Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:12, 7 December 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.

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 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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)

Can i ask you for your opinion on bio information? considering WP:BLP and the fact that it has been questioned several times before? --neon white talk 15:52, 2 December 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)

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)

I was alerted to this discussion on the talk page of the Abkhazia WikiProject, and I want to say that already previously I found that the maps that describe the political situation of the region some 2000 years ago (like here, used on Misplaced Pages e.g. here) seemed improbably accurate, given the paucity of contemporary sources. Of course, I could be wrong. sephia karta | di mi 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maps are diagrams, they are not reality. All good-faith maps are full of accidental errors. Either you exclude every map, or accept the fact that no map is accurate. Maybe in some future date there will be atlases available where you can interogate each marking on a map, click on a line and get an explanation and a full set of sources detailing why the cartographer decided to draw that line at that location rather than 50 miles to the east or west of that location. Anyone who looks at a map showing a distant historical period and reads borderlines like modern borders is fundamentally mistaking what the map shows. Every line is actually a blurry zone full of uncertainty, conjecture, and simplification - a zone that gets wider and more blurry the older the historical period depicted on the map. Meowy 22:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The maps should be made by professionals to be considered reliable, and not by random people who happened to have a website. Grandmaster (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the precise trajectory of a boundary. I am saying that I had and still have serious doubts regarding whether it is at all possible to determine that these particular states were there, and that they included these areas. And if parts of the map are uncertain, this should be indicated on the map (say with a different colour), and a failure to do so disqualifies the cartographer. sephia karta | di mi 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again... the determining factor is whether you are drawing information from the map or not... in other words are you using the map as a source for information or not. If you are using the map as a source, then I agree that the map should be made by a professional. If, on the other hand, you are mearly using the map mearly to illustrate what is said in reliable sources, then that illustration can be created by anyone (including a Misplaced Pages editor).

To relate this back to the Andersen Maps... The question is: Is the article using the map as a source, or is it using the map as an illustration? If the first, then no it is not a reliable source. If the second, then it might be an acceptable illustration. Whether it is an acceptable illustration or not needs to be determined by consensus back at the article talk page, and not here (as it is not an RS issue). I hope this clarifies things. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is being used as an illustration. The fact of the territory's existence is backed by sources. However, there is a side-effect of your reasoning - if the map were to be redrawn by a Misplaced Pages editor a source would have to be given for that redrawn map, which would mean using the Andersen map as a source. Meowy 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks for the clarification. In this case I would argue that they suggest more than is sourced and therefore go beyond illustration, but this is a matter for the respective articles, not this discussion. sephia karta | di mi 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, as per WP:OR#Original images a seperate source does not need to be given for an editor drawn image. The key is that any original image (including a map) must accurately illustrate the information discussed in the article, and that information should already be backed by sources. Now, the Andersen maps are not "Editor created"... but the concept is the same. If an image (no matter who created it) is mearly illustrating the text of the article, then the determination of whether to use it or not is purely one of editorial judgement and consensus. It is not an RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 1 December 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastairward (talk • contribs)

That's your personal understanding. They are generated by the SPStudios' admins and therefore, indisputably reliable. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But there is a dispute, a note on the site itself says they're added to aid searches, not to act as a FAQ. Remember WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor to prove something, not to simply dismiss queries. Alastairward (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Then as an editor, prove that SPStudios are full of $#!+ and you know better than they do. It's the creators' website - whatever the purpose may be (aid searches or anything else), it's still the creators' website! NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor to prove something that has been added to Misplaced Pages is verifiable, not to simply dismiss queries.

You said yourself, "whatever the purpose may be (aid searches or anything else)", so you at least acknowledge that this is not a form of FAQ. The link I provided confirms this, it seems that the tags are added to aid searches, so the Admins know what people want to look for in association with certain clips. This is not the same as a FAQ, this is simply the reflecting the opinion of those using the site.

Also, please remember to be civil. Alastairward (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you're claiming to know first hand what the Admins think and do ("this is simply the reflecting the opinion of those using the site"). Care to provide a verifiable source for that? Unless you can cite their Admins, it's your own speculation and as such, has no place on Misplaced Pages.

By the way, WP:BURDEN applies to you as much as it does to me, as you are an editor too. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm making a suggestion and I've provided a cite as to the lack of link between the FAQs and tags. In return you've done nothing to convince me of your own case.

BTW, I'm challenging your addition to Misplaced Pages, the WP:BURDEN does apply most heavily to you in this case. There's nothing to be gained by simply turning around and demanding that other users address the policy instead of you. Alastairward (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Only the admins and the people who work in the Studios can tag videos here. Basically, you're challenging SPStudios... amusing. As for WP:BURDEN - are you claiming that it doesn't apply to you? You claim that I'm demanding that other users address the policy instead of - no dude, not instead - in addition. You don't have a single privilege over me and don't you forget it. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we please calm down and address the issue, not each other. What exactly is the issue with the tags vs the FAQ? Could someone please link to what is being stated and sourced so we can see what the dispute is about? Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 2 December 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)

It should be fine for speculating on cultural references as long as what's being cited is not unduly controversial or self-serving. What it can't be used for is to assert notability because it's published by the subject of the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking back, it was used to support a "cultural reference" in the article on the episode Towelie, but it seemed to go against the actual episode commentary. Alastairward (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then cite them both. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Both are cited, there is no contradiction between the two, yet AlastairWard seems to assert his personal understanding (or the lack thereof) as the end of all things. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:36, 1 December 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)

Again: I am not making such a claim. Please stop attacking views that nobody expresses.

Here is one more secondary source, one that is already used in another CFS article:

• Jason LA, Taylor RR, Plioplys S, Stepanek Z, Shlaes J (2002), "Evaluating attributions for an illness based upon the name: chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalopathy and Florence Nightingale disease", Am J Community Psychol 30(1):133–48, pmid=11928774 Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The American Journal of Community Psychology asserts on its webpage that its job is to evaluate "community psychological interventions at the social neighborhood organizational group and individual levels". I'm guessing that this article is about the impact of choice of name for a condition on the community of people who have been diagnosed. In other words its not likely to be about the reiability of a diagnosis of Nightingale. But since all you have given here is the title, I'm just guessing. We need to know what it says. Paul B (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't have access to the full article, but I found this (not sure if it's accurately worded): "The team found that when groups of medical trainees reviewed case studies of CFS patients that featured three different names for the disease, their perceptions did change depending on the name the illness was given. The names used in the study were: CFS, Florence Nightingale Disease (FN), named for the public health nurse who served during the Crimean War and was believed to have suffered from chronic fatigue; and Myalgic Encephalopathy (ME), the medically based term used to describe the condition." It's not about the reliability of her diagnosis, but it supports the reliability that there exists a belief (something that is common knowledge, but Misplaced Pages wants sources). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:12, 29 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)

Sure, but in Hubert Maga's case it had information that I could not find anywhere else. I am trying to bring this to FA. Is rulers.org so unreliable that it should never be used. ~the editorofthewiki ~ 21:57, 30 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)

