Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171

Regarding this discussion, are the following sources sufficient to establish that neonicotinoids are a primary cause of colony collapse disorder in honeybees?

[1], [2], [3], [4] ("clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid ... appear the most toxic to bees"), [5] ("Neonicotinoids exhibit a toxicity that can be amplified by various other agrochemicals and they synergistically reinforce infectious agents such as Nosema ceranae which together can produce colony collapse. The limited available data suggest that they are likely to exhibit similar toxicity to virtually all other wild insect pollinators. The worldwide production of neonicotinoids is still increasing. Therefore a transition to pollinator-friendly alternatives to neonicotinoids is urgently needed for the sake of the sustainability of pollinator ecosystem services."), and the very recent article [6] has a relatively lengthy introductory review section, and states, "residues of pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides pose the highest risk by contact exposure of bees with contaminated pollen." [7] Attributes annual losses to pathogens and pests primarily, relatively little evidence presented for pesticides or neonics. [8] The multiple stressor approach is given prominence. [9]; [10] Highly cited article explaining how CCD isn't due to a single factor. [11] "Most scientists agree that there is no single explanation for the extensive colony losses but that interactions between different stresses are involved." [12] "Although the phenomenon "decline of honey bees" is far from being finally solved, consensus exists that pests and pathogens are the single most important cause of otherwise inexplicable colony losses."

If not, what is the best characterization? EllenCT (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Tough question to get an answer to. I am sure there are references out there that emphatically argue that they are the main problem or that they are not an important cause, you have to try to take the sum of the literature into account. If it was clear that nicotinoids were the problem they would have been banned by now. If it was clear that they were not a problem, there would be no discussion. So some nuance would seem to be required.

The EFSA review does not seem to make any sweeping statements along these lines, but I really only scanned it. It seems to be more of a review as to whether specific uses are problematic.

abcbirds seems to be an advocacy group. That paper can be used, but I would avoid it as a source for sweeping statements. Again, I just scanned it.

The third and fourth are behind paywalls, and the abstracts don't seem to me to draw sweeping conclusions. Wiping out bee colonies presumably requires both toxicity and exposure, so papers that address both issues should get more weight than those that just say "toxic".

Dunno if my 30 second scans of these papers are really helpful, but my best guess is that there is a lot of suspicion but no smokinig gun yet. This article shows the other side of the issue a bit. There's a paragraph in the conclusions that basically says "bad in the lab, no good field studies" whatever that means. Good luck. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, it's starting to seem like the main issue here is that you're misunderstanding what colony collapse disorder is and doing inadvertent original research because of the misunderstanding. You're seeing some research into toxicity and maybe implying that means CCD? I can't be sure, but that was what I was trying to figure out on the talk page. I'd gladly continue the conversation there if you need more clarifications. Insecticide toxicity and CCD are two different things that at this point are not connected in the peer-reviewed research (attempting to connect the two at this point would be WP:OR). We need to be careful that we don't make claims not made in the sources, and neonicotinoids being a primary cause is not supported by review articles I've pulled up, or by sources you're providing either. We've discussed multiple secondary peer-reviewed sources that show the scientific consensus with none pointing a finger primarily at neonics, so it's starting to seem like trying to advocate for a single cause is getting into WP:FRINGE territory when discussing scientific consensus.

For anyone else reading this, the main issue we've been butting heads on is that no citation has been given in the secondary literature that actually says neonicotinoids are a primary cause of CCD. Ellen had provided some of the sources above, but those sources don't back up the claim that neonics cause CCD. This seems like it should be a cut and dry issue considering we have multiple sources specifically stating that the scientific consensus runs contrary to the view Ellen is attempting to advance. I've been asking for a specific reliable source that refutes the current consensus, but I haven't seen anything that specifically does that yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Having flipped through several of the papers EllenCT mentions, I aree with Formerly 98 and Kingofaces43. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Am I just seeing things, or does [13] devote several paragraphs directly linking neonics with colony collapse? It's open access and a recent review. EllenCT (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

From the above source, "None of these individual signs is a unique effect of neonicotinoids, other causal factors or other agrochemicals could produce similar signs, which complicates the establishment of a causal link." and especially, "Scientific research appears to indicate no single cause explaining the increase in winter colony losses." Your source directly contradicts the statement you are trying to make. The article primarily deals in toxicity to bees, potential pathways of exposure and avenues for further research, not CCD directly, which again is where it seems your confusion is coming in. In the future I suggest carefully reading sources before making claims about what they say. I don't like to bring WP:COMPETENCE into the conversation usually, but if there is something you don't understand about scientific research/literature in general or this particular topic at hand, I'm definitely willing to explain things further (although we've mostly beaten the horse dead on the article talk page) as it's starting to seem like the main issue here. It'd be better to have those conversations at a relevant talk page though and not on a noticeboard. For the purpose of this noticeboard though, we've pretty soundly determined by discussion here and back at the article talk page that the sources we're discussing are not appropriate for the statements you are trying to make. Is it safe to assume the matter is settled for the purposes of this noticeboard?Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Where have I ever suggested that there was only one cause involved? The extent to which you are cherry-picking passages most favorable to your (is it fair to say pro-neonic?) position indicates some serious editing problems to me. Do you believe the following passages from [14] support the assertion that neonics are a primary cause of CCD?

"Neonicotinoids exhibit a toxicity that can be amplified by various other agrochemicals and they synergistically reinforce infectious agents such as Nosema ceranae which together can produce colony collapse."

"All viruses and other pathogens that have been linked to colony collapse have been found to be present year-round also in healthy colonies [78]. That colonies remain healthy despite the presence of these infectious agents, supports the theory that colony collapse may be caused by factors working in combination. Farooqui [79•] has analysed the different hypotheses provided by science when searching for an explanation of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Research points in the direction of a combination of reciprocally enhancing causes. Among those, the advance of neonicotinoid insecticides has gained more weight in light of the latest independent scientific results [80, 81•• and 82••]."

"There is a linear relation between log daily dose and log time to 50% mortality [118, 120 and 121•]. In experiments with honeybee colonies, similar long term chronic effects have indeed been found with typical times of 14–23 weeks to collapse 25–100% of the colonies exposed to imidacloprid-contaminated food at 20 μg kg−1 [123] and 80–120 days for 1 mg kg−1 dinotefuran and 400 μg kg−1 clothianidin [76]."

"At low concentrations of neonicotinoids, sublethal effects can occur. Sublethal effects involve modifications of honeybee behaviour and physiology (e.g., immune system). They do not directly cause the death of the individual or the collapse of the colony but may become lethal in time and/or may make the colony more sensitive (e.g., more prone to diseases), which may contribute to its collapse."

What evidence, if any, do you believe exists in the secondary peer reviewed literature supporting the contention that neonics are not a primary cause of CCD? EllenCT (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, we had been discussing on the article talk page this whole time that there is not a primary single cause of CCD, but that they're on the list of potential multi-factor causes (but nothing that reproducibly has been shown to actually cause it yet). This has been mentioned multiple times, but you've been in contention with that statement whenever we've discussed it. If you haven't been in contention with that and are somehow thinking something entirely different was being argued, you've severely misinterpreted the scope of the statements being made there and the general direction of the section. This is a highly nuanced topic where the statements you are currently trying to make are quite different than what the sources you cite are actually saying (i.e. confounding toxicity and actual CCD). I highly suggest re-reading the article talk page conversation before posting there because it seems like there's some disconnect about what we were actually discussing. Either way, for the purposes of this noticeboard, the question of reliability of sources seems to have been answered. Let's make to remember the scope of this noticeboard and keep to the reliability of sources. If there are other questions on content or what is being discussed at the article, it's better to post at the article talk page instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am copying this discussion back to Talk:Neonicotinoid#Effects on bees for further discussion. EllenCT (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The Vanguard (just checked and did not realize it has a Wikipedia page of it's own) has recently been given awards for journalistic excellence. Vanguard also has an editorial board, as can be seen on their website at www.psuvanguard.com . Lastly, if it matters, PSU is ranked on Forbes top list.

I was checking for this article that is being reviewed for creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Katie_Howard The two articles in question are here and here. The first one came out in print originally, so it was cited as print. Oops, almost forgot about this one. I was just trying to establish whether this paper is reliable or not as a way for increasing the likelihood that this article sticks. If it is reliable, should this be noted on Katie Howard's talkpage to remind those reviewing it (at which time they decide to review it)? Thank you for the time. Corporatemonster (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

We need more detailed information, specifically the article(s) and the claims for which they are being used as evidence. A student paper may be reliable for students' opinions and broad coverage of campus events but unreliable on other topics. It may be reliable under some editors and faculty advisors but unreliable under others. So we need more information. ElKevbo (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I have this statement from the aforementioned article draft "The bout ended in controversy, as in Howard's estimation Avila was soundly defeated. The Full Contact Fighting Federation's announcers also felt that Howard had won the fight. However, the judges awarded Avila the split decision victory. Howard would gladly accept a rematch", which comes from the Vanguard. No one is saying the fight was rigged or anything contentious, it was just the judges did not see it like the FCFF announcers called it during their color commentary of the fight. These things happen. Howard also felt she won, and wants a rematch. All verifiable and non-contentious I would imagine.

Next we have this assertion in Howard's article "Howard holds a notable mma victory over blackbelt brazilian Jiu Jitsu world champion Miriam Cardosa at Cagesport [6]. Katie came into the fight as a sizable underdog, but walked away with a dominating victory over the heavily favored Cardosa" which is supported by http://www.mmaweekly.com/grappling-world-champion-miriam-cardoso-finally-makes-mma-debut-on-saturday-with-high-hopes (Cardosa had a lot of hyper coming in, and Katie pulled off the upset) and here http://psuvanguard.com/sports/g-i-r-l-s-throwdown-at-the-roseland/

Lastly, there is an assertion that " Howard is also a decorated grappler, with first place finishes in the purple belt division, as well as first place finishes in advanced no-gi submission wrestling[13]", which comes from this article http://psuvanguard.com/sports/submission-wrestling-league-celebrates-10th-anniversary/.

The sports section editor is Jesse Tomaino, and he is among the staff that received first place in general excellence(among around 20 or so other awards for the Vanguard) at ONPA recently. Hope that helps you answer my question. I'm not trying to push across anything contentious, just trying to use the articles to paint an accurate picture, and the foremost goal of getting the article to pass muster with the reviewers. Any help with wording it so that it sounds more like an encyclopedia would also be welcome. Thank you for the assistance in general it is very much appreciated. Corporatemonster (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with MMA but I think you have an uphill battle to convince many editors - such as me - that a college newspaper is a high quality source about MMA. Frankly, I think you'll have a much tougher time meeting the due weight standards than the reliable source standards if your best source is a college newspaper. ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

And why would that be? College newspapers may not break the most interesting news, but they follow strict standards. After all, the purpose of the paper is to train people to be, well, reliable.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is tremendous variance in the quality of their editorial oversight so it's difficult to make a general case that all college student newspapers are de facto reliable. This is further complicated by the fact that student writers and editors are amateurs who lack specific expertise and significant experience. I have also personally observed that quite a bit of the material in many student papers is opinion-based or simply trivial which is fine for providing material for students to use as practice but is unlikely to contribute useful material to an encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

ElKevbo: could you point out specifically where the article fails to give due weight to certain points of view? I feel that everything is weighed fairly, but since I wrote it, I might not be able to see what you are pointing to. I mean, I found what was out there, and wrote about it. I cannot provide weight to other points of view if they do not exist yet. Perhaps Avila will come out and say that she felt she won, and that Howard is a sore loser. When she does, I will certainly find it, and add it to the article. Back to the matter at hand, the Vanguard receiving awards is not a recent thing. As according to this quick Google search journalistic excellence is a long-term trend at the Vanguard. I also do not think it is fair to first suggest that some college papers can potentially be reliable, and then when presented with verifiable proof that the paper is a cut above, you switch to saying that the problem is that college is not a good source for MMA. I'm just not following your logic ElKevbo, although I do appreciate you taking the time.Corporatemonster (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My point is that if the only source you can find for a fact is an article in a college newspaper then perhaps that fact fails to pass the due weight bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. If it's something that really rises to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia article then it's probably something you should be able to find in a much higher quality source or multiple sources. Of course, there are exceptions and nuances but that seems like a pretty reasonable generality. ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Also: Portland State University has not been a college since 1969. It is also in the top 15 percent of universities, according to the Princeton Review. Of course, I am quoting the cited assertion on PSU's page.Corporatemonster (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In the editorial reviews on Amazon for The Wolves of Midwinter, found here, the Amazon review itself is actually an interview, with questions asked by Amazon and responses made by the author, Anne Rice. Would this be a reliable source to use for information about the book and its themes, since it is an actual interview with the author?

Past discussions about editorial reviews on Amazon on RSN have stated that the blurbs are not reliable and need to be cited to the actual reviews on the reviewing websites and that the Amazon editorial reviews section is not a reliable source, but this interview is by Amazon and on Amazon, so I don't have that option. Silverseren^C 23:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This seems appropriate to use, since it's the author herself. Gamaliel (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an interview, but it's also slanted towards increasing sales of the book, given that it's on the bookseller site. Amazon isn't going to put up anything too negative. In that sense it's blurb-ish. We can still use it, but less overtly commercial sourcing would be preferred. It's also giving Amazon a high quality link, and my own preference is not to be too much a shill for commercial interests. --Pete (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It could be a source for clearly attributed quotes of what the author said about the book, but it shouldn't be used as a source for describing the book without that attribution. The author may have had literary goals for the book, but we need third-party (preferably scholarly) sources to cite any claim that those goals have been met. As an abstract example, the interview quotes the author as saying "Marchent was a very strong character". From this we could use this source to support a direct quote from the author, (Anne Rice says "Marchent was a very strong character".) but we couldn't use it to support Marchent was a strong character. in Wikipedia's voice.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have content dispute, but I am trying to confirm if they are reliable as publisher. I want to use a book named "Encyclopedia of Serial Killers" as source for the biographical details of a convicted serial killer. The book has been published by Infobase Publishing. OccultZone (Talk) 10:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:......Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. .......3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes ........Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". This will help the discussion in a substantial way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobase is generally considered a reliable publisher. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I got my answer. Thanks OccultZone (Talk) 00:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that you did not receive an "all clear" for any conceivable claim you might be attempting to support with this source. That's not how RSN works.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is underway about whether Anime News Network's encyclopedia section—which has previously been declared unreliable because of its user-generated content (WP:A&M/RS#Situational)—can be used to cite voice acting credits. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Bryan Cranston#ANN's encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 13:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy Stephen Prior, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, 2002, Mainstream Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84018-631-4

1. List of bisexual people (G–M)
   • Prince George, Duke of Kent was bisexual
   • Page 153
2. Prince George, Duke of Kent
   1. His death, on 25 August 1942, marked the first death of a member of the Royal Family on active service for 500 years
   • Page 377
   1. The bride was a daughter of Prince Nicholas of Greece and Denmark and a great-niece of Queen Alexandra
   • Page 82
   1. In 1939 George was elected Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England, an office he held until his death.
   • Page 153
   1. Other alleged sexual liaisons were with his distant cousin Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia, and the art historian and Soviet spy Anthony Blunt,
   • Page 57
3. History of monarchy in Canada
   • As the Statute of Westminster had not yet been implemented, the British Cabinet eventually advised against the Canadian idea and instead recommended the Earl of Bessborough as viceroy,
   • Page 37
4. House of Hanover
   • In 1837, however, the personal union of the thrones of the United Kingdom and Hanover ended. Succession to the Hanoverian throne was regulated by semi-Salic law (agnatic-cognatic), which gave priority to all male lines before female lines, so that it passed not to Queen Victoria but to her uncle, the Duke of Cumberland. In 1901, when Queen Victoria died, her son and heir Edward VII became the first British Monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Edward taking his family name from that of his father, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
   • pages 13-14

Is the book a reliable source for these claims? (Also cited in Royal intermarriage, Sophia of Hanover, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, John Bowes-Lyon, Prince Michael of Kent,Winston Churchill in politics: 1900–1939 and Winston Churchill.)

Also Double Standards by Stephen Prior, Lynn Picknett, Time Warnere 2002

This was brought up by User:Choess in 2007 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Royalty/Archive_1 in 2007, but no discussion ensued.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

I cannot readily find formal reviews of this book. It has negligible trace in GScholar. What sets off my alarms are comments I've seen in Amazon reviews about specific errors and conspiracy-mongering. I would be reluctant to accept it as a source. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the Votesmart website (http://votesmart.org) a reliable source for politicians ratings, endorsements, and political positions? Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. What's the context, please? --Pete (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

See an example I came across, this BLP: Greg_Bonnen#Political_life. Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you mean. So long as the voting records are well-sourced and the endorsements are fairly calculated, I can't see a huge problem here. Is there any reason to suspect that the numbers or facts are being manipulated? --Pete (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My concern is of WP:VERIFIABILITY. We are forcing readers to trust a source that is compiling data from other sources, but we can't reassure readers of the accuracy of that source. Makes sense? If indeed these numbers are correct, why not quote a source that can be easily validated? Cwobeel (talk)

Project Vote Smart looks kosher to me. For voting records, what other secondary sources are available? We use similar "scoring" sites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Michelin Guide. --Pete (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the red flags for me was this footer on the Votesmart site:

Most performance evaluations are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. For consistency and ease in understanding, Project Vote Smart converts all scores into a percentage when possible. [15]

This means that readers will be trusting a percentage rating as quoted on articles, when in reality there is no such a thing. Cwobeel (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Skyring: Pete, how do we address the above? Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if some American editors commented on this. If it were an Australian site describing Australian politicians, I could check the information on the site against my own perceptions. But American politics is a surprising and uncertain field for me. I adore Barack Obama and Jed Bartlett, detest Sarah Palin and a few others, but the rest of the field is not mine. --Pete (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me this is an excellent website for sourcing Congressional votes. However, caution may be due (as noted above ) with VoteSmart's attempt to summarize candidate positions and with candidate ratings from nongovernmental organizations. Let's have a look at one Member of Congress, Joe Heck (R-Nev): http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/44082/joe-heck-jr#.WAd0P9QrLwc. If you click on the box for Votes, you get a very objective set of data, without interpretation, spin, evaluation, or analysis. If you click on Positions or Ratings, however, you get into some thornier issues. I don't don't doubt the good intent of VoteSmart, but (as noted above) there may be methodological biases that come into play with attempting to summarize a politician's views. I.e. to box a Congressional member into a Yes/No position on a given issue may oversimplify/distort that person's views and actions. In sum: I think we should use VoteSmart.org as a legitimate source of data on Congressional voting records and use caution otherwise. Smilo Don (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Currently, This source is being used for Boxxy's article, a BLP. Since it is a blog, even though one from a now respectable online newspaper, would it be qualifiable as a reliable source? I believe that since it's a blog and thereby not subject to editorial control of the newspaper, would it not be a reliable source in that context? To see the diff of what it's being used for, see User:Wikidemon's reversion of my edit. (No ill intent, but it's the best indicator of what it's being used.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxxy&diff=611532104&oldid=611422189 Tutelary (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds would this post published on the outlet's website not be under its editorial control? The Guardian doesn't let anybody post whatever they want: this appears to have been a commissioned piece, and I don't see why it isn't a RS. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSBLOG 94.195.46.205 (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that I'm not going to win on this. Just going to withdraw. Feel free to archive whenever. Tutelary (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I want to add some information about filming locations and dates to some film articles with the source "Varietyultimate.com". Is there consensus at the Film Project whether the same is a reliable source? I believe it is, as it has editorial oversight, but want to make sure. Thanks. Zombiesturm (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

VarietyUltimate is an online archive of Variety magazine, a reliable source. Go ahead. – 23W _{(talk · contribs)} 00:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The New Matilda published an article "Whitehouse Denies Lobbying, PM Can't Recall, and 400 People Saw It" in which an un-named "Whitehouse insider" made allegations against the Prime Minister.

