Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:06, 18 August 2009

• 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. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. 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

Question

What is a more reliable source for wikipedia article - TV documentary or Court verdict on the same issue ?

2006 Alaya Rahm's Failed Superior Court LawSuit on Sathya Sai Baba, BBC and Seduced Documentary:

• The Pioneer reported that Alaya Rahm filed a sexual abuse allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba in the 'Superior Court of California' on January 6, 2005 (Case No. 05cc01931). Sathya Sai Baba was accused by Alaya Rahm of sexual abuse from 1995 - 1999.
• The trial was set for April 28, 2006. In the following trial's thorough investigation it was found that Alaya Rahm and his family members had praised Sathya Sai Baba in number of recorded retreats and conferences during the years '1995 - 1999' contradicting Alaya Rahm's sexual abuse claims
• In the trial Alaya Rahm admitted to being a daily user of illegal street drugs and alcohol from 1995 to 2005 when he made those sexual abuse allegations on Sathya Sai Baba in BBC, Seduced documentary interviews and in the Daily Telegraph.
• Alaya Rahm self dismissed the case on April 7th 2006 when witness 'Mr Lewis Kreydick' filed his testimonies. He was the one who brought Alaya Rahm's tickets to India and had also accompanied him to India to visit Sathya Sai Baba. Alaya Rahm had a personal, close and confidential relationship with Kreydick from 1995 to 1997. Alaya Rahm had spoken about his positive experiences with Sathya Sai Baba and no incident about any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba.

2006 Superior Court Verdict:

• Alaya Rahm allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba society was dismissed as “with prejudice” and is binding under the international doctrine of res judicata. That means Alaya Rahm cannot fail another lawsuit on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India. Pretty much the trial found Alaya Rahm guilty of making those false allegations. Sathya Sai Baba name was cleared.
• Court records of Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed law suit: http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-dismissal/
• Daily Pioneer article link: http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html

Earlier 2004 BBC, Seduced documentary and Daily Telegraph based on Alaya Rahm Allegations:

• In June of 2004 7 months before the actual Supreme Court case BBC produced the documentary 'Secret Swami' based on Alaya Rahm allegations. In the documentary BBC strongly accused Sathya Sai Baba of sexual abuse allegations based on Alaya Rahm's claims.
• Alaya Rahms allegations were also published in Britain by (The Daily Telegraph). The BBC documentary was also broadcast in Australia and by the CBC in Canada.
• Based on Alaya Rahm allegations Seduced By Sai Baba, was produced by Denmark's national television and radio broadcaster Danish radio. It was aired in Denmark, Australia and Norway.
• BBC Full Transcript: http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-AlayaRahm/secret_swami17_06_04.txt
• BBC Secret Swami links:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm,
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3791921.stm,

Here's the Problem:

• In wikipedia - Sathya Sai Baba is strongly criticized and accused of Sexual abuse based on the 2004 BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily Telegraph.
• All these accusations were made based on Alaya Rahm's allegations and interviews to these documentaries.
• The Pioneer also reported that no alleged person has ever filed a police or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India for alleged improprieties.

Solution

• Shouldn't the Superior Court of California verdict on Alaya Rahm case in 2006 a more reliable source than 2004 BBC, Seduced TV documentaries and Daily Telegraph article?
• Can the criticism and accusations sourced to BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily telegraph based on Alaya Rahm allegations be removed from the article since Alaya Rahm was found guilty?
• In fairness to Sathya Sai Baba can the article be corrected as per the Superior Court of California verdict?.

Please do reply. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the sources deeply enough, but have a few comments and questions:

1. The case you refer to was filed in the Orange county superior court, not the California supreme court. County superior courts are the lowest level trial courts, while the State Supreme Court is the highest (as far as state law goes).
2. The Daily Pioneer article you link to is a opinion column by Sandhya Jain and not a news report. As such, it is a reliable source only for the columnist's views and not for facts.
3. You mention several reputed sources that pre-date the end of the trial: BBC documentary, the Denmark national television documentary (link ?), some Daily Telegraph article (link ?). Are there any third party sources (besides the court document hosted by Sai Baba's website) that post-date the trial ?
4. In particular is there any reliable source that says that "Alaya Rahm was found guilty" ? I find this contention odd because I haven't heard of the plaintiffs being found guilty at trials, but possibly there were counter-suits which you have not mentioned. Can you clarify ?

Finally, note that this board is mainly for determining whether a specified source can be considered reliable for a given statement. Broader and more complicated issues are better handled at the article talk page or through RFC's. Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from Radiantenergy:

• I corrected the Court Name. A Superior court is not exactly a lower court. The Superior Court of California in Orange County has handled several high profile cases. They have unlimited jurisdiction with regard to civil and criminal legal cases. I don't see why their verdict should be treated lesser than any other court verdict.
• Was there a real case by Alaya Rahm on Sathya Sai Society in the Superior Court of California? Yes.

Proof of the 2006 Alaya Rahm civil case from the Superior Court Of California Website:

• Case No. Case Title Case Type Filing Date Category
• 05CC01931 RAHM VS BABA PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER 01/06/2005 CIVIL
• Case Link: https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=&source=case_src_dtl#top_page. Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.

• Did Alaya Rahm self dismiss the allegation case in the middle of the trial?: Yes

• The trial would have continued if Alaya Rahm did not self dismiss the case himself after the Sathya Sai Society produced a strong case of evidence bringing witness - 'Mr Lewis Kreydick'.

• What was the Verdict on the case: The case was dismissed by the court as “with prejudice”.

• What does that mean: With in legal civil procedure - Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment in a civil case. The dismissal is a judgment against the plaintiff in this case Alaya Rahm "on the merits" of the case, and extinguishes the claim that was being sued over.

• Can Alaya Rahm file another lawsuit in an other court on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India: No.Under the international doctrine of res judicata he cannot do that.
• Did the trial find any wrong doing by Sathya Sai Baba: No

• Did Sathya Sai Society was asked by the judge to offer any Monetary or other compenstions to Alaya Rahm: No

• The verdict was pretty much in favor of Sathya Sai Baba if otherwise Alaya Rahm would have received monetary compensations from the Sathya Sai Baba Society or the right to refile the case in another court of law.

BBC, Seduced and Daily Telegraph Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba based on Alaya Rahm :

• The Earlier 2004 BBC, Seduced documentaries did not do a thorough research on the allegations. They strongly criticized Sathya Sai baba on 'Sexual abuse allegation charges' based on Alaya Rahm allegations. However the following 2006 'Superior Court California Alaya Rahm trial' did not find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba.
• It is definitely a WP:BLP violation to accuse Sathya Sai Baba of a crime he was never proved to have commited based on TV documentaries.
• The strong criticism and accusations sourced to BBC, CBC, Seduced and Daily telegraph based on Alaya Rahm allegations should be removed from the article to fix the WP:BLP violations.

This is more complicated sourcing issue I don't think it could be resolved in the talk page. That's the reason I am asking help here in the reliable source noticeboard.

Misplaced Pages lays great emphasis on the Biography of Living Person article. I think this WP:BLP violation in the article has to be corrected.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, My points numbered 1 and 2 in the earlier posts were just factual comments for your information. Can you address my questions about sources in points 3 and 4 ? Specifically:

• Can you provide links (if available) to the Danish documentary and the Dail Telegraph article ?
• Is there any secondary source (besides the Pioneer opinion column) that post-dates the case ?

Lets try to simply list and analyze the reliability of sources on this board. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with abecedare that this is better taken up on the BLP noticeboard. At a simple level, both sources (BBC as well as the court verdict) can be considered reliable. The BBC source for saying that there are allegations of sexual abuse and the court verdict for saying that, at least in the case of Alaya Rahm, these allegations were found to be untrue. Assuming, of course, that the two sources use more or less the language that I'm using. I think this is more a matter of what it is appropriate to say on a blp. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• The court case was dismissed at Alaya Rahm's request. AFAIK, that mean that no judgment was reached on the veracity of the charges, so it would be wrong to state that the allegations were "found to be not true".
• The case is listed as a "PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER" case on the court website and is a civil case; I am not sure whether the alleged sexual abuse was even the (direct) subject in the case.

The above two points demonstrate why it is a bad idea for us to try and interpret primary legal documents (which we haven't even seen!). I would advice against mentioning the case or its dismissal in any article, unless we have a reliable secondary source talking about it. Note that the BBC documentary pre-dates the filing of the lawsuit and I don't think it mentions the case at all (please correct me if I am wrong on the last point; I haven't read through the transcript or watched the documentary).

As far as the BBC documentary goes; it is a reliable source, but how much weight it should be given in an article is best determined at the WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN board. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have provided the actual court documents from Superior Court of California website. I don't see what more evidence I can provide? The problem is during the 2004 BBC documentary Alaya Rahm case was not analyzed in depth. Based on Alaya Rahm's and his family interviews BBC strongly accused Sathya Sai Baba of 'Sexual Abuse allegations'. It even went further questioning the political leaders in India 'Why no action was taken on Sathya Sai Baba'.
• As I mentioned above in the 2006 trial in Superior Court Of California - Alaya Rahm was found to be making those allegations using illegal Drugs and he self-dismissed the case. Sathya Sai Baba was not proved to have commited any wrongdoings in the trial. My point is its seems baised and unfair to continue accusing some one of serious sexual abuse allegations based on an old outdated documentary and inspite of Sathya Sai Baba being cleared by Superior Court of California. In the article there is whole paragraph citing BBC and other TV documentaries allegations based on Alaya Rahm's claims. Can this be removed? Radiantenergy (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source. A court trial is a primary source. We as Misplaced Pages editors are not competent to analyze what a court decision means. Was this court decision covered in any reliable secondary sources? Jehochman 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Jehochman, The Superior Court of California trial and the verdict was covered in detail by an article in the 'Daily Pioneer' Newspaper. Here is the link to the article from the Daily Pioneer - http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html. I have given more information about this newspaper.
• Daily Pioneer Newspaper: "The Pioneer" - a well established Newspaper. Its been online since 10th May 1999. The daily Pioneer has epaper link: http://epaper.dailypioneer.com/Thepioneer/Pioneer/2009/04/14/index.shtml. The daily Pioneer website has 63,460 page views in the past 3 months. As per the traffic statistics this epaper is linked in 612 websites. Can the Pioneer article be considered as a secondary source to the trial?.
• Other than the original court documents about 'Alaya Rahm's Case' and the daily Pioneer article dealing with the trial there are no other secondary sources.

