Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:38, 28 November 2008

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here

odishatoday.com

Regarding this edit. Can anyone comment on odishatoday.com? Is it a reliable source? --Googlean 10:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any other articles expect one linking to the site ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:LinkSearch/*.odishatoday.com) . -- Tinu Cherian - 10:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

SO you concluded that it was unreliable.See http://www.odishatoday.com/About_us.html .It does not have any political affiliations. -Bharatveer (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone know Kariali TV ( in Kerala) is CPM ( community party ) funded , does their site say http://www.kairalitv.in/tv/AboutUs.htm say so ? Do you except websites to declare their political or social baises ? , lol. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick search in odishatoday.com tells for the word "Christian" would give you a list of articles undoubtedly showing its anti-Christian stance. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that they don't just report news, but add their own comments with no primary source to it. Cheers Wiki San Roze 12:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are not good enough to make it NON-WP:RS.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

May be not good enough reasons for you, but not for Misplaced Pages. May be you should wait for third parties to comment on. How is that its only Odishatoday that publishes the news that you want to? Isn't there no other third party news sites that report what Odishatoday does? You probably don't realise that for the high claims you are trying to make, you need high quality references. You really think its worth your time trying to resurrect a dead horse? Think about it, is all I can say. Wiki San Roze 12:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. WP is not you or tinu either. Let WP community decide. Till that time, those refs should stay in the article.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets do a small RS test.

• Is it an Academic source ?
• Does it have third party scrutiny ?
• Is it a respected mainstream publication - (unless you have sources who call it as such)
• It is not a wiki ?
• Is it a Questionable source ?
• Is it self published by an expert ? -(Authors should be acknowledged experts in their fields- we see no names given)

Does it pass? You decide. How come you have not answered why is Odishatoday only reports anti-Christian articles and also that you can't find anyother news agencies for the news you quote? Wiki San Roze 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Odishatoday doesn't only report anti-Christian articles. It certainly meets WP:RS, of which being academic is not a requirement but a recommendation (Al-Jazeera for instance is not academic). The journalists on the staff include Anurjay Dhal of the Pioneer (a newspaper par excellence in India), Sai Prasan of the financial express, Kautuk Mitra (who graduated from one of Orissa's best communications schools) and others. This would entail the scrutiny, as the board from the site does consist of journalists. What seems to be occurring is that editors are using its views to disqualify it from WP:RS which is certainly not an acceptable method of critique.Pectore 00:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I stopped reading when I got as far as "the Pioneer is a newspaper par excellence". In actual fact I understand the Pioneer's a very sad party rag, the owner-editor of which is actually an MP for the party that uses his paper as a mouthpiece. I imagine that this Odishatoday thing is similarly doubtful. Almost certainly funded by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh paramilitaries. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly your "understanding" is flawed, as reliable sources merely call it right-of-center. Interestingly, Chandan Mitra (editor of the pioneer) is an accomplished journalist, not the Khaki shorts wearing, lathi-charging maniac you make him out to be.Pectore 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh an Wikiality, Bharatveer through viewing any Gujarati or Hindi news source would find news from reliable sources backing up his views. Its a matter of convenience, why go to Hindi and translate when you have English?Pectore 00:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, Wiki San Roze has raised some points and I see that Pectore and Bharathveer have not reached a perfectly satisfactory justification to him. First of all, I want to say that by using Odishatoday, the sock of banned user jobxavier (evidence) started pushing his pov’s all along with other vandalism into those Anti-X articles, which was later supported by other pov editors. Additionally, I could not see odishatoday have published any credible materials (as pointed by Tinu cherian ) or reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and therefore undoubtedly failing WP:RS and WP:V. --Googlean 05:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Many times I wonder why people try this hard to push a POV when it is common sense that they are just wasting their's and other's time on it. The issue discussed here is similar to TamilNET, which is pro Tamil rebel website and Asian tribune which is pro Sinhala. Using those sources are OK as long as it is not shown as neutral parties. So Pectore, you are telling me that in spite of so much coverage of English media (both Indian and others) on Orissa violence, no other English media reports the news you want other than odishatoday? O please, stop wasting everyone's time here. Wiki San Roze 08:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your edits Wikiality, one might assume the same action on your part, citing the AICC as a "gospel source" on pages. On top of these peculiarities are your fallacious appeals to common sense (which judging by the way other members of this discussion edit, is hardly "common") considering that English language dailies have a scant fraction of the circulation that Hindi language dailies have, which would generally report in a manner friendlier to Bharatveer's point of view in a reliable manner. Sorry if I am wasting your time by speaking coherently, intelligently, and logically, but I don't speak the tongue of ideologues.Pectore 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is wasting other's time is, not to have read what they said. If you pan a bit up, you will see me pointing out, you need high quality references for stating that there are evidence that a aleged rape which made headlines throughout the world did not occur at all. So no other English daily or new site is reporting forensic findings? This argument is cohenrent, intelligent and logical? Brilliant!!! Wiki San Roze 10:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, can you reveal who is the MP related to dailypioneer? Apparently an IP editor added lots of stuff , all referenced to pioneer . I am suspecting it is another POV pushing -- Tinu Cherian - 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.livemint.com/2008/02/09001315/Pioneer-promoters-looking-to-s.html
• Chandan_Mitra, the BJP RajyaSabha MP is the editor and managing director of The Pioneer newspaper. No wonder it is baised and obviously Bharatveer is interested in this:) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments do not make any sense. However I am trying to get "ownership" details of this particular org, which would establish its "independent" status.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess some haven't gotten the point that Mitra is an accomplished journalist who went into politics, not a politician who dabbles in journalism. He doesn't just write for the Pioneer, he writed for outlook India and other sources.Pectore 08:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Public court records

Question about public court records, which are not available to the general public online (but can be viewed by the general public at the courthouse).

1 - are they deemed verifiable, or is verifiability of a source dependent on whether there is a hyperlink leading to it?

2 - are they deemed original research? And if so, how then how exactly do they become more worthy of citation by virtue of a third-party (i.e. a newspaper) reporting on them?

3 - if the answer depends on the purpose/content of the citation, where is the line drawn? (i.e. "Joe Blow was convicted of theft and sentenced to two years in prison" or "Jane Blow is scheduled to appear for sentencing on May 1st" or "Joe Blow sued Jane Blowhard for $100,000 for negligence").

4 - if they are permissible, what would be the appropriate citation format (particularly where the source cannot be hyperlinked)?

--Lawduck (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My view is that public court records are verifiable and valid for use - but they are primary sources so must be used carefully, as with any primary source. Original research can become an issue if an article makes an interpretation of the meaning or implications of the court records. A simple citation to establish the facts reported in the document would not be a problem. Citation format is not a reliable sources issue, check out WP:MOS or WP:CITE for that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Extensive previous discussion has concluded that they should generally not be used, unless reported in a secondary source, particularly if they contain contentious material. Anyone can say anything they want in court, but unless it gains wider circulation, it's not appropriate for wikipedia. Ty 06:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant when I wrote that they are primary sources. In other words, it can be used to report what happened or was said in the court proceeding, but not to draw any conclusions about the content or accuracy of the reported statement or use it as support for anything other than a description of what happened during the court case. For example, it could be used to report that there was a conviction or acquittal in a particular case, that would be a valid use as a primary source.

If the prior discussion you mentioned disqualifies court records even as primary sources, I would be interested in reading that to update my understanding of the consensus on this. Do you happen to have a link to where it was discussed? Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion. I reverted an edit in the Janine Lindemulder article due to BLP issues. I don't question the verifiability of the primary source claims. BLP frowns on editors digging into court records where no reliable secondary source has done so due to privacy reasons along with the idea that editors are not supposed to be reporters. This discussion should be in WP:BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This simply enhances the absurdity of any literal application the policy without considering context, and raises significant issues about the reliability of Misplaced Pages in general. Real information is banned because a newspaper (for example) hasn't reported on it yet. Being both a former journalist and current lawyer, I am painfully aware of the idiocy of relying on media to comprehend, much less properly report on, legal documents and proceedings. Yet, apparently, that same idiocy is the minimum threshold for acceptance. That's nonsense, and raises the very real spectre of Misplaced Pages knowingly providing false information. The specific case referenced above is a prime example. Court dockets (date, time, place) and charging decisions (i.e. title of crimes) are not open to debate or interpretation. The "reliable secondary source" relied on in the Wiki article in question is (1) out of date, (2) wrong, and (3) incomplete and inaccurate. But because it was wrongly reported in a secondary source, it passes muster. Go figure. Worse, the reversion to the edit, which updated the correct docketing information reflecting a continuance of the sentencing hearing to a later date, re-inserts information stating that sentencing will be done on a date now well in the past. Consequently, because an "editor" who apparently doesn't understand context decided that literal, if misguided, application of rules trumps truth and accuracy. This is bad. Very, very bad, and certainly precludes me from ever again relying on a Wiki entry as anything other than a starting point for further research, and even that with a very large grain of salt.Lawduck

(talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not nonsense, rather, it's the least imperfect means to permit a volunteer group of contributors, many of whom will have the same difficulty comprehending legal proceedings as the media does, to write about events with legal import. I don't read the discussion about as forbiding you from using court house docket to state a pending date, or cite correct charges. The problem is that very quickly things slide downhill. Is the case criminal or civil? Is the charge a misdemeanor or felony? and so forth. It so often requires synthesis to make this information useful to the reader that the policy wisely is cautious about its use. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 15:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski as a reliable source

Is Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski a reliable source in history articles? List of WP articles that cite him: . He is not a historian by training; the advantage of being an amateur is the lack of professional accountability. Sample statements from his website: "The author, Jeff Sarlet is so far the only journalist who succeeded in documenting the activities of the hidden elite, headquartered in Arlington, on the outskirts of Washington DC, “The Family,” at the core of American fundamentalist Protestant power, was originally created along the lines of European fascism in 1935 by Abraham Vereide, who organized the wealthy internationalist elite...They have had an enormous impact on the beliefs of Americans in the 20th century and on U.S. imperialist policy in the 21st century, through their secret machinations which have been unsuspected by most Americans." . Yikes. Novickas (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that citations of this author could be reliable or not. They would have to be evaluated individually. For example, who published the book or article? If it is a publisher with a good reputation for fact checking and overall academic quality, that would support reliability. On the other hand, his essay on his own website, such as the one you posted the diff for, is self-published and therefore not reliable as a source - unless he is clearly a notable expert as recognized by other reliable sources. That does not appear to be the case but would need more research to determine for sure. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider him a reliable source for controversial material. The statement given above is the sort of extraordinary statements that requires extraordinarily reliable sourcing. Is it typical of his site? If so, it's enough to discredit it based on internal evidence. I do not like the sources cited in the article on him to establish his reliability, as they do not seem to be published reviews, but rather blurbs, where even good academics sometimes say something nice about anything they get sent a copy of. . We should try to find some actual reviews of his work, or document where the ones listed have been published. If no academic journal has reviewed his book, that too would indicate something. It's worth doing, for the book has been used a number of times in Misplaced Pages.DGG (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Daily Mail a reliable source

Is the Daily Mail a reliable source or a tabloid.It was a broadsheet paper now being published in tabloid format.One article which is being used is this .Can you please clarify on this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

American usage of "tabloid" is not just a function of format. The NY Daily News, for example, is a "tabloid" in format, but used as RS in WP. Rather, the American usage is to refer to the most lurid supermarket "newspapers" (generally issued weekly) which carry no "hard news." Papers which have "Jimmy Smoots' Secret Love Affair" in large red letters are what are not usable as RS. The Daily Mail carries stock tables, hard news etc. and is certainly RS. The article on it, however, looks like it needs a lot of work! Collect (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that tabloid-format dailies are generally reliable, the New York tabloids tend to have looser editorial standards and a penchant for sensationalism. The New York Post likes do the big bold punny headlines, and uses pejoratives like "sicko" in its articles, so you'd have to be more careful about what you pull from the Post or NYDN. And even in the UK, there's a clear difference in standards between the traditional broadsheets and the tabloids - The Sun's coverage of the Hillsborough disaster comes to mind. I realize the Daily Mail isn't going to suddenly turn in to the News of the World, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that it's not just a matter of printing format. --Mosmof (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Even the NY Times has used puns in headlines at times. The NYPost is considered a RS by WP standards as its actual articles do conform to normal standards. As for low standards, try looking at the papers from the late 1890s. Collect (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean that puns were necessarily a bad thing - it's just that the Post often uses pejorative or presumptuous descriptors for the sake of pun or sensationalism. I think it's perfectly fine for verifying facts, but phrases like "pervy pol", which would never make a hard news story on a paper of record, shouldn't be pulled as quotes or as statements of facts. --Mosmof (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you name any mass-market paper which has not used any "colorful" language? Usually the pun is in the headline, not the text of the article. Collect (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be good to find other sources corroborating the story. I wouldn't cite it extensively, or without attribution, if it's the only such story around. The Daily Mail is so-so. Jayen466 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not find any archives which found the Daily Mail not to be RS, but it took a while. All contentious claims should have a second cite, but that is widely not followed. Collect (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen466 - it's 'so-so'. Anyone know anything about the actual reporter? I've seen some really fringe stuff in it in the fields of history and archaeology (not news articles). Anything like this shouldn't rely on the Daily Mail alone. dougweller (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Mail gets sued quite regularly. It often ends up having to issue an apology or retraction and pay damages. etc. That's not what one would hope for from a first-class encyclopedic source. Jayen466 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from my perspective, the Daily Mail coverage of medical and scientific issues is atrocious, on a good day. A wise man once noted that they're on a crusade to divide every susbtance known to man into those that cause cancer and those that cure cancer. It's not categortically unreliable, but should definitely be taken with a grain of salt and vetted on a case-by-case basis. I would be very hesitant to use it as the sole source for tabloid-like claims in a WP:BLP - after all, Misplaced Pages is not (supposed to be) a tabloid. MastCell  17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The related discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Daily Mirror might be of interest as well. My take on the Mail is that it's semi-reliable. There are certain areas in which I would not trust it at all (medicine and history/archaeology have rightly been mentioned). However, its general news reporting, other than on UK politics - on which it's highly slanted - is of quite a good standard. The specific item quoted by the original poster is a piece by its foreign correspondents; I see no reason not to regard that as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks All,It is resolved as far as I am concerned .Thanks Chris for giving the link to Daily mirror archive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom a reliable source?

In the Alexander Litvinenko article, I have used a source from the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom to provide various information into the article. The report is published by the CSRC, and the author of the piece I am quoting is named Henry Plater-Zyberk, a senior lecturer and analyst of the CSRC. He is well regarded as a specialist in this area, and as a scholar has published and been cited, both in scholarly works and books. There is no doubt that both the CSRC and the author are reliable sources by the letter of WP:RS. An editor is now removing sourced information from the article, because Plater-Zyberk in his work is critical of Litvinenko and because all CSRC publications carry the disclaimer:

The views expressed in this paper are entirely and solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official thinking and policy either of Her Majesty’s Government or of the Ministry of Defence.

It is the opinion of the editor that this is an editorial due to the existence of this disclaimer.

Note in the information introduced into the article that I have not placed information stating that this is the view of the British government, nor of the Ministry of Defence. Such disclaimers are standard when experts in their field are employed by a government and they write on subjects in their field of expertise.

The report in question can be found here.

Can others please confirm or deny that these are reliable sources. --Russavia 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"The views expressed in this paper are entirely and solely those of the authors" This indicates that we're dealing with an editorial. It's ok to use objective information from that article, in that case it is a reliable source, but for example how he calls Litvinenko a "one-man disinformation bureau" is merely the editors opinion. There's also scholars who described Vladimir Putin as someone who accuses and prosecutes people without evidence, yet you don't present that as fact either, let alone put it in the articles lead. Grey Fox (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note, Grey Fox is the editor I have mentioned. The problem is he has only removed "unproven" from the lead (ok, that word may go), but he has removed much more information which is critical of Litvinenko, and the way the media dealt with his claims. As I have explained to said editors, WP is not a memorial, advocacy, etc, we are an encyclopaedia where all views get presented within the confines of policy. --Russavia 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You're now talking about the Advanced Research and Assessment Group as CSRC has now been absorbed into that body. The process that the papers published go through is pretty rigorous, but the questions asked to initiate the paper can be quite open, hence the caveats.

As ever you need to be clear about what you're using the publication for and where in the article you're using it. Where you're extrating something that appears to be opinion, then attribute it in text.

ALR (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the information introduced, the citations have been completely attributed, both within the text and references. As I said above, the "unproven" in the lead can go, but leave the reference there. Is that a fair thing? Or does that assertion in the lead (without "unproven") need a citation at all? --Russavia 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's way to WP:POINTish to put something like "unproven" in the lead. Not only did Litvinenko provide evidence of some sort for his allegations, he was also murdered and therefore unable to continue providing evidence. Grey Fox (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You ask the question is ARAG reliable?. Generally yes, inasmuch as any government political and military research facility is reliable. The issue will always be around how one wishes to use the source. No source should ever be given an absolute label of reliability whichever direciton it tends.

ALR (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ALR, I missed this reply from you. I absolutely totally agree with you. I don't believe the way it has been cited in the article is indicative of the absolute label of reliability, as that would lead to an inherent POV, which just isn't on. As stated, it needs to be made clear it is opinion of so-and-so, and attribute it as such. You can be sure that before I jumped into this article, I resolved myself keeping the absolute NPOV line. --Russavia 16:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the ARAG acts much like any scientific journal, where even though the journal states that the opinions are those of the author, by publishing the article, it furnishes a presumption of reasonableness. This falls into the use of a person acknowledged as an expert on a topic by the ARAG. Trying to separate "editorial opinion" from "expert opinion" is not a simple issue. Collect (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The way that I see it is, this person is employed in a government institution, and is charged with helping to frame the minds of future British military leaders. Although he is not speaking on behalf of the British government or the UK MOD, the fact that he is recognised as an expert in his field and published by that government institution, says words about how suitable he is as a WP:RS. --Russavia 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly goes a long way towards implying that the authors are reliable... but given the explicit disclaimer, I agree that attribuion is the way to go. In other words... the source in question is solidly reliable for a statement of opinion, but questionable for a statement of fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And it was clearly attributed in the article as one can see here. Or is it not attributed clearly enough in your opinion?, as that can be easily fixed. --Russavia 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you Russavia, you're now using the opinion of an author because it matches your opinion of Litvinenko whom you think was a nutcase as you admitted yourself. However if that's how wikipedia works it could also work against you. For example in another article on the same site from the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom an author speaks about Chechen genocide commited by Russia I don't think you would agree if I start presenting that as fact now under the disguise of a reliable source now right? No, because these are merely opinions from an author, not necessarily facts. Grey Fox (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me respond to that. I must say, that for a western, in particular a British, source writing about Russia in such an objective fashion is not only rare, but absolutely refreshing. I have gone thru a lot of their reports already and have no qualms with them being used as a source at all. So if you want to use it as a source for atrocities committed by Russians in Chechnya, then go ahead and do so. Unlike some, I do not believe that Putin (and Russians in general) eat babies for breakfast, but at the same time I realise that Russia is not a perfect country and some criticism is warranted. This being an encyclopaedia means that we bring objectivity to anything that we as editors place on this site, and although we all have our own opinions (which I readily admit to, unlike many others), we can not allow our own opinions to guide how we edit, but we edit inline with WP:FIVE. So, as Putin himself retorted in reply to Cheney's criticism, your reasoning above was "an unsuccessful hunting shot". --Russavia 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

An additional comment if I may. You comment "No, because these are merely opinions from an author, not necessarily facts." May I point you towards the kew policy on WP; WP:V, which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." If fact were to be the threshold, then I can say that the Litvinenko article would be quite bare, because nothing is "fact"; it's all "allegations this" and "accusations that", but no facts. You can't have it both ways I am afraid, so you have to decide here and now, do we follow WP:V, or do we ignore that policy and work on facts only, because I can guarantee that if we were to decide that we do that, and I go and blank the entire page apart from a brief bio, that I would have accusations thrown at me from every angle. But no, I am a firm believer in WP:V and WP:FIVE, not of "facts". --Russavia 16:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you would agree to putting how Putin is responsible for genocide in the lead section of his article, right? Or how that's the conclusion of the "Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom". Yes wikipedia works with veriebility, but it also works with a lot of other policies such as Avoid editorial opinion. I'm glad there are, because I think readers should themselves drawn their own conclusion and not have it chewed out by cherry picked scholars or journalists. Grey Fox (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I have stated, all that needs to be done is to remove "unproven". If the rest of that sentence in the lead requires a citation, it can possibly act as a citation. If the rest of the sentence in the lead does not require a citation, then remove the citation. But as to the rest of the article, it is verifiable information, and has been attributed correctly to the author. I believe you are missing the entire point of how WP operates. --Russavia 16:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The materials are not a subject to a peer review if I understand correctly. Hence this is mostly an opinion piece, something like an editorial.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Henry Plater-Zyberk is but an author of the one piece in question. The entire publication is edited by Dr Andrew Monaghan, who is a Global Fellow of the Foreign Policy Centre, and a visiting lecturer at the Defence Academy of Great Britain. He holds an MA in War Studies from the Department of War Studies at King's College, London and wrote his PhD on Russia-EU relations. So it is a safe bet that this is peer reviewed. In any case, I can assure you that it is reviewed more than this fabulous source and this ever reliable source, yet they are found plastered all over WP. I think its time to stop with the "editorial" line, and fess up as to why you both really don't want, what 3 uninvolved editors have stated is a reliable source with attribution. --Russavia 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhm no, what they said was that it was indeed an editorial and his opinions should not be presented as fact. What we can use from the article is objective information. As for the sources you're now making fun of, they are not used for stating opinions but for publishing statements and biographies of involved parties and such. That's completely different. Grey Fox (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they have not stated any such thing. They have stated, and I am paraphrasing, the source qualifies as a reliable source, the authors position can be used to demonstrate he is an expert in his field, and it is up to us as editors how we use that information and that it can be used with attribution. Additionally, the information has not been presented as fact, blind freddy can see that. The only problem is, is that the information is critical and this takes away from the "memorial"-like article, you yourself stated you wanted. People who make extraordinary claims, are going to receive a lot of flack in return, and its our "job" as WP editors to present all sides of the story in an NPOV way, and not allow unfounded claims of every order used in order not to include information. I've seen too much flip-flopping on this article by both of you, and it's getting somewhat irritating now. --Russavia 17:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's cleary mentioned how "the source in question is solidly reliable for a statement of opinion, but questionable for a statement of fact", and your version of the page clearly presents the authors opinion as a fact, as well as that it's supposedly the conclusion of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom while it's only the opinion of a single author. Also any flip-flopping of the article can be attributed to your persistent and cocksure behaviour, as well as disregard for the 3rr rule. You don't seem to be willing at all to co-operate with other editors (on this article that is). Grey Fox (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at what was written:

A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, in which the author states that Litvinenko was a "one-man disinformation bureau", suggests the claim was made with "no evidence to support" it, and further stated that this claim, and Litvinenko's claim that the FSB was behind the Beslan school hostage crisis, was accepted without challenge by the British media.

