually dubious, bigoted, or just plain false.--Cberlet 13:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
We should have in mind that User:Cberlet has his own controversy with FrontPage.[24] — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And left-wing magazines don't do any of this. Riiiiight.... - Merzbow (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is right about Islam

I disagree with your consensus. Although, I have to agree with User:AA that if the Pentagon had reported it, it would have been reported a lot more widely, which is a good point. That said, it could be due to political correctness, that criticism of Islam is being omitted (which is a very common phenomena these days). So it's not necessarily so that WorldNetDaily is making this alleged Pentagon report up. But whatever the case, and how much of a WP:RS the WND is, it is absolutely right about one thing: "Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)." In its briefing paper titled "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers", the Pentagon has concluded that "Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor. — This is true. For those interested in knowing how this is supported by the Qu'ran, I recommend Sura 9:111 if you want to find out more about what the Pentagon is talking about. As for FrontPageMag and its reliability, it's a very biased magazine with an obvious agenda (very often, pro-conservative, pro-Israel, pro-right wing, etc.) but it's not necessarily so that everything reported there is by default inaccurate since it would of course be an ad hominem. Of course, the stuff reported on FrontPage should be taken with some precautions, but I wouldn't discard everything from that site as unreliable. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether what you wrote is true or not, what you wrote seems to fall under original research.Ngchen (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Register

As a willfully tabloid source, not reliable surely, right? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate on which (main namespace) articles you would like to see The Register removed as a source?
FYI, see also preliminary discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#The Register --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking as a general question - it's in wide use, and I'm interested in the general sense of its reliability. This would, of course, not equate to a consensus to remove in all cases, but I'm interested in the general case, as it seems both widely used (1800 or so articles, I'm told) and poor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Quoting jossi (#The Nation): "Same answer as above. Reliable for what material? "Reliability" is not an absolute distinction: it requires context." I agree to that, also for this source. I think the discussion is moot without at least producing some examples. You also suggested: "not (...) a consensus to remove in all cases" - could you give some examples where you would not remove The Register as a reference? That might be valuable too, in order not to embark on a witch hunt for those cases where none is due. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've assumed correctly. I'm unaware of any specific consensus regarding The Register, but last I knew tabloids and such rags were considered unreliable sources by everyone except a handful of headcases and soapboxers. If someone is seriously arguing a tabloid is a reliable source, I'd recommend smacking some sense into them or an appropriate drug intervention. :-P Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we saying a publication cannot be used as a reference if it has a tabloid style? That would rule out the entire News Corporation, the media empire of Rupert Murdoch which thrives on providing tabloid-style news. The Register is a technical publication, and one of the most popular tech publications on the web. The wording style is tabloid, but is it known for inaccuracy? I'm not aware that The Register is known for factual inaccuracy.Lester 03:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
They are not known for fact checking. I think The Register can only be used as a primary source for statements like, "On January 1, 1999, The Register published a story saying XYZ." Their reliability appears to be the same as Slashdot, a chatroom or a personal blog. They publish whatever they think will attract the most attention, whether the story is accurate or not. - Jehochman Talk 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That is completely incorrect. The Register observes the UK's Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice, provides contact details on its web site for making corrections, complaining about inaccuracies etc.. Isarig (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The UK's minimum legal standards are far below what Wikipedia requires for a reliable source. Just because there's an address people can complain to does not mean that people actually do complain, nor does it mean that the Register actually publishes factually correct material. Therefore, this source may not be used in most circumstances. - Jehochman Talk 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
THe UK's PCC is one of the most comprehensive codes of journalistic ethics in existence today. A publication which observes it is far and beyond Wikipedia's amorphous and ambiguous standards for what is considered reliable. Please read this before making nonsensical comments like "minimum legal standards". If you can show that reliable sources question The Register's reliability, or point to cases where it failed to adhere to the code - please point them out. Your personal opinion of The Register is really not that important.Isarig (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. It does not talk about journalistic ethics. It's about reliability of information. The Register does not have a reputation for factual accuracy because they mix opinion, satire and news. When running a story, they do not bother to contact the people written about to get their side of the story. Facts often get in the way of good drama. We are attempting to form a consensus, so everybody's opinion counts, mine included. I read The Onion and Slashdot, and watch Stephen Colbert once in a while. I enjoy them, but I don't cite them as sources. - Jehochman Talk 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not condescend. I have read WP:V and contend, your personal unsubstantiated opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, the The Register meets WP's standard for reliability. All major news stories mix opinion with news, and many sources that are beyond reproach feature satire. A source that observes a strict journalistic code of conduct meets and exceeds this project's requirements for reliability. Isarig (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No, most major news sources do not mix news, opinion, and satire. Opinions pieces are clearly labeled. Fox News is an exception to this rule, and I would contend that they are not a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal has a similar political slant, but they fact check rigorously and clearly delineate news and commentary. Therefore, I consider the WSJ to be a reliable source. - Jehochman Talk 16:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

I think we are not seeing the forest for the trees. Or lets cut to the chase.

  1. Was there ever a concern about the Register as a source before the current batch of Wikipedia stories? If so, please cite evidence here.
  2. Disregarding the current batch of Wikipedia stories that we dislike, what is their journalistic reputation? Please cite evidence and facts.
  3. Let's leave out personal stakes.

We can't exclude a source because it gave us a succession of bloody noses. Lawrence Cohen 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Other way around. Cite evidence that The Register is considered a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking. Once there is an objection, the burden for demonstrating reliability is on those who seek to include information in Wikipedia. - Jehochman Talk 16:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've cited such evidence- it adheres to a very strict code of ethics, same as all other UK media outlets which are used all over WP. Isarig (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Legal compliance is not evidence of factual accuracy. Please show me places where other reliable sources have cited The Register. If they are so good, they should have multiple citations in Reuters, Dow Jones, Associated Press and other such news sources. - Jehochman Talk 16:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
again with this nonsense? This is not about "legal compliance" - it is an adherence to a code of ethics. I've twice pointed you to the relevant document, please read it. Isarig (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not characterized your comments as nonsense. In my experience, the losing side of an argument will be the first one to break decorum.  ;-) Ideally, you would refactor to choose a more appropriate word than "nonsense". Go ahead and dig up some references showing that other publications consider The Register to be a reliable source. If it is reliable, that should not be difficult. I am making this very easy for you. If you come up with the citations, then you can end this debate the way you wish it to end. - Jehochman Talk 16:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
When you repeatedly argue against a strawman, I will call your argument what it is, nonsense. Just to put your mind at rest, here's the UK's Telegraph citing The Register: [25], here's the UK's Guardian doing the same: [26][27] ,as is the Times of India [28], The Canadian Press [29], PC World [30], Adweek [31], The Winnipeg Sun [32], ITWire [33], Telecom paper [34] and many others you can find by searching Google. Isarig (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That's relevant information. - Jehochman Talk 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Register is reliable enough for techie stuff, but individual journalists pursuing some kind of muckraking "investigative" journalism with a pretty obvious failure to even attempt to look at dissenting opinions is not going to be reliable in any publication unless it has independent corroboration. What we have in this case is a story about Bagley sourced entirely from Bagley and some people pushing an agenda, and a story about the Durova incident sourced entirely from an editor giving one side of the story (and a side which had been repeatedly rebutted at that), and a story on a Wikimedia Foundation employee written entirely in order to pursue the agenda of discrediting Wikipedia. None of these shines out to me as an example of critical review, just Wikipedia-bashing. We should stick sources which draw form a wider base than one or two editors pushing a heavy barrow uphill. I can't imagine any other circumstance where we'd spend this long agonising about an editor coming along and asking for his opinion, sourced to him and planted in a tabloid, to be put in an article. These Register pieces are op-ed at best, hatchet jobs at worst, and they make it perfectly plain that the threshold for inclusion is as low as you want as long as the material is derogatory. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

LiveJournal

I noticed many months ago an ongoing campaign to misuse WP:RS to keep any information critical of LiveJournal management out of the article, eventually becoming so angry that I gave up and stayed out of the article for quite some time.