Court Documents:

Links to Alaya Rahm's case from the Superior Court of California Website:

• https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=&source=case_src_dtl#top_page. Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.
• Link with the Court records of Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed allegation lawsuit: http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-dismissal/

• Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the daily pioneer source can be assumed to be reporting the facts of the case correctly (not necessarily the hyperbole though) since you also have the court dismissal as a reference. The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were the central to the documentary? If they were central to the documentary, then my blp monitor says that it is better not to use the material at all. If not, then it depends. The issue of centrality would, unfortunately, seem to require a reliable source of its own and, I assume, that this documentary and the Alaya Rahm case are not the only accusations of sexual misconduct on the part of the baba. But, in general, I suggest erring on the side of not including inflammatory material in a blp. (Note: The court case would, IMO, be ok if it's language was very specific, as in the allegations were found to be untrue. I realize on rereading that this is unlikely since the case was withdrawn.)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the Pioneer column is a reliable source for anything beyond the facts that a case was filed and a case was dismissed (for which the OC Superior court website suffices anyway). A reading through Sandhya Jain's columns is worthwhile; for example in the latest column US unequal to India, she writes

"Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do. That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy; Mr George W Bush granted the latest extension, and no amendment has been mooted to end this mockery of Black citizenship."

This is an apparent reference to Voting_Rights_Act#Periodic_renewal, but not only is the presentation biased, even the basic facts are wrong!

We should remember that BLP applies not only to the subject of the article but also to other individuals including, Alaya Rahm. I concur that this is a subject better suited for the BLPN board, but at this board we should be clear that the Daily Pioneer column is not a reliable source for anything beyond the columnist's views. Abecedare (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I hold the opposite view. I think the daily pioneer column is a reasonably reliable source for stating that the case was withdrawn by Rahm but that the columnists views (the hyperbole reference I made somewhere in the mess above or below) is not something that is includable in the article. I'm having second thoughts about the BBC documentary being reliable though. I haven't seen it but documentaries of this sort typically rely on story telling ("In 1972, a young John Doe arrived at the gates of the ashram ......", that sort of thing) and also do a good job of obfuscating on actionable matters ("was this young man's broken dream all in his mind or did something happen at the ashram?"). I seriously doubt that the documentary made outright accusations in the first place. Print sources are usually a better bet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Other article: I think the other article is referencing the 'Voting Rights Act of 1965'. The Law outlawed the discriminatory voting practices on African Americans in the United States and its provisions prevented limited voting discriminations in the South. Initially there were objection to its renewal by Republicans in 2006. But President George W. Bush signed the 25 year extension on it.

I was surprised when I came across this article about Criticism of the BBC -'http://en.wikipedia.org/Criticism_of_the_BBC'. BBC has been criticized for its bias on 'Racism', 'Alleged Anti and Pro Israeli Bias', 'Alleged Anti-American Bias' and other biases. The article also said that In January 2005, the BBC aired the Jerry Springer: The Opera, ultimately resulting in around 55,000 complaints to the BBC from those upset at the opera's alleged blasphemies against the Christian religion. The whole article deals with the complaints about BBC. I agree with RegentsPark. I think Daily Pioneer Sathya Sai Baba article is reliably sourced and can be used as the secondary source for the trial. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from Radiantenergy to RegentsPark Question:

Hi RegentsPark. You had asked the following question. The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were the central to the documentary?

• Alaya Rahm allegations was the central / core theme in the BBC documentory. That's the main part of the problem using the 2004 outdated BBC documentary. I have attached the BBC full transcript below. BBC documentary included interviews with Alaya Rahm and his parents and questions to the Sathya Sai officials - Dr Michael Goldstein and Isaac Tigrett about the Alaya Rahm allegations. It also includes the questions to political leaders like Dr Murli Manohar Joshi and their response to these allegations.
• Here's the full version of the BBC transcript : http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-AlayaRahm/secret_swami17_06_04.txt.
• My answer to your next question is that I am only interested in removing the strong BBC and other TV documentaries criticism on Sathya Sai Baba which were based on 'Alaya Rahm allegations'. Leaving it in the article is definitely unfair to Sathya Sai Baba and WP:BLP violation.
• Based on the Superior Court verdict which is more reliable source its better to decide if we can get rid of the outdated BBC and other TV documentary which were solely based on Alaya Rahm allegations.
• I don't see the reason why the same issue has to be taken to another discussion forum in wikipedia. We may go through the same cycle again and again unable to conclude on this issue.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should be taken to the BLP noticeboard because there is a line being drawn here between when allegations become notable enough to be included in a blp and when they should be excluded. That is a question that is not easy to answer here. My core responses are the same as before. Both the BBC documentary, as well as the court case are reliable provided they make clear statements. The daily pioneer article is likely reliable for asserting that the case was withdrawn, especially considering that you have the judgement as a source as well. So, what we have are allegations that have not been proved. Whether these allegations cross the notability threshold is probably better addressed on the BLP noticeboard where you'll get a much better idea of where the line should be drawn. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath  21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath  03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a more reliable source for wikipedia article - TV documentary or Court verdict on the same issue ? -- we don't weigh sources against each other. Rather, when reliable sources conflict, we report the conflict, according to our WP:NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not trying to weigh sources against each other rather the above discussion is about fixing WP:BLP issues in the article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would refer you to: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I originally posted the question. Many very experienced wikipedians shared their perspective in the above discussion. I don't see the need any more to take it to WP:BLP noticeboard. We can mark this discussion as resolved. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2009 (UTYhoi

This is ridiculous. The court case was self-dismissed, so this does not suddenly make the information from the BBC unreliable. Andries (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) First of all the case was self-dismissed by Alaya Rahm and second of all the reputability of the Daily Pioneer can not be compared to that of the BBC and third the disagreeing sources should be used to describe the controversy, not to tone it down or omit it. Fourth, Misplaced Pages is based on secondary sources, not on primary sources, like court documents. Andries (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

People here have no right to interpret controversial primary source material, because Misplaced Pages relies on secondary sources. And they are likely to make mistake if they interpret controversial primary source material. For example, I do not think that the verdict is about the same issue, so I have a contrarian interpretation. How can the verdict say anything about the veracity of the allegations if the case is self-dismissed? There may be thousands of reasons for a self-dismissal. Andries (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The documentary by the BBC is not made obsolete by the court case: the court case made no verdict about the veracity of the allegations voiced by Alaya Rahm. Andries (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)]

Andries, This case was discussed by very experienced wikipedians. I am wondering why you are writing in this forum being a banned editor from the Sathya Sai Baba article for WP:COI. Why did you remove the 'Resolved' tag? Radiantenergy (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

China Youth On Line

China Youth Daily's online version has posted an interview with controversial American politician and self-styled economist Lyndon LaRouche. "现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药———专访美国著名经济学家林登·拉鲁什" Some editors would like to use the biographical sketch that precedes the interview as a source for a variety of assertions about LaRouche. (No one is seeking to use the actual interview as a source - just the biographical sketch.) I have two concerns. One is that we are relying on a Google translation of the interview. The second is that the biographical sketch appears to repeat claims LaRouche makes about himself, which leads me to believe that it may have simply been copied from a LaRouche press release or official biography rather than representing actual reprting by the source. While this publication has a large circulation (they claim 1 million copies are distributed daily), it is far away from the centers of LaRouche's activities and I don't think this is the best source for the notability of his views. Using a Chinese source for an American politician seems like a stretch. Other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese media have taken a very active interest in LaRouche for some time. One noteworthy case is this interview in multiple installments that appeared four years ago in the China Peoples' Daily. Therefore I don't see anything strange about press coverage of LaRouche in China, or Russia, or any of the other locations that have been brought up for dispute. It should also be noted that Will has been quite enthusiastic about using British and Australian sources which are highly critical of LaRouche. Instead of questioning the motives of the China Youth Daily, we should simply discuss whether it is a reliable source. The translation question is a separate issue which would be best solved by soliciting the help of a Chinese speaker. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "enthusiasitic" about any source, and please don't make personal remarks. Translation is an important issue until we get a reliable translation. But the more important issue is whether a biographical sketch in these circumstances is a suitable source for the purposes it's being used.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I occasionally watch CCTV9. "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" That's not the way I would characterize Chinese state media. Dlabtot (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) :It is not such a simple matter as "Chinese state media." China Youth Daily is known both for high standards of journalism, but also taking a rather defiant attitude toward state authorities, as in the case of the "Freezing Point" incident and the Lu Yuegang letter of 2004.--Coleacanth (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

One would have thought that if LaRouche is such a well known person - and these facts about his biography are so well known then the editors in question should find not only have little difficulty in finding English language sources to cite but multiple such sources.

:::You would think so, wouldn't you? LaRouche's main profession is that of economist, and while you can find extensive coverage of his economic theories and forecasts in South America, China, Russia, Europe, and elsewhere, it is conspicuously absent from English language sources. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and unless one believes in conspiracy theories - and I am sure there are no WIKI editors typing here today, tinfoil hat in place - it suggests that to include it unreliable. By the way, I am - in "Europe" and until today, had not even heard of the person. However, if the details suggested can be found in the British press for example - then there would be no difficulty finding them :-)

:::::Sorry, no, but try the Italian or Danish press. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My Italian is appalling. However, the Danish press often also print English additions - as indeed do the German and Italian quality press on occasion. Perhaps this is the solution? The7thdr (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

From the link provided by Coleacanth:

• China Youth Daily has been publishing since 1951. Distributed nationwide, it has always had a large reader base because universities and high schools were forced to subscribe. ... China Youth Daily is controlled by the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League.