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). Not to mention that they copied Scientology's description verbatim. ←Spidern→ 13:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The manual was prepared by the Chaplain's Office, and, as is described in the manual, was the result of an extensive research effort. The United States Army is one of the biggest armed forces in the world. Questions of religion can play a significant part in the operation of an army; I believe the U.S. Army would have spent time, money and expertise to get this right. At any rate, it represents an incomparably greater measure of research and editorial oversight than an individual's self-published webpage. I believe that on any other topic where there were less strong feelings, use of such a source in a similar circumstance would not raise an eyebrow. Jayen466 13:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me the money. I still consider your statement regarding CESNUR generally taking the mainstream academic view to be unfounded. ←Spidern→ 13:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Missed reply above. ←Spidern→ 13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I see now you missed my earlier reply; I had gone to find you another reference. Here for example: CESNUR was established in 1988 by a group of religion scholars from leading universities in Europe and the Americas. Jayen466 13:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In situations like this, the solution is usually to directly attribute who says what in the text of the article. Remember that the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not Truth. That CESNUR comments on scientology is notable in and of itself. It is appropriate that Misplaced Pages reports on what it says. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that does not address the entire issue. We are talking here about a scholarly paper, published by a renowned academic (Dericquebourg), hosted on cesnur.org. Per WP:RS#Scholarship these are the most reliable sources for us to use. I hope you are not suggesting that we should say, "Professor A says this, but B's self-published website says it's a lot of nonsense". That would be a travesty of both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Jayen466 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely what must be done, in some capacity. Misplaced Pages, as per NPOV, can not afford to take positions itself, but can only accurately portray the most significant ones. Also taking in to account, of course, the due weight in proportion to a viewpoints prominence in academia. ←Spidern→ 14:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. Self-published websites do not figure in this. Jayen466 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I shomehow missed the "self-published" part and read it as "Professor A" and "Professor B". ←Spidern→ 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In this particular situation the person being quoted on the Talk:Scientology page was the creator of CESNUR himself, Massimo Introvigne, who appeared to be attempting to discredit Stephen A. Kent multiple times. That is why I brought into question the verifiability of CESNUR itself, as a publisher of academic thought. ←Spidern→ 14:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Half baked? yes, but it's well acknowledged within academia that religious studies is a deeply problematic area precisely because it is populated by individuals who not only hold deeply rooted belief based biases, in many instances they are also using the domain of scholarly research to generate an academic body of work which can then be cited in a defense of one particular religion or another. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that, in this specific case, both Introvigne and Kent are notable enough that their views should be discussed. Hence my suggestion that you directly attribute who says what. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The trouble comes when trying to quantify which one deserves more weight. Taking into account, for example, Jayen's belief that CESNUR is more representative of the academic community at large; how and to what extent is one to accurately depict the opposing end of the academic spectrum? ←Spidern→ 14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Kent is a significant scholar, there is absolutely no doubt about that, and his opinions deserve to be reflected, but not to the point of exclusion of other scholars' views. In other words, he is one of the notable scholars whose opinions and publications we have to reflect. His squabbles with Introvigne, Lewis, Shupe etc. in Skeptic (U.S. magazine) (which is not a peer-reviewed journal, btw.) and the personal comments these scholars have made about each other are irrelevant to the Scientology article. Jayen466 14:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither is cesnur.org a peer-reviewed journal. AndroidCat (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you and I are in agreement on that. I never meant to imply that those self-published sources were to be used on the page in any case, they were just pasted here as fodder for discussion. Mainly, I just wanted to confirm that Kent is in fact an RS, as user Bravehartbear suggested that he isn't. ←Spidern→ 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood. The only thing is to make sure we don't give Kent WP:UNDUE weight. Right now for example, we have five mentions of Kent – by name – in our article, along with an explication of his opinions, compared to zero for Eugene V. Gallagher, one for Bryan R. Wilson, zero for Roy Wallis, one for JG Melton (cited for a cherry-picked negative statement about Scientology, when Melton has actually written a fairly sympathetic and conciliatory book about the CoS), zero for Jorgensen, zero for Chryssides, zero for Lewis, one for Bromley, zero for Douglas E. Cowan – each of which is at least as reputable a scholar as Kent. I hope you see what I mean: we are still far from an NPOV representation of scholarly literature. Kent is popular on Internet sites, because of all academics writing on Scientology, he is closest to the anti-Scientology position found in the various anti-Scientology websites, but his preponderance on the Internet is not matched by any similar preponderance in published reliable sources. Jayen466 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just two more things:

1. Introvigne's self-published comments about Kent would be inadmissible even if they were relevant to the article topic, per WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."
2. I noticed that Dericquebourg's paper on cesnur.org is an unpublished conference paper, marked "Preliminary version – do not reproduce or quote without the consent of the author." This means that as is, the paper may not be suitable for citing here (at least not without seeking and registering permission). I don't think we should use this paper right now. Perhaps later, if it gets published. But in the meantime, it may at least be useful background reading for editors. Jayen466 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• From the About page of cesnur.org "The texts of this site, selected because of their scholarly interest, represent the point of view of their authors. CESNUR does not necessarily agree with them." (emp added.)

The contents of the CESNUR site are a grab-bag, ranging from academic articles with solid sources, to personal flames by the owner of the site. There is no indication that articles have to pass an editorial review processes, peer-review, fact-checkers, etc. In the middle there are weak papers with poor references or ones that strangely omit key information about co-authors of a presentation (with sources to be given later) at a CESNUR event

I realize that Misplaced Pages editors aren't supposed to be judges of academic sources, but neither are we supposed to blindly accept whatever floats in wearing a badge proclaiming "Hi! I'm with the academic mainstream", when there are respectable contrary views. AndroidCat (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Using Carma for power station emission info in Australia

At the Kogan Creek Power Station, Queensland talk page there is a minor issue with the reliability of a source regarding the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are emitted by this and other power stations in the country. Does a database, such as the one Carbon Monitoring for Action has online, become unreliable if they use a statistical model to deduce emission from power stations that do not report figures directly to them? - Shiftchange (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the source does not depend on whether they use statistical modelling or not. If you report an estimated figure, simply say that it is estimated. The reliability depends on the website's authoring organisation and how it is produced. In this case the website belongs to an organisation we describe as "a think tank". It is a dubious case. It would be useful to know whether this website has had independent reviews, particularly from academic writers. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are Australian Government agencies that have reports about the emissions of the power station, like the department of Climate change, and National Polutant inventory. The question is why would we use US lobby group that makes estimates base on a model designed from information obtained from US EPA reports on US power stations. When there are actual monitoring reports from Australian sources. The same issue can also be applied to US power stations why use Carma information when there are EPA reports avaiable? Gnangarra 03:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree you should use official sources in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that official sources ought be used if available. Unfortunately neither I nor another user (Shiftchange) can find any actual or estimated figures on emissions of individual power stations from official sources after researching the references provided by Gnangarra. The source has emissions of CO1 but not CO2. The national pollutant inventory does not give CO2 for the power station, only CO1 My searching of similarly did not have a result that indicated it had specific GHG emissions figures for this power station, although I did not open and read every result, just the first one. Having done the research suggested by Gnangarra and finding that it does not provide any actual or estimated figures for CO2 or Greenhouse gas emissions of individual power stations it seems that CARMA is the best available source of estimates of such emissions from individual Australian Power stations. On that basis, given that CARMA clearly has a major database and a disclosed methodology of calculating estimates of sources which have no official estimates (based on actual reported emissions of a large number of sources) I submit that CARMA is an acceptable source for an *estimate* provided it is clear it is an estimate and a reference is given to the source. Individual users can then make as assessment of the reliability. This seems a far more credible approach than not allowing any estimate for emissions. dinghy (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly

What reason do we have to think that CARMA is reliable? On the plus side, it is linked to by the UK Energy Research Centre. Its launch led to positive news items on CNN and US public radio. However, I can't find any review saying "this is a reliable website". I also found a damning critique by some people calling themselves Climate Due Diligence, although this organisation does not seem to have any particular indication of notability or credibility. The critique did on the face of it seem to be sourced. So what are we left with? CARMA's estimate of CO2 emissions is probably the best available. It is only an estimate but then an estimate can be labelled as such. Does the article need to carry a statement about CO2 emissions? No. If there is no official figure and we do not have an impeccable source for an estimate, it should be left out. The article still tells us that it is a coal-fired power station of a certain capacity, so any reader can be sure that it is responsible for emitting "a lot" of CO2? Approximately how much? If a reader wants to know this then they will have to email the company or perhaps the Australian government. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

sabetay.50.g.com - about the Donmeh origin of public figures

This has just been added to Donmeh: "A website revealing the results of studies conducted by anonymous researchers, on donmeh origin of many public figures]" - it doesn't look anything like a RS to me from the description but I can't read the website. Comments? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For your information; I modified the link with a (Turkish) mark at the end, meaning that's a website in Turkish. Regarding reliability, none of the external links in that article fits into the reliable source definition.Lyckey (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed them all except the article in the Jewish Political Studies Review which looks RS. dougweller (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Can a youtube video be used as a source, when there is no version from any reliable source

STS-48: if the core of the information can only be backed up by a video on youtube and if there is no other copy elsewhere, can it be used safely on wikipedia as a source?Lyckey (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it really depends on who uploaded the video. If it's NBC it's likely reliable however if it's some fan you shouldn't be including it. Also please see WP:YOUTUBE as there can also be copyright issues when it is from a fan. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be NASA footage. dougweller (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As said, it's supposed to be a Nasa footage. Not sure but the uploader probably is a "fan" of UFOs, or might be a neutral NASA employee as well. On the other hand, the video speaks for itself, even if it were through, say NBC, nobody in NBC could have verified the originality. Lyckey (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say no to youtube as a source, but it is used everywhere to support everything so it must be me :) --Tom 22:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, youtube is not a reliable source. There is no way to tell if the video has been manipulated from the original. The user who posted it may say it is NASA footage, but we can not verify this. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

However, let's not think the video is not available elsewhere. I have found STS-48 video clips on several sites that have editorial control and do not have the copyright problems often associated with Youtube... for instance Williamson Labs. Just what does your video purport to show? Schmidt, 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Little green men, oh course :) --Tom 23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ps williamson-labs.com??? And they are who/what? --Tom 23:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess due to the nature of the subject, a "supposed to be Nasa footage" is beyond any editorial control, which can judge authenticity. I don't see any copyright issue with such a video, as any claim from Nasa would mean the confirmation of authenticity. The version in williamson-labs is obviously the shorter and poor quality one. Who cares their editorial control :)? I've not encountered with any longer and better quality version than the one in youtube. The video purports to show that Nasa has the technology to monitor UFO or ice particle activities. --Lyckey (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well frankly, editorial control is what makes something a reliable source. Uploader Joe is not NASA, and so cannot have the credibility of a NASA video. Find the original. Cool Hand Luke 02:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap! Someone said something on Misplaced Pages that makes sense! Ling.Nut 02:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The original is available for free at most good libraries and can be ordered from NASA. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Then per WP:NF, since the film is available from NASA and "most good libraries", the film itself can be used as a source, even if not available to every editor. So don't cite back to youtube, simply cite to the NASA or library site where it is available. Schmidt, 07:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Right -- and also note the claim made for what the video shows better be substantiated by any normal viewer of the NASA footage. Too often I have found a cite does not say what is claimed for it. Collect (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the video was published by NASA and can be referred to as such a publication. Collect's point is extremely important. The conclusion that the video purportedly supports may not be obvious from the video itself; one should be careful to only state what it actually shows. Cool Hand Luke 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

newsmeat.com as source

Is this roll of political contributions ok as a source to claim the (deceased) person's political affiliation? The identity of "KRICK, IRVING P DR" and Irving P. Krick is without doubt. NVO (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I am shocked by the number of articles that link to this site. Also, the political affiliations of this meteorologist are not directly relevant to his career and to pull them off this website is a clear case of original synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it. I'd argue that political affiliations are quite relevant even for meteorologists, but in this particular case they should be quite obvious anyway. NVO (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion needed please

Windmill World is a reliable source for info on windmill articles. Question is, when it reports on a Weblog discussion, can one take the information quoted therein as coming from a reliable source?

Disclosure - I know the provider of the info provided is an expert molinologist, and have great faith that his info is correct. Question is, can I quote Windmill World as the source of this info for the purposes of Misplaced Pages? Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It really doesnt matter that the provider is an expert in the field blogs/forumns dont meet the requirements of WP:RS, and you should avoid quoting any person from such discussions. Try contacting the person and asking for an alternative source that covers the information in more detail. Gnangarra 09:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. The person in question edits Misplaced Pages so I will have to drop him a line. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.adherents.com/

I see this is used a lot, over 500 links (a lot to userspace). Is this considered a reliable source and if so in what contexts, eg if someone is listed as an adherent of a faith, can we use it for that? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any copyright info of any kind. That would make me reject it out of hand. Ling.Nut 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would consider Adherents.com a reliable source, primarily because it is very focused on citing the sources it uses. For example, this page on the site lists Oliver Stone's religious affiliation as "Jewish father; Catholic mother; raised Episcopalian; Tibetan Buddhism (convert)". And if you click on that description, you will see a page containing a long series of quotations from 11 different sources showing where this information came from. That's besides the table of religious adherent statistics, where every single entry has a citation. See this page for an excerpt from the table; the 8th column has bibliographic citations for every statistic, and the 9th column shows the quote supporting the statistic. As to who is responsible for the site, see the site FAQ; the fact that the site doesn't have a copyright notice does not necessarily say anything about its reliability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a reliable source. According to the FAQ: "The Adherents.com website is primarily the work of Preston Hunter" (the webmaster of the website). As such it has to be considered a personal webpage. The only way it could be considered reliable would be if Mr. Hunter was an acknowleged expert in the subject of religion. I don't think he is. As he states in the FAQ... he is computer programmer who works primarily in biomedical and genetic research, with an emphasis on database-based bioinformatics. His accademic credentials consist of a B.S. degree in Conservation Biology, with a minor in linguistics and he is currently working towards a B.S. degree in Computer Science. In short, he is mearly an amature when it comes to religion.