I went back to it last night and found some of the same editors still misusing RS to keep the article POV, including the blatant deletion even of the POV and other tags. The article and talk page histories show many, many incidents of this misuse. Unfortunately, this ongoing campaign again got me hot under the collar, so I respectfully request that other editors without axes to grind with regard to LiveJournal in either direction please review the histories.

Thank you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed here before. If you have new sources that you'd like to include for negative, balancing feedback that are not blog based, we are open to them. Suggesting that the article reads like an advertisement or that it portrays LJ in an overtly positive light is unfounded however. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are comments from employees of SixApart/Livejournal, in their LJ accounts, reliable sources, but complaints from customers in the same venue, aren't? That is my understanding of the issue, from a cursory read of the back and forth that goes into multiple months worth of edits.--Vidkun (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between the news and announcement, etc, journals and those of the average user. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Why? Explain to me exactly what the difference is, except that one is a mouthpiece being flapped.--Vidkun (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
These are being used for official statements, like press releases, from the company itself. Joe User is presenting his opinion and nothing else. Statements by the company meet our criteria, random user bitching does not. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And WP:RS gives leeway for such sources in cases like Brad Fitzpatrick commenting on the sale of his company.... It doesn't give leeway for randomloliconfanboy's blog. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
So, now that you have decided to go derisive towards anyone criticising LJ (when you could have simply said "random complaining customer" you have shown why there are some people who think that this is a POV issue - if it supports (directly coming from LJ employees or volunteers) LJ, it's a reliable source, but if it is a disgruntled customer (or hundreds, on a number of different community fronts) it gets a moniker that is intentionally demeaning, in an attempt to downplay its importance.--Vidkun (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
An employee, especially a high level one like Brad Fitzpatrick, is considered an expert in his business. As I stated on the talk page of the article, I don't feel that the brad.livejournal.com and evan.livejournal.com cites really are providing much information and the info they do provide isn't critical to the article. I'm willing to compromise, but the type of user.livejournal.com cites that commonly pop up for criticizing LJ are not of the same sort of material and do not meet the WP:V exceptions as the ones coming from board members or highly ranked management do. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If a website is considered reliable because it contains "official statements" from company employees... then it is reliable period. The source is either reliable for all it says (positive as well as negative), or is unreliable for all of it. You can not pick and choose within the source and say the positive comments are reliable, but the negative ones are not. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Tired of arguing this, I'll just continue on the LJ article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You're tired of it? Too bad, it's a valid issue that has merit being discussed here, and not just at the LJ article, because some people who might be good third party neutral observers will have more likelihood of seeing the issue here than on the LJ discussion page. You say that Brad and Evan are experts, so what? Let me quote from the relevant section of WP:v:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5]

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.

--Vidkun (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Its not a blog. Its a company communique in the trappings of a journal. We can and do use company created material in every single other company article. If you don't like that, go play with them as well. Your hard-headed, pov-press insistence that we treat the statements made by the creator of LJ like we do any other journal on LJ is without any sort of grounds in reality. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you really do have a great sense of importance, and, by the way, hypocrisy. I have been polite in my responses regarding this issue. In your edit summary on LJ [35] you insert personal attacks, like you just did here, with your comment If you don't like that, go play with them as well. Your hard-headed, pov-press insistence that we treat the statements made by the creator of LJ like we do any other journal on LJ is without any sort of grounds in reality. Please stop, it is obvious that you cannot deal with this situation in a civil way, and continuously resort to name calling, and accusations of incivility to others, with no concern for your own incivility.--Vidkun (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm done talking with you. If you do not understand WP:RS, WP:V and how it relates to statements made by a company which describe its own product, the specifications of the software/web programming, and how primary sources work.... that is not my problem. You also do not seem to understand that we can cite the statements of persons when they are speaking about themselves, per BLP's sourcing requirements. You simply seem to want to add speculation by random persons into a well written article by third parties who do not meet our sourcing requirements in any way. And most telling, when you and the OP in this thread found that consensus was against you on the article's talk page, you came here in hopes that people who are uninvolved with the article and do not understand the situation would back you. I invite those parties to look over the request, the article and then make statements, not simply react blindly as appears to be the case here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm done talking with you. I don't give a damn. While some of your issues regarding LJ users opinions as RS vs Brad's may be correct, your imputation of my motives are far off the mark. And, again, you continue to be uncivil and reactionary, which you choose to not comment on. You may be an expert on LJ policy, this does not mean you are allowed to be uncivil to people because you disagree with them.--Vidkun (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I am correct as has been hashed and rehashed on the talk page of the article in question. If you will not listen to me, why should I waste my time trying to correct you? This is not being uncivil, it is a simple statement of fact. I will no longer try to correct your misconceptions since you do not seem to have a desire to improve the article, you simply wish to draw a reaction. I will not feed your desire per WP:DISENGAGE, I have notified you that I am leaving this discussion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Source of rating in RuneScape

There is a dispute regarding a line of text in RuneScape that refers to the game being rated highly in terms of popularity by a source that tracks these changes. This sentence is in dispute regarding poor wording, the reliability of the source and how the source should be attributed in the article. The dispute is discussed here. I've also sought third-party opinions here. I'm hesitant to take this to Arbitration, as Arbitration says that the content of articles is not ruled upon. SharkD (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From the site itself "Mmogchart.com is dedicated to my research in tracking the growth". So you now know that not only is it self published research, it's also a primary source for statistical data. For those reasons, it isn't a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The website is cited by a BBC article, which is the actual source being cited in RuneScape. Does this have any affect on anything? SharkD (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderfull world of WP:RS! The BBC article is a reliable source, the site isn't. // Liftarn (talk)

Final Solution (disambiguation)

The section that reads:

* Euphemism for ethnic cleansing, final solution was according to Mattias Gardell[1] used by Andrew Jackson for describing the Indian Removal Act of 1830 but the seventh annual message to Congress does not contain the term [2] nor does the law[3]. Fellman writes that William Tecumseh Sherman was using the euphemism in 1867.[4]

This source: Stockholms Fria Tidning: Svart vildavästernhistoria has no English translation, is from a self-proclaimed anarchist and I have searched for hours and the only time Andrew Jackson used final solution that I find is his references to the border dispute with Mexico. The Indian Removal Act maybe the ground work for the Final Solution but it's the superlative that Jackson first said the exact words Final Solution in reference to the Native Amricans sourced in English I can't prove. Is this Mattias Gardell source reliable? Shouldn't the burden of this work be on the contributing editor's back instead of mine? Alatari (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattias Gardell is a scholar of comparative religion and appointed Nathan Söderblom Professor at Uppsala University. He has been working at the Department of Comparative Religion and the Centre for Research in International Migration and Ethnic Relations at Stockholm University. He specializes in the study of religious extremism and religious racism in the USA. I'd say he sounds quite reliable. // Liftarn (talk)
He may be a reliable source on religious extremism, but I don't see how he is a relaible source on matters of history, such as when a certain term was used for the first time. Does he provide a source for the alleged use of the term by Jackson? Isarig (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering he specialises in the study of racism and extremism in the USA I'd say it's well within his field of work. He doesn't specify it as the article was more about the situation of black in Oklahoma. The full quote (and a rough translation) is available on the talk page. // Liftarn (talk)