So it does appear to be an organ of the Communist Youth League of China, which is a part of the Communist Party of China. Is this a source that we tend to respect for their adherence to accuracy? Leatherstocking asks us to ignore the possible motives a Chinese Communist newspaper would have for writing a puff piece on LaRouche (while attacking the motives of editors here). But LaRouche's movement has been very supportive of the Chinese government, especially in defending it against the accusations of the theft of nuclear weapons technology contained in the "Cox Report". Regarding Coleacanth's suggestion that LaRouche's economic theories and forecasts have received "extensive coverage" on four continents but not in the U.S., I think that is unproven. Passing references, perhaps, but not extensive coverage. In fact, his numerous predictions have been reported in the U.S. press over the years. All through the '70s papers reported how he and his followers were predicting imminent nuclear holocaust, and in the 1980s they reported the predictions of epidemics that would destroy civilization and for decades they've reported the predictions of impending economic depressions that will be worse than anything since the 14th century. In 1992, for example, the press reported his statement that the U.S. economy was in the midst of such a depression. There has been plenty of coverage of LaRouche's economic, political, and scientific forecasts in the U.S. press.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

:Red-baiting, or any other sort of ideological litmus test, is inappropriate here. It opens the door to any number of debates, such as whether the American press, which dutifully repeated the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" hoax, can be considered reliable sources. Let me correct what I said about coverage of LaRouche's economic ideas in other press: there have been references to specific proposals, but this is the first coverage I have seen that gives an in-depth explanation of his more general theories, which is important because the article in question is Views of Lyndon LaRouche, where such coverage is highly appropriate. Will has argued that such coverage should be eliminated from the article for lack of sources, and here we have a significant source. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just rhetoric. It isn't "red baiting" to point out that the Chinese state media and especially the Communist Party news sources are not know for neutral, reliable reporting. It's a problem common to authoritation governments of various politicla tendencies. Their circulation figures are less impressive once we learn that schools and colleges are forced to subscribe to it, and it reminds us that this is a product of an regime run by a single party. The Chinese ruling party can't be unhappy with the LaRouche movement's depiction of the Tibet situation as a power-play by Britain to destabilize China. According to LaRouche, "Nobody can honestly deny the Dalai Lama's Nazi connections..." So building up LaRouche builds up a major supporter in the U.S.   Will Beback  talk  08:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

However, it looks like the Chinese are promoting LaRouche's views on economics, not his views on Tibet. And using your reasoning, all the negative coverage of LaRouche in the American press becomes suspect because LaRouche opposed the Iraq War and other aspects of American foreign policy. Before pointing the accusing finger at the Chinese press, we would do well do examine our own. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• CRITICS OF THE Iraq war are outraged over the revelation that the U.S. military has been paying millions of dollars to plant pro-American, Pentagon-written propaganda articles in Iraqi newspapers and to buy off Iraqi journalists with monthly stipends.

OK, so we won't use any Iraqi newspapers as sources. This appears to be a red herring.   Will Beback  talk  16:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• This whole sub-thread is entirely off-topic. We don't judge sources based on what they say - that would require us to be arbiters of Truth™ - nor are circulation figures in any way relevant; we judge them based on their reputation in other RS. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand this discussion. if the information is "correct" then it will be cited many sources surely? It is after all very general. If it is not cited in English anywhere then it must cast doubt upon its reliability - or at least accuracy. The7thdr (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Would WP:NONENG be of value here? The7thdr (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available.

There are literally hundreds of newspaper articles in English about Lyndon LaRouche from publications across the political spectrum from at least four countries. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have considered LaRouche's economic theories or forecasts to be important enough to devote more than a few sentences to them. There are many books that have a chpater or so on LaRouche, but like the newspapers they devote very little space to describing his economic views. I'm not aware of any book on economics in English that devotes any space at all to him or his theories. So I do't think it's a matter of there being a lack of "English equivalents". This is a case where a state-owned publication is giving accolades to a friend of the regime.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Misplaced Pages's structure doesn't allow us to grade reliable sources on their quality. Either a source is reliable, and can be used, or it isn't. This Chinese newspaper is a reliable source and can be used. It's up to the reader to decide for themselves its credibility, which they are able to do because the source of the information is right there in the article. I support China Youth On Line as a reliable source in this situation. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This Chinese newspaper is a reliable source and can be used - why? what leads you to believe that it has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability? Dlabtot (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that for most publications out there? Newspapers and publishing companies get taken to court for libel all the time, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Remember, our pillar is verifiability, not truth. Determining the sure truth, because we're only allowed to use secondary sources, is beyond our ability. We set a reasonable standard for reliable sources, ensuring that the information is verifiable, and then leave it up to the reader to decide how true it is, based on their own judgment of the sources used. A major newspaper, whether from a democratic or totalitarian society, is a reliable source. The millions of people in China (and many outside of China) get their news from their China's newspapers. Those newspapers meet our standard of reliable source. If you want to make sure that the reader knows where this information is coming from, simply state in the text, "The China Youth On Line states that as a youth LaRouche was involved with..." (or whatever it's saying about his bio). Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you believe it has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability based on no evidence whatsoever? We do actually have a reliable source guideline that we use to inform our judgements. It doesn't list being 'a major newspaper' as a valid criteria for judging reliability. Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cla68, I believe you are very mistaken when you write that a source is either reliable or not. Sources vary in reliability from one to another, and also depeding on context:

• In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is. WP:V
• How reliable a source is depends on context. WP:RS
• Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).WP:BLP

So there is certainly a sliding scale of reliability. In the context of an American politician, a Chinese Communist Party publicaiton is not a mainstream newspaper, and may even count as a fringe view.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In China a newspaper such as this is a mainstream publication. I can't read Chinese very well (Japanese and Chinese share many similar kanji), but I sometimes look through Chinese newspapers that I encounter here in Japan. It's obvious that they contain some propaganda, but they also contain real news, especially about stuff that is going on in China, which is why I look at them. If the Communist newspaper information is contradicted by other sources, simply give both in the article, "The Chinese Communist Youth Daily says that LaRouche did... but the NYTimes says that there is no record that he ever did anything like that." or something like that. That will allow the reader to make up their own mind as to what is true or not. If LaRouche, for whatever reason, gets more favorable press in China, then that's good for us becaue it helps give us a broader perspective on LaRouche's influence on our global society. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This and xinhua are reliable. If they're contradicited, include both. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What basis do you have for saying it is reliable, and how does Cla68 know that this is a mainstream newspaper in China?   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all this is really necessary -- the CYD is not actually being used as a source for LaRouche's ideas, which are abundantly available in primary sources. It is being used to confirm the notability of LaRouche's ideas on economics, and ironically enough, I believe that Will's protests that the government of China is making an intervention to boost LaRouche's economic theories is itself a demonstration of their notability. Will had proposed that text in the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article on LaRouche's economic theories be deleted for lack of secondary sources. I think that the China Youth Daily is more than sufficient for the purposes of establishing the notability required to retain that material. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Until we know what the articles say about the theories, we can't tell if they are just mentioning them or are actually discussing them. After all, the article isn't about them, they're just included in the short biographical sketch at the beginning.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Leatherstocking that this source helps confirm the notability of LaRouche's platform. By the way, if you need someone who can understand written Chinese to confirm what the article says, post a request here and/or here. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an entire article devoted to the LaRouche platform. If we can ever find a reliable translation of this article, we can see what they say, It probably isn't much, since it's so short. Also, I have a question for you above - how do you know this is a mainstream paper in China?   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::::According to the Asia Leadership Fellow Program "Media summary- China," Three most influential media from their type were selected: China Central Television(TV), People’s Daily Online (network), China Youth Daily (newspaper), and the period of focus was from Oct. 2002 to Mar. 2003... China Youth Daily (CYD) is one of the most influential newspapers in contemporary China with a circulation of 800,000 (readership, which is much more, is not officially recorded). A market research report by China Statistical Bureau ranks CYD in third place on the reading rate among the national daily papers. I think this qualifies it as "mainstream." I have placed notices on the bulliten boards that Cla68 provided, asking Chinese speakers to check the accurary of the LaRouche PAC translation of the the China Youth Daily article (translation is here.) --Coleacanth (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a full translation of the source here, will update later on the rest of the article finished. Jim101 (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The English source is roughly accurate, aside from few word choices between my translation and the on on the web. (You say strong point, I say market, but its all about everyone sell China stuff, etc.) Jim101 (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's 'mainstream' but where in our policies or guidelines does it say that being 'mainstream' is part of the criteria for reliable sources? A mainstream newspaper that has a reputation for inaccuracy is not a reliable source. 'Mainstreamness' is totally irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the factual accuracy of this source, my experiences with mainland Chinese media is that in ths case it had no reason to lie. It appears that LaRouche is well liked in China, and lying about him is completely pointless if I'm the Communist censor. The only fishy part about that source is how the Communist gloating over on how LaRouche says what China did in its economy is right, but since the source is used on Lyndon LaRouche, not on Chinese economy, I don't see conflict of interests or NPOV problems here. Jim101 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the current dispute, I suggest use this arbitration case as a reference on how to treat mainland Chinese sources. Jim101 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for putting in that work on the translation. And thanks to Coleacanth for finding that market research report. While the China Youth Daily editor admits that he sometimes has to follow the state line, the report writers seem to vouch for the paper being an important newspaper in China. I suppose even propaganda from a major country represents a significant point of view, even if we treat it as a primary source. Dlabtot is concerned that we are not in a position to judge whether the paper has a reputation for reliability, which is different from being popularity or even mainstream. Jim101 suggests that the paper doesn't have a conflict of interest writing about LaRouche, but he is a loud defender in the U.S. of some of the government's most unpopular policies , so the government has at least an indirect motive for writing positive articles about him. Cla68 indicated above that he thought it would be OK to use if fully attributed with any relevant conflict explained. To resolve this question, I suggest that we use the source with care and attribution, employing Jim's translation.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Branding the press of another country as "propaganda" is inappropriate. I have no doubt that the American press are considered propaganda in other parts of the world, and that you would object if Misplaced Pages adopted that attitude. --Coleacanth (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Propaganda" has a specific meaning. If you're interested in why the China Youth Daily is part of the propaganda system of China, read Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee which discusses the department that determines the content of the China Youth Daily and every other newspaper printed in China. There are many admirable qualities to the Chinese government, I'm sure, but a free press is not one of them.   Will Beback  talk  06:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::And as I mentioned before, the same arguments can be made against the U.S. media. See Propaganda model. --Coleacanth (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The same arguments could be made, but only by deliberately conflating systemic bias with direct government censorship. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One more note on Chinese sources...if the article is written in Chinese, the censors believes that only Chinese will read it, and no foreigners will read it — the reverse can be said for English articles written by Chinese media. You can see this in places such as Xinhua news reports, where the same news story has completely different contents between translations. What this means is that this article was for Chinese citizens only. Within China and from the Chinese and the Communist's point of view, it does not matter which side LaRouche is rooting for in the US or the world as long as he is white, famous and not a killer/rapist. That is my arguement for no conflict of interests for the Chinese censor. Jim101 (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