Just where is the statement of fact here? It is obvious it is his opinion. It could do with a little copy-edit, but to remove it without an actual attempt to reword it yourself, and all other sourced claims to this, on the basis of flimsy excuses that I have seen both here and on the talk page, is not quite excusable. As to the Armenian shooting, you are still going to claim that it was the authors opinion that Litvinenko claimed it was ostensibly to derail the Nagorno-Karabakh peace agreement? Even when presented with this source which states:

"Pursuing certain political aims, the Russian special services often turn to subversive activity. Many know in highest echelons of Russia's special services that the shooting of the Armenian parliament in 1999 was organized by RMR. This sabotage enabled Russia's political elite to prevent signing of the agreement on Karabakh settlement. If I am not mistaken, it was said that president Aliyev and Kocharian were to sign a memorandum at the Istanbul summit of OSCE. The peaceful process was developing aloof from Russia's control and that made Russian special services to carry out the special mission in the Armenian parliament", Litvinenko told Real Azerbaijan online newspaper.

Can you now see that your and Biophys' "editorial" line just doesn't cut it. --Russavia 18:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well let's first start with how the paragraph shouldn't start with "A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom" but instead with "According to Andrew Monaghan". You should drop the part where he calls Litvinenko a "one-man disinformation bureau". That's the part which is truly just the authors opinion, with that line he discredits all of Litvinenko's books and work. It's not a fact because does he have a proof that Litvinenko's allegations are all "disinformation" or "lies"? No, that's just his own guess. The part that says "he made the allegation without providing evidence" is alright, but rather useless since Litvinenko was not able to provide evidence if he had any because he was murdered not long after. Grey Fox (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with including the statement if attributed as follows: "According to Andrew Monaghan, in a report he wrote for the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, 'Litvinenko was a one man disinformation bureau.'" This reliably reflects the fact that the statement is simply Monaghan's opinion, but also accurately points out where he stated it. Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that but where does it end? We can add 75 opinions from a various amount of scholars, but is that what we're after on wikipedia? And assuming we're not, then how do we select which ones to use to avoid random and cherry picked opinions? Grey Fox (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It ends at the point where what remains are opinions that are not “notable”. —SlamDiego_←T 13:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And where the various sources share similar POVs ... we can choose which ones to use. We attempy to determine which of the sources best represent a given viewpoint, and use the ones are the most reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SlamDiego about not placing non-notable content to WP articles. We should also place factual information rather tha opinions. If someone tells: "this man is a lier" (as in the example by Russavia) - that represent merely a slander and non-encyclopedic content. However if someone tells: "this man has been caught with promoring such and such proven disinformation", that could be a content deserving to be included to an article. This is not a matter of the source.Biophys (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How is "In various interviews Litvinenko accused the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General-Staff of the Russian armed forces had organised the 1999 Armenian parliament shooting that killed Prime Minister of Armenia Vazgen Sargsyan, ostensibly to derail the peace process which would have resolved the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but he offered no evidence to support the accusation. an opinion? As demonstrated above, Litvinenko did claim it was to rerail the peace process, and here we have a scholar in a peer-reviewed journal stating that he claimed that it was to derail the peace process, and stated that he offered no evidence to support the accusation. Here is another article which states "The bombing of four Russian apartment buildings in 1999 that left hundreds dead; the Moscow theater siege that killed 129 people; the 2004 explosion on the Moscow metro that killed dozens of commuters -- all the work of one of the KGB's post-Soviet successors, the Federal Security Service (FSB), according to Litvinenko. He once contended that Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was trained by the FSB in 1998 before mysteriously being released to organize attacks against the United States. Even last year's controversy over the publication in a Danish newspaper of editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed, he claimed, was orchestrated by the FSB to punish Denmark for its refusal to extradite Chechen separatists. None of it could ever be proved, of course, but Litvinenko knew that the secret to good conspiracy theories is that they feed on the absence of proof. And the more outlandish the claim, the harder it may be to disprove." And there are plenty more sources which state as such. --Russavia 08:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

http://townhall.com/

How reliable is this site? --neon white talk 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mixed... parts are reliable, and parts are not. Much will depend on exactly what you are trying to use the source to support. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The site is mostly opinion columns. It looks like the columnists are mostly mainstream and respected, but they provide opinion, not investigative journalism. They're facts are usually going to be correct, but not always. Since they are simply offering opinion on news they've read, you should be able to find a better source for any information you find there. So if you find something on that site that you think is worth mentioning, it's probably correct information but you should really search for that same information from another source - and if the information is correct you should have no trouble finding it. Readin (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The news is usable (almost all from AP, in fact.) And news makes up a lot of the site. Since the articles are AP, they are citable. They are not "simply offering opinion on news they've read." Opinions are ... opinions, and generally marked as such. When citing them, treat them as opinion. Townhall.com is more reliable than Salon, not as reliable as The NY Times. But even the NY Times can be unreliable -- what you are claiming in a RS is that the facts are generally right and subject to editorial oversight. If you look for AP, you will likely find the exact same articles. Collect (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect is right. I missed that there were news articles on the page. The columnists have a significant presence and should be treated as I described above. But the news articles are as reliable as their source. Readin (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But AP's own site, or their links to papers which republish the articles, are preferable; readers should not have to make this analysis before accepting the source as reliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think this was concerning the blogs part some seem to be by some quite notable journalists and political brains. Matt Lewis (political analyst), Carol Platt Liebau, Amanda Carpenter, Hugh Hewitt --neon white talk 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As always: Blogs are reliable primary sources for the blogger's own views; secondary sources are preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber New York Times "rejected" as a source

Now the silliness in JtP has reached the point where the New York Times is "rejected" as a source for calling Joe tha Plumber a plumber. "I've reread it too. Everything in the NY Times citation that Collect refers to seems to be based on Joe's testimony. We know that just because the NY Times regurgitates Joe's presentation of himself isn't enough for a RS. That's tantamount to self-promotion. Also, more neutral sources don't depend on Joe's testimony. Certainly no one expects Joe to come out and independently and impartially proclaim that he has been working on an apprenticeship since 2003 and has no independent plumbing license. Only an independent, neutral source is likely to do so. Collect, it seems we have to reject the citation on that basis, even though it is definitely from the honorable NY Times. VictorC (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC) " " OK. Well in case anyone's paying attention, let's reject Collect's citation from the NY Times. I have three possible reasons for this: 1) There are more recent citations; 2) The reason we are using the citation is based on Joe's statements - not an impartial source - and; 3) The statements are among the quotes from Joe that he is "getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year,” that he "told Mr. Obama he has been a plumber for 15 years," the first of which has been debunked as not too reliable, the second of which Collect is basing his RS on. So, I propose that this source is no longer reliable: 1) it's outdated; 2) it's not based on an impartial source; 3) the source has been shown to have dubious reliability. If we can agree to drop this specific NY Times citation, let's agree on using a different source. Let's find one that's more up to date; uses a more impartial source (than the individual himself); and shows itself to be less dubious. VictorC (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)"

This is a tad inane since these folks rejected the opinions in WP:BLP/N that Joe the Plumber is a plmber as far as "occupation" is concerned -- so now they have to reject the NYT mainly because it does not agree with what the few people want it to say. Now the issue is this -- is not liking what a RS says a valid reason for "rejecting" it? Collect (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1)Ignore. 2)Ignore. 3)Ignore. All done. 'This is a diminutizing adjective - ridicule since... -- so now accusation of at best self-delusion and at worst fraud. Now the real issue that you'll waste valuable time answering is 4)repeat accusation. Anarchangel (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have a dog in this particular fight over "sources" but before anyone gets drawn into this, be warned that this will get messy. See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Occupation_of_Joe_the_Plumber and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#is_Joe_the_Plumber_a_.22nickname.22_or_a_.22sobriquet.22. Mattnad (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but you do indeed have multiple dogs in the article talk page <g>. Collect (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey dog, how's it going. Collect's the big dog in these debates, and he's like a dog with bone when it comes to making a point - doggone it.Mattnad (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the noticeboard for reliable source issues, we're not going to decide here if Joe is a plumber or not. We already know that the New York Times a reliable source in general, so the question for this forum as far as I can tell is: is there some reason the New York Times should be disqualified from use as a source in this particular situation? If a fact reported in the New York Times turns out to be incorrect, that does not make the source unreliable, but it does indicate the source was incorrect on that point, ie, they made a mistake. But unless the mistake is commented upon by another reliable source, it's original research to compare the fact with other facts and make a determination in Misplaced Pages about which source was correct.

Therefore, the best approach may be to attribute the statement to the source and clearly identify what was actually stated. In other words, not "Joe is a plumber" and then a New York Times footnote, instead: "According to the New York Times, Joe described himself as a plumber" (or something like that; I'm not addressing the details of the use, only the source question). If the NY Times article does not have solid footing for determining Joe's occupation, maybe there are other sources that would be better to use for that. On the other hand, the way it's presented in the NY Times might still have use for the Misplaced Pages article - that is an editorial decision, not a WP:RS decision. As far as declaring the New York Times to be unreliable as a source in factual reporting of current events, that does not seem like an appropriate option.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This citation is being sought by Collect for use in the infobox to support the single word, "Plumber", as Joe's occupation. There's a roiling argument on whether Joe is a "Plumber" or some subordinate occupation like "Plumber's Assistant" or "Plumber's Apprentice" or even "Unlicensed Plumber". The infobox will not permit a nuanced exposition on the NYT citation, vs. others that do not present Joe as a Plumber, but someone under the supervision of a licensed Plumber. Collect failed to provide that bit of context. Hope that helps. Mattnad (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The NYT specifically calls him a "plumber" and does not ascribe the claim to Joe. Thus it is a statement of fact made by an RS. As EVERY neutral person said "plumber" is correct in WP/BLP/N , Mattnad et al are simply edit warring such that the page is locked over and over. And NO RS is furnished to state anything other than "plumber" for the infobox. Collect (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an editorial content dispute and not a reliable source issue. This noticeboard is the wrong forum. What you need is wider consensus with input from more editors. I suggest you try posting a neutrally-worded article request for comments. Those have the best chance of success if you organize the presentation of the issue question clearly in advance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The "decision" asserted was one specifically of finding that the NYT was not a "reliable source" -- as for RfCs, I take it that you have not visited the talk page for the article <g>. Collect (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NYT is generally a reliable source, but unfortunately not a definitive source on what's Joe's occupation. That's the crux of the issue in the Joe the Plumber talk page. Other editors have cited other reliable, and perhaps more authoritative, sources that state Joe is not "a real plumber". Collect has taken a different position and picked the NYT article to support his viewpoint. In the end, Jack-A-Row correctly identified the underlying editorial problem. Again, hope this helps. Mattnad (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have already stated at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Occupation_of_Joe_the_Plumber, he mwwts the Misplaced Pages definition of a Plumber. The sources, including the one in question from The New York Times, describe him as a plumber. It's still unclear if the issue is that he does not have a license, but that still does not affect the nature of his profession. Alansohn (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe there is no source where he called himself a plumber. Also, let's make sure no one is operating from the WP:POV or even WP:COI that anyone not "licensed" cannot be a "real" plumber. Carol Moore 02:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

As I mentioned earlier, Collect has not been clear on the context of this dispute (so see my comments above), but just as the Times mentioned joe as "a plumber" immediately after he became known, later on the National Post explains the distinction between a plumber and what Joe is . So here you have two reliable sources that say different things about Joe's occupation. Collect would like the article's infobox to use the NYT as the source (Plumber), others would like to use other sources they feel are more accurate,like the NP article (Plumber's Assistant, or Unlicensed Plumber). So in the end, Collect is asking you guys to weigh in on something that's actually an editorial dispute. Mattnad (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from misstatements here. I did not think the infobox needed a cite as a general rule, but when it was demanded of me that I give a cite, I did so. The New York Times. The article was not from the day of the debate, but from well after the debate. The NP is a Canadian tabloid (in naturem, not that it has a compact format), with no special status as RS, nor special status as RS for US personalities. It is a reliable source for a number of statements like "Itan is going to require badges for Jews and Christians." I have no quarrel with any properly cited adjectives in the corpus of the article. I think that using POV adjectives in the infobox is silly. I do not think "Unlicensed Plumber" is an "occupation" -- one try was for "illegal plumber" as occupation! Collect (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Freeport (Long Island) history blog

Is the Freeport Long Island History blog a reliable source? I know the topic reasonably well (it's where I grew up) and everything there looks well researched. The blogger identifies herself as "Regina, a librarian at the Freeport Memorial Library" and the library prominently links to the blog and says that it is "a joint project between the Freeport Library and the Freeport Historical Society." Sounds OK to me, but I know there is a strong presumption against blogs. - Jmabel | Talk 08:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me too. Just because a site calls itself a blog shouldn't disqualify it; it seems as reliable for local history as the two sponsors, the Freeport Library and the Freeport Historical Society.John Z (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is editorial oversight, "This blog is maintained by Regina, a librarian at the Freeport Memorial Library", and the blog is used as a convenient means of uploading (usually sourced) information. Ty 15:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Music genre cofounder and website

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The radio production company is Hearts of Space established 25 years ago (35 including the original Music From the Hearts of Space show on KPFA). HoS was historically played on more than 250 USA public radio stations on a scale of 500. This 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle description of Stephen Hill's expertise reads:
"Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago, hosts the "Music From the Hearts of Space" music program, syndicated on 250 National Public Radio stations, including San Francisco's KALW 91.7 FM, which airs two hours of the program at 10 p.m. Sundays. In addition, Hill's Hearts of Space Web site (www.hos.com) provides streaming access to an archive of hundreds of hours of spacemusic artfully blended into one-hour programs combining ambient, electronic, world, New Age and classical music."

The claim as I understand it (maybe I don't), is that a justified primary source reclassification, along with other sources properly reclassified as primary, would cause a synthesis/OR violation in the article titled Space music. The further result would be that the cofounder's detailed analysis, opinions, and other website information would be mostly removed from the article about the genre he cofounded.

The campaigning editor says his most contentious objection is that the name of the genre is a "commercial entity's branding drive". Presumably, he objects strongly to a previously unnoticed form of commercial spam in the Misplaced Pages article, and a great wrong should be righted by minimizing it. If I correctly understand it, I can only describe this position as extremist.

Spacemusic genre is a case of limited circle fame. Its current USA public radio fans are thinly scattered, but dedicated to its support through public radio fund drives. Its niche music sales amount to less than 1% of the commercial market, so very little is written about spacemusic in major USA music publications dependent on commercial advertising.

(The rest of the 102 Space music sources to be considered for reclassification as primary, and then removed for synthesis/OR, should be handled separately to avoid noticeboard overload.)
Milo 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose all this would give some reason for caution in using these sources, and particularly a reason to be careful to try to double-source things and to give all sides where sources disagree, but it sounds to me like Hill would be a perfectly reasonable source. Where he is writing about his own work in fostering the genre, or about his own show, he's primary. Where he's writing about the musicians in the genre, it would seem to me that he is secondary, just like any music critic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel on all three points - multiple sources are always recommended when there are differing published views on a topic. On the primary/secondary question - Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show. On third-party topics such as music styles, record albums, musicians, the radio and music business, etc, he'd be a secondary source. I'd say that within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear about the encyclopedia-margins deletionist effect of what you are both saying:

Stephen Hill and his Hearts of Space website were previously treated as expert-based secondary sources via WP:V(WP:SPS). The Misplaced Pages art/music reasoning has previously been that the founder of an art/music genre knows subjectively more about what he/she created than anyone else as a matter of expert opinion. You are changing that.

What a secondary source says can be combined in a point-by-point source-provable editorial analysis. In this case, since there are so few other mainstream sources, many or most of them are presently combined with Hill's previous secondary source expertise to write the article.

But a primary source has fewer rights in an article than a secondary source. What a primary source says cannot be combined with other sources for a standard article editorial analysis, even if every point made by article editors can be proved through analysis of the primary sources.

Art/music experts normally have secondary source rights under WP:V(WP:SPS). You are now removing Hill's secondary source rights, so you are in effect declaring that he is not an expert on the genre he founded. (Yes, you deny that, but the denial is cosmetic.) Since he is no longer an expert on his own work, his dominant presence in an article about his own creations constitutes undue weight, which can be removed by his opponents (and as already declared, will be removed by the campaigning editor).

The big names in creativity won't be affected at Misplaced Pages, but if one's creative work is notable, yet limited circle famous with few mainstream sources, this appears to be a significant deletionist change at the margins of Misplaced Pages. The effect is that a marginal creator's expertise is henceforth trumped by a marginal rival's expertise. I assume that hundreds of articles will eventually be affected as the art/music opponent class finds out they can now marginalize their rivals by de-experting and de-weighting them through primary sourcing.

Are you sure you want to go there? Milo 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what I meant. I'm surprised you interpreted it that way, did I write so unclearly? I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above. He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography. I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(Roe 03:05): "did I write so unclearly?"

What you wrote first was (Roe 20:14): "Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show..." and "...within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source."

There's a contradictory overlap between those two statements. Since the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres is mostly defined by his radio show, your 20:14 statement causes Hill to be mostly removed from the genre article due to a newly-defined lack of secondary source expertise about his own radio show (using the Milo 00:49 reasoning above).

What you wrote second was (Roe 03:05): "He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography."

Ok, that works if we define "personal life" as those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work.

(Roe 03:05): "I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above." ... "I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question."

Reliable secondary source creative expertise includes more than writings. The campaigning editor has made an issue out of Hill's verbally broad definition of the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres, which includes segue assemblies of certain slow-paced contemplative pieces found within up to 30 standard genres. The only exact definition of "spacemusic" is the collective example of 850+ archived shows created by Hill's expertise, along with his late cofounder Anna Turner and his production associates.

Per the top question, does Hill's reliable secondary source expertise also cover his HoS.com website that may include publishing the writings of others? Hos.com holds the 850+, 25-year Hearts of Space radio show archive, and its historic playlist server is used to help determine the notability of "spacemusic" genre-of-genre artists. Is HoS.com, a reliable secondary source? Milo 07:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe the way I wrote my first reply there could have been some ambiguity, so I have gone back and modified it to change an "and" to a period, to better split the two separate ideas I was noting. I hope that makes it more clear. As I've tried to say, my view is that Hill is a notable expert and reliable source. I would apply that to his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists. I re-read the spacemusic article tonight and I don't see any problem with the way Hill or his radio program are referenced in the article. I'm basing that view on what I've learned about Hill and the radio show since this inquiry was posted, and on my understanding of the policies. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "space music" is not a musical genre and Hearts of Space did not invent it. The term existed for decades before the 1970s - and particularly in Europe has a very specific association with Kosmische musik - and not the sort of contemplative music broadcast by Hearts of Space in the United States. None of this is currently appropriately weighted within the article - which overabundantly relies on HOS as a primary source.

In the context of the Hearts of Space radio show, "space music" is merely the catch-all marketing term uniquely applied by the show's producers to all of the broadly low-key, relaxational, contemplative music which they typically broadcast - irrespective of genre; much of it is ambient, New Age or electronic, and the rest rest is classical, cool jazz, celtic, world or contemporary instrumental music.

It is important to note that while many other radio programmers, music retailers and music reviewers also make use of the term "space music" - none of them use it in the same over-arching manner that HOS does.

The suggestion that "space music" is 'exactly defined' by a set of playlists from a single radio show (HOS) is not only original research, for which no citable sources exist - it is complete raving nonsense. Musical genres are defined by characteristics inherent to the form and structure of music itself; they are not simply conjured out of thin air by radio producers.

A piece of classical music by Arvo Part does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A jazz piece by Jan Garbarek does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A piece of celtic-inspired music by Clannad does does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show.

Thus, while the HOS website is a reliable primary source for data about the radio show, the various musical genres from which it's producers draw, and the producers' opinions and philosophical approach to music - it is not and cannot be the sole primary source for the entire article subject - which should properly be about a lot more than merely the self-descriptive terminology one radio show uses to broadly characterise its "sound" - further to which it is entirely inappropriate to liberally cite the show's playlists throughout the article as if the mere fact of doing so "proves" that "every piece of music that's ever been played on Hearts of Space is part of a musical genre called 'space music' ".

Such an asertion is specious and misleading, and it - and any variations of it - simply cannot be insinuated into the WP article on this subject. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When there are multiple reliable sources that disagree, that does not change the reliability of each individual source. In that kind of situation it's important to mention the various viewpoints and not focus only on one, as noted in the neutral point of view policy. Attribution can help to provide context between multiple reliable sources that differ. That said, most of the above discussion describes an editorial content dispute, not a question of determining whether or not a particular source is reliable. This noticeboard is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex editorial matters. For that there are various options of dispute resolution available that may be able to help, such as article request for comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO the validity of Hearts of Space as a primary source is not a matter of dispute - although one other editor has disagreed - hence the need to gain clarification via this discussion. The article's broader issues are certainly content and policy-related, as you correctly point out. The article currently lends undue weight to the primary source; it does so by synthesising an original research theory - largely from the fallacious interpretation of multiple citations drawn from the primary source. Informal dispute resolution has already been initiated with the intention of addressing the longstanding opposition to the rectification of these issues. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear that Hill has significant commercial interests and arguably has a vested interest in seeing that this label is utilised as a branding device. Hill has published nothing on this subject but we do have verifiable secondary sources that discuss the topic, notably Lanza who offers a view regarding Hill and the space music domian in general - in the context of the subject as it is expressed in the current space music article. The statement above Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago is misleading, not verifiable, and is in actuality false.Be aware also that a number of the cited sources contradict themselves - swinging from 'space-music' as genre descriptor to 'space music' as category of musics. Hill states that all music played on his program, irrespective of era, ethnic origin, or extant definitions, is 'space music' (ranging from Haydn to Yanni), this statement is backed up by nothing other than the brief statements on the Hearts of Space website, it's a deeply personal view. In terms of offering a qualified secondary perspective on this, Lanza, the musicologist, is the best bet, not the radio producer and record label boss. Also, note that a number of the statements attributed to various cited sources are synthetic, the first two sentences in the lede being the most problematic. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for making the claim of, "The statement above ... not verifiable, and is in actuality false." ?

If you think the statement is not verifiable, how do you know it's actually false?

Since they already verified it, are you seriously claiming that The San Francisco Chronicle is not a reliable source??

If you are challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reporting of the facts, what is your evidence to the contrary?

If the San Francisco Chronicle's source on the quote is Stephen Hill himself (reporter Sande can be asked), and you can't prove the statement is incorrect exactly as written and spelled, then you have potentially committed libel per quod - potentially a covert defamation of Hill's veracity and professional expertise. If so, it's also a WP:BLP-talk violation, and you could be required to retract the statement.

So how do you explain your self-contradictory and worrisome comment? Milo 09:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The SF Chronicle article cited above is entitled "The sky's the limit with ambient music". The article's opening paragraph states "spacemusic, also known as ambient...". The article goes on to note "a prime mover in the ambient/spacemusic genre...", and "the best description of what we do is contemplative music". This does not support your WP:OR theory that spacemusic and ambient are somehow different genres, and that Stephen Hill invented spacemusic. The assertion that Stephen Hill invented the term spacemusic 20 years ago is clearly false, as numerous other sources already cited in the Spacemusic article confirm that it was in use by others at least 20 years before Hill started using it - as you should know, given that you added those sources yourself. All the other statements in the SF Chronicle article are not false. Your highly selective synthetic interpretation of them is false. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, what I should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong. The relevant literature does not support the thesis Milo is presenting, but that is not the even the point, the point is the article is breaching guidelines on WP:OR and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You struck one problem claim, ok, but your more dangerous claim of "is in actuality false" still stands. Therefore you are still at the previously stated potential risk of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (09:44).

Semitransgenic (22:44): "should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong."

A further self-contradiction. We agree that the term "space music" (two words in English) was a term in use for other kinds of music prior to 1973. But SFC reported that Hill "coined the term "spacemusic"", and exclusively used that term spelled "spacemusic" (one word in English) throughout the article.

A reminder that you were the one to raise the issue of branding: ""Any music with a generally slow pace and space-creating sound image can be called spacemusic", this is actually a commercial entity's branding drive,..." Semitransgenic 00:39, 8 November 2008.

If you can't prove SFC's statement is wrong, exactly as "spacemusic" is spelled (one word), and Hill is SFC's source for the statement, then you are now potentially facing a second count of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (22:44).

You are still challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reliable reporting of the facts – what is your evidence to the contrary? Milo 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Libel?? LOL : ) yawn...you are a dreamer. Yes the SFC is wrong, Newspapers are often wrong, about lots of things, often intentionally so. And yes, I do have evidence. Fact check: The term 'space music' was in existence long before Hill coined it. But, this is not a forum, nor is it the place to discuss content disputes so let me reiterate: "the point is the article is breaching guidelines on WP:OR and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material." please deal with this fact Milo rather than attacking editors who disagree with your views. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

←Let the record show:

1. Semitransgenic refuses to discuss the distinction between the two spellings "spacemusic"/"space music". For brands, a minor spelling difference greatly matters, and he originally claimed that "spacemusic" (one word in English) was a "branding drive".
2. Yet, he has persistently challenged the San Francisco Chronicle's fact reporting reliability, apparently based on his self-contradictory implication, that "spacemusic" (one word) is not different from "space music" (two words), and therefore "spacemusic" can't be a brand of "space music". He wants to have it both ways.
3. He has presented no valid evidence that the San Francisco Chronicle article's reporting by Sande is unreliable or excludable from citation. He doesn't agree with it, but asked twice, he can't say why without either generalizing or contradicting himself.
4. He treats concerns about libels that might ruin other people's reputations as a joke.

This thread was again and again bloated with claims about non-sourcing issues. Since they were off-topic at this noticeboard, I ignored them. Now Semitransgenic yawns and claims to be attacked. Experienced editors will recognize these distractive ploys that herald a thread to be ended by gainsaying last-worders.

To summarize from the top post:

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The RS answers are:

• Stephen Hill is a notable expert as described under WP:V(WP:SPS). Hill's reliable secondary source expertise covers his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists.
• Hill's comments on his personal life, meaning those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work, are reliable primary sources.
• Additionally, the 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle article by Steve Sande, quoting Stephen Hill and others with analysis of this music, is an article that can be cited as a reliable source.

Milo 03:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, you are very confused, read the article, read what you have written in the article, you interchange space-music and spacemusic throughout, but now, because the flimsy tissue of lies that you call one of your lifetime best pieces of analysis (what??) is disintegrating, you want to reconstitute definitions so they substantiate your diabolical delusions. Yes, yawn, it's boring, tiresome, and your lecturing and educating is really quite patronising, so please, stop, we have all had quite enough. So for the last time, let me get this across to you: your WP:POV, WP:SYN, WP:OR thesis is indefensible, and this is something you should come to terms with. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I contributed to, but mostly did not write the current article. It was not my decision to interchange "space music" and "spacemusic", but for consensus I let it pass. The version of the article I referred to at that link was deleted by another editor long ago. I was gracious about it since I wanted to collaborate to produce a better article. Milo 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But Milo, in this very declaration you refer to space music?? so do please forgive me for finding this inconsistent of you. It all seems rather disingenuous and we would be better served here if you stopped entertaining yourself at our expense and instead made a genuine effort in resolving this matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an obscured research issue embedded in the second paragraph (Milo 07:04, 21 February 2007): "... points that seem most important. First is the issue of Hill-Turner space music versus other kinds,...". "Spacemusic" and "space music" sound about the same on radio, so I wrote it down as two words. I expect others did the same. Milo 00:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"obscured research issue"? you mean WP:OR. Sorry but this is again disingenuous. You say you heard the term on the radio and wrote it down as two words yet your first major contribution to the article demonstrates you had knowledge of the Hearts of Space website so were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill - but you still explicitly use the term Space music throughout. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

""obscured research issue"? you mean WP:OR."

Lose the sophistry.

"were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill"

No. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling on the website. Creative spellings are routine in popular music "biz" writing, so I didn't notice until it emerged as a research issue during 2007. Milo 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore: the SFC is wrong. Thanks for confirming this. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling. "Discuss" means "b: to present in detail for examination or consideration" (M-W.com). Not discussed doesn't imply that "spacemusic" isn't mentioned by that spelling. My recent search of HoS.com displayed 155 hits on "spacemusic" (one word) and 11 hits on "space music" (two words). The 11 hits on the two word spelling appear to be quotations including album titles.

The earliest preserved, dated usage of the "spacemusic" spelling is the HoS website's intro announcement for Hearts of Space radio program #003 of 1983-01-12. That's consistent with the 2004-01-11 SFC report statement reading: "Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago,...". Milo 05:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you are insinuating that Hill's neologism - following the transference of a contraction into a compound word - makes him the co-founder of a genre but space-music and spacemusic refer to exactly the same thing - in the same way that space-craft & spacecraft mean exactly the same thing; yet the person responsible for compounding the words space & craft is not credited with being a co-conceptualizer of space-travel. I recommend you look at the Oxford English Dictionary online under space and count the number of times you find similar examples. Also, note that the very book Hill cites as "the best general treatment of the subject" does not mention spacemusic - nor is there mention of this in the books precursor, David Toop's Ocean of Sound (nor does it feature in Timothy Dean Taylor's book Strange Sound which includes a chapter entitled Space). There are, from what I can see, only two published secondary sources that mention spacemusic/space music directly (in keeping with how article wishes to define itself) that's Lanza and Birosik: and note that Hill's partner and co-founder of Music from the Hearts of Space, Anna Turner, in Birosik, uses the term space music, and not spacemusic. It's clear that spacemusic and space music are one and the same thing so you need to stop with all this nonsense about Hill being the creator of a genre, or even genre of genres for that matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that this has evolved into a content discussion with significant ramifications for the article, I've copied it to Talk:Space_music. Please continue the discussion there. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Article protected for 6 weeks now over dispute whether the Voice of America can be used to call someone an expert

Kaveh Farrokh has been blocked for 6 weeks over a dispute about the lead, which calls someone with a PhD thesis on " The relationships among cognitive processes, language experience and errors in Farsi speaking ESL adults.", who works as a college counsellor but has published two books on history, "an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics" on the basis of this article -- since it is protected on that version, those of us who think you need a better source to call someone an expert, and indeed that the word expert shouldn't even be used in the lead (see the talk page for numerous examples of undoubted experts whose articles have neutral leads) may as well give up insisting on reliable sources (that is, if we are right of course) as those who are happy to use a journalist to determine if someone is an expert, and happy to use the word expert in the lead, have no incentive to resolve the dispute and the article will stay locked. This seems a ridiculous state of affairs to me, but then I have a POV on the RS issue here. dougweller (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is amazing -- in another article, a press release calling its employee an "expert" was unquestioned, though all I could find was that he was a high school graduate. WP really needs some sort of guidance on whether a source calling someone an "expert" sans any c.v. is to be trusted as RS per se, and at what point it is not opinion to call someone an "expert." I do know that courts have specific rules on "expert testimony" (I only had to testify once) and the judge had broad latitude in deciding who is an "expert." Enough rambling, all I can say is "I don't know." Collect (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems the standard response here is to say "who Radio Free Europe identifies as an expert." Unless you can find some contrary WP:RS information that he is not one. And if it's his main claim to fame, it belongs in the lead. Carol Moore 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I agree. Unless it is decided that Radio Free Europe is not a source that can be used on WP, we should identify who is describing Farrokh as an expert, and be done with it. dougweller's original research about Farroks's work, publication history, etc... is interesting, but that's all it is - original research NoCal100 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What original research are you talking about? I don't recall having done anything that would be called original research. dougweller (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Magee Secondary School

Ongoing edit war at Magee Secondary School about who the current school administration is.

• The school's own website is being disputed as a source because the date at the top says 'Tuesday, 07 November 2006'...although the bottom states that it was 'Last Updated ( Friday, 03 October 2008 )'

Discussion from a few days ago can be found at the bottom of this page and here. More recent discussion is here. --Onorem♠Dil 13:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The website uses an interface called Joomla, where webpages are written like articles. It is likely that the page was first created in 2006 (hence the top date), but has been updated many times to present new information, up to its most recent update as of 2008. I would guess that Mr George is the current principal. --Joowwww (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I gather that the underlying issue is that the school's administration may have changed since the 10/3/08 update of the web-page, but there is not yet a reliable source to support this fact. If so, my advice is... wait... have some patience. It will not be long before the school either updates the page or issues a reliable publication under the new administration (at which time you can change the text, citing the revised website or new publication). Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In before photoshop Dustbomber (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is ridiculous. NWA Rep claims that he believes that the principal who there from 2001 to Dec 2006 is still the principal there 'cause he heard it from a guy and they don't promote VPs to Principals in the same school. Yeah, whatever. Why is Mr. Grant at Kitsilano Secondary then and why is the school board and the Ministry of Education promoting the lie? Hmm, who does one believe? Assuming good faith is way over. User:NWA Rep was long informed of the truth with sources on his talk page, on the article, and here. Further reverting is continued clear deliberate vandalism and will be dealt with appropriately. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

<--(unindent) Content dispute != vandalism, and please do not ever say that again, Double Blue. In fact, I see very little discussion of this matter on the talk page of the article. Why is it happening here instead of there? Go back to the TALK page, outline the different references available, and as a group determine which of those sites provides the best information. If none of them appear to be reliable, perhaps the best solution is *not to include unverifiable information in the first place*. It is not the end of the world to have a blank in an infobox, and would be preferable to having incorrect or out-of-date information. Risker (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unverifiable information? What is? The user in question removed a source documenting that the person he was reinstating as principal had left. He has also removed the references provided to him on his talk page. There is no content dispute. The sources are crystal clear and I provided them above. How can you possibly not see that knowingly reverting verified sourced facts to verified falsehoods is vandalism. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, It seem clear that there are more that enough reliable sources that all verify Mr. George as the Principle of the school. Unless there are reliable sources that explicitly say otherwise, I think this discussion can end with that. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Irish Flags

I would like to know if this web site here is acceptable to be used as a reliable source on a contentious article? This is the web site page being cited here, and this is were it is being used as a reference in the article here reference no. 2. Thanks very much, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no indication that this is not a personal webpage... no "about us" or "who we are" page. Given this, it should not be considered a reliable source. This does not mean that the information is wrong... only that we need a different source for it. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats sound Blueboar thanks for that, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Languages by first written account(please help assist)

In the past five years there has been almost 15 magnificiant discoveries dugged up in south India. multiple iron age urn burials in 2005 to magnum opus script inscription lately - but none of this issues made to be published as a book or official jurnouls. All of this have dated Tamil language usage to latest 3rd century BC and earliest to be from 6th to 7 th century BC. Based on thier inscriptions. The only available resources on these are not from journals or books or thesis. but news of reportbased on carbon 14 reports on newspapers and official online such as BBC and so.

I would like to know if this web site - by historian, BBC documentary broadcaaster and prinston teacher; michael woods - is reliable

and this

and this

and this

and this to be used as references on the article about first written Tamil at --Master YODA (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

After viewing those sites, I would consider the BBC, the Times of India, the Centre of Excellence for Classical Tami, and Frontline to be mainstream publishers qulified as reliable sources. The Ultimate World Languages website might have good information, but it's a commercial site selling products, so I would exclude that one, unless there is more information available about how they generate their editorial content that conveys reliability. The BBC link, although the publisher and author are reliable, presents very limited information, so I don't see how that one could be of value to a full article; however, for including the topic in a list article where verification of the list criteria is the only use of the source, it could be OK. So, to summarize, it looks to me like all of those are reliable for this use, except the Ultimate World Languages website. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the editor who asked refers to editors here as "graded officials to agree and acknowledge these recources as more then reliable. " I agree that they look ok (depending on how they are used of course) except for the Ultimate World Languages site. dougweller (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki

There's an AFD on it, but if anyone wants to they can see if the sources establish notability and are reliable. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki (2nd nomination) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Esther Hicks

This New York Post article is used to support the statement "...Hicks claims she was "swindled" out of her fair share of the film's profits..." about the Hicks-Byrne controversy in the Esther Hicks biography. There is an ongoing discussion about this on: Talk:Esther Hicks#Hicks claims she did not receive her fair share of the film's profits. I would very much appreciate input on whether this is a reliable source in the present context. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The NYP is unquestionably a reliable source when reporting news, but I would not be comfortable relying on a writer's stray comment in the Entertainment section (where, after all, there is some vested interest in using sensational terms such "swindled") to source a core issue in a BLP. The comment is not a quote, nor is it attributed to anyone, making verification difficult. On balance, I would not use the NYP article as a primary reference for this information. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 15:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I invite anyone who has patience to go through these previous mentions of the New York Post on this noticeboard and see what lessons they can draw:

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Wikinews_redux
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9#Talking_Points_Memo_Election_Central
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#New_York_Post
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Are_mainstream_newspapers_reliable_sources_on_law.3F
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_Sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source

If you search for the word 'tabloid' in the archives you might find other relevant stuff. I find it curious that people are calling the NYP 'primary'. This it does *not* appear to be the case. There are previous discussions here at RS/N where some sources are recommended over others, but it's very context-dependent, and needs description of exactly what you are relying on the source *for.* The term 'swindled' should preferably have confirmation from at least one other source, in my opinion. If you are going to use such colorful language, then consider also including Hicks's own account of what happened in the film negotiations, though it would have to be found from a better source than that website. 'Swindled' seems to me like a strong word to use in the text of the article when there is no published hint of any litigation. Better use another word, unless you can find a second source that also states that Hicks was deceived by the makers of the movie, or at least *believes* that she was deceived. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the New York Post is a reliable source under the guideline's definition. I also agree that if a less contentous word that "swindled" can be used here in wikipedia it would problably be best. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above - "swindle" should be avoided since it's not a direct quote from Hicks. As I think I've mentioned elsewhere, the Post is fine as far as factchecking, but I would always be cautious about using any unattributed subjective descriptions that Post articles like to use, like "swindle", "pervy" and "menace". --Mosmof (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

National Post Rejected as Reliable Source

An editor has claimed that an article from the National Post is not a reliable source because the NP is a tabloid in the derogatory sense. To my eyes, the NP is a newspaper that occasionally takes strong, and sometimes controversial positions, but no more so than Fox News, or the NY Times. Any guidance would be appreciate.Mattnad (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This matter has been under discussion for all of TWO HOURS on Talk:JtP and you come here making inaccurate comments about the dispute? My point is that the "National Post" is currently not just in "compact format" but has been described in many places as "sensational" and publishing inaccurate stories (such as Iran requiring Jews to wear badges), that it does not have a high reputation for fact-checking (the first requirement for a "reliable source", and that it is not a reliable source for US news as it relies on US sources for its own stories. This is not "derogatory" it is a statement of fact. Thus, in legal terminology, it is far from "best evidence" and thus it is not a good replacement for the current New York Times article used as a source (the National Post is the "replacement" ref!) This is, in fact, part and parcel of the NYT discussion already given, with the side benefit of an inaccurate and biassed POV in presenting the issue. As for it taking controversial positions, that is irrelevant entirely. It is relevant that the NP has more than its fair share of libel actions, in a nation where libel actions are rare. Collect (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're really spoiling for a fight - you say "sensationalist" - OK fine, we'll use that word. I was trying make your point that your weren't referring to "tabloid" in the size sense. So, sometimes sensetional, doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. Fox News has sensational coverage too. As does the NY Times.

So let me quote for this boar your your single sentence on why you wanted the article excluded, "A Canadian tabloid is still a tabloid. Not RS. Collect (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)" Anyway, please let others weigh in. Mattnad (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We have two issues here: 1) Is the NP a reliable source under this guideline... the answer is "yes". 2) Is the NP the best source for the particular statement in a particular article... From what I gather of the facts, the answer is "no". We encourage our editors to use the most reliable sources possible. I would agree that the New York times is more reliable than the National Post. Thus, the Times should be used and not the Post. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I also offered Wash Post cites and more <g>. Collect (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect has been selective (no surprise) to make his point - there are other NY Time articles that mirror parts of the national post article. For instance, see this . Still, I see the point that if we had only one source to choose from, we'd err on the side of the NY Times. But what's important here is that it's a reliable source and we can let the editors decide which one makes sense in what part of the article. (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So you think referring to me by name affects the value of your post? <g> I have proffered now many other articles which are more RS than the NP. Accept one. They are from November, not October 16. And your "new" article does not call him "unlicensed plumber" as an occupation. Which means your "new cite" from 16 October does not support your claim, which is a very interesting way to choose a cite for sure! Collect (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to tell me that this is yet another argument about Joe the Plummer? For Christs sake folks, does it really matter whether the guy was or was not a licenced plummer? In the long run, I don't think it does. Think about what people reading the article five years from now will care about... what will matter is how "Joe the Plummer" became a concept, a symbol for "the average man". Not whether Joe the person was or was not an actual plummer. Sheesh. Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Willis

(Cross-posted to the BLP noticeboard.) Dan Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is an ongoing dispute over the consideration and classification of some sources. Specifically, there is disagreement over whether some sources are primary, self-published and/or independent of the subject. This has lead to further disagreement regarding whether or not notability has been established and BLP standards are being met. Outside opinions are needed to help resolve the dispute. Additional comments at Talk:Dan Willis#RfC: Notability would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Liner notes for albums and DVD compilations

Are these considered a reliable source regarding description of production issues, etc.? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If the record is not self-released by the artist, the liner notes are printed by a third-party publisher, so that seems clearly reliable as a secondary source. If it's self-released it could be considered self-published. That could interfere with reliability as a source, depending on the reputation of the artist/publisher. Even in that artist self-release situation, it could be used as a primary source, with attribution - though also with care and avoidance of any kind of extraordinary claims. That's my view; your milage may vary... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jack-A-Roe's common-sense answer. If an album or DVD is produced by a major, recognized label (such as Disney, Sony, etc.) and is used as a source for basic biographical information and the like, it would be a reliable source. On the other hand, promotional zeal used for extraordinary claims would hardly qualify, such as a CD cover proclaiming its performer, "The greatest singer in history!"  JGHowes  03:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Liner notes are a primary source. Theyre fine for facts about the album, but they don't establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

While you're correct that liner notes are not secondary for the purpose of establishing notability for Misplaced Pages articles, that was not the question in this section - the question is, are they a "reliable source regarding description of production issues, etc.?" For that use, as a reference, with the exception of self-published albums that would be primary sources, liner notes are a reliable secondary source.

For article-notability, the requirements are different - the reliable secondary source must be independent of the subject. Independence of the subject is not part of the definition of secondary sources in the no original research policy; that policy requires only that the secondary source be "at least one step removed". The notability guideline has a more strict requirement that " reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". But that's not a definition of primary and secondary sources for use with articles, it's for a different purpose - determining whether or not a topic should have an article in Misplaced Pages. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the standards are one and the same. The record company is not like an academic journal that vets the wording of what's in the liner notes; they would allow the band to write whatever they wanted. The liner notes are a primary source, and they are a reliable source for articles about the band, album, or songs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Credibility of reference source

Cristol, A. Jay (2002). The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship. Dulles, Virginia: Brassey's. ISBN 1-57488-414-X.

His website

Relevant AN/I thread here: here

USS Liberty Incident has been a long term problem article as it tends to attack Single Purpose Accounts with a POV agenda. Author A. Jay Cristol has written a book that purports to debunk many of the conspiracy theories. Editors on talk page have made a series of criticisms, though none back up by secondary sources, claiming the book is unreliable and the author has manipulated the evidence. Secondary sources I've found to date would indicate that, conspiracy theory websites aside, the book is well regarded as an authorative independent investigation. Most recently when I asked for secondary sources to back up what the editors claim I received this response:

I found them and I'm not even computor literate. You can find them much faster than I could. Go for it.

Requesting independent third party judgment on the credibility of this source as per WP:RS. Justin talk 14:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Brassey's is now Potomac which appears to specialize in books on defense and baseball (odd mix). It is a real publisher and not a vanity press or publisher with specific political points of view. I would consider it as valid as any books published by specialist publishers in the field. purporting to debunk the book is in the honored tradition of conspiracy photo analysis. From Amazon customer review "Cristol, in addition to being a Federal Bankruptcy Judge is a Navy Reserve Pilot and I think his flying experience helped him. He commenced writing about the Liberty to fulfill the requirements for a dissertation." which rather implies that the author is a Judge, served as a Naval piliot, and wrote a dissertation. Another "debunking" is at which, as near as I can tell, debunks nothing at all. I'd use the book Collect (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would note that one of the debunking pages you've referred to was written by one of the editors seeking to have Cristol removed as a credible source. Justin talk 15:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying an editor is using his own writings as a source? WP:RS etc. basically decry that. See WP:SPS Collect (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It was being used by other editors. The author is an editor who is also active on the page. It has been removed now, I think, from the article. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading request (this comment added by an involved editor) - nobody has set out to claim that Cristol's book is not an RS - the problem under discussion is the UNDUE we've giving it over better regarded sources/books.

Cristol's "The Liberty Incident" 2002 gets 1 cite (and his 1999 dissertation gets two) according to Google Scholar - by comparison, Ennes's 1979 "Assault on the Liberty" gets 5 citations. Other books with chapters on the incident are much, much better again - "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-secret National Security Agency" - J Bamford - 2001 - Doubleday - Cited by 47.

And yet, the treatment we give Cristol, both as to his person and his book, is far better than what we give Ennes and Bamford. There are lots of other serious problems at this article (eg treatment of possible motives for Israel attacking is extraordinarily POV) which I could go into, but this request is a complete mis-statement of them. There is, however, another source being used that is non-RS, at one point in the article, Cristol's views even get a second bite of the cherry by re-statement in an opinion piece from the ADL. PR 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, my summary and request is accurate: "Cristol is a target for criticism, from what i've seen so far, because he is an author who fits research around a preconcieved idea. It makes no difference if he is right or wrong, the fact he fabricates discredits any good work he does.", "The more I research Cristol the less reliable he appears.", the intention is clear to deny that it is a credible source and to use others the editors concerned consider more reliable. Editors concerned have edit-warred previously to include an edit that claims the attack was deliberate, using the Moorer report as a primary source.

Also I would dispute the use of Google Scholar, Cristol's Book published in 2002, is bound to be cited less than a book published in 1979. Now I asked for an independent 3rd party viewpoint, please allow that to happen without disprupting the process with reams of criticism. Justin talk 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with citing the book. As for how much weight to give it... that is something that goes beyond the scope of this noticeboard, and must be determined on the article's talk page by those who know more about the subject... ie the editors who regularly work on that particular article. Content disputes are never easy to resolve, but if you assume good faith and work to achieve a neutral POV you should be able to resolve it. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Another source

The USS Liberty: Dissenting History Vs. Official History By John E Borne Published by Reconsideration Press, 1996

The USS Liberty: Dissenting History Vs. Official History By John E. Borne Published by New York University, Graduate School of Arts and Science, 1993

Two different versions of the same source. I'm finding it difficult to find any information about Reconsideration Press. I'm presuming the second reference is the publication of a doctoral thesis. 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Harpur and Gerald Massey, Egyptology

Are those two reliable in matters of Egyptology? wp:rs says, "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." While Harpur was a New Testament professor, neither are/were trained Egyptologists, and I think the ideas of the self-taught Massey in particular is on the fringe as far as ancient Egyptian and comparative religion goes. As far as mainstream acceptance goes, Christian scholar W. Ward Gasque noted, "Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M. L. Bierbrier’s Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995), nor is any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt’s very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942)." http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html . Also Massey's work is long out of date; he missed all the breakthroughs in the field of the past century. As far as Harpur's fringe goes: 'First, he insists, there was "the greatest cover-up of all time" at the beginning of the fourth century; and thousands of Christian scholars are now participants in this on-going cover-up.' Ibid.

For more information here is Tom Harpurs biography, and Massey's booksMadridrealy (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say definitely not in most cases, there may be some exceptions when dealing with fringe claims, but not for general use as a RS in Eygptology. dougweller (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

indymedia

This must have come up before but I don't see it in the history - where do we stand on the use of indymedia as a reliable source? It seems to be used a lot in fringe political articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where they'd fall between a "citizen journalism" site and a highly political newspaper. Our article on Indymedia says that they do have editorial policies though they can vary from chapter to chapter. It's probably well-used in cases where they broke a story which the mainstream media then covered, or if they have a unique take on a story reported elsewhere in the news but without extraordinary claims. I'd cite them as "the leftist/anti-globalization Independent Media Center ran an article...", and I wouldn't use them for BLPs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

stankiewicze.com

There is a dispute if private genealogy website can be used as a source for articles on Polish-Ukrainian conflict during WWII. All request to provide evidence per WP:BURDEN about reliability of website have been ignored so far, in favour of blind revert warring , so third opinion of community is required. Wiki policy is quite clear Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Private, self-published genealogy website, publicising hoaxes (e.g. picture used to illustrate massacres of Poles is well known hoax, having nothing to do with WWII) clearly is not a quality source for sensitive topic like this one. M0RD00R (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDB.com for plot synopsis

As far as I can see, IMDB is editable by any user and does not cite the sources editors use when coming up with a plot synopsis. Where a work needs interpretation, does IMDB cut it as a reliable source of information? Alastairward (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe WP:SELFPUB answers your question. (That answer being, no, it is not) --Bobblehead 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is not self-published, and though editable by "any user", it does in fact (at least as of yesterday) require confirmations and sources for submitted informations, and it routinely rejects user submissions that are not themselves accomanied by sources... though IMDB does not share those sources as Wiki requires for its own articles. Different entities, different rules. Keep in mind though, that IMDB's usefulness as a source is in continued contention (see CIMDB and (recent discussions)... and you will find editors wishing it banned outright. That being said, and the arguments about its usefulness notwithstanding, it is still a terrific tool to guide you to other locations for finding the informations you wish. If you find a plot synopsis on IMDB, it is extremely likely that you will find a better and more complete one elsewhere, as that better one was likely used as a source for whatever is on IMDB. Schmidt, 00:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Alastairward (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS is perhaps more relevant than WP:SELFPUB to this discussion, and based upon its language, the information on IMDB is indeed self-published: IMDB is an open forum anyone may edit. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Is IMDb an unreliable source?

As follow-up from a recent consensus to remove external links from {{Infobox Film}}, a new section in the template's documentation was created to capture the rationale behind the consensus. This was done at least in part so that editors have something to point other editors to in order to reduce the odds of IMDb links inclusion/exclusion becoming another in a long line of perennial proposals. This seems particularly possible because IMDb has been in {{Infobox Film}} for four years, i.e. since the infobox was created. A well-written draft of the rationale was created, but it includes this statement:

Irrespective of the fact that IMDb is not deemed to be a reliable source for verifying content in Misplaced Pages articles,...

When I asked about it, a couple of editors agreed with this statement made by the editor who wrote it. I also found Misplaced Pages:Citing IMDb, a failed proposal from July 2007 and found some discussions about IMDb in some FA nominations. So I'm wondering if there a growing sense that IMDb isn't a reliable source? Thanks. 72.244.207.57 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer is - it's both reliable and not reliable as a source. To determine where the line is would take some research on how the site collects its information. Some of the content of the site is provided by users, but some is factual and under control of the site's editors. Considering the widespread use of the site as a source in general, for them to profit from their information, the factual elements need to be accurate. For example, the detail lists of casts and crew, etc, are likely dependable; the main synopsis might be reliable (though that's where more research would be needed into how they come up with those); and the secondary synopsis pages where they accept user edits would be non-reliable, as with any wiki-source.

Regarding the use of IMDb in the infobox, that's a different question than if it's a reliable-source reference. That's more like an external link at the bottom of an article; my view is that I would apply the principles of WP:EL to that kind of use, and in that sense IMDb seems OK to me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jack-A-Roe. The credits, especially for recent productions (last five years) usually come directly from the producers and correspond precisely to screen credits. The cross-referencing makes it very difficult to insert bogus material, which is anyway perused by their sysops before publication. Their core business is a subscription database for professional film/tv industry use. The associated talk sections though should be treated as a blog. --ROGER DAVIES  06:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if either of you want to get involved in the discussion I started over at WP:CIMDB on this point, please feel free. I've given up on it as it's degenerated into an "it's all reliable" or "none of it's reliable" shouting match. You may have better luck than me in prompting those editors with IMDb experience to be more forthcoming on where the boundary between reliably-sourced and user-generated content actually lies. GDallimore (Talk) 19:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have IMDb experience, as a longtime user and data contributor. Here are some comments about the less and more reliable sections:

1. The message boards are just message boards which are inherently not reliable.
2. The user comments for each title are also pure user-generated content, and they are not reliable either.
3. Some other sections have been added in the relatively recent past which are wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ at ), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control).
4. Newsgroup reviews are archived Usenet postings. I would not consider them reliable unless they were written by an established critic.

In the following sections, there is some editorial control exercised by IMDb. That is, a user cannot just submit something and see it go live on the site. They have to wait for the staff to review the submission.

1. The recommendations are based largely on an algorithm; they are not generated from user contributions but there is no reason we would want to refer to them in Misplaced Pages.
2. The trivia and goofs sections are based on user submissions; while they are subject to editorial control (and are reviewed by IMDb staff before appearing on the site), there is enough skepticism about them that Misplaced Pages should avoid using them.
3. Most other sections are based on submissions either by users or by official sources and are reviewed by staff before appearing on site, and can be considered generally reliable. This would include such sections as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.
4. The external reviews are links to other sources, some of which are clearly reliable sources such as mainstream newspapers and magazines or industry publications such as Variety. Other external reviews may or may not be reliable. For all of these, though, IMDb just furnishes a link and the actual source to be used is the original review at the site where it is hosted.
5. The writing credits, if marked with "WGA", are very reliable, as they are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable). Similarly, the MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America, and are also very reliable (as to the MPAA's own evaluation of the film; I am not saying the MPAA is the final word on how "adult" a film's content is).

I hope this helps. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's something else that may or may not help: Roger Ebert's opinion about IMDb, taken from this October 2008 blog entry:

I often consult IMDb, and considering that it indexes virtually every film, it is correct as astonishing amount of the time. IMDb cannot maintain a staff large enough to compile the cast, credits, technical specs, etc., of those countless films. It is usually a film's publicist, distributor or even director or producer who supplies them. When an error appears, there is a mechanism for IMDb users to correct it. These corrections are vetted by IMDb. It is usually safe to trust.

Thanks. 72.244.200.30 (talk) (same as 72.244.207.57) 07:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (i.e. the one who instigated this discussion)

• OK, the only thing that would be important here, is IMDb a WP:RS for Misplaced Pages purposes? Nothing else matters really. The way I see it there are no restrictions pr WP:RS using IMDb as a tertiary source for reference in Misplaced Pages. That would include anything that's relevant, pointed out by Metropolitan90: the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards etc. Anything that has to do with user comments or any kind of goofs would not be relevant for WP purposes anyway since this is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish any kind of WP:TRIVIA. Now, since this question about IMDb gets raised all the time, and valid references to solid facts get added and then again removed because someone claims IMDb not to be a "reliable source". Therefore I'd encourage everybody to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb so that a some kind consensus for WP:Citing IMDb could be reached. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Media: Is it really a Reliable Source?

The Alternative media claims that the mainstream media is in error, even slanted towards some agenda. Misplaced Pages claims that Alternative media is unreliable. I'm here for clarification only. Powerzilla (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some examples:

• The Fox News Channel says the New York Times is biased.
• World Net Daily claims the mainstream media is biased.

These are some examples. Powerzilla (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not say that the Alterative media is unreliable. Misplaced Pages does not equate Bias with Unreliability... thus, a reliable source can be biased (and conversely a biased source can be reliable). The important thing is that we should not be biased in our articles (see WP:NPOV). We need to make sure that all significant viewpoints are represented. When sources disagree or show their own bias we need to report both viewpoints, and make it clear who says what... hence we say something like: According to a report by Fox News "The election of Obama is a disaster for America" <cite to Fox> however, according the a report by the New York Times, "the election of Obama is the best thing since sliced bread". <cite to NYT>. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would be careful about assigning wholesale bias to organizations - for example, NY Times publishes both hard news as well as commentary, ranging in subject from politics to science to food to fashion to pop culture. Its stable of op-ed columnists include progressives like Krugman and Herbert, and conservatives like Brooks and (the very movement-y) Kristol. Like Blueboar says, bias doesn't necessarily make one unreliable, and opinion is fine as long as it's attributed rather than stated as fact. But opinion should be attributed to the writer rather than the organization. Mosmof (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:UNDUE with regard to the weighting given to various souces in an article. Ty 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof... I from what I know of the issue, I think this goes beyond the separation of opinion and news. The accusations that are flying around in both liberal and conservative circles is that these various media outlets allow their political bias to affect both what they report and how they report it. In other words, the news reporting is biased, and not just the editorial and Op-ed pages. The right accuses the NYT of liberal bias in its news reporting, while the left accuses Fox News of conservative bias in its news reporting. Being familiar with both Fox and the NYT, I would say both accusations are fairly accurate... but they are irrelevant as far as WP:RS is concerned. Both the New York Times and Fox News are considered reliable sources. Where they disagree, we need to note that they disagree, and not choose between them or try to determine which is "correct". Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of a source in question

First, let me just say that the artists listed on List of best-selling music artists need to be supported by very reliable sources which in their turn must contain sales-figures within. This source which is for Backstreet Boys was recently added to the page to support 200 million records sold by the band. Even though, the source may seem reliable, the sales figure of that kind for Backstreet Boys is clearly overinflated. Therefore, I first wanted to ask for the opinion of people here who might be familiar with PGCitizen.ca, because I don't want to start a controversy over tossing it out. Also, let me point out that most sales-figures for Backstreet Boys published by reliable sources do not exceed the 100 million boarder including these two sources ], , just before this one in question came into the picture. I'd appreciate if someone could comment on this. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Prince George Citizen in a long standing published newspaper it's more reliable than most web links. — Realist 02:32, 21 November 2008

(UTC)

The source was added by you whereon three people including myself have already disagreed , , , therefore you should let others state their opinion on this. The fact that Prince George Citizen has been around as long as you may suggest doesn't mean they don't have a long history of gathering negative reviews. --Harout72 (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is not a vote, not about numbers, it's the strength of the argument, the newspaper I used is more reliable than most websites. — Realist 12:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Prince George Citizen would ordinarily be considered a reliable source, but in this case there are other reliable sources that disagree with it, some of which are more prominent news services. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Photobucket as a reference when photobucket is not really the reference

Editor Hbent has been removing "photobucket references" from articles. This is what I stated on Hbent's talk page:

"Would you mind explaining why you made this edit? What policy on Misplaced Pages says that we cannot use photobucket as references? If Misplaced Pages does say that, then I am sure that the policy is in regards to photographs at photobucket due to the fact that photographs can be doctored.