He is a scholar of comparative religion. He is not a historian, and this is clearly not his field of work - and you concede this was not even the topic of the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this falls far short of it. Isarig (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the article at Mattias Gardell. The study of racism is within his field of work. Even if he was just some random jounalist it would still be considered a reliable source since it was published in a newspaper. There are no extraordinary claims presented so no extraordinary evidence is required. // Liftarn (talk)
The study of religious-based racism is within his work. Not history, not racism in general. Again, he is a a scholar of comparative religion, and the article you are sourcing your claim to is not even about the Indian removal act. The claim that "The Final Solution" - a term most people associate with Nazi Germany - was actually coined and used by Americans to refer to a racist based policy against Indians is quite extraordinary, and requires an academic source - an established historian who specializes in American Indian history - not some random journalist or a professor of comparative religion. Isarig (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
We also have a source saying the term was used by William Tecumseh Sherman and that also predates Hitler. If you find a reliable source giving earlier usage it would be another matter. The claim is hardly extraordinary. When looking into it I found several sources saying Hitler was inpired by both the Armenian genocide and how the USA treated the Indians. Also note how it's formulated. We certainly have a reliable source that Mattias Gardell made that claim. It should be noted that the law was based on the Christian ideas that man (i.e. whites) was appointed by God to rule over the cattle (blacks) and wild animals (Indians). // Liftarn (talk)

I can find many sources attributing William Tecumseh Sherman using ""it will help to bring the Indian problem to a final solution." or some combination and sources claiming Adolph Hitler stole from Sherman but only Mattias Gardell attributes it to Andrew Jackson and Mattias Gardell's comments have not been picked up by English scholars or translated. I'm just asking for corroborating sources because it does seems the uniqueness of the attribution isn't WP:V. Your comment on Mattias Gardell being out of his subject area is helpful. Alatari (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the source is certainly enough for saying that Mattias Gardell says so and that's the phrase being used now. // Liftarn (talk)

"Foreign opinion is irrelevant"

Would some folks, possibly some administrators, review this and comment on the talk page? User:Randy2063 just posited the wonderful declaration on sourcing for Waterboarding that,

"Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures."

This is, I think, going to be incendiary on this talk page. Can someone please remind these folks that claims of non-United Sources being "irrelevant" are not acceptable? Lawrence Cohen 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The correct link is Talk:Waterboarding#.22Foreign_opinion_is_irrelevant.22. Lawrence Cohen 21:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the argument that reliable sources that you don't agree should be eliminated because "Foreign opinion is irrelevant" is clearly ridiculous, and should be treated as such.
From a quick read, the main argument about the waterboarding article appears to be whether the lead should call it torture. The legal systems of most, if not all, countries would consider repeated use of any method of violence as torture. The lead should focus on that, and actual court findings and international treaties, and not the personal opinion of a few American lawyers and politicians.
Randy2063 appears to be pushing an extreme POV; that waterboarding shouldn't be called torture because it has been carried out by the United States government against suspected terrorists. This argument is clearly wrong; the classification of the physical and legal concept of something does not depend on who is carrying it out. A few points:
  • Whether or not it is torture, as defined by domestic law around the world, and by international treaty, should be in the lead, not the speculation and personal opinion of a minority.
  • Personal views of notable people on the US controversy should be restricted to one section. As there have been no court cases, there is nothing here citable as a reliable source other than personal opinion. When personal opinion of a minority conflicts with legal rulings and treaties internationally, it should be weighted accordingly, not prominently stated.
  • If it didn't hurt that much, and hence wasn't torture, it would be of no use against hardened terrorists, would it?
  • If insurgents kidnap an American soldier, and waterboard him 24 hours a day for a few weeks, then it would be universally declared as torture. Reversing the roles of the actors makes no difference; Rand2063's argument is biased and wrong.
Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not debate this here, but in my defense I must say you've completely mischaracterized my position.
You've erred in your "insurgents kidnap an American soldier" counterexample, and you've compounded it by saying "24 hours a day for a few weeks." First, none of those who've been waterboarded are considered uniformed lawful combatants as a soldier would be. Second, it has been acknowledged that waterboarding for any extended period is probably torture, and that's not what we're talking about here. Perhaps you should have used "American CIA agent" for "35 seconds".
The problem with this article is that we're talking about personal views of various people who may be authorities in something but are either missing a background in law or actual knowledge of how the CIA uses waterboarding.
I've suggested WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves but it's been discarded here.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • First, none of those who've been waterboarded are considered uniformed lawful combatants as a soldier would be.
Can you cite a reliable source dictionary definition of torture that excludes secret agents etc.?
  • "American CIA agent" for "35 seconds" A single instance of being stabbed isn't torture. Repeatedly stabbing someone to cause enough suffering that they would rather do something completely out of character in order to avoid being stabbed again is torture. If the inflicted suffering, and the threat of future suffering, is enough to turn someone against their own people, then it's very hard to see how it wouldn't be considered "torture" by the vast majority of English speakers.
  • There may be a conflict between the dictionary definition of "torture" (what the vast majority of the English speaking world mean by "torture"), and the legal situation in the United States. There is a distinction between the two. Legally, it may not be torture under Uzbek law for an agent of the state to boil ordinary citizens alive, but it will be universally considered torture by everyone else. But you would need a very reliable source to cite this argument as true for U.S law, as it is quite an extraordinary claim - not just personal opinions, but actual court rulings. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about secret agents. You gave a nonsense example intending to put the shoe on the other foot, and I explained how you went overboard. I also toned your example down to show that it could indeed work the other way.
Now you're trying to add pain, which seems to suggest that 35 seconds of waterboarding alone isn't enough to make your point. Stabbing and waterboarding aren't the same thing. Waterboarding may be a miserable experience but it reportedly isn't painful if done properly.
I don't want to drag that entire discussion in here. I had suggested a solution, and pointed to an applicable WP guideline. Perhaps the administrators should evaluate that guideline to see if it should be removed from the WP:NPOV page. It seems to be a waste of time if it only works one way.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Let the facts speak for themselves is a useful policy that intends to avoid editorial disagreements like this, but you have to balance it against WP:UNDUE. In this case, there are reliable sources to indicate that waterboarding would be considered torture under domestic and international law. Judges have stated in legal proceedings around the world that waterboarding is considered torture. These sources should be weighted very strongly, as international law and actual court proceedings are considered a very reliable source. As for the U.S. controversy; I still think this should be restricted to a single section; it may be a peculiarity of U.S. law that waterboarding, when carried out by agents of the state against foreign prisoners, is not legally considered torture. In the same vein, agents of the state boiling people alive may not be legally considered torture in Uzbekistan. These are peculiarities of particular domestic legal systems, and should be mentioned, but Wikipedia is global, and articles on general topics should not obsess over U.S. events or a U.S. centric viewpoint. Having said that, if you're going to cite that as being true for U.S. law, you'll need to source actual legal findings by a court - otherwise, you need to make it very clear that you're just citing personal opinion of some lawyers and politicians.
35 seconds You have plenty of reliable sources indicating that one former CIA agent said that he heard from his colleagues that one particular interrogation with this method lasted 35 seconds. You do not have a reliable source that this is in fact the case - reliable sources should be 3rd party and noted for their accuracy. At best, you could say "former agent X claimed that his colleagues told him that one interrogation lasted only 35 seconds". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Be careful here. You're right that we have only shadowy sources that say how long it took, but the one single individual who just this month had said it took 35 seconds is the only named person who went on the record. The article was perfectly willing to declare the U.S. was waterboarding back when we had no named sources at all. It seems you're being very selective about which shadowy sources you give weight.
Those legal rulings and treaties are not as clear as you think. It's misleading for an article to imply that since waterboarding is against civilian or military law that it could also be against international law in all cases.
You're misinterpreting the rationale for why this may not be considered torture but I don't want to argue that here. The main point is that some people say it may not be torture in all cases. Others say it is. The only ones who know both the exact technique involved, and the law, are the lawyers who approved it for the CIA, and they're not talking. Everything else is what people choose to believe.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The article was perfectly willing to declare the U.S. was waterboarding back when we had no named sources at all. It seems you're being very selective about which shadowy sources you give weight. Not at all - if you had asked me for an outside opinion on reliable sourcing back when this topic was just rumour, I would've given you a similar answer: the reliable sources are reporting that "person X said Y", Y is a controversial claim not supported by most other reliable sources, so Wikipedia should report "person X said Y" instead of regarding Y as an absolute truth. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's nice to know but the premise that waterboarding-is-always-torture is supported the same way. Unless you want to say that all coercive interrogation is torture, you're going to need a reliable source that can say where we draw the line.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are we supposed to be careful about in regards to discussing waterboarding? Lawrence Cohen 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
My "be careful here" comment was only because I don't think the sources were as well defined as he thought.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Randy unfortunately seems to be still under the assumption that the United States government is some authority on waterboarding, and that issues related to their definitions of torture ought to hold more weight or value ("foreign sources are irrelevant"). The US opinion, which they won't say what it is is either "it's torture" or "it's not torture", but that opinion of theirs carries zero weight outside of the United States, and is again just one opinion. Unfortunately virtually all other sources and views (as sourced on the article and talk page) are that waterboarding is torture.
  2. If the US government comes on record either way, we can note that, but their view doesn't carry any extra weight on the article. The article isn't Waterboarding and the United States. Waterboarding isn't going to be used to defend the practice, or the US, or the other way around. There are other places for that.
  3. As has been asked nearly eight times so far on the talk page, for counter-sources to the now nearly three dozen sources that assert waterboarding is torture, none have been presented yet.
  4. Specific to the foreign sources bit, I wanted to get more eyes on that as it's been an ongoing circular debate with Randy unwilling to accept sourcing, and I wanted to help resolve this.

Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sourcing on recent CIA waterboarding being torture seems to be opinion only. All the cited court cases involve other factors that make this different.
I don't know how many times we've been through this. We usually changed direction whenever I brought up the Let the facts speak for themselves guideline. I may not agree but at least Chris is one of the few who's willing to discuss that.
As I've said repeatedly, I don't want to repeat everything all over again. I just jumped in because I felt my position was being mischaracterized.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one has posted any sources yet. What are they? Which is being questioned? On first glance i can't see any that look particularly unreliable. It seems like a well sourced article. --Neon white (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is it: Waterboarding#Classification_as_torture. We've encourage Randy to provide sources, but nothing yet. Front Page Magazine, which has been repeatedly demonstrated as a non-reliable source on this noticeboard, was previously removed. Lawrence Cohen 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's look at your sources:
  • 100 United States law professors
  • Benjamin G. Davis, who's one of those law professors. His ideology is actually pretty far to the left. If the rest of those 100 are in the same league then you're actually making my point.
  • Jimmy Carter, who'd criticize U.S. foreign policy anyway.
  • French Journalist Henri Alleg, who calls it torture but he's not a lawyer, and they used a slightly different method. I wouldn't call him an objective source anyway, given his background. He's probably in Davis's league.
  • John McCain, who was indeed tortured (although some of the people complaining now were supporting the torturers at the time).
  • Four retired JAGs. They're your best source but none of them are privy to the CIA's methods.
  • An opinion from Amnesty International. It cites the Army Field Manual but conveniently leaves out the fact that the FM forbids a lot of things that aren't torture.
Compare that to mine, who say it might not be torture depending upon the circumstances, and the difference isn't that wide.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
And let's note that they're all opinions.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that you might be in the wrong place with this. This particular noticeboard is an intended to provide a place for editors to post questionable sources to gain others opinions on their reliablity. If i understand it correctly, this is simply an editing conflict and not an issue with the reliabilty of a particular source. If this is the case then you need to be at dispute resolution. I'd recommend a request for comment. --Neon white (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It is actually relevant to reliability of sources, as Randy has repeatedly questioned whether ours are applicable, and then made the despicable statement that foreign sources have no value. Lawrence Cohen 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It still seems like a content dispute to me. Unless there is a particular source that is questionable that you want comment on. If so please post it. On the final point, as long as sources are verifiable it doesnt matter what country they originate in, they don't need to be in english as long as there are no other better sources that are in english. --Neon white (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As is often the case, context is everything. I had qualified my statements when I said:
  • "Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures. Their politicians can say anything they like. They're no different than Nancy Pelosi who allowed secret waterboarding when the pressure was on her, and pompously decried it in public after the danger had passed. Foreign governments also haven't had these types of leaks to the media, and so we don't know what they're really doing at the moment."
But if we look at those sources above, there's only one. He's a French communist. That's not an objective source. BTW: If you look at their activities, they were also "anti-war" during the early days of WWII prior to Hitler turning on the Soviets. It's no surprise that he'd criticize the U.S. in this one.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Sources don't have to be objective they just have to be verifiable. I fail to see how any of that has any relevance to the reliability of a source. --Neon white (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny that you say that. The Waterboarding article is now removing FrontPageMagazine as a source because of its tilt to the right. Meanwhile, an avowed communist reporter on an extremist site like DemocracyNow and leftist law professors like Benjamin G. Davis get top billing. I guess you're right. They don't have to be objective at all. (Some facts really do speak for themselves.)
As I read WP:V, it says we can use opinion but I think the article then needs to say that this is based on opinion.
I have no problem saying that most people call it torture, or that it's widely held to be torture, or whatever, but I fail to see how we can say it absolutely is torture citing only opinion. I think even aggregate opinion should be qualified in some way.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Front Page Magazine wasn't removed for being "right", it was removed when I noticed:

They already were considered an unreliable source. Lawrence Cohen 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And you don't think twice about a guy who was probably supporting the Hitler-Stalin pact? Since when do communists really oppose torture?
The RS noticeboard links don't look conclusive to me.
This isn't to say I mind removing that FrontPageMagazine reference. There are other sources that say the same thing. I'm washing my hands of it anyway. When an article is this one-sided, I'd prefer that its bias remain obvious rather than appear even-handed when it's not. I hope you keep all the sources I criticized above.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow. "Since when do communists really oppose torture?" ??? And I was accused of bias for simply insisting that we only use sourced material? Lawrence Cohen 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll just note that no effort at all by others have been made to edit or change the article, just to criticize on the talk page. Which is fine, I suppose. If you feel like Googling up some sources, feel free to add them. And again, wow. Lawrence Cohen 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's related to my observation about the Hitler-Stalin pact, which I think is a valid criticism of that source when considering the subject of this article.
I've edited plenty of articles with plenty of references. I can leave this one.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Your personal views about the author of a source has no bearing whatsoever on verifiablity. I think it would be in your interest at this stage to have a good read of WP:V. Again i will ask; what is the source that is being questioned? --Neon white (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Bible

I can't imagine this hasn't been dealt with before, but what's the verdict on the bible being cited as an accurate historical record (in respect to the factual accuracy of the events described as opposed to discussions of its theological contents)? CheshireKatz (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it can be used any more than for instance Mahābhārata. // Liftarn (talk)
I think it depends on how you use the bible as a source, lets say it's about the 10 commanments, and just says what the 10 commanments are, then yea, that's a source. But if it talks about bible anaysis of the 10 commanments, then no, as that heads to WP:NOR territory. Secret account 19:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The Bible is a primary historical source document, and should only be used on that basis. It says X, that doesn't mean we can say that X is true, but is verifiable that the Bible says X and that fact can be included in relevant articles. You can't interpret a primary source: "This bit says X and that bit says says Y, therefore Z" is not acceptable; "This says X and that says Y" is broadly acceptable.
However, you shouldn't need to doyour own exegesis. Every part of the Bible has been the subject of detailed study by experts. If there's a particular historical event that interests you, experts will have written about it, explaining its context and meaning in minute detail. The works of those experts should be the references for anything other than simply repeating or paraphrasing or summarising what the Bible says. In this the Bible is no different from any other primary historical source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to apply WP:PSTS correctly to a controversial subject, so bear with me. I'm sure every part of the bible has been the subject of detailed study, but claims of the accuracy of any particular historical event described requires a secondary historical source, correct? ie. The Gospel of John 7:1-9 says "Jesus moved around in Galilee but avoided Judea, because "the Jews/Judeans" were looking for a chance to kill him." Am I correct in asserting that absent a secondary document supporting the veracity of that claim (which very well might exist), the statement cannot be taken as historical fact, because it does not come from a reliable source and therefore must be framed as "The Gospel of John depicts Jesus as moving around...?" - CheshireKatz (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, not only is that what Wikipedia policy says, it's also what historians do. I skimmed the two histories of the early church I have (fr:Étienne Trocmé, L'enfance du christianisme; Jean Daniélou, L'Église des premiers temps) and this is largely how they present things. But it will take a lot more than this to improve Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. Best of luck, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Photographic evidence

At Baton Rouge Magnet High School#Condition of physical plant a larges series of photos is being used as editorial comment to show the condition of the school. I have added a source discussing one aspect of the alleged damage. I have also removed a lot of editorial captions and original research captions. I think that there are several problems with this section. When photos are used as editorial, shouldn't they be accompanied by some kind of reliable source? How do we know the photos are current and accurate? And isn't the quantity of 8 negative photos, no positive ones an issue of WP:UNDUE? Comments/suggestions are welcome. Ongoing talk is Talk:Baton_Rouge_Magnet_High_School#Building_Condition AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole article has a more serious notablity issue, to be honest i don't think it would survive a afd, but to answer you point, i think the photographs would be considered original research. --Neon white (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a high school with an article longer than a page. There's no way it would be deleted. That said, this looks like OR, and it's probably undue weight with verifiability problems as you mentioned. A gallery to support an interpretive sentence is certainly not encyclopedic. The gallery of primary images should be removed and replaced with a citation to secondary source. Cool Hand Luke 04:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering the majority of it is unsourced, the length of the article is not going to have any bearing on whether it is judged to be a notable school. --Neon white (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. I wish it could be deleted, but I would bet money that any school of these characteristic would not be deleted. Cool Hand Luke 22:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Serebii.net

It's a great fan site, but also has great information. They have a big community, however, so there's bound to be mistakes. On the other hand, Serebii.net is trusted by many individuals as a place for reliable information. They have alot of information, so they have to fact-check it, anyhow. What do you think? I really don't know if I should use Serebii.net as a reliable source... - ~VNinja~ 20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see anywhere on the site where they describe themselves or say that they check facts. It would depend what purpose it is to be used for. Can you give more details? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was planning on using Serebii.net to gain pokemon info, namely for Mewtwo, but I wasn't sure if I should or not. - ~VNinja~ 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can't get information from the Pokemon publishers themselves and you can't find anything better by googling then you could consider using it for the time being and asking on the article talk page or the Pokemon wikiproject (if there is one) if anyone can help you find a better source. It isn't ideal, but may be acceptable if what you are saying isn't controversial in any way. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi Walled Garden with questionable source

I hate to say I think I already know the answer to this but bear with me. Because I have a long term conflict with the editor that placed this reference in these articles, I feel I need to double check and be very cautious rather than bold about removing it. The most current manifestation of this conflict can be found on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.

This link has been used a number of times to source info in articles: [36]. Besides the fact that it doesn't appear to meet WP:V or WP:RS and is essentially a personal essay published online, the webpage does not show up on Google at all. Searching on exact phrases in it come up blank. Also note that the only link on the page is to this promotional and commercial website.

Here is an example from Badal Roy:

Roy has appeared and offered workshops at RhythmFest, the Starwood Festival, and at the SpiritDrum Festival[37], a special tribute to the late Babatunde Olatunji (co-sponsored by ACE and Musart) with Muruga Booker, Jim Donovan of Rusted Root, Halim El-Dabh, Jeff Rosenbaum and Sikiru Adepoju, among others[38].

Variations of this quote have been adapted to most of the articles of the people named in this quote, shuffling the names around as needed. Most of these musicians are obviously notable from the content of their articles but this item appears to me as undue weight, particularly since, when I check the musicians' online bios, they never mention these events (Starwood, RhythmFest, SpiritDrum) among their personally notable achievements. Even Muruga Booker doesn't mention the events on his main bio page and the source document is actually in a subpage on his website. But without links to it from the main website as far as I can see.

I suspect this is a mini-walled garden form of spam placed by User:Rosencomet (who is also Jeff Rosenbaum) to raise the profile of his group and events. I think the inadequacy of the sourcing is blindingly obvious, but I'm leery of removing these references without at least some feedback from other editors. I may be too close to ongoing conflicts with User:Rosencomet to be completely objective. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Potentially this could be acceptable as a self published article considering it's only being used in an article about the publisher and being relevant to notability --Neon white (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
But you're right to say that anything taken from it must be notable in the context of the article it's used in. If not, it's WP:SPAM and can be removed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That's my point. First I believe the source for the info doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS and, second, there is no indication that the events were specifically important enough in the performers' careers to be notable and included. Because the editor who put these particular references in these articles (and similar ones in a slew of other articles as well) has a huge WP:COI in mentioning his group and events, it strikes me as linkspam. I just wanted to see what others thought. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dallas Observer blog on BLP

At Greg Williams (radio personality) blogs from the Dallas Observer are being used for information that probably requires a higher quality of source for a BLP. For example [39]. I think the information relying on these sources should be removed. Comments? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the more I look the more I think that The Dallas Observer itself may not be qualified as WP:RS. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dallas Observer is certainly a reliable source according to our criteria... it is a published print newspaper. Thus, its website is reliable (similar to the way the New York Times website is reliable).
The blog is more of a grey zone. Blogs associated with reliable media outlets are often reprints of the paper's Editorials and Op-Ed pieces. As such, they can be considered reliable sources for statements about the opinion of the author, but not for statements of fact. Anything cited to such a blog should be directly attributed to the editor/collumnist who authored it (as in "According to Joe Schmoe, editor of the Dalas Observer, such and such is the case").
That said... Not every opinion is noteworthy enough to be included in our articles. It really depends on the reputation of the editor/collumnist who authored the blog and his expertise in the subject matter he is commenting on... You have to ask the question: Is his/her opinion notable? That means we have to figure in things like WP:NPOV (especially WP:Undue Weight). And if you do cite the blog to back a statement about the opinion of its author, be sure that you are only citing the core blog piece. "Comments" and "Responses" from readers are not reliable (even if signed, we have no way to know if they are who they claim to be), and their opinions are not notable.
Finally, we have the fact that we are discussing a BLP... a much higher standard applies in those articles. In BLPs, I don't think statements of opinion by third parties have a place. Thus, in this case, I would remove the material. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuban Artists

User:ArleArt has created over 140 articles with the only external link being to the http://www.cubancontemporaryart.com/ . I first noticed it when working on AWB and seeing lots of articles with that as their own source. Then I saw an entry on WP:COIN, which makes me think there is no preexisting consensus for mass-additions. The website listed as the source is a pay-per-view site, so I can't confirm its reliability or copyvio status. On his talk page, there have been numerous attempts to contact him this issue User talk:ArleArt and his only response has been "Sorry but i could,nt understend exactly why you want that this article ereaised. The category that i create cuabn contmporary artists is a way to promote the life and the art oof visual artits from the island susana mori is one of those artist and for that i think that she is important. If you need more information about her please made mew know" Could someone at least slow down this user until we are sure there are no copyvio issues with these articles? And how would we go about vetting 140 articles for notability and reliable sources? Mbisanz (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Techblogs

I'm curious if we deem things like Techcrunch, lifehack, mashable, etc to be reliable. They're blogs to start with so I'd say no. I'm often wondering who exactly it is thats written entries at a lot of these places when they're used as sources. I did a quick search of the archives and didn't find TC or LH being discussed before. I'm also curious how these would apply to establishing notability (separate but I think slightly linked).--Crossmr (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Blogs in general are not considered reliable sources. A de-facto exception (ie not officially mentioned as an exception in the RS guidline or WP:V, but generally accepted by the community as an exception) are blogs authored by an acknowleged expert writing on the subject of his expertise. And in those cases things should be expressed as opinion not as fact. To my mind an opinion never establishes notability (one person thinking something is notable does not make it so.) Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
given that a person is an expert and that his blog is accepted as an authority in the subject, it should have a considerable amount of reliability as anything the same person were to published otherwise. Recognition by authorities in the subject as notable is notability. Of course, it would have o be shown that the person were in a position to establish notability--a notable critic in the case of SF, for example. DGG (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews redux

Same Wikinews interview that inspired #Wikinews and this BLP/N on Wolfowitz. The interview is with Craig Unger, noted journalist who tried to sell the October surprise conspiracy in the early 90's and has recently published two books about conspiracies in relation to the Bush administration. This interview has been added as a source by the author to these articles:

  • Rumsfeld BLP problem?
  • Team B an especially strange block quote
  • Christian Zionism basically the topic of Unger's new book, so he is probably notable in the field, but I suspect the book should be used instead
  • Wolfowitz also citing the Daily Mail, so probably fine if the interview was removed

My understanding is that most editors thought citing Craig Unger's book would be more reliable than a Wikinews interview recording his off-the-cuff remarks. Some editors also expressed uneasiness that the author himself was inserting the story, but I don't think this matters: they're either permissible or not. The route shouldn't matter.

I asked user to cite to the book directly, but got no response. I don't want to merely delete these additions because I'm unsure of where the community stands and I also promised to try not to revert this user. So, to what extent may Wikinews interviews be used as a source? My view is that interviews should only be used as a source on the commentator unless the interview itself is notable in relation to some topic (that is, unless it has been covered elsewhere). Cool Hand Luke 18:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews conducts interview with notable people. It's one of the things we do, it's one of the things we were set up by the Wikimedia Foundation to do. Those interviews are not unreliable, as they are the transcribed words of the people. I'm not quite sure what the issue is, but if the issue is "We should not use Wikinews interviews as sources" then I think we should alert User:Jimbo and Wikimedia. The links you point to are an interview with Unger about the book, not "off-the-cuff" remarks but questions related to his research. It's surprising, Luke, that you just can't seem to stop focusing on my work, but okay. Let's see how the conversation goes and whether we need to have Wikimedia involved in it. --David Shankbone 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What I mean by "off the cuff" is they're a record of his extemporaneous remarks and they are less reliable because the commentator must rely on memory and the claims are not vetted by a publisher. If you look at the two previous discussions I cited:
In my opinion, interviews are certainly reliable, but only for views of the person giving them. I think there was a consensus that they are not reliable for third-party commentary, and I would like to confirm that. You wouldn't reply to me, so this looks like the correct forum.
It's not an issue with Wikinews, it's with interviews generally. Unless the remarks are established as notable, we can't assess their WEIGHT let alone their veracity. Cool Hand Luke 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So what, exactly, is your point? That a journalist talking about a book he wrote and the research he discovered on, for instance, Team B or Christian Zionism or Paul Wolfowitz is unreliable? The issue, to me, was the prominence of a Wikinews box that led to an entire interview, and not quoting the remarks of a notable person and the source for those remarks. So, perhaps you can clarify with a statement exactly your issue is if it was to be written as a guideline. And regarding the book, there is a link to a chapter wrote and was re-printed on Salon along with the interview. So, some kind of guideline that fleshes out your concern would be in order. --David Shankbone 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the guidelines need to be changed, but if I were to make something explicit, I would include interviews as self-published sources. As mentioned in the previous discussions, interviews (and perhaps Wikinews interviews in particular) share all the characteristics of self-published sources. As such, they should never be a source in third-party BLPs, and they should be used sparingly otherwise considering that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (See WP:SPS). Cool Hand Luke 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the paragraph on Wolfowitz has four sources, including a fifth (David Nelson). So I don't see your issue. I think a broad-based "Interviews are self-published sources" argument is hurtful to Wikipedia; it depends upon with whom the interview is conducted. If it's Bob Gioevans who believes the world is flat, then probably it would be a "Self published source". If it's with a notable person who is published in other areas, or is notable in some field, then I disagree. All interviews are not equal. --David Shankbone 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Interviews published by sources that might be held liable for defamatory remarks are more likely to vet comments and be held accountable than Wikinews, but I don't think such speculation is helpful.
If "it's with a notable person who is published in other areas" then the views are likely to have been picked up in reliable sources. Indeed, we know they were in this case. Simply: if the remarks are worth reporting, they would have been quoted in news stories. For example, if we were writing about a company and wanted to cite a conference call. There would be no context or weight for including, say, the chairman's claims that the company is being plagued by a conspiracy of short-sellers. If and when news articles are written about these remarks, then we would have reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 20:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So your issue appears to be with a Wikinews interview being used at all, since Salon published the pertinent chapter and the interview backs it up? Because the paragraph on Wolfowitz is not only heavily cited, the interview in fact backs up already published sources. So, again, I don't understand your issue. --David Shankbone 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I cited four examples of its use. I said myself that Wolfowitz would be fine if you cut the cite to the interview. If this were just an issue with Wolfowitz, I would have used that talk page. I found the first examples more problematic. Concentrate on Rumsfeld. Cool Hand Luke 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Why would we cut the cite to an additional cite to the source backing up Salon? What use would that serve? --David Shankbone 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews convenience break

What Luke is arguing is that we should not use interviews with primary sources, the newsmakers themselves, on Wikipedia. There is no cause for us to not use the words of notable primary sources, the people directly involved with events and research. This is a major change in policy Luke is espousing and is currently covered nowhere in our established guidelines and policies. --David Shankbone 22:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't treat Wikinews interviews any differently than we would treat other self-published remarks by otherwise notable people. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(Aside: Newsmaker's work products are sources, but they remain people.) My claim is simply that we should treat interviews like self-published sources. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That makes no sense. If Tashi Wangdi makes a statement about what he knows about the 11th Panchen Lama's whereabouts, and it hasn't been reported in another source, that doesn't make his words a "Self Published Source" since he represents the Tibetan government in exile, who is in a place to know such information. That makes Wangdi a primary source. --David Shankbone 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Two scenarios for policy examination

Question. Would both of these be reliable sources for "new" information? Both are hypothetical and fictional(obviously, for BLP concerns), and are both issues that could be seen as possibly touchy along the lines of the Wolfowitz scenario.

  • If Bill Clinton appears on Larry King Live, and announces a previously unknown fact about Hillary Clinton: "Hillary in college at Yale was briefly married to Donald Rumsfeld." As Bill Clinton is clearly an authority on his wife of 30+ years, would this be sufficient to source the fact that (again, fictionally for this example!) that Hillary briefly was wed to Rumsfeld? In this scenario, Bill's statement is not vetted nor screened--it went out live on the air, but there is no way anyone can argue that Bill is not a complete expert on this third party, his wife. Is this a valid source for this statement, about third parties? If the answer is "Yes", then why would it be any different if Bill Clinton made this statement in an interview on Wikinews, as opposed to Larry King Live?
  • If Bill Gates is interviewed by Time Magazine, and says (again, fictional example): "It is my understanding that the US Department of Justice this week is going to offer a full and unconditional written apology and settlement to Microsoft for bothering us so much about trust laws, and US Attorney John Jacob Jingle-Heimer Schmidt has confirmed this to me." Is this a reliable source for the fact that the USDOJ will be giving MS an apology and settlement? In this scenario, Bill is clearly a recognized expert on Microsoft, and their relationship to the USDOJ with anti-trust laws. Is this a valid source for this statement, about third parties? If the answer is "Yes", then why would it be any different if Bill Gates made this statement in an interview on Wikinews, as opposed to in Time Magazine?

Are both scenarios fine to use for sourcing? If both of those are, I fail to see why Wikinews wouldn't be a fine source in the same vein--it's journalist are vetted, known to the Foundation by name, and acreddited journalists. Please tell me if I'm reading these wrong, and I'd like views on my two scenarios.

I'm wondering if the problem isn't with the fact that the known expert, Unger, made the statement, so much as it is the fact that this appeared in a Wikinews interview. If that is the case--do we need to let the Foundation as David mentioned know that Wikipedia does not consider Wikinews a viable tool for the project? Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this commits the same error as Shankbone: assuming that people can be reliable sources. Reliable sources are characterized not just for their human expertise, but also for fact-checking. This is why we value peer-review and publications with a reputation for fact-checking. Using Bill Gates' statement to impute behavior to a living U.S. Attorney is not allowed. Luckily, such quotes would be so sensational that they would practically guarantee reliable coverage: news stories reporting the comment and trying to get confirmation from the implicated parties. This is a central axiom to WP:SPS: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
Incidentally, noting Unger's checkered past, and the interview's complete failure to ask a single challenging question, I would also challenge the notion that he's an expert. I won't argue that point, but it's a worthy aside. For various reasons, interviews are often biased in favor of those being interviewed. Because the interviewee often cannot carefully choose their words, and because they must rely on memory, blog posts could actually be a better source in some cases. At any rate, we should grant an expert interview no more deference than an expert blog post, and WP:SPS is the proper analysis. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Luke is saying several things here:

  1. That people are not sources. That's not true. People are sources. If Bill Gates, involved in Microsoft litigation, can't be taken as a source of what the Attorney General is doing, then who can be? Who would a fact checker corrborate Gates' words with? Gates? The Attorney General? If the Attorney General said, "No, that's not true" and Gates stuck to his guns and said it was true, then you have a case where two people are saying something different. What if the Attorney General is lying? We aren't here to decide that a source is unreliable. Our policy is WP:V. One sees this throughout history, that notable people (generals, politicians, etc.) are often quoted as saying one thing, and others say another thing. That is how history gets recorded. The question is: who is the one saying what? There is no "truth computer" that people can go to in order to "fact check"--it always comes down to people's words, whether it be Bill Gates or a journalist who spoke to someone who was supposedly "in the know". How are we to take Bob Woodward at his word? The fact checking a publication would undertake is "Did Bill Gates say this" and not "Can anybody else substantiate Bill Gates?"
  2. That Wikinews is in itself not reliable to be used; in other words, that if a person says something at Wikinews, then it should be notable enough to have been said somewhere else, and by default we should use that source instead of Wikinews. This prejudice against a website doing important work is unfounded. My interview with Tashi Wangdi, the Dalai Lama's representative, fleshed out many issues related to religion, Tibet-China and the Tibetan government-in-exile's position on a variety of issues, and was appreciated by many people on those pages. Are we really here to say we shouldn't use Tashi Wangdi's interview on the Tibet articles because it is on Wikinews? Or Ingrid Newkirk's interview on animal rights articles?
  3. That he doesn't like Craig Unger. But that's also not what our policies speak to. Craig Unger is not some small-time conspiracy theorist, but a fellow at New York University Law School, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair (magazine), the former deputy editor of the New York Observer, and former editor-in-chief of Boston Magazine. He is a New York Times best-selling author. I question the veracity of quite a few notable people out there on the left and right, but the fact is that my dislike and questioning of their truthfulness (Robert Novak, say) doesn't mean I think we should discount them because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Luke, you say a lot of different things, none of which serves our purposes here on Wikipedia. And yes, Bill Gates making a statement about something that happened in regard to the Attorney General certainly should be used if he is directly involved. --David Shankbone 23:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:SPS. We don't care if the source is expert, we can't use them to implicate living people. Period. Clinton's extemporaneous comment involving the behavior of a political rival isn't even a close call. We wouldn't allow it from Larry King Live or anywhere else. This isn't an anti-Wikinews argument. I'm not arguing #2 at all. And I don't have anything against Unger or his views; #3 is irrelevant. This should apply equally to all interviews, which are forums for one party to speak their views. Without the fact-checking, corroboration, or request for comment that accompanies reliable news sources, they are self-published and should follow the same rules.
And people are not walking reliable sources; it's not as if every remark about Bush to have flown from a pundit's lips is encyclopedic. The articles (their work products) are sources—for their institutional fact-checking and expertise. Cool Hand Luke 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned the last time this came up that we already do the opposite of what you're saying. At the same as the first round of this Wikinews issue, on this page, were issues involving Lyndon LaRouche. Its apparently endorsed on Wikipedia to use expert self-published sources, isn't it? From the Dennis King/Chip Berlet material? • Lawrence Cohen 23:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And SPS mentions established experts may be used. Bill Clinton is a walking reliable source about his wife Hillary, unless it comes out that he lies about her. One wonders how a publication would fact check against Bill Clinton? Time Magazine is doing an article on the candidates favorite ice cream flavors, and they can't get Hillary on the phone, but they get Bill. He says chocolate. Do you really think they would not print that? How would they fact check that, exactly, absent Hillary's confirmation? The question is: can people rely on Bill Clinton knowing what his wife likes? --David Shankbone 23:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If they couldn't corroberate the fact, no they wouldn't print it as fact (especially if it were meaningful rather than trivial). They might print it as an attributed remark since in this case it is meaningless and doesn't appear to be related to a material or personal interest of Mr. Clinton. In most of the interviews you're conducting, the interviewee is talking about topics where he has a deep-rooted interest (for instance by being outspoken on one side of an issue). In those cases Time would attempt to substantiate the facts presented by the interviewee and indicate where its research suggested that the facts were not in line with the statements. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My view of interviews published in self-publsihed venues like blogs or Wikinews is that we should regard them as reliable sources for the statements of the interviewees unless we have reason to doubt the veracity of the interview. Interviews, regardless of where published, should not be used as reliable sources for facts about 3rd-parties, but they may be used to cite opinions if the interviewee is notable in regard to the 3rd-party. (Bill Clinton's opinion of Hillary Clinton is notable, John Doe's opinion is not). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I concur with this view by Will Beback. - Crockspot (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Will. What about Tashi Wangdi, the Representative of the Dalai Lama, on the whereabouts of the 11th Panchen Lama and the Tibetan people's feelings about the Chinese government's appointed Panchen Lama. Would Craig Unger, a noted journalist who has written two books and numerous articles for major publications on the Bush Administration, be considered a notable source as it relates to the administration? Would Bob Woodward? --David Shankbone 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be a question about the WP:SPS policy, as I said (and you said was absurd). Can I take it that we're now on common ground on this point? Cool Hand Luke 05:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and how I would answer your questions (although I doubt you care about my views), is that the relationship must be supported by access to the person him or herself. An official representative for Tibet (or a President's wife or spokesman) have been given special access by the third-party. A journalist—even one that has written two partisan political books—has not, and really should not be exempt from BLP. Cool Hand Luke 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
See my comments below, but you raised many issues, and the only issues people appear to be agreeing with you about are biographical details of people. The Wolfowitz reference to the interview would be fine because the same details have been published before, and only serves to back up his already published material that is also used as a citation, along with the other four citations to the exact same material. The Team B and Christian Zionism articles were perfectly fine to cite to him. You raised a very broad spectrum of issues, and in the end, the issue is biographical details. See my further comments below. --David Shankbone 06:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Will summed this up quite clearly. 00:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (Jossi)
Thank you Will. Just a tiny additional question--in general, would expert journalists fall under this, for the topic they are noted for covering? For example, Jeremy Scahill is noted as an expert on Blackwater Worldwide, and their founder Erik Prince, and has written the only book exploring them (to date). He is often cited by other media an expert on Blackwater. Does an expert journalist like this in general fall under the realm of a notable view for interviews, or does it have to be someone closer (e.g. Bill and Hillary)? EDIT: just realized David asked basically the same question. • Lawrence Cohen 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of my interviews are done with people who are directly involved in issues and thus are notable for what they think. Ingrid Newkirk on animal rights, for instance; or Tom Tancredo on immigration. My interviews with journalists, even those who have reached the top of their field such as Craig Unger, are scant. Indeed, he is the only one. So for my work, it's important to point out that a reading of this policy will have far-reaching effects on Wikipedia, the sources we cite to, and what information we use those sources for. A few examples I posted on Jimbo's page to illustrate:

  1. Scooter Libby: According to Jackson Hogan, Libby's roommate at Yale University, as quoted in the already-cited U.S. News & World Report article by Walsh, "'He is intensely partisan...in that if he is your counsel, he'll embrace your case and try to figure a way out of whatever noose you are ensnared in.'"
  2. Dick Cheney: The conservative Insight magazine reported on February 27, 2006 that "senior GOP sources" had said Cheney was expected to resign after the mid-term Congressional elections in November 2006; however, only Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld left office following the elections.
  3. Al Sharpton: In April 2007, the New York Post wrote that tension exists between Sharpton and Barack Obama. According to Post political reporter Frederick U. Dicker, "Sharpton has launched a 'big-time' effort to tear down Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as a candidate for president."
  4. Most of Michael Moore controversies are allegations made about Moore by third parties, e.g.: [[On March 12, 2007, Canadian filmmakers Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine appeared on MSNBC's Tucker to talk about their documentary Manufacturing Dissent, which investigates Michael Moore. They reported to have found that Moore talked with General Motors Chairman Roger Smith at a company shareholders' meeting, and that this interview was cut from Roger & Me.[1][2] However, the actual encounter was not captured on camera by Moore, and occurred before he became a filmmaker.[3] Moore told the Associated Press that had he met face-to-face with Roger Smith during production and tried to keep the footage secret, General Motors would have made it known through the media to discredit him.

All of these examples, only but a few that exist, fail Cool Hand Luke's reading of the SPS guideline. I quote a pretty acclaimed journalist who did a great deal of research and interviews with high-ranking government employees and people involved, as well as looking over government documents. --David Shankbone 05:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

David, I don't think you have any idea what would fail my SPS standard—you didn't even understand what my problem was until several others chimed in to agree that interviews were basically self-published. Moreover, what I think really doesn't matter. The actual SPS policy matters, and that's why I brought this up here—to determine what the consensus is.
None of these things you cited are interviews. They are not bare dialogs giving platform to a single source who is making extemporaneous remarks. These stories been vetted into news stories from reputable publishers that presumably ask for both parties for comment and weave numerous sources together, checking them against each other. You asked above what would happen if the AG denied Bill Gate's hypothetical claim. The answer is that a press article would likely report both, and we would then be able to cite both. Reporters don't do anything magical when they take numerous primary accounts and weave them into a secondary source, but that doesn't mean that we should act as reporters. Not on this project, anyway. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The Michael Moore controversy example below is exactly analogous to the situation at hand. Do you really not see that? --David Shankbone 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The interview doesn't seem to be cited. I agree that the article should be rephrased to follow the sources, but it is not exactly analogous; it cites news stories instead of primary interviews. Maybe analogous to Wolfowitz, which is probably fine. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
And from what I understand by what is being said, none of the information from Unger's interview is wrong to put in, it's just wrong to put it in because it was from an interview, and not cited to his fact-checked book, that says the same things about the same people? And that only relates to BLP, and not to Christian Zionism and Team B, but only to Donald Rumsfeld. --David Shankbone 06:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe they still have a WEIGHT problem, but since you now agree they're self-published comments, we can have a productive discussion on the particulars. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is nuts and pomposity on the part of Wikipedians. Wikinews has a remit to produce original research. Might as well delete that from our official policies if people will so persistently dismiss us as not credible or suitable for use in Wikipedia. It is one thing to avoid sourcing from our synthesis articles, but the OR? Neither wonder Rob Balder said Wikipedia was "the politest bunch of book-burning assholes on the planet". --Brian McNeil /talk 23:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
here is the inclusion of Wikinews Original Reporting that was never challenged. --Brian McNeil /talk 09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Self Published Photographs

Are photographs on sites like imageshack, photobucket permissable as sources? I would assume they were as obviously self-published as a video on youtube but i thought i better ask. --neonwhite user page talk 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Not different than a blog or YouTube, except users upload image content instead of text or video. Might sill be used in the rare case that it can be shown that the subject him or herself uploaded the images, or for expert commentary, ect. See WP:SPS. Cool Hand Luke 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You're answering "yes" to the "obviously self-published" part, I assume. Anyway, random "found it somewhere" photographs are totally unsuitable as sources, but are often fine for illustrative purposes. <eleland/talkedits> 17:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

erm... well on Candybar... the one about the fones... well the reference there... is that valid? i mean... its from a blog! Wikikoolkid (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

well to carry on as you left off...um...not so much... as you say it is a blog, which is not a reliable source per Wikipedia.... on top of which the blog does not even make the specific claim in the article, as far as I can see --Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you... so I can delete it, rite? Wikikoolkid (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
well... ill go change it now... lol... Wikikoolkid(User)(Talk) 22:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Forums Used for References

Resolved

In the Smash Lab article, a user posted criticism of the show, citing it as critics giving the show bad reviews, but the reference cited is a forum on Discovery's Website. I wanted to double check that this is not a reliable source before removing the content, and sources. Amazingracer (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No. From WR:RS:
Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster.
Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks for the quick response! Amazingracer (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

List of sites running the LiveJournal engine

Properly sourced material about one particular journal site is being repeatedly abusively deleted, with secondary issues of WP:OWN, WP:LAWYER, WP:CENSOR, and others. Your comments? -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To add to what Davidkevin states: the dispute concerns the addition of CommieJournal to the list; the other sites on the list are several years old and have been mentioned in published news stories while CommieJournal is several months old and has not. On the other hand, it is already as large as one of the other sites already listed (JournalFen). Davidkevin seems to feel that the existence of the site is self-sourcing and that primary sources are acceptable in this context. He has additionally stated that the list should be as inclusive as possible, but has made no effort to include other unlisted journals. Davidkevin is also very quick to assume bad faith (as has been apparent not only here but on Talk:LiveJournal) but that has little to do with this noticeboard other than as an explanation for his various claims of policy violations above. I agree with him that wider contribution to this discussion would be a good thing, and have also requested it at Talk:LiveJournal. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If by "he...has made no effort to include other unlisted journals," you mean the list of dead links and journal sites with a literal handful of users at this link as mentioned on the article talk page, that's because, believe it or not, I would agree with you about their non-notability. I don't think CommieJournal is the same as they are, due to its size, rate of growth, and the reasons behind its creation and those reasons being an ongoing reaction to the problems at LiveJournal. If CommieJournal were to fade to unused non-notability as they have, or if LiveJournal management took the winds out of CommieJournal's sails by improving itself and removing the relevancy of it, I would agree with you about removing it at that time. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Stockholms Fria Tidning: Svart vildavästernhistoria, by Mattias Gardell
  2. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica; Andrew Jackson: A Permanent Habitation for the American Indians
  3. ^ The Indian Removal Act of 1830
  4. ^ Fellman (p. 264)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4&oldid=1190227694"