China's media is reliable like other countries media. Named writers, with editorial oversight, and giant corporations behind them; done. Lots of RSs are biased (FOX news, etc.) and we can't pick and choose. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked you before, but you didn't respond: How do you know they are reliable? In the U.S., if a publication is erroneous it is likely to be lampooned by other media, and subject to libel suits. What happens when a Chinese Communist Party newspaper writes an inaccurate story? At the risk of proving Godwin's Law, do we consider the state media of Nazi Germany to have been a reliable source for any and all topics? Or do we pick and choose?   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I cant believe what I read "China's media is reliable like other countries media"...um, ok, since when? We have routinely talked about on here, and with exception of the few rightwing nuts, have always agreed that FOX news was NOT reliable by itself if not backed by other actually reliable sources, especially relating to politics. Same goes for China's media, and in China's media its not "giant corporations behind them", well kinda the problem is that they are backed by the LARGEST of the giant corporations in China, the Chinese government itself! Any country without freedom of the press and an independant media does not get its media the benefit of the doubt and declared reliable. Comparing Chinese media to Fox is correct, they both arent reliable. So Peregrine Fisher you were half correct in your post, but yes we can pick and choose, that's kinda the purpose of the consensus based discussion on this noticeboard. When China allows me to Google info on the Tiananmen Massacre when I'm in their country then we can allow their media some good-faith. When a country that has two cartoon cop-like characters pop up when you are surfing the internet with names that pretty much translate into the English slang of "po-po" (for police) that "remind" you of what you can and cant surf and censor you and watch what you do, we have a responsibility not to trust their state-run and state-censored "media" outlets. As Will Beback pointed out, what's next, Hitler Youth press releases taken at face value? We always on Misplaced Pages pick and choose what is acceptable. There arent just big categories and that as long as you fit in a category with a source that is reliable the you are reliable too.Camelbinky (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting off topic here, this is not a place to debate truthiness of sources or waging counter-propaganda war against China. Misplaced Pages is suppose to be apolitical. Debating the source's reliability should not involve the evilness of Communism or truthfulness of certain organizations. All sources in the entire world have major factual and bias problems if put in the wrong context.

Let's look at this problem point by point:

• It is reasonable to assume the this source represent the opinion of most people in China.
• Lyndon LaRouche hasn't condemn this source — meaning LaRouche confirmed that this is an exclusive interviews, and he believe it have no major factual problems. His followers has already picked up this piece to endorse their own views.

So this source means that it is a major viewpoint of the Chinese people about LaRouche that is endorsed by both LaRouche and his followers. Thus if this piece is used in this context, then it is a reliable source. Jim101 (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that is totally contrary to our policies and guidelines. Sources aren't judged to be reliable based on the viewpoints they express. Sources are judged to be reliable if they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinese state-run media has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? No. Yes we decide if sources are reliable based on viewpoints because if they have viewpoints they arent being unbiased. We dont let in Fox News commentaries like Glenn Beck and CNN commentaries from Lou Dobbs, we dont let in soft news as sources for news like The Daily Show. This has nothing to do with counter propaganda. The entire purpose of judging a source reliable or not IS based on the source's "truthfullness", if a source is recognized internationally as untrustworthy, biased, and propaganda then it is not reliable. The US media has its faults, but it isnt owned by the state and its faults are individual to each independant media outlet, even Fox news is not owned by the state. Fox news is not a reliable source. Why should Chinese state media be reliable? If Chinese media is propaganda, and it is, then it is not reliable. This is not the place to try and be politically correct and think you are being sensitive in international affairs. It is simply not reliable. Where do you get off saying "it is reasonable to assume the source represents the opinion of most people in China"? Did you do a poll? And if so, who cares? Even if the majority of the people on the entire planet agree with something that doesnt make a source reliable. This is no different than a source from Nazi Germany, which we would not accept as reliable. That's all, there is no other discussion needed. Stop trying to change the subject to seem like those who oppose you are simply anti-communists. You are throwing out a "red herring" ironically. It's not reliable. So stop, you arent being sensitive, your being ridiculous. BTW, I'm actually a big supporter of Communism, what China has is not communism.Camelbinky (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...someone who is overly senstive accuse me of being senitive.

• On truth, please read Misplaced Pages:Truth.
• My point is to take this topic away from talking about politics because it is all smokes and mirrors, and here you are dragging the topic right back into that direction. Do I care about how red China is? No I do not. All I care about whether this source is used properly.
• "It is reasonable to assume the source represents the opinion of most people in China"? Dude, those newspapers/media control people's opinion in China, do I need to do a poll?
• Did you even read my point about context? If this source is used to show "major viewpoint of the Chinese people about LaRouche that is endorsed by both LaRouche and his followers", then it is reliable.

Since the biggest problem with this source is its connection with the Communist party, may I remind people that everything published in China will pass through a censor process with the Communist party. Do we need to ban everything published in China on Misplaced Pages because Communist party is all propaganda with poor reputation on fact checking? Not counting elinimate much of WikiProject China, this kind of black-and-white solution does not help to build Misplaced Pages. That is why I emphasize in this case it is better to cite this source in the correct context rather than censor it out. Jim101 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to handle this is to view the China Youth Daily website as a reliable source for their opinion, which is going to be consistent with the Chinese Communist Party view of the subject. NPOV says we should include all significant points of view, and this probably qualifies. However we can avoid treating it as a source for facts by fully attributing assertions sourced from it. Something like, "According to the Communist Youth League of China's newspaper, the China Youth Daily, LaRouche supports the American style capitalist economy." Would that be acceptable to everyone?   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Dlabtot (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

::No, that's not acceptable. We have three editors here who actually have some first-hand familiarity with the Asian press, Peregrine Fisher, Cla68 and Jim101, and they all confirm that the China Youth Daily has a good reputation. The elaborate statement about it being "the Communist Youth League of China's newspaper" is intended to disparage its reliability. We don't say "'s Washington Post" or Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal," although perhaps we could per Propaganda model. But there is no reason to suggest to the reader that this is a less reliable source than American publications. Bear in mind, as Leatherstocking points out, that we aren't even using it as a source for text, just notability. If we use it as a source for text, "according to the China Youth Daily" would be fine. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically I did not say Communist Youth League of China's newspaper has good reputation (in fact, it is horrible when talking about politically sensitive issues). But when apply the common sense test...if Lyndon LaRouche did not cry bloody murder about this newspaper damaging his reputation, with his followers using this piece like crazy, what are the chances that it is not reliable? Jim101 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with it being used as a source talking about what it asserts. You cant use it as a source asserting a definitive fact (unless you back it up with a reliable source that concurs). Jim101 is correct about its reputation on politically sensitive issues. And yes, I have first-hand familiarity with the Asian press too btw, so how is Peregrine Fisher, Cla68, and Jim101's opinions have more weight than mine when I say NO IT DOES NOT HAVE A RELIABLE REPUTATION. Perhaps you didnt understand me when I mentioned how the internet looks and works in China, or you thought I was blowing it out my ass. I'm sorry, did I waste that money in college taking courses regarding China when I was getting my bachelor's in Political Science minor in History, and that semester abroad in China, and then now getting my masters and focusing on comparative politics so others could claim to know more than me? If I weigh in on a subject, its because I know about it, I dont weigh into topics I dont know about. So if I'm commenting, assume I know what I'm talking about instead of saying others are experts and I need to defer to them.Camelbinky (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

@Coleocanth, I don't think that attributing the viewpoint to this source is a problem. Let me remind you that LaRouche accounts has repeatedly demanded that assertions from Dennis King's mainstream biography always be attributed to him, and that's a far more reliable source than this. The China Youth Daily is certainly going to be used for the article since it's the only third-party, secondary source we have for many concepts it will be the sole source for them. If the ideas are notable they'll have been discussed in such sources and this it. Also, I don't think that anyone here has suggested we shouldn't attribute their views. Cla68 directly said we should. I don't see where Peregrine Fisher has said he has first-hand knowledge, in fact he hasn't really said why he thinks this is a reliable source, except that it has editors. Based on the number of errors in this article alone, it's not clear that we can really view it as reliable for facts, but it certainly usable for its own opinion. @Jim101, the movement has been "using this piece like crazy", posting a fuill translation plus another article about the article. It makes extraordinary claims about the subject, and it certainly doesn't count as an highly reliable source, as required per WP:REDFLAG. Again, I'm sure it's fine as a source for the views of its organization. @Camelbinky, I agree that it is not a suitable source for definitive facts, especially those that do not appear in any other publication. It appears that you have more expertise in this matter than most of us do.   Will Beback  talk  07:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of order -- Coleacanth didn't say that attribution was a problem. He specifically said he was OK with it. What he objected to was identifying the paper as a Communist front, which makes plenty of sense, because even in this day and age that would be prejudicial. We attribute opinions to Dennis King, as well we should, but we don't identify him as a front for Richard Mellon Scaife or whoever it was that allegedly financed his book. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting using the word "front". We can work out the details of the attribution on the article talk page. As for who owns the paper, the Misplaced Pages articles begins, "The China Youth Daily is the official newspaper of Communist Youth League of China..." That should be mentioned for readers who aren't familiar with Chinese media.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

China Youth On Line - break

This discussion has engendered some of the most absurd arguments I have ever seen on the reliable sources noticeboard, including:

1. A source is reliable if it is a mainstream newspaper.
2. A source is reliable if it expresses the viewpoint of a large number of people.
3. A source is reliable if it publishes something about Lyndon LaRouche, and he doesn't complain.
4. Pervasive, direct government censorship of media in China is somehow equivalent to alleged systemic bias in Western media.
5. Editors who believe that China Youth Daily does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are exhibiting anti-Communist bias.
6. Editors who believe that China Youth Daily does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are attempting to be arbiters of truth.