New Matilda is a heavily partisan online opinion blog. Over the past week it has published seventeen opinion articles written by a handful of regulars.

The article in which this source is used is Whitehouse Institute of Design, and the content is

It has subsequently been alleged that Leanne Whitehouse, the owner of the institute, has engaged in lobbying Tony Abbott in relation to gaining accreditation for a Masters of Design course

The article uses several excellent sources, such as the ABC and The Age for other material, but no reliable source has made or reported the same allegation. --Pete (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a deeply misleading characterisation of New Matilda. New Matilda is a well-respected independent news and investigative journalist new media outfit that's been around for more than ten years. It's at the bare minimum one of the most respected new media sources in the country. This is a cheap attempt to get reliably sourced information that Skyring wants out of an article by hoping US editors won't be familiar with the source he's making claims about. (This is not the first time, either: last week, he claimed the news section of a 147-year old daily newspaper was an "online opinion blog".) The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Pure rubbish. New Matilda as already stated is a well-respected investigative news media outfit. People pushing the line that it isn't simply don't like the implications of what is being reported. Alans1977 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an opinion blog nowadays, with a couple of posts a day. My point is that for a story about someone as notable as the Prime Minister, why aren't these same allegations on the front page of every metropolitan daily newspaper and all over the ABC news bulletins? It's now a week old and nobody in mainstream journalism has noticed? --Pete (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that every citation you want out of an article is an "opinion blog" doesn't make it so. New Matilda is one of Australia's oldest, most respected and reliable new media outlets, and once again you're resting on the hope that if you spout enough bullshit you'll come across some US editors who've never heard of it and that some of it might stick. It doesn't make it any less reliable a source. New Matilda wouldn't be the first publication to run further with a story than their counterparts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• In an article of 650 words, adding just about any "X alleged Y" stuff is transparently WP:UNDUE. I see from the history of Whitehouse Institute of Design that some even more extreme UNDUE coatracking is being attempted. My guess from a very quick scan is that there is a real, although minor, scandal brewing under the surface, and it's understandable that some editors would want to tell the world. However, if the affair is not sufficiently notable for its own article, it is not satisfactory to highjack an organization's article to explain how unfair life is. Re the OP: if the matter is significant, there will be other sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no argument that half the article is undue weight. This has been stated at length on the talk page and here, and there is no "coatracking" going on. The issue at the moment is people trying to remove it altogether. The affair - currently being covered in every mainstream media outlet in the country - concerns the institution's political lobbying, so talking about "hijacking" their article is deeply strange; not mentioning it in the article at all is such a bizarre move that it's going to look to any neutral reader like someone with a COI has been at it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The story is being covered. Or rather has been covered as it's no longer news. But the lobbying allegation comes down to one anonymous source in one partisan outlet. It's that allegation I raised, and I'm looking for a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • You've repeatedly tried to get rid of the entire story. But yes, as for this, there were multiple anonymous sources, in a story by a respected, non-partisan media outlet - one that you've tried to impugn through deeply misleading claims about them in the hope no one looks too closely. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The lobbying allegations come down to one anonymous source in New Matilda, as noted at the very start of this section. Now, we can trumpet our own opinions on it and wave our hands around, but let's look at the facts, shall we?

• New Matilda is not mainstream media. Normally for a story involving a head of government - one widely covered in the media - we'd be using mainstream sources such as the ABC. The mere fact that these allegations were not raised in any of the usual reliable sources is an immediate red flag.
• New Matilda may have been around for a few years, but looking at our article, it has had its ups and downs. It may be about to fold, going by a recent source we use.
• It currently publishes fewer than twenty posts a week. They are opinion pieces, written by a few regular contributors. They are not news stories.
• The general tone of the website is heavily left-wing. It's hardly an objective source.

Maybe it was something more in the past, but looking at what it is now, I'm calling it as I see it. --Pete (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, NM is claiming that speaking before the PM is exactly the same as "lobbying." In which case, anyone who ever gives a speech before any official is "seeking to influence a person", then the claim of "lobbying" is met. The problem is that this claim is linked in the edit to an fairly clear imputation of bribery - which is a criminal act. As it concerns a non-notable living person, the daughter, the applicable policy then becomes WP:BLP which requires strong sourcing for contentious claims (that a person was given a consideration of monetary value in order to influence an official action). If a strong secondary reliable source corroborated the claim that speaking before the PM was regarded as lobbying, then that claim would be allowed. If a strong secondary reliable source said criminal charges were being investigated against a notable person, then that would also be allowed. The mention of the daughter's name with the imputation that the daughter was involved in any crime requires strong and direct charges in reliable sources. On its own, "newmatilda.com" appears to be primarily a blog, and thus is not a strong secondary reliable source for claims of fact, or for any claims of criminality affecting living persons. Collect (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually think that this is, sources aside, quite a compelling argument for excluding this particular material. However, the repetition of the claim without basis that New Matilda is a blog is frustrating - at no point has anyone actually stated any basis to back that up whatsoever. It's one of the most established, respected and long-running providers of web-based journalism in the country - that it is a website without a paper edition does not make it a blog. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We allow some blogs as sources (particularly "blogs" associated with newspapers) -- but the proviso is that opinions must be cited as opinions, even from a New York Times blog, and NM appears to be quite substantially a provider of opinions rather than that of facts qua facts. Collect (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

They do both. I'd also point out that one of the authors of much of their investigative journalist material is Walkley Award-winning (the Australian equivalent of a Pulitzer) investigative journalist Wendy Bacon. Her work doesn't magically become a blog post because she shifts to working for a website instead of daily newspapers, Sixty Minutes or Dateline. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Depends if it's a blog or not. People post on a blog, it's a blog post. As noted, the Huffington Post is a blog, with some respected writers. You do understand this, I trust? --Pete (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a claim at Talk:Green Bean Galaxies that a Wikipedian's post on a webforum constitutes an acceptable source for a claim that he predicted the galaxy type to exist.

Thomas Zolotor predicted GBGs from theorizing that a new Grean Pea galaxy (GP) would be found. ^{[1] [citation needed]}

Is based on the statement [16]

Re: Give peas a chance!

« Reply #2848 on: September 10, 2012, 12:35:55 am » I think that a new class of pea galaxies will be found and or it will show these galaxies from way back in the past before they got very bright. I also believe a new form of galaxy ill be found soon by this Zoo project. :)

Tom Zolotor

— Freethesouls * Newbie * Posts: 22

There is an open request about this claim and the source it is backed with at Talk:Green Bean Galaxies and WT:AST. Input from RSN would be nice. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears this edit shows the problem. That needs to be removed! Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Can Internet Archive be used as a reliable source for the biographies of living person? Can Internet Archive be used as a External link for the biographies of living person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qecalumini (talk • contribs)

• Internet archive is not itself a source. Internet archive is a repository of old web pages. The original webpages would be the source, not Internet Archive. The reliability is therefore only dependent on the reliability of the original source, so there's no way we could answer your question without everyone getting a chance to review the source directly. --Jayron32 14:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the source. Is it usable in wikipedia article? If, yes then how? https://archive.org/details/Prof.Dr.DevendraPrasadGuptaViceChancellorRanchiUniversityTheTelegraphCalcuttaInterview

Your source in that is The Telegraph (Calcutta), which seems for all purposes a major reliable Indian newspaper, so you should be fine to use that as a inline citation (you can make it a {{cite news}}-based citation and use the archiveurl links to point to the Archive.org version of it) --MASEM (t) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Article: Battle of Wawon, and its first revision on November 29, 2009

Source: Turkish veterans recall Korean War memories, posted on October 19, 2010. Currently used as citation #7 in the article.

Passage in question:

It is certainly no exaggeration that almost all Korean veterans here talk about the heroic efforts of Turkish soldiers in fierce battles with the communist North and especially praise their performance during the Battle of Kunu-ri on the eastern bank of the Chongchon River. Kunu-ri, also known as battle of Wawon, was one of the key battlegrounds during the Chinese onslaught. The Turkish brigade lost more than half of their total casualities in the Korean War during this battle, resulting in the deaths of more than 400 Turkish soldiers. Turkish troops, cut off when they were encircled by Chinese regiments, were able to breach the Chinese trap and rejoin the US 2nd Infantry Division. The delay the Chinese troops encountered after meeting with staunch Turkish resistance helped UN forces to reassemble and withdraw without suffering many casualties.

Google search result on Battle of Wawon before November 29, 2009

I don't recall in any print sources before that date about the Battle of Wawon that used the same narrative as TR Defence aside from the original article I created by cross referencing official US, South Korean and Chinese military histories on the matter. The key thing that draw my eye was the description of "Chinese Regiments", which is information published by Chinese language sources only. Putting that fact in the same sentence as the "400 causalities" fact from page 90 of Disaster in Korea: The Chinese Confront MacArthur ISBN 978-1-60344-128-5 just raise the red flag even further. Jim101 (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Site: http://www.canback.com/
• Link: User talk:Zanabelles#Tables

A user is adding figures and accompanying canback ref to a large number of articles. When replacing old figures, I'm reverting. I need to know if the source is good, to know whether or not to leave the contributions that are simply adding new data. This is a bit of a rush job because the articles all get lots of edits and these will all get buried very soon, requiring manual removal. Please advise. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We need a better idea of what kind of information is being added. Can you supply us with a few diffs? Mangoe (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. GDP figures. Examples: [17][18][19][20][21] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

These don't look verifiable, peer-reviewed, scholarly, or published. Completely unreliable. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It could be COI, but at the very least someone is using more than one IP account plus a named account to insert links to a source I can find no mention of in other reliable sources..__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

COI or not, this is spamming. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And blocked. Now to see about blocking the site. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And reverting all that spam! Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC) No, they seem to be all reverted. Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not familiar with FamilyTreeCircles, used as a reference in Matthew Canfield. Althought it claims to be moderated, I don't think they mean that in the same way we refer to the editorial policies of reliable sources.

Anyone have thoughts on whether it is acceptable?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks very much like user-generated content. The sketch on Matthew Canfield might have been written by a staff member but it isn't signed so there's no indication of reliability. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment moderation isn't a reputation for fact-checking and reliability. "Submissions on this website are the opinion of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of FamilyTreeCircles.com." I don't think it's better than a random blog post for reliability.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We might want to check that article and related ones for copyvio problems as well. The creator of the article has been blocked for ignoring copyright issues.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually reviewing it as part of a CCI, but running into other issues. Thanks for finding that disclaimer, I was looking for something like that and did not see it. I didn't think it would be reliable, but I wanted to ask before removing any content using it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There was an RFC earlier on this source I believe (I think I may have been the closer on it) - the outcome of which was that the user generated content is of course not reliable, but newspaper clippings or other info which is reproduced at that site may be - dependent on the reliability of the ultimate source (much like archive.org etc). The core of the RFC was about blacklisting the site alltogether, which there was not consensus for at that time. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The subject article appears at [22]. Contrary to the Wikipedia article Malcolm Moos at <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Moos>, Professor Malcolm Charles Moos earned "a doctoral degree in political science from the University of California at Berkeley," NOT "Los Angeles".

  Done I checked the source and corrected the error. CorporateM (Talk) 04:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

An issue raised from the Video Game project [23]:

There is a Asian magazine CoroCoro that specializes in reporting on Pokemon games that would be considered a reliable source for all purposes. An upcoming issue is claimed by gaming forum users (ETA: Specifically, a normally non-reliable gaming site Serbii.net that claims to have scans of the issue) (reporting in English) that the next Pokemon game sets have certain new features; however, this is from users who have seen the issue before it has hit newsstands which is due this Friday. Gamespot, a normally reliable source for video games, has reiterated what the forum users have said in a published report on their site by one of their editors.

Myself and others have attempted to point out that while CoroCoro and Gamespot are reliable sources, the inclusion of what is claimed to be in a yet-published issue (eg, failing WP:V for 4 more days) by random Internet users is making this information unreliable, at least until Friday when the magazine hits news stands. Others claim that because Gamespot has reported it, it must be reliable regardless of the source and want to include it now.

It would be helpful to have clarification if the inclusion of "random Internet users" in the chain of authority information taints the whole chain, or if it only matter who is the last to publish where we rest our hats for considering reliability. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as the information that it's a leak is included in the article, what's the problem with using Gamespot as a reliable source? They have a review process and the article is written by a staff member that "puts its reputation at risk", so to say, which are the main criteria we use for non-academic WP:NEWSORG sources. Diego (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In their article, they clearly disconnect themselves from the claim by citing the chain - they site the information on the questionable site Serebii by name, even noting it through Siliconera (a not-necessarily reliable video game site that specializes in Japanese games for the Western/English-speaking world). So if the information proved wrong, Gamespot would have zero reputation on the line since they named their sources. I would agree that if Gamespot came out and said themselves directly that this feature would be in the next game by "sources" (without clarity), then that would have been a reliable statement. But they took steps to make sure it was clear that they didn't report this themselves. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how identifying their source by name makes any difference; in both cases they'd be reporting that a leak happened. What this shows is that the staff crew gave enough credibility to the reported facts so as to repeat them in their own website. Diego (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine for Gamespot, but that's not good for us where we have much stronger weight on reputation. A rumor from any unreliable source that ends up published by a reliable source is still a rumor from an unreliable source. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the article in question - http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pokemon-omega-ruby-alpha-sapphire-remakes-add-new-mega-evolutions/1100-6420187/ It is published by GameSpot, a recognised reliable source. The article publishes statements contained within a leak as fact. A reliable source has the ability to confer reliability onto what would otherwise be unreliable information. GameSpot have professional editorial oversight and a legal team. I am happy that this story meets WP:V and WP:RS. Verifiability depends on the public availability of the story, not the public availability of its sources. Amateur Wikipedian sleuthing into "chains or reliability" are unnecessary and futile given their lack of insight into external editorial policies. - hahnchen 15:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. The story that needed verification was the material claimed to be printed in CoroCoro, which at the time could not be verified. Gamespot couldn't verify it. We can verify what Serebii said, but they are not a reliable source so what they said has to be taken with many grains of salt, and as a rumor, shouldn't be used. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

GameSpot published it. You have no insight and are in no position to judge their editorial standards. - hahnchen 10:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can personal interpretation of web images be considered WP:RS for technical specification information, such as in this edit? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. That is WP:OR, plain and simple. It is anything but clear from the photo what is or isn't a hardpoint (the 'pylons' immediately inboard of the droptanks look more like fairings for chaff dispensers to me), and we have no way of knowing whether the aircraft is in a standard configuration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See also this webpage [24] - the images clearly illustrate that hardpoint pylons are removable. Without proper documentation, it would be pure guesswork as to what all the permitted configurations were, and accordingly, we couldn't state a maximum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. A picture needs reliable source interpretation. We can use them to illustrate other sourced material, but they are not sources in themselves. There are too many ways a photo can be misinterpreted without context.[25] __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to get some second opinions about this section of the LSD article: Lysergic acid diethylamide#Adverse drug interactions. The entire section is sourced to anecdotal content from erowid.com, including anonymous anecdotal accounts gleaned from usenet groups. I would think that this is unacceptable per WP:RS and epecially WP:MEDRS.- MrX 01:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable. Sorry you didn't get an answer before. The section should come out even though it is a relevant part of the topic. Would be worth tagging for an expert. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Itsmejudith. That was my thought as well. I will remove the section and add a tag.- MrX 20:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Is Rediff.com considered a RS? Several Wikipedia articles have citation from [26] but I didn't find any editorial or such to consider it as a reliable publisher. This link[27] which is used in Mukkam Muslim Orphanage made severe allegation(diff) so seeking for a third opinion. Thank you. Edmondhills (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Rediff News is a reliable source. Many books have used Rediff News as reference. Example: [28] - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of the Indian articles, especially the ones on Islam, are built mostly referenced to Two Circles[29]. It is a non-profit online news content website, which is not national/widespread in circulation. Is Two Circles a reliable source? If not, can we review the articles contents which are cited from Two Circles here? -Vatsan34 (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think no. There articles are mostly written with a set agenda. Their About page tells me this about their motto: In increasing commercialized media, TwoCircles.net (TCN) is the non-profit voice for the marginalized sections of India i.e. the mainstream. Hereis one recent opinion piece from them. Here is one of their facebook share which shows the kind of discussion they promote. Jyoti (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

My gut instinct is: Two Circles can be considered reliable for an attributed statement of opinion ... but should not be considered reliable for an unattributed statement of fact. It really depends on whether they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So, in the same line, can we take opinions from this [30] site? - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A good way to determine whether they have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking is to see how they're discussed by other, more established news outlets. I see their articles cited briefly in two other papers serving Indian audiences, but not sure that's enough to go on. Otherwise I agree with Blueboar that they can be used to cite opinions or attributed view points, but maybe not much else. TheBlueCanoe 17:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

They are reliable IMO specially for news regarding Muslims and their issues which often skipped by the mainstream media such as this.Edmondhills (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We should also bring news sites specially for news regarding Christian/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists and their issues which are often skipped by mainstream media. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That is another non-notable source with a passing reference to two circles dating 2012. Jyoti (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to question this as a reliable source (for statements of fact) as it is not "well-established." See Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at number of books that had used Twocircles.net for reference [31]. Zero. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I found this source about the Japanese expatriate community in Greater Columbus, working for Honda

• Motavalli, Jim. ""Little Tokyo": Japanese Honda Familes Adjust to Life in Ohio" (Archive). Cartalk. June 28, 2013.