Adherants.com is probably a good site to use for background research (ie our editors could use the adherants page to find reliable sources upon which to base information stated in our articles), but I don't think we should use it as a reliable source on its own. Blueboar (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Adherents.com is used as a source by books published by university presses, which themselves would be considered reliable sources. Examples: Oxford University Press: , . Cambridge University Press: . University of California Press: , . Harvard University Press: . University of Chicago Press: . If it is good enough for these academic publishers, it ought to be good enough for Misplaced Pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That actually depends on the context of the citations in those books. If adherents.com was cited as an authority, then I agree that these citations probably establish Mr. Hunter as a recognized "expert". If cited in the context of a dismissal of or rebuttal to Mr. Hunter says, then no. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

history-nz

Hi! I was planning to improve an article on a relatively obscure French Explorer, Cyrille Pierre Théodore Laplace, but I was having trouble finding references. I have managed to dig up a website, one book which I don't have access to, and Laplace's own report, written in French. The website, seems to contain a nice amount of valuable info, but I'm not sure how reliable it is - could you help me out? \ / (⁂) 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I say use it with caution, use the articles there to get an over view and to help find further sources. The sites author says In view of the fact that this is a personal homepage, I would advise anybody doing serious research to cross check subjects by paying a visit to... and provides links to various sites at this page noting that the particluar subject you linked to is sourced from French explorers in the Pacific by John Dunmore, I'd suggest trying to get that book. Gnangarra 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I missed that note at the bottom somehow. It seems a trip to the library is in order - thanks for the help! \ / (⁂) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Knol - a reliable source?

I think this has been discussed before but I can't find the discussion. Take this as an example: Suresh Emre. "Rapid Climate Change 11.5 Thousand Years Ago".. Hardly any references, no indication as to who he is, etc. IMHO Knol should not be used as a reference - how about as an external link?. dougweller (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Knols are listed in WP:SPS as being unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that. Used a lot though. dougweller (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hustler magazine a reliable source for World Affairs?

An editor has quoted Hustler magazine (Warning: NSFW) as a reliable source. A word of warning that some of the comments on the page are quite offensive and contain crass sexual innuendo. Is pornography a reliable source for world affairs, this particular article presents a fringe theory on the USS Liberty Incident. Justin talk 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the hustler blog or somesuch. The person who wrote it does seem notable though that he could only get these views published in a blog on Hustler does make you question why he couldn't get them into a peer reviews journal or a reliable paper. NOTE: Not supporting the use of hustler as a source, I think it is inappropiate, just adding details. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Craig Roberts is a well-known writer. Though Roberts was once respectable, his reputation has declined. FWIW, the article is reprinted both on Roberts' VDARE archive, and on David Duke's website. I think it'd be correct to view this as a questionable source. At most, it might be worthwhile to mention his view of the matter with attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that something is published in Hustler really has no impact on its reliability... in such cases we judge by the reputation of the author, not the venue of publication. Ask yourself whether you would consider the article reliable if it appeared in a different magazine. That said... it does not sound like the author is well respected, or considered an expert on world affairs. As such his opinion is questionable. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hustler has editorial oversight, its independent of the subject and the piece is by a recognised author what ever his reputation there is no reason not to consider it as a potential source it meets WP:RS, and WP:V. The problem is there are already 20 sources listed in the EL section(not even used as references) that dispute the official story, this is only another one repeating what those have already said. Under those conditions how does it compare to the similar sources, the Hustler article refers to sources already used in the article. The Hustler article doesnt provide anything that the other sources already do, this article already has too many EL another one isnt going to enchance the article. I'd think that WP:EL, WP:UNDUE are the real issue. Gnangarra 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think if something is relevant, it is likely to have been reported elsewhere, meaning we don't have to cite the porn magazine. If something about a serious topic that is subject to scholarly study only appears in a porn mag, or a celebrity weekly, or a tabloid, then in my view it's not of encyclopedic relevance. Use the most reliable sources available and present views according to their published prominence in the most reliable sources. Jayen466 15:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not the magazine also carries pictures of naked people. It's simply a matter of whether the source is reliable. For example, while researching a different article I discovered that Playboy had some of the strictest editorial policies in the magazine world with extensive fact checking. Though Hustler has had some scoops the worthwhile ones have been mentioned in the mainstream media. The problem here is the combination of a fringe writer and a fringe source. If either were better then the situation would be different. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, just for fun, where would you locate (1) Playboy, (2) a yellow-press tabloid, (3) the NY Times, (4) The New Yorker, (5) a University Press-published book and (6) a peer-reviewed academic history journal, on a reliability scale from 1 to 10, for a historical topic like this? Jayen466 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not the magazine also carries pictures of naked people. It's simply a matter of whether the source is reliable. I have not laughed that loud in a long time... It seems that wikilayering has no limits when it comes to WP:RS discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

One editor has repeatedly told me that no source can be judged as reliable or unreliable without judging the context and use. I've seen folks call the NY Times and LA Times "tabloidesque", so it appears that no source is good enough for some statements, while for other assertions even dubious, self-published sources are sufficient. So let's no make generalties. I think we all agree that for this article and purpose, the Roberts peice published by Hustler is not a reliable source for anything but the writer's opinion. Whether that opinion is worth including in the article is another issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

A discussion is currently going on at talk:1982 Lebanon War, regarding its reliability. While I agree that it's not a perfect source, especially on controversial issues, I'm not sure if it's completely unreliable. It is used relatively often in Misplaced Pages. Has it been discussed here already? If so, I'd appreciate a link to the discussion. If not, what's the procedure? Thanks in advance, Nudve (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This has come up in the past (the discussion would be somewhere in the archives at WT:RS) and, if I remember correctly, the determination was that it was indeed reliable.

To examine it freshly, I would say it is an excellent tertiary source. It is a collection of articles written by (and clearly attributed to) noted scholars. As such, I would call it reliable. It probably does have a distinct (pro-Israeli) bias, but bias does not make something unreliable. Any bias can be offset by reference other reliable sources that present contrary viewpoints. If there is doubt as to whether a given statement taken from an article in the JVL is "true", remember that the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability and not Truth. We can re-write anything controvercial so as to present the statement as the opinion of its author, as opposed to a statement of an undisputed fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've found this discussion and this one, but they don't explicitly arrive at any conclusion on this particular site. Are they the ones you were referring to? -- Nudve (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No... my vague memory goes back to before we created this noticeboard. Look through the archives of WT:RS (the talk page for the actual guideline). Note... it was a long time ago. I may be mis-remembering. You may also want to check the archives at NPOV.Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember such a discussion, but would have no idea where to look. To the point at hand, as Blueboar said, JVL is an excellent tertiary source, attributed to various noted (and some not so noted) scholars in the field. Particulars at JVL may be disputed, but the site as a whole is reliable. What are the main arguments against its reliability? -- Ynhockey 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In the case at hand, they are this and this. -- Nudve (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those is a valid argument. Being biased does not make a source unreliable, as Blueboar correctly noted. -- Ynhockey 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias is OK - outright falsification and historical denial are not. Mitchell Bard prides himself on updating "Myth and Facts" which should be a clue straightaway. Most of the examples in that 40 year-old screed are strawmen - the recent ones Bard has added are, it would seem to me, falsehoods eg "MYTH - "The delegates of the UN World Conference Against Racism agreed that Zionism is racism". While it is true that that particular part of the resolution wasn't voted on, it was not because the delegates didn't agree on it. The proportion of them agreeing was even higher after the US pulled out in frustration and despair than it had been before!

And the JVL itself is no better - the article on Deir Yassin is denialist, seeking to blame the peaceful and cooperative villagers for the massacre on them. Articles such as this seek to falsify, making it seem as if Albert Einstein was a regular defender of Israel - when he was highly critical of what they were doing, right up to helping wreck Menachem Begin's December 1948 visit to New York by reminding everyone that the leader of the Irgun was a fascist in the fullest meaning of the word. And that they were terrorising the Jews of Palestine as well. There are a number of Palestinian sites much, much better than this which are rejected for consideration as RS. Let's make the project more reliable, not lower our guard in this fashion. PR 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is entirely your opinion. Until you can provide evidence that clearly proves that JVL purposely falsifies facts, the accusations have no merit. Not sure what Palestinian sites you are referring to. -- Ynhockey 16:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found JVL more problematic than mentioned above. Not all the articles are authored, and some are very out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we may need to distinguish the JVL as a whole from the individual articles that make up the JVL. The site as a whole seems to fit our definition of reliable (There is editorial oversight, the majority of the articles are written by noted scholars, some of them provide sources of their own... etc). Individual articles within the JVL, however, may not be reliable ... This would depend on the reputation of the article's author, the number of clear and obvious errors in the article, whether there are more up to date sources, etc.

(Caveat: When dealing with sources in this topic, we do have to keep in mind that there is often dispute as to whether something is "true" or an "error". We also need to remember that the threashold for inclusion is Verifiability, not Truth. When I use the phrase "clear and obvious errors", I am not including situations where the facts are disputed. That said, where the factual accuracy of a statement in an ariticle hosted on the JVL is disputed, I think it reasonable to limit reliablility ... ie to say that the article is reliable for an attributed statement of opinion, but not for a statement of blunt fact). Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the principle by which we discriminate against, for instance, Holocaust Denial sites, even if some of what they have to say could be useful. One reference to either known falsifications or hate-speech rightly cuts them out of contention - and we link these two behaviors because they march together in real life. The JVL is more than simply biased, there is clear evidence of both denialism and falsification. PR 09:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Blueboar's approach is completely upside-down. If a source is reliable, we would expect all (or most - errors happen everywhere) articles published under its control to be reliable - by the very virtue of being published by a reliable source. On the other hand, an unreliable source can still publish reliable papers - I could collate PLoS Biology and Cooks United, and that would not harm the reliability of PLoS publications - and it would not increase the reliability of the Discovery Institute. The reliability of a source is determined by its own procedures. Of course it is often possible to use links to a not inherently reliable collator as convenience links (as long as we trust them to not falsify the original publication), but in that case we do not use the collator, but the original publication as the source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library is WP:notable, and WP:reliable source. The standard is WP:verify not what some editors thing about the source. This argument is a waste of editor's time. If you like what they say, or not, they are a reliable source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Francis Frith website

Is the Francis Frith website a reliable source to use as a reference. Concern has been raised that the site exists primarily to sell photographs, thus qualifying as SPAM. Whilst I agree that the website being used in External Links could fall foul of SPAM, historical photographs that are dated showing buildings in years past should qualify as reliable sources in themselves. This photo shows that Shiremark Mill, Surrey had all four sails intact in 1928, and I used it as a reference for that fact, but another editor removed it as a spamlink. The opinions of other editors as to the validity of the Frith website as a reference would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Margaret F Harker is certainly a reliable source. She's written widely on Frith and other Victorian photographers. The site is probably just using words she has published elsewhere, proably in Victorian and Edwardian Photographers. Paul B (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It was my deletion of a number of Francis Frith external links and references which prompted this. Thanks to Mjroots for engaging in a constructive and civil discussion! My principal objection to the Francis Frith website is that it is a commercial venture setup with the sole purpose of selling historical photographs and books. Francis Frith is obviously a respected individual and Francis Frith books are indeed suitable reference works, but the website itself is not. Using the website as a reference simply drives more clicks to a commercial website and potentially boosts their sales of copyright works. If the photographs can be identified in Francis Frith books then they could and should be used as a reference. --TimTay (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the comments above more carefully than I did earlier, it seems that the particular information that is being used is not about Frith himself, but about a photograph published by his company, which existed long after his death. The photograph dates from the '20s, so is not likely to be discussed in the writings of Harker. The question is whether the website can be relied upon as a source for the statement that this photograph documents a windmill in the 1920s. In reality it is the photograph that is being used as a source, the only question of reliability is whether we can be confident that the company using the website can be trusted to have accurately described it. Frankly, it seems very unlikely that this is false information. We are not using the site for facts or opinions about the Arab-Israeli conflict here. I'd suggest that the issue here is essentially whether it is a reputable company. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay's supposed affair

In the article discussion, I broached the topic of noting the picked up news story regarding Ramsay's affair(s). The initial source is NotW, but the story was then picked up by outlets all over the world, none of them with the stigma of tabloid. As per BLP, the verifiability of the source is there, the reliability of the sourced info is there (and duplicated by other news outlets who likely provide redundant fact-checking), and the notability of both subjects is apparent. As we have a citation (actually, something on the order of a dozen of them), we are well-protected mentioning that at least one woman (a notable person in her own right) has admitted to having an affair with the chef. I am finding some resistance with the article editors, though I haven't tried to add it to the article without giving heads-up. - Arcayne () 21:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Admitted" is a weasel word. If this story is to appear, it should be in the form "reports appeared in newspapers that Ramsay..." rather than "Ramsay did..."/ Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's given, to be sure. It was going to be something along the lines of blankety-blank reported that X claimed Y. The reliability of the source, and not the format of the inclusion, is what is being questioned. - Arcayne () 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

d20zines

Would a webzine such as d20zines.com be classed as a reliable secondary source? This reivew is being cited in the article Races of Stone as evidence of notability. I consider this to be a type of self-published source as the format of this website is similar to a web forum. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely leaning towards saying "Not reliable"... but we need to know more about the site and its owners to make a full determination. Notability needs to be established by "reliable sources that are independant of the subject". So we need to ask two questions: a) is it a reliable source? and b) is it independant of the subject?

The review in question is credited to a "staff reporter", which seems to indicate that this is more than just a forum site... that there is some degree of editorial control (which might make it reliable). However, I can not find any "about us" type link to show who the editors who oversee the "staff reporter" might be. Who runs and owns the zine? Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

d20 Zine was owned by Steven Creech, also the owner of Dragonwing Games. It is now owned by Jonathan M. Thompson, owner of Battlefield Press. In the past reviews were handled by the staff of Dragonwing Games. I do not know if they were peer-reviewed internally. I do know that d20 Zines was online since August of 2001 and reviewing d20 content since that time. Web Warlock (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On a related topic pertaining to Dungeons & Dragons articles, Ravenloft (D&D module) is a current FAC, and the reliability of the indexes in this website has been questioned. Any outside input would be great. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Additions to WP:BADCHARTS

We are having a discussion of two charts over in WP:Record charts at Top40-charts.com and Chartblue.com. These are candidates to be added to the WP:BADCHARTS list. For those that don't get involved in the song articles, being listed on WP:BADCHARTS makes all references to that chart in any music article open season for deletion, so a false listing has unpleasant consequences. That's why I'm posting here to get a reasonably broad consensus.—Kww(talk) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravenloft (D&D module)

The reliability of this article's sources is in question. It's currently an FAC, so any help would be great. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Musical Key Signatures

I would like to propose the addition of the musical key when a song warrants its own article. I was referred here by another editor to help with the establishment of what a reliable sourcing would be for the key of a song. The limited discussion we have had so far can be found at this page. What are some opinions on this, would a key need to be sourced to written literature? Or is the fact that it is recorded and published and competent musicians could establish the key enough to not require other citation? Occidental (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I could see this for some forms of music (say a Mozart violin concerto)... but I am not sure if it would work for all forms of music. For example, is there always a pre-determined key for a hip hop song? What if different artists have recorded the same song in different keys? I would say that noting the key should be optional... and we should only list the key if it has been written down some where (sheet music, or discussed by a reliable source). Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources would vary depending on the song but musician magazines such as American Songwriter, Guitar for the Practicing Musician, Keyboard Magazine, Guitar Player, Guitar World, Songwriter magazine and Mix Magazine would all be good sources to cite as they are prone to discuss more technical aspects of music. They also regularly have/had interviews with musicians, producers, songwriters, and others in the industry who discuss techniques that may shed light on a particular album or piece of music. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to clarify the question. Are we looking for the key that the song was arranged in or the key as performed on the specific recording? The first is simply a question of knowing how to read the notation and to distinguish between major and minor keys. The second is not quite as obvious, but just as unambiguous and reducible to software. LeadSongDog (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I see the editor is asking "when a song warrants its own article" can they add the key, so that implies it would be for a song that has it's own article. Or, "performed on the specific recording" as you have worded. "Wannabe", "You Light Up My Life" and "Jump" would be examples of articles about a song where technical information could be added, although in some cases, such as "You Light Up My Life", there is more than one version discussed. (as opposed to only listed/mentioned such as in the "Wannabe" article). Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it would have to be for the specific recording rather than the arrangement in this circumstance. I think ultimately it would be nice to have the key of the song recorded in the main title table on the right of the page. I do not want to get quite to that as I have seen the massive title table discussions on the music page and would like to be prepared with reliable sourcing agreement prior to the introduction of the idea to add it to the table. As Soundvisions stated, those magazines are decent sources with regards to pop/rock music. Also the published song books, which most popular music have printed, would be a good source as well as the key is stated. Classical music's keys are very well documented and I believe that we can reduce it from this discussion, although jazz would definitely be good to think about sourcing as I am not sure of the sourcing available for it.Occidental (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bounty Books

Is something published by Bounty Books a reliable source? Bounty Books does not appear to be a notable press and I am wondering if it is just a WP:FRINGE press and so the book cited is not reliable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be more than one such publisher. Are you referring to the publisher of Henry Gray, Anatomy, Descriptive and Surgical: A Revised American, from the Fifteenth English, Edition (New York: Bounty Books, 1977)? They were part of Crown Publishers, now part of Random House.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the publisher of although another listing says it is published by Llewellyn which may be this: Llewellyn Worldwide?-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Exclaim.ca

I noticed that Genghis spawn (talk · contribs) is making over a dozen edits inserting links to articles from Exclaim.ca. Not knowing anything about Canadian music media, how notable/reliable is this site? In any case, it seems poor practice to randomly add links to references or external links sections, as this user has done, so I'm going to remove their edits, but I was wondering if the site was appropriate as an inline-cited source. --Mosmof (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage

Is this talking points memo put out by 6 Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee of the US House in 1995, and cited in the lede of Mininum wage a reliable source? Reliable sources are defined as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"... I don't see how a partisan set of talking points fits this description. (see this revert and this talk page discussion.) Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hell no. I've removed this clear example of POV-pushing. *** Crotalus *** 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't clear that this is a clear example of POV pushing, but I agree with removing the citation to the talking points memo. The talking points memo (NOT a reliable source) cites many studies from economics journals (reliable sources, if they are indeed academic journals--I didn't research it, but they looked good at first glance). Somebody needs to take the citations in the talking points and put them directly into the article. There's a lot of work involved, but it's a way to make a point. Lou Sander (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Towns' websites as a source for history

(1) Are towns' websites a reliable source for information on the town's history? I am currently involved in a dispute about this question at the Darlowo article, where information was added to the history section sourced by . The website itself does not cite sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(2) Would the website be reliable if it quoted sources? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the website is reliable. It is, however, a primary source, and therefore does not help to establish information about the town's notability. I think that it can be used for sourcing normally, although reliable secondary sources would be preferred. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The official town authorities definetely are notable enough that their information on history should be noted, if controversy arises it is best to mark the information as coming from the town authorities. --Molobo (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy who makes a town's website is a reliable source? I cannot really believe that. Per WP:RS opening sentence: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can one really attribute that to a town's website?

What if the town has a 700+ year history in country A and 60 years ago country B took over, expelled the former population, resettled ethnic country B's and have the town undergo a country B -ization? Is the website then still reliable regarding the history before country B took over? The depicted scenario is the case for the town in question, there are many other towns in Europe where similar scenorios apply. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A official city, state, town authorities are notable information sources to the point that their view on the location they administrate is notable enough for inclusion in the article. Obviously you seem to regard a certain opinioneted view since Darłowo was included in several countries throughout its history and none of it included "700 year history" in any of the countries it existed in, including Poland. Of course you are welcome to add claims as such but do remember WP:Fringe and WP:Undue.--Molobo (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument "What if the town has a 700+ year history in country A and 60 years ago country B took over, expelled the former population, resettled ethnic country B's and have the town undergo a country B -ization? Is the website then still reliable regarding the history before country B took over" can be easly turned into: "What if the country A that has a 1000+ year history of invasions and hostility from country B and 200 years ago country B took over, discriminated its citizens, finally classified the population as below animal status, tried to exterminate it and present its history as belonging to contry and people of country B is being portayed historians from country B. Are publicatons from country B reliable regarding the history before country B took over country A ?" That's quite easy and won't get us into solution. It is best to avoid such argumentation if possible. Only in obvious cases where this relevant that's needed.--Molobo (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A website maintained by a governmental organization is more reliable then a random website maintained by a private, anonymous party. It is of course not as reliable as an academic publication. Still, they are somewhat reliable. See also WP:SPS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS states they are "acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't see any requirement fulfilled.

Websites of municipalities are - at least concerning history - not written by experts, and are not reviewed by experts. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They represented the official statement of the city and its position. Thus they are notable and should be presented.--Molobo (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• No -- is not a "third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Dlabtot (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Town websites are not a "primary source" but the reliability on other than obvious facts might be questioned. Fortunately a lot of towns have had their histories published, and google has indexed a lot of them, so you might have a good shot at getting a ref from such a book. Collect (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if a published academic work is contradicted by city's website, the academic work takes precedence. When we are lacking academic refs, city's websites are an acceptable temporary solution. PS. Care should be taken with regards to NPOV: for example, if a German book contradicts a Polish city's website, it may not be the case of inaccurate website, but of different POVs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

made the replies an own section: see below

• Please note, this entire thread is yet another example of geopolitical irredentism plaguing Eastern European disputes. Contrary to claims made by User:Skäpperöd, there was no formally established country named by him as “A” with a 700+ year history in this case. There was however, multi ethnic presence at the disputed location for almost a thousand years. I wonder when this bickering is going to stop. --Poeticbent talk 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this has nothing to do with "geopolitical irredentism". The current article looks like this:

German historian Werner Bucholz names Dirlovo as town of "Rügenwalde" and claims it received city law in 1270 by the Wizlaw II of the Danish Principality of Rügen, at that time also ruler of the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp. According to him the town however decayed and in 1312 received Lübeck law from the Brandenburg margraves, who then were in charge of the area.. Authorities of the town, however, provide that the town rights were given by three brothers Jaśko, Piotr and Wawrzyniec Święc . Werner Bucholz claims that after a short rule by Brandenburg, the town passed to the Duchy of Pomerania in 1347

So the RS history book on this area is a German historian who makes claims, and the non-RS website is authorities of the town who provide. This is utterly inacceptable. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not some "website"-this official page of the city itself, and thus quite notable. I would caution against using German history books on Polish cities without criticism. The German history towards Poland is one of Germanisation and eradication of Polish culture which unfortunetely sometimes gives way to some POV in German works-for example the implementation of certain city laws is often wrongly portayed as beginning of the city. However off-topic aside-this seems like limited content dispute which you are unhappy with. The obvious solution is of course to mark the official history by city officials versus version offered by certain German historian. This largly seems to be already implemented in the above text. Your claim that city authority is not reliable in that regards holds no ground.--Molobo (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I edit Lower Silesian towns and run into these problems several times. Sometimes the claims of the city authorities were clearly wrong as every academic work states the opposite (see Jelenia Gora), sometimes they claimed highly unlikely things where neither the old German authorities before '45 nor any old or modern publication knows anything about it (see Szklarska Poręba). Sometimes they are highly biased and overestimate the Polish part of the history (see Zielona Gora (influence of Poles in the 19th century in a city with less than 5% Poles)), often they forget important parts of the history like the Reformation, the Ostsiedlung or the population exchange after 1945 (like Ząbkowice Śląskie, Lubomierz or Złotoryja). Karasek (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Official Town websites can be categorized as "Organizational self-published sites"... as such, they can be considered reliable for attributed statements as to the town's official opinion reguading itself, but should not be considered reliable for an unatributed statement of fact. So... you can cite it for the statement: "According to the town's website, blah blah blah is true", but you should not cite it for the blunt statement: "Blah blah blah is true". Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Karasek-they are not "wrong". They are not just what your German books are writing. That is difference. The German books-and I might remind you that you support using XIX century German books and Nazi Germany books as sources, as far as your past comments in that matter indicate, aren't you ?-are not per definition the ultimate source of objective information. You should accept that the version that the German books present are not the only side of history and Misplaced Pages has to present several sides. Could you tell me Karasek-why is that you believe modern Polish authorities of cities to be wrong but support using XIX century German books and Nazi era books as sources ? Obviously the modern Polish authorities are of better reliability then XIX century German sources or from 1933-1945 Germany.--Molobo (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, Karasek, Dlabtot, Collect, and Skäpperöd say towns' websites are not a RS for history, Molobo says they are, Drilnoth, Blueboar and Piotrus say they are only under certain conditions, with every one of these editors proposing different conditions (Piotrus: for temporary use, Drilnoth: not for notability, but for everything else; Blueboar: for attributed statements regarding the town's oppinion about itself). Maybe the policy needs to be clarified ? I opened Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Websites_of_towns. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"So far, Karasek, Dlabtot, Collect, and Skäpperöd say towns' websites are not a RS for history"

Neither Dlabtot or Collect make such definitive statement. Only you and Karasek. --Molobo (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you misunderstood me. Towns' websites are not a RS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A town's website is a self-published source... so WP:SPS should apply. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Towns' websites acceptable as a temporary source for history

based on this statement from the above section:

"When we are lacking academic refs, city's websites are an acceptable temporary solution. " --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also object to have this kind of information as a "temporary" solution. Either one can source one's statement or one can not - one should not give an impression of RS sourced sentences by adding footnotes that turn out to be non-reliable already by definition. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the the city official position is notable it is a perfect source to source some information.If controversy arises and is justified then it can be written that is the statment of the city. Also the thing is that If I write what the position of the city is there is no argument that would deny the fact that the best source for that kind of information would be the city's official page.--Molobo (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would not even go so far. Many cities have histories researched and written by proper historians. Some don't. Web sites, on the other hand, are often written by web experts, and not always with proper input or oversight. As far as I know, the history on the website of my small home-town was written by a retired teacher who researched it as a hobby. This does not necessarily make it wrong, but it does make it unreliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Stephan Schulz from Germany :) Well we have no way of checking that, so I would avoid making personal comparisions. Also the site is still official and can be sources as to the official stance on the issue by the town's authorites.--Molobo (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv as a source

The German Federal Archiv Bundesarchiv has recently uploaded several images and is going to do so with about 100.000 pics. Some of them were made in 1933 - 45 and used by Nazi Germany for propaganda purposes. I tried to add a picture of killed civilians at the Bromberg Bloody Sunday, which is a controversial topic even though the incident itself is undisputed. This picture was removed by several editors based on the claim the Bundesarchiv would publish Nazi propaganda (). No sources were provided that the image was "faked", not made in Bromberg or does not show victims of the incident. The removals were simply based on the fact, that pictures were made by Germans in 1939 (e.g. ) and as such are propaganda.

The point is how to deal with Bundesarchiv pictures made in 1933 - 45. Are they reliable? How should they be used? I'd like to hear some other editor's POV. Thank you. HerkusMonte (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ekhem. You yourself confirmed that pictures were made by Nazi German propaganda, that the Bundesarchive distributes them doesn't change that fact. Nazi media are per defeault not reliable and can't be presented as objective portayal of reality unless it concerns a clear non-propaganda subject. This however is a propaganda subject The burden of proof in this regard is on the provided of such information. For all we know those can be victims of Operation Tannenberg and titled "german victims".

The proper place for such things is Nazi propaganda article.--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They were used by propaganda does not mean, they are propaganda by themself. If a reliable source would claim these pictures show infact victims of the Op. Tannenberg, it wouldn't be a matter of dispute (off course not). Up to now I havn't seen anykind of such source. If your position is the majority POV, Bundesarchiv should stop to upload images made in 1933 - 45.HerkusMonte (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should Bundesarchiv stop relasing them ? I think besides far right and extremists nobody takes Nazi claims seriously. If anything is true then it can be sourced by non-Nazi sources--Molobo (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not about who took the pictures, it's about proper attribution of the subject: who were these dead? who killed them? were they killed indeed - it could be a staged set? etc. These questions remain unanswered, so the photograph may appear only with a caption with something like Here's a contemporary German interpretation of the event (and be deleted as unnecessary decoration). On less controversial subjects (i.e. portraits of well known public persons) the archive is a fine source as such. But anything that can be interpreted as a staged propaganda piece should, indeed, be left out. NVO (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The incident itself is not disputed, even not by "far right or extremists". The background and the number of victims is disputed, but as I said above, up to now no source was provided, that these pictures show anything else but (undisputed!) victims. HerkusMonte (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to Nazi propaganda the burden of proof falls on the one providing it, not on the people who question it Herkus. Btw;the incident is now considered by modern research to be a German SD operation, we will need to add this to the article.--Molobo (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The question here isn't the photographs... photographs on their own do not make claims as to what they depict, they simply show what was in front of the camera. The question is the caption. Captions are claims as to what the photo is depicting. Captions are text, no less than the text of the main article. So, if there is any question as to the text of the caption, that text must be supported by citation to a reliable source, just like the main text of the article.

In this case, the caption claims that the photo depicts "Victims of the Bloody Sunday" and attributes that claim to Bundesarchiv: "(according to Bundesarchiv)". So can this claim be supported by a reliable source? That is a simple question to answer... does the Bundesarchiv (which is a reliable sourse for its own claims) actualy say somewhere that this picture depicts "Victims of the Boody Sunday"? If so, then the caption is verifiable. We may caption that picture "Victims of the Bloody Sunday (according to Bundesarchiv)" and cite Bundesarchiv as the source. If not, then the caption is not verifiable, and we can not caption the picture that way. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar-I must warn that there is a tactic I observed that is potentiall destructive. One can create whole article using texts as "according to" or with short notice "at least according to nazi propaganda". The end result could be actually a very POV-ed article with lots of pictures and texts that gives an undue weight to certain point by overexposing it. --Molobo (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note-we can't use the picture anyway, there is no clear copyright regarding this source and the debate is ongoing on Wikimedia.--Molobo (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The text caption used by Bundesarchiv is the copy of the Nazi caption as stored in the archives. It is not made by Bundesarchiv.

Bundesarchiv uses name "Signature: "Bild 183-E10612" for the picture itself. It gives full description made by Nazis later. It seems no statement on truth or actual situation is made by the archive itself. --Molobo (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The full title is "Bild 183-E10612: Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des Bromberger Blutsonntags)" ~ Dead bodies of killed Germans (victims of the Bromberg Bloody Sunday)] HerkusMonte (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv gives signature then archived title of the photo and later the full text from the archive. Somehow I doubt current Bundesarchiv makes claims about "consequences of English blank check to Poland" and "barbarity" and "eternal shame of Poland"-all of which are in the text of the caption.

All in all this is the full caption:

"Bromberg, Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher

Die Massenmorde von Bromberg - die Folgen Englands Blankovollmacht an Polen. Über Bromberg steht der Schatten des Todes. In den Straßen, Parks , Anlagen in Gräben und Hauseingängen, zwischen Hecken und Büschen liegen die Opfer polnischer Grausamkeit, die Leichen vieler hunderter von Volksdeutschen, mit deren Ermordung die Polen ihre Drohung nur zu schrecklich wahr gemacht haben, vor dem Einzug der Deutschen noch Rache zu nehmen. Widerliche bestialische für Menschen kaum denkbare Grausamkeiten sind, bevor die Opfer unter den Bajonetten und Gewehrläufen ihr Leben für Deutschlands Ehre und des Reiches Größe hingaben, an diesen Toten verübt worden. Weinend suchen die Angehörigen ihre Vermißten. Die schmerzgebeugten Frauen selbst hatten für ihre hingeschlachteten Männer und Söhne die Massengräber zu schaufeln begonnen, bis ihnen die einmarschierenden deutschen Soldaten diesen letzten Dienst für die unschuldigen Opfer des Polenhasses abnahmen. Die Geiselmorde von Bromberg, eine Folge der leichtfertigen englischen Blankovollmacht, wird allzeit ein Schandfleck in der Geschichte der polnischen Nation sein. 8.9.1939" So it is obvious that the title is archived name from 8.9.1939 and thus made by Nazis.

--Molobo (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, there is no dispute that ethnic Germans were killed in the war at this point. There also no dispute that the Nazis made the most of this for propaganda purposes. There is also no dispute that the photograph was published as a part of that propaganda. Since that is the case there is no reason to exclude the photographs as long as they are properly labelled to explain this context. Articles should have images where they are appropriate, and there is not reason why these should not be considered to be so. Paul B (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The image's place is Nazi propaganda article. As to your claim killed indicates a crime, and modern research is of the opinion that what happened was a badly gone SD provocation.--Molobo (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. "As to your claim killed indicates a crime" is an unintelligable phrase. The image is about the subject of the article. Virtually every image made of events in the war was used for propaganda by both sides. It irrelevant to the issue of its appropriateness for an article. Paul B (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh Paul Barlow, its been long time since we discussed. I just remembered that we did talked once about if Germans supported extermination of Jews and Poles or "just" expulsion and denial of citizenship) ,nice to see you again.

Anyway; your argument is not convincing: "The image is about the subject of the article" For example propaganda picture of Jews compared to rats conspiring are about Jews but we wouldn't put them in article about Jewish people but in Nazi Propaganda article or Antisemitism. Likewise this picture as it is a propaganda should belong in the article about the subject. Your claim "both sides used propaganda" is a understatement, that dangerously equalises both sides(if not unintentionally)-we should not forget that Nazi regime was totalitarian regime bent on genocide and thus its claims can't be compared to morale boosting attempts by Allies.--Molobo (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and you promoted extremist anti-German Polish nationalist views then, just as you do now (and don't pretend you are just anti-Nazi, the most cursory review of your edits shows that's not true). We would put a photo of Jews compared to rats in the relevant articles, which would be about antisemitism, because that's what the pictures illustrate. Indeed, such pictures are in those very articles. Images are to be placed in the articles that are most relevant to them. Articles should have images if those images are relevant and appropriate. In this case the images are appropriate to this article, since they represent German propaganda about the event. We also have photographs from Nazi Germany in the Holocaust article and many other relevant articles about events in WWII. Paul B (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution