Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

This is one Cnfusing place --No Idea if this is posted in appropriate place --OR how to FIND same.

Community where I live: full of creative people, structures and beautiful geography, some reasons why it has a page here. I have a website about the community (every aspect), started three years ago, with Sidebar links to everything a neighbor would want, which is why I attempted to add the page, under "external links" --but promptly got notice: 'a bot will remove your link'

So I'm asking: a.) why --isn't blog allowed b.) if I am the author/owner of the blog and its contents: why can't I add a link (of the blog) to community page? --All the material is original, neutral (except for political news) nothing inappropriate, crude, vulgar or others' material. So what's the prob? Thanks for help, Poppy

That's another page. Someone will mention it soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia has high standards regarding cites and external links, and blogs fail to meet those standards.

Specifically, here's what Wikipedia's policy on verifiability has to say on the subject:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.^[1]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Wikipedia's policy on external links specifically lists blogs as links normally to be avoided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To Quest: thank you for replying (aren't you impressed I Found this page again, lol, I am!) I appreciate the material you listed, my *search wasn't as successful. Ironically: I usually have the same view, about blogs, most (90%?) are junk; my background in English and ethics, standards grounded in journalism prevent me from producing typical blog type stuff; doing things even daily newspapers do, so (*blush*) my view of the neighborhood-grounded blog: NOT the usual rag of sort. e.g. several pages, with cites, on controversial issue of our reservoirs, surrounding meadow, and future use. e.g., Under "Food" all external links to Forums, boards, websites - pre-set to community restaurants. e.g., recently a series of crimes occurred (for the first time in years) and all kinds of people popped in looking for news, up-date, notice/details of police-community meeting to discuss.

Blog is not my personal 'daily travails in the 'hood' sort, but links to all categories, in/related to the community. Ergo: I thought it would be useful to readers of the wiki Page; apparently I'm not as neutral as wiki wants? Could I list it if I cited myself as the owner?

Ah well, would you take a look, see if blog is acceptable? I'll check back tomorrow for reply. Thanks for reply, Poppy (--I don't know how to sign off with the icon/sig thing)

I don't know which article you are referring to or the blog either, but based on what you've said so far, no, it does not seem like it would be an acceptable for external link. Blogs are only acceptable if the author of the blog is an established expert on this specific topic and has been published by reliable third-party publications. Has the blog's author been published by any reliable sources about this specific topic? If so, how many?

To sign your posts, just include four tildes at the end. Just like this but without the spaces: ~ ~ ~ ~. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I put a dubious tag on the claim in the Video assist article that Jerry Lewis has a US patent on the technology. Other editors removed the tag on the theory that the patent is widely believed to exist.

Ordinarily, such patents are easy to find. I tried to find the patent, and couldn't. Although such a patent would almost certainly be mentioned as prior-art in later patents, there are no such references. There's a well-known patent by actress Hedy Lamarr that is trivially easy to find and frequently mentioned by later patents. In short, the factual evidence does not support the claim in the article.

The reference in the article only shows that this patent is widely thought to exist, not that it does, and in fact the author of that reference says he has no evidence that the patent exists.

Please see the discussion here: Talk:Video_assist#Jerry_Lewis_patent

I hate having to say this, but I have no particular opinion on the matter. I respect Mr. Lewis and there is a vast amount of evidence that he made substantial contributions to the development of this technology. That's basically what the Jerry Lewis article says, and I'm fine with the language there. But the claim in THIS article is that he has a patent, so there should be a reference to support that claim.

Thanks.67.164.125.7 (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced now. For something uncontroversial like "there are 24 hours in a day" it's obnoxious to demand a source, but I think it was reasonable for you to suggest a source was needed for something not immediately obvious like the Jerry Lewis patent -- I know a lot of trivia, and a lot of legal history, but I didn't know that. THF (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand-- what is sourced now? The claim that Lewis has a patent is still not sourced. The claim that he is credited with the invention is, but that is a separate claim.67.164.125.7 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The cited source says that he got a patent for it. (The cite might be wrong, but the Wikipedia standard is verifiability.) If the argument is that the source is not reliable because it's wrong, that's a different question. It could well be an urban legend (one even repeated by Jessica Biel at the Oscar ceremonies and by Lewis himself, and you could be the one to debunk it: best bet is to take it up with Snopes. My own OR shows that this could be an urban legend; there's no patent by the name often credited to the one Lewis claims to have had. For $2.95, you can check out this article, which may be the answer you're looking for, or may not. THF (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the cited source told me he doesn't have any evidence for his own statement that Lewis has such a patent. But this isn't about that source. It's about the fact that I put a dubious tag on a specific claim in an article, and the tag has been removed because that claim is widely believed to be true. I'd think such a tag could only be removed if the claim has, you know, factual support somewhere, so that the claim isn't dubious. How in heck does "widespread belief" constitute a reliable source?

I appreciate the point about verifiability, but I think this is a special case that needs special consideration. The verifiability policy says the burden of proof is on the editor adding a factual claim. I don't think an editor satisfied that burden by saying that other people believe the same thing, no matter how reputable they are. If a US patent exists, there's exactly one way to verify it: provide a patent number. I don't think that widespread belief is a reasonable alternative to that standard in this case. And that's why I'm here-- to see if there's a consensus on that point, or if not, to build one.

I also appreciate that article, but Songer's work in the area began in 1968, long after Lewis was said to have received the patent (around 1956). 67.164.125.7 (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This hinges on the exact wording in the article. If the wording is that Lewis had a patent, then I agree, we need better sources to verify that statement. If, on the other hand, the wording is that a given author believes he had a patent, then the source THF gives is reliable (as it discusses that author's belief). It is the difference between a statement of fact, and a statement of opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I suggest we change the Video assist article to say "Comedian and director Jerry Lewis is credited with inventing this system, although some similar systems existed..." which matches the language in the Jerry Lewis article.

That would eliminate the specific claim that he has a patent. If I can find the patent-- and I'm still looking-- I'll add the number to both articles. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently, John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) removed a comment that Chuck Baldwin opposes interracial marriage. The statement was sourced to a BET article detailing Chuck's political opinions in which they made the comment that Chuck Baldwin believes that interracial marriage is a from of white genocide. It seems like this is both a WP:RS and WP:BLP issue, but since the original verbiage in the article was fairly neutral, I am assuming that the RSN was the place to go.

I searched around to see if I could source the statement elsewhere, but the best I could do is link it to his opinion of the book Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants here but without listening to probably dozen of sermons, if he has even left the questionable material available, I doubt we'll get better until a mainstream media source gets bored enough to crucify him.

I haven't reverted it yet, as BLP is still an issue, but do we have a policy for requiring sources to be sourced? Burzmali (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof especially in BLP situations. If we are going to say that someone opposes interracial marriage, over 40 years after the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws, we better have solid proof. I would suggest great caution, and either not using it at all, or else start it "According to BET, ..." My advice would be that if you have nothing more than that, to leave it out. I think the BLP issue is paramount.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If the BET summary of the candidate had said "Likes pancakes" under "Stuff you may not have know", I would have said it is a reliable enough source; but since the claim ("endorses the viewpoint that interracial relationships are a form of white genocide") is significantly more serious, and concerns a BLP, I would have to agree that the source is not sufficient by itself. Unless we find independent corroboration, it would be prudent to leave it out. Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the deleted language you mention differs considerably from what BET said. "Endorses the viewpoint" might mean that Baldwin didn't say it himself, but when asked about someone else's speech or book, said something that favored the speech or book, perhaps not even realizing the full contents. Lots of possibilities here, and since even the BET quote is rather POV (white genocide?) suggest we stay far away from this until there is an independent source.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Chuck Baldwin didn't win the endorsements of every major white supremacists by being a friend to people of all races and creeds. The term "white genocide" is a direct quote from James Edwards on whose radio show, The Political Cesspool, Baldwin has been a guest. Without listening to each of the radio shows to find the ones with Baldwin and the ones with decrying interracial marriage, it is hard to make that a definite statement as to his politics, but that's would secondary sources are for, no? Burzmali (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. BET might take the position that appearing on Edwards' show means Baldwin "endorses" Edwards' views.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently ran into an article on sohh.com, but I'm not sure if this website would be considered reliable and if it would be deemed reliable if it went through GA, FL or FA. DiverseMentality 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It dont think it meets the guidelines for a WP:EL (fan site, blog etc.,), Let alone, WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the above mentioned is questioned, and a user removed material sourced to a book authored by them [1]. This removal (not the first one) is based on un-proven reliability.

The questioned book [2] was published in 2006, and despite being a recent publication has already been cited by numerous other authors [3]. It was written by two professors, Brunnbauer [4][5] and Sundhausen [6], and a PD, Esch [7], all historians and experts in the field the book is about (modern Eastern European history). The book was published by LIT [8], a publishing house specialized on science.

All the informations are easily verifiable (googleable) and though the sites are in German, the basic information should either be understood by non-German speakers, too (eg "Professor" and "Universität foo"), with other key words like "Geschichte Osteuropas" (history of Eastern Europe) a web translation will turn out a result. Therefore, I think that an English speaker should be able to retrieve the key information about the authors within a few minutes. Additionally, the disputed quote was given in the footnote, also the respective URL, and a translation was provided on talk [9].

The questions I have are:

• Am I right that the source is reliable?
• Do I have to further prove (if yes, to what extend?) the reliability if the URL of the book preview, authors and title are given, and as shown above further information about authors and book are easily retrievable online using the information given in the footnote?

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The book seems like a reliable source in every respect. The quoted article by Prof. Detlef Brandes seems as reliable as a source can get. I don't see how there could a problem here. No need for any further proof. Offliner (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Detlef Brandes writes about Czechoslovakia. His expertise in Polish matters is doubtful. Poland isn't Czechoslovakia nor Russia, what people in the West generally ignore. Xx236 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Brandes does not write only about Czechoslovakia.

"In seiner Habilitation über Großbritannien und seine osteuropäischen Alliierten in den Jahren 1939 bis 1943 beschäftigte er sich mit der Politik der Exilregierungen Polens, der Tschechoslowakei und Jugoslawiens unter anderem hinsichtlich der Vertreibung und Zwangsaussiedlung der Deutschen aus dem östlichen Europa – ein Thema, das er in einer Studie über die Pläne zur Zwangsaussiedlung der Deutschen aus Polen und der Tschechoslowakei wieder aufgriff. In seiner neuesten Monographie widmet er sich der Geschichte der Sudetendeutschen in der Zeit vor dem Münchner Abkommen. Ein weiteres Forschungsfeld von Brandes bildet die Geschichte der Deutschen in Russland und der Sowjetunion, wobei vor allem die deutschen Kolonisten und Balkansiedler in Neurussland und Bessarabien in der Zeit von 1751 bis 1914 sowie über die Sibiriendeutsche in der Sowjetunion im Mittelpunkt stehen."

It seems quite clear than he has more than enough expertise in the subject of the article in question, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, even in "Polish matters." Offliner (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This book is a WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? And your source is?Xx236 (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly WP:RS, whether the information in it is correct or not is another issue, and I suspect is where the dispute lies. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The anthology's publisher (LIT), editors (Ulf Brunnbauer, Michael G. Esch, and Holm Sundhausen), the author of the cited chapter (Detlef Brandes), and positive review in American Historical Review (quote: "This book adds to the substantial amount of research about “ethnic cleansing” that has been published in recent years in the German language." ... "It is a virtue of the volume that it unites authors from various disciplines and nationalities. The essays also provide a good overview of recent research on ethnic cleansing in various European countries.") establish that this is a reliable, and, in fact, a good source to use on wikipedia. That doesn't, of course, make all its contents indisputably true, but if there is a controversy, present the alternate view too; don't simply exclude this source. By the way, while referencing this work, you should cite the actual article and its author(s), and not only the book and editors. Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes if there is a controversy or others dispute this view, you can present it as "so and so scholar argues that ...." (see WP:WTA for words usage), by stating opinions as opinions and not as facts. like this the article will be more neutral and all POVs will be represented. --Nvineeth (talk)

"Brandes does not write only about Czechoslovakia" - Brandes is competent (probably) when writing about Czechoslovakia. He writes sometimes about Poland and creates problems. Here is an academic opinion about his another book [10]. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the courtesy of pointing out the relevant section of the review: "this is not an explicit comparison between the Czech and Polish cases. In general, the Czechs (and Sudeten German exile politicians) get the overwhelming majority of Brandes' attention. When the Poles do appear, it is rarely in a comparative context." - that review just says that he doesn't make a direct comparison between the Czech and Polish cases. That is not "creating problems", as you would have it, and the reliability of the evidence and conclusions is not questioned.

User:Nvineeth offers some good advice above, which I would strongly endorse. Knepflerle (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "presenting opposing POVs" is that an opposing scholary POV has not yet been presented, and the removals I addressed here were based solely on questioned reliability of the source, which the removing user still does not see confirmed. I am all for integrating or adding other views, if just someone would present one. In any case I will take the advise of Abecedare, and if we come to presenting opposing views, I will follow Nvineeth' advise, too, which is regular practice I do not question. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify - my preceding comment was addressed to Xx236. If there are scholarly views which disagree with those presented in Skäpperöd's source, he should include them in the article with citations. (Glad everyone agrees that Nvineeth's advice is good practice for all of us!) Knepflerle (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be a simple question. In relation to the article Feminine essence theory of transsexuality. This article is about the basic "woman trapped in a mans body" sort of story given to explain transsexualism. This particular variant of the idea is not edorsed by the APA, or any professional psychologist or physicians. I have a number of sources on this idea. The problem is that all of them could be considered self published depending on how you look at that. I will start with the strongest one.

1. Ts-Si.org "Why "HBS/TS" instead of TG?" This one seems to be the strongest. Does the fact that a group of people came together and formed a .org make what is published here a RS for this topic. It is one of the most authoratative on the thinking about what is termed HBS. Or is this self published?
2. womenborntranssexual.com This one is much weaker because the website takes the form of a blog. However it summs up the thinking nicely.
3. HBS International "What is Harry Benjamin's Syndrome?" This one is by a .org must like the first.

Searching google scholar brings up only "Unveiling the Mystique of Gender Dysphoria Syndrome"Margaret L. Colucciello RN, PhD[11] Is the closest thing to this found in Google Scholar. In this case the word syndrome I think was used simply to avoid the word disorder and it's stigma. Are any of these acceptable? One may say well if it's not in a better publication it's not noteable... first of all anything in the TS communit takes a long time for mainstream media to get wind of. Second google the term, thousands of hits come up.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look good. I couldn't find anything on the first that indicated it had a strong editorial policy. It sounds like a controversial issue, so you'll want extra strong sources, not questionable ones. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

please take a look at the situation over at Talk:Sum 41 discography. Basically, there are multiple 3rd party sources that say that this EP is an EP, there are also multiple 3rd party sources that label it as a studio album. But there are 2 PRIMARY sources (The EP, and the Band themselves) that have stated that it is an EP, and not a studio album. Isn't it true that primary sources over-ride secondary source, especially in this case (respond on my talk page please) 70.242.179.192 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't take anyone long to verify that many reliable sources mention the idea that the Armenians are among descendants of Mitanni. Yet I have seen anyone who tries to mention these reliable sources on the Mitanni article, get called a "troll" and threatened with blocking, article locking, etc. So are all the cited authors who wrote about this, "trolls" as well? Or is there some foul play here that is purposefully trying to exclude relevant information, exactly as described at WP:BIAS? Readers researching Mitanni can easily find out elsewhere that some modern-day groups do claim descent from them, and these readers probably wouldn't want this relevant info suppressed by editors who think that they personally "know better" than the sources, and that therefore these sources must not even be mentioned. The fact that they don't even have a single source rebutting this peer-reviewed view, is summarily dismissed by saying "Well that's because we know it's so wrong, why would we even bother rebutting it with a source".

This is exactly how we get such vast discrepancies between what wikipedia says, and what other sources say. It only takes about one second on google books or google scholar, to find copious scholarly books (NOT blogs) that mention the Armenian-Mitanni connection. But it seems that there are hidden, higher standards than "verifiability" at play, and that is the "prestige" that certain editors give one another, and the "cause" of "anti-nationalist globalism" which regularly denies all published evidence that any modern people could possibly be descended from any ancient people. (So the stork brought them, or what?) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If it takes "about one second on google books or google scholar to find copious scholarly books" that illustrate your point, you should provide citations to some of them here. Otherwise, your post looks more like a rant than a constructive attempt to solve an editing problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. DB at Talk:Mitanni has even admitted that the Armenians are likely descendants of Mitanni via the Hurrians, but insists that it shouldn;t be mentioned, and furthermore, he admits that there are sources, but says they don't count because he thinks they were written by "Armenian crackpots" and "Soviets" whom he claims to have "debunked". In response I just pasted the following comment and citation at the talkpage:

As I research more, it appears that after the Indo-Aryan character of some Mitanni names became known in the late 19th century, several scholars wrote on this, and it is still considered by linguists as evidence for an Armeno-Aryan proto-group. Henry Hall (Egyptologist) was one of of several to suggest this, see Ancient History of the Near East from the earliest Times to the Battle of Salamis p. 475 - was he an Armenian crackpot, or a Soviet? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This still sounds ranty. Henry Hall died in 1930, and without more recent sources, there's no reason to assume that he represents a prominent viewpoint today.

Other issues you mention seem to relate to WP:UNDUE. If crackpots believe that the Mitanni are the ancestors of the Hurrians, who are the ancestors of the Armenians, but the scholarly consensus is otherwise, mentioning the crackpot opinion in Mitanni is likely undue weight. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Scholarly consensus is otherwise"? Haven't seen a single indication other than bald assertion. RSS please.

Then there's this, but since the author is Armenian, he must be one of the "crackpots" DB refers to:

"The same applies to the anthropological strata of Armenia, whose chronology is stated by Professor A. Hatch as follows: Subarean basic stratum dating from 3000 BC. Harri-Mitanni-Aryan stratum dating from 2000 BC. Mosch-Muski-Aryan-Phryge stratum dating from 1176 BC. Hatti major infiltration into Armenia 1200 BC. Khald-Urartean rule in Armenia 9th century BC. Phryge-Armen rule in Armenia beginning 650 BC." [12] Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, please read more carefully. I'm not making any assertion what the scholarly consensus is, or isn't. What I'm saying is, unless you have a more recent source, there is no reason to assume that a source from the early 20th century represents current scholarly consensus. If, as you claim, there are tons of sources on Google scholar it shouldn't be a problem to present more recent material.

The quote you've provided doesn't say that the Armenians are the descendants of the Mitanni. It says that the Armenian language has a Harri-Mitanni-Aryan stratum. That's not the same thing as genetic affiliation. In any case, the book you linked to is published by indoeuropeanpublishing.com, a print-on-demand press. This is little better than a vanity publisher, so this book is not a reliable source. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, please read more carefully. The quote I've provided doesn't say the Armenian language has Harri-Mitanni-Aryan stratum. It specifically says (as I quoted above) "The same applies to the anthropological strata of Armenia". I have provided a more recent source verifying that this POV exists, but you are still coming up with various pretexts for suppressing the sources without even so much as a contrary opinion ever being published. The sources are all either too old, or they are "too recent". Tell me, exactly what age of a source would you like, and I'll try to find it, if there is any such acceptable date range for a published idea you wish to exclude. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in response to your attack on the publishing site, Here's the same 1958 book at the University of Chicago. But I guess it doesn't require any source or reference if your opinion that he's a "crackpot" is just somehow... right... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"anthrpological strata of Armenia"? Ok, I suppose the passage you quoted is talking about material culture, not language. This still doesn't support the notion that the Armenians are descendants of the Mitanni. And, hosting a chapter of a book on a personal website, even one with an .edu suffix, doesn't make a book reliable. The book in question, History of Armenia by Vahan_Kurkjian, was published by the Armenian General Benevolent Union of America in 1958; this is obviously not an academic press, and considering that Kurkjian was the founder of the organization, one may doubt whether the book was subject to a strenuous editing process. Nor, if we can trust his Wikipedia article, was Kurkjian a trained archaeologist or historian. This book doesn't look like it meets WP:RS.

By the way, Til Eulenspiegel, a bit less hostility might be helpful. Interpreting my comments as an "attack on the publishing site" seems a bit paranoid. This is the reliable sources noticeboard, of course we're going to look at who published a book to see if it's a reliable source. That's what this noticeboard is about. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The book in question is not a reliable source, even if a chapter is on a university site, nor does it say what you seem to think it says. This one published by Routledge [13] is, and doesn't support the idea that the Armenians are descendants of the Mitanni. dougweller (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact that source you just gave does support the idea that Armenians are decendants of the Mitanni; The Kingdom of Armenia by Chahin devotes much space to discussing the Mitanni, their relation to the Hurrians, and the Hurrians' relation to the Armenians. The sourece I gave also supports this, but it's funny how you say the source is not reliable AND I'm misinterpreting it. It lists the Mitanni among the anthropological stratum of Armenians, how do you interpret it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

this thread is flawed from line one, because there aren't "many reliable sources mention the idea that the Armenians are among descendants of Mitanni". Don't confuse this claim with "it is plausible that the Armenians have Mitanni people among their ancestors", because this would force us to mention the Armenians at mitochondrial Eve, just because all Armenians are among the offspring of Mitochondrial Eve. The Mitanni kingdom flourished 3,300 years ago, and if you know anything about genealogy, this means that everyone in Southwest Asia, and probably most people in Eurasia and Africa, are "descended from the Mitanni".

As for the claimed "RSs", there are none known. Witness this revision, which shows the hallmarks of pov-pushing, with "possibly "Armeno-Aryan", origin [...] regarded by many historians as among the ancestors of the modern day Armenians" (pure weasling), garnished with 13(!) footnotes rather than a single quotable RS. For your edification, the 13 footnotes amount to:

these indiscriminately mix random urls (allnewsweb.com, touregypt.net... -- it remains a mystery why we should quote those when it is so "easy" to come up with real RS), and sources that do in fact argue for either the Anatolian hypothesis or the Armenian hypothesis (which are incidentially mutually exclusive, but never mind that), and imply that scholars arguing for either of these automatically support "Armenian Mitanni" which is utter nonsense.

Now Til knows all of this, of course, being a veteran editor, but he is also a veteran pusher of ethnic crackpottery. He should also know better, I suppose, than calling me names like "racist" for removing the above clutter of "references", but I suppose after getting away with his approach to Wikipedia for years, he doesn't see any reason not to.

Til at this point isn't an asset to Wikipedia as much as a liability, and if I wasn't his target in this case, I would consider imposing a block on him for his recent exploit. Briefly, he is wasting everyone's time over stuff that has been discussed exhaustively two years ago, and he isn't doing it politely and innocently, but in a manner that really begs that somebody should show him the door. --dab (𒁳) 16:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we cannot verify that the school of thought actually exists in print, because the sources are obviously wrong and thus "unreliable", therefore we do not mention this school of thought at Mitanni as existing at all, am I reading all this correctly? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to the Mitanni in the index of Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.) The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times: Vol. I: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). Since this is a pretty standard work on Armenian history this might give us some indication of the importance (or rather lack of it) of the Mitanni theory. --Folantin (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see... so the fact that no scholars have ever even rebutted this theory, would be irrelevant then. All the ones who do mention it are magically obviated, by the fact that another source does not - hence the sources that do mention it are all wrong, and may not be cited. This really is an unprecedented high standard of verifiability, though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What kind of logic is that? --Folantin (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your point. There really is no dispute among scholars that Armenians are among the descendants of Mitanni, via the Hurrians. I say this because haven't seen even one scholar say otherwise, or say "No they weren't" to contradict the experts who say they were. But you found one who doesn't mention them at all, and if I'm not mistaken you are suggesting that this somehow cancels out the ones that do mention it. If this is a new precedent for standards of verifiability, it should be clarified soon, hopefully so as to keep us from all these unfortunate charges of "OR", "trolls", "crackpots", page-locks, threats of blocks, etc. in lieu of actual scholarly rebuttals Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"[E]vidence of language allows us to construct a tentative model of Armenian origins. Related Phrygian and Armenian populations in the middle of the second millennium BC crossed from southeastern Europe into Anatolia. The people whose descendants became the Armenians were the ones who moved the farthest eastward. The latter took their ethnic name [hay] from the Hattian people whose state they overran. They settled down, learning the words for some local fruits and other everyday items from the native Hurro-Urarteans. Other aspects of their culture had the common Mediterranean stamp." (The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times: Vol. I, pp.23-24). --Folantin (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've given a link to Google Books and The Kingdom of Armenia By M. Chahin - search it for Armenians, it seems to be saying basically what the book above says. The Armenians are not the original inhabitants of Armenia it appears. dougweller (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Armenians descend from Mitanni, I know nothing about that and I haven't seen any reliable current sources for that in this discussion, but you have to be careful here not to confuse linguistic and cultural descendence with genetical descendence. Those people that moved in from the west and brought their language and culture won't have replaced everyone who has been living there before. Most Europeans speak Indo-European languages now, but are for some 80% descendent from people who lived there before and spoke all together different languages. Similarly, Indians did not 'come from' the west just because part of their languages and cultures did. Of course, this only goes to show that it is really dubious what sense it makes to say that this people descend from that other people. Just my two cents.sephia karta | di mi 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks, this is simple. It seems that there are reliable sources that say the Armenians are descended from the Mitanni. It seems that there may be reliable sources that disagree. So the key is to discuss the fact that there is disagreement, present both views and stop trying to "prove" one side and "disprove" the other. Blueboar (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"It seems that there are reliable sources that say the Armenians are descended from the Mitanni." I don't think we've seen any yet. From the sources given in this thread, we cannot even conclude that the opinion that the Armenians are descended from the Mitanni is a claim that is made in any current mainstream scholarship. So I don't think this is a situation where we need to present both views--the alleged controversy doesn't seem to exist. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barring finding some real sources, Akhilleus has it right. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[14]

At Amway there is ongoing discussion about whether or not this site is a reliable source for commentry on the company Amway. The site contains self-published info relating to Amway (specifically this site Amway analysis is used as reference). The arguement against is basically that Hassan is a SPS and is not an expert on Amway, therefor his opinion on Amway and whether or not it's a cult should not be used in the article. Opinions from this board will be welcome. Shot info (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he seems to be a real author and expert on cults.[15] I think using him to say Amway is connected to cultish behaviour is a little to controversial to use his website, though. I would recommend looking for something a bit stronger. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference on the article Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) using this source from the International Society for Genetic Genealogy. From their website the organization's mission is -"is to advocate for and educate about the use of genetics as a tool for genealogical research, and promote a supportive network for genetic genealogists."

The organization compiles information from various publications and creates genetic trees. That are available on its website such as Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2009. Where it states: ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogy) is not affiliated with any registered, trademarked, and/or copyrighted names of companies, websites and organizations. This Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree is for informational purposes only, and does not represent an endorsement by ISOGG"

The initial impression I have is that they are a private organization that provides a support network for genealogists. They do a good job of compiling information, however, they do not seem to have an established publishing system, or a system of peer review. For controversial matters, should they qualify as a reliable source. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To all readers, please refer to this discussion on the same subject that's already under way. Causteau (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If a source is routinely considered good enough for peer-reviewed specialist articles then it is good enough for Wikipedia. This has been pointed out to Wapondaponda 3 different times in different forums of discussion. Yes, to take one argument that has been mentioned on another forum, the sources are just the same academic sources as used in specific Wikipedia articles on detailed subjects. That is indeed because this is intended to collect all the information, which is not collected anywhere else. For a phylogeny, collecting all latest information makes all the difference, by definition. So to ignore the ISOGG webpage would be to make the Wikipedia articles deliberately wrong. Wapondaponda's concern clearly has more to do with specific "controversial matters" and therefore I disagree with the approach of questioning an important RS without being very specific about what those controversial matters are. Specific controversial matters should be dealt with as specific controversial matters?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I need your help for deciding which sources and which viewpoint has more weight. There has been a dispute over realistic estimation of Iraqi Turkmans and Syrian Turkmans for weeks. Some certain editors with a clear and heavy POV are are revert-warring on those articles, with no verifiable source, adding the most unrealistic figure for those articles, proven to be exaggerations by Turkman nationalists such as ITF. Please help us to solve this dispute. Ellipi (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that their only source (apart from a bunch of random urls) is UNPO, which by defination is a political organisation forming of and supporting ethnic nationalists around the world. There is a very huge gap between the neutral estimations by third-party and verifiable sources, which puts the estimation of Iraqi Turkmens as 1-2% (ca. 300-500 thousands) of the country, and these users' exaggerated figures which claim a funny lie of 2 to 3.5 millions. Ellipi (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

UNPO is not a reliable source. I persume with the interest in Iraq, you can check sources from 2008 from google books[16] --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done, but my edits are reverted. Ellipi (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would report this to the Wikipedia:FTN. I checked the websites that are used and none of them meet WP:RS. They should all be removed. If the support does not come from there, go report it to the admins and get the article ip protected. Make sure to mention this:[17] (page 11 in the bottom) in Wikipedia:FTN. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll report it to Wikipedia:FTN. Thank you. Ellipi (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Panthkhalsa (talk · contribs) has been adding a lot of spurious claims to the articles like Mazhabi, Hari Singh Nalwa, Udham Singh and Bhai Mati Das. Basically, his edits center around the claims that notable Sikh personalities like Hari Singh Nalwa and Bhai Mati Das belong to his community ("Mazhabi"). Simple searches on Google Books prove him wrong: Hari Singh Nalwa belonged to the Uppal Khatri community[18], while Bhai Mati Das was a Mohyal (this is what the Wikipedia article originally stated). Besides these, the user has been adding a lot of propaganda-style material based on the scientific racism theories (e.g. "Those Mazbhis of lighter skin ranging from white to tan brown, with sharper facial features, tall in height and sometimes light eye colour are considered of Aryan blood. However the vast majority are off darker skin to black complexion with blunt facial features and tend to short in height. These mazbhis are considered to be the peoples from the Dravidan races captured in battle and enslaved by Aryan invaders on the Indian sub continent."[19]).

After I confronted him/her, the user has come up with two references, both of which seem highly dubious to me:

• "Bhai Gurdas warr 11 page 125" -- the user claims that "Bhai Gurdass has written Perra Chandalia", which proves his point. However, googling for Perra Chandlia returns no Google results, and none of the translations available on the net substantiate the user's claim.
• A book "Guru Ke Bette 1st edition 2000 by Jaswant Singh" -- the book doesn't seem to have any ISBN or OCLC entry, and Googling for the title "Guru Ke Bette" (Punjabi for "Guru's sons) doesn't return any relevant results. Googling for author's name will not be helpful, since Jaswant Singh is a very common Punjabi name. If this book indeed exists, it's probably a non-notable self-published book that doesn't classify as a reliable source.

Any pointers? utcursch | talk 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that Bhai Gurdass's works qualify as primary source, which is fine for quoting but not for interpretation, and we must use secondary sources. Try looking in google books and if you cannot find these books, take the necessary action. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

The article List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population is almost solely based on the World Gazetteer data. This source has been widely criticised on the Talk-page but I would like an independent view on its reliability.

Ghaag (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think this is a WP:RS. The site seems to be maintained by a single user (For Ex: the faqs say "I") and we are not sure about the information available in the site [20]. Does not seem like a WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine Almanac uses it.[21] Good enough for Time is way good enough for wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know that weblogs in general are not a reliable source. But the Spirit of Mystery weblog is being written by the crew of a small boat that is sailing to Australia. It is a sort of online diary of events during the journey as experienced by the crew. I've not used it yet in the Spirit of Mystery article, but would like to pad out the details of Mark Maidment's accident with info from the weblog if it is considered to meet RS criteria. What do other editors think about the use of this particular blog? Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at self published source, it sounds like it would be reliable for info about the author, but maybe not about a crewmate. Not sure. Is the info going to be controversial? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Info is not going to be controversial, just exact dates/times. Of course, if these are reported elsewhere then that source will replace the blog. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Meets all the requirements of WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Celebrity Sleuth a reliable enough source? I know it's a magazine that publishes photos and screencaps of nude celebrities, but I came across an issue (Volume 11, #1; 1997) that was all heights and measurements of hundreds of female celebrities, and it even detailed its sources, explaining that it scoured through thousands of sources, and rejected all but the most reliable. It rejected, for example, press releases, tabloid articles and studio stats because those were sources for publicity and not authenticity, and listed the seven sources they judged to be most reliable. The following list is quoted verbatim from the issue:

1. Model agency books and rate cards {the measurements have to be accurate, or the client's clothes won't fit};
2. Dress designer/costumer records and recollections {essentially, they'd done the taping for us}, as well as celebrity brassieres personally inspected and photographed by the Sleuth {the best source for these informative items is NORMA'S JEANS, 3511 Turner Laner, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-3213; 301-652-4644; Fax 301-907-0216; send $2 for catalog}.
3. Beauty pageant entry forms {before the P.C. '90s, contest judges verified the forms};
4. Major Hollywood handouts and movie mags from teh 1930's through the 1960's, when virtually every article contained the star's vital statistics (but never her age);
5. A series of authorized actress publications of the Fifties, entitled Photoplay Pinups, Fabulous Females, etc., which were used to promote films and figures;
6. Model releases and data sheets that future celebs filled out for photographers and publications; and
7. Direct quotes from the woman herself {though these tended to be "idealized", so we always notate them as "in her own words" or "she says"}.

So what do you think? Would this be reliable? Nightscream (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're wanting to use the statistics? If they provided sources for their collation, why not use those sources instead?--Insider201283 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder about the encyclopedic value of including such measurments. Seems like WP:TRIVIA to me. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reliable and trivial. I woulnd't go add 100s of measurments to actress pages without reaching some sort of consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention that this magazine issue exists could be added to an article about dress sizes or female body shape. But not for individual actresses, unless theyre famous for having certain measurements, i.e. Marilyn Monroe. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Are GAO reports generally seen as Reliable Sources ? Specifically would GAO87 be an acceptable source for the results of a questionnaire they circulated among the research community? I ask this because its inclusion seems to have stirred a bit of controversy.

I should probably add that there is a related section on another noticeboard. On that board it was mentioned that it was not the proper place to ask about these matters. I suspect this notice board is the proper place to ask regarding RS. Thank you. Unomi (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They are a reliable source. How to use them is an editorial decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of this source has never been questioned; in fact, it was already a source for Aspartame controversy. The issue here is that Unomi wishes to create a new section in the article devoted to his/her distinctively slanted interpretation of this primary source, complete with data-mined tables and carefully-selected quotes, which I and other editors have opposed as a matter of original research and weight. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what this noticeboard deals with. There are other noticeboards at the top of this page. NPOV might help. Mostly you have to deal with it on the articles talk page, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering how reliable we should consider reports from Committee to Protect Journalists. Any thoughts appreciated; I'll comment with more details as I look around and based on feedback. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think material from here can be expressed as opinions instead of facts. (Ex : "Mr.Journalist writing on behalf of the Committee to Protect Journalists argues that so and so is wrong"). Also, if this Committee is supporting a opinion, then when need to keep in mind ( Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations ) : Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Schizophrenia#loss_of_brain_tissue, which has spilled over to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#NPOV. Editors have tried to explain it fails WP:V never mind WP:MEDRS. The problem is that members of the MED wikiproject are now regarded as "pov pushers with a conflict of interest" by the person arguing for the use of this source. So the opinions of neutral editors would be welcome. Sorry if this is the wrong forum, but you can see that the MED forum wouldn't be appropriate. Colin°^Talk

A newspaper article about an unreleased study should not be used for something so controversial as saying the drugs cause brain tissue loss. That is a very strong statement that would require, IMHO, several peer reviewed sources backing it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in views about how suitable this document is as a reference (with the author cited as Vickrey) for the assertion: "Nobel-laureate William Vickrey is considered one of the fathers of congestion pricing, as he first proposed it for the New York City Subway system in 1952". The document header suggests that it was written by Vickrey in June 1992. The document does contain some of Vickrey's "thoughts", however, it is not clear that the information in it supporting the assertion of his being "considered one of the fathers of congestion pricing" was written by him. Indeed the biography information in there, including details of his death in 1996 can obviously not have been written by him. -- de Facto (talk). 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• The document cited does not say "by William Vickrey", but is about him & his theories, as is apparent when you read it. The web site is not anonymous but is put up by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, which is a group of transport planners and economists who should know the topic and be a RS. In fact, Vickrey won a Nobel prize on his work for auction theory and congestion pricing. There are plenty of other web sources that attribute the principle of congestion pricing to Vickrey and his seminal work[22]. If we AGF, the problem you have highlighted seems to be around the description of the author in the article, which can be easily modified. Ephebi (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The site seems to be Todd Alexander Litman's. He looks like an expert, but a self published one (in the case of the website). I would look for a better source for anything controversial. Not sure if what's in disputer here is really that controversial, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In some of our articles, we're using Pakistan Daily as a reliable source on statements of fact, and I have some serious concerns about its reliability. First, many of their articles read like editorials (but aren't marked as editorials) and contain very questionable material. Second, they seem to have an anti-Israeli, if not anti-Semitic bias. Third, they allow anyone to upload submit articles to their web site [23]. They state that "hate related articles will not be accepted" but it's not clear as to how to tell whether an article is written by their staff or by the public.

Here are some examples:

This article [24] refers to Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle as "Zionist Israel-firsters" and Israel as the "Israeli racist-Zionist state". I can't imagine any reliable source here in the West using that language in a straight news story. This article also states things such as "Dennis Ross should not be allowed to occupy any position in the US government" which is clearly an opinion.

This article [25] claims that "USA Jewry" were "declaring war on America’s dispossessed majority, white Christian Americans" and "Jews fear and will do anything in their power, (and they now have all the power in America), to eradicate any semblance of nationalism emanating from white Christian Americans."

This article [26] appears to be a Holocaust denial article (or poem), "Jew conceives HOLOCAUST Factory / Fabricate HOLOCAUST Stories to Deflect Guilt / Fabricate HOLOCAUST Days to deflect Guilt".

In the article titled "Obama is Two-Faced Liar" [27] they claim "President Barack Obama treated [Republicans] like dirt, didn't give a damn what they thought about his stimulus package". Hardly neutral or fair writing.

In this article, they claim that Barack Obama has the "psychopathic nature of the ideal Jewish puppet" [28]

"Barack Obama likes to control others and uses that control to do others harm. In addition, Obama lacks genuine emotions, other than anger and pleasure. He is cold-hearted, arrogant and condescending.

"Like most psychopaths, he has learned to disguise his disorder. His lack of normal emotional response he masquerades as if cool headedness. His mendacities are stated in terms meant to mislead his followers into believing that he has their best interests at heart.

"Behind this deceitful psychopath prominently stand the Zionist Jews David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. Obama makes a perfect puppet for World Jewry. He has no conscience. Obama is eager to betray those who believe in him. He is ignorant and inexperienced, which means that he will have to rely on the advice and scripts of his Jewish advisors as heavily as he has relied on the money of his Jewish financiers."

Should Pakistan Daily be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia standards? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

they allow anyone to upload articles to their web site [29] No, they allow anyone to submit articles. Your implication that they do not retain editorial control over their content looks to be false.

The links you provided are clearly opinion pieces, and don't seem to make any pretense to be news stories. They could be conceivably be cited as opinion of Pakistan Daily.

OTOH, an article like this, is a straight news story. Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The word 'upload' was a poor choice of words on my part. I've changed the original post to say 'submit'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any claim on the web site that they retain editorial control, other than rejecting "hate related articles". If someone could point to their editorial policy, it would be appreciated. (Disclosure: A Quest For Knowledge and I have communicated on my talk page about this issue. I stated that I believed a particular article to be editorial-like, and hence not reliable. His actions here are his own.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

'Editorial control' means that they control what content they publish. It seems that no one is disputing that they do indeed retain full control over what content they publish. The ability of someone to 'point to their editorial policy' is irrelevant. Could you 'point to the editorial policy' of the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune? Dlabtot (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. It imagine it would not be difficult to find similarly vicious material in the editorials of otherwise (somewhat) reliable Western publications. The coverage of Fox News and Murdoch on Muslims and the left comes to mind. II | (t - c) 20:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How does one determine whether one of their articles is an opinion piece or a news story? As far as I can tell, they're not labeled as such. In fact, all of the above articles are found in their "World News" section and say "Written by www.daily.pk". While some articles do appear to be pretty straight forward and factual (as Dlabtot points out), but some do not and it's this latter category that concerns me. In particular, some of these questionable articles are being referenced by Wikipedia articles on fringe theories for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors must form a consensus and exercise judgement on a case by case basis. As with any publication.

Unfortunately, that's easier said than done, especially with articles on conspiracy theories where the conspiracy nutcases theorists are trying to push their POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The practiced extremist is very skilled at presenting extremist views as perfectly logical and reasonable. PetersV       TALK 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the website that anyone can edit - I don't think anyone claimed it would be easy. BTW, you should not refer to other editors as 'nutcases', as it is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Dlabtot (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC) I'm getting the feeling this is not a reliable source. I looked at about 20 articles, and they're all credited as written by "www.daily.pk". I didn't find any actual names. They don't seem to have a normal about page, just about iWrite, which is sketchy at the least. I think they are a user submitted news source. Now, I'm sure someone is selecting and organizing their articles, but I couldn't find who that was, so I don't think they can be consdiered reliable. Now, if we figure out they were part of something in List of newspapers in Pakistan, then maybe we could reconsider. They don't seem to be part of a real newspaper as far as I can tell, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to go on an article by article basis. If it uses clearly opinionated and prejudicial language and it is not clear in what appears to be a news story or an opndefinitely identify the source. However, remember there are nuances. In a news story to always say "the apartheid state of Israel" might be bias, but to say "Israel, which many describe as an apartheid state..." might not be. It's a judgment call on article by article basis. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Virtually all websites have correct info, but we cannot pick and choose among them for which we think are reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do have to choose what sources are appropriate and reliable for what content. Dlabtot (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If a site doesn't have consistent reliability, it's completely useless. There's no indication that writers are professional. Should we start accepting UseNet posting, personal blogs, and chat forums if parts of them appear sensible? --Rob (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is not a website of an actual print publication, but an online only news portal. Can anyone confirm that ? If so, do we know anything about its (online) publishers, popularity, reputation etc ? Do other news sources cite it ? I googled but didn't find anything relevant at first glance. Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now we are getting to the point. Do they have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability? Dlabtot (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This confirms it is a news portal. Seems to be more like a blog than a RS. Jayen466 21:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Your News. Powered By You." Hmm... that really puts the kibosh on reliability. No better or worse than "Wikipedia. Your Encyclopedia. Powered By You." And Wikipedia fails the reliability test. PetersV       TALK 21:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Pakistan Daily qualifies as a reliable source, and much evidence that they do not: [30][31][32]. Per WP:FRINGE they are out. THF (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now done a more thorough search and still found nothing relevant to indicate that this news portal is usable as a source. Some troubling pointers:

• Websiteoutlook suggests this is very minor operation; though Quantcast gives higher statistics - so I don't know how much weight to place on this.
• Their Contact us page has no name, physical address or even email address. Only a comments form that is used to contact them and submit material.
• Their iwrite page says that they accept user-submitted content, including opinion pieces. But none of the articles I saw on the website were marked as submitted articles, or differentiated between news and opinion.
• I didn't find them referenced in any standard Pakistani newspapers (Dawn, Daily Times, The Daily Mail), though, of course, it's hard to prove that they never have been cited)
• As Dlabtot pointed out, they do seem to have some straight news stories, but most of the articles I saw were highly polemical.

So I would advice against using this as a reliable source for facts, or even as a noteworthy source for opinion - unless someone can show positive evidence of their reliability and/or noteworthiness. Pakistan has a vibrant print media (even in English), so sourcing straight news is usually not a problem, and if something is sourceable only to Pakistan Daily - it should probably not be on wikipedia anyway. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From what you've found, I would have to say it's not a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the reasonable looking articles are just cut and paste jobs from actual reliable sources.[33][34] So, not only are they not reliable, but they're also a big pile of copyvios. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We might be getting a little too whacked out about "fringe" opinions, especially if they are seen as "one fringe article appears, and the whole source is forbidden on WP". Think of the Soviet-era newspaper Pravda. Would you use it as a statement of fact in articles about American foreign policy? No. Would you use it for articles about the ballet? Yes. Would you cite it with attribution in articles about the Cold War? Yes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "iwrite" user-submitted articles appear to be segregated into their own section, just like dozens of US news sites that have a "citizen journalism" area.[35] But outside of that, there are some very inflammatory editorials about Israel, and no, I don't want us using those as statements of fact. They could maybe be used as statements of opinion, say in an article about conspiracist thought in Pakistan. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right; I missed that point in my review above. Abecedare (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would question the reliability of a source that allows copying and pasting of other news services articles without attribution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe not, maybe not even for statements of opinion. At first I thought people were asking about the Pakistan Daily-Times, which is very different. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the consensus is a clear 'no'. I concur. Dlabtot (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the editors involved in a review of the Sustainability page is strongly of the view that this page should verify statements using sources not connected to the United Nations wherever possible - see for example this post

"current science sourcing seems better... it also gets rid of the governmental political corporate aspect also that is baggage of U.N. presented material"

To please this one editor we've made a real effort to keep UN citations to a minimum. Trouble is, the United Nations has for decades been the central co-ordinating agency for all of the global-level planning and monitoring of sustainability. The above post specifically asks us to use news sources and recent scientific publications in preference to comprehensive international studies such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) prepared under the auspices of the UN. This just isn't going to work in the article.

I think it would help a lot to get a clear answer to the above question: Is the United Nations a Reliable Source?--Travelplanner (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a RS for the position of the UN. I wouldn't use it as a definitive source beyond that. THF (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem consistent. Would this mean that the BBC is only a relaible source for issues relating to the position of the BBC??--Travelplanner (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

On issues like Israel and like US foreign policy and even American history, where the BBC has a distinct and controversial POV, I would say "Yes." THF (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The phrase 'United Nations' could mean many things. The General Assembly and Security Council issue resolutions, the Secretariat provides studies, the ICJ issues opinions, and so on. In general, these things need to be examined on a case by case basis. This Noticeboard does not issue rulings, and we certainly are not in a position to issue a blanket statement that the UN is or is not a RS in every instance. Dlabtot (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's much more helpful. Clearly a UN resolution states the position of the UN, what we're mainly talking about is studies under the auspices of the Secretariat or the UN Development and/or Environment Programme etc. We're not looking for a "ruling" or "blanket statement" but this seems to be a proper place to discuss the question - which more accurately is "Is a report published under the auspices of the UN a more reliable source than an individual scientific study or media report"? It's my view that the UN source is more reliable; there are many thousands of scientific studies on issues related to sustainability, most of which never make the grade for inclusion in a UN-sponsored report.--Travelplanner (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't grade sources as 'more reliable' or 'less reliable'. A source is either considered reliable for a particular citation, or not. When reliable sources contradict each other, we look to our WP:NPOV policy for guidance, and include all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, without according undue weight to minority viewpoints. Dlabtot (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, I don't mean to suggest that some sources aren't more authoritative than others on particular topics. But these are editorial judgements that editors must reach on article talk pages. Dlabtot (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The UN consists of many sub-bodies. Some are political, some are humanitarian, some are scientific (or broadly academic). In any case where you may want to use a publication from a body of the UN as a source, you'd be safe in stating that "UN body X says Y", because publications of UN bodies are reliable sources for the positions of the UN body. In cases where a UN body has commissioned a scientific or academic report on a subject, and there is little contraversy surrounding the outcome of the investigation, then the outcome could be stated without explicitly stating that the source is a UN body publication in the article (but the source would still need to be referenced, of course). The same is true for any political body, such as a nation, that commissions a scientific or academic report the results of which are relatively uncontraversial - for example a report from a statistics ministry. However, where there are conflicting reliable sources on a subject, it's best to clarify where each conclusion originates from. In the specific case you mention, a scientific report from a UN body seems to perfectly valid "current science sourcing", so long as the source is stated if the conclusion is contraversial. Such reports tend to be literature reviews, which are excellent secondary sources. I'd be interested in the opinions of other editors on whether UN bodies such as the World Health Organisation, that publish scientific reviews, have just as strict a peer-reviewing process and position of political independance as a reputable scientific journal. That's the impression I have, but I could be mistaken. However, I would think that the independance, fact-checking, etc. should be considered separately for each of these bodies, as some will be more reputable than others. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's right. They're basically reliable. If it's opinion, then as always state it's opinion. If it's a scientific study and non-controversial, just state it as fact. If it's controversial state its source in the prose. If other reliable sources contradict it, include both and state who said what. I think the same can be said for the WHO and other similar orgs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to bear in mind that every UN body exists solely because it has been given a mandate and budget from a number of participating nation states. It has to be very careful about what it says - as if it were to mislead or be complicit to invention it risks losing that mandate. Having said that, it also has to be incredibly conservative about its phrasing and how much it says lest it compromises any of its nations. E.g. it is ultimately diplomatic. Thus they will be rigorous in getting to an accurate statement, although this is a different sort of rigour to, say, scientific peer review. Observers, advisers or national parties to UN agreements may emerge with more pointed comments to suit their positions - which may make for better press but may be less diplomatic or accurate. Ephebi (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the premise stated in your first sentence, but disagree with the conclusion you reach from that: see, e.g., Durban and UNESCO ca. 1984 (and QED). THF (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Those are great examples - e.g. where the parties were unable to reach consensus this is obvious and clearly not definitive. And it underlines how the choice of wording is extremely important. Ephebi (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be the case, but it's also fair to say that all research gets a budget from somewhere, that the budget often comes from national or commercial entities with vested interests, and that the ability of the researchers and publishers to not be swayed by those vested interests should always be in question. Personally I think that WP:RS should make a clearer statement about how to assess the reliability of publications from national and international bodies such as governments, UN bodies, NPOs, etc. It's something I've asked about on the talk page recently but not had much reply to. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Imho those types of publications should generally be treated as primary sources. But of course one must evaluate individual cases. Dlabtot (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that publications from such bodies would only be treated as primary sources if they were primary sources, such as statements. Otherwise, for literature reviews and so forth, I think the usual criteria for reliable sources should apply: reputation for fact-checking, degree of independence from the subject, etc. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary vs secondary is a different issue from reliable vs unreliable. Dlabtot (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually, a literature review would be considered a secondary source. However, you're saying that it should be considered a primary source if it originates from a national/international body. So clearly the issues are related. As I see it, if for example a supposed secondary source originates from a tinpot despot and is clearly neither independent or fact-checked, then it's not a real secondary source, and is more like a primary source. But I wouldn't see literature reviews and similar publications from most UN bodies that way, I'd see them as usually being reliable, secondary sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, I believe one must proceed on a case by case basis and avoid overgeneralizing so don't take what I say as more general than I mean it. However, my point is that government and (less so) inter-governmental bodies are subject to political pressures that are not always congruent with fact checking or even good faith. This applies whether you are talking about Uganda or the United States, the Soviet Union or the Hanseatic League, the UN or the World Bank. Dlabtot (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And my point was that all reliable sources are subject to such pressures, to a greater or lesser degree. There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased source, or at least no way to establish that it is. So whether we are assessing the reliability of scientific journal articles or scientific articles published by UN bodies, we need to consider the specific publisher's reputation for fact-checking, peer-review, and political independence. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to focus the discussion if I may. The following has just been posted on the Sustainability talk page: My favorite comment on the page is probably the first one ... ``It's a RS for the position of the UN. I wouldn't use it as a definitive source beyond that. THF (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC) This fits pretty nearly with what I have been saying... and I do believe a concerted effort needs to be made at telling where the source is from... a kind of intro... or disclaimer... or before each use of the ref in the article ... beyond the specific area in the article that is built around the very U.N. M.E.A. information. Bottom line ...the U.N. is funded... many times from corporations and political special interest groups. As a primary source it is not really effective or good except to source itself as information it is presenting. There is a specific question here as to whether the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (1360 scientists took part) is a RS. And the more general one about over-representation of the UN in the article. Much of the debate about sustainability, rightly or wrongly, has centred on or emanated from the UN Sustainable Development program. Is this a RS? How do we decide these issues other than getting opinion from "outsiders" like yourselves? Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You can try a request for comment, or bring it up at related wikiproject talk pages. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to look for reliable sources pertaining to whether the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has a reputation for authoritive and trustworthy authorship in the subject of sustainability, for fact-checking and peer-review, and for independence (i.e. the degree to which it is a "third party" to the subject area). Those are the criteria of a reliable source, and the only way to determine whether it meets those criteria is by examining other reliable sources that describe the reputation of the source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• As an example of a source describing the reliability of the MEA (called the MA in the report), this report from the UK's Environmental Audit Committee says: We commend those responsible for the MA for producing the most complete and up to date study of the importance of the environment for human well-being and the current condition of the Earth. Although inevitably aspects of the MA were based on incomplete evidence, the assessment still provides a most robust analysis upon which to base action to tackle ecosystem degradation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• This article in Science takes the conclusions of the MEA as it's assumptions, and concludes that: Achieving a sustainable world depends on a full understanding of the connections between ecosystems and human well-being and the drivers and responders to change. The MA has provided a road map; now, we need to start the journey.Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• This article from the American Enterprise Institute is surprisingly favourable towards the MA, given that it is as Peregrine Fisher terms it a "Bush" source. It doesn't question the science or suggest UN bias, although it does note the gaps in data - which the MA notes itself. Its criticisms are primarily logistical, seeing the report as too long and indirect and not providing immediately useful tools or suggestions for institutional reform. It says it prefers another approach, but that the conclusions of the two approaches are not incompatible. Having said all that, I don't consider the AEI a reliable expert source for the reliability of science sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This is really a WEIGHT issue rather than a RS issue. The relative weight of the UN report in the article depends on the credibility of what's being offered up as other points of view. If there is legitimate disagreement, then that should be noted. If everybody agrees with the UN except Lyndon Larouche and Louis Farrakhan, there's no problem with an article relying heavily on the UN. If the UN position is disputed, then the other points of view need to be considered, and there's no reason to favor the UN view in the article. THF (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There may be weight or other issues, but it's a reliable source. That's all this noticeboard can tell you. The rest should be discussed on the talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But the article shouldn't fully rely upon it, as there are at least some partially dissenting notable views out there: e.g., [36]. THF (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Per NPOV, you should include both sides according to their prominence. I'm sure the Bush side doesn't like the UN side, and that should be included as a notable view. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue I have had with over reffing the M.E.A. aspect can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 - some of the refs... which were just pretty blank and did not explain themselves have been removed from the article after much protest and defense of them by the team. Another problem on the article has been a team effort in editing that in my view is tightly controlled... mostly, and at least one of the several team members has been directly involved with the U.N. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 which seems like a C.O.I.... then to actively edit for it. I have asked other team members about their involvement... and only one has said they were not involved. Whether some of them work for the U.N. I do not really even care... but because the article in my view has been slanted toward that group.. disclosure would be nice so that others can sort out c.o.i. possible issues. So this brings up other questions. The article is linked repeatedly with other articles that are U.N. focused... so it goes way beyond what could be coincidental in my view. I am not against the U.N. in particular or any one... but the over reffing to it seems blatantly over the top. Another issue I know that this page suggested a R.f.c.

Note the comment by a team member above... Much of the debate about sustainability, rightly or wrongly, has centred on or emanated from the UN Sustainable Development program. end quote, G.T. above... editor from the Sustainability article. This I think says volumes, as to the main editors over relying on one of many sources with a rationale that to me does not add up. There is no shortage of hard core science based studies and institutes that publish and discuss at length Sustainability issues. The U.N. cherry picks info. mostly from the greater science world. The U.N. may be a reliable source in context of it being the U.N. presented material and opinion in the article section about the Millenium assessment aspect and source that section to itself or this http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx ... but to focus over and over in the article seems very much not a good idea... as this over weights it and U.N. material also very unevenly in my view. This is nothing new in the article... these concerns, which I brought up months ago directly. They have been ignored. This seems odd to ignore this editing aspect, unless there may be a concerted effort by the team to do so... and edit with a U.N. view in mind. Cheers skip sievert (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK my understanding of the above advice (much appreciated) is:

• A large organisation like the UN needs will generate different types of information; political statements, consensus decisions, scientific reviews etc. Editors will need to make judgements as to whether a specific UN report is a reliable source for a specific statement.
• In the specific case of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment this is a reliable source. The relative weight to give to this source is an editorial judgement.
• The topic talk page is the right place to have the rest of this discussion.

Is that the gist of it?--Travelplanner (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

you nailed it. Dlabtot (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If there are ongoing issues over weight or COI that can't be resolved on the talk page, you could seek help at other venues (but not here, because this page is only for RS discussions). Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The only source for the latest build is at the Norton forums, where an forum administrator who goes by his first and last name, posts about the latest build. There are no third-party sources available. TechOutsider (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Is he an expert? If he is, it should only be used for non-controversial info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Expert? Well he works at the company, that's obvious. I don't know about expert. How do you define expert? I have always pulled information about the latest build from him; he posts it publicly. I can't find build information elsewhere. No, it is not controversial info., just version information (example build 16.2.xx.xxx). A link to his posts is here and here.

I think it's acceptable per our guidelines. It might cause you trouble at WP:FAC if you care about that, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It would also cause problems at GAN and Peer Review, as well as DYK. Forums are not a reliable source per Wikipedia policy WP:Verify and WP:Reliable sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit more nuanced than that. In this case, Tim Lopez appears to be the Norton employee who posts the latest version imformation on the Norton forums, which I think qualifies him as an acceptable expert per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. As a sidenote, Spoo (a GA) uses forum type posts, where the poster is an expert, but their use is controversial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is someone acting as a company spokesman on a company-run forum, then it's the same as citing a press release. No problem with using it as a source, as long as it's not "contentious or unduly self-serving", per WP:SELFPUB. It's a primary self-published source in an article about the company's product. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem occurs when there is no reliable source to counteract what the company has to say about its own product. Without reliable sources, the article is not notable. See notablity. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Norton Internet Security has lots of secondary sources. The info should be used with caution, though. I now notice the article is a former GA nom, so it would be good to know exactly what is going to be said with source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is being said about build 16.xxx? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at the last GA review, the problems seem to be the way the article is formatted. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement to go find a source to counteract what a company says about its own product. What if the company says "we're releasing version XYZ on Tuesday"? Do we leave that out unless some newspaper contradicts it "no, XYZ is coming out on Friday"? Of course not; primary sources are generally the best for minor details like this. And notability is for the article as a whole, not for individual facts within an article. It means we can't make an entire article of nothing but primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What's being said about 16.xx? Just the fact the latest build is 16.xx. TechOutsider (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

If it's just the build number, I think it counts as an RS. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't "16.2 provides triple the security" or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if it is just the build number, the company is a good source. However, if the company says, "This release is one of the best overall net security products on the market today", or anything evaluative about its products, then there is a requirement to find a source to counteract what a company says about its own product. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sample. I don't think this is reliable at all. It is used at Khemkaran. Look at the ridiculous tone that it is written in. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You linked to an opinion piece. Right at the top of the page it says: OPINION. So this certainly could be cited as the opinion of Columnist A H AMIN. But it couldn't be used to single-source a statement of fact. Also (although a bit off topic for this noticeboard), even as statements of opinion, presenting the analysis of only one side of a contentious issue is clearly against WP:UNDUE. Dlabtot (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Defence Journal is a publication of the Armed Forces of Pakistan. If cited, it should be cited as such. Dlabtot (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't post here often so I apologize if this is the wrong forum. I just got in an edit war with a user over the links http://understanding.infantilism.org and http://www.infantilism.org on the Paraphilic infantilism page. My take on it is that the links violate WP:EL as they are not of a neutral point of view. The other editor's defense of the link was that it was about "understanding" and that its POV should not be silenced. I feel that these links are clearly biased and they do not lead to material of an encyclopedic nature. Since we just got in an edit war I'd like it if somebody else could step in here. Thanks, Themfromspace (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased against what? WP:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view the only part that comes into NPOV status says it should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. The site does not advocate that people should be infantilist. It describes why infantilist like being infantilist. To violate WP:EL's section the would have to be an opposing view that it is not giving weight too. --Roguebfl (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to apologize to those monitoring this page for issues regarding references. This dispute is about an external link. I, for one, almost missed this discussion entirely. Some mention of it on the affected article's talk page or on the other discussion, on Themfromspace's user page would have been helpful.

Themfromspace has concluded that the link to understanding.infantilism.org gives "undue weight to minority views". (Or, at least that is what he wrote before.) He has been asked repeatedly to be specific about what underrepresented majority he is concerned about.[37][38]. If he's willing to be specific about what views he thinks are being left out, a compromise can probably be reached.

On the matter disclosure, I'll point out that I maintain understanding.infantilism.org, and avoid maintaining the Wikipedia article's external links to avoid conflicts of interest. This is why I haven't joined in the actual reverting. I am grateful for Roguebfl and all who stand up to deletionists who have overstepped their function. BitterGrey (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Look over my edits, I don't have a pattern of advocacy except that I advocate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. You two don't seem to understand that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views. Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to minority viewpoints. Look at the external links of the homosexuality article. None of them advocate anything either way, and that article is much more heavily policed than the article you two edit. These links don't belong on Wikipedia at all. Themfromspace (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Again other that you statement "they don't belong" you fail to proved once instance how they don't. you sight a guide lined but when ask how it finales to meet the guideline you do not proved anything that it fails to meet. Again The links in question doesn't advocate. Roguebfl (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Themfromspace, the assertion about simply enforcing Wikipedia policies is discredited by the link you repeatedly left in place[39][40]. Here you are trying to assert that understanding.infantilism.org might be a little biased. The link you repeatedly left in place was clearly labeled as both an open wiki (#12 on the list of links to be avoided) and not in English. (Windelwiki might be an excellent resource. Since I can't read German, I don't know.) Paraphilic infantilism is a medical condition (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text-Revised. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pg 572-573) and those who have it have a right to exist and to be understood. I would imagine this viewpoint could seem off-center to one who openly frequents Encyclopedia Dramatica[41]. Now, are you going to let us in on the secret? Who is this 'majority' that you are edit warring on behalf of? BitterGrey (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your concern. Are you saying that 1) these external links are to sites which have a favorable/positive view of this sexual fetish and 2) this favorable/positive view is a violation of WP:NPOV? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If these are used as external links, and not as references, then WP:RS does not apply. Instead, WP:EL (which has a different, much looser set of criteria for inclusion) applies. Suggest you discuss the links there. This does not seem like an issue for this noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am using these sites to reference parts of this article. Are they reliable?

• http://www.rapcentral.co.uk/
• http://www.allhiphop.com/

I couldn't find anything that makes rapcentral look reliable. Allhiphop looks good.[42]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently, two editors seem intent on removing RS material because they feel it is "incoherent gibberish" [43] shows the wholesale removal of WP:IDONTLIKEIT material. Might someone point out that RS material (no one denies it is RS) is not to be removed as "gibberish" and that editors are not required to explain what sources say in English? Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard deals specifically with questions about whether given sources are reliable. It doesn't sound like that's what you are looking for. I would urge you to pursue dispute resolution, perhaps by filing a request for comments. Dlabtot (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The claim is that the sources are not RS because they are "gibberish" -- this board is, afaik, the only place where questions about RS are raised. Are "gibberish" RS cites improper? I think that is a proper phrasing. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for that dispute. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the source that is deemed unreliable because it is gibberish? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

At WP:DYK there has been some dispute whether or not entire articles can be sourced to ancient Chinese sources, such as the Book of Tang, which is about 1000 years old. Although a compilation of older sources and thus technically a secondary source, I do not believe that it meets the requirements of a reliable source. Our policy states that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." - In the field of Chinese history, it is modern scholars who have a "reliable publication process" and who are viewed as "trustworthy" and "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Historians of Chinese history go back to this older material, assess its validity, and then present their conclusions to us. We should use that scholarship, not the less reliable material. Please help us decide whether articles such as Wu Yuanji need to be based on modern scholarship or not. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the official Chinese histories — despite their age — generally fit Wikipedia's criteria of reliable sources because, indeed, they were subjected to far stricter peer review standards than modern single-author sources. I don't think their age should make them considered unreliable. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally opening this discussion. As has been pointed out, a number of articles about ancient subjects have used similarly ancient sources (such as Peloponnesian War, which would be inconceivable without citing Thucydides, as indeed the article does) ... some are even featured articles.

I believe it's an overly dogmatic approach to RS to require that modern sources be used over ancient ones (such as the Twenty-four Histories, the text at issue) when:

• the ancient source is the only contemporary, or close to contemporary, source for the historical period, event or person;

• its validity has been accepted by modern historians specializing in the area in question, who themselves cite it as a source, and

• its use in the article is limited to sourcing the events recounted (I would find it ridiculous to cite a modern text on bare facts that is essentially citing the same source anyway).

If there are problems with the source that contemporary historians have raised, they should be noted in the article text and cited to the extent that they compromise the facts recounted (as such, I think we need for the article on the Twenty-four histories to be expanded and developed to the point that anyone clicking on it can assess their validity as sources). Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about it being 'technically' a secondary source, but perhaps not in the same way that we think of a modern secondary source. In some respects ancient texts should be treated as primary sources. It is incumbent upon editors to use a variety of the best possible sources, but also to expose any scholarly doubts as to the strict factual accuracy of those sources in the text of articles (without sacrificing readibility). I'd say that in the case of Wikipedia a savvy reader should also be cognizant of the sources used for articles and should read with a recognition of the limitations of those sources. (clarification added later: by "scholarly doubts" I mean doubts that have been raised in reliable sources.) Dlabtot (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would not base an article purely on what ancient sources say... but, I can not concieve of writing an article on ancient history without discussing what the ancient sources say. It is part of writing a good history article. As to whether they are Primary or Secondary sources... I don't really think that matters. Remember that there are appropriate uses of primary sources (and that is one of the reasons why WP:PSTS specifially allows us to use them). A proper blend is best. Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sensing a trend here - a responsible blending of modern and ancient sources that reveals any doubts about the older sources and explains their biases to the modern reader? Could that be a summary? The problem we are running into at DYK is with articles like Wu Yuanji and Wu Chongyin, which do not do that. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't see why that is necessary or desirable. We have many articles — indeed, featured articles — that use modern sources that clearly cannot be completely unbiased that do not "reveal ... doubts about the [modern] sources and explains their biases to the ... reader." I don't see why a different standard should be used for non-modern sources. There is no policy that requires it, and it's an unreasonable standard for articles that are not themselves about the historiography of the sources. Not every article that uses non-modern sources should be turned into a historiographical discussion on the reliability and biases of non-modern sources, just as not every article should be turned into a discussion on the reliability and biases of every source that it uses. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd thank you to refrain in the future from selectively quoting me (and inserting verbiage into those quotes that I did not use) in order to change their meaning. It is incumbent upon editors to use a variety of the best possible sources, but also to expose any scholarly doubts as to the strict factual accuracy of those sources in the text of articles (without sacrificing readibility). This applies equally to modern and non-modern sources. And there is a policy that requires it, it is called WP:NPOV. Dlabtot (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not "selective quotation"; it's analogizing the logic when as it applies to modern sources; in other words, I think your argument was applying a substantially stricter standard to non-modern sources than modern ones; I'm turning the quote around to apply it to modern sources.

As you noted, there should be exposés of scholarly doubt as to factual accuracy, but the vast majority of the facts asserted in the Book of Tang are not only not doubted, but considered accurate. Given that, I think the issue that Awadewit is raising is a non-issue or should be. --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear: it's ok to disagree. It's not ok to take someone's words, change some of them so that the meaning is different, put them in quotes, and pretend that's what they said. Dlabtot (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. There are perhaps certain statements in every single one of the Twenty-Four Histories that are inaccurate or proven false through the investigative efforts of modern research and scholarship. Some even have a bit of bias and are even censored since every one of them after Sima Qian's Records was sponsored and overlooked by the imperial court (which did not want politically sensitive material to be found in them). But these are not reasons to reject them as wholly false or unusable in regards to presenting basic facts. Modern sinologists more often than not use them as the basic reliable sources for their research of premodern Chinese history. A lot of modern secondary sources state things which other scholars point out are questionable, even after such secondary sources survived the initial scholarly peer-review gauntlet. If that is the case, I don't see how a more recently-published book can be treated any differently from one of the Twenty-Four Histories.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't see why it is desirable to reveal the biases of sources? I would expect an article to do so whenever possible - for any source, be it ancient or modern. It is a courtesy to the reader, as the reader cannot be expected to know that information. By witholding that information, you are denying readers important signposts by which to judge the rest of the information. Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One should be careful when using the Twenty-Four Histories; of course they can be used, but they should be challenged with modern research and scholarship. Besides, having multiple sources in an article makes that article more authoritative, since it reaches a wider consensus of sources (remember, not all sources agree on certain things, but most usually do when something is beyond a doubt verified). I had a huge tussle with another member about the validity of certain statements in the History of Ming, specifically in regards to Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. Some modern scholars have completely rejected some statements in the History of Ming as completely false in regards to Tibet, in light of other contemporary sources available to them, such as letters of correspondence and native Tibetan records. I don't think the Twenty-Four Histories should be treated as primary sources like grave inscriptions, personal letters, diaries, edicts and imperial announcements, etc. However, even with secondary sources (especially with ancient ones), they always need to be verified by checking what other secondary sources have to say. Remember, the key here is consensus.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine, Awadewit, you want to go into every single source's bias or lack thereof in Hillary Rodham Clinton? Be my guest.

Not getting into details about the sources' biases on noncontroversial matters is a matter of prudence. Again, not every single article that cites the Book of Tang should go into the biases about the Book of Tang — that should be reserved to a future expansion of the Book of Tang article itself, discussing its historiography. (That is beyond my own expertise to do, actually.) As for its statements that no one is disputing, getting into details about its historiography is distracting, unnecessary, and inconsistent with treatments with other articles. It's not hiding the biases as you are, in fairly loaded language, accusing me. It's making sure that the article remains on point and relevant. Ouyang Xiu's biases about what is considered faithfulness and what is not is relevant when discussing whether the behavior of such figures as Feng Dao, whom Ouyang blasted in his commentaries for having served 10 different ruling families, was proper (although I would question whether Feng's behavior was proper or not is even relevant; the facts that Feng did serve those different emperors is relevant, but not whether that is proper. With figures whose actions were far less controversial than Feng's, I do not see why a discussion on Ouyang's biases is necessary in every article citing Ouyang. --Nlu (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the more I think about it, the more I think what you're complaining about is neutrality, not reliability, which are obviously highly related, but not identical, issues. A non-neutral source can be reliable in its reporting of facts. A neutral source can be unreliable in its reporting of facts. To take the Clinton example, it would be inappropriate to go into a lengthy discussion on the reliability or neutrality of Fox News in her article even where Fox News might be cited. That doesn't mean that we are hiding Fox News's biases; it means that such a discussion belongs to the Fox News article itself, not in every article that cites it. --Nlu (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we are using a poor word choice in saying we have to point out the biases of sources... the word "bias" implies something negative. However, when different reliable sources have different views on a subject, WP:NPOV tells us that we must discuss those different views. So if modern scholarship disagrees with ancient sources, we do need to make note of that fact. And we should do this in a way that does not imply that one is more "correct" than the other. The key word in WP:NPOV after all is Neutral. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If sources dispute each other, we report the dispute. We don't declare one to be biased. Dlabtot (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The ultimate question being raised here is whether or not we should create articles based solely on ancient sources. From what I am reading above, I think that we cannot, since we need to explain any disputes between the sources or errors in older sources, for example. Awadewit (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That assumes that there are disputes in the sources or errors in older sources for the facts they are cited for. You haven't shown any in the articles that are in question. Certainly I am assuming you are not requiring that any source, in order to be used, has to be shown to be 100% correct. The consistent application of that kind of a standard — to all sources modern and non-modern — would basically mean that Wikipedia should be shut down. --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While I've heard arguments before that secondary sources can become primary once they are old enough, i.e. historic newspapers, there's nothing like that in our policy. The ancient sources are still reliable in either case. If anybody here has some academic papers that analyze the ancient source and feels they improve the article, then put them in. But otherwise the article can stand without them and should be eligible for DYK. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient sources cannot be taken at face value. For example, Tacitus, one of the best sources for ancient Rome, talks about the heinous new cult of "cannibalistic" Christianity. You'd look awfully silly if you repeated that on the assumption that it was a factual statement about the Christian religion.

I think perhaps the issue in regards to the Book of Tang etc., is whether or not there are modern sources that go into the same level of detail as these ancient sources. Or do they basically consider these ancient texts to be the definitive histories of the times, with perhaps the occasional caveat? I mean, to what degree do modern historians rely on the sources Nlu is using? Perhaps if we knew that, we would be in a better position to make a judgement regarding the use of these texts as Wiki sources. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The unreliability of Tacitus's assertion about Christianity being a cannibalistic cult is not really due to its ancientness; it's just because it's factually wrong. Any relatively modern source (say, from ~1900) asserting that cola is a panacea, for example, would be unreliable not because it is ancient but because it's factually wrong and capable of being shown to be factually wrong. Nothing, ancient or modern, can be "taken at face value" without some common sense processing by the person using the source. That doesn't mean that we stop writing Wikipedia articles altogether because we can't be sure that the sources we use are 100% accurate.

Facts asserted in such histories as the Book of Tang is usually accepted at face value by modern Chinese historians unless contradicted by another source that is shown to be more likely to be factually accurate. An example would be Bo Yang's Timeline of Chinese History (中國歷史年表), which, except for places contradicted by the Bamboo Annals, largely used the chronology from a much more ancient source, the Records of the Grand Historian, from the Han Dynasty — and Bo was a historian who was relatively critical of traditional historians' historical views. I reference Bo's historical writings frequently when writing articles here, and I have not seen a single place where Bo deviated factually (as opposed to interpretatively) from the Zizhi Tongjian — which itself followed the Book of Tang except where clearly corrected by the New Book of Tang or another source. (Sima considered the older Book of Tang to be more reliable than the New Book of Tang and followed it more than he followed the New Book of Tang, incidentally.) --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would in general agree with many of the remarks of Nlu here. Awadewit at one point above remarks "The ultimate question being raised here is whether or not we should create articles based solely on ancient sources. From what I am reading above, I think that we cannot, since we need to explain any disputes between the sources or errors in older sources, for example." I disagree, on two grounds. The first relates to the treatment of sources - a historiographical matter. The second is a WP process issue.

• On the first point: I can only endorse Nlu's remarks generally, and in particular the comment about sources being accepted unless brought into question by other sources. It is a 'real world' application of assuming good faith (though it is more than that too). All authors have their own perspective on that about which they write. The challenges these present to us as editors are not in general affected by the age of the source per se. That is indeed very evident from edit wars at places such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, spats at United States Presidential Election, 2008 and so on and so on.

• As a kind of aside at this point, we shouldn't lose sight of being bold; "sofixit" etc. There is no issue with nominating AfDs when notability / etc is a problem, but we shouldn't be too harsh with legit articles that seem to need work. Or am I just writing a note to myself here!?

• On the second point: We may aim for WP articles to, in the long run and when approaching FA, be comprehensive not only in their treatment of their subject, but in their treatment of their sources. But we should not expect them to start that way. There are tens of thousands of people out there adding useful content to this encyclopedia. Only a fraction of them are academics or specialist professionals. But some of them can produce better writing, and unearth more interesting sources, than a professional researcher such as myself ever will. In time, the collective efforts of this range of people will produce robust articles. Does a brand new article on an ancient Chinese subject need to hit a major speedbump (in places like DYK) because all the sources aren't up to scratch? Not if we want to encourage the authors to continue to make their contribution. In time, these combined efforts will ensure that Wu Yuanji (and other such pieces) will be excellent. But they are still OK now. Best. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think they are fine sources. To have reliable sources discuss something this many years later is kinda uber-notable.
• Will it give an article trouble at a featured article candidacy? Probably. GA? Yes, but less so. For DYK, they are reliable sources, so I would have thought they'd be allowable. At this point, it's more of a DYK criteria discussion than a RS/N discussion. I doubt the criteria will change to "1,500 characters and sources less than 300 years old", though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please ascertain that http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=ifaq&lng=en&des=wg&geo=-4&srt=pnan&col=adhoq&msz=1500#q2 is a reliable source.

Also check that all sources on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe_by_population meets WP:RS

It's causing problems: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe_by_population#Problem.232 WhatisFeelings? (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I was going to say the world gazateer is not reliable per one man show. But he does seem to be a recognized expert.[44] Why not list Manchester/Liverpool as one thing per one source, and two per another, if that's what's going on. As far as checking on all the sources at List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population, are they all in dispute? It would be nice if you could narrow it down. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless we have some indication that this individual and his website have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, I don't think it meets the criteria. Simply having a book published lends little credibility. Dlabtot (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion already raised earlier on this board

Ghaag (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The indication is that the Time Magazine Almanac uses it.[45] Good enough for Time is way good enough for wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I must note, however, that imho and with the disclaimer that I have not made an in-depth examination, the underlying dispute appears to be a matter of pointless semantics and essentially nothing more than an argument over labels. Give it up. Make the appropriate redirects and move on. Dlabtot (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

sure, almost all disputes are pointless, but since i took on the mediation case, i now must suffer it.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I plead guilty to all charges of pedantry. In this case however, we have a British equivalent of Philadelphia and New-york described as part of the same urban entity. I merely tried to object constructively.

Ghaag (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's like that, then you should definitely list all reliable source intrepreations, regardless of the gazateer result. Some things do list NY and Philly as one chunk (for obvious reasons if you've ever travelled between the two on a train). I recommend finding all ways that things are divided by reliable sources, and listing all of them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a Brilliant Idea! A massive list should be created for all reliable sources. Who likes to start? WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm already doing that for our 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article. I've spent a month going throught all the cites listed in the article and I am still not done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dlabtot, Peregrine Fisher, Nvineeth, and whoever else interested should continue debating this so we can have a yes or no. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Why not list Manchester/Liverpool as one thing per one source, and two per another, if that's what's going on." - i'll transfer this over to the mediation page, so they can discuss.

"are they all in dispute?" - yes, the other party against Ghaag does. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont' understand what Ghaag is. Anyways, "Multicentric urban area" needs a source. http://www.statistics.gov.uk%7Cuk/ is a deadlink. Central Statistical Office is a reliable source. The www.scb.se sources are deadlinks. The Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia sounds reliable, but I don't know anything about it, and serbian stuff is sometimes in dispute and needs extra care. "Metropolitan area definition is the same as the city proper" doesn't seem to be a source, it seems to need a source. glasgow.gov.uk is reliable. esa.un.org is reliable. "Figure represents total for Zagreb County and Zagreb City" needs a source, it isn't a source. This is a quick glance. Hope it helps. As said above, if multiple reliable sources disagree, it is not up to us to argue which is better, but to list both. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"if multiple reliable sources disagree" - http://www.world-gazetteer.com is not concluded to be reliable yet.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just giving my opinion based on my wikiexperience. Nother more, nothing less. Maybe someone else will look into it. It seems like Dlabtot agrees with me, although they seem to know more about the dispute. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is a self published source, so that may have some effect on the mediation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

May I have been misquoted here? [46] is the official web site for the British Office for National Statistics.

Ghaag (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the link is just malformed, their reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick query: are the followed to be considered reliable sources for Disturbed's genre:

[47] [48] [49] [50]

I myself can't really tell one way or the other. Any input much appreciated, cheers. Prophaniti (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

heavymetalhog.com and heavymetalresource.com do not meet our RS criteria. Imho, neither does about.com - their reputation is certainly not one of fact-checking, accuracy, or tight editorial control. The Las Vegas Review-Journal is a reliable source and Jason Bracelin's column in it is reliable for citing Jason Bracelin's opinion. Of course, micro-labeling a band's genre is necessarily a matter of opinion, not fact. Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

About.com is sometimes a reliable source. In this case they do seem to be reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cheers guys, anyone else with input on the sources above? Prophaniti (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a metal band out there called Disturbed. Nevard (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this discussion? Prophaniti (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

About.com is a reliable source. As a google book search reveals, the site has published books but more importantly, it has been cited as a source in numerous books unrelated to the site. --Bardin (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

About.com is sometimes reliable... but not always. It really depends on the individual about.com article. Be especially careful to make sure that they are not citing Wikipedia for their information. But to get back to the question at hand... the about.com article being cited does seem to be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers folks. Unless anyone else wants to contribute, I'll go with the Las Vegas Journal article and about.com one being reliable, the others not. Prophaniti (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi all - sorry for the repost, but we're still arguing about this on Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe. Is the [Freedom of Mind page] about Chung Moo Doe a reliable source?

Arguments that have been made in favor of its reliability (and how to find the corresponding discussion) are:

• Newspaper articles on rickross.com are cited in the Scientology article, and The Rick Ross Institute maintains the Freedom of Mind web site (search for "It is a source that has been used in other articles" on Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe).
• This page has a bibliography at the bottom (search for "the editors of the website obviously made an effort to do at least a little verification" on Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe).
• The operator of the Freedom of Mind center is an expert on cults. (see the previous appeal to WP:RS/N).
• The citation brings "balance" to the citations in the article and is needed for the article to be NPOV (search for "The FMC citations balance the POVs in this controversial article" on Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe).

Arguments that have been made against the source are:

• The statement "The following information has been provided by former members of Chung Moo Doe" at the top of the page implies that the information comes not from Steve Hassan, but from other, unidentified people (search for "The cited source is secondhand from anonymous sources" on Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe).
• The top of the page identifies "8 Martial Arts for Health" as a synonym for Oom Yung Doe, which is untrue, which suggests a lack of verification (search for "definitely and absolutely wrong" on Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe).
• None of the "pro" arguments seem like solid policy-based reasons (although the appeal to Steve Hassan's expert status would make some sense if he had authored the page in question), and reliability is not the default (search for "reliability (or inclusion) is not the default" on Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe).

Thanks for any help you can provide. Subverdor (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not reliable enough for anything controversial, which I imagine is its intended use. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

From WP:SPS: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Steven Hassan and this website appear to fit that criteria. The argument that the material is not actually produced by Hassan looks to me to be false, and he does in fact provide extensive references on that page. Dlabtot (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Steve Hassan have any third-party publications about the topic of the article? If not then he's not a recognized expert on "the topic of the article", and thus following WP:SPS means he should not be used as a source. If he has, then it may be allowable. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it may be allowable, it would be good to know what it's being used to support. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably moot, a quick search hasn't found anything that might support the idea he's an expert on the topic. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There are four uses of this source in the article:

• As support for the statement that John C. Kim used "Jack Park" as an alias, based on the footnote that reads, "'Chung Moo Doe is Chung Moo Quan, John C. Kim Alias Jack Park,' 12/26/95".
• As support for the statement, "Critics have argued that the true purpose of training is to charge exorbitant fees and build loyalty towards the schools, while the similarities to other traditional martial arts are little more than superficial."
• As support for the assertion that the school "engaged in fraudulent and unethical business practices including pressuring students to pay excessive prices and providing second-rate training or services to students who do not pay supplemental fees for additional seminars or courses."
• As support for a section of the article that states in its entirety, "The Freedom of Mind website claims to maintain reports on this organization, including statements from former members and a list of media reports covering twenty years of this group's activities under its various names."

My purely personal view is that all of those statements are controversial -- the first one may be accurate (I'm not sure), but IMHO it needs better support than this, and the others I consider inappropriate for the article. Subverdor (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does the argument that the material is not actually produced by Hassan look false? It's unambiguously identified as material provided by "former members of Chung Moo Doe", and clearly written from the point of view of an ex-student ("I recall we had to hold extremely strenuous body positions ... We were certainly kept quite busy ... Students, including myself, were regularly forced to confess 'sins' to the instructors and the rest of the class."). Subverdor (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above, I would say the source should not be used. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further examination, I think I initially overestimated the extent to which Mr. Hassan is an 'established expert'. I now believe that more third-party independent sources that recognize him as such would need to be forthcoming in order to use his self-published source. Dlabtot (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for opinions on the site Expert Voices. Expert Voices is run by the National Science Digital Library, and is self-described thus:

Expert Voices uses weblog technology to support collaborative STEM conversations among content experts, scientists, teachers, and students from key NSDL audience groups: K12 teachers, university faculty, librarians, and library builders.

Yes, it's a blog, but it's one published by a notable institution and the majority of articles are contributed by subject-matter experts who are independent of the publisher. I'm happy with the source, but my use of it on That's Not Fake to provide critical commentary and suggest possible reasons for the failure of that advertising campaign has been challenged by another editor, so I'm seeking input. JulesH (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's a blog, then the reliability is dependant on the subject expert, and how controversial the statements are. Who is the expert, and what are you attributing to them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm relying on the fact that the section of the blog in question is actively edited by David Easley (the Henry Scarborough Professor of Social Science at Cornell University). The actual author of the article in question is identified only be his initials, and is (I assume) not particularly noteworthy individually. The content I'm relying on it for is the suggestion that e-mailing dentists and fans of a comedian who appear in a viral ad for a dental product is not a good way of promoting such an ad, and picking a seed group with a high Social Networking Potential is a more appropriate way to go about it. JulesH (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If Easley had said it, then yes, but infortunately in this case it is not allowed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Are any of these three references considered reliable:

1. http://www.allwxfighters.ca/
   1. specific page
2. http://www.avroland.ca/
   1. specific page
3. http://www.warbirddepot.com/
   1. specific page

TARTARUS ^talk 01:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on what you are using them to say. In an article about one of the compainies that owns one of the web sites, that website would be reliable as self-published source to support the fact that the company said something on its web page. For general information, in most articles, no. Blueboar (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They are used as references on No. 410 Squadron RCAF. TARTARUS ^talk 05:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think avroland is reliable for what it is sourcing, since it's a company. Warbird Depot appears to just be one guy, so unless he's a subject expert (which he may be), its probably not reliable. All weather fighters seems to be a (very intersting) social networking site. It that's correct, then it's also probably not reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. TARTARUS ^talk 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First, does anybody know the aforementioned guy? He ran some benchmarks on Norton products and published his findings on his blog. I'm using his numbers and opinions (more like observations) about Norton software. His blog is here. The particular post is here

Second, is Passmark.com a reliable source for product benchmarks? First, don't be confused. They sell benchmarking software, and conduct benchmarks themselves. The particular publication I am talking about is here. Passmark states in the aforementioned report Symantec Corporation funded the benchmarks/tests and supplied some of the scripts used ... TechOutsider (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Is the above .org website a reliable site? They conduct malware detection tests. They are generally relied on for numbers by consumer product review magazines and sites, such as CNET or PCMagazine. However, a GA review has raised questions about the source ... here. The reviewer stated ...

“

The 'about us' section of the av-comparatives.org site tells us it "tests mainly on behalf of the vendors", which instils little faith information is unbiased.

”

TechOutsider (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Hard to say. They say they're non-profit, which is good. They do tests for magazines, which is good. They are paid by software manufacturers to test the manufacturer's products, which is bad. Tests printed in magazines are fine, obviously. Anything not in a magazine promoting a product sounds a little sketchy to me. If it's non-controversial, then it's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm just going to pull detection %s from their tests. They don't serve up any opinions, they just run a test on AV software if the vendor pays them ... TechOutsider (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Some editors at Talk:William Timmons have made the assertion that this article is an 'op-ed'. Is this characterization accurate? Dlabtot (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC) PS, other than posting this question, (which I did mean to also imply, the general reliability of the source for the uses it is put in this article), I'm recusing myself from further discussion simply because I am a regular respondent on this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, previous RSN discussions of "The Nation" - Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The title of the op-ed, written for the partisan magazine at the height of the 2008 campaign, is "Nixon Dirty Trickster on McCain Team." In addition, if one actually compares the one memo written by Timmons with the characterization of it in the article, the article plainly exaggerates the memo's significance in an attempt to smear McCain by remote association. Nothing neutral about that article. THF (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"McCain's selection of Timmons ties the candidate to Nixon's dirty tricks and enemies list. Nixon's campaign to deport John Lennon was an example of White House abuse of power--the use of the power of the president to punish those who criticized him or opposed his policies. " rather fairly identifies the piece as editorial and not reportorial in nature. Opinion pieces, per WP, should only be cited for opinions. And since McCain did not select Timmons, clearly using it for any factual claim must fail from the start. Collect (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As the main person on the other side in the disputes at William Timmons, I agree with my distinguished opponents above that it is an op-ed. This issue is a red herring brought up by WP:SPA Rtally3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who recently reappeared. It is not part of what is disputed at the article, which is now protected due to the protracted warring (the "wrong version", of course). The real issue was just clarified by THF when he posted on Talk:William Timmons that:

I was hoping the compromise I proposed, which simply recited indisputable facts neutrally, thus making it clear to a neutral reader that Wiener's claims were exaggerated, would resolve the issue. ... The paragraph should be cut, since it reflects solely the factually inaccurate opinion of a single partisan historian. [51]

That is, by making the paragraph about this opinion, instead of about the facts about Timmons as I had been trying to do, he has worked it into a state where he can say it should be deleted. By the way, I think it's clear from the editting that I did that I did not add anything that would not be described as "simply recited indisputable facts neutrally" (I seek input from persons besides THF who would say they do get away from neutrality or into disputed territory). I have no problem abandoning all mention of this The Nation article opinion, and going back to before it was added, e.g. the Feb. 27 version.

Since the article is now protected, with me and few others arguing one side, and these other three on the other side, and few others randomly commenting from time to time, we really could use more fresh eyes on the issue at the article, and this RS/N is not it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This was only listed here a couple of hours ago. Seems that you desire to short circuit this process. Give the process a shot at working rather than engaging in saying "us" versus "them." Collect (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the process; I'll be happy to have it either confirmed or denied as a reliable source. But as long as we're here, it doesn't hurt to mention the actual problem that interested readers might want to comment on. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reason to mention a connection to Lennon would be if there is reliable evidence that Timmons played a role in the attempt to deport him. The ONLY source claiming as much is from an Op-ed article published by a self proclaimed "flagship of the left wing", and the only evidence provided is a copy of a letter to Strom Thurmond, signed by Timmons, informing Thurmond of the Immigration and Natural Service's deportation notice to Lennon (which was in response to a letter that Thurmond sent to the White House). The assertion that Timmons played a central role in the Lennon deportation attempts simply doesn't comport with the evidence, and opinion pieces from partisan publications have no place in a BLP. Timmons wasn't even a member of the McCain team -- The Nation article appears to be an attempt to use Timmons as a vehicle to damage the McCain campaign. Rtally3 (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually numerous sources make it clear that Timmons played a role, that is, the stated small role of receiving a memo with a suggestion to deport John Lennon, and responding with a memo saying it had been taken care of; that's all. They're already cited and quoted. None say his role was "central" like the guy who studied the docs opined, which is why I had limited it to just saying what those other sources say until Jayen suggested adding the opinion and attribution, which all editors then supported. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It does very little good to ask for advice at WP:RSN and then shout everyone down by making repetitive comments that have nothing to do with the RS issue. You may wish to observe WP:TLDR. THF (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Signing a memo informing a Senator of the INS's actions is not playing a role in the attempt to deport John Lennon. It's a simple administrative task that is completely uneventful. Rtally3 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this entry in the CA virus encyclopedia reliable enough to list uTorrent as "disputed" or "malware/trojan/spyware/adware" in the List of BitTorrent clients article? Arguments for and against are here. Theymos (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ca.com is a WP:RS. One can always write, "According to ca.com report dated ..., uTorrent is 'disputed' " instead of "uTorrent is 'disputed'". Note that, we need to present this as an opinion and not as a fact, because other AV vendors may not classify uTorrect as 'disputed'. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to handle a content dispute on this topic between multiple editors? The information is laid out on the talk page listed above. Rurik (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

While CA.com is probably reliable for a lot things, I don't think this particular use is justified. A large factor in reliability is editorial policy, with people fact checking the source. If I'm reading the discussion correctly, the source is automatically generated by a computer. Computer programs are not considered reliable fact checkers. Saying something is malware of spyware is a very controversial statement, so only the most reliable of sources should be used. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.coremagazine.co.jp (Japanese)
2. http://www.av-channel.com (Japanese)
3. http://xxx.xcity.jp/idol/
4. http://sexualkiss.net/ (have not been able to access)
5. http://www.dmm.co.jp/top/ (Japanese)
6. http://www.km-produce.com/ (Japanese)

Context: Airi & Meiri

So WP:PORNBIO and possibly WP:MUSIC apply.

There was a recent AfD closed as no consensus. Please help develop a consensus. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you need someone who knows japanese. Can you ask the person who added the refs for a quick justification of each? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources are mostly catalogs, porn producers, or fansites. http://sexualkiss.net/ I have not been able to access. What about the two English language soruces?--Cerejota (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

xcity.jp gives no indication of reliability. Which is the other English one? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad true. So we are stuck with the word of an editor unless we find a Japanese speaker?--Cerejota (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I don't think we have a good rule for this. I've asked about it on this article's talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

When I looked into this a few days ago, the article's subject didn't seem to meet the standards of notability. Also, I would avoid foreign language sources like the plague. If you can't find an article about this in English, that's a sign that it's not notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly unclear about the usage of reproductions of original sources on a website as reliable sources. The example in front of me is Nikki Craft. On her personal website (and websites she seems to have some control over), there are PDFs of news stories from obviously reliable sources. For example this article from the Dallas Morning News seems to be a photographic reproduction of a RS article. Now, finding an accessible original of that article on the web is difficult. There is obviously a danger of digital or photo-manipulation of original documents with a source like this but is it completely non-usable as a RS? I certainly understand the problems with retyped text of an article, purporting/alleging to be from a RS without verification. What do you think? Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You attribute it to the Dallas Morning News, but WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Dlabtot (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about digital or photo-manipulation unless the material is contentious. Dlabtot (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dlabtot! Feedback from another editor pretty much agreed with your view. Someone had deleted a number of sources of this sort because they were on the person's website. I think it might have either been a drive-by vandalism or a reflexive denial of such personal site sourcing for substantial content. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The lede now has thirteen cites for a single word in the first line. Unfortunately many of the cites do not actually support the precise implicit claim being made, which is one problem, but, more to the point, the excess cites are being given in an effort to make the page look silly. Might someone examine the cites and the wording of them and jump in? I would also point out that some of the cites do not appear to be RS by WP standards for a claim of fact. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See the above answer, unless you have a question about the reliability of a particular cite. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Errr. I really hope no article on this website cites anything from the drudge report as anything other than a proof that something was on the drudge report. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can use it to reliably cite statements as to Matt Drudge's opinions (which have become notable for their impact on conservative thinking). But I would agree that you should not use the Drudge report to cite statements of fact as to anything else. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: the word with 13 citations is "conservative"... looking through the talk page, there was a big POV dispute about using this adjective to discribe the subject, and I suspect the over citing was a way to shut up a POV warrior (ie "you want sources who say the Drudge Report is conservative? OK, we got sources! BAM"). I think you could problably cut them back now ... just pick the two or three most reliable sources and rely on them. (another option is to reformat things so you have one single citation that lists and links to multiple sources. Reformatting would avoid having the ugly chain of 13 citations numbers, although it would not resolve your question as to whether some of the sources cited are unreliable) Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like there are still people on the talk page who are actively pushing on this issue. I'd call it disruption; no reasonable person disputes that this is a conservative website. Not sure which cites were deleted but right now there are five solid citations, from organizations that range from the NY Times to the Washington Times. Dlabtot (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time this was brought up ( like a week before ) I found a book cite that spent a paragraph or two on the question of whether it has a conservative bias. That's the source that should be used. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem. The new macbook pro's can get extremely hot. You can google search this and you will get heaps of results, even on how to fix this problem. However, i added it to the article cause its extreme heat is a critism of the product. However, even though there is heaps of mentions on the internet about the problem. Most of them occur in blog posts(some more respectable than others) and forums. But the fact remains that while there might not be any hardcore relaible sources, the product does get extremely hot and should be mentioned in the article. What should be done? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

An independent reliable source needs to be found. 16x9 (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Use google news (technology section) and you will get tons of reliable sources. In your case, here is the search with WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Don't all laptops get hot? (Laptop#Ergonomics and health) Is there any particular reason to mention it in particular with this one? --neon white talk 21:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes all of them get hot, but this one particularly has overheating problems --Nvineeth (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, does anyone consider this a reliable source?—Chris! _ct 06:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What is it being used to reference? From a quick browsing, it appears that the statistics are copied directly from NBA.com. For example Kwame Brown @ Lakerstats compared to Kwame Brown at NBA.com or Brian Cook @ Lakerstats compared to Brain Cook @ NBA.com. The site looks mostly like statistics on the Lakers, so it shouldn't be too hard to verify that they are correct. However, if you have the option of referencing something to NBA.com or lakerstats.com, I'd say that NBA.com is a more reliable source. Obviously, the blog component is not a reliable source. -Atmoz (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am using it on List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant to cite some stats. I would like to use ESPN or NBA, but lakerstats is the only place I could find the information.—Chris! _ct 17:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon review, I would not use this source as it is a self-published source. You should be able to find the same information from nba or espn. (I had a nicer post typed up, but it was eaten.) -Atmoz (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization is a Reliable Source about the figures of the populations of its members. There is a dispute in Greeks in Albania, on whether the number given by UNPO is reliable, since it contains no other sources and no author at all.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Im wondering that too, however unpo provides some interesting data about a nation's folklore and culture but it seems comfused about numbers.Alexikoua (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reviewing Club de Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata, which relies rather heavily on statistical sources from this site. The introduction say the site "was originally founded as NERSSSF (for Northern European Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation) in January 1994 by three regular contributors to the rec.sport.soccer newsgroup". Note that this is used one time at Chelsea F.C. What do you think? Reliable or no? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm one of the editors of the article of Club de Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata,and I think that the RSSSF is reliable source. In the spanish wikipedia we use it all the time in good and featured articles. --Tincho GELP (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the other editors of the article, and others on the thematic one. RSSSF began like a group, but at the moment it is a Foundation dedicated to the statistical data summary where hundreds of journalists specialized in sport collaborate and owns more than 300 members. Reliable. --Elnegrojose (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

used in 10,334 of sites in this wiki--Elnegrojose (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how you can verify that "hundreds of journalists specialized in sport collaborate"? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, they might not be journalists, but they are divided by sections of the page, so they are specialized in their section. Moreover, they say this "Our major goal is collecting all kind of statistics, in particular league tables from all over the world, on football, and making this information available to those sharing our interest. Moreover, those statistics should be as RELIABLE as possible, (...)". Anyways, we are wating for others points of view. --Tincho GELP (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be user generated[52], which means it is not what we consider a reliable source. They seem to have a little bit of vetting for the members, but I don't think its enough. If someone has some more info that would be good. It would be a shame to have to remove (or move to external links) 10,000+ refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

RSSSF is the football statisticians online bible, with such a huge volume of data it is certain that there are a few errors but the same goes for other massive databases. The idea that all references to RSSSF could/should be removed is utterly absurd. Perhaps you could find a more comprehensive football database for us to use beforehand? King of the North East 23:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to ignore all rules if you want to use it (which might be a good idea), because it just doesn't meet our requirements as a normal reliable source. You might think accuracy would play a part in what's considered reliable, but it doesn't. Remember, Wikipedia is the worlds encyclopedia, but that doesn't make us reliable (although we're usually correct).

Having used the site myself as a source for many German football articles, I found it very reliable. I suggest, if someone thinks it is not, they should come up with a list of wrong information on RSSSF.com to prove their point. I think, we should go with reliable until proven otherwise. EA210269 (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree about using WP:IAR. I'm struggling to find any argument under the normal reliability criteria to prove that it is a reliable source. Instead, my main argument would be that the wealth (in terms of numbers and quality) of editors of the site ensure that it is reliable in terms of a dictionary definition. And if you were to find and point out an error, it would be very quickly rectified. Peanut4 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as has just been pointed out at WT:FOOTY, many of the individual pages on RSSSF quote their sources, which is in line with our WP:RS policy. That only backs up my feeling that RSSSF.com is more than a reliable source. Peanut4 (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a foundation, with rules, controlled editorship, editorial oversight, a focus on accuracy, a board, etc., and all clearly identified on the site. I don't see why anyone is saying it doesn't satisfy WP:RS. Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we can have teensier looser standards for statistical encyclopedic projects like this one, especially when we're just using them for numbers. I'm inclined to grant RS status to a RSSSF or a baseball-reference.com: they're both relied upon by journalists we consider reliable, and it seems silly to say that the bootstrapping is reliable, but the underlying source being used isn't. THF (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If a good number of journalists use it as a source, then that's a indicator of reliability, and it may be an actual reliable source. On a side note, I took Jackie Robinson through GAN and attempted FAC, and I removed all baseball-reference.com citations. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The RSSSF.com website is a highly reliable source for records of football. There is nothing else I can add that hasn't already been mentioned by other people in this section. If anybody wants to question its reliability, they should at least provide a stronger foundation for their argument.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you guys want to ignore all rules, then please do so. All sources are unreliable until proven reliable, and other than Dicklyon saying it has editorial oversight THF saying journalists use it, the rest is opinion and personal experience. Focus on finding out what kind of editorial oversight it has, and which journalists use it as a source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is sounding like the old inclusionist/exclusionist debates... Peregrine, where in our policies or guidelines does it say that all sources are unreliable until proven reliable? That is an extreme that is just as wrong as saying that all sources are reliable until proven unreliable. The reality is that reliability lies somewhere in between. Very often reliability is going to be determined by consensus of editors who are familiar with the topic and all agree that a given source is either reliable or unreliable. I would suggest asking about this source at whatever Wikiprojects apply ... If they are inclined to call it reliable, it should be considered reliable; if not, then it should not. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"best informational site"; "ever reliable"; "good source of reference"; used as a source; etc. I'd find more if I were fluent in more languages (and I could find similar encomiums for baseball-reference). THF (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Profile of the RSSSF Editors. If you take a read of those you'll see what kind of people contribute to that foundation. However, this only certifies the standards of the people, but not necessarily the information they provide. Nonetheless, this should serve to clear doubts on what kind of people contribute to the RSSSF. I'll keep looking for more information.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

RSSSF Charter. It mentions that there is a board, which they refer to as "The Board," who determines who can become a contributor/member of the RSSSF. I believe good faith should be established in this case, and THF has provided sources that demonstrate the RSSSF is considered reliable by other places outside Wikipedia.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's allowable based on THF's findings.more uses That's the kind of info that is needed to show reliability. The editors and board information don't really effect it either way, although the members look to be a very smart group. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I guess my question has been answered. And note to Peregrine: I would consider baseball-reference a reliable source. I do know that it's sister site, basketball-reference, is considered to be reliable source. At least, in this FAC, it was accepted by Ealdgyth, who seems to be the last word on references for FAC. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

She accepts RSSSF, as well: see this FAC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I just spent about an hour checking rsssf's Germany info against Grüne, Hardy (2001). Vereinslexikon. Kassel: AGON Sportverlag ISBN 3-89784-147-9 and Grüne, Hardy (1996). Vom Kronprinzen bis zur Bundesliga. Kassel: AGON Sportverlag ISBN 3-928562-85-1 and it came up good every time. Thats not something that happens at random. Wiggy! (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

RSSSF is also recognised as the official statistical provider to one of the major European national football associations. I think it's the Danish FA, but I'd have to dig around to find something to confirm that. I wouldn't imagine the governing body of football in a given country would recognise it as official if they thought it was just a two-bob fansite...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the Danish FA, confirmed on the RSSSF intro page, which says that the Denmark-related stats are also available at this site. The latter site, in Danish, confirms that RSSSF Board member Søren Elbech is the Danish Football Association (DBU)'s official statistician. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who is interested in football statistics, and does the majority of my editing on football articles, the RSSSF site is the number one site by a wide margin, for historical world football data. The very nature of its build is one of its major strengths - if you find an error in it (sourced, obviously), the site owners can correct it. You don't get that sort of accuracy control in most of what are laughably called "Reliable Sources" - major news corporations, printed matter etc., there if there is an error, no matter how glaring, it will likely remain an error for ever. If RSSSF is disallowed as a source, Wikipedia will lose more credibility, verifiability and most importantly of all accuracy. What's next, Cricinfo? - fchd (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I now accept it as a reliable source. However, I only wanted to verify that. You don't need to lose your hat because I wanted to be on the safe side. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is a statement in an organization's own membership periodical reliable in terms of demonstrating intentions contrary to those publicly claimed?

This keeps getting deleted as "irrelevant" by one person.

"NCSY's parent organization, the Orthodox Union, published an essay boasting about how these public school clubs successfully inspired students to decline their opportunities at some of the best colleges in the nation in favor of yeshiva and seminary study.http://www.ou.org/pdf/ja/5766/fall66/AStuyvieRemin.pdf

Many club members ended up turning down the finest universities in the nation, including Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Boston University, Brandeis, New York University and other esteemed institutions of higher learning in order to engage in some genuine “higher learning.” Some of us went to study at Ohr Somayach or Kol Yaakov in Monsey, New York. [53]

Mrnhghts (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Could you provide more information (with diffs) to clarify the nature of this dispute? What intentions are you referring to? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The JSU website and the article on Wikipedia's Jewish Student Union page [[54]] claims, The mission of Jewish Student Union is "to get Jewish teens to do something Jewish," and includes a quote from a JSU employee that, "There is no active recruiting to Orthodox programs." But the quote above that keeps getting deleted, which was printed in the Orthodox Union's own magazine, "Jewish Action," says something very different -- that these "cultural" clubs are used to recruit public school student to ultra-Orthodox, not even just Orthodoxy, and that they are absolutely used to actively recruit students to programming off campus run by NCSY proper to achieve such results.Mrnhghts (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that, while true, it's original research. They say they don't do it actively, but it still results. For us to then say they do it actively requires a better source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Peregrine that the use of the quote for the cited purpose would be original research. The article describes a club which was not even called "Jewish Student Union", so attributing the club's alleged intentions to the JSU (presumably due to their similarity or common sponsorship) would be original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a concern about Comedy Central being used as a reliable source. Obviously the show is funny to watch, however, with the tag line for its political news, "Comedy Central's INdecision Reduced-Fact Political News," my concern is whether or not a website that admits to 'reducing facts' in its news program is a reliable souce for use on biographies of living persons? This is more of a concern especially if there are other more reliable sources presenting similar information (which might be more fact-based). Thus, should Wikipedia biographies of living persons consider Comedy Central a reliable source for suggesting facts on a particular biography? Thanks! Tycoon24 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it could be used as a quote source for the fact that the Bio subject appeared on a specific Comedy Central show and said something... but for anything else? No. Certainly not for general statements of fact about the subject. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Svante Cornell a reliable source? I question whether he is reliable as he is only an associate professor and I find his works incredibly biased. He has written on Nagorno-Karabakh as well as the conflict in Georgia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You may find him "incredibly biased" but this is not the valid reason to question Cornell's reliability given the number of scholarly publications published by him and referring to him.[55] --Kober^Talk 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd better read the page which you are referring to. "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.". Thanks, --Kober^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Further on this topic, I would like to know how the work of this associate professor at an swedish institute is ranked in terms of reliability when compared with a)online news reports b)analysis in respected newpapers by non scientist authors c)analysis by NGOs (e.g. HRW) by non scientist authors. --Xeeron (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Svante Cornell a reliable source? Yes, of course. It is not possible to become an associate professor if one is always "incredibly biased." But is the mentioned report[56] about the 2008 South Ossetia war a good source to use? Not really, for 3 reasons: 1) it was published very early (in August), less than 3 weeks after the war started, before certain informations about the conflict became public knowledge, 2) it does not cite its sources. It seems to be nothing more than an opinion piece; it is not "scientific" in any way, 3) it seems quite unbalanced. So to answer Xeeron's question on how this paper compares to other mentioned sources in terms of reliability: I cannot see why it would be any better than the other sources mentioned. Offliner (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Being an associate professor doesn't make you correct 100% of the time. If you have to use someone's resume or CV to prove that their writings are reliable, rather the defending the writing itself, that already is a sign that the writing is poor and most likely unreliable. And Offliner, one can become a professor by being extremely biased: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Also, you can build up your credentials and then sell out, because once you get your PhD, unlike your license to practice medicine or law, you cannot lose it. And PhDs are not that hard to get. Also, the online news reports have their paper counter-parts, its just easier to cite the online version. As for the analysis, I would much rather have scientists sticking to science and historians analyzing history. NGOs are to be taken with a grain of salt, but if their facts check out, there's no reason not to include them. Thus I would rephrase the question: Is Svante Cornell a reliable sources when it comes to post-Soviet republics? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Mr. Cornell's writing on Nagorno-Karabakh should be cited here as well. Same region. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Try to challenge your opponents' arguments using credible sources such as academic reviews of the publications in question. Your personal observations are hardly of any imporance here.--Kober^Talk 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So I cannot challenge Jerry Fallwell when it comes to religion, because I don't have a theological degree, is that your point Kober? How about Hans Mommsen? If my personal observations can descredit the PhD's argument with incredible ease, then that argument is completely invalid. It's not my personal observations Kober, it's common sense. But alright, let's use your point: Zhirinovksy of LDPR has 3 PhDs. You have none. Clearly then, we should take Zhirinovsky's position as to who should own Georgia, over your own. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for you as well Kober. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? Can you specify when I refused to provide sources or I will have to assume that you say something just to say something.--Kober^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the points above against Svante Cornell's works being considered a reliable source, if you review the his writings in the Nagorno-Karabakh document, he illustrates his bias when he repeatedly writes "the alleged Armenian Genocide". A scholar of repute would not put that qualifer in front of that horrible event that happened during WW1. Another problem I have with Cornell is that apparently he is the principle of a consulting company that looks like it offers consulting to organisations and companies in the west that want to tap the energy resources in the Caspian Sea. Naturally this would make him biased against newly independent regions that gained independence from Georgia and Azerbaijan as well as Russia and would bias him in favor of Azerbaijan and Georgia's initiative to resubjugate these newly independent regions. Using Svante Cornell as a source for the conflicts related to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, or Nagorno-Karabakh would be the equivalent of using research from a company that does business with Indonesia as a source for the conflict in East Timor. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OR on your part. Look to other reliable sources, not your own analysis. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Look to other reliable sources for what? I'm trying to get a consensus on whether Cornell is reliable and so far I haven't heard a single argument in favour of reliability. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Look to other RSs that say he isn't reliable.

Also, looking a bit more closely at the paper, I'm not sure that he's saying the genocide didn't happen. Can you provide a quote? Sometimes he calls it a genocide, and other (fewer) times an alleged genocide. I think that he's being specific, because to some people (not him) it is an "alleged genocide". On page 72, he lists two sources about the genocide, one for each view, while specifically not really going into detail on it himself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: doesn't the source need to meet the criteria rather than trying to prove the negative by finding other reliable sources that say that a source is not reliable? 74.12.151.89 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look at that google book search above (incorrectly labeled with a google hits acronym) you'll find he passes with flying colors. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The question cannot be answered in the abstract. Historians and other scholars can be reliable when published in publications subject to peer review, editorial oversight, accountability, fact checking, or other indicia of reliability. When advocating for their own pet theories, in opinion / editorial mode, participating in politics, or working for propagandists, battling rival scholars, or operating outside of their field of specialty, they can be terribly unreliable. A history of partisanship, and espousing provocative positions on matters of great controversy, both cast doubt on a scholar's overall reliability in any publication. It also depends what the professor is being cited for. Incidentally, policies like original research and verifiability / reliable sourcing apply only to main space material. Personal opinion is just fine for meta-discussions and decisions, such as working through the question of whether a source is reliable. Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• He's Adil Baguirov's lap dog, of course he's not reliable. VartanM (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's not a serious argument. Why a scholar, who published books and articles in peer reviewed publications should not be considered reliable? Is there any criticism of this author, coming from reliable sources? I don't see any at all. Grandmaster 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cornell is a highly political source, member of a group maintained by an Azeri ultranationalists. He is into international relations stuff, his obvious aim is securing the pipeline route from the Caspian to Turkey. He's works are financed by the foreign department of Azerbaijan. That's what his company does: Energy Development and Economic Security. CCC has considerable expertise in the political and economic aspects of energy development in the wider Caspian Basin. We produce analyses of the domestic ramifications of energy development; the role of oil and gas in regional politics; pipeline security; the social consequences and local-level politics linked to energy development and pipeline construction; the domestic energy security of the regional states; non-oil natural resource issues, including water. [57] He's present to nearly all AdilBaguirov nationalistic prepared gatherings. It was at least once exposed here on Wikipedia that Cornell replaced historic locations place because of the current Caucasian situation. Since all other sources claim otherwise, it can not be ignored that his action was deliberate. We see him interviewed with AdilBaguirov and his publications present him as a political source, as such Wikipedia rules on using political sources should apply. VartanM (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You may cherrypick as long as you wish, leaving just Bournoutian, Mnatsakanian and Ulubabyan, but this is not the first case. Previously Brenda Shaffer has been challenged on the same conspiratorial basis with Fedayee trying to pull out Tadeusz Swietochowski. That's my summary. brandспойт 08:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comparisons only discredit you, Cornell department is financed by oil companies his colleague was caught lying about it. Now you can start comparing other scholars because they are ethnically Armenian with proven corrupt scholars, but as usual your comparisons are bogus. VartanM (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a reliable source. How, and whether, he should be used is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Most of the editors here, me included, don't follow these decisions beyond that. We're not part of dispute resolution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, God's/Jimmy Wales's gift to the professional propagandist, will be the making of people like Cornell. If 100 sources say that there are little green men on Mars, and one source says there are not, then, according to Wikipedia standards, Mars must be brim-full of little green men. Meowy 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get what we're discussing here. That is, what concrete uses of Cornell of a source are we talking about? I mean, if what he says is contradicted by other sources, then we should say, some think this, some think that, and link to the various sources. Or are you arguing that he should not be presented as an independent observer/analysist/scientist? sephia karta | di mi 15:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This paper wasn't subject to reliable peer review, therefore it is not reliable. The lack of sources clearly shows it as being unreliable yet again. No credible university will award a PhD to anyone who tells them that he will publish papers with as little citations as Svante Cornell has. Here is another work by Svante Cornell: http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/1999_NK_Book.pdf

Here is the Table of Contents from that work: ...Russia: The Dishonest Broker?; Turkey: Azerbaijan's Only Ally; Iran: In the Pitfalls of History; the United States: from Neglect to Comittment... is it just be, or is this author rabidly anti-Russian? And that source, much like the previous one, has a lack of citations. No serious historian is going to tell his reader what to do. As a B.A. History Graduate of the UC (University of California) System, we were told to present the facts and let the reader decide. Svante Cornell, by his titles alone, makes the decision for the reader. He doesn't cite properly. He is an insult to the historical profession. Doesn't Wikipedia have anti-hack doctrines, like historical articles not violating WP:Weasel, or requiring historical articles to cite their source. What I am seeking to do, is to ban Svante Cornell's articles, in encyclopedic entries related to Russia. No matter how bad the adversary, you can always find something positive about them, Svante Cornell fails to do so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia has a "pro-hack" doctrine. Meowy 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Having an opinion does not prevent him from being a reliable source. One reason that that is all we require are becuase disputes between countries spill into wikipedia. Imagine what would happen otherwise. Take the Isral/Palestinian articles. One side would remove half the sources, and the other side would remove the rest. There'd be nothing left. There may be other reasons not to use this author, but he's a reliable source as we define it. How to use him, or not, will have to be worked out on the talk pages of whatever articles are involved. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but where concretely is this used to support what statement? sephia karta | di mi 00:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Most Israeli and Palestinian sources are extremely well cited. Svante Cornell doesn't cite. It's not having an opinion. It's being blatantly and rabidly anti-Russian in every single paper he writes. How is this being used in the article? Well in 2008 South Ossetia War article, the ratio of Russian troops to Georgian troops was generally established as 1 to 1. (Note I'm talking about the overall Russian-Georgian troop ratio, not the numbers of troops involved, and only limiting it to South Ossetia.) There have been some outliers, arguing that the ratio was 1:1.5 in favor of Georgia or Russia (depending on the article). In comes user:Xeeron and using Svante Cornell's source, which itself fails to properly cite the number of Russian troops, rather merely saying "Saakashvili said so" - keep in mind Saakashvili also said that Russian infantry would attack Tbilisi and that ties are delicious - cites Svante Cornell and suddenly establishes the ratio as 2:1 in favor of Russia. This is critical for several reasons: one it makes it look like Russia won the war by outnumbering the Georgians, which is instantly contradicted by the casualty statistics; two it makes Russia look like a bully, rather then a fair fighter; three, it is largely untrue, and has been contradicted by more credible military sources, such as Moscow Defense Brief. Even BBC stated that as a Georgian claim, whereas Svante Cornell stated that as a fact. HUGE difference. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But who says that Cornell is anti-Russian? Is there any criticism of this author coming from reliable third party sources? I already asked this question, but no criticism from any reliable sources has been demonstrated so far. Grandmaster 06:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the pdf file - the Georgia one? It's almost too laughably extreme and badly written to be called propaganda. Propaganda usually makes some effort to appear to be what it is not, but in his tabloid-style "work", Cornell doesn't even make the pretense. There is unlikely to be criticism in reliable sources because reliable sources normally only concern themselves with the works of serious historians. I wish they would get out of their ivory towers sometimes. Meowy 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, are you serious?! Re-read his table of contents. Do you really need a reliable to criticize that? Find me a reliable historian who even tries to imagine that the ratio was 2:1 in favor of Russia. And this is the source that pro-Georgian editors say is "credible" - heck read their arguments above. Meowy - you are right, historians should get out of their Ivory Towers, I'll see if I can sway them to do so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick notice: the anti-russianism does not make a scholar unreliable. It is a stance. brandспойт 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Having anti_Russianism suggests he is not a scholar, at least not one as understood in the West. Scholars don't have stances, they have opinions and theories that should best-fit all the available facts. Meowy 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything that is not their personal opinion as to why he is biased and should be considered a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see something. The accusations are biased itself and Meowy has not missed an opportunity once more. brandспойт 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From my talkpage:

Let's take a look at the ISDP first & second paragraphs, page 5 of 45:

"In August 2008, Russia launched an invasion of Georgia that sent shockwaves reverberating - first across the post Soviet space, but then also into the rest of Europe and the World, as the magnitude of the invasion and its implications became clear.

This invasion took the World by surprise. But what should have been surprising about it was perhaps the extent of Russia's willingness to employ crude military force against a neighboring state, not that it happenned..."

First off only a complete ignoramus would have been surprised by Russia's "invasion" of Georgia, because on August 5th, Russia sent a clear note to Georgia, that BBC published. Here's a timetable:

August 5th: Russia to Georgia: do not touch South Ossetia military, or else we will intervene (BBC published this!!!) August 7th: Georgia attacks South Ossetia full scale, with Grads, tanks, and the whole thing. August 8th - August 12th (or 16th): Russia intervenes.

What in the World did anyone find surprising?

And if you study real military analysis, you will realize that Russia force was not crude. Batallion Vostok doesn't use crude force. Nor do any of the Russian units sent in.

Still don't think it's heavily biased? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This may be biased somehow, but it is particular notion of Cornell which does not make him totally unreliable and unwrothy of inclusion. Nearly all scholars have disputable bunches somewhere. brandспойт 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He's ignoring a fact, published by BBC, when it doesn't suit him. Yes all scholars have bias, but scholars, true scholars, don't ignore facts, like those happening on August 5th, 2008. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Svante Cornell fall into the "reliable, third-party, published source"??? From what I understand he is hardly third party. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Svante is fully employed by the oil companies. He's as unbiased and valid as Cheney's claim that "the war in Iraq will pay for itself". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

But this is all OR. Is there any criticism of this author by a third party author? I asked this question many times, and received no answer. Grandmaster 11:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pick any UC (University of California). Check their citation guidelines for researches. Notice the sheer amount of times Svante Cornell breaks these guidelines. Cross-reference it with Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Standford, Colmubia, Princeton, heck any top university research citation guidelines. If you fail to cite you sources, historians will shun your paper, because they know it is a joke. Also, Mark Ames, who was covering this war for the Nation, called bullshit on Cornell. Svante failed to respond. Are these ok for a third party source? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Should this site be still considered a reliable source? A recent AfD turned up errors in the listing for Palladium discography (see: this and this). I also find many of the credits listed on songs and albums to be incorrect or totally missing, and the reviews to be overtly opinionated and factually incorrect eg. One reviewer claimed Anne Bredon (American folk singer) and Annie Briggs (British folk singer) were one in the same person person! I've used their article feedback form to try and correct the errors as they suggested but they appear to ignore any submitted information even with citations. JamesBurns (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Any source can have errors. Many of the most respected sources have published errors. In fact, no source produced by humans could be expected to be 100% error-free. Which is why our reliable source policy doesn't say anything about requiring sources to be free of errors in order to be reliable. Rather, we require them to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it means allmusic.com should be avoided then. It doesnt appear to fact check and they don't correct their mistakes when they are spotted out to them. JamesBurns (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If this one piece of information were the only thing I knew about allmusic.com, I would agree with you. However, that's not the case. My experience is that they are generally reliable, although not error-free. Reviews should only be cited as the opinion of the reviewer, of course. Dlabtot (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This question has been asked on many, many occasions. To be honest, I still don't know what the answer is. Yes, they have many factual errors and omissions concerning track titles, timings, credits, etc. But then they have about a million entries so this is only to be expected (maybe down to regional variations and different releases/re-releases in any case), and I would like to echo the above views of Dlabtot. As far as reviews go, I have always found them to be fair, objective and informative. I think a lot of other sources find this to be the case as well. For example, Napster use reviews, bios and notes from Allmusic as information tools to subscription users. – B.hotep •talk• 14:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I found out an answer. The consensus is allmusic.com is not reliable, see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Are_allmusic.com.2C_punkbands.com.2C_www.roomthirteen.com_etc._reliable_sources_for_asserting_notability_of_rock_bands.3F. JamesBurns (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but as WesleyDodds says underneath "None of these should be used to establish notability, although Allmusic can be used to cite biographical, discography, and chart info." – in other words, it can be used as a source for information for bands that are otherwise proved to be notable, but not to prove the notability in the first place. – B.hotep •talk• 10:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As B.hotep notes, you are applying the answer to one question (does mention of X in source Y establish the notability of X) to a different question (is Y a reliable source?) Dlabtot (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion you cited is in no way a "consensus that allmusic.com is not reliable". Only 4 people contributed to that discussion and none of them thought that allmusic is not reliable, the closest to that was one person giving their opinion that allmusic should not be used to establish notability".--Michig (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor on Hak Ja Han‎ is pushing this article as a source. It's problems are:

1. It is a convenience link, hosted on what appears to be a Japanese Unification Church website. It is highly questionable as to whether this is a reliable 'intermediate source'.
2. Even if it is proven to be an accurate copy of the original article in the Monthly Woman Chosun, apparently an offshoot of the The Chosun Ilbo, I would question whether the underlying publication is reliable, as a Google translation reveals what appears to be a puff-piece fairly credulously repeating UC PR.
3. Last but not least, the fact that it's in Korean makes evaluating its reliability more difficult.

Should this be accepted as a WP:RS (particularly in light of the fact that this article falls under WP:BLP)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Really none of the sources for this article are very reliable. One is the autobiography of her daughter-in-law, a couple are passing references that provide no substantial information, and the rest are Unification Church sources. I suggested that the article be merged. If the article is kept perhaps the information from various sources could be identified as to source. Redddogg (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. However, whether the sources are reliable or not (and thus the level of reliable sourcing for the article) will have a considerable bearing on the issue of whether it should be merged, so should be considered prior to a final decision on merging -- particularly as they are, to some extent, being introduced as 'see, there's all these sources, so no need to merge'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of this particular source, especially point #3 above, the tone of the article may be a reason to question that particular article's reliability, but the publication is analogous to women's magazines in the U.S. like Redbook; Vogue; Better Homes and Gardens; O, The Oprah Magazine; etc. You can paste 여성조선 into Google and translate the first link to get a sense that it's very similar to these magazines. Recently Vogue published an interview with Michelle Obama. I doubt we would challenge Vogue as an unacceptable source if we found fault with the particular interviewer.

There are plenty of reliable sources in the media and academia that have discussed Hak Ja Han / Hakja Han Moon. They just need to be found by people who care about sources. -Exucmember (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am the editor of Hak Ja Han Harfn mentioned. Nowadays, I was busy to discuss on this issue. I total agree with Exucmember's opinion. Even in English wikipedia, I think that we have to be more generous about foreign sources especially if the content is foreign people or foreign customs. Important thing is not the language but the knowledge. In Korean Wikipedia, we surely accept English sources without any more identification stage. If English wikipedia make some barrier to other language sources, I think it's making disadvantage to itself because it is limiting the source of contents. If we have to delete this article about Hak Ja Han Moon, we are losing information about important person, for only one reason she is Korean and she has few sources written with English. I think it's not desirable effect for English Wiki. Godneck (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And, don't worry about sources. As Exucmember said, there are plenty of sources about her. Godneck (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that (i) such magazines do not count as "mainstream news organizations" as defined in WP:RS, and (ii) that they probably vary greatly as to editorial oversight & fact-checking, so that extrapolating the reliability of all of them from the reliability of the top of the range is unfounded. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bumping this to the bottom of the page because no one from RS/N has responded yet. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The article Saginaw Trail has a Google Maps link that is used several times as a reference...is this appropriate? My concerns were a) that it's not a permanent link, it's just a map generated on the fly; b) it may not be a reliable source. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Imzadi1979 made the map just to calculate the distance. I have an open request on the mapmakers task force for a permanent one (Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Maps_task_force/Requests#Saginaw_Trail) they just haven't gotten to it yet. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To me a Google map seems like a reasonable source. If the length of the trail was a controversial issue it might be different. Anyway wouldn't the governmental body, Department of the Interior or whatever, that oversees the trail publish the information somewhere? Redddogg (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Judge for yourselves. Apparently written by a mate or family member. --dab (𒁳) 20:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it might be more of a notability problem. It looks like most of them are publisher sites showing that he did indeed write something. They may be reliable for that, they just aren't really helping the article much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

well, yes, it's a notability problem. Or in other words, a problem of the reliability of the sources presented in order to claim notability. I was going to post this to WP:FTN, but I thought this board would be more appropriate. --dab (𒁳) 10:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Reads like an advert/CV - needs lots of clean-up and the sources are mainly pish. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for deletion to me. Dlabtot (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I ran across this recently (it's linked to something on my watchlist), and a quick look at his website (the first external link) reveals something interesting: "The "Get Adamus into Wikipedia" Contest", complete with valuable prizes (down at the bottom of the page). I'm thinking that we may have a speedy candidate here; it's very promotional. Horologium (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, FWIW, his first book is not carried by any libraries in the worldcat listing. His second one is carried by two, but it's self-published; "Smithcraft Press" specializes in self-published books. [58] and many of his other "published" works come from Oestara Publishing, which is a writer's cooperative which distributes e-books. [59] The 2006 Eppie prize listed is for an anthology in which he contributed several poems; it is not an individual award. (Those poems are all listed separately as well; there is a lot of duplication, which inflates his actual output. Both of his books are listed under both books and published literary work, and the last three sections are fairly trivial: a locally produced play, a minor role in a 13-minute short film on MySpace, and a single instance of civic activism (which at least has independent sourcing). Horologium (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Catalogo De Ordenes Extranjeras En Espana, "by Jose Maria de Montells y Galan and Alfredo Escudero y Diaz Madronero, 2007, published by the Academia De Genealogia, Nobleza Y Armas Alfonso XIII en colaboracion con la Sociedad Heráldica Española, Madrid, Kingdom of Spain" a WP:RS for information on Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio.

As was pointed out on that article's recent AfD, the book has received little attention, and no libraries appear to stock it (a fact I confirmed with a WorldCat search).

The reference's sole defender, a member of this organisation, points to references to its main author's works on Archduke Karl Pius of Austria, Prince of Tuscany and Order of Saint Michael of the Wing. However the former ref contains a 'Translator's Note' stating "Readers who may not be particularly well-versed in the history of Spain are likely to become confused when references to "the King", or Don Carlos VIII, Don Carlos IX, etc., are made in the text. These were Kings according to the Carlist Tradition and NOT Kings who actually sat on the Throne of Spain. In fact, the reader should keep in mind that the entire book is written from a controversial but justifiable Carlist perspective. To make it easier to understand, the reader should substitute in his own mind 'legitimist' where 'legitimate' is written." (See also Carlism.) This would appear to call into question whether the author's views are sufficiently mainstream that he can be used as a reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The aforementioned defender is also continuing to defend the use of unpublished letters as a source in that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the cites to the book published by the 'Spanish Heraldry Society' as this appears to be a private venture, see [60] and [61]. I think the AfD was flawed because we didn't know this. dougweller (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the Spanish Heraldry Society was founded in the 1980s-"La Orden se reúne anualmente en el Alcázar de Segovia, España, lugar donde habitualmente se realizan los solemnes actos de investidura de nuevos miembros. Para su ingreso no se exige prueba de nobleza, aunque la condición de noble puede acriditarse por el pretendiente que la poese, pero sí y de forma muy estricta, se precisa ser persona honobrable y distinguida con méritos suficientes, a juicio de los órganos rectores del orden para integrarse al elenco de la misma. The Order meets annually at the Alcazar de Segovia, Spain, where they usually performed the solemn act of investiture of new members. For your income does not require proof of nobility, although the condition can acriditarse by the noble suitor that poetry but in a very strict and is honobrable person and needs to be distinguished with sufficient merit, in the opinion of the governing bodies of the order to join the cast of the same" from here [62]. I wonder if other articles are using this 'society'. dougweller (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a comment by this well-known academic to Francesco Carotta -- it's been reverted (3 times, editor warned) because of things such as "he completely misrepresents Carotta's work and doesn't explain, why it should be dismissed or why he thinks that Carotta is wrong. Therefore it's not admissible because it's not a criticism of Carotta's work but simply derogatory and off-point. " "He doesn't mention the book in the bibliography and doesn't deliver any proof to back up his criticism; it's therefore biased and unscientific" etc. dougweller (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang is on a one man campaign to insert defamatory material to the article for John G. Roberts. for weeks he has been attempting to push material into the lede of the article that will portray mr. roberts in a bad light. he repeatedly uses random blogs as sources, and today [[65]] used a reliable source that did not mention at all what his text claimed it was citing. i've reported him on BLP noticeboard, but this is an apparently relentless editor. he's not reverting the removal of his material, staying clear of 3RR. he merely changes to some other defamatory claim. not sure how to get this to stop. Anastrophe (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:ANI or WP:DISPUTE is the correct place for this. In any case, I think User:DegenFarang is representing an opinion as a fact, which is not correct. If what he says is backed up by a WP:RS, then something like , "so and so argues that John G. Roberts ....etc., etc.," can be written, but even for this lede does not seem appropriate, this should be represented in a neutral way in the article (if backed by a WP:RS!) --Nvineeth (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is reliable, but it does not support the statement that was added, and should be continued to be removed as a BLP violation until a reliable source can be found to back up these statements. -Atmoz (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)