I want to use this source in Dublin, Ohio and/or Marysville, Ohio

Information about the author: http://www.cartalk.com/content/about-jim - http://www.webcitation.org/6QIXC2zyH

Does this mean Cartalk is a reliable source? I really want to write about the Japanese community in Ohio WhisperToMe (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I found Car Talk so this is part of a TV show production. I think it's reliable so I will use it... but if anyone can find more sources that would be great WhisperToMe (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoo. You seem to have gotten to the right result for the wrong reasons. First, Car Talk was a radio show, not a TV show. Second, it was not a reliable source for anything other than cars and car repair ... and arguably not always that, as it had a large amount of humor mixed in. Third, the web site was not really part of the show as such - no articles from the web site were ever presented on the show. All that said, though, http://www.cartalk.com/content/about-jim seems to say Motavalli is a widely published journalist for respectable publications (of which Car Talk is not one!), so that probably gives him the OK as a source for non-controversial issues. If he writes controversial statements, though, he seems to specialize in environmental reporting, not sociology, though, so for anything outside that field, he wouldn't be a reliable source. I can't see that there is anything that controversial in the article, so it should be OK. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the feedback! This is certainly a non-controversial issue (I have found no controversy whatsoever in the article, let alone in the subject itself). Now we have Japanese community of Columbus, Ohio WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this article at sciencecorruption.com [32] reliable for the following quote at the article Death in the West? Note: This article is nominated for DYK; the article passing as it currently is is waiting on confirmation of whether this source is reliable or not for any of these statements.

• (Block quote) "Yeah, cigarettes are ... So what are we to do, stop living? The best way to avoid dying is not to be born you know. And if one avoided doing all the things which are alleged to be harmful to people these days we would vegetate in a mountain cave". Note: the fact this conversation takes place can be backed up by viewing the film (you can find it on youtube here [33]), but I wasn't sure if I could use the film itself as a source for a quote, please advise.

And would this article [34] at the same website be reliable for this paragraph (not currently in the article)?

"In 1985, Dutch TV station Veronica began making a documentary film about Phillip Morris' suppression of Death in the West. Veronica planned to use footage from Death in the West in their film. Phillip Morris subsequently threatened them with legal action if Veronica used said footage, which successfully prevented the film from being released."

Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Any comments would be appreciated. Freikorp (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

ScienceCorruption.com doesn't seem to say who writes it. [35] That's worrisome. Unless you can find other reliable sources relying on it (books, magazines, for example) I would say it should not be used for something as clearly controversial as this film. You can, however, use the film itself to back a direct quote, as long as there isn't interpretation. --GRuban (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Freikorp (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

At the article for The Years of Decay, an album by the band Overkill, a statement about its sales figures reads:

As of 2013, The Years of Decay had sold four million copies worldwide.

This is sourced from a website named WhatCulture!, which says:

This is undoubtedly their magnum opus and has sold an impressive 4 million copies.

I have several issues with this. Firstly, what is WhatCulture! ? Where exactly did the writer of that piece get the figure from, seeing as every other source on the 'Net either quotes multiple versions of the WP article, or provides no reliable information at all (such as RIAA certifications). Furthermore, the source was published in 2013, about two years after I made my first edit to the article, which already had the statement in place—actually first added in 2010. This strongly suggests that Ben Timpson has merely quoted the unsourced statement from WP. Therefore I propose to remove both the statement and its unreliable source, and any attempts to add it back (which undoubtedly will happen). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I added a citation to WhatCulture once, and another editor instantly reverted it. He told me that WhatCulture was a blacklisted site with absolutely no editorial overview. Obviously, he was wrong about the blacklisted part, but I've seen no evidence that it has editorial overview. It seems to be a content farm or equally unreliable source that self-publishes blog-type articles and top ten lists. I'd say that it's generally safe to strip citations to this website unless the author can be demonstrated to be a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In which case I will do that, seeing as my searches for reliable sources pertaining to the album's sales figures have come up empty—I have genuinely tried all I can, but am unable find anything from RIAA, BPI or elsewhere that does not simply quote old versions of the WP article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Koç family had:

The wealth of the Koç family, however, originates from money and property which was appropriated through the [[Armenian Genocide]] in 1915. The [[Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey|confiscated]] [[Armenians|Armenian]] but also [[Greeks|Greek]] property led to the emergence of a new wealthy social Turkish class.<ref>Ugur Ungor, Mehmet Polatel: ''Confiscation and Destruction. The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property.'' Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. p. 132</ref><ref>Sidney E.P. Nowill: ''Constantinople and Istanbul: 72 Years of Life in Turkey.'' Troubador Publishing, 2011. p. 77</ref><ref>Ayse Bugra: ''State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study.'' SUNY Press, 1994. p. 82</ref><ref>Geoffrey Jones: ''Entrepreneurship and Multinationals: Global Business and the Making of the Modern World.'' Edward Elgar Pub, 2013. p. 35</ref>

The problem is - I actually went to the trouble of examining all of those sources:

"Koç" is not found in the 2011 Ungor book on Armenian confiscation. It fails as a result. [1]

The 2011 Ashenden book page 77 specifies that Koç "had not played any part in the Wealth tax" and makes no comment whatsoever that he profited from the confiscation.

Bugra page 82 makes no claim about Koc and the confiscation-- that page refers to his "business mentality" and not to "confiscation" at all. It does not support the claim made.

Leaving Jones page 35 which makes no connection either -- it states that Koc "was one of a new generation of Islamic Turks who began to build businesses ." It dates his government contracts to the 1930s, and makes no claim that he profited from Armenian confiscations.

In short -- not a single one of the "sources" is valid for the claims ascribed to them.

The remaining question is: the sources are "RS" for sure, but what to do about editors using them to say what they do not say? Collect (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

These sources are not reliable for the specific claims made, for the reasons you give. Please refer the editors here if they do not understand. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There's more than enough sources that can verify the claims for both the Koc and the Sabanci families. For one, the Ashenden book says that Vehbi Koc didn't take part of the Wealth Tax (Varlik Vergisi). That has nothing to do with the fact that he leftover Armenian property in Istanbul which he turned into a museum ([36]). Even Ashenden alludes to this fact by saying "He took over many collapsed of confiscated enterprises" on the very same page which you have failed to mention. As for the claims regarding Sabanci, there's way too many additional sources that verify these claims ([37][38]) (will provide more if needed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a funny rule -- we can not make claims not explicitly made in reliable sources. The sources you have given quite frankly do not support the claims made. And I regret that the Bing translations of the Armenian sites (including "Armenians in Western Armenia", and Ulusal Kanal, which appears to be a blog (and possibly an anti-Semitic one if the Bing translation is close), do not appear to be usable under WP:RS either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

For one, I didn't provide any sources in the Armenian language. The sources are in Turkish. Armenian and Turkish are two different language with distinct alphabets. Secondly, I provided sources that explicitly mention that both families had directly or indirectly benefited in an economic scale from the Armenian Genocide and the confiscation and expropriation of Armenian properties. Ungor's source and the others (i.e. Taraf, Hetq, and Ulusal Kanal) provides the exact wording you're looking for. For the record, Ungor state's that Sabanci's rags-to-riches story was an "example of Turkish entrepreneurs who benefited from the Armenian genocide". That line is almost identical to the one found in the Confiscated Armenian properties article. As for the claims of anti-Semitism, I do not know where you got that from. I'd need an RS from you to back your claim instead of utilizing some sort of personal conjecture from a (mis)read Bing translation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Um -- I made no such claim. IO would note your edit war on this now has:

The wealth of the Koç family, however, originates from money and property which was appropriated through the [[Armenian Genocide]] in 1915.<ref name=ayse>{{cite news|title=Ermeni mallarını kimler aldı?|url=http://www.taraf.com.tr/yazilar/ayse-hur/ermeni-mallarini-kimler-aldi/370/|agency=Taraf|date=2 March 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Ozkoray|first1=Erol|title=Why Is the Armenian Genocide Still a Taboo?|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100520022946/http://hetq.am/en/region/29407/|publisher=Hetq|date=29 March 2010}}</ref> A house in the district of Keçiören near Ankara was confiscated after its original owners fled the premises during the Armenian Genocide.<ref name=ayse /> The [[Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey|confiscation]] of [[Armenians|Armenian]] but also [[Greeks|Greek]] property led to the emergence of a new wealthy social Turkish class.<ref>Ayse Bugra: ''State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study.'' SUNY Press, 1994. p. 82</ref>

Primarily relying on the same sources which do not support the claims made, and adding one source which does not appear to meet WP:RS for claims of contentious fact. In fact, the Taraf opinion column does not appear to mention the Koc family at all, meaning its use here is against Wikipedia policy. In fact, I find the editor who misuses sources in such a blatant manner to be acting against the proper requirements of Wikipedia at this point. Collect (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, friend. Please (re)read the Taraf source:

Çankaya Köşkü’nü Kasapyan ailesi hiçbir kimseye satmamıştır. Devrin hükümeti yalnız o köşkü değil, bütün mallarını ve mülklerini ellerinden alıp Ağustos 1915 yılında tüm aileyi sürgüne sevk etmişlerdir. Benim babam (Ankara doğumlu 1887-1930) o tarihlerde ecnebi bir şirketin sahibi olduğu demiryolunda çalışması vesilesiyle tüm aileyi Ankara’dan (Konya yoluyla) İstanbul’a kaçırmıştır. Ayrıca Kasapyan ailesinin sahip oldukları mülkler arasında Keçiören’deki bağ evi vardı ve bu bağa da Vehbi Koç ailesi sahip olmuştur. 15 veya daha fazla sene evvel, İstanbul gazetelerinden birinde bu bağ evinin resmi çıkmıştı -bu evi Vehbi Bey müzeye çevirmişti- ve annem rahmetli Vehbi Bey’e bir mektup yazmıştı. Vehbi Bey de anneme o bağ evinin renkli bir fotoğrafını yollamıştı….Ayrıca Ankara’da dedemin ailesi ve kardeşleri kendi paralarıyla bir (Ermeni Katolik) kilise inşa etmişlerdi ki, bu kilise de yakılmış…

Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Taraf isn't ruled out as a source and we may need some Turkish speakers to let us know whether this is an op-ed or reportage. The important thing is not to take more from a source that is actually there. I only have Microsoft Translate for this and for a language so different from English as Turkish is, it isn't a great deal of help. I see mention of one house. It is a far cry from that to "made their money from". As I say, it may require to have an independent Turkish speaker to look at this. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The entire contextual basis of the Taraf source provides detailed information to the confiscation of Armenian properties and assets during and after the forceful deportations of the Armenians as part of the Armenian Genocide. The very title of the source, Who took the property of the Armenians? (Turkish: Ermeni mallarını kimler aldı?), provides the basis to the entire theme of the article. The source starts with background information to the Armenian Genocide in the section paragraph under "TEHCİR BAŞLIYOR" and includes notable examples of confiscations, like those of Vehbi Koc, Nusret Bey, and other Turkish entrepreneurs, who made a fortune off confiscated Armenian property coupled with the elimination of competition resulting from the forced deportations and massacres.

If the Taraf source itself is not enough, the information here can be easily verifiable with other sources. Page 250 of this source describes the expropriation of Armenian assets by the Koc family and sums it up by saying, The inheritance of such wealth through the loot of Genocide victims continued with a passion for years. (Turkish: Soykırım kurbanlarının bıraktığı mirasların yağmalanma tutkusu yıllar sonra da devam etti). Page 166 of this source also describes in detail the confiscation of Armenian property by Vehbi Koc under the context of the confiscation of Armenian assets during the time of the Genocide. Aside from these, I also recommend the Hetq source which explicitly states:

Apart from monetary and weapons help received from Lenin, the biggest financial source for the War of Independence was money appropriated through the Armenian genocide. With this money, weapons were purchased, an army was set up and its logistics provided. The persons involved in these came to form a new social class that owed its wealth to the Armenians’ property (for instance, the porter Haci Ömer Sabanci is the ancestor of today’s Sabanci family, and grocer Vehbi Koç the progenitor of today’s Koç family), and thus the social bases of the movement emerged.

The 17 Feb 2001 article entitled Setting New Agendas for Turkish-Armenian Relations in the Armenian Reporter states:

Wealthy magnates like Vehbi Koc, according to available information, accumulated their wealth from abandoned Armenian properties.

Page 77 of Ashenden's book, when in reference to Vehbi Koc during the Varlik Vergisi in the early 1940s states:

The businessman, Vehbi Koç – who later became a titan of Turkish industry and trade – had not played any part in the Wealth Tax, but he had been quick to see the opportunities it provided. He took over many of the collapsed or confiscated enterprises.

As for Turkish language translations, I must say that although I may not be ethnic Turkish, I am proficient in both modern Turkish and Ottoman Turkish and can help out in translating the Turkish sources if need be. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS for the kind of sources that are needed for making such a claim. I would not see the Ashenden book as reliable on this, for example. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is not a reliable source for these claims. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You're dismissing sources without providing an adequate and convincing reason. I still haven't encountered any conclusive reasoning in this thread as to how and why each of these sources (i.e. Hetq, Taraf, Marasli, Cetinoglu/Demirer, The Armenian Reporter, and others) aren't reliable and how they fail verification. Each and every source that I've provided explicitly states that he benefited from the Armenian Genocide while other sources specifically indicate that he did this by confiscating the vineyard estates formerly owned by deported Armenians (in this case the Kasapyan family). Yet, all I heard was claims that are entirely untrue with no reasoning to back such claims or that we need a Turkish speaker to help verify these sources, which I wouldn't mind having. I heard that sources, such as Taraf, "does not appear to mention the Koc family at all" or that they're some how anti-Semitic. That's entirely not true. When I pointed out that Taraf indeed does provide an elaborate description of the property being confiscated, there was no response. And how are these sources anti-Semitic? Can anyone please provide reasoning behind these claims? As for Ashenden, I don't know you're reasoning as to why it's not a reliable source but that source was never intended to be used for Vehbi's confiscation of Armenian goods during the aftermath of the Genocide. I merely pointed it out to indicate that confiscating the properties of minorities happened more than once in Vehbi's life. Besides, this can easily be verifiable through other sources (including a confession in his memoirs), but I wouldn't want to digress from the topic of discussion regarding confiscations during the Armenian Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, it seems that we need to go through these one by one, carefully. Before that, and to save any misunderstandings, I prefer that we work from the source to the claim, i.e we will try to find consensus about whether the source is in principle usable for the history of Armenia and Turkey in the aftermath of 1915. Then if it is usable it needs to be used responsibly and not beyond what it actually says. What doesn't help is to make a claim and then find sources to back it up. Now, a number of sources have been presented and it will be easy to get muddled. Etienne, would you like to suggest which one you think is strongest and we will consider that first. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The information provided by each and every source conforms to one another so there isn't no question of undue weight here. ALL of these sources are written by ethnic Turkish historians and scholars so there's no question of Armenian nationalist sympathies in any of the sources aforementioned. I haven't even brought forth Armenian sources yet for the sake of avoiding such debates. If you want a case-study analysis on each of them, I'd be more than happy to provide that for you. If you'd like, we can start with the Turkish sources since the English sources are in English anyways. Recep Maraşlı's book, Ermeni ulusal demokratik hareketi ve 1915 soykırımı (English: The Armenian National Democratic Movement and the Genocide of 1915) devotes an entire chapter (pages 244-250) entitled "Soykırım kurbanlarının mallarının gaspı ya da ekonominin Türkleştirilmesi" (English: The confiscation of assets from Genocide victims and the Turkification of the economy). The chapter specifically mentions on page 249-250 the Kasapyan estate(s) as a notable example of such confiscations during the Genocide and that the properties in question have been have been expropriated by the government ("devlet tarafından gasp edilmiş") and ultimately confiscated by Vehbi Koc. It goes on to describe that the estate contained a large vineyard and that the Kasapyan's owned much more property, including one that was also confiscated and turned into the Presidential Palace or in other words, Turkey's White House ([39][40]). Confiscations of Armenian Genocide victims such as the case with the Kasapyan's, says Maraşlı on page 250, continued for many years ("Soykırım kurbanlarının bıraktığı mirasların yağmalanma tutkusu yıllar sonra da devam etti.") Recep Maraşlı himself is a prolific writer and a respected historian who has received numerous awards (i.e. International Publishers Association, PEN International, and more) for his works and fortitude ([41][42][43][44]) and several grants including the Hellman-Hammett Grant from the Human Rights Watch ([45]). He's been deemed an Honorary Member by PEN International. At any rate, this is just one source that I chose to clarify. And to reiterate: all this information can be easily verifiable by other sources. As for the translations, let me know if you need help. Regards, Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely reasonable to believe that one of the richest men in Turkey owns property that was once Armenian. These sources are being used to assert that the wealth of this person derives from this property. That assertion is not supported. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand the intense nature of the feelings around the Armenian genocide, however these references are not solid or reliable. This person didn't expropriate Armenian property. The individual in the bio article involved was 13 years old during the the Armenian genocide. He didn't state working in his father's grocery until he was 15, two years later. He didn't really begin his own business career until he started his own business in 1926, eleven years after the Armenian genocide. He made his fortune in construction in Ankara in the decades after it became the Turkish capital (1923) and after he became the Standard Oil rep for Turkey and got the Ford dealership for Turkey in 1928. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The deletion in the Koc and Sabanci article by user Collect are unsustainable. I have depicted all sections from the sources in detail where the claim about the property is supported. This sources are reliable in compliance with Wikipedia rules for reliable sources.

1. „The Sabanci family is Turkey's modern rags-to-riches success story. … These examples must stand for many Turkish entrepreneurs who benefitted from the Armenian Genocide, either directly by CUP donations or indirectly from the economic void left by the elimination of Armenian competition.“ Uğur Ümit Üngör, Mehmet Polatel: Confiscation and Destruction. The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property. Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. p. 132
2. „Vehbi Koc … took over many of the collapsed or confiscated enterprises“. Sidney E.P. Nowill: Constantinople and Istanbul: 72 Years of Life in Turkey . Troubador Publishing, 2011. p. 77
3. „... commercial and industrial establishments left idle after the emigration of their Greek and Armenian owners. Such takeovers were encouraged by the government.… Haci Ömer ...has taken part in the takeover of old minority-run ventures in Adana.“ Ayşe Buğra: State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study. SUNY Press, 1994. p. 82
4. „In the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire, business had been primarily in the control of religious and ethnic minorities such as Greeks, Armenians, and Jews, many of them were killed or fled the country … The new government offered subsidies and other support to aspiring entrepreneurs… and employed selective policies that led to the dispossessing of non-muslim businesses. Within this context, Vehbi Koc was one of a new generation of Turks who began build businesses.“ Geoffrey Jones: Entrepreneurship and Multinationals: Global Business and the Making of the Modern World. Edward Elgar Pub, 2013. p. 35--Markus2685 (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

When discussing this topic I have to assume that the persons involved in deleting this sections from the Koc and Sabanci articles are familiar with the Turkish-Armenian history and the connection between the Armenian Genocide, the confiscation of minority properties (which did no only occur during the Armenian Genocide but lasted continuously until the Istanbul pogrom of 1955) and the emergence of a new wealthy Turkish class. If you do not know the connection between these topics you should not delete important, sourced sections from articles.--Markus2685 (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In light of Markus' comment here, no source that I've provided ever asserted that his wealth was solely due to the acquisitions of confiscated property. Neither have I ever stated that he made a fortune out of these acquisitions. The sources are clear. Such confiscations have propelled lower class individuals into the limelight of the middle class. There's no denying the fact that appropriating a large vineyard estate for free will make a man richer in terms of assets owned. Especially amid an atmosphere of a Turkey that was heavily impoverished after suffering a devastating defeat during World War I. So in that regard, your personal observations cannot stand. Also, you keep saying that Koc was 13 (should be 14 since deportations in Ankara started in late July) during the Genocide and thus was not capable of confiscating property at such a young age. However, NONE of these sources state that the vineyard estate was expropriated by Vehbi Koc DURING the genocide. These properties were confiscated AFTER the Genocide and during the Turkish War of Independence in the 1920s. The sources, including Hetq, Marasli, and Cetinoglu, specifically mention this. So your personal observations once again cannot stand. As for this discussion, it appears it has become less about the reliability of sources, but more about the clarification of content in the article and of the sources themselves. Capitalismojo's response here is almost identical to the one at the talk page of Vehbi Koc. Hence, I suggest deferring this topic of discussion to the talk page of Vehbi Koc. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Which means we are right to say they do not support the claims as written before. Do you wish to follow the sources and say "each family ended up with some property that at some point in the past before the family obtained the property had been lost by Armenians, but did not specifically base the family wealth on such losses or confiscations, and that the families were not associated with genocide by the sources"? Which is about all you can actually try using the sources for quite frankly. Collect (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I see where this is going and what you are trying, so just to sum it all up again. Here is the original sentence from the Sabanci article (it is the same principle for Koc) which was deleted by saying it's an unsourced claim: "The Sabancı (and Koç) family,[3][4] like many of today's Turkish entrepreneurs, benefited from(!!) the Armenian Genocide and the elimination of the Armenians and the Armenian competition[5] by taking part in takeovers of old minority-run ventures, which were encouraged by the government[6][7] and which led to the creation of a new Turkish Bourgeoisie." It is clearly said that they benefitted from the Armenian Genocide and the consequent elimination of the Armenians. The sources say that! If you say they don't, then you have not read them. You are distorting the actual statement and then arguing based on your "distorted statement" that the claim is not supported by the sources. --Markus2685 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Another example of how you work can be seen by your argument for deletion "accusations of complicity in genocide". Again you are distorting the actual statement in order to delete information from an article. "Complicity in genocide" means taking part in a genocide = killing people. Not one single word in the actual section of the article can be interpreted as "the Koc family took part in killing Armenians and committing genocide". You are deliberately distorting statements in order to delete them. This is unacceptable.--Markus2685 (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Etienne, start with the academic English language sources, but then summarise exactly what they say. Avoid any blanket statements because "benefited from the genocide" is a) extremely emotive and b) vague. Wikipedia needs specifics. I think both sides (because unfortunately there are sides at the moment) need to go back to the article talk page. I would rather see information go into the Vehbi Koc article than the Koc family article in the first instance. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Although, I can elaborate on the English sources, I don't see why I should be dismissing the Turkish sources as well. But at any rate, I don't think the reliability of the sources are in question. The discussion here is relative to the content of the article and the interpretation of the sources. So I agree with Itsmejudith that the discussion should be deferred to the talk page of the Vehbi Koc article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I don't think the word "benefited from the genocide" is emotive or vague. It is a normal descriptive word. We could also use the word "profited". Furthermore it is not vague because the sentence goes in describing in which way they exactly benefitted from the genocide. So, not vague at all. Concerning the sources. The original articles (for example here this Sabanci article were sourced with 7 English and 1 German language academic sources, I have depicted some of them here and on the article talk pages and have exactly summarised what they say. The other sources discussed here (Hetq, Marasli, and Cetinoglu etc.) were not used as source for any of the original article sections which have been deleted meanwhile. But I also think we should go back to the talk page of the Vehbi Koc article and end the discussion here, because it is getting very confusing.--Markus2685 (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying to restart discussion on whether SonOfTheBronx is considered a reliable source. It has been discussed in the past (#1 and #2) but there's been no solid conclusion. This site is used on numerous articles. Please read the #2 link above for a more extensive discussion. Any conclusive input would be very helpful. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Some other past discussions of this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_154#.22Son_of_the_Bronx.22_site and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_162#Son_of_the_Bronx EvergreenFir (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Any reply would be appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We've got an article on it, Son of the Bronx, which says it was cited by numerous other reliable sources for ratings data (Son of the Bronx#Impact). If that's so, then it seems to be reliable for that sort of thing. If necessary (if another source contradicts it or the numbers are otherwise controversial), by attributing the statements ("Website Son of the Bronx wrote that reruns of My Mother the Car were 15th among 80-89 year olds last Tuesday, while Joe Bob's Reliable Ratings stated that it was merely 17th"). --GRuban (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@GRuban: Thanks for replying. Just wish we could get a large dialogue on it and get consensus once and for all. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in policy based views (preferably from editors with > 500 edits) on whether this interview with former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair, published by +972 magazine, qualifies as a reliable source for Ben-Yair's statements, attributed to him of course. I'm aware that it says "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available: Source... Article... Content..." at the top of the page, but I'm not going to do that in this case because I would like to focus on the specific issue of whether this interview published by this source, a source that is essentially a blog or thereabouts, is a reliable source for Ben-Yair's words. I've been editing long enough to have a working understanding of policies and guidelines but it's not clear to me whether a source like this qualifies as an RS for an interview with a living person. If this were an interview with a cartoonist, I'd assume the source was reliable and I wouldn't be here. But this is a potentially useful source from a notable individual that could be used in several articles in the WP:ARBPIA topic area/tinderbox, a topic area that is covered by discretionary sanctions where "it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies...including...utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions".

• +972 describes itself as "a blog-based web magazine that is jointly owned by a group of journalists, bloggers and photographers whose goal is to provide fresh, original, on-the-ground reporting and analysis of events in Israel and Palestine." Here is the site's about page.[46] It has been discussed before here but in a different context (see here).
• The interview was conducted by Yossi Gurvitz of Yesh Din, an Israeli advocacy organization that I know little about personally, other than that they are opposed to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. This is their about page.[47] Ben-Yair is apparently "a member of Yesh Din’s Public Council".[48]

I'm not really after WP:WEIGHT related views and how questions of due weight could impact on whether a specific piece of information from the interview should be included in a specific article because I want to stay focused on one question. ARBPIA is particularly prone to dishonesty in the form sockpuppetry unfortunately. Postings like this often attract sockpuppets of blocked/topic banned users, hence the "views (preferably from editors with > 500 edits)" statement at the top. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there are two things to look at: Is there doubt as to the authenticity of the interview, or the credibility of the interviewer, and do other sources cite this interview. Based on what I am able to glean from a Google search, I would be reluctant to consider it reliable for Ben-Yair's statements, especially since the author admits to "some unavoidable omissions." The publication may have a strong bias, so caution is advisable.- MrX 15:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Some comments and a question.

• The publication, the interviewer (probably) and the interviewee all have what could be described as a strong bias depending on the location of the reference point. This is normal in the Israel-Palestine conflict and doesn't concern me.
• The interviewee links to the article from their official Facebook page (see [49]). Actually they link to the original article published first by Yesh Din, and re-published by Yossi Gurvitz for +972 Magazine. What does that tell us from a BLP perspective ?
• I know literally nothing about Yossi Gurvitz (יוסי גורביץ) but there is some information about them here (setting aside the circularity) and apparently he writes for Calcalist[50], whatever that is...and I assume he works with Yesh Din...maybe.
• What would you think if they hadn't included the statement "The following text is a record of our conversation, with some unavoidable omissions." ? Possibly nothing. That is what sources normally do, they don't include meta statements about the absence of information, so readers don't know about omissions. The presence or absence of these kind of statements is also something that doesn't concern me because there is no way of knowing how it impacts on the information that is present, and I'm only concerned about whether the information that is present is reliable.
• Regarding "do other sources cite this interview", I would like to establish whether this source qualifies as reliable for Ben-Yair's statements in the absence of information about whether other sources cite or report those statements. That is deliberate on my part. I want to avoid the issue of inherited reliability. I just want to look at this source. Coverage could arguably be pertinent to due weight considerations, although as a rare interview with ex-attorney general perhaps not. I'm sure views would vary depending on where and how much of the source was used in each Wikipedia article. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Facebook link would be meaningful in evaluating +972's reliability if we knew that that Facebook profile was controlled by Ben-Yair, but there is no way for us to know that for sure. Facebook is self-published and not a reliable source. I agree wholly with your fourth bullet point. I merely mentioned it as an aside.

Regarding your last point, a source's reliability is based largely on their reputation for fact checking and accuracy (see WP:QUESTIONABLE). One way to measure that is by looking at whether other known reliable sources cite them. WP:USEBYOTHERS sums it up. Here is a previous discussion about this source, although it's not all that helpful.- MrX 20:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with Mr X here, because we are not discussing the reliability of factual information published by +972. Indeed, since it is a magazine of an acknowledged activist bent, we should generally not cite it on matters of fact. However, for the opinions of people whose opinions are published there in a non-hostile manner, it is reliable enough to report those opinions with attribution. It is a serious magazine run by professional journalists and when they quote those generally in line with the magazine's position there is no reason to doubt it. It would be the same if Arutz Sheva published an interview with a settler leader or extreme-right politician—it would be acceptable even though Arutz Sheva is unreliable for facts. Zero^talk 01:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It meets rs, but it is a primary source and therefore of extremely limited value. You should only use it to the extent it is discussed in reliable secondary sources. If he said for example he had been abducted by aliens, it would only be correct to include it if secondary sources had picked up on it. OTOH if they had then we might include brief quotes from the interview that the secondary sources had chosen to report. TFD (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

TFD, could you cite the precise parts of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that led you to conclude that "You should only use it to the extent it is discussed in reliable secondary sources" ? I think this may indicate that the relevant policies/guidelines with respect to this kind of primary source, an in depth interview, need to be improved/clarified given that we are both looking at the same rules and drawing quite different conclusions. For example, if I saw an editor systematically removing content that faithfully reflected straightforward statements from interviews with living artists talking about their life, work and views, published by a reliable but primary source, content that complied with WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:OR, I would revert them, warn them and if they continued I would request that they were blocked for disruptive editing. At no point would it even occur to me that they were correctly interpreting and applying policy. Rather than being of extremely limited value, I think reliably published interviews where a notable subject talks about their life, work and views in their own words (without making extraordinary WP:REDFLAG claims about alien abduction etc) are an invaluable and often unique resource. The value and reliability of an interview with a living person as an information source does not strike me as being a function of whether the information is sampled or paraphrased by secondary sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this Daily Bleed's Anarchist Encyclopedia satisfies WP:EL as used in Template:Dailybleed. It's only used in five articles as an external via the template (I'm certain it's used much more) but there's no indication that it's anything beyond original research and it's seems to gone out of use around 2006. The fact that it's in a subdomain of a used book publisher is the most concerning fact about it. I'm not certain it would qualify as a reliable source generally but it's currently used in about 200 articles so I haven't examined every use. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It generally doesn't seem to be used as a citation. I checked a random sampling of articles and almost all of them used it as an external link. External links don't need to be reliable; in fact, one of the reasons one might include a site in the external links is because it isn't reliable enough to be used as a citation. Because of this, I think WP:ELN would probably be more appropriate venue for your concerns. If you do see it used as a citation, tag it with {{self-published inline}} or just remove it. If it's used as a citation in a BLP, remove it. It looks like the self-published project of one guy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post there and double check them. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been an issue on this site since it just came online on Thursday, but I just want to get a second opinion just so I have clarity or not on this. For those who follow entertainment news websites, Nikki Finke founded Deadline.com, whose stories are reliably sourced and well-known and I use a source here for pop culture and entertainment stories frequently. However there was a major fallout with Finke and the new owners of the Deadline website a year back, so she broke off from them but was under a non-compete clause to not start a new site, one she apparently violated with the launch of a website in her own name on June 12. Frankly I've read through it and the content is coarse, peppered with obscenities and is pretty much a place for the writer to throw off ad hominems at people she doesn't like. I know we used her Deadline-era box office analysis in the past for film articles and at least that has some backing of numbers by some industry source, but with the way the writing is tinged on her new site, I really think a more neutral site is needed for box office numbers. Let me know either way your opinions so I know if I see a link from this site whether to disqualify it or not. Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like her site, there's always Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, and the Los Angeles Times. It looks like she's going for a Gawker-style site there, and that's not going to go over too well with some people on Wikipedia. We can avoid the gossipy articles and focus on the ones that stick to facts. Assuming that there will be articles like that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Boxofficemojo also posts analysis along with the numbers. If this is a one woman show, wouldn't WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS come into play here, even if she has a background in journalism? Siawase (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The new website doesn't have any information about a staff or other institutional structure or oversight, so WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS probably do apply at this point as Siawase says. Within that context, Finke certainly qualifies as "an established expert on the subject matter" so her reports may be usable for some purposes, subject of course to the stricter rules for BLP content. And, given the comment above that she "apparently violated" her non-compete, it should be noted for the record that Finke has set forth a detailed explanation of why she believes her non-compete is no longer in effect.[51] That's now being argued by lawyers: her most recent post (June 15, 10;40pm) says: "For the next 36 hours, I need to work with my attorneys." [52] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Would http://www.laut.de be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? I tried citing it in an article, but the source was challenged by another editor. I know it's a non-English source, but they are allowed to be cited to a certain extent. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It may be good to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That WikiProject doesn't seem to be very active though. Many of the threads have no replies. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The last thread is certainly active so somebody should help WhisperToMe (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the article in question, The Hunting Party (album) is American and not German, this should be discussed here. We need proof that their writers are professional journalists known in their field or have worked at other major publications and that they have an editorial staff that is known for fact checking. I have not seen any proof for either of those through looking over the website. STATic message me! 19:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, de.wikipedia has an article on the site. The site itself looks alright to me. My German is atrocious, though, and I dislike relying on machine translations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So, you would consider it reliable then? I still would like a consensus as to whether or not it's reliable. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The reviews are probably fine, but I would be wary of citing it for news. One test I like to do is to search Google for "according to sitename" to see if other reliable sources consider it reliable. I don't see much evidence of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The only online review of Obama Mama, a feature at the 2014 Seattle International Film Festival, appears to be in the South Seattle Emerald, a community-supported newspaper with which I am unfamiliar. Not even sure if there is a print edition; it may be entirely online. Can I get an outside opinion on its suitability as a source? Here is the paper's "about us" page: [53]. Here is the film review: [54]— Brianhe (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I searched but couldn't find anything on this specific issue. For the Almohad Caliphate, would this page from Qantara (not Qantara.de) and this page from History Today count as reliable sources? They're both short and are mainly relevant to citing basic info, though I am also trying to figure out whether most mainstream scholarship refers to the state as a caliphate or dynasty as well (and if there's any actual difference). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure about this page from The History Files. It seems decent but there's no mention of editorial oversight or academic sponsorship. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There are much better sources than either of these. Look for academic books specifically on the topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Itsmejudith, I just ordered US$300 worth of books about the Almohads on Amazon, and they should arrive within a month or so. I'll just drop these sites and wait for the books to arrive in that case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember Wikipedia's judgement about Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Genealogies on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley which seems to conclude that it is a unreliable source. I wonder what the Wikipedia community consider about The Kekoolani site. It is written by the descendants of a chief Solomon Peleioholani. It is used extensively on articles about Hawaiian history. And many things asserted in it are not found in any other academic sources at all which I have noted on Talk:Kamehameha I/Archive 1#Parentage. Is it a reliable source according to Wikipedia:HISTRS or other policies? Please help. Thank you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable. In the same category as thousands of other genealogy sites: great for amateur genealogical research but no good for an encyclopaedia. It specifically says "no doubt there are many errors". Genealogy is generally a work-in-progress. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things. This seems to be asking about a reference I used for the only dating the birth of Kānekapōlei.

First, the website itself, is the official site of the Kekoolani Famiy and is administered by a professional genealogist and family member. The data is collected not written and notations exists for every person listed to the location of the originating data. In this case to the LDS Genealogy official webpage. Some of the information is also from SLK Peleioholani, who was the genealogists for the ali'i and worked for the Bishop museum until his death in the late 50s. The site itself is not a simply genealogy website. Its a database of the Hawaiian Royal family and the ruling chiefs. Its an actual official site of a notable ali'i family. I have used it way within limits and only when a date of a historic figure had no other source such as Fornander or S. M. Kamakau. SLK Peleioholani is a published genealogist as well. An official site can be used to site some information when it is about the subject. In this case this line of ruling chiefs.

But the I should mention that the first discussion linked above was that sources about historic figures should be notable and referenced. Not whether an official site of a family existing today can be used as a reference for a date on someone from about 1753. This is not an unreferenced piece of material. It a reference that states where the information comes from. The JDS listing have been used extensively. I don't know the status of that. The second discsussion concluded that the source being discussed was a god collection of primary sources. Primary sources are not banned but should be limited in use. These types of sources will be used. It was felt that we have no preference for using the more established authors.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Genealogy by SLK Peleioholani, a noted Hawaiian genealogist, can and should be used if it can be cited properly but the other stuff in this site, the amateur opinions and interpretations of the site's master should not. Many thing stated as fact such as hypothesize birth years are independent of the source it uses. It's hard for me to prove that since I don't have access to the LDS genealogical data bases in order to cross check everything asserted prior to a citation mark. We find this all the time on Wikipedia with editors writing a paragraph of facts follow by a citation which validates everything before and then we have another edits later that is added onto it, could be just one sentence of untruth/amateur speculation in a mountain of reliable words.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also to continue what I mean by the site master's amateur opinions and interpretations, the site contains a paragraph being used to cite the parentage of Kamehameha I, an interpretation made in c, 2010 "THE IDENTITY OF THE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS OF KAMEHAMEHA THE GREAT". It asserts one truth: that Kamehameha's father is disputed, reliable sources stated that it could be Keoua or Kahekili, but his paragraph also asserts things which are not found in any other reliable source. 1. That Kamehameha was adopted or hanaied by Keoua and Kekuiapoiwa, 2. That Kekuiapoiwa II was not his mother, sources never dispute his mother's identity, this one does in order to explain his niau pio rank (reliable source also contradict and said Kamehameha was a chief of the wohi rank) 3. That his mother is instead Ku, the sister of Kahekili. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the disputed words from the paragraph: "Kamehameha was not the natural biological son of Keoua Kalani-kupu'uapai-kalani-nui Ahilapalapa and Kekupoiwa Nui but rather given as a gift to them by his true biological parents from Maui. These biological parents were Kahekili (Ruling Chief of Maui) and his sister Ku, the son and daughter of Kekaulike (Ruling Chief of Maui). This Maui genealogy would make Kamehameha a full NINAU PI'O chief (the mother and father are full blooded brother and sister and children of ruling chief)." I keep saying source but not stating them only because I want to save time and I haven't read them in while but I will find them for you if you disbelieve.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also the names located in the parentheses in some of the entries indicates that the site draws heavily from whatever is on the Internet including stuff like ancestry.com, royalark, and geni.com or even Wikipedia. One example is the alternative spelling Keawepoipoi in the site's entry for Keawepoepoe. Searching Keawepoipoi -Wikipedia, we see that the site draws a significant portion of its work from unreliable sources such as the royal ark. You can do cross check this with some other of its entries. The site is riddle with mistake. Another is the assertion that Queen Kalama's mother was I-Kape'ekukai. (Also editors using it could mistaken that Kalama's mother died in 1825 at Chile, when in fact it was her father) This is only found in royalark and geni.com. Most sources indicate it was Inaina. I can find more discrepancies too. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am attacking a source which I have relied heavily on and used in the past when writing articles, as lazy way to get sources. But it's unreliability outweighs the benefit.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To those currently uninvole, please help square this out and add in your opinions as editors and users of reliable source. I don't want this to be archived again without discussion. Thank you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR please calm down and take a breath, Yes, I am almost certain I did add the Kekoolani reference. But you are very much leaping to conclusions about using anything of Mr. Kekoolani himself as he only adds notes and I have never used the notes to reference anything. There are other sources that have Kamehameha's parentage and the controversy. It is not new and the article was already discussing the fact before any change I made. It appears you have an issue with Mr. Kekoolani's opinions. This is not the place for that but be aware there are no "right" answers to much of this content. Genealogies differ depending. The two major genealogists of the day, Fornander and Kamakau differ greatly. The royal family even kept their own records and Kanaina was one of the main researchers. I should ask however, for you to please be a little more sensitive about living persons you are discussing here. Much of what you take issue with seems to be Mr. Kekoolani's opinion. That is fine, but this isn't a platform for you to vent at the author of a source. You have already been told he is a professional researcher.

Sorry it is my style as a history major to call out questionable things and point out blatant contradictions when I see it. You said it yourself that its his opinion. Does the professionalness a person or occupation of a person indicate anything he say is reliable? My problem is the site's inconsistencies and habit of compiling whatever is on the Internet and use of unreliable sources such as royalark, geni.com, and ancestry.com. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No one genealogy is wrong, it is one version of the events and people. If you are attempting certainty where there is none, I have no access issues with the LDS genealogy website.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That's debatable. I certainly can claimed that I descend from the first emperor of China when reliable sources say the entire Qin imperial clan was eradicated by Xiang Yu after he deposed Ziying. My stance is still that Kekoolani site is an unreliable source for Wikipedia and should not used at all here, which is the key issue we should be discussing here. I presented my take on it. I will wait to here what other have to say. I hope there will others. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Itsmejudith what do you think?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also User:Mark Miller would you mind if I ask editors who've made comments in the past discussion on this same topic (the use of genealogy sites on wikipedia) about their opinions. I don't think it will violate Wikipedia:Canvassing since they fall under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." Also to not influence the result I will merely word it: "Hi, can you give your opinion here?" and contact all editors involve not just a select few. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything special about the LDS research in relation to Hawaii? Because I'm familiar with their familysearch website works in relation to Britain and Ireland and there is no way it is a reliable source for WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Hi User:Itsmejudith. Not to my knowledge. It (the LDS record) would probably the last place any serious researcher in Hawaiian history would look to for reliable source (for whatever my opinion is worth). Maybe they would have more reliable ancestry on people who've live closer to the present or are Americans or Europeans. It heavily focused on the West, for example you can't find much Chinese genealogy on the LDS records either. What is you view on the other points I've brought up? Also do you think I should unbiasedly ask the view points of other users in the past discussions? Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what else you're asking about. If any other RSN regulars want to chip in, they can do so now. The main point is that genealogical sites are rarely RS for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Yes which is what I agree with. I have also presented other points for reasoning that Kekoolani is an unreliable source. But now it is only me, Mark Miller and you discussing. I was wanting to contact other users who have discussed similiar discussions in the past to put in their views.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Alert them to this discussion but you may not find that they have anything to add. If Mark Miller wishes to put forward the argument that the source is reliable, it will be read here. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: I will alert them. But by what avenue can I get the Kekoolani be recognized as an unreliable source like Cawley has been and have each occurrence on Wikipedia labeled "better source needed" as in Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter#References? This is my ultimate goal. I ultimately plan to replace them with better sources. I need support for such a bold move since Mark Miller believes it to be reliable and I don't. Or does the board have no such power? If so where can I seek such a move. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I only alerted the editors in the Cawley discussion since I believe this is the more similar (on online genealogical database) while the other discussion didn't really deal with a source. Thanks..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Another example why I believe this site to be an unreliable source is the text which follow this entry, a exact copy of the Wikipedia article Abigail Maheha.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is another entry where the site combine two different people into one, click on the two different marriages of this "Hinau (Hinai)." In reality, Hinau was the son of Bennett Nāmākēhā while Hinai was a late 18th century chief of Waimea who assisted Kamehameha I in his unification of the Big Island and was the father of Nuhi, grandfather of a wife of Namakeha and a stepmother of the much younger Hinau, whose father Namakeha wasn't born. The two, Hinau and Hinai, lived more than two generations apart but because of the similar sounding name the Kekoolani site combines them into one person.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the previous discussions about Charles Cawley's medieval lands website. My own summary about that case would be that what could be most easily agreed is that there was no need to argue, because Cawley's website mainly simply collects and collates from other sources and does not add much secondary/tertiary interpretation. Therefore we could get around the need for further debate by simply going to those sources and citing them if they were appropriate. If there had been debate about a particular issue where Cawley had been a bit more original then the procedure next would have been to research whether Cawley's website, or Cawley as a researcher, are treated by experts in that field as a citeable reliable source. We did not need to have such a discussion. I am not sure if this summary helps in the current case being discussed here, but it sounds like there is more originality involved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Like Andrew Lancaster I came here because I was invited by KAVEBEAR. I disagree with Andrew. I think there is a difference between Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page, Charles Cawley's medieval lands website, and Darral Lundy's The Peerage (There are templates for the first two: Template:Rayment and Template:MLCC). It was agreed that Rayment page while generally accurate was not reliable because he does not cite his sources. Charles Cawley is not a qualified professional historian, and although he usually cites his sources, they are often primary sources, his site is not in my opinion a Wikipedia reliable source. If a Wikipedia reliable source cites Cawley then of course that is different, but only those facts of his that are cited in Wikipedia reliable sources can be treated as reliable. As many of Cawley's sources are primary sources, even if a Wikipedia editor was to check the primary sources Cawley uses this would be useless because primary sources can not be used this way (because in many case such a use of these primary sources would be OR/SYN). Both these sites contrast with Ludy's site, because Lundy tends to cite Wikipedia reliable sources which means that his site only needs citing under WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT (and once his source is checked by a Wikipedia editor his cite can be dispensed with). However sometime you see on Lundy's website information (often the children of a otherwise reliably sourced subject) where Lundy cites an email from another genealogist which is not a reliable source and so such information should not be included in a Wikipedia article. I have not looked at the source that is a subject of this thread but I hope this the comparison of these three sites will help others deciding if it is a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we are way off topic, because also I am just talking about the old examples, and not sure if relevant. However just to clarify, I agree that Cawley mainly uses primary sources. Primary sources are however not forbidden and in certain types of case can be quite useful, for example simply listing out dates or documents (which can be quite appropriate to some types of history article). We should in other words always be careful not to treat all usage of primary sources as bad, and the critical point is whether something non-obvious and original is being synthesized from them (which Cawley does not often do). Furthermore, I just point again to what I said about the fact that I do not think I recall ever seeing anyone here make an effort to check whether Cawley is ever cited by respected publications. I mention this partly because I recently noticed him being cited in an article in Foundations (the journal associated with the Foundation of Medieval Genealogy, fmg.ac, which also hosts Cawley), but as this publication is itself not a super strong one, I only point out that there might be more to be investigated if this subject is still really still causing any big disputes. My main point was that I doubt that it needs to anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a question of using the official site of a family to show some facts, such as dates of historic family members where they themselves have references. The notes section the OP refers to is not an interpretation it just sets up a quote from the author. I cannot locate those sources at this time but if i do i will switch references. The OP is trying to state the site has errors because some genealogy content differs from his/her understanding of the limited number of genealogies that they know of. Many of them differ.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't about me imposing my interpretations or showing the genealogy I want from my "limited sources." I have accepted conflictory genealogical interpretations when it comes from reliable sources. The problem is that I don't see Kekoolani as reliable source (my opinion is useless in such a divided argument but my examples of mistakes drawn from the site should be considered). Miller seems to believe that this is my petty retaliation against him for our disagreements on Talk:Kānekapōlei (even after I've stated before that I have regrets about using this source in the past and have since seen to the unreliability of it all) and believe that I think Hawaiian genealogy is totally one sided with only one correct viewpoint (and I'm trying to assert something) and that I actually don't think the claim of Kahekili as Kamehameha's father is a valid claim. But I do because I have seen reliable sources written as far back as the 1860s arguing this claim. The site's reliability is my main problem.

The unreliability of the site is my main issue here not because there is a difference to my interpretation (I have none, I should have none, it should be what reliable source state. Period). I have shown cases of many unreliable entries where the site copies or draws directly from unreliable sources such as royal ark and even Wikipedia. Cases where the site misread reliable sources (many of then "the limited number of genealogies that [I] know of") and combine two distinct individual who lived two generations apart with similiar spelling names into one person, as I have shown with the Hinai and Hinau example. One laughable mistake that I helped proliferate which I can thank the Kekoolani site for is the parentage of George Naea and Bennett Namakeha as sons of Keliimaikai and Kalikoʻokalani[55]. Kekoolani copied this mistake from Royal Ark and ancestry websites online. I thought back then because it could br found in the Kekoolani site and Royal ark site that it was supported by two what I then in my naivety considered reliable sources and thus proliferated the mistake when I edited on pages related to this such as Queen Emma of Hawaii.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The website is not rs, per the previous discussion on RSN. TFD (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hope these comments help. If the website is that of a well-known family then in theory maybe it can be used if we need a source for stating the opinions of that family. But I understood this was a question about whether the website could be seen as an expert source for what is essentially history (genealogy of someone important being effectively part of the study of history). What I have not seen in the discussion so far is any discussion of some of the main indicators of expertise: Do published experts cite the website? Are any of the authors well-known in the field for some other reason? And so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My contribution was explicitly solicited, based on my involvement in past discussions on similar topics. Neither Dean P. Kekoolani nor Solomon L.K. Peleioholani are acknowledged as scholarly historians, nor do they possess the capacity to act as such. Its not reliable for historical articles. The editors of the work acknowledge that it is traditional and genealogical knowledge, "Nonetheless, we do ask that you request permission from us before browsing these pages. This is a private family family website and this information is presented for the specific benefit of Native Hawaiian people, preferably related to us by blood, who are conducting research into their own personal genealogies. This is not an academic, scholarly or general information resource for the general public." As such I believe the genealogical standard it meets may be traditional in nature and not compatible with wikipedia's standards in terms of genealogical or biographical articles regarding the deceased. Additionally I would suggest that explicit permission is requested prior to reading the work, that licensing restrictions may additionally prevent the use of this work: something for another noticeboard. Not good for historical articles, per HISTRS and the arguments underlying that essay, not good for genealogy given that the genealogical purpose of this text is not congruent with genealogy or biography as practiced in reliable sources. (Yes, I am aware of the first world bias issues wrt traditional knowledge systems, but the document makes clear that the relevant traditional knowledge system collapsed in a way that means that SLK Peleioholani's traditional knowledge was not subject to expected traditional review structures.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, not sure if this is even relevant, but do you think the website is potentially useful for expressing the opinion of the family? (For example with attribution, and in the event that it was clear that the family's opinion had separable notability.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, "There can be no doubt that there are many errors. We warmly welcome and will sincerely appreciate any corrections—whether of facts or typography—from our readers. We will continue to amend, correct and clarify the data as we develop this website in the future. We apologize in advance for any mistakes you may discover in the meantime and thank you for your understanding." Editorial responsibility for correctness has not been exercised. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, without requesting permission as it was for a fit scholarly purpose, I consulted the database regarding the Editor's immediate siblings, and viewed the Editor and a deceased person's entry. Neither entry was sourced. Given that neither was sourced in a highly sourceable context, and that the editor has refused responsibility for errors, I do not believe that the Editor can be trusted regarding the Kekoolani family's opinion. There is no evidence the editor embodies modern or traditional authorisation to speak for the Kekoolani family. At best, the source would be viable for Dean Kekoolani's opinion, if it was ever of encyclopaedic notability or weight. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The website http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/ is extensively used in I think British railway station articles (see Template:Subbrit. The parent site, Subterranea Britannica looks to be a hobbyist sites for fans and the contributors page makes it clear it's the same. However, while each train station page has extensive original source material (largely copyrighted images, maps, etc.], none is that is being used; it is only being used for small particular facts (such as the station closing dates) which aren't' sourced. For example, the article Marchwood uses it for the sole sentence "The station was closed by the Beeching Axe on 14 February 1966 and has remained closed since" of which the date is provided only and listing a book that could likely be its source. Further, the fact that this was closed by a published government report (Beeching_cuts) makes me think that it's possible to verify this information with another source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As I noted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Template:Disused-stations, the maps included on these pages are Ordnance Survey, which are Crown Copyright (50 years from date of publication), so copyright will have expired on most, if not all, of these old maps. Are there any that date from 1964 or later? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think any does. I'll strike out the copyright allegations completely. My apologies. That's not what I was focused on. Looking at the Marchwood example, it's not being used for any of that, it's being used solely as a source of when the train stations were closed. As you can see here, the images, maps, etc. do nothing to support when the train station was closed. For the dates of the train closures, I am guessing there is either no source or perhaps it is referencing the book in the further reading section. So either: (A) If it has no source, then it's not a source for what it's being used for and I think it could be dropped to an external link but not a reference for those facts. (B) If it from the books, then we should follow WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and do something like "The Totton, Hythe & Fawley Light Railway by J. A. Fairman: Oakwood Press 2002 ISBN 0853615845, cited in Disused Stations." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment - experience similar to OP. In my experience the historical information is generally sourced from the standard or common books on the topics (based on my readings of both). I've never found it (disused-stations) unreliable. In many cases it's a valuable source of modern information, often as yet unpublished. eg redevelopments. It would be preferable in most cases to replace the historical information when possible references with ones 'closer to the source'. I think there are a number of contributors, so the quality may vary. I don't know how consistent editorial oversight is.Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One (Ra material) is based on a network of flimsy sources that should be analyzed and removed at the discretion of the largest consensus possible. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I encourage sharing such analysis in the deletion review for the page. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm having way too much trouble locating RSs in there, demonstrating an WP:UNDUE problem if there are indeed any RSs in there. Fringe sources are not RS, even if we allow (academically sourced) articles on fringe topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, basic requirements for a source to be considered reliable are:

[A] reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

Given this, can Amazon.com be considered a reliable source for the listing of the future publication of a book?

In my opinion, Amazon does not have a requisite "reputation for fact checking." My assumption is that when they receive a listing from a publisher of future books publications, they slap it on their website without doing any checking whatsoever. Their purpose, after all, is to sell things, not to do research.

Now, I also assume that the publisher's listing of that future publication exists online somewhere, and if that can be found, although it would be a primary source, it would certainly speak to that publisher's intention to publish the book, and could therefore probably be used for listing the book as a future publication in a Wikipedia article.

This inquiry stems from a dispute on Jonathan Lethem; please see Talk:Jonathan Lethem#WP relies on Reliable Sources, not non-commercial sources. BMK (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

At the video games project, we specifically exclude any storefront as a reliable source for a future release date because they are going to put in any placeholder they can as to get you to pre-order, and as such the date could be fake. I would apply that across any media source. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you read through the instructions above, please, and provide the exact source and wording in the article? Amazon can be a reliable source for some things. As for future works, Amazon is going to be as reliable a source as the publisher, surely? --Pete (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an entry of a future publication of a book in a author's list of works, that's about all there is to it. BMK (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would note that different fields tend to have different standards of honesty and trustworthiness with regard to release dates. While vaporware and badly-slipping release dates are part and parcel of the software world – and particularly the video game world – the same is much less true for conventionally-published books from established publishing houses. Book publishers generally have the actual manuscript in hand many, many months before the title appears on shelves. Cover art is commissioned; text is edited; advertising campaigns are planned. Sometimes it can take more than a year for a publisher to have a slot open in their publishing schedule. If Doubleday says that the hardcover is coming out in February 2015, I would be rather surprised if it did not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I think using a publisher's announcement would be fine, despite being a primary source -- but are we really satisfied to rely on Amazon's non-existent "reputation for fact checking and accuracy"? Amazon has an excellent reputation for service, at least as far as my dealings with the company have gone, but that's not the same thing at all.

BTW, there are many, many examples of books not making their scheduled publication dates. The production gears start turning well before all the necessary adjustments to the manuscript are completed, if not, they would never be ready on time, risking the book being stale upon pblication. They may have an author's final version of the manuscript in hand, but it still has to be edited, copyedited (several passes, generally), vetted by lawyers, referenced, pictures researched and selected, intros written, blurbs collected etc. etc. Given the current "just in time" ethos prevalent in business, the idea is that this all gets done at the right time to put it into production, start promotion, and then ship it to the stores, so an announcement of future publication is certainly proof that the publisher believes everything will come together on a certain date, but it's no guarantee of it. BMK (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So what if we say the author's next book is to be published in June and it doesn't hit the shelves till August? We source the information as best we can, and when June comes and the book doesn't, we update our article. We can't be 100% accurate on the future - nobody can. In this case, I say that Amazon is a good source for future publication dates, but the publisher is an even better one. --Pete (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We're really not asking if Amazon is a good enough source to base one's future purchasing plans on, I'm sure it is. We have a somewhat different concern: How do you get around the policy requirement for "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" with Amazon? BMK (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking back to the first post in this discussion, I'm seeing phrases such as "In my opinion", "My assumption is", and "I also assume". I don't think we can base Amazon's business reputation on your assumptions. Do we have anything more concrete?

Do we have any examples of Amazon pulling future titles out of thin air, or getting things wildly wrong in their notices of future books? And if they are getting their information on upcoming titles from the publishers, just how are they supposed to fact check? "Ah, we just want to check on this list you sent us. Is it complete bullshit?" Maybe they could wring up individual authors. "Your publisher tells us that your next book 'True Confessions of a Merchant Banker' is going to be published in July. What's the strength of this?"

I'm finding this whole discussion rather bizarre, to be honest. A reasonable person would accept that if Amazon says a book is going to be available on a certain date, they got that date from their suppliers, they didn't just think of some random date so they could ship books that hadn't been written. --Pete (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the publication/release dates accurate? Since the information comes directly from the publisher, there is not doubt to their accuracy. But what you are getting hung up on is the "fact checking" bit. How does one fact check a future publication/release date? Here is a hint. You can't. Either Amazon, or any other source, trusts the accuracy of those dates they get from the publishers or they don't publish it themselves. And in cases where the publication/release date does change, Amazon updates it to the new date.

I also see a bit of rules layering going on here. No where does WP:RS require that the source undergoes fact checking of its information. WP:RS explicitly states that we can include opinions from reputable authors and there is no way to fact check those. What WP:RS does is set guidelines on how to identify a reliable source. That doesn't mean that those are the only standards that apply. What we are more concern with is the accuracy of the information. And since there is no doubt that the publication/release on Amazon is accurate at the time, Amazon is a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of source - amazon, publisher, author, etc - doesn't WP:CRYSTAL apply to all future events, including book publishing? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:CRYSTAL is dealing with speculation of a future event. However a release date given by a publisher is not speculation. That doesn't always mean that the publisher will hit that release date (delays are always possible), but unless there is good reason to believe that a delay will happen, it shouldn't be left out based on WP:CRYSTAL. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, WP:CRYSTAL point #5 explicitly mentions product announcements normally do not lead to separate articles, but are perfectly acceptable within a related article (product creator, product series, and the like), so long as we stick to the bare facts of the announcement. As a more extreme example, Jasper Fforde lists several vaporware titles, some of them have been there for years. I see nothing wrong with this: information about JF should include the titles he's been parading around for years, and absolutely no one reading the article thinks of it as anything but that. And if someone wants to commit wikicide, why, try removing the several paragraphs from J. K. Rowling about planned work, including ohhhmyyyygossssh, three more Harry Potter universe movies!!!! (Sourced to NYT, by the way.) Choor monster (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clarifcation. But, yes, wikicide never looked more inviting. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I quote from Wikipedia:Book sources#Online text (the source text for ISBN invocations). These are the first external links on the page, before all the world's national libraries and so on. (I leave out the actual links):

For verifying citations in Wikipedia articles, and finding more info.
These sites can search within some books, and show some or all pages
of some books. See digital libraries also.

    Find this book at the Open Library
    Find this book at Google Book Search online database
    Find this book on Amazon.com (or .ca, .cn, .de, .fr, .it, .jp, .uk)

Amazon is considered good enough to verify that a book cited in a WP article actually exists. Does anyone at Amazon actually call the publisher every time some WP user hits an ISBN link? No. Choor monster (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The key is to phrase any mention of a future release date as being an "estimated" or "expected" release date. Amazon is certainly reliable as a primary source for such estimates... since they are the ones stating the estimation. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• • I don't get this. First, the publisher is the primary source for the estimate (not all sources are published). Second, I assume we write in ordinary English for readers to interpret as ordinary English. And ordinary English allows for uncertainty of the future to be understood without being stated. When you tell someone you have to get to bed early because you have a 10 o'clock flight tomorrow morning, no one is fooled even though you didn't mention it was only the estimated time.

Close to publication, with actual books available, Amazon firms up with a more-or-less guaranteed shipping date for pre-publication orders. That, of course, is a date they know. Choor monster (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Choor monster is trying to include the book as if it already exists. That's not what WP:CRYSTAL advises. If it's a speculative or predicted date, it has to be framed and written up as a speculative and predicted date. It can't be used as a reliable source that the book actually exists as a confirmed and ready product.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree here - if Amazon has a future release date for a book and it cannot be corroborated with the publisher or another reliable source, we should consider that suspect, even if Amazon does have a known track record for being right on those dates. Using such a date from Amazon does violate CRYSTAL, while using the same date provided by the publisher directly is not. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if the publisher makes an announcement, that can only be written up as an intention to publish, not a magical guarantee that it will happen for sure. We don't list industrial or consumer products as guaranteed to be available in a certain time frame even when announced. We shouldn't list a book that doesn't even have a cover designed as if it's predestined. No publisher is immune to delays or cancellations, and no editor can guarantee they'll watch their addition to fix it if it turns out a book didn't actually happen. This is an encyclopedia regarding things that have actually happened, not a fansite.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is remarkably silly. As I said above, I am writing in ordinary English for the sake of readers who understand ordinary English. No such reader is interpreting a "(2015)" date as a guarantee or destiny foretold or fannish obsessiveness. It's simply the date being passed on from Amazon. It comes with an explicit external link. As I said on the article's talk page, I prefer leaving the link in all its ugliness right there next to the title, the better to encourage its removal once the book is published. I also prefer leaving out the month this far ahead, and closer to the date I would always leave out the day.

I once came across an article that listed a forthcoming book with an estimated date of publication about two years in the past. You know what I did? I looked up for more information. I edited the article! And fixed it! Yay, Wikipedia. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That proves why we shouldn't put announcements in as fact! If you're putting something unverifiable into an article, it runs the risk of being in there for years if it doesn't happen. As an example of one of the many reasons to not trust a bare announcement, look at what happened here. Book announced, Amazon took pre-orders, "publication date" announced, the book never happened. We can't treat announcements as finished or guaranteed products.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. So the publisher changed its mind. What of it? No one is treating any announcement as a finished or guaranteed product. As we get better information, we edit the article accordingly. For whatever reason, Deen does not have a list of her books. I would be happy if the list were there, the 2014 book remains listed as cancelled, with references of course. The book absolutely does exist, it's just not in a form for sale to customers. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The book exists somehow? What are you talking about? They pre-announced it before it was actually published. Like this one. You have a strange idea of what a published book is, if you don't actually require it to be published. BMK was correct in removing this, as it's not adequately sourced currently. Your plan to massage the date as the possible release time approaches is not encyclopedic. If you forget or miss an announcement delaying the book, then we'll have an unverifiable vapor-book for who-knows-how-long when that situation is easily avoided by waiting until publication is verified. WP:V is not silly.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Deen's book and probably Lethem's book already exist. In a very tiny handful of copies, for internal use only, as part of the normal publishing process. As I said, "not in a form for sale to customers". That you keep harping on blatant misreadings of what I've said with ridiculous claims is simply a waste of time. Updating data as new information arrives is standard WP, so complaining about it and coming up with insulting descriptions of it is simply a waste of time. And relying on more users than just myself is also standard WP, so envisioning the fate of the article without me as something hopelessly irredeemable is simply a waste of time. Choor monster (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a big difference between updating a fact when new information is found, and putting in something we know from the start isn't a fact. Future events are unverifiable. You seem to be okay with all of the instances of stale announcements such as "This book will be published in 2008", but they make the encyclopedia look bad. (Saying that Deen's book exists is an extraordinary claim, by the way. Do you have a source that a single person has ever read it anywhere? No source means you believe it must be true based on yourself alone. You are certainly not a reliable source that a book must exist. This is fairly conclusive proof that the "Publication Date" on an Amazon page cannot be assumed to be correct.) Now you may think it's okay to add unverifiable things to articles because it will probably be updated when we know for sure, but that's a guaranteed way to include junk in articles.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Most simply, Wikipedia can say that someone has invited people to a wedding in a year, if we have multiple sources, but we can't frame it as if we believe a wedding will take place. Individual books get delayed or cancelled more often than weddings. It doesn't matter how much you personally believe it will probably happen.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems the issue relates to a list of book titles by the author which take the form of:

• Book title (date) <cite amazon>

I would suggest that for upcoming books not yet released this be amended to:

• Book title (expected 2015) <cite amazon>

A very simple change like that would be perfectly reasonable... accurate... and amazon would be a reliable source for the statement. Nothing more to argue about. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. This is a reasonable and effective solution. Neuraxis (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggested this on the talk page, and encouraged him to make the change. Listing the date "(2015)" does not constitute an assertion of existence or guarantee, and I have no idea where Elaqueate gets the idea that it does. And no, it is not an extraordinary claim on my part to believe that mainstream publishers get ready for forthcoming printings as they have been doing for the past several years. As it is, this is in regards to one title.

I should point out I've been following a few dozen authors on WP, and editing in regards to a few, and this is the first time in two years I've seen anyone raise a concern that such listings of forthcoming works could possibly be a problem. In every single case, it has been absolutely clear that the book does not exist yet. Really, I absolutely do not get it. Choor monster (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree on this, if Amazon (or any other storefront) is the source. I have no problem with the "expected" language if we have a statement from the publisher, the author, or some third-party source with reasonable author that have made the claim the work will be out in some year; we can source that and the "expected" part removes any issue with CRYSTAL. But when it is Amazon or others, you have to beg the question: where did they get that date? With the former case, I can have reasonable expectation of tracking who told whom when to expect the book, but with Amazon, which is knows to assign release dates to populate their database as to allow for pre-orders, there's simply no authority confirmed there. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with using Amazon as a source on the expected release date. Especially if the publisher of the book is an established and respected one. Presumably Amazon is getting their info from the publisher, so no reason to require additional corroboration from publisher. TheBlueCanoe 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree... with the proviso that there is no such thing as a 100% reliable source... any source can be challenged when it comes to a specific fact... for example if the publisher listed some other date, I think there would be a good argument for saying that the publisher was a more reliable source than amazon... and legitimately call amazon's date into question. But barring any such contradicting source, I see no reason challenge amazon. Their "expected" release dates are usually fairly accurate (ie I think they have a reputation for accuracy on such things). Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So here is an example of the problem with Amazon: it lists A Different Kind of Tension (the forthcoming book we're talking about here) as being published by Doubleday, but, in fact it is being published by Random House. (The page for it is here) Yes, Doubleday has been (one of) Lethem's publishers, so maybe some intern just assumed, but obviously no one checked, because there information is just flat-out wrong (although they did get the date right). Or maybe Lethem switched it from Doubleday to Random House for some reason, I don't know -- but that's the point, we depend on reliable sources to check these things, and Amazon didn't, which is wny Amazon is not a reliabel source.

I'm off to the Lethem article to replace the reference from a non-reliable source (Amazon) with the publisher's page. I trust that meets with everyone's approval? BMK (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Doubleday is one of Random House's many imprints. I wouldn't find it all that surprising that the main Random House database list all books published by its divisions and imprints. To confirm this, I checked to see if Attack on Titan, which is published by Kodansha Comics USA and distributed by Random House, was also listed on Random House database and sure it was there.[56] Same is true of manga that was published under the Del Rey Manga imprint.[57] So you can't use the main Random House database as proof that Amazon isn't reliable. —Farix (t | c) 22:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering why BMK has such a downer on Amazon. I fully support using the publisher rather than Amazon for expected publications, but without we have some clear evidence that Amazon is somehow manipulating the information they get from the publisher, then I see no problem with using Amazon as a reliable source for expected publications. Using language that makes it clear that the publication is in the future is what we should be doing as a matter of course. In the end, listing upcoming works from an author is a useful part of a biographical article (or one on a series of books) and we have to source the information from somewhere. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pete - I love Amazon. I buy a lot of stuff from there, and I've never been unhappy withe either the products or the service. Depending on what I buy it often gets to me the very next morning. It's pretty amazing.

But irrelevant. For a site to be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source, it has to fulfill certain criteria, and Amazon just doesn't, nor does any other store website. It's not what they're about, their function is to sell stuff, not to maintain a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They're not, by our policy, a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference. BMK (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And just to make it clear that we are all discussing what we believe regarding WP-vis-a-vis-Amazon, I absolutely loathe Amazon. I purchase dozens of books a year. The last time I purchased something from them was because someone gave me a gift card. The two times before that were for extremely rare books that I found at Amazon affiliates. I absolutely cannot remember any earlier purchases, although I know I must have made them. But the consensus is that for a very narrow range of items, Amazon is WP:RS, and I absolutely cannot understand how someone can't see this. Choor monster (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no such consensus in this discussion as you state. BMK (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is definitely here. It is not defined as unanimous opinion or even majority opinion, but simply reflects the weight of the arguments. You and others have given zero arguments against treating Amazon as WP:RS for a limited range of product announcements/details. Each time you bring up commercialism, you in fact are saying nothing, since commercialism is completely irrelevant to WP:RS. That you keep beating this dead horse shows you simply are unwilling to actually discuss the issue. Your latest folly, where you trumpeted and crowed over Amazon, guessing that they're a bunch of morons who are too lazy to get it right, when in fact Amazon was absolutely correct and you were totally unaware of the concept of imprint and subsidiary (sort of like how you didn't know BookFinder was owned by AbeBooks, which has been owned by Amazon for quite some time) is pretty much proof that you are not bringing anything to this discussion.

As it is, I carefully did not say "this discussion". Unlike you, I knew what I what I was doing. See, for example, [58], and I have quoted above the WP ISBN page. Choor monster (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You have cited the existence of Amazon on the ISBN page numerous times as if it has some relevance here - it does not. There is nothing on WP:RS which refers to the ISBN page, and that's because that page is simply a convenience to our readers, and nothing else. You seem highly reluctant to accept the fact that Wikipedia policy requires that reliable sources fulfill the requirements given on the reliable sources page. That fact that Amazon is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, or that it exists on a page with a couple of dozen other sites, and that page comes up when you click an ISBN, has absolutely nothing to do with whether its reliable or not. That you continue to repeat it as if it does concerns me greatly. BMK (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I cite it because it does have relevance. WP:RS is explaining how to recognize RS's, not listing them. The ISBN page does many things as a convenience. In this instance, it explicitly goes beyond mere mention for convenience, but explicitly elevates Amazon as a reliable source of certain information for WP citation purposes. That you summarize the ISBN page here without mentioning this significant detail simply says you are just flinging words for the sake of flinging. That you continue to ignore this concerns me not at all. Choor monster (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Choor monster, your interpretation is bizarre in the extreme, really. BMK (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This from the person who thought that WorldCat was 100% reliable, even though its sole data point was Amazon? Or has repeatedly argued that commercial sites are inherent unreliable, even after you've been shown that's now WP policy? Or who can't even admit that he blundered incredibly when he claimed hardcore proof Amazon is unreliable because you were too incompetent to distinguish between an owner and an imprint? You have no arguments, and we all know it. Choor monster (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not true; we don't all know it. Again, you being unconstructively heated and personal. Amazon's "sole data point" are publishers, whose reliability you rubbish further down the page. Amazon's reliability for checking an ISBN of an already published book has nothing to do with its reliability that a book will appear in a certain month a year from now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not rubbish publishers' reliability below. I simply agree that they are not 100% accurate. We do not have a 100% accuracy requirement. For someone who is complaining about me being "unconstructively heated and personal", you have an incredibly poor track record. You repeatedly falsify statements, saying I've included a "guarantee" by including a future date, that if I update information on Wikipedia I'm "massaging" the data, that when I mention completely routine facts like publishers have physical copies of a book long before the rest of the world does, I'm making things up, your claiming that I'm insisting that we treat highly obscure, highly non-notable books on the same level as the big boys, and so on.

The problem is that we're talking about an announcement of a future event. For other media and products, we don't "announce" something in Wikipedia's voice unless one of two things has happened, 1. We have independent sources that say that the producer has made significant investment and concrete physical steps to finish the project (this is the case for films, for instance, which generally need to have started actual shooting) or 2. We have multiple third-party sources that say anticipation for the product is somehow notable in itself. We seem to be throwing all of this out in this case. For books, if we say Amazon (or even a thin publisher entry) is good enough by itself, then we are saying we should add material based on filling in an Amazon form where the publisher can withdraw or significantly delay the title with almost no notice. The book we're discussing hasn't even been the subject of a press release. It's arguably less of an issue for those books from bigger names like this one, but it's still not appropriate to consider Amazon a good enough reliable source for a book that hasn't happened yet. Amazon announces books that don't happen. Amazon announces books that have no notability with any reliable source.[59] Those facts put Amazon reliability at the same level as IMDB. Fine for checking possibilities, but not for certainties. Stale announcements make otherwise good articles look like garbage. When Alice Munro won the Nobel Prize, people around the world saw an article explaining when her next book would come out, two books behind reality. The only argument I've heard for putting in future announcements with no third-party sourcing is that they'll probably be verifiable for some percentage of the times we do it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is rambling irrelevant nonsense. You invent policy regarding product announcements contrary to what I've quoted at you before from WP:CRYSTAL #5. Instead, you cite (rather inaccurately and very misleadingly) from WP:THIRDPARTY, which is, first off, an essay, not policy, and second, it is about articles, not individual items of information in an article. In fact, if you bother to read the essay, you would see that had someone created an article on the forthcoming Lethem book based on the Amazon citation, the recommendation would be to delate the article and keep the information with its single citation in some other article. In other words, we're respecting WP:THIRDPARTY by including the one-source item in the Lethem article. And you cite an example of a totally non-notable forthcoming book as if—I give up, I have no idea. How, exactly, has Amazon harmed its reliability regarding mainstream publishers? And your description of the Munro article is blatant falsehood. Her two most recent reprint collections were red-links at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement, nothing of concern whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing false about the fact that Alice Munro had mention in the article of her "future writing plans" from the perspective of 2009, that managed to wheeze into 2013. My point was that these announcements become stale very easily, it happens across many articles, and that any editor who puts in too much material primarily based on a speculation, is creating avoidable work that often remains unencyclopedically for years. I never cited WP:THIRDPARTY so I can't be citing it inaccurately; it's strange that you insist I did. (You really should take back or strike all of your personal attacks about "falsehood" and "misleading" anyway, it's disruptive.) The intent of Crystal is to minimize rumour and speculation. It doesn't mean we are encouraged to have any amount of unverifiable material as long as we keep it in articles. Better to not have it, or as Blueboar suggests make it clear that it is an attribution regarding an event that may not even happen.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

But quoting Munro's plans in 2009 is nothing of concern in 2013. Quoting her plans from 1989 would be fine too. We have been talking about listing forthcoming books, so if you secretly changed the issue, you are engaged in blatant falsehood just the same: you mentioned "two books" behind. What books were they?

You most certainly did quote from WP:THIRDPARTY, the bit about multiple third party sources, but you did not cite it.

Product announcements OK, Rumor and Speculation not OK. CRYSTAL#5 says so explicitly. In the contexts of books, it means we leave out party talk that makes it into print, as often happened with Pynchon. Choor monster (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks and bad faith assumption. I never quoted from or cited the essay WP:THIRDPARTY (an absolutely bizarre thing to be insistent about). At the time of Alice Munro's win, we had material talking about how she was planning to work on a book we also reported was finished. This was in addition to two other compilations of her work coming out in that period. Speculation gets stale, and that's an example among many. Now, your replies are taking on pretty aggressive wording and you're becoming self-contradictory in your accusations ("You cited THIRDPARTY" "You didn't cite THIRDPARTY"). I think you're making this more personal than it has to be.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You said "multiple third-party sources" as if it were policy, and as if it were a requirement for WP:RS, the topic of discussion. I did say "cite", I struck it out. Feel free to obsess about that. Meanwhile, "multiple third-party sources" is a recommended requirement according to WP:THIRDPARTY. Where ever it came from, hazy memory or peculiar coincidence, it is not relevant to WP:RS discussions. Meanwhile, the fact that your argument was based on something that is already dealt with in WP:THIRDPARTY, and runs contrary to your claims, still stands.

And I repeat, there is absolutely nothing bizarre, untoward or wrong about quoting someone about future plans. That the article poorly correlated what Munro said in 2009 with what Munro actually did means nothing whatsoever, other than, somewhere on WP, an article needed cleanup. To mention it in this discussion about citing forthcoming books implied there were in fact two books listed as forthcoming long after they had been published. And there weren't. There were two books red-linked. Sean Connery once said "never again" regarding Bond films, and boy, was he wrong. Choor monster (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Another point to consider in this issue is the current mess between Amazon and Hachette. While removing pre-order links or manipulating the claims of available copies due to contract disputes is far different from publication dates, it does show that we shouldn't trust Amazon for uncorroborated information. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I also feel that people have been relying on their gut feelings about Amazon's reliability and not giving much thought to all the times it does stuff like this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Again... so much depends on how you phrase things... Amazon is not reliable for saying that a book will be released in January of 2016... it is reliable for saying that a book is expected to be released in January of 2016. It may not be the most reliable source (and I have no problem with favoring a more reliable source, if one is available)... but it is a reliable source for the expected release date. It qualifies as a reliable primary source for the expected release date. If necessary, we can even attribute the information ("Amazon has announced an expected released date of January, 2016"). The point is... if amazon announces a release date of X, then it is a reliable primary source for the fact that amazon has announced a release date of X. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When Amazon adds the "Jan 2016" date to a book, that is only say "This is when we want to take your money and ship you a book". Reasonably, this should be when they expect they will get the book from the publisher and 90% of the time I expect they are right. But Amazon has enough questionable business practices that if the date cannot be corroborated with a sourced directly related to the book, we have to question if that date is legit. It is better to be absent of information as to include potentially wrong information. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A great big "so what?" to Elaqueate's link. I've watched numerous forthcoming books on Amazon for almost two decades now, and I have seen some cancelled or their dates pushed back, sometimes for several years. 10% of the Olympics have been cancelled, yet we've got 2016 Summer Olympics. You have done a remarkable job of proving that Amazon.com is not perfect. But we all agree with this. Now, keep the discussion relevant, OK? So long as Amazon has a better track record than the Olympics, I see no problem. You as might as well argue we should eliminate the NYT as WP:RS because they sometimes get it wrong. Or at least, never ever cite them (or any other newspaper) without explicit attribution every single time.

Amazon's questionable business practices do not seem to impact on the accuracy rate of ship dates, and therefore it is not an issue for discussion. The fact is the taking-money part (which we are not interested in) is very strongly expected to coincide with the book-finally-ready part (which we are interested in), whether or not they are the Embodiment of Evil in their war on publishers, competitors, employees and readers. Choor monster (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

To be completely on point, no one has offered any proof or specific source that Amazon has a source-(not editor)-recognized reputation for accuracy in these dates, or how often they get amended. The New York Times has published corrections, Amazon moves dates around without any history of what they've changed. There has to be an actual source-able reputation for accuracy, not an argument that the absence of that reputation is good enough. Discussions like this make it clear that Amazon's "publication dates" concerning books in the past are not as trustworthy as something like Worldcat. Amazon probably shouldn't be used solely on its own, when there's no independent source corroborating notability or detail.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I prefer "leaving out the month this far ahead, and closer to the date I would always leave out the day" as I said above. The accuracy rate, which we wish to keep high, is improved this way. Meanwhile, the link you cite above is amongst librarians who want the exact date for their records. Your summary is highly inaccurate. It's simply a handful of librarians sharing their experience, not very different than what we are doing here, except we're not librarians. Meanwhile, one stated that WorldCat is more accurate than Amazon for older books only. Older was not defined, perhaps before Amazon's existence? The takeaway message I get from the discussion is that Amazon is more reliable for forthcoming books, and that Amazon has zero motive for getting past publication history correct, and that "publication date" is frankly not well-defined. For what it's worth, WorldCat for forthcoming books will typically link to Amazon and nobody else, as I noticed with the Lethem book. Smaller bookstores typically sell books before the publisher's official date, for example, while Amazon is not allowed to.

I've also noticed publishers sometimes do a lousy job with describing their own inventory. I've seen books listed as ready for immediate shipment on Amazon while still listed by the publisher as forthcoming on a date from two weeks past. What's going on, of course, is the publisher hasn't quite figured out this Internet webpage thingie yet. Or they just do a monthly update, since their bottom line is essentially whatever Amazon and B&N sell, and that's the part that everybody involved gets right. I'd call that fact-checking on Amazon's part.

You said, There has to be an actual source-able reputation for accuracy. Ultimately, that's your own made-up requirement. Choor monster (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Per the requirement "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", either that reputation should be blatently obvious (hence why the NYTimes and the BBC are highly regarded sources) or we have citable evidence that a work is reputable. Amazon does not have word-of-mouth reputation for release dates so we need evidence that positively shows they are reputable --MASEM (t) 18:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazon most certainly does have a reputation that it correctly lists upcoming publications. The mainstream press routinely cites Amazon figures for pre-publication information of forthcoming notable books. Why would they do that if they thought their readers didn't buy into the relevance of Amazon pre-publication information? (Feel free to ignore the Washington Post on this topic.) Choor monster (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have found two NYT articles that mention Amazon getting a forthcoming date wrong. One is [60], the NYT review of American Prometheus (2005). The review begins by mentioning that Amazon "inadvertently listed" a book on Oppenheimer as available "12/31/2025" when in fact the book was due in a few months. (It is entirely unclear if the reviewer meant the book under review or another book.) The other is [61], from a 2002 article on the delay of Harry Potter #5, and how everyone from distraught 11-year-old girls and harassed bookstore clerks to top Stochastic executives were coping. And Amazon stopped taking pre-orders. (The article does not say, but I would speculate that they were predicting the book would be noticeably bigger and thus pricier, so it was time to stop offering too much of a giveaway.)

I find it telling that the writers thought it interesting to highlight Amazon getting it wrong. Why would they think that such a trivial little factoid would pique their readers' reading pleasure? Because, quite simply, the readers could not help but interpret it as the giant was tripping a teensy bit and such trips are unusual enough that pointing them out is worth a smirk. Choor monster (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread isn't really about Amazon. It's about whether we cover future releases of books, films, music etc. Previous consensus is that we don't, and I don't see any argument here why we ought to change that. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous consensus is most certainly that we do cover future releases, the question is how. I believe you are thinking of the standard for WP articles about future releases, which is rather high. As pointed out in WP:CRYSTAL #5, and mentioned above somewhere, reliably sourced information about a forthcoming product is acceptable on WP as part of a more general article, for example, an upcoming title as part of an author's list of works. This particular discussion is about the narrow question of whether Amazon listing a book as forthcoming satisfies WP:RS. Choor monster (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is not exactly encouraging about including future publication. If we can reliably source that a film is in production or if an author says in an interview what the subject-matter of her new book will be, then fine. Otherwise, just wait till the thing has actually appeared. Amazon not reliable for this purpose, no bookshop reliable. They rely of course on publishers' dates and those are liable to change at short notice. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is 100% explicit about permitting it, which means you have no point to make, except you don't like existing policy. You mention that the dates are subject to change at short notice as if this is somehow relevant. It's not. See WP:FLAT. It would be nice if every factoid entered into WP was absolute truth, but that doesn't happen, and arguing against particular factoids because sometimes they end up getting revised is an argument that belongs nowhere on WP. The question is whether Amazon is a reliable source for a particular class of factoid (predicted mainstream publishers' dates) and the answer is yes, they are. The question has never been whether Amazon is a reliable source for what will actually happen in the future. For the record though, the bigger publishers do very well at meeting their target dates. Like movies, the big money is in the initial splash, and that requires advance coordination done right.

As the discussion above pointed out, there are other sources of information about future product releases that have a very poor reputation, like video games, and there exist guidelines that severely restrict what is allowable for that. In contrast, there are future product releases that everyone agrees are likely enough certainties, like movies that have reached a certain expensive threshhold, that not just mention, but separate article creation is encouraged. The Novels WikiProject discourages prepublication article creation except when the prepublication buzz is itself notable (as with the later Harry Potter novels).

I mentioned above an extreme example of future product information can be found in the J. K. Rowling article. Sourced from the NYT itself, the WP article tells us she is working on three more Harry Potter universe movies. I see absolutely nothing improper here. You say we're supposed to keep this factoid out of WP until the movies are actually made? Choor monster (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If something has prepublication buzz, noted in secondary sources, then a mention could be in the article (There's also an important difference between "allowed" and your idea that inclusion of this material is "encouraged"). That's not the case for most films and books. It's not the case here. Amazon is not a reliable source on its own that a book will happen or that it will be a notable publication of a subject, before even a single secondary source has ever commented on its existence. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Prepublication buzz is a requirement for a separate article for a novel before publication, and prerelease buzz and a certain financial threshold is a requirement for a separate article for a movie before release, according to the respective WikiProject's policies. This has not been the question here. We are not advocating violations of WP:N. No one is planning to create an article now about the forthcoming Lethem book. Since it's a short story collection, there's a chance no one will bother to create one after it's published. Like your quoting WP:THIRDPARTY above, you are still not addressing the WP:RS issue. Choor monster (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I never quoted WP:THIRDPARTY. Not once, not ever. This is an idea you invented. Repeating it doesn't make it true. The words "third party sources" are not only found in that one essay, they're found quite often in most policies dealing with RS, including WP:V. The only reason I was talking about buzz is that you were bringing up examples where the presence of buzz as reported by the Washington Post and the NY Times as the reliable sources is the reason for including it in the article. That has nothing to do with whether Amazon is a reliable source all by itself. This future book by Lethem has not been mentioned by a single third-party RS that I can find. I agree with Itsmejudith that Amazon and bookshops shouldn't be considered uninvolved third party sources for some speculative detail about a book they're trying to sell you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, Notability is not really a factor here... we are not talking about using Amazon to establish that the book itself is notable enough for an article... the article in question isn't about the book... it's an article about the author (that makes a difference). So... This is a Verifiability issue, not a Notability issue. Amazon is being used to verify one small statement in the article... a specific bit of information... (that one of the author's upcoming books is currently expected to be released on X date). Amazon is a reliable source for that small statement, for that bit of information. Sure, it may not be the most reliable source possible for the statement... but it is reliable enough that we can use it until a more reliable source is found. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I never meant notability for article creation, just that material included in an article is better with some sense that third party sources take it as interesting or important somehow. Amazon "announces" thousands of yet-unpublished things we wouldn't treat as significant enough to include in articles, based on an Amazon entry alone. I think Amazon can be used to help corroborate another's claim, but it's often unreliable all by itself. I don't think we should treat it any differently than things like film studios, such as List of Warner Bros. films#Upcoming, where we only include material that has third party confirmation of its worth or accuracy, and have nothing from years in the future. If we say Amazon is an RS all by itself we'll be adding mention in articles for "books" that have been promised for 2016 only by Amazon itself. Warner Bros. has lists of movies it says will be available in 2016, but we require more than their word.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There's too much text above for me to be sure someone hasn't already said this. But I have personal knowledge that Amazon will often make up a release date or ask for a rough guess in the absence of a publisher having set one, because their system likes to have a date (who is ever going to pre-order something that has no release date?). I imagine other online stores do the same thing. Formerip (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Which, again, is an indication that while Amazon is not reliable for the un-hedged statement:

• "Book Title (2016)"

it is reliable for the hedged statement:

• "Book Title (estimated 2016)".

We don't expect an estimates to be accurate... we simply expect it to be verifiable. And Amazon is reliable when it comes to verifying its own estimate. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to summarize the numerous very bad arguments made against Amazon as WP:RS. They have simply been a waste of time.

1. We are discussing WP:V, not WP:N. The standards for verifiability are much lower than notability.
2. WP:CRYSTAL#5 explicitly permits product announcements. Any criticism based on the fact that such forward-looking statements might turn out to be wrong is irrelevant, since policy permits them. We typically do not quote a product announcement, we simply relay the particulars that we are interested in. And that includes announced date of availability. As a sub-point, note that pretty much all the facts about anybody or anything are subject to change. People's names and sex. We have reliable sources that say his name is "Jonathan Lethem" and that he is a he. The book itself may change title or publisher on short notice. We don't suppress any of this information because it might change. If it does, we update. But maybe nobody will update, and there will be an error in WP. That is beyond preposterous as a concern. There is no requirement anywhere that only factoids with some kind of guaranteed fix are allowed.
3. Amazon is a commercial enterprise. This is perfectly acceptable, almost almost all our WP:RS are commercial enterprises. Masem mentioned the Hachette dispute. Amazon is certainly willing to throw its weight around, and they have proved willing to lose lots of money as part of their business tactics. So, while it's easy to speculate as to what Amazon has actually done against Hachette, facts are much better. Here's a link to a recent story (last Wed, 6/11/14) [62]. Amazon has stopped taking pre-orders. The article mentions one book (by J K Rowling under a pseudonym!) with a publication date this Thursday, 6/19/14. Amazon lists it with that date also, and no, you can't pre-order it. The article mentions several other big name authors affected. Note that there are negotiations in progress. But not lawsuits. I assume that means no one has broken any contracts. Note too that Amazon's reliability has been found questionable on this noticeboard for particular things, including blurb quotes or reviews. In the case of items that Amazon's bottom-line depends on getting correct, no one questions them. They are presumed to get the author and title correct, for example, not out of noble helpfulness but since their income depends on it. The same presumption favors trusting the publication date as being usually correct: Amazon really really wants to collect their customers' money as soon as possible, and really really does not want to deal with irate customers. (On a personal note, I once, about 10 years ago, pre-ordered with Amazon a multivolume $700 technical handbook, finally ready after 10 years, in order to pay only $600. The publisher delayed and delayed for two years, eventually I gave up, eventually a year later it was available, by then I found it for $500 at some other seller. So yes, I am quite familiar with Amazonsometimes gets it wrong, even way wrong. The question here is whether Amazon is reliably relaying information from the publisher, no more, no less, not whether the publisher has correctly predicted the future.)
4. Amazon fills in a date for some publishers. This is, I believe, their policy with small and self-publishers. I also don't believe this is for the sake of their software, which would be easy to adjust, but really it's essentially marching orders to the little guys. Essentially, Amazon is scheduling somebody's long tail of 50-5000 copies at Amazon's own convenience, since typically the little guy is somewhat incompetent. For the most part, these aren't books we're going to be mentioning in WP. I suspect this is where the 12/31/2025 date came from in an old NYT link I provided above. Somebody, either the publisher or Amazon, put in a date for the sake of software that requires a date. How things were done ten years ago is not really germane, but if the publisher did that and forgot to fix it, then it would be an instance of Amazon reliably passing on publisher's information.
5. Amazon does not meet the WP:RS guidelines involving fact-checking. As pointed out, these are guidelines, and taking them literally regarding every possible fact was dismissed as so much wikilawyering. The idea that Amazon has to have a fact-checking guy call up and personally verify trivial information that computers handle so much better is for Luddites, not the 21st century. The guideless specifically mention "common sense".
6. Amazon's dates aren't always correct. Irrelevant, since WP:RS does not require perfection.

• In summary, I have not seen one argument here against Amazon's reliability regarding release information of mainstream publishers' books. Masem came close by raising the Hachette (also Time-Warner, btw) dispute, but that's it. Choor monster (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy rehash of everything in your own words. Number five is the best. It's where we admit that Amazon doesn't fit the guidelines, but that we could sometimes allow it under WP:IAR. That's a better argument than saying it's an actual RS. I still think it generally should only be put in when it's corroborated by another source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't really like the idea that people would use an unreliable source just because it's convenient (and they think reliability is "just a guideline"). If nobody but Amazon.com has the information, then maybe it's undue to include that information. If there's a corroborating source, then why do we even need Amazon.com? Maybe I'm a hardliner, but I'd personally put Amazon.com on the blacklist. There's never any reason to link to online stores. You wouldn't link to Newegg.com in the article on Microsoft, would you? Well, why would you link to Amazon.com for a Stephen King article? I agree with BMK. Avoid Amazon.com; they are here to sell things, not to publish reliable information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have an argument against reliability. That's it. You are against using a commercial source, but there is no restriction against using commercial sources per se. For the record, BMK actually does not have an argument against the reliability of Amazon. He edit-warred for a week on Jonathan Lethem, his sole unwavering objection to Amazon was that it was "commercial". He supported BookFinder, even after having it explained to him that they too were commercial (owned by AbeBooks), and only gave it up after I informed him that AbeBooks was owned by Amazon. He then accepted WorldCat, despite the fact that it was relying solely on AbeBooks (and not on any library catalog, the book not yet in any library). And he point-blank refused to discuss the issue on the Talk page. Until finally he came up with "clever" idea that under some definitions of "fact-checking" (pre-computer), Amazon does not "fact-check". Thanks for bringing up the real issue, the one BMK has not had the honesty to admit here: people don't like using store catalogs whatsoever, but they are not prohibited. And in the specific case of Amazon and books, as quoted above, WP has a special page that provides links to Amazon for the express purpose of verifying information.

Elaqueate: as usual, you simply exaggerate into utter ridiculosity. Try something intelligenter, OK?

As a side point, the question of whether we cite forward-looking statements bluntly or with equivocation is entirely independent of reliability. That is a question of style. We don't put in spoiler or NSFW tags. Why should we put "this article contains forward-looking statements, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance" warnings in? What else is a statement about the future? Choor monster (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Choor monsater, perhaps you should realize that on a consensus-based project, when you are basically the only one supporting your argument, you can use all the rhetorical tricks and devices you want, but you cannot prevail. You can rephrase the arguments of your opponents to make them seem absurd, you can argue against the editor rather then their arguments, you can even utilize the Big Lie and say that there is a consensus here to support the use of Amazon.com as a reliable source, but the fact of the matter is that there is no such consensus and no amount of rhetorical slight of hand is going to make one exist. For this reason, the next time I come across an editor -- any editor, including yourself -- using Amazon.com as a reference, I will delete it and cite this discussion, comfortable with the expectation that any reasonable editor who follows up and reads what is here will see the clear consensus against using Amazon -- and other solely commercial sites -- as reliable sources.

Now, all that there is to say having been said (and, at times, re-said ad infinitum), I think a neutral party could close this discussion, lest we continue going around in the same unproductive circle. BMK (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

BMK... consensus?... where do you see consensus against using Amazon. Looking at the discussion, we have two very vocal editors (Choor monster and Elaqueate) who have dominated the discussion (Choor arguing that Amazon is reliable, Elaqueate arguing it isn't)... and a handfull of others who agree that Amazon is reliable for some statements, but not for others. If there is a consensus here, it's in favor of the hedged "sometimes it is, but not always" viewpoint... and I would call it a very week consensus. Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to mention me, we should be clear I'm not against all uses of Amazon. I think Amazon can be useful as a way to quickly corroborate another citation for things like the spelling of an author's name or an ISBN. That's how it is mentioned in Wikipedia:Book sources and that's a fairly non-controversial use, as it doesn't then recommend citing Amazon itself. But the arguments presented by others here make it clear that Amazon is either passing along a broad guess dressed up as a specific day that they've extracted from every type of publisher, reliable or not, or they've made it up themselves. If you look at their policies, Amazon doesn't guarantee that any of the product information is accurate, current, ever updated, etc. That's not really surprising if it's sometimes random-partner-supplied, sometimes fabricated. Regarding BMK's original question, I still haven't seen an argument that Amazon has any reputation for reliability in this specific area, across some majority of the books it lists, just that some editors assume they do. Absence of a reputation shouldn't be treated the same as a good reputation.
I see many misgivings from multiple editors in the above conversation about using Amazon as a source all by itself without any other source involved. It wouldn't surprise me if they get the scheduled publication date for a Harry Potter book mostly correct, but most of the people who would want to cite book announcements based on an Amazon citation alone are not going to be for that level of book. There's been a suggestion to only cite Amazon for bigger books, but I think the only way to know if it's a bigger book is if you show that it has some mention in the world beyond a single lonely "Coming soon" Amazon reference. I don't see a consensus to use Amazon when the only available source for the information is Amazon.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we know that is your opinion on the issue. You have expressed your opinion repeatedly. Others, however, disagree with you. They think Amazon is an acceptable source... or at least reliable for a hedged statement of "expected release date" or "estimated release date". Perhaps it would be best to end the discussion with a "No Consensus". We have gotten to the point of (repeatedly) reiterating our various opinions, and it is not likely that anyone involved so far will change their stated opinion. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And others disagree with you as well, so yes, a No Consensus is probably justified. I also found the "doesn't meet guidelines, in some cases IAR" argument not awful.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never claimed more than a limited reliability for Amazon, in this context, a sometimes reliable conduit for WP:CRYSTAL #5 information. I will also claim that we should not be over-interpreting product announcements: if they say "estimated", then we should pass that information along, but if they do not say so, we should not. Elaqueate has been arguing against WP:CRYSTAL #5, and as such, has simply not been contributing one iota to this discussion.

A publisher may well have their own reasons for delaying a webpage announcement. They're waiting on cover art, or book tour information, or tie-in deals, or the like. Since they do not normally handle sales, the webpage serves as part of an advertizing campaign more than as a catalog. A half-finished page may strike the publisher as worse than none. Amazon, meanwhile, is happy to treat a forthcoming book like any other book on its pages. Choor monster (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• And how does No Consensus translate into actual practice? Something other than edit wars, right? Choor monster (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Source: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/6000/largest-cut-painite

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painite

Content From: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Painite&oldid=613354583

Sample from editor deleted history: The 25.92-carat (5.18 g) Ophir Painite, owned by the Ophir Collection, has been recognized by Guinness World Records as the largest cut painite in the world[8].

Question on Reliable Sources: An editor said that the Guinness Book of World Records published reference book is a valid reference, but deferred to this forum regarding whether the website is a valid reference. The Source post at the top from the Guinness website was posted to the web in 2014 and the record was issued only 6 months ago (December 20th 2013). After inspecting the HTML code on the website the copyright is dated 2014. So the question remains, why would a dated physical publication be necessary to reference when the website is more timely and just as official? Is the website a valid reference?

If the answer is no, then I believe a VERY LARGE amount of content will necessarily need to disappear from wikipedia and calls into question the entire idea of an internet based encyclopedia if we are going back the Gutenberg Press... — Preceding unsigned comment added by OphirCollection (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 June 2014

Online sources are in no danger of being excluded from Wikipedia. Guinness World Records is a reliable source of some of their award-giving activities but is not a reliable source for whether a particular award is considered significant or accurate. Their website seems like a reliable source as a record of the awards they've given out, as a private company. Guinness World Records should not be treated as a reliable source, without direct inline attribution, that the claims they award for are true. For instance, they don't scientifically measure all hot dogs to find the largest one, they choose between people who self-select and actively apply for the designation. There is also still a question of whether any particular "Guinness World Record" is important enough to include in an article; they include completely trivial records like "Greatest distance travelled with a pool cue balanced on chin" and "Largest screwdriver" and other things that would not substantially improve many articles on related subjects. Your user name suggests you might have a COI with this material and that its inclusion may be sought for a directly self-promotional purpose, so I think it's fair that there should be some indication that this particular designation (among the unknown thousands of designations by GWR) is taken seriously by another RS.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is on value of reference not COI, but I agree that there are many trivial awards given out by Guinness World Records like largest screwdriver. However, awards given out for largest specimen for a category of gemstones seems hardly trivial. Guinness World Records consults with gem labs worldwide in order to verify that no lab in the world has seen a larger specimen before recognizing a given stone as a record. As far as self-selection and perfect knowledge, this is a tall order. Records are made to be broken, and if someone has a larger specimen then they need only apply to receive a larger record. Should wikipedia deny reference to Olympic records because someone somewhere was a faster runner but chose not to compete? This is in fact what happens all the time with recognitions of anything. Ever watched Good Will Hunting? The deleted edit simply states what is an irrefutable fact i.e. that Guinness World Records has "recognized" the painite as the largest cut specimen in the world. GIA certificates were used in the application process, and the edit stated what the current website from Guinness stated.

If the editor in question were only referring to COI issues then there would not have been a post on this page, however, this editor questioned the validity of Guinness website, so that is the question as hand. Since this is not a screwdriver, but something made by God and recognized as unique, does this post merit inclusion as a reference? http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/6000/largest-cut-painite

What I find particularly uneven in this editing process is the reference to guinness, made by another, was left intact. See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzanite wikipedia page. The same editor didn't remove that edit, but removed my edits of it to make it more accurate. The way it reads now it looks like both stones are Guinness recognized whereas only one is. Granted I'm very new to wikipedia but this seems very arbitrary........--OphirCollection (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking into this I've found that I really have no alternative but to issue a promotional username block. It's pretty blatant and there is possibly a lot of money involved. They can of course create a new account without a commercial name. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I was going to raise a discussion about one aspect of the elsewhere, to confirm my own understanding that holding a GWR record does not guarantee notability. I see that is indeed generally accepted, as is the fact that it not even automatically worth being included in an article (though it often will be). The question of whether a record there is evidence for the particular achievement being an actual world record for something we consider important enough to mention seems to be well understood also, that it is one picce of evidence, but not definitive. I'm not sure about the more limited question, whether its particular data points are accurate: if it says A.B. did indeed eat X hotdogs, can it be assumed that A.B. did indeed eart that number (separate from the possibility that someone ate more, ot that it is no encyclopedic interest in any case) . My own view is that in this limited sense, it does authenticate its data. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The GWRs appear to be a key part of the marketing of the collection at the moment e.g.ATLANTA/EWORLDWIRE/June 16, 2014. "Containing the world's largest gemstones, the Ophir Collection (http://www.OphirCollection.com), owned by Ophir Collection LLC, has been awarded nine GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS(R) titles...The Ophir Collection is currently available for sale to qualified buyers." Sean.hoyland - talk 04:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that a GWR listing is any kind of assurance that a record holder is notable, or that a specific record is worthy of mention in the encyclopedia. Notability requires much more than a listing. Mentioning records is a matter of editorial judgment, and at first thought, I see no reason to mention the world's largest screwdriver in our article about that tool. But world's records are often notable and widely discussed elsewhere, and Guiness is a respected source for such records. So, GWR should be considered a reliable source for stating that the Guiness World Record for X is X. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the other information in painite, this appears to be a very rare, and relatively recently-discovered type of mineral. (Just a couple dozen specimens collected before 2005.) It doesn't have anything even approaching the cultural, economic, or historical significance of other, better-known gems or minerals. (To be honest, it doesn't seem to have any cultural, economic, or historical significance.) The question of due weight seems more problematic than the question of reliability. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this book The Judgment Against Imperialism, Fascism and Racism Against Caliphate and Islam: Volume 1 reliable? Please read about its description in Amazon [63]. There are no reviews there. Read about author description too [64] . Is that reliable book to cite in Islam articles? - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1. The title says it all, really. Its published by "authorhouse", which is a self-publishing outfit [65]. So the answer is no. I'm sure volume 2 will be great, though. Paul B (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
2. The book summary asserts that Ataturk was a "secret Jew", and that when Columbus reached America he discovered mosques there. Doesn't sound very reliable to me! RolandR (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. No it is not reliable. TFD (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Self-published conspiracy theory; not reliable. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Not even remotely reliable for anything other than what the author states. Not backed by an independent publisher. Not held in **any** Worldcat library. Pretty funny though. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Not reliable. The book has content from Wikipedia also - Page 184 for instance. That causes cyclic reference. --Jyoti (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
7. WP:SNOWing not reliable. No independent publisher, and the language alone makes it clear that not even a competent copy-editor has ever handled this book. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI - We keep a list of Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies. If anyone finds a self-publishing company not on this list (apparently "authorhouse" isn't), please add it to the list. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have used this site many times to source info on songs and albums. I have been told that it is not a reliable source as it is user generated. Some of it is but a lot of it isn't. Should it be considered an unreliable source. The article in question Shanghai'd in Shanghai has now been redirected to an album page, mostly because this website was removed as unreliable--Egghead06 (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See here. User-generated content should never be used as sources since they have little or no editorial oversight. Discogs is mentioned specifically as a source to avoid. Caper454 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That only says this site may be unreliable and does not include it specifically in the list of unreliable sites. There is a lot on this site not user generated, so should there be a carpet ban on this site as at the moment it is not listed as such?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, Discogs is mentioned specifically as a source to avoid. According to this, it seems that as of 2008 all material on discogs.com is user submitted and takes effect immediately, meaning the possibility of zero editorial oversight exists. Entries are checked for "correctness & completeness" later via votes. Even the mods who check accuracy seem to be just users as well. Caper454 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I find discogs accurate (as opposed to wp-reliable), so I wouldn't be alarmed about its limited use on WP. If an article requires discogs for its existence, I think that is a problem, though.

I'd also query whether we really should class it as a site to avoid, because it just consists of scans of and transcriptions from record sleeves, done by volunteers and moderated by other volunteers. There are sites run in that way that we probably would consider reliable (Gutenberg, Internet Archive), and the only difference is probably how noble we consider the volunteers to be.

I'm not arguing for discogs to have some kind of special status, but I think we should generally be relaxed about it.

Anyway, no-one will know if you pretend you got the information from the record sleeve. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, discogs is very often my first port of call, before I look for "wiki-correct" sources. It has a vast amount of useful information. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have used it many times and some very experienced editors have reviewed my articles all with no complaint concerning this site. It is also widely used by others on articles about songs and albums.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

None of this makes the source reliable. Caper454 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't and that's why I came here to get other editors views. Anything I can find on Discogs I can source elsewhere. I only need a view as to further use and opinion seems to be not to use it. --Egghead06 (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No, but I think it provides a good example of where turning a blind eye will most often be the best thing to do. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Turning a blind eye is only effective as long as no one bothers to revert it based upon the fact that it's unreliable. It's by no means a valid argument. Caper454 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If you argue that its unreliability is based on the fact that material is added immediately, and reviewed only later, you must accept that its reliability increases as time goes on? I would guess that those who add material at discogs are committed fans/ genre specialists who have no vested interest in deliberately adding spurious information. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that this not a reliable source. You can use it as a starting point for your research, like the IMDb, but do not cite it on Wikipedia. Editors like myself will automatically strip out any citation to Discogs. And, no, there is no exception in WP:RS for sites that are useful but lack any editorial oversight. It's the same as using an open wiki (such as Wikipedia) as a source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Good job it is not used much on Wiki then!!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is rankopedia.com a reliable source? e.g. [66] Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing how its motto is "vote, create, & debate!" I'd say it's a user-generated source and therefore even less reliable than a public opinion poll. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, what could be less reliable than a public opinion poll! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like some cleanup is needed for its current uses. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have cleaned up a few of the articles which use rankopedia.

It's worth highlighting that there's a WP:CIRCULAR problem in that much content is copied from wikipedia. See, for example, "Greatest French American of all time", a ranking based on our List of French Americans. Interestingly, the top-ranked French American is an obscure "Antoine Bello", who is also - quelle coïncidence! - the founder of Rankopedia. He succeeds in several other rankings too. bobrayner (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Not RS. Simple. Collect (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There is disagreement at Fallen angel about the reliability of the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion for the sentence: "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that Satan appears in Jewish pseudepigrapha, especially apocalypses, as 'ruler of a demonic host, influencing events throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel', and ascribes the idea of Satan as a fallen angel to a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12". I say that, in Wikipedia terms, this work is a reliable source for the sentence, and that anyone who disagrees is free to add to it a citation of some source that he or she believes outweighs it. User:In ictu oculi removes the sentence on the grounds that what the ODJR states "is a short entry in a tertiary source and shouldn't even be mentioning Is 14:12 when no Jewish source does", and that, "if we want to say something about fallen angels in the pseudepigrapha, we need more competent sources". See Talk:Fallen angel#Reliable source. Is the cited source reliable for the sentence in question? Esoglou (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it is a tertiary source. Is the idea found also in secondary sources? Itsmejudith (talk)

I don't know. I also don't know if any secondary source actually denies the idea, whatever about being synthesized as denying it. It would probably be synthesis also to present as supporting the idea the statement "Heylel (Isa. xiv. 12), the 'day star, fallen from heaven', is interesting as an early instance of what, especially in pseudepigraphic literature, became a dominant conception, that of fallen angels", which is found online here (halfway down the right-hand column of page 400 of the New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia) and elsewhere. Esoglou (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I presume you are not saying that, even in the absence of secondary sources, no tertiary source is reliable. Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A tertiary source such as this one can generally be considered a reliable summary of the scholarly literature. Is there a reason to dispute this tertiary source aside from the lack of personal familiarity relevant secondary sources? Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi seems to object that the source involves an "anachronistic, mish-mashing Christian myths back into Judaism", which would seem to be at least a justifiable view, from what I've read in the more detailed secondary literature on the topic. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course tertiary sources are acceptable. That's not the real issue though. If the statement is uncontroversial relatively poor sources may be acceptable. If the statement is problematic than they may not be. In this case it's difficult to say. The well known book Satan: A Biography, does not attribute the developments to a misinterpretation of Isaiah, or rather places that later, with Origen. The author of the entry appears to have written and article on the pseudepigraphic Wisdom of Solomon, which may articulate this view. There is the added difficulty of deciding what is meant or included by the concept "Satan", since that name is not used in some of the pseudepigraphic literature. These complexities tend to be compressed in tertiary literature. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not well versed on these matters, but a quick Google book search yields some findings about Satan and Jewish religion, for example Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years: [67] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're necessarily qualified to conclude this tertiary source is inaccurate because we are unable to locate its conclusions in the secondary literature ourselves. Has anyone consulted any of the five scholarly sources cited in this tertiary source? Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul B says complexities tend to be compressed in tertiary literature. Their compressions may surely be reported ("The ODJR says ..."). Then, if someone wants to suggest that a particular compression is misleading, they can simply add a source that they see as suggesting that the compression is misleading. But they can't object, especially but not solely if they cite no such doubt-raising source, to reporting the reliable source's compression. Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is a tertiary source! Just because something is called an encyclopaedia or dictionary doesn't make it tertiary necessarily. This work is a collection of small articles signed by their authors. In this case, the author is "Dennis M. Dreyfus, Lecturer in History, Hunter College, The City University of New York". Assuming this person was qualified to write on the subject, his article is a secondary source. Mind you, I don't believe this makes much difference to the question of its reliability. Can you show it is a fringe opinion? Or contradicted by better sources? I don't have time to study it, so I don't know if I would put it in the article or not. However, I'll note that if you do the search satan "Isaiah 14.12" in Google Scholar you will find quite a few articles. Dr Dreyfus certainly did not invent the idea. Zero^talk 01:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well at least at first glance it is reputable scholarly tertiary source compiled by reputable scholars and published with a reputable scholarly publisher. In addition it is seems to be a rather recent publication (2011) with good reviews. So I see no way to dismiss that as source. You would need larger number of of high quality secondary sources that convincingly demonstrate why the Oxford encyclopedia is wrong in this instance, the chances for that are probably slim to none. So assuming nobody can compile such secondary sources or several clearly negative reviews of the encyclopedia, it cannot be excluded and the article simply has to describe dissenting scholarly views.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Th statement is attributed, rather than stated as fact. Wikipedia is not saying those things, it is saying the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion is saying those things. Does that make a difference? Howunusual (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ervand Abrahamian and ahmad ashraf claimed that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was paranoid. in 4 books & articles:

1. Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. University of California Press, 1993. ISBN 978-0-520-08503-9.
2. The Coup: 1953, The CIA, and The Roots of Modern U.S. -Iranian Relations. New Press, 2013. ISBN 978-1-59558-826-5.
3. CONSPIRACY THEORIES”. In Encyclopædia Iranica. vol. VI. 1993. 138-147. Retrieved 4/23/2014.
4. in persian: «توهم توطئه». گفتگو (تهران) تابستان، ش. 8 (1374): 7 تا 46

my ask is are these books reliable for shah's paranoia?--Mazdak5 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The first yes, the second no idea. But a quick search on GBooks shows that ya. he was paranoid. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of Rankopedia, discussed above, what does this noticeboard think of The Top Tens? I'm concerned that it's user-generated, but it is cited in quite a range of articles. bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Also not RS. Nice to have such easy cases here. Collect (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've cleaned up every article that used it. bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)