Give me a break! Dlabtot (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Freezing Point incident shows that the censorship is not a pervasive as you claim, and it also shows that the CYD is notable as an exception. And yes, I do think that government censorship in China is somehow equivalent to alleged system bias in Western media -- it's always easier to see it when the other guy is doing it. The US media has a pretty bad rep in other parts of the world due to the WMD hoax and similar matters. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article you linked you'll see that the people responsible for the Freezing Point incident were fired. So the editorial staff of today isn't the same as was involved in that incident. The fate of those staffers most likely provided an example for those left behind. And let's not muddy the waters by making accusations of bias on the part of mainstream U.S. papers, which is not what we're talking about here.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Coleacanth provided evidence that China Youth Daily has as history of bucking the party officials. And as I pointed out early on in the conversation, the use of the China Youth Daily as a source is to establish notability -- for an explanation of LaRouche's ideas, we can use LaRouche's own writings (always the safest course of action with a controversial person.) If the government of China is conducting a campaign to promote LaRouchian economics, that makes it all the more notable. China is not a small county. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee...way to "harmonize" my point.

Pervasive, direct government censorship of media in China is somehow equivalent to alleged systemic bias in Western media. - Except my real point is that using Misplaced Pages to wage war against "pervasive, direct government censorship of media in China" is in someway committing systemic bias. I merely asking people to step back before that happens, and you say I'm ridiculous. Jim101 (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dlabtot, regarding your first point... "Mainstream" newspapers are considered reliable sources, so I don't see anything absurd in that argument. Or have I misunderstood your point. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to the part of our policies or guidelines where it says that or something like it. Dlabtot (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... try: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#News organizations. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, ok, the word is used, but I still think it is absurd to argue that a publication's status as 'mainstream' trumps its reputation. Especially when it is 'mainstream' because of a government decree. Dlabtot (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Using our Godwinesque argument from above, would a "mainstream" newspaper from Nazi Germany be a reliable source because it meets that qualification? Is the North Korea's most popular newspaper reliable simply because it's well-read? The National Enquirer has a circulation in the U.S. as large as China Daily Youth's in China, (and that's paid circulation, as opposed to the ofrced subscriptiosn to CYD), does that make the Enquirer a reliable source? One of the essential tests of a source is whether it has a repuation for reliability, and we don't know that about this newspaper. The article itself seems to promote some fringe concepts, so reliability is not a given.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What you are really debating whether China Daily Youth should be considered "mainstream". I don't know enough about that to judge... All I am saying is that if you define it as such, then it should be considered reliable. Now... this does not mean that a non-mainstream news source is automatically unreliable. I would agree that a Nazi newspaper should not be considered "mainstream"... and generally would not reliable for many statements of fact (it would be reliable for some facts... such as the fact that Hitler visited a certain city on a specific day and was presented with a gold watch, or something like that)... however I would definitely consider it reliable for statements about Nazi viewpoint, and for historiographical statements about how the Nazis presented the news. As for the National Enquirer... I would consider that even less reliable, but again context is everything and even the NE is reliable for some statements (such as what was printed in the NE on a given day). Reliability is not a clear cut, black and white issue. A given source can reliable for some things, and not reliable for others. Few sources are 100% reliable, or 100% unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This source is being used for interpretive assertions, such as that LaRouche has made a certain number of correct predictions. That is a fringe viewpoint, because most mainstream sources don't say anything like that. So again, I'm saying that the CYD is reliable as a source for its own views, which we can use so long as they are fully attributed. It just isn't a source known for reliability and which isn't adequate to support exceptional claims, execept when presented as their opinion.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::You asked that I not "muddy the water" by raising the issue of the reliability of Western media, and here you are, saying that the CYD is unreliable because it is contradicted by Western media. Please name the Western media sources which contradict what the CYD is saying, so we can evaluate your claim. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "contradicted". I said that mainstream press in other countries doesn't include the assertions made by the CYD. For example, who else asserts that LaRouche supports the "American style capitalist economy"? Who else says that the "'LaRouche movement' and the Information Review magazine have had significant impacts on both politic and academia circles through out the US and the world."? Or this: "Since the 50's, LaRouche gave 9 predictions for the US and the world economy, and all predictions was vindicated by history, such as the 1973 US recession and the 1998 Asian Financial Crisis." What mainstream source says LaRouche has made only nine economic predictions, and that they've all come true? These assertions are so unusual that they are virtually fringe beliefs. As I've written before, the Communist Youth Leagues' viewpoint on LaRouche is probalby significant, and I don't mind including it so long as it is fully attributed.   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder -- the name of the source is "China Youth Daily," not "Communist Youth League." And, it doesn't appear to me that you have answered Coleacanth's question. Saying that the CYD covered a story that the American press didn't cover doesn't necessarily make CYD unreliable. If there are American press that contradict CYD's account, that would be of some interest. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar addresses the matter of contradictions below. To restate it, probaby not as well, fringe theories often go unreported. If LaRouche claimed he could fly, and the CYD confirmed it, it'd be unreasonable to ask for sources that say he can't actually fly for us to view it as a fringe theory. Regarding his predictions, many of them have been reported in the Western press. Just recently I read one from the 1970s that said nuclear armeggedon was going to occur within two weeks, but I doubt we can find find a source that explictly says he was wrong. In every one of his eight campaigns for president he predicted economic collapse if he wasn't elected. We can compile a list of them. They have not gone unreported.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Will here... LaRouche is definitely considered Fringe by the majority of mainstream media outlets (western and non-western). And the typical response to Fringe topics by mainstream media is to ignore it. The fact CDY doesn't ignore him does not make him any less Fringe... it simply make him notable Fringe. Now... notable Fringe topics may be discussed in Misplaced Pages (See: WP:FRINGE), but how we do so is important. We do not want to give the Fringe topic more legitimacy than it deserves. Will's comments on attribution are therefore apt. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

:::This resembles the old "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" aphorism. LaRouche, a dissident figure in the US, is ignored or parodied in the US media, while his views as an economist are given great weight in the media of China (and Russia.) Compare the Dalai Lama, who is lionized in the American media and revered by many Hollywood stars, but I suspect that in Chine he is treated as a fringe figure who is "not qualified for talking about human rights." The tendency here at Misplaced Pages is to be Anglocentric and discount any media source that does not conform to the Anglocentric point of view. --Coleacanth (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why it is important to note both viewpoints, and discuss who says what with attribution. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that a clear consensus among editors who commented here who do not normally edit the LaRouche articles (like me), and from someone knowledgeable on Chinese culture and media (thanks Jim101), is that it's ok to use the Chinese source in the context presented. I hope that any further questions about using People's Republic of China media in this or other topics can reference this thread if any questions arise. So, as far as this forum is concerned, I think you have a green light on the source. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus. I see a marginal agreement to use the source with care if fully attributed. A couple of editors are disputing its use in any form. And whatever we've worked out here does not automatically apply to other Chinese media, any more than we can treat American media as a single entity.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I doubt we will ever come to a clear consense due to systematic bias. As long as China remains a partisan topic, no matter how careful we anaylze/cite Chinese publications, there will always be people disputing.

I cited this arbitration case about Chinese sources as a tie breaker just in case. The main point about that case is that it is possible that the current dispute is more about contents than about reliable sources. Jim101 (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Very astute observation, Jim. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Would those who support using this Chinese "media" source as a reliable soure STOP SAYING THOSE WHO KNOW ABOUT CHINESE CULTURE THINK IT IS OK you are being wrong and spreading your own propoganda. As I explained several times before, I have been to China, I have a degree in Political Science, and my focus in my master's program in Political Science is on comparative politics. I know about China, I've been in their culture. I do not agree it is a mainstream reliable source. Any media from a country that censors its media and OWNS the outlet is not independent and allowed to speak its mind. There is no free speach or free press in China, that is a fact, you can not say that is Western opinion. It is fact. The proponents of using that source need to stop spouting off saying that those who know about China support this use of "media", BECAUSE I DONT.Camelbinky (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would advise you that since you are taking a partisan stance towards the issue, and it would be best for you to take a step back before engage in heated exchange.
• Now as for the charge of spread propoganda, personally it is hard for me to do. My grandfather fought in the Korean War and branded as a traitor for taking a wrong turn. My other grandfather is a corrupt official who swindle food supply during the Great Leap Forward. My mom never had any high school education due to the Cultural Revolution and now jobless. My father just recently disowned his parents for his disillusion on Maoism...please, I'm politely asking you to be considerate.
• As for the charge that I don't understand Chinese culture/politic. I lived in China for 15 years and joined various Communist organizations and involved in its propoganda process. I think I know what I'm talking about by recalling back to those experiences.
• As for my opinion overruling yours, I never says anything like that in this disscussion. I don't believe my opinion is better than yours, but your belief that your opinion should overrule others is disconcerting.
• Finally, since your biggest point in your argument is that propoganda should not belong on Misplaced Pages, that is a content argument, not a RS argument. An RS argument is that the current source is unverifiable, and while I do agree that normally China Youth Daily is unverifiable, in this case the content of the piece has been verified by the LaRouche supporters in the States. Jim101 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That point about verification is complicated. Some of what the paper prints are extraordinary assertions primarily found in LaRouche literature, such as the claim that he and his movement are influential or that he has achieved 100% accuracy in his predictions. So in practice it is the China Youth Daily that is confirming the LaRouche version of his personal history and importance. Since some of LaRouche's theories haven't appeared in any other 3rd party source this article is being used to show that otherwise non-notable ideas are worth hundreds of words because they are referred to in passing in this interview. That's quite a burden on a single, rather short article. Aside from the Communist Party propaganda issues and aside from the LaRouche promotion aspects, this source is also problematic in part because of the language issue. This article is apparently a summary of an interview that was presumably conducted in English, then was translated into Chinese, and now has to be translated back into English. We're not even sure what some phrases mean, and can only guess. As I've said before, the Communist Party has a notable point of view, and this paper is a reliable source for it. So long as we use it carefully and with full attribution I think it will be OK. But we shouldn't use it as a justification for writing thousands of words based only on it and LaRouche-movement sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that everyone agreed on the point that this paper is a reliable source for the Communist Party's view, but the current dispute, as I see it, is whether Communist Party's view should appear on Misplaced Pages. But that is a content/NPOV/fringe dispute, not a RS dispute. Jim101 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser and behavioral evidence have revealed thatColeacanth is a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky, and so I've crossed out his comments here.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone's grandfather or father fighting a war or dying in China, while sad, has no bearing or relevancy on anyone's knowledge or expertise in Chinese media reliability. I respect that yes, you do have experience and knowledge to share and it is good that Jim is in this discussion. What I got upset about is that multiple times now the side promoting the use of the Chinese media outlet has stated that those who know about Chinese culture are in support of its use. That is not true. It muddies the water and makes those new to the discussion think that those who know about China all support it. I do not support it. My credentials are good and my knowledge firm. I do agree with Jim101 that this is more of a NPOV/fringe dispute and less of a RS dispute. How about in any article the caveat is put that "According to xx media the Communist Party believes yy" obviously that is a very simplified sentence with no details. Any mention of "facts" put forth must be labelled as coming from that source in the prose of the article and not just in a footnote, and it must be made clear to the reader this is not necessarily an accepted fact. It's like trying to use Rush Limbaugh as a source for a news event, or frankly for anything he says, that just wouldnt be wise. Though personally I'd consider him a reliable source on anything to do with oxycotin. :-)Camelbinky (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus is that with that type of attribution, a citation could be used. Dlabtot (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin

I've edited the flight 77 page citing previously reliable sources:

1) Goldberg et al. (Title: Pentagon 9/11) for the crash section

2) David Ray Griffin (Title: The New Pearl Harbor Revisited) for the conspiracy section

Yet "VegitaU" reverted my edits saying :

David Ray Griffin is a noted conspiracy theorist and his fringe views are not citable as reliable sources.

However, this is patently untrue because DRG is cited in the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page.

He also reverted my edits citing Goldberg apparently unwittingly, though his book is cited on Flight 77 page numerous times.

I wrote this on VegitaU's talk page and undid his revert, but this was immediately undid by "A Quest For Knowledge" who said:

Removed 9/11 "truther" spam

He did not even read my response on Vegita's talk page or he would know I also cited Goldberg.

Is the use of DRG as a source "spam" on the main article as well?97.104.226.129 (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at what was added, and I've got to say that you are putting in material that is not needed in this article. (see WP:DUE WP:FRINGE). You've also brought this to the wrong board. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No the issue was specifically about whether David Ray Griffin was a reliable source. If you are suggesting that my edits are giving "undue weight" to a theory then I would be happy to discuss it in a relevant noticeboard. Again, I point to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories main article which copiously cites DRG. This means DRG is a reliable source in regard to 9/11 conspiracy theories, no?97.104.226.129 (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with regards to 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, coverage of 9/11 conspiracies isn't needed on the main pages. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will reference this if someone tries to revert the edit. There was already a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories in the main article, so if you argue that it isn't needed you'll have to put forth your argument on the talk page.ArXivist (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Context is everything. A source can be reliable in one article, but not in another. Mr. Griffin may be considered a reliable source in an article that is about his conspriacy theories... but in another article he probably is not. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the section of the No original research policy dealing with primary sources. In brief, it is almost always preferable to base articles on how the topic has been treated elsewhere rather than rely on your own interpretation of the primary sources. I expect that the spam comment stemmed from a perception that your inclusion of this source would result more in increased exposure for DRG than improvement to the article. Using sources discussing what impact it has had on the larger discourse would obviate this problem. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

About.com news articles

Is About.com a reliable source? Specifically, can I use this article Profile of Economist Paul Krugman, by Deborah White of About.com, as a tertiary source in the article about Paul Krugman concerning what about him is notable? LK (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Found this from the archives. It appears that the signed articles from About.com are reliable. LK (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. About.com is reliable... That said, most of the material in About.com is taken directly from other sources... and best practice is to follow the chain back to the original, by reading and then citing those other sources (or, alternatively, citing the other sources but listing About.com as a convenience link as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). However, in this case the material is original to About,com. As such can and should be cited to About (with attribution to the staffer who wrote it). It is more of a citation formatting issue, and not really a reliability issue. (An important exception to all of this is when About.com takes its material from Misplaced Pages. That material should not be used here)Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the inconsistency of quality at about.com that troubles me. Some areas seem authoritative while others seem like little more than random essays. They don't seem to have a consistent editorial standard across their various websites and therefore I think they fail the "reliable publication process" part of the guideline. I wouldn't use it in an article I was editing. Dlabtot (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that About.com is not the most reliable of source. The question is whether it is so bad that we can call it unreliable. I don't think it is. Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for reasonable people to disagree. Dlabtot (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Frommers as a reliable source?

Hello. Is Frommer's series of guidebooks a reliable source? I haven't really seen anything that tells about guidebooks. Thanks! Hires an editor (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to say yes (based on personal knowledge), but their own article does not assert their reliability. It certainly could, and should, so I've added a couple of {{Citation needed}} tags where a good citation will establish their reliability.
— Ω (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not reliable. Messes up geography, basic history and places $200 a lunch outfits on the "moderate" list. YMMV. NVO (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Looked again and it's far worse... stay away. Perhaps none of their editors actually saw the cities they "cover", even on photographs.

Example 1 (Vienna). "In 1896 young Otto Wagner (1841-1918)"

Example 2 (Moscow). "towering tented spires of the 16-th century Church of Ascension" etc. NVO (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Frommers has shown up on RS/N before. Consensus is that it varies. For tour 'guidy' things, they are ok (like NVO says, your mileage may vary). NVO points out above that they are occasionally inaccurate. In my opinion, there are better sources out there, especially for big cities. but if it between leaving a contentious claim unsourced and sourcing it to Frommers, I would say that we are better off sourcing it to frommers. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is Tiwanaku, and the source was added to the sentence "However, the name by which Tiwanaku was known to its inhabitants has been lost, as the people of Tiwanaku had no written language." In my opinion,we should not be using general purpose guidebooks as a source for archaeological informtion. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Frommer's is not a reliable source on anything.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Doug. Any archaeological/historical information—if it's correct—appearing in Frommer's must (by definition) appear in some other more reliable source that's closer to the actual research/scholarship, since at most Frommer's only conveys 3rd-hand info of this type. At best it can only be a stop-gap measure to cite Frommer's for info like this, there's any number of readily accessible (even via googlebooks) actual archaeological sources that wld be preferable to use. Particularly on a prominent site like Tiwanaku.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked into it a little bit (one of the fun things about editing WP is learning about obscure topics like this)...according to The Aymara of South America by James Eagen "Archaeologists aren't sure whether or not the ancient Aymara had a written language." I'd not use Frommer's, in this instance, and would hesitate to use Frommer's at all. Dlabtot (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

I am wondering if this is a reliable source==>. It is written by 2 authors, one who has a PhD, and another who is a PhD candidate. It also has inline citations and many sources. Can it be considered a reliable, academic source?--Edward130603 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does it come from? Where are these two researchers based? Under what subject did they present this paper at "the Annual Conference of The American Family Foundation (April 28-29, 2000) in Seattle, WA"? As I mentioned on the FG talk page, there is a list of references, but I can't say if they sufficiently support the conclusions in the paper. Mostly because I don't read chinese. :) PerEdman (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, in what context do you wish to use it. Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I plan to (hopefully) use it on the Academic views on Falun Gong (which will probably be renamed soon).--Edward130603 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the questions I think are relevant to consider: Was it published in an academic publication? Are they experts on Falun Gong? Is the American Family Foundation an academic forum? Is the work based on fieldwork or extensive research, or is it a summary of their own thoughts about the subject? Were it published in a reliable source, has the work be superseded by later research? Is this something that two guys with PhDs got together in their spare time and wrote, on their own? The corollary question is, has it gone through a peer-review process?

The answers appear to be: It hasn't been published in an academic publication; they are not experts on Falun Gong (one has a PhD in biochem); an AFF meeting is not an academic forum; the publication is essentially a summary of these two guys' thoughts on the subject, with the only references regarding Falun Gong all being to either Chinese-state media or other AFF associates; their work has been superseded by later academic fieldwork and research by tenured professors; their work has not been peer reviewed.

Please indicate whether any part of the second paragraph is inaccurate.--Asdfg12345 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph doesn't give many claims. It is merely introducing the topic and saying that they will analyze FLG.--Edward130603 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad. You were talking about your 2nd paragraph right? Fang Zhouzi is a known dissident.

Fangzhouzi/Fangshimin is the President of New Threads Chinese Cultural Society, a non-profit organization promoting Chinese culture to the general public. Deng zixian is a graduate student of the Department of Political Science of the University of North Texas. They have also written letters to the editors of the Washington Post and NY Times regarding FLG. Is that enough for their paper to be considered a reliable, academic source?--Edward130603 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion, take ten zillion

Is Kalman et al (2008) a secondary or a primary source? 99.60.0.185 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter... Primary vs. Secondary has nothing to do with reliability. There are reliable Primary sources and reliable Secondary sources (just as there are unreliable sources that fall into each category). The question that should be asked is "is the source reliable?" And to answer that, we would need to know which article is it being cited in, and what statement in that article it is supporting. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's for cold fusion -- is it a reliable WP:SECONDARY source for supporting the last sentence of its abstract? How about the sources discussed at and -- are those relable peer-reviewed secondary sources for the purposes of that article? 99.27.133.58 (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just a note. If people are intending to quote a paper like that using only the abstract, then they are in the wrong. Editing an article like cold fusion demands that we understand the source, not just determine if we can use the words presented in the source. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see a lot of conversation in those links where people assume that Springer or Elsiever as a publisher == academic press. That's not a very good assuption, especially given the recent press about elsiever and some other "academic" publishers printing sham journals. I'm not qualified to say whether or not some physics article has been published in a reliable venue. The journal the linked pdf is published in is The European Physical Journal - Applied Physics,the doi is 10.1051/epjap:2008167. As far as I can tell, this looks to be reputable, but that claim is very tentative. Protonk (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source at Rebecca Quick

The last couple days, me and a few editors have been in disagreement over a particular source at Rebecca Quick in regards to her marital life. This is the source in question, http://www.cedarrun.org/newsletter/Spring03.pdf, a newsletter from a wildlife refuge organization. I opposed having this source listed because of the fact that it’s a company newsletter, and that they are not always good and reliable sources. And the information about Quick in that newsletter is way too small, and that small information did not focus whatsoever on the main argument, her marriage life. The newsletter ONLY said that Quick was just simply an auctioneer at an event, and a picture was taken of her and her family which included her NOW ex-husband. However, it does not say “ex-husband” in that newsletter. Keep in mind, this is a six-years-old newsletter, nothing current. Therefore, anybody who views this particular source will be under the false impression that the guy standing next to Quick in that picture is still her current husband. There are other sources than this newsletter attached to the Rebecca Quick article which does put some emphasis on Quick’s marriage life that are more current, adequate, proper, acceptable and reliable than this newsletter. A few editors agreed with this reasoning. However, there are two to three who editors say otherwise, and they had improperly issued warnings to me saying that they are administrators when they are really not, and that if I don’t stop, they will block me. I request at a real neutral-third party Misplaced Pages administrator examine this. Because the last thing I want to resort to is a civil unrest which might engage in an unwanted edit-war between me and opposing parties. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's now sourced to Page Six of the New York Post. That's a bit shaky.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the Rebecca Quick's discussion page, I don't oppose your suggestion of removing every information about her marital status altogether. True, the Page Six of the New York Post is a gossip page, and would not be a good thing to attach as a source. But as far as all of us can find, that's the most credible of all the sources out there, surely more credible than that newsletter. I'll leave it up to the administators at the BLP Noticeboard to make the final call. If that's deemed unacceptable, then maybe perhaps we should carry with your initial suggestion and exclude all of Quick's marital information on her article. KeltieMartinFan (talk)

Here's a better source to resolve this: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01252009/business/fuld_hides_home_151983.htm

162.6.97.3 (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Source or spam?

Is http://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/Multivitamin_Multimineral_Supplements/multivitamins/ a reliable source, or a spam link that tries to get money out of visitors? It has just been added to multivitamin as the sole source for a section. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with spam, but I'd accept arguments to the contrary. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Frank W Sweet a reliable source?

The author in question is used as a source for a number of articles: . This is in fact one of our editors, FrankWSweet (talk · contribs), and he describes himself on his talk page. He's a fairly prolific writer, but given his self-description and the fact that he is the publisher of his books , I think he fails WP:RS (or WP:EL if used for an EL, but that's a separate issue). He hasn't contributed for about three years and I suspect a lot of the use of his work is from his edits (I haven't checked them all, but the first one I checked was his edit). Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

More info please... What subjects does he write about, and are the Misplaced Pages articles in question on those subjects? Are his works being used for controvercial statements of fact, something not controvercial, his opinion, or what? If he was adding his own work, I would say that we have a potential for COI here, but the seriousness depends on the details. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot on race, but the first issue is that he is self-published surely? I know it doesn't mean he can't be used at all, but given he has no academic publications, no PhD so far as I can see. At White people he's used for "In addition, according to Frank W. Sweet, recent research has shown that a significant minority of white people in the USA do have recent non-European ancestors that they are probably unaware of: "About one-third of White Americans are of between two and twenty percent recent African genetic admixture, as measured by the ancestry-informative markers in their DNA. This comes to about 74 million Americans." Sweet, Frank, W. (2004) "Afro-European Genetic Admixture in the United States" in Backintyme Essays. See also Passing (racial identity)</ref>" In some other articles it's more about history. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely looks iffy... OK, one final question... What can you tell us about Backintyme publishing? I do see they list him on their website as one of the few authors they publish, but is there any further connection between them (in other words, what makes you say his books are self-published?) Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this page and this page . Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think that substantiates self-publication. In which case, the citations to his work should at minimum be revised per WP:SPS, and a much closer scrutiny should be given to any statements that he himself added and cited to his own work. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... looking into this a bit more, I get no hits on Google Scholar for either Sweet or his works (but perhaps my input is faulty, it would be nice if someone double checked). How accepted is his scholarship? Would his conclusions be considered Fringe? etc. (in other words... perhaps we should remove him completely) Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is opinion piece in Rolling Stone a reliable source on Goldman Sachs?

An opinion columnist at the Rolling Stone apparently doesn't like Goldman Sachs. He says they are "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." Is an opinion piece like this a reliable source on anything about GS? Maybe if a reliable source like the Wall Street Journal said this with some facts to back it up (possibly), but just a scandal monger without any facts to back it up? Note, if there were facts quoted, I'd guess there might be a better source, but just a quote about a squid that seems just to mean "I don't like them?" Why include this at all? 24.127.162.147 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes (and I note that you've already removed this referenced piece three times today).
  

Rolling Stone might exist for the purpose of lightweight amusement, but they've also a long established reputation if not for taking serious things seriously, at least for writing about them in a professional manner. Is there any particular comment in this piece that you can find fault with? Would you raise the same complaint if it were in the New Yorker? Or is it just convenient to take the line "Any criticism that appears in a paper that once employed Hunter S. Thompson can be removed without discussion"? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, hold on. Opinion and commentary pieces usually aren't used as sources. What's the matter at dispute?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference is:

Taibbi, Matt (July 13, 2009). "The Great American Bubble Machine". Rolling Stone.

This was used to back up the claim that:

In July 2009, Rolling Stone contributor Matt Taibbi published an article on Goldman Sachs titled, 'The Great American Bubble Machine', where he condemns the company as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money," and going on to assert that Goldman Sachs and similar companies have engineered and then profited off of every economic recession and bubble since The Great Depression. The piece generated much media attention and controversy, evoking a response by a Goldman Sachs spokesman describing it as "an hysterical compilation of conspiracy theories". He added, "we reject the assertion that we are inflators of bubbles and profiteers in busts, and we are painfully conscious of the importance in being a force for good." Taibbi rebutted, "Goldman has its alumni pushing its views from the pulpit of the U.S. Treasury, the NYSE, the World Bank, and numerous other important posts; it also has former players fronting major TV shows. They have the ear of the president if they want it."

The source is a perfectly adequate as a primary source as to the existence and contents of the article, which is all it's being invoked to support (though there is no sourcing for the back-and-forth reactions to it). However (not that this noticeboard is the place to opine on this), the episode seems insufficiently notable / related to the activities of the article's subject to be included. Bongomatic 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it is just used to locate where the quote comes from, I don't see the problem. There may be other reasons for not having that quote, but reliable source isn't such a reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Of course it is a reliable source, when properly cited, for example, in the extract above it cites the author, the publication, and a conclusion that he drew, and that was attributed to him. Whether or not it should be in the article is an editorial judgement. Dlabtot (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Taibbi's a reliable source. He's an award-winning journalist, Rolling Stone remains a significant publication on political issues. The problem with the Taibbi discussion in the article was that it didn't provide any appropriate sourcing for its claim that the article had real-world impact. I've added one such source; a simple Google News search provides quite a few more, if other editors want to expand the discussion (which might be quite appropriate). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An unsolicited note here: Taibbi's article was praised by the Columbia Journalism Review recently, so that should pretty much complete the case for its appropriateness for us to use. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"The issue isn't whether Taibbi's a reliable source"
Maybe not, but that's how the anon IP prefers to present their removal of this disparaging comment on Goldman Sachs. It's always easier to win a content argument (as this so obviously really is) if you can dress it up as being policy-based instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that the primary source gave this opinion and therefore it's properly sourced, the opinion piece sources itself. But is it a reliable source to say anything about Goldman Sachs? User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz brings up the question of whether anybody else thinks this has any relevance to Goldman Sachs and cites a short Article from the Business Insider. Let me tell you what they really think - just see their story Matt Taibbi's Goldman Sachs Story Is A Joke. Short quote " the story is really not meant for an audience interested in a discussion of financial markets, as evidenced by his rhetorical style (almost everyone is simply an "asshole"), and his ridiculous leaps in logic (e.g. Goldman lowering its IPO underwriting standards created the .com bubble... and that explains how Nortel had a peak valuation of over $300 billion, how?)."

This is one of the nicer things people are writing about the story. See Matt Taibbi Gets His Sarah Palin On A short quote won't do it: "(Taibbi) grabs whoever's nearest to hand and builds them up into a gigantic straw villian, which he proceeds to bash with a handful of recently acquired technical terms that he clearly doesn't quite understand. It's not that everything he says is wrong, but the bits that are true aren't interesting, and the bits that are interesting aren't true. The whole thing dissolves into the kind of conspiracy theory ... It's just incoherent."

So my question is not whether this stuff can go into the article on Matt Taibbi, but is it a reliable source on Goldman Sachs? 24.127.162.147 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it belongs there. The Taibbi article has set off a s---storm. We won't say in the lead that Goldman is a "giant squid" etc., but his contentions belong in an appropriate place in the article. There is a lengthy section on criticism of the bank, and the Taibbi piece belongs there, in my opinion as a subsection of its own. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it belongs there. Note the Columbia Journalism Review's defense of the piece here and Ezra Klein's followup here. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially a WP:NPOV#Undue Weight issue rather than a WP:RS issue. Suggest this be rasied there. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a big fan of polemic-type articles, and while Rolling Stone is a useful source, it does not carry the same weight as Barrons on the topic. There's really only two ways you could use a source like that without straying far into undue weight. One way is a statement in a praise/criticism section of the form "Goldman Sachs has been described as everything from A to B to C to D", with maybe C being the Rolling Stone opinion. ( A similar principle applies to the inflammatory The Nation blog entry about "birthers" discussed a few posts ago. ) Another way is as an adjunct to a more important article. For instance, the Guardian last month did a pretty good article on Goldman Sachs, from the present situation to recruitment to prominence of its "alumni" in politics and in private equity. The article was entitled Roasted vampire squid turns out to be dish of the day on Wall Street, and if you cite it, you can argue that a footnote is in order for the "vampire squid" reference. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it is only reliable as a notable opinion on Goldman Sachs. Given that this source's goal is trying to rip a new one for Goldman Sachs, academically it is not a reliable sources for hard facts unless a neutral thrid party can verify its factual accuracy.

I would advise against using a source that has a stake/goal in the topic. Jim101 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not all rush to praise the business press, which has hardly been a paragon of journalistic virtue. Sure, the raucous Taibbi piece may seem skeevey compared to a stuffed shirt like Barrons, but is that really a valid reason to disregard a perfectly good source? The Columbia Journalism Review sides with Taibbi against the business press - do we have a good reason to disagree? Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As it's being used it appears to be as a reliable source for a particular journalists opinion, and as such it is a reliable source. Blueboar had it correct when he stated this is likely an issue of WP:NPOV#Undue Weight rather than RS. This also again raises the issue of WP:BLP applying to active companies. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no. BLP does not apply to companies, companies are not persons on Misplaced Pages, we are not bound by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Dlabtot (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Right balance of sources?

A few of us at WP:BIGBRO are attempting to get Big Brother 2009 (UK) to GA level once the series ends in September. One of the major concerns in previous articles has been sourcing - it has always been infamously bad; last year's article relied to heavily on primary (Channel 4) sources. We've taken a much different approach this year though. However, due to the lack of press coverage of the programme (which is documented in the article), reliable and secondary sources of the day-to-day goings on in the house have been hard to come by. Therefore, we have been continually relying on Digital Spy to supply us with this infomation. 32.3% of this article's sources are from that site - have we got the right balance? I've included a graph and run-down. DJ 00:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

167 sources:
Digital Spy- 54
Daily Mail- 25
Guardian- 20
Channel 4- 15
BBC- 9
Heat- 8
STV- 4
MSN- 3
Evening Herald- 3
Telegraph- 3
Independant- 2
Times- 2
Welwyn & Hatfield Times- 2
Misc. singular sources- 17

That's not really the type of question we address here. Dlabtot (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a little skewed but it doesn't necessarily contradict RS. You may want to check out the Eurovision debates in our recent archives, where there was a debate over using a couple of fan-oriented sources to fill in uncontroversial information about the contest, in articles which were GA candidates. No consensus was reached on RSN, though some good arguments were made. I believe Wikiproject Eurovision then did an RFC where the sources were deemed semi-reliable, and considered OK for non-contentious information, but it was agreed some sources were overused and editors began replacing them with others. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Digital Spy isn't a fan-oriented site at all. I'm just wondering if you feel this is the right balence of sources; are we too reliant on one? DJ 10:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is an unpublished letter in an article on the site of a colleague an RS?

From experience I know that the editor in question and I(and others) have a basic difference of opinion on what is a reliable source. This edit at Great Sphinx of Giza cites an article by Robert Bauval on his colleague Graham Hancock's website, as the source for an unpublished letter to Bauval and a quote from a book (along with the word 'demonstrated' which I'd object to if the paragraph stayed in. The article is here. The issue about the letter doesn't, I think, need enlarging on. The book, The Birth of Christ: Exploding the Myth, Virgin Books, 1998 by Colin Wilson and Percy Seymour, is described here = Seymour writes about scientific astrology, the paranormal, and geomagnetism. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say private correspondence on a self-published website (reproduced for self-serving reasons) is not a RS. Personally, I think the whole section on the Orion Correlation Theory is WP:UNDUE weight on a WP:Fringe theory. JN466 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have a problem with making stuff up and attributing it to authors who never wrote what was said or taking out of context ideas that support a particular POV though the author was talking about something else entirely. What always fascinates me, however, is that this gaggle of debunkers place the most exacting standards on any source that differs from their POV, yet for something that supports it, it is never checked. Time and again I have found outright falsehoods or gross misinterpretations placed by these very same editors, yet for some reason this is ok. Regardless, the letter is an "open letter" meant to be published in which this same letter is also reproduced verbatim on Ed Krupp's website:http://www.antiquityofman.com/Krupp_refutes_Bauval_and_Roy.html. Krupp has no reservations whatsoever that it is a genuine letter and devotes several paragraphs in response to Roy's comments. Ed Krupp's website is apparently acceptable reference, so therefore the reproduction of the letter and Krupp's verification in his own words would make it acceptable.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is a narrow point. I queried a couple of weeks ago whether letters in a publicly-available archives (of a late Congressman) were RS, the response was that they could be used within the limits of WP:PRIMARY.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the original edit including new and direct sources. Seymour, among other things, has been principal lecturer in astronomy at the University of Plymouth and senior planetarium lecturer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich which makes him more than qualified to speak of Krupp's findings. Yes, he has written books about "astrology", but has done so from the scientific method as it relates to the possibility that magnetic fields may have an effect on human brain development which is a reasonable hypothesis. If anything, at least from my understanding, is what Seymour has attempted to do is take the "fringe" out of astrology and reduce it to it's relationship to astronomy and general physics. I have not read his books, but I am also not finding anything anywhere that would dismiss his competence or credentials to speak about Krupp's findings if only the opposite. Personally I think astrology in the true sense of the word in that the stars can be used to predict the future or whatnot is obviously total bunk, but as the alignment of planetary bodies as it relates to magnetic fields, mainly the sun/moon and its phases, are likely to have a biological impact on life on earth, I think is quite reasonable. Thanos5150 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that Krupp has been found I'm happy with the letter. But looking at the article as a whole, what is really a very minor fringe theory about the Sphinx should probably be reduced to a paragraph if it is to be there at all, the amount devoted to it makes it look much more significant than it actually is. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is naive, if not dishonest, to suggest that the Orion Correlation Theory is such an insignificant viewpoint as to warrant little or no mention at all, but given the fact Krupp has been successfully rebutted within the rules of Wiki it does not surprise me you would now take this turn. Really what you are saying is that if the idea cannot be thoroughly discredited with no opposing view, as there is now, then you don't want it in there at all. You were more than happy to have it before-so what changed? That's the thing-you don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. I promise you the world will not end if people think differently than you do. None of this changes the fact however the significant impact the Orion Correlation Theory has made on the subjectThanos5150 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

I am sorry, but the impact the Orion Correlation Theory has made is pretty much evident from this: . While this is really a matter for the WP:NPOV noticeboard, I'll say here that I believe it is WP:UNDUE to even mention it in our article. JN466 14:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The personal attack is no surprise. We are talking about the Sphinx, not the Giza pyramids, and I still say the Orion theory has made very little impact on discussion of the Sphinx, much less than it has on discussion of the Giza pyramids.

It is not a "personal attack" to address the double standards imposed by some editors here. This is a legitimate ongoing concern. If you take this personaly then you should look inward for the answer as to why you feel this way. And who would this "our" be?

Regardless, the Sphinx is one of the key points of the Orion Theory which has received worldwide recognition and garnered lengthy and ongoing debates with the foremost Egyptologists of the day, mainly Lehner and Hawass, not to mention the likes of Krupp. I am curious-if this idea were so "insignificant" then why would they even bother to respond let alone have devoted so much of their time to it by appearing on countless TV programs, forums, and print defending against it? Here is another Google search for you:Thanos5150 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong search -- add 'Sphinx' and you lose the vast majority, and the ones you have left may not link Sphinx to the OCT, they may be talking about Schoch or whatever. 'Dishonest' sounds like a personal attack. You may think the Sphinx is a key point, but it doesn't attract much attention. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see just as many, but you are using U.K. Google so we are not seeing things exactly the same. Regardless, if you are saying the O.T.C. itself is insignificant-then this is definitely a point of contention. But, technically you are correct if what you are saying is that the "Orion Mystery" has little concern for the Sphinx which is when the O.C.T was first introduced, so if this is your point I would agree, however, the theory was significantly expanded upon with the release of the "Message of the Sphinx" in which the Sphinx is obviously an integral part which has received a significant amount of attention and ultimately what the edit is referring to in relation to the Sphinx, so maybe this is where the confusion lies. I suppose it could be clarified, but I did not include the O.T.C. edit in this page though it has been there for years,and until this latest edit I have added nothing and only did so because I found a little time to finally balance it out. It's funny to me to see the edit by "Wdford" who restored Doug's edit saying "to mention the theory without mentioning the debunking is hardly neutral" but then proceeds to hack up the supporting view to barely an enigmatic sentence and reducing the two scientists to "authors". As if that were fair?? Come on fellas....Thanos5150 (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is one owners manual sufficient to generalize about "many" cars?

In the article Jump start (vehicle), the sentence "Many vehicles made since 1990 switch off the cigarette lighter outlet when the engine is stopped" is cited with <ref> For example, the 2004 Toyota Camry Solara owner's manual mentions this </ref>.

Is a reference to one 2004 Toyota owner's manual sufficient to support the assertion that "many" vehicles were changed after the date 1990? Or should the reference be deleted and a {{fact}} tag be placed back on the sentence? --Dbratland (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Owners manuals are not published independently of the subject and therefore I wouldn't generally consider them RS. Dlabtot (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I would very much trust owners manuals to be excellent RS on the technical details and operation of a given model of car. But this is a question not about the quality of the source, but about generalizing from it. This is really an example of WP:OR, and not appropriate - especially not from a single example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the official owners manual for car X be deemed an acceptable source for information about car X itself, pursuant to WP:SELFPUB? However, with respect to the original question, I agree it's a leap from a source about one 2004 car to a generalization about "many vehicles" manufactured over the last 20 years. I'd call this a case of WP:SYNTH except that synthesis generally presumes multiple sources, so let's call it WP:OR