My point is that photobucket is not the reference for those references you removed from the Todd Manning article. Those references are from valid soap opera magazines; the "photobucket references" are showing scanned articles from those magazines in which validate the article's text being stated. If you were going to remove all those references, the least you could have done is format the references so that they do not need urls.

I see that you have removed "photobucket references" from other articles as well. You should first discuss stuff like this over with other editors of the articles you are removing these from. There is no telling how many valid references you have removed from articles because of this.

I have reverted your edit to the Todd Manning article."

Of course...I would like clarification on this matter from editors here at the Noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hbent stated this answer on my talk page: "The photobucket links in question were links to copyvio content. If you want to cite an article in Soap Opera Digest, cite the magazine article itself, not an image in violation of copyright. I have fixed the citations, removing only the photobucket URLs."

I understand Hbent's point about copyvio. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience so far, at least 75% of the links to photobucket I have seen (whether inside references or not) were copyright violations. I have been removing photobucket links in general; they are almost always used inappropriately. There were some pages, like the one Flyer22 mentions, where I removed references that could have been reformatted or refactored instead. If the refs are salvageable then I have no problem fixing them in the future instead of just deleting them, and I apologize for not having done so previously. Unfortunately, I came across many refs where there was no real source info other than the photobucket picture. In that case, I am loathe to spend my time fixing refs that shouldn't have been added in the first place. hbent (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, if this is really viewed as a copyright problem by Misplaced Pages, then I will start removing other "photobucket references" I have included in other articles. Heck, I will likely do that anyway, so that I do not come across this problem with other editors. Flyer22 (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's really a legal problem if we link to copyvio content hosted on other sites. However, it doesn't seem needed in this case anyway. Citing the magazine as a source without a url is perfectly valid and copyvios on other sites are liable to be taken down at some point. DOUBLEBLUE (talk)

I added them in url format because I was like, "I have visual proof of these articles, so why not? Isn't visual proof better than simply words?" Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I understood and it makes perfect sense to increase verifiability but it is, of course, unnecessary and if a copyvio then, it appears, actually not "a good thing". Cheers! DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

DoubleBlue, I respectfully point you to WP:COPYLINK, which states that, "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." And while it would be nice if photobucket patrolled their site for copyright violations, I've seen no evidence of that in practice. hbent (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder, though, how this is any different than linking to a copyrighted interview at an actor or actress' website where the interview features that actor or actress, such as this. I mean, Misplaced Pages allows us to link like that all time as a reference because it is the actor or actress' official site. I mean, is it because, unlike liking to a scanned magazine article through photobucket, the articles at these actor and actress' sites are usually not the scanned images of the articles? Even if that is the case, I must point out that they sometimes are.

How is linking to photobucket any different than uploading copyrighted images? Is it because those copyrighted images must provide a fair-use rationale saying that they are copyrighted and a license also saying that they are copyrighted? Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the issue is that if you link to a news article, say, at a corporation's "in the news" page, its reasonable to assume that they got permission to reprint the interview. On the other hand, if it's a popular song on some anonymous enthusiast's web server, its reasonable to assume that's a pirated copy. I'm not sure I understand the second question though. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There is some confusion here about the difference between copyrighted content and content that is a copyright violation. Linking to copyrighted content is fine, and so is using copyrighted content as a source. We wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia at all if you couldn't do those things. The problem here is linking to content that is in violation of copyright, specifically images that are being used by someone other than the copyright holder without the consent of that copyright holder. Magazine scans on photobucket are a perfect example of such a violation. Magazine scans elsewhere are trickier, but I would think that it can be presumed that scans (or interviews, or what have you) on an official site have probably been cleared.

Copyrighted content hosted on Misplaced Pages is only okay within limited circumstances, and those circumstances are policed here. I very much doubt that you could get away with uploading a scan of a copyrighted magazine article here because it would not qualify as fair use. I can't imagine that having the scan on photobucket would be any more legal than it would be here.

I asked on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions for someone with copyright expertise to weigh in here, and hopefully that will happen. hbent (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And just to clarify: if you use a copyvio magazine article somewhere as source and then cite it as just the article, without the image link, I don't see how we could prevent that. hbent (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

the usual solution is to give the reference to the source used without it being an actual link. The court decision cited there refers to links, not references. DGG (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw your question on the copyright desk while I was there asking a question myself. No expert on the legalities, but Misplaced Pages policy is perfectly clear if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work (WP:LINKVIO) SpinningSpark 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not truly confusion on my part, guys. I just wanted clarification. Thanks for that. I mean, Squidfryerchef, of course I know that if you link to a news article at a corporation's "in the news" page, its reasonable to assume that they got permission to reprint the interview. And that if it's a popular song on some anonymous enthusiast's web server, its reasonable to assume that's a pirated copy. I was just wondering about reprinted interviews at an actor or actress' official site. hbent, I know that linking to copyrighted content is fine, and so is using copyrighted content as a source, and that we would not have much of an encyclopedia at all if we could not do those things. But your statement "The problem here is linking to content that is in violation of copyright, specifically images that are being used by someone other than the copyright holder without the consent of that copyright holder" is what I was going for when asking how is that different from uploading a copyrighted image...such as a screenshot where we do not have permission from the copyright holder or holders. I was wondering if the difference for that is because by linking to the images instead of uplodaing them here at Misplaced Pages, we are not providing fair-use rationales and licensing stating that the images are copyrighted.

But, again, thank you guys for your time. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, WP:LINKVIO gives the reasons for the policy: it shows Misplaced Pages in a bad light. There are also legal problems in the US with doing this (very possibly other countries as well) but the main reason is we do not want to be seen to be flouting the IPR of others. SpinningSpark 19:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to use your own judgement on whether an actor's site is more like a corporation's "in the news" page or more like an enthusiast's page. I'd assume an actor's official site would have an agent take care of copyright clearance, but I'm not too familiar with the show business. The second question you ask is a question about "fair use", and that is a very complex topic in copyright law. Basicially it allows you to make copies, usually small parts of a work, under very limited circumstances, and there has to be a justification, such as for academic criticism. Every time you quote a passage from a copyrighted book, that's using fair use. For instance WP allows a screenshot of a movie in an article discussing the movie. But you cannot upload the whole book or the whole movie, nor would you link to such. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

//texts.00.gs/

User:0XQ is adding this website to various articles (and has it on his user page, another issue perhaps). It's his own personal website with various texts on it. Before I remove it everywhere, I want to check to see that people agree that we can't use this as a RS (how do I know they are correct, for a start). Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree... delete it as spam Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

//www.cyberpunkreview.com/

I've seen this site used in various places, ut it is beginning to be used extensively to cite a list of cyberpunk works. Is it s reliable source? Or just an extensive blog? I question it because the writers seem very uninformed, and claim almost anything with a computer in as cyberpunk. Would prefer to find out before it is used 100s of times, thanks!Yobmod (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the site, I would not consider it a reliable source. It appears to be a blog, and the owner has done a lot of work on it - but it doesn't even have a link about the person who maintains it. It also has a user-forum with many people commenting, and a wiki. None of those are usable as references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Andersen Maps

I would like to ask for clarification of the third party opinion regarding this past request. It seems that a third-party opinion clearly concluded that, I quote: "if the maps come from a blog, and they deal with contested borders, then they are not reliable". Yet now, on the same page, User:Meowy is pushing the same map from a controversial blogger-claiming-to-be-scholar Andrew Andersen and essentially ignoring the third party opinion in his comments. There are dozen other pages, to which these maps made it, and I think they need to be removed from all of them. None of these maps are based on any credible research and only result in edit warring over contested border issues. Thank you in advance. Atabəy (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Either keep them all or remove them all. You can't cherry pick since you and grandmaster have only attacked the author of the maps but never the actual content.-- Ευπάτωρ 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a case where WP:NOR#Original images is apt. Most maps from reliable sources (such as from a respected historical atlas) will not be in the public domain. Thus, if we are to include a map at all, we must either accept a map that may come from a less than reliable source and seems to reflect only one POV (ie Andersen's map), or our editors must self-create a map that is more neutral (perhaps using some sort of cross-hatching to show areas that are in dispute). I think the latter may be the best way to go, since it avoids the entire issue of whether Andersen is reliable or not. Another option is to include two (or more?) maps, side by side, so that the reader can see the differences between all of the various POVs. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no "differences" - the map is not POV and does not deal with contested borders. In Azerbaijan, possession of the map would probably get you a prison sentence - but Misplaced Pages is not Azerbaijan. However, producing a self-created map would be better because the current map deals with regions that are not relevant to the article (and some of those off-topic regions are not accurately depicted on the map anyway). Here is what I wrote about the accuracy of the map in the article's talk page: Out of interest I compared the Andersen map with the nearest equivalent maps in "Armenia, an Historical Atlas", especially the one on p143 titled "Armenia under Turcoman Domination, 1378-1502". The various "Georgian" kingdoms are roughly in the same position, which is good given that indicating their positions is the main purpose of the Andersen map. A specific border for Kachen/Karabakh is not shown on that map, but is shown on the map on p135 titled "Armenia under the Ilkhanid Domination 1256-1335". Its position is similar to that on the Andersen map - and given that we have a source saying that the Khachen principalities/melikdoms still existed during the Karakoyunlu time there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Andersen map on that point. There are mistakes in the Andersen map though - Bayburt is shown as part of the empire of Trebizond, when by this time it would not have been (if it ever was). Worse still, it shows territory marked "Ottoman Empire" directly to the south of Bayburt, which is a nonsense. The Ottomans captured Trebizond in 1461, then the inland castles of the former empire a decade or so later, and only after that did they begin to extend their rule deeper inland. When the Trebizond Empire was extant the region of Erzincan was not part of the Ottoman empire, it was ruled by independent emirs, and then by the Ak Koyunlu. In other words, the Andersen map seems to be accurate for its titled purpose (showing the Kingdom of Georgia in the 15th century), and for its use here (indicating the position of Khachen), but it is not accurate for the territory at the western end of the map. Meowy 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks Blueboar for recognising the WP:NOR#Original images issue. I had tried to point that out in the earlier discussion, forgive me for quoteing myself again: It should be remembered that what you are wanting removed are images, not sources. The standards for images on Misplaced Pages are different than for sources. For example, you cannot remove an image of the Parthenon simply because the photograph wasn't taken by a known archaeologist or doesn't show the Parthenon under the best lighting. You have to point out some flaw in the actual image, (like proving it does not actually show the Parthenon but is some other monument), or indicate a flaw in its usage (like finding it being used within a page about Gothic architecture), or get it removed by uploading an even better image of the Parthenon to replace it. You have done none of these things for the Andersen maps. Meowy 03:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that, WP:NOR#Original images points out that the image (in this case a map) should simply illustrate what is stated in the main text of the article (which should be based on reliable sources), and not contain OR in itself... The issue of maps on wikipedia is currently being discussed at WT:NOR... I have raised the issue of editor-created maps there... it seems to be a complicated issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar, the image reinserted by Meowy, edit warring in violation of his parole at Nagorno-Karabakh, is not neutral, because it asserts POV about the existence of some independent fiefdom inside a larger empire, which is false. This POV is not claimed by anyone but Armenian sources, hence is not neutral as it's simply not agreed by the opposite side and no 3rd party sources are offered. Moreover, the images were not made by Meowy but were taken from a blog of Andrew Andersen, who was fired from his job at University of Victoria for racism. These maps are used in several Misplaced Pages pages only by contributors whose POV they fit. Hence, I think it would be better to remove them and come up with consensus neutral version of maps discussed by several parties and relied upon neutral sources in text. There is a multitude of respected scholars on the subjects of medieval history of the region, and Andrew Andersen is not one of them. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK... I think this comes down to a simple question... is the theory that this independant fiefdom was independant discussed in the article? If this theory is discussed, then a map that depicts where this fiefdom was is appropriate (perhaps with a caveat in the caption along the lines of: "Map depicting X as an independent fiefdom, as theorized by Y"). If the theory is not discussed, then the map is not appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is discussed, but the thing is that those principalities were never independent. They were subordinate to the rulers of neighboring city of Ganja, and later to the khans of Karabakh. The map depicts them as independent states. That's why it would be good if the map came from a real historian, and not someone's personal website. At least we could have ascribed the opinion to some notable scholar, which Andersen is not. Grandmaster (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume that since the issue is discussed, then at least one reliable source disagrees with you, and says that the principalities were independent. If so, then including a map (reguardless of who drew it) to illustrate what that source says is not OR. There may be other issues still to be addressed (WP:NPOV#Undue weight comes to mind)... but it isn't OR. I would also add that any such map would need to be captioned correctly... to make it clear that it is simply illustrating one view point amoung many. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no credible sources which agree with Grandmaster's and Atabek's assertions. Actual sources agree with what the Andersen map shows. I had already quoted one source in the talk page discussion. It is from p143-144 of "Armenia: A Historical Atlas", by Robert H. Hewsen, University Of Chicago Press, 2000. "It was Jahan-Shah who, apprised of the existence of the Armenian princelings of the Siunid house in Karabagh dispossesed by Timur, restored them to their possessions and granted them the title malik, Arabic for king". The same source goes on to say that Jahan-Shah did this to protect his northeastern frontier by bordering it with a territory whose rulers he expected would be loyal to him as well as offer resistance to any invaders. In other words, the reality was exactly as depicted in the Andersen map - the territory was separate from and was independent from Karakoyunlu territory. Meowy 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've never actually edited the article's content, so I did not add the information from that quote into the article. Nor has anyone else, it seems. Once the article is unprotected I will add it in, making the inclusion of the Andersen map even more appropriate. Meowy 21:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But that source does not say that the principalities were independent. There are plenty of sources that confirm the principalities were subordinate to the Ganja khanate, and later Karabakh khanate. Here's for example The History of Karabakh by Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. The online text is in Russian, but there's also English edition by the Armenian scholar George Bournutian. Grandmaster (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote says "restored them to their possessions", indicating a difference between the possessions belonging to the Karakoyunlu and the territory possessed by the Karabagh princes. The fact that in theory they were subordinate to the Karayokunlu is unimportant in relation to the issue here: the map says "principalities of Karabakh" and the map is in the article to indicate the location of those principalities. Meowy 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

These melikdoms were in some periods autonomous, otherwise sovereign, though loyal to the Turkomans (15th century, this period is shown in the map) or the Persians, a fact which latter was recognized by the Russians:

the Russian Empire recognized the sovereign status of the meliks in their domains by a charter of the Emperor Paul dated 2 June 1799.

Robert H. Hewsen, Russian-Armenian relations, 1700-1828. Society of Armenian Studies, N4, Cambridege, Massachusetts, 1984, p 37.

Even when the Persian Empire conquered them and subordinated to the Karabakh Khanate (although this period has no connection with the map in question), these melikdoms could keep their self-government:

The new khanate consisted of the eastern plains between the juncture of the Arak's and Kur (lowland Qarabagh) and the mountainous western half (Highland Qarabagh, ...) inhabited predominantly by Armenians living in five autonomous principalities governed by their own hereditary princes, known as meliks

Robert H. Hewsen, Armenia: A Historical Atlas. The University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 155.

At the same way we should not use a similar map for other historical states, which were dominated by an other state. Btw. Caucasian Albania, which was formally ruled by Persian Marzbans. So far, the removal of the map in question is required only by Azeri users, without any serious argument. IMHO they simply do that to suppress the historical fact, the Nagorno-Karabakh has been inhabited and ruled by Armenians for ages. --Vacio (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your second quote also says that meliks were subordinate to the khans of Karabakh. So why accusing Azerbaijani users? It is a fact that those principalities were not independent states. And again, the rules require using reliable sources, and Andersen is not such. This was also noted by a wiki admin sometime ago: Why can't we get a map by some reliable published third party source to use in the article? Grandmaster (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Karabakh Khanate was established only in 1752. The map of Andersen shows the region in 1450-1515. May be you should look at the map before refusing it?

But you did not reacted on my note: The Albanian state was formally subordinated to a Persian governor, nevertheless there are many maps showing it a distinct state.

It is your POV that they were not independent. You don't even have a source to support this POV. While I have many to support that they were.

The melikdoms of Karabagh have become a legend among the Armenian people as the first rallying centre of modern Armenian nationalism, but their existence was threatened by the jealousies of neighboring Mohammedan rulers and by the suspicions of later Shahs. The melikdoms enjoyed their greatest independence in the 1720's under the Siwnid General David Beg (1674-1728), but after his death they were overrun by the Turks.

Robert H. Hewsen, Russian-Armenian relations, 1700-1828. Society of Armenian Studies, N4, Cambridege, Massachusetts, 1984, p 37.

Also, you refer to a post mikkalai (talk · contribs) (admin?? no I think) who proposed the removal of all maps of Andersen. That means: no one should remove the map of Andersen from the article Nagorno-Karabakh untill there is made such a dicision and all his map are removed from wiki-articles (fr example: ). Since I don't think we are going to use double standards in Misplaced Pages. After all, so far you don't have any serious objection against the map of Andersen in question. --Vacio (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all maps shall be removed and replaced with NPOV based on scholarly sources. There are actually plenty of maps inside publications, not sure why can't we use those or recreate maps based on them, instead of using maps made by blogger accused of racism. Atabəy (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all those maps should go, if there are doubts of their accuracy. After all, I'm not the only one questioning the accuracy of this source, so do even wiki admins. As for Albania, it was an independent state, with its own kings, which is irrelevant to this discussion. And I presented my sources, not agreeing with this map. See Mirza Jamal:

Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку.

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja.

Grandmaster (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Atabəy, in order to reach such a decision you must come with some real arguments, not accusations. I only ask you to remove the map of Andersen used in the Nagorno-Karabakh article as the last, as long as you don't have any abjection against itself.

Grandmaster, once more: this map is not showing Safavid Iran. And you still did not react on my question in reference to Caucasian Albania. --Vacio (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster is making claims which he knows aren't true, see above at Vacio's reply. I wonder how long Grandmaster can still refuse to read what others write when others repeat all over again and he closes his ears.

The map represents 1450-1515, the quote he presents speaks of late Safavid, the reign of was from 1501/1502 to 1722. The second half of their reign was in the 17th century. See how Grandmaster made Beylerbey clickable to it's main page on Misplaced Pages and has not done so for Safavid. Given that he was corrected previously of the difference of date I hope Grandmaster has just forgotten to do likewise for Safavid which article clearly indicates the date.

It is not the first time Grandmaster has provided sources representing different periods to remove history which is recognized and not denied outside Azerbaijan.

As for Atabek, his continuous attacks on the author of the map rather than addressing what is inaccurate on the map must stop. More particularly is the subject at hand; Atabek was and is currently banned from its main article. Dozens of sources including the authors Grandmaster uses refers to the principalities of Artsakh (Khachen) indicated as Karabakh on the map. Those sources were provided in the two articles from which Atabek was banned from. This is another attempt to game his topic ban and Wokipedia-wide attempt to remove any mention of Armenian past history in NK and the lands of present-day Azerbaijan. - Fedayee (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all just a pointless repeat of the original discussionrequest (and that in turn was a pointless repeat of the article's talk page discussion.) Again Grandmaster / Atabəy don't come up with credible reasons to reject the map, don't address the points made by other editors, and go widely off-topic in an attempt to disguise their weak positions. And again we have disinterest from third-parties. Meowy 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you guys read the source before saying something bad about other editors and failing to assume good faith time after time? The source says that the Armenian principalities in Karabakh never were independent, they were always subordinate to Muslim rulers, initially to the Khans of Ganja, and later, after Ganja khans remained royal to Safavids and did not support Nadir shah, he subordinated their lands to other rulers. For instance, meliks were subordinated to the governor of Iranian Azerbaijan, and that arrangement lasted until Karabakh khanate was created:

Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку. Хотя и до правления покойного Надир шаха среди илатов Джеваншира, Отузики, Баргушата и пр. имелись мелкие ханы, но и все они были подвластны елизаветпольскому беглярбеку. Даже и после того как Надир шах завоевал Тифлисский, Ганджинский, Эриванский, Нахичеванский и Карабагский вилайеты, у жителей и войск Рума, Карабагский вилайет в течение короткого времени оставался под властью елизаветтпосльского беглярбека, а иногда подчинялся азербайджанскому сардару. Среди илатов и в магалах также были ханы и мелики, которые исполняли государственную службу по поручению азербайджанского сардара. Такое положение существовало до 1160 мусульманского года, соотвествующего 1743 христианскому году, когда был убит Надир шах.

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. Even after Nadir shah conquered Tiflis, Ganja, Erivan and Karabakh provinces from the people and army of Rome (Turkey), Karabagh province for a short time remained under the authority of Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey, and sometimes was subordinate to the sardar (governor) of Azerbaijan. There were also khans and meliks among the ilats and in mahals, who performed state duties by the orders of the sardar of Azerbaijan. Such situation existed until 1743, when Nadir shah was killed.

Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. The History of Karabakh.

I have more sources on this, but this discussion is pointless. The main issue is that the map should be made on the basis of a reliable scholarly source, and not be taken from some amateur website. This is what I propose to do, let's find a map from a professional source, who's qualification cannot be questioned. Grandmaster (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you repeating a quote that has already been dismissed as off-topic? It deals with a different period than that shown in the map. The main issue is how accurate the map is. The map is accurate for its purpose - illustrating the location of the Karabakh principalities. True, Shusha did not exist at the period the map ilustrates, but I assume it is there as a sort of place-marker in order to visually link that map with other later maps illustrating the same region (and I don't think there would be any copyright implications if Shusha were to be removed). Meowy 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I scorn mudslinging, but Andersen apparently holds only a Ph.D. in Political Science, that is he isn't a historian or something. The fact he graduated from Moscow State University becoming a political scientist may support the fact he conducts a partisan researches. Consequently, no article in Wiki on him. Among all, if there is any reliable scholar who affirms Andersen's position, I may think of it at least. --Brand спойт 10:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should also scorn talking about things it seems you haven't properly read up on. Did you read the discussion so far? The map is an image, not a source. It is in the article to illustrate textual content within the article. I will repeat in it shout-out-loud capital letters IT IS AN IMAGE! What exactly do you, and Grandmaster, and Atabəy claim is wrong with this specific image? In what way is it inaccurate? Meowy 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate because related reference (16) to "The Principalities of Karabakh (orange), were the last relics of Armenian statehood in the region" belongs to Andersen himself. It's a circulus vitiosus. --Brand спойт 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just a badly written caption. It belongs to the editor who originally wrote it. And it can (and should) be rewritten once the page is unprotected. Again I ask, what is wrong with the actual map? In what way is it inaccurate? Meowy 16:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote says nothing such, it speaks of Nadir's reign and afterwards. And the only thing prior is the following: Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. It relates to the Khans, not the meliks. Clearly it’s two different periods and as Meowy said, the map isn’t making any claims besides showing where the principalities were. Subordinate or not, Karabakh principalities existed making this entire discussion totally worthless. - Fedayee (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that this discussion be continued on the article talk page? It seems clear that if the map in question is simply being used to illustrate information stated (and sourced) in the article text, and is not being used as a source for that information, then there is no WP:RS violation involved. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we do that, it would be good to have some other neutral editors say that it is not a RS issue, just to finally settle it. Meowy 00:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Rash deletions of my sincere additions

Hi, 'Kuru' has rashly deleted the 'academic research' references I am adding without actually reading them, and is not willing to undo his deletions even after I explained (kindly see his discussion page topic titled 'thanks', which I have copy pasted below). I am an academic researcher in US university and my intentions are good. I also know that Kuru's intentions are good, but I am not a 'vandal' against whom he thinks he is fighting. I would greatly appreciate it if you can please help him understand. Thanks. --Ytrab (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

________________________________________________

:(copy paste start)

:Yes, kuru. I have been reviewing the research literature. These are high quality references that I am adding from books and journals. I will add references from various authors in due course. Thanks for your kind support. --Ytrab (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

::A good idea would be to either add material to support with your citation, or at least find something that actually needs the citation. You appear to be adding citations to a single author very quickly across multiple articles to some very fundamental sentences - this comes across as a probable conflict of interest. The citations in most of our business and economic articles quite frankly sucks, and we could certainly use the help. Let me know if I can clarify this any better. Kuru 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:Kuru, I am sorry but your rash actions dissappoint me. I understand your concerns, but you should give time to users. It takes a lot of time to find good legitimate sources and add them. By deleting my edits almost immediately without consultation you are simply discouraging efforts by users like me to improve the references. I have been a university researcher in these topics for many many years, and I know what I am doing (with due respect to your concerns). Otherwise, people like me will have to give up, because frankly I don't have time to debate my intentions and your rash deletions. I can make some time to improve Misplaced Pages, but it would be impossible if people like you delete additions almost as soon as I add them. You have dissappointed me. Can you please undo your deletions so that I can continue my sincere efforts? Or would like me to just leave, and you can play god? I will gladly leave if you want me to.--Ytrab (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

::As explained above, I'm afraid I can see little to no correlation between your citations and the text you've added them to. Perhaps you could explain your additions and why you've chosen to add the same ones over many articles? If you don't have time explain your position, that's certainly understandable - we all have precious little time to participate in a volunteer efforts - but I'm afraid that unless you're willing to explain or change your approach, I cannot help you. Kuru 03:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:Dear Kuru, The answer to your question is rather simple. The citations are relevant to the topic, and the wiki-articles to which I added citations were on similar topics -- hence the same citations. I have personally read these citations (as in the journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers) many times during my research. So I am surprised that you "see little to no correlation between your citations and the text". I encourage you to actually read the articles that I am citing (as in, actually read the journal articles and book chapters for which links are available), and I am sure your doubts will be cleared. Kindly read them before arriving at rash conclusions. It would be very unfair on your part if you make uninformed deletions without actually reading the citations. Also, there is no question of any conflict of interest because these journal/book/conference articles etc. are 'academic research', and is therefore for public good (which you will realize after actually reading them). Kuru, I know that your intentions are good, and so I hope that you will understand. --Ytrab (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:(copy paste end) ________________________________________________

I agree with Kuru - all I see here is someone spamming their own work. remove on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

While I wouldn't put it quite as harshly, I also agree with Kuru. The relation between article and added source is at times dubious, and the singularity of purpose is an indication of a conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

While there is nothing wrong with having an "Additional sources" section, to point the reader to sources that were not used as citations in the article, it is bad form for someone to list their own work in such a section (as that is a conflict of interest). If someone else were to list it, that might be diffent. However, if the work is only tangentially related to the article topic (as seems to be the case here), others can remove it. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I am leaving Misplaced Pages. Probably all of you have encountered so many vandals/bad people on Misplaced Pages, that you look at any new contributor with pessimism. "is this person a vandal? is this person upto something fishy? does this person have a COI?". I am none of these. I genuinely wanted to improve some of these poorly referenced Wikis with genuine research literature from multiple authors in the field (one author at a time). This obviously would take time and which I thought would be an ongoing process. Unfortunately, many of you doubted my intentions and rashly deleted all the work I was putting in (I do admire your ability to delete new stuff within a matter of seconds, even before the contributor completes what he/she set out to do). My sincere apologies if I hurt anyone, because I know all your intentions were good (though misdirected). Take care, and I am leaving Misplaced Pages for ever. No more posts from my side. My best wishes to all of you. --Ytrab (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

.

Casino Gambling Web as a news source?

I was wondering about the reliability of http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/ as a news source, specifically this article. On the one hand, it reads like a press release, and the website has a "submit news" function, which seems to be its main source for news items. On the other hand, the article says it's "Posted By Susan Torres, Staff Editor, CasinoGamblingWeb.com", which indicates some sort of editorial oversight. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the "submit news" link and the front page, it looks like a mix of press releases, news, editorials and advertorials. I don't think it's unreliable per se as a source for facts, but it also seems like the type of place you can find an article that says "Men who play cards at casinos live longer, study shows". "Editor" might not mean much - it might just be a staff member responsible for posting the news releases it receives. As far as the specific article/press release goes, it's pretty clear about who commissioned the research and its methodology but I'd treat it as a primary source. --Mosmof (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this page, the website is a paid publicity service that distributes any information supplied by any company willing to pay their fees. That's not a reliable source, it's not even a primary source, because it's not any different than an advertisement. The only way it could be used is as a courtesy link, to support a statement that a company published some particular words in an advertising/publicity release. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Media

It has been disputed by User:jehochman that Times of India, NDTV, Indian Express are reliable sources of news. I need a neutral opinion. He has also said that to write about an US citizen one must use a US source of news. Is that a policy? Do we need to use only Indian media for information on Dr. Manmohan Singh (The current Prime Minister of India)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M an as at yahoo.com (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.

The Times of India and NDTV etc. are clearly reliable sources (mainstream media) by our rules. In fact, using non American sources is encouraged as it helps combat systimatic bias (ie that the English Misplaced Pages overly pushes the US/UK view of things). If there is a concern that they are spinning the news or something, then attribute the source (as in: According to Times of India...) so people know who is saying what. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar. I am not very experienced with Misplaced Pages. So I shall rewrite the article with the proper references. If the problem persists who should I contact? M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the right place for now. What article are you editing? I might be able to pop over and comment. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind... I figured out which article, and it seems to be under control on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: I was editing Sonal Shah. I appreciate your help very much. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M an as at yahoo.com (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.

• Sonal Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Before making any judgment, User:Blueboar, please review the history of the article and notice the tendentious editing by multiple single purpose accounts. When dealing with a biography of a living person, we have high standards of reliability. Sonal Shah has been appointed to an administration position by Barak Obama. This article is already covered by the Barak Obama article probation, due to excessive problems in the area from right-wing advocates, especially. Administration appointments have received exceptional scrutiny by US media. Sonal Shah has been subject to a smear campaign by political activists. The fact that they have managed to plant a story in an Indian paper about a "controversy" does not make this controversy notable. It is very well likely a violation of WP:UNDUE to report on this matter in Misplaced Pages, given that US media has apparently ignored it. I'd like additional opinions from editors who have familiarized themselves with the facts of the matter. Reliability is not absolute. TOI may be reliable for news about India, but I am not sure it is sufficiently reliable regarding a biography of a US citizen, in this particular instance. Reliability depends on the situation; it is not an absolute. Jehochman 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to put aside the history of editing and look at the sources and how they can best be represented. A good suggestion was made earlier today for a brief neutral wording about the stories that have appeared in the India media and the vigorous rebuttal them. Whatever we think of these stories, they have been read by many thousands of people and are therefore notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the sources are considered reliable. I tend to agree with Itsmejudith here. It seems as if, true or false, the accusations about Shah are fairly big news in India. We need to be able to discuss this. The key is to do so neutrally... we should also discuss the vigorous rebuttals. I actually agree with comments of several people at the article talk page, who state that it might be best to hold off on discussing the issue for a week or so... until we know whether this will be a "flash in the pan" story or a something significantly more notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK on the basis that we should not fall into "recentism". On the other hand the TOI and Indian Express stories are likely to come up high in Google for some time to come. There is no principle that says the stories have to run in the US media. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference library category

In order to help facilitate easier location of potential sources of offline information to help verify the notability of article subjects and contents, I have created Category:WikiProject reference libraries and placed into it all of the reference library pages of which I am aware. Please add more project reference libraries to this category if you know of more. Additionally, feel free to create new reference library pages for any particular project as well. They can be very useful. ···日本穣 20:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! I just added that to WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions.Carol Moore 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gothamist sites

Are Gothamist sites (gothamist.com, shanghaiist.com, chicagoist.com, etc.) valid sources? One of them popped up in a DYK nomination, and I wanted to check. I would be inclined to accept such sources, since the writers are actually employees of the site (as opposed to being random people from anywhere), but I seem to recall hearing objections about shanghaiist in the past. so I wanted to check here. —Politizer /_contribs 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this quite recently. It seems to me that they count as local newspapers, fine for establishing notability of films, shows and exhibitions. I would be a bit wary about using them for any political controversies. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Frenchculture.org

I am reviewing the article The Elegance of the Hedgehog for GA status, and while most of the sources look reliable, I am unfamiliar with Frenchculture.org. The article in question is this one. Is this source reliable? Any help appreciated, the skomorokh 14:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's reliable. It is being used to support a statement of opinion (ie a statement as to what the website says about the book), for which it is definitely reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Southparkstudios.com video tags

Southparkstudios.com FAQs seem to be a pretty good source for Southpark plot synopses, the FAQs being answered by the writers or directly on their behalf. Some episodes have been cited with tags from the video clips, from which I've found this; "The FAQs and the tags don't have much to do with each other". So are they a guide for searches or an actual citeable source? Alastairward (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally a fan forum would not be considered reliable. How are we sure that the answers are indeed from somone official such as the writers themselves? Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the site itself is the property of the show's creators and not an affiliate. The writers themselves do seem to have some input into parts of it (if we can believe the typed word), but the tags for video clips do not seem to be one of those parts, if I understand what was said in that link. Alastairward (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be fair, shall we? The complete quote is The FAQs and the tags don't have much to do with each other. A search for Butters in the video clips will give you all the clips they have here with Butters in it. Further more, the quote preceding it is Only the admins and the people who work in the Studios can tag videos here. How's that unreliable? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The full quote just confirms that the tags seem to be there to aid searches, not as a form of FAQ. 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

ccinsider blog

ccinsider.com, a blog affiliated with the Comedy Central website. Looking at the list of contributors and the suggestion that people send them tips (a link just below the link tot the list of contributors, I was wondering how reliable a source this should be considered for in depth discussion of plot synopses of Comedy Central shows. Alastairward (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is reliable. 01:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't sign your post. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds fine as a primary source to me. It's published by Comedy Central and they have a regular staff, just like some newspapers have columnist blogs that are still part of the newspaper. Also the suggestion that readers send in tips doesn't impact RS; many of the best newspapers accept tips from the public. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about for speculating on cultural references and the like? Alastairward (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Speculating" is done only on your part here. What you think is OR and therefore, unsuitable for WP discussions, let alone editing. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What I think is OR? What else would a person's thoughts be?! But philosophy to one side, what makes your edits not speculation? And what makes this team suitable to define the writers' intents? Alastairward (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bay Area Music (BAM)

I have an editor reverting edits/removing citations for BAM because they have never heard of it and because it is/was "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source". For those who may not know BAM was a California based music magazine for over two decades that was published in both a Northern and Southern California edition and also sponsored the yearly BAMMIES. It was as "local" as the NY Times is to New York City or to the LA Times is to Los Angeles. It was mainly about music but not specific to one style of form or even subject. "Frank Zappa - Interview from Hell" was only one cover story in it's history. At one point BAM merged with Seattle's Rocket ("West Coast music magazines BAM and Seattle Rocket combine forces; now third-largest U.S. popular- music publication") and the BAMMIES were always a notable event in the Bay Area ("Show Shouldn't Go On", "Bammies go one step further -- bronze plaques in the sidewalk", "Journey Induction into the BAMMIES Walk of Fame", "The Bay Area Music Awards", "ARTHUR M. SOHCOT Award", "Chris Isaak, Primus top Bammie ballot ;17th show honors Bay Area musicians on March 5" and "Nostalgia plays well at California Music Awards. Young bands win, but veterans steal show"). The overall issue here is when editors have never heard of something they sometimes remove a citation or information associated with it. A person outside of the industry may not have never heard of R&R, Pollstar, Entertainment Design or even Billboard because they are all, very clearly, "niche" publications yet they are all very good sources. Guitar For the Practicing Musician, Modern Drummer, Bass Player and Guitar Player Magazine may not be read by non musicians, however if someone started removing facts or information where any of these were cited as sources because they were "niche" publications it would be somewhat ludicrous. I don't live in Chicago but that does not mean I would discount an article on a Chicago musician who was featured in the Chicago Times, thusly included citations for that publications, because it was a "local" publication. For information about musicians that were playing in, lived in, and considered part of, the California scene a source such as BAM would a goldmine of information on certain "local" artists. Van Halen, Journey, Guns and Roses, RATT, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Quiet Riot, Carlos Santana, Frank Zappa, The Eagles and so many others were all covered at various times. So the question is, really, should a magazine that mainly covered the California music scene be considered a "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source"? Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Niche" does not equate to "unreliable". From what you have said here this source should be reliable for facts about rock musicians and bands but probably not beyond that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If info can't be verified it can't stay on Misplaced Pages - wp:v is one of the 3 most important policies on Misplaced Pages. With one wiki editor saying one thing, and an emailer saying another - we need sources editors and readers can verify and agree are reliable. This is the basics for tertiary sources like encyclopedias, especially ones written with wiki software.

The New York Times is a newspaper of record, and it and the Los Angeles Times are major international newspapers, with world wide archives that allows Misplaced Pages readers to verify info sourced to it. BAM's none of these things.

I've removed the BLP info sourced to BAM because the Wikimedia Foundation received a complaint about the incorrect info sourced from it: VRTS ticket # 2008111210030712. If the info sourced to it is encyclopedically notable, better sources that are known for fact checking will exist to reference it. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-24t14:06z

Stricter rules apply in the case of WP:BLP, but from the history talk page of the article I think is under discussion, it seems to be only the date and title of an album release that is at issue. Could this be found in material issued by the band or their recording company? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OTRS tickets are for copyrighted information, such as a photographer allowing use of an image. Wikiepedia articles are not "owned" in the same sense although if there were a copyvio it could be certainly be removed. However I have no clue why this OTRS ticket relates to BAM as a source. And Itsmejudith has mentioned an album and release date - which is not anything to do with the information the editor keeps removing. I think there is some confusion going on. My reason for asking about BAM is that Jeandré keeps removing the name of a musician who played with a band, as well an another comment about the same musician, and another former member, going on to play in another band. It is a fact and not anything slandering or controversial. It was asked a citation be provided and one was. However as the source is BAM Jeandré feels it can not be verified as he has no knowledge of what it was it is niot a fact. Jeandré keeps mentioning this OTRS (Could someone post the entire OTRS here so everyone could read it and if it relates?) and that WP:BLP needs to be enforced. A musician who was part of, or played with, a band is nothing compared to some of the other information that is not being removed from this same article. For example there was a comment that one member was fired because of drug addictions. I actually sourced it to a specific article where another member of this band said alcohol was the reason so I cited the source and made sure it was attributed to that specific person. BAM was not that source so, seemingly, the statement was left. This discussion is not about WP:BLP however, and it is highly doubtful BAM would have lasted for as long as it did, or been part of the music industry, had it been nothing but slander and misinformation.

There are thousands of sources not "online", but that does not mean they do not exist of can not be verified. I am sure if Jeandré is in California s/he can locate a source. Perhaps UCLA archives would have them or some place else. There may be some sort of online archive that is searchable. I did find Bam Forever however it is under construction. The issue is not if a source is found "online" or not, nor is it, as Jeandré first argued, because a publication is "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source". To answer Itsmejudith's question about albums. An albums existence could be verified by any number of sources such as an official website, an official press release, publications such as Pro Sound, R&R, Billboard or the album itself. But, again, I have no idea, really I don't, what that all has to do with BAM or the OTRS. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood, it is not about an album release but about band membership. I can't see why this would be controversial, and I would think it is still within the areas of expertise in which BAM would be reliable. Of course if another source contradicted it then that would be a different question. Perhaps one of the other respondents to this board will have a different view, or you can take it to the BLP noticeboard for further advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• As a local music magazine, BAM would not necessarily be considered as reliable as a mainstream newspaper or a national music magazine, but it was published for 23 years which suggests stability, and it is collected at a few libraries. Apparently the claim under dispute is that a certain person was formerly a member of a certain band, which is something I would expect a music magazine to be reliable about. If I understand the situation, there is nothing obviously controversial about this claim. So I don't know what the OTRS ticket would be about -- did the person contact the Wikimedia Foundation to deny that she was ever a member of the band? And, if so, is it necessary to keep the OTRS ticket a secret? Couldn't whoever handled the OTRS ticket put a notice on the talk page saying that the person has contacted the Foundation to deny ever having been a member of the band? I don't see potential harm in the situation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

wp:blp "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and to all of our content policies, especially Verifiability We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used"

wp:v#Questionable sources "Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature"

I can't republish the OTRS emails because of Wikimedia's privacy policies, I can however say that the emails are about Cara Crash (living person) being a member of a band (living persons)/or not. The only source is a local music magazine which isn't archived like newspapers of record are, and is therefor not verifiable by Misplaced Pages's readers. This source was challenged in an email to the foundation. I don't think local music magazines are good sources, so what I'm asking for is a reliable verifiable source for the info I removed (which was called vandalism). If BAM is the only source for this fact, is it even of encyclopedic notability? -- Jeandré, 2008-11-25t11:56z

Lets see, several issues at played here. First - so you are saying anyone can email the foundation and say somehting like "they were in a band" or "they were not in a band" and than that information becomes "secret" as well as a valid source? That is a new one. To this comment: "I don't think local music magazines are good sources" I say "People with limited knowledge of a subject should not be involved in editing an article" Well, in either case I provided several other links that connect the musicians and at lest one of them is direct from another former members website.(The same member who's personal statement was deleted for being original research by Jeandré. And it is still doubtful someone would seriously complain about band membership but not complain about a statement that a member was fired for drug use. Also stop taking wp:blp out of context. it was intended to prevent un-sourced, un-cited, comments such as "They were fired because of drug abuse" from appearing, not "After they left the band they were in another band" with several cited sources backing it up. Your edits were removed as vandalism because you keep removing cited sources and you are being asked not to. This is the first mention of the OTRS being directly related to the article, however, as I pointed out, if all someone has to do is send in an email making a statement they did, of didn't do something, and then you accept that as "fact" and refuse to actually provide "proof" it opens up a whole new way to have article edited. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is sort of an aside, but as this "secret" OTRS email about band members that also seems to imply that BAM is considered a poor source, I would ask that Jeandré revel if this secret person explained this: "We want to be on the cover of BAM now!", BAM, #409, June 4, 1993. 4 Non Blondes Cover Story. Seems funny that, as the magazine in not reliable and simply a "local niche", why a band would "want to be on the cover" of such a magazine. (Of course one would have to wonder why well known artists such as Tom Petty, Sinead O'Connor, Pat Benatar or Crosby, Stills and Nash would even agree to be interviewed for a cover story either. I know if I were a musician of that stature I would never ever want to be associated with such a "local music magazine" that is a "questionable source") Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we assumed that BAM was an unreliable source, we might explain the cover by suggesting that BAM bought a picture of 4 Non Blondes from another source and made up a fake quote about them wanting to be on the cover of the magazine. In actuality, I don't assume that BAM is unreliable or that they made up a fake quote from the band. However, BAM's coverage of 4 Non Blondes is the issue being disputed here, so we can't use BAM's quotations from the band to prove that the coverage is accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok - back up. Now what are you talking about? Is there now another article being discussed? There are are no quotes from BAM in the 4NB article. This has zero to do with any sort of debatable issue and, unless the OTRS is made available here, than it is up to all of you to proove that that the images are faked, the album/single I have in front of me is fake, the reviews of it are fake, that former 4NB guitarist Shaunna Hall is lying and that any other possible future source about Cara Crash and Wanda Day being in Malibu Barbi are not true. Until than this is asinine and a bogus discussion based on some unseen email from some unknown source.

Can we try to keep this on topic. BAM - reliable source or not? Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is kept by several libraries, so verifiability does not seem to be an issue. --NE2 07:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get any more from this noticeboard than what I and others have said: a magazine like BAM should normally be reliable for simple facts like who was or was not in a band. The usual caveats apply: not all verifiable facts are notable; usually reliable sources can make errors; sources may disagree. Usually who was in a band at any one time is not particularly controversial. Members of bands generally like to be credited for their contributions. Here there appears to be some sensitivity that we have not been made party to. This is not the place to unravel it. The BLP noticeboard might be appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• "are saying anyone can email the foundation and than that information becomes a valid source?"
  • No, the info in the email's not verifiable. It is however a challenge and wp:v says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged" - which leads to the questioning of BAM as a reliable source, and as Metropolitan90 points out, you can't use BAM as a reliable source for showing that BAM is a reliable source.
• "I provided several other links that connect the musicians and at lest one of them is direct from another former members website."
  • : see Self-published sources. : this doesn't look like a reliable source at all, and doesn't even mention Crash which it's sourcing. looks like personal site that "dig up and review old, obscure Metal vinyls of all styles from the 80's and early 90's." also looks like a personal site, not an wp:rs.
• "It is kept by several libraries, so verifiability does not seem to be an issue."
  • NE2's link leads to which shows that 12 libraries have some copies of the magazine. While I don't think that qualifies it as a reliable source for an encyclopedia, the argument can be made (by e.g. Soundvisions1 and Itsmejudith) that it's not just some zine of "rumors and personal opinions, promotional in nature", and, as a music magazine, is a good source for saying a living person was a member of a band. What I'm asking for is another source showing that Crash was a member of 4NB: a source reasonable people can agree is reliable and which is known for checking its facts, and therefore shows encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-26t12:37z

← To Jeandré Invoking Monty Python skits may be cute at first but this is getting ridiculous. With the Shaunna Hall link(s) (And even her own edits to the article) now you are saying that band members are not reliable sources for fact verification, so it makes me question this secret OTRS even more as it couldn't be from a band member. (Note that Self published sources can be, and are - all the time, used to verify certain facts, they should not be used to establish notability. However in this case that link is not "self" published by the subjects of the fact being verified as is not Wanda Day or Kara/Cara Crash saying "I was in Malibu Barbi", nor is it the source being used to establish notability of either musician so they can have their own stand alone article) Next you say, of an image gallery: "...this doesn't look like a reliable source at all, and doesn't even mention Crash which it's sourcing". Please note the following text that sets up the images: "When Rude Girl broke up, Sandy joined up with Heidi, Joann, and Kara from Missconception. They formed Malibu Barbi. While Leather was on the 12" recording, Melanie sang live and most other recordings. Later Lupe joined up with Kara and Joann, Industrial Rainforest. Pretty much, everyone local knew everyone" Kara = Cara. Clearly, because you feel BAM was a "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source", you also feel that because this photographer was a local San Francisco photographer these photos are not reliable sources. But I say it is now up to you to prove that these images are fake, along with any other sources you toss out as not being reliable. You appear to rely on "I have never heard it" put under the guise of a policy/guideline that you feel implies that if an editor has never heard of something than it could not be used as a source. This is an open challenge for Jeandré to now prove that this band did not exist and that the members who were in it over a several year period were never really in the band. I have done more than enough to verify the band existed and that both Kara/Cara Crash and Wanda Day were in the band. If you feel it is some hoax that prove it. Or just be 100% honest here and say "I have no clue about BAM, the music industry, the California music scene or the musicians that were part of it, are part of it or may be part it in the future" and we can move on. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• "With the Shaunna Hall link(s) (And even her own edits to the article) now you are saying that band members are not reliable sources for fact verification"
  • The page at Shaunna's site does not say that Cara was a member of 4NB, it says she was a member of Alcohol of Fame and Malibu Barbi. The article at doesn't mention Cara. If there was an article written by Shaunna published in the LA Times saying Cara was a member of the band; or if something like the All Music Guide's page said it, those would be reliable sources.
• "Kara = Cara"
  • If the image gallery on the cosplay site can't get the name correct, and doesn't even mention her surname, its not a reliable source. It also doesn't say that "Kara" was a member of 4NB.
• "But I say it is now up to you to prove that these images are fake, along with any other sources you toss out as not being reliable"
  • wp:v says that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Several editors have now said that BAM should be good enough, so what I'm asking for now is another source stating Cara was a member of 4NB - a source reasonable people can agree is reliable and which is known for checking its facts, and therefore shows that this information is of encyclopedic notability and is good enough when discussing living persons. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-27t12:37z

Stop with the Monty Python skit Jeandré, I get it and it is not funny anymore. So really only four main things to say:

1. The "Dog Ass" article does not say Cara was a member of 4 Non Blondes, correct. It was not used to cite that fact, it was used to cite she was in Malibu Barbi - another of the facts you keep removing from the article because it was in BAM.
2. The "Life and Times of Wanda Day" citation you bring up does not mention Cara, correct. But it was not used to cite Cara or her involvement with 4 Non Blondes in this specific case, it was used to cite Wanda being in Malibu Barbi. The direct sentence says "After leaving the Blondes in 1991 Wanda continued drumming with Malibu Barbi, and then Bad Dog Play Dead." As above, this fact was removed by you more than once because it was in BAM.
3. Kirk Douglass, as an example. His real name is Issur Danielovitch but if someone from Amsterdam, NY posted personal images of him before he took a stage name you would say that "If the image gallery can't get the name correct, and doesn't even mention his surname, its not a reliable source." Perhaps it is not known, by you anyway, that performers often create stage names. Johnny, Marky, Dee Dee and Joey did not (do not) really all have "Ramone" as their last name. "Danny Dangerous" and "Sammy Serious" are not really the names of the bass player and singer of The Zeros. The fact that a guitarist named Kara Cross became known as "Cara Crash" is not all that shocking. And, as with the other "I have come for an argument" arguments, you conveniently overlooked looked where the citation was used, and for what reason, just so you could come here and argue some more. It was used to cite that Cara was in Malibu Barbi.
4. Citations were provided for the comments you removed about Cara and Wanda being in Malibu Barbi as well as Caras involvement (However briefly) in 4 Non Blondes. May I remind you, and point out everyone reading this, that you also removed Shaunna Halls edit that confirmed Cara had involvement in 4NB. Now it is not up to me, it is up to you to do as I have asked because it is only your opinion that BAM is unreliable and so is it to your opinion that Shaunna Hall, because she was in 4NB, is also not reliable.

I maintain that the perfect source for much information about a turbulent time that most outsiders would never be privy to would be from the people who were there. And, again, this is not about some extremely controversial issue. Would I be arguing if you removed the statement that Wanda Day had been fired because of drug addition and there was an OTRS on it? No. You admitted you could care less about the article itself, or what it says overall, only that BAM was not a reliable source and there was an OTRS ticket on the magazine. The rest has been made far more clear in this discussion and it really does not appear to be solely about BAM as a source at all. Your opinion on this matter is clear, no need to add anything further to this discussion unless it supports your views that BAM in not reliable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into the topic-specific details of this long discussion, I can offer my outside view that BAM magazine is a generally reliable source for music-related information that it published during its 23-year existence. As was mentioned above in this section, the magazine had national notability and was widely respected. Unless there is conflicting information in other sources, I'd have no hesitation to use it as a source. If it published information that is disputed by other reliable sources, then both sources can be used, but with attribution for clarity. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian magazines and ezines

Please could you give me your opinions on whether (and which of) the following magazines and ezines could be considered reliable (and non-trivial), especially in regards to their analysis and criticism of lesbian culture:

• Diva Magazine (UK)
• Sapphic Central (UK)
• G3 Magazine (UK)
• Gaydarnation (UK)
• Velvet Magazine (UK)
• crAve Magazine (UK)
• L Mag (Germany)
• eurOut (Europe)
• Gingerbeer (UK)
• Go Magazine (US)
• Curve Magazine (US)

kiden (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It very much depends on what it is you're using the information for. There is not a large body of criticism on lesbian literature, culture, and history. Much of it comes from a small publishing base that produces these magazines. Some publications in the 1960s and 1970s (The Ladder (magazine), The Furies Collective, Sinister Wisdom) look very do-it-yourself and put together with tape and staples, but since mainstream news and literary criticism did not address lesbian issues, this is pretty much all that is available to gauge what lesbians were doing. I have used Curve and Velvet. The others I have never seen before. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just added URLs to the list to help assess kiden (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

toxicsinpackaging.org

Used in Packaging and labeling as discussed in Talk:Packaging_and_labeling#toxicsinpackaging.org_as_a_source. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Packaging and labeling article discusses environmental aspects of packaging. One of these is the need to keep toxic materials out of the package so, when it is recycled, burned, or landfilled, there will not be contamination. This subject has a citation which links it to the toxicsinpackaging.org website. Toxics in Packaging is a coalition of several US state governments for coordination of the issue and for its communication. It includes links to many state regulations. This is a reliable and unbiased source on toxics in packaging as it is the state governments providing the information. This is neither a controversial subject (it was 20 years ago) nor a controversial website. One WK editor, however, is challenging the suitability of this site for a refernece. See the packaging talk page for the discussion. Please review this and offer assistance. Thank you. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly an official source, a coalition as you say of several states of the USA. No problem whatsoever with its reliability on the environmental aspects of packaging. Obviously you should make sure you reflect its content correctly. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

IRS Documents/Phone Calls

I am attempting to show that an organization is not tax-exempt according to the United States Internal Revenue Service. The organization doesn't appear in Publication 78( a list of "all" tax-exampt organizaton), but may meet the guidelines for not having to be published in Publication 78. They do appear in the IRS Business Master File, which also has a list of tax-exempt organization. However, if you call the IRS Charities dept on the phone, give them the name or EIN of the organization, they will tell you that the organization has been tax-exempt since 2003. That is, however, the only information the I.R.S. can give over the phone because of "the status of the organization". I'd like to say something about the organization's tax-exempt status since I feel the organizations Wiki page misrepresents its tax-exempt status.

In other words, is saying "You can make a phone call to the IRS" a reliable source? Any suggestions?

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like original research. Can you provide more information, such as a link to the article or current discussions about this? --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No. You need a source that's published somewhere. Conducting your own telephone interviews is definitely original research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

acsa.net?

This one web page is acting as source for a large percentage of Inter-Services Intelligence, an article about the ISI. I think the whole thing looks sketchy, but that may just be me. I'm open to comments. CSHunt68 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fairly dodgy to me - a former indian minster talking about a nation they have much strife with ? hardly a NPOV source and the hosting site looks fairly dodge. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The same paper can also be found on the website of South Asia Analysis Group, which is a legitimate Indian think-tank on security and international affairs issues, and hence a reliable (though not neutral!) source for wikipedia. Hence the article can be used to provide a perspective on ISI, as long as the views are properly attributed to the author/SAAG and not simply stated as facts. 66.253.202.164 (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nightingale Research Foundation

Resolved

reopened

In view of this revert by User:RetroS1mone, I'd like to hear opinions on the reliablity of this institute's website as a source for listing Florence Nightingale as someone to be believed to have suffered from ME/CFS, since this ME/CFS research institute was in fact named after her. Of course, there are plenty of other sources that say the same thing (e.g. ), but this one seems the most appropriate. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with historical figures we have to be very careful about retrospective diagnoses. Advocacy groups have a vested interest in declaring that famous people of the past had the condition they are promoting awareness of, because it gives them publicity and a kind of heroic pedigree of high achievers to be proud of. ME/CFS is particularly prone to heavily ideological and intransigent advocacy. It is clear that this insititute promotes a specific contested pov (that ME is a clearly medically defined condition) and so has a vested interest in using historical figures to assert the factual reality of the condition. As a specialist in Victorian culture I'd be very very wary of such diagnoses given the significant cultural differences and expectations regarding middle class femininity at the time and a host of other factors (conditions undiagnosable and unknown at the time; paucity of reliable information; medical expectations of the time regarding behaviour). I certainly would not expect Nightingale to be placed in an article which baldly asserts that she is a "notable person with chronic fatigue syndrome". Paul B (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The article correctly only claims that people are 'believed to be', which seems accurate in this case. The institute, as well as other researchers and historians, and most patient organizations, truly believe that she suffered from ME (and hence also CFS as it was longer than 6 months). Whether she really did, we cannot know. Maybe it was lupus. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Geocities and a website that advocates for a more or less unsubstantiated definition of chronic fatigue syndrome are not reliable sources. If published in a real reliable source, OK. The others are self-published and too fringy to be acceptable (the former quite clearly, the latter in my opinion but one I think quite understandable). WLU (t) (c) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source in this case would be a specialist on Nightingale. The "Einstein was dyslexic" meme is a comparable case. Repeatedly debunked by Einstein's biographers it nevertheless still appears unrelentingly in dyslexia-awareness literature, posters, and so on - because the idea that the most famous scientific genius of the modern era had the condition is clearly good for the self-esteem of dyslexics. The phrase "are believed to be" still implies a consensus of experts, and there appears to be no such consensus. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The situation is not comparable, since there is nobody debunking this. Also, like I said twice and to which you have not responded, the article does not claim that she is, but that she is believed to be, which is very obviously true. We could specify this as "believed to be by...", perhaps, but should that not go for the whole list, then? Why would this be a special case? For goodness sake, her birthday is ME awareness day, declared so by a govermental body. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not actually read what I wrote. I did respond to that point. I will repeat it 'The phrase "are believed to be" still implies a consensus of experts, and there appears to be no such consensus'. If some people who are not experts on Nightingale, but have a clear motive for diagnosing her, say that she had the condition then their view is not sufficient. If the phrase "are believed to be" is taken to mean that someone somewhere believes it, it is very problematic. If it does not imply consensus then it is weasel wording, because it allows anyone who is believed by someone to have the condition to be included. I've no idea what should go for the whole list, since we are being asked about Florence Nightingale, not about the whole list.

There may or may not be anyone "debuking" the theory with regard to Nightingale, but her 2008 biographer Mark Bostridge identifies her condition as Brucellosis, a disease that was first identified during the Crimean war in which Nightingale worked as a nurse. Paul B (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed something. I don't see why a governmental body would have a suspicious motive though in this matter. Brucella infections are found in a subset of ME patients, so there is no contradiction. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "governmental body" you are referring to. One soluton would be simply to add the disclaimer to the list that Nightingale has been claimed by some to have had the condition. Brucella may well be identified in a subset of patients, but since I am no medical expert I can't comment on the relevance of that fact. That's one reason why we have the OR and SYN rules, so that we do not "spin" the statements of sources to suit our preferred arguments. Paul B (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Provincial Government of British Columbia, in 1995, by resolution #941109. Adding a disclaimer sounds like a good idea though. I imagine for the whole list, since the CFS article says that there is still no generally accepted way to diagnose the condition. (Btw spinning goes both ways, eg implying that brucella looks like debunking would also be OR, so a disclaimer should be carefully worded.) Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless the provincial Government of Canada has passed a resolution stating as a fact that Florence Nightingale had ME/CFS, I'm not sure what the relevance of "resolution #941109" is to this debate. Even in the unlikely instance that it did, governments to not decide facts of history. Paul B (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see (I could not find a confirmation in a reliable source so far), the PGBC has recognized May 12 as ME day. This date had been proposed (probably not by the Government but by people petitioning for it) because it was the birth day of Nightingale. It is doubtful whether the government did any investigation at all to find if Nightingale actually suffered from ME, and more probably that they accepted the proposal as is without much scrutiny. But I'll gladly accept any evidence to the contrary... Fram (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thank you. It seems that we still need a reliable source (Nightingale expert or non-involved medical professional) who has even suggested this as a possibility. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly they checked the biographic material and found that her symptoms matched. That is by itself not conclusive (ME/CFS has no symptoms that no other disease has, and many diseases mimic it), and no expert really can do anything beyond that so long after her death. One can, and does, believe, however. I would suggest that she is mentionable on the page because of the awareness day, but that it should be made crystal clear that there is no positive diagnosis. How does that sound? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Post-Mortem: Solving History's Great Medical Mysteries by Philip A. Mackowiak, M.D." has a chapter on the cause of death of Nightingale. The conclusion (from my reading of the limited preview, I have not read the full book) seems to be that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, a bipolar personality, brucellosis, and finally Alzheimer. Fram (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No less than four disorders, without a thread of evidence, while the same symptoms can also be explained by one. The lengths people go to... Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on these sources there's not enough of sufficient reliability to support putting in the contention that Nightingale had CFS. Being sarcastic will not change this. WLU (t) (c) 12:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to put in such a contention, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you have apparently read the book, to make such definitive statements? At least the brucellosis is also given by her bioghrapher (mentioned above). The brucellosis and the bipolar disorder are discussed here.

Anyway, another biography, which also suggest brucellosis as the probable cause of her illness, gives you the perfect source to include the speculation that it was ME/CFS.page 35. The same book also indicates that she suffered some form of dementia, so at leastfor three of the four disorders in the previous source, there are independent sources as well. Fram (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Nightingale complained of spinal pain, insomnia, anorexia, nervousness and depression. Her symptoms often have been attributed to chronic brucellosis. "She may very well have contracted the infection in the Crimean War," Wisner said. "But that illness alone does not account for her severe mood swings, or the fact that she could be so incredibly productive and so sick at the same time.

Mood swings are part of ME, which is a postviral disorder (in the 1930s it was even suggested that brucella caused the condition, but now it is seen as a secondary infection), and so is symptom variability, as are insomnia, significant change in body weight, anxiety and secondary depression. Spinal pain is a symptom of fibromyalgia (which is why they also 'claim' her), a common comorbidity to ME. But speculation is all it is, so I'll use that term. Thanks for your input! Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are not suggesting such a contention be added, and your concern is addressed, I suggest you place the {{resolved}} tag at the top of the section so it can be closed off. If this discussion is an effort to attribute reliability to the Nightingale Research Foundation, we've been through this before and the answer was a negative. Irrespetive, the NRF has been judged insufficient, as is the geocities page.

Based on the links provided by Fram to Nightingale/McDonald, it is now possible to have a discussion on the "notable sufferers" page about Nightingale, but it ultimately depends on a book cited by McDonald, since McDonald herself doesn't discuss at length. That book would be Norman Keen's Florence Nightingale. The discussion is now, is this book sufficient to include FN on the notable sufferers page; as it was published in 1982, is only 38 pages long, and doesn't seem to be cited by much else, that would argue against it in my opinion. Take this new source to the notable sufferers page and make your case there; if there is a discussion about the reliability of Keen's book, start a new section below. WLU (t) (c) 14:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, these are all good points. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I mis-read which footnote to check in McDonald/Nightingale. McDonald doesn't cite Keen, she cites the NRF, which isn't reliable. For clarity, this comment was moved to after GDB's response and addition of the resolved tag WLU (t) (c) 17:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There go the good points. I suggest that instead this seems to be evidence to support the notability of the NRF. But that is not relevant here, relevant re the NRF here is only that it exists. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the "good points" were all completely wrong (albeit a good faith mistake) it seems odd that you should phrase it this way. At best we have speculation from a body with a vested interest, one that has been noted by McDonald. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing notability of NRF, it was deleted in an AFD. We've discussed if it's website is sufficiently reliable to add FN to the list of notable people w/CFS. I would say the answer is no. McDonald's statement isn't an endorsement, it's barely speculation, and I don't think it establishes anything as the NRF is self-published. WLU (t) (c) 18:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

@Paul: I was reaching out, but as usual it went unappreciated. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an institute can be published, let alone self-published. An insitute's publications are, of course, usually self-published; what of it, and how does this in any way diminish the verifiability of its existence and of what it believes? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The institute publishes the webpage, which is what you believe can be used to cite the idea that FN had CFS. WP:SPS means it can't be used to cite controversial information, and WP:UNDUE means it can't be used to cite the claim since it's neither reliable, nor does it represent a substantial minority within the academic community. Essentially, the opinion of the NRF is of such little notability and impact, that we shouldn't be citing it at all (which is why it can't be used to justify the idea that Florence Nightingale had chronic fatigue syndrome). Verification is only one of wikipedia's content policies, NPOV, of which UNDUE is a part, is another. WLU (t) (c) 19:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, what I was suggesting instead is to cite it for the existence of a belief, not for its accurateness or reliability, mainstreamness, academicity, neutrality, etc. etc. Meanwhile, we have more and possibly better sources. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE and my reply here. WLU (t) (c) 19:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather listen to someone without a personal agenda against me. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Such as PaulB who said NRF wasn't an appropriate source for the claim that FN has CFS? The discussion, including in put from an independent party, has come down against the use of the source. It's been judged that NRF isn't sufficiently reliable to cite the claim. The second source, the geocities page, is clearly self-published. So aren't we pretty much done? to keep asking until you get an opinion you like is pretty much forum or opinion shopping. WLU (t) (c) 12:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

rulers.org

Is this site a reliable source? Several books have cited it. ~the editorofthewiki ~ 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be tempted to simply avoid it by citing other sources. I would expect something as simple as the start of a rulers' term would be easy to source. The page does not cite sources and accepts corrections via e-mail. I wouldn't use it if I could avoid it. WLU (t) (c) 19:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

List of eponymous laws

For the last couple of weeks there's been a tedious disagreement at Talk:List of eponymous laws over the inclusion of something called "Poe's law", which has been deleted twice as an article for being non-notable and made up. One particular editor has repeatedly reinserted it into this list article, and has been arguing endlessly for its inclusion, despite not being able to produce a single non-self-published source that meets RS. Also, now another editor, with no previous editing history, has appeared out of nowhere to also strenuously argue for inclusion, on the basis that search engine hits justify inclusion. The discussion is becoming increasingly repetitive, and I'm starting to suspect tag teaming may be going on. Although an article RFC has been filed, little attention has thus far resulted. I would very much appreciate some competent source-policy-aware editors joining the discussion. Thanks. -- Earle Martin 03:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting a page of actual laws, like Megan's Law --NE2 03:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hah! -- Earle Martin 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the page and added citations with google books for one. I would say that's not an inarguable inclusion - in each case cited it is actually a poet discussing the apparent law (the more reliable reference turned out to be a quotation of T. S. Eliot rather than a discussion). I would say that it could be an example of undue weight - if it's not discussed extensively in contemporary criticisms and scholarly discussions, it's not a good inclusion. If it is discussed, even by a substantial minority, it should be easy to find prominent contemporary adherents. Google books searches suggests that it's Eliot's opinion , and there's a couple throwaway references in other books - , but some of those discuss for instance "Poe's law days" and each seems to have a different interpretation of what Poe's law was. I would suggest that there are more reliable sources available than website. I think I'll port this to the RFC as it goes beyond RS questions. WLU (t) (c) 12:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Website

Is this website the official MOD site for this unit of the TA. An IP has stated that it is a self published website by Gareth Baillie and not the official MOD site would the IP be correct or is it official thanks. If not official would its claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt. BigDunc 09:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not an official MOD site - that would end in "mod.uk", It also says that it's copyright "Gareth Baillie". Looks self-published to me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking further it's the self-publishedassociation website not for the actual unit._{normally I'd head over and remove it but since it's on a NI article, I have more sense than to get involved...} --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cameron. Should it be removed as a reference? And if yes what rational? BigDunc 11:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a self-published website and therefore should not be used for anything that might be controversial. I don't know what article you are referring to but yes, it probably needs to be removed for that reason. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Amiga Games Database

Hi guys, my removal of a reference on Total Chaos was contested, so I would like a second opinion. The link, , is a review of a game by someone with the handle "War Chicken", submitted to "Anugs's Homepage", which hosts "The Amiga Games Database". As far as I can tell, the database and its submissions are entirely handled by Angus Manwaring, and I'm unsure about his qualifications as "an established expert" (going by WP:SPS) Any opinions on this are appreciated. Marasmusine (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my comment as the editor who reverted - my viewpoint is that the source is not being used as a reference (i.e., to back up a fact that is claimed in the article), but is instead in the External Links section. I imagine it is listed to help establish notability for the article. From Misplaced Pages:External_links, it is acceptable to consider linking to "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Mdwh (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, it's still in there as footnote #5, though :> Perhaps it will be okay as just an external link. Although it occurred to me earlier today that for all we know "War Chicken" is on the game's (apparently extensive) development team; the tone of the review seems rather promotional in the last few paragraphs (complete with snappy slogan), with no real critical analysis. Marasmusine (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Medical Books

I'd like an unbiased opinion on the reliability of these two books:

Edelman, E, Natural Healing for Schizophrenia, Borage Books, 3rd edition, 2001
Pfeiffer CC. Nutrition and Mental Illness: An Orthomolecular Approach to Balancing Body Chemistry. Healing Arts Press., 1988.

They form the basis for a couple of contentious articles. Thanks! Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Healing Arts" is an imprint of Bear & Company, which is not a medical publisher as such. See .

"Borage Books" is a single book publisher with an obvious interest in pushing the one book. I doubt it qualifies as RS at all as a result. It links to "clinics" and the like which have a financial interest in the book as well. Collect (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if they are on the boarderline as to reliability... perhaps reliable for an attributed statement as to the author's opinion (assuming the authors are considered "experts" in their field). Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Borage is decidedly iffy. "Healing Arts" does work mainly with "holistic medicine" etc. so that might be a factor in how much weight is given it as a cite. Collect (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Both are used as sources in topics related to Orthomolecular medicine, a fringe point of view in medicine, and I very much doubt they would be appropriate as WP:MEDRS since they advocate for a non-mainstream position. Healing arts press is an alt-med publisher (i.e. not mainstream) and as noted, Borage publishes but one book. Nutrition and Mental Illness is also 20 years old, and in medical terms it that is quite ancient. I would consider them useful only in very limited circumstances - reliable to portray the opinions of orthomolecular practitioners, and for historical information. I wouldn't use them to assert anything about the efficacy of the approach. At best in that regard, I'd use wording akin to "X practitioner believes that Y", but better is to review what sources they cite for their claims and cite them directly (if it acutally supports the point without being WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and is published in a WP:MEDRS). I would be quite careful to attend to any WP:UNDUE issues. WLU (t) (c) 15:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Book Reviews

A simple question, should a book review be used as evidence of what is in the book?

My reason for asking is that the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article contains details about a controversial book on the subject based on a Guardian newspaper review, not the book itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs)

Per Misplaced Pages:CITE#Cite the place where you found the material, in general the book review would be clearly attributed as the actual source. The book itself is better for what is said in the book. Reading the review itself, which starts with "A controversial new history of the Indian Mutiny...", I would cite Mishra's book tentatively after his conclusion, but cite both criticisms to the guardian article. I agree that the page is better off citing the book directly but the summary of the overall conclusion of the book is sufficiently vague in the article that I would assume it is reasonable. I normally use book reviews to inform decisions about the appropriate weight and reliability of uses of the book itself, and to temper its conclusions if controversial. WLU (t) (c) 17:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is not a "book review", it's a news report on the book, which quotes its author and comments from other academics. A review would be quotable as an assessment of the contents by an expert on the topic. This is probably reliable as a summary of the argument, but not of its academic notability. Paul B (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's a distinction that I didn't see. I'd still say the preference is to cite the book directly, but based on this I think the broad statement in the article is sufficiently backed by the review you could simply cite the book. I'd mine the news report for the academics' names and see if they've published reviews in the appropriate journals. WLU (t) (c) 18:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War / Status of Forces Agreement

Would someone please have a look at Iraq War? User:99.137.127.111 (contributions, talk) and I are both up against 3RR on it: my preferred version; 99.137.127.111's preferred version;

• diff; and
• Talk:Iraq War#SOFA ratified by Parliament discussion. (Please see both.)

99.137.127.111 is intent on: (A) placing reports of Bush being burned in effigy in the introduction of the article, which I believe is unwarranted by the current length of the article (206 KB!, but there is no noticeboard for long articles) and (B) using newspaper reports attributed to anonymous sources claiming that they request anonymity for no other reason than that they are not trusted to speak with the media in order to stir up dissent about the recently-ratified Status of Forces Agreement based on supposed rationales which are completely ungrounded in facts.

At what point does a source's reliability depend on the reliability of its underlying sources? I would argue that any source always depends directly on the reliability of its underlying sources, barring some underlying accidental situation, and that we should always consider the underlying reliability when making judgements about what to include in any articles, let alone space-limited articles.

Does anyone disagree? If you agree, please revert to my preferred version or some reasonable merge thereof. Thank you. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The newspapers seem reliable to me, and one of the newspaper articles says that its sources are anonymous because the text of the SOFA was classified by the USG as Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU). Other sources are also provided which aren't anonymous in the articles. Rather than immediate reversion I might encourage discussion on the article's talk page.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

99.137.127.111's misrepresentations of his news stories' subjects' reasons for requesting anonymity are outright lies. The text of the SOFA is public, and the reasons stated by the so-called officials request for anonymity are, "because he was not authorized to speak to the media," and, "because he wasn't authorized to speak to reporters." Their reasons for refusing to speak on the record may have been because they didn't have a translation, but that was not their reason for requesting anonymity. Translations have been available since shortly after the debate in Parliament began. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Attacking my integrity and trying to tell me you are from the same place as me on my user page isn't going to advance a discussion or intimidate me. Newspapers often use anonymous sources, and a variety of them did in covering this story. The one McClatchy article explains:

All three declined to speak on the record because the administration, which had planned to release the official English language text last week, has instead designated it "sensitive but unclassified."

The article also cited specialists who weren't barred by the government from speaking to media. Anyone who actually reads the articles will be able to tell this. Finally, the sources are attributed as anonymous in the article.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see just how much you know what you are talking about here. What is the difference between off the record and anonymous? Southern Command Stooge (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not my job or your job to be knowledgable, and maybe that's for good reason. Misplaced Pages lets the sources speak for themselves. I'm going to try to let some others have input.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Thank you. However, my job in fact does require I be knowledgeable, and I'm sure there is something to that effect in one of these policies and guidelines which I would rather go eat turkey than read. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

CESNUR / Its proponents

CESNUR has been the topic of some debate lately on Talk:Scientology. One issue which initially brought up the question as to its reliability recently is some criticism of Stephen A. Kent, a well-known professor of Sociology at the University of Alberta. Some of criticisms in question are here (John Gordon Melton), here (Massimo Introvigne 1), here (Massimo Introvigne 2) and here (Massimo Introvigne 3). The last three were published by Massimo Introvigne, the director and founder of CESNUR. He has also used the domain, cesnur.org, to publish a considerable number of articles authored by himself. Questions of the veracity of CESNUR as a publisher of scholarly content has been raised by some third-party sites (of whose reliability status themselves I cannot ascertain for sure; that's why I'm here). Questions of conflicting interests have been brought up by several sources for John Gordon Melton, the author of the first CESNUR link (see criticism on his Misplaced Pages page).

The other issue regarding this source is regarding some content about Scientology Sunday services (whether they exist), which I had some trouble corroborating elsewhere with any other reliable sources. That link in question is here: Are the Ceremonies of the Church of Scientology really important?, By Regis Dericquebourg. I couldn't find much outside mention of Dericquebourg, except for a few websites hosted by the Church of Scientology (the list of goes on) itself.

So is CESNUR to be considered a reliable source of information? Also, while I'm here, I might as well ask whether Stephen A. Kent is seen as reliable as well. ←Spidern→ 04:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Both Kent, as in individual scholar, and CESNUR are recognized scholarly sources. Kent represents a significant minority position within NRM studies, CESNUR is more reflective of the academic mainstream.

Background info on CESNUR:

• The CESNUR site is listed as a recommended research source, along with peer-reviewed journals, in this Oxford University Press publication.
• More background on CESNUR is available here.
• Hundreds of scholarly publications cite cesnur.org.
• Coverage in relevant literature: .
• Massimo Introvigne is "the author or editor of forty books and of more than a hundred chapters and articles in scholarly journals about the history and sociology of new religious movements. In 2001, he edited the award-winning Encylopedia or Religions in Italy. He is a lecturer at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, Italy.

Re the Scientology ceremonies, other sources mentioning these ceremonies include

• this scholarly description
• this US Army Manual
• An Educator's Classroom Guide to America's Religious Beliefs and Practices, a reference work for teachers and school libraries published by Libraries Unlimited Jayen466 09:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dericquebourg is a professor at the Université Charles de Gaulle in Lille, France. He is widely published, with dozens or journal articles, encyclopedia contributions, etc. Bio data and a list of publications is here Template:Fr icon. google books. Jayen466 11:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• J. Gordon Melton is Director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion and a Research Specialist with the Dept. of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is the author of such standard reference works as the Encyclopedia of American Religion and the Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, and of such recent works as Religious Leaders of America and the New Age Encyclopedia. Melton also happens to be the second-most prolific contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica. Jayen466 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• As for the other sites you quoted:

• Tilman Hausherr is an unpublished, but notable Internet activist, and software specialist. A scholarly assessment (Højsgaard, Warburg (2005)): "The most typical – and one of the largest – web pages demonizing Scientology is the Tilman Hausherr home page in Berlin, Germany. ... most of this large-scale website is devoted purely to disparaging Scientology ... (there follows a lengthier description). Hausherr's academic credibility in the field of NRM studies is nil.
• Apologetics Index is a notable Christian countercult site run by Anton Hein, whom Rick Ross, a notable anti-cult activist, has characterised as a fugitive sex offender. Here another, more detailed assessment, which also mentions Hausherr and Gonnet (below) in passing. Jayen466 11:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.antisectes.net/ is an anti-Scientology site run by a chap called Roger Gonnet, a French ex-Scientologist. I found only a couple of mentions of antisectes.net in scholarly literature, characterising it as an Internet propaganda site and a dedicated Scientology countermovement. There is no evidence that the author has any academic standing.

However, while academic assessments of these last three sites generally seem to be fairly dim, and their original writing is certainly not part of academic discourse, Kent, whose own stance you'll remember is relatively close to the anti-cult position, in this paper acknowledges that the archives of government and court documents hosted on them have some value as information collections, giving these sites perhaps sufficient credibility to use them as convenience links for documents referred to in our texts. Jayen466 12:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get sucked into this because it's not something I know much about but, as Jayen knows, the CENSUR thing came up over on Osho. This website features some kind of supposed expose on Introvigne, not sure about the background to it, or the credibility of the content, but there does appear to be exchanges between Introvigne and the sites owner about a number of issues including the matter of Introvigne's title's. He is not, by all accounts, a professor or a trained sociologist (the title was bestowed upon him). Remember also that this is Italy, rife with corruption and nepotism, look at its academic reputation in the humanities, and of course this guy is a big fan of the Catholic Church, and has defended it on the point of sexual abuse allegations. He is also allegedly a member of Alleanza Cattolica. CENSUR is an independent organization, and if an academic is invited to publish work it may be a nice little earner, but it doesn't really matter what Introvigne and CENSUR might or might not be up to, you can't prove it, you need to take each publication on its own merits, any bias will be self-evident. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. I post links to dozens of scholarly publications documenting the site's academic standing, and then someone comes with half-baked allegations from a self-published website. Jayen466 12:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, when you say "CESNUR is more reflective of the academic mainstream," what do you base this assertion on? ←Spidern→ 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

On my familiarity with this field of studies, and who the most notable scholars in it are. This page, for example, already linked above, describing the CESNUR conference as the largest such gathering of scholars in the world. Check the descriptions of CESNUR available in reliable sources yourself. I gave lots of links above. Jayen466 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the validity of the Army Manual as a source of information in this context was called into question on Talk:Scientology#Ceremonies by AndroidCat, quoted here:

I'm not sure that military organization guides should be seen as authoritative. They have no particular interest in recognizing or dismissing the beliefs of men and women in their commands. (If it helped morale, they'd don colanders and do noodley touch-assists for the FSM.) Until recently, the US Navy was publishing a Scientology section on their site that was sometimes used as a reference here–except that it was copied from the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance site, and, at least the most recent version, directly written by Scientology. (There was also a frequently overlooked disclaimer on the US Navy site.)

— AndroidCat

←Spidern→ 13:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Spidern, it is a US government publication. Jayen466 13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the US army specialize in studying NRMs? Quoted directly from WP:RS: "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." (emphasis added) ←Spidern→ 13:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see how to someone with strong feelings about Scientology anything less than outright condemnation will appear like an apologia. But it is not a question of who shouts the loudest, it is a question of what the most reliable sources say. Jayen466 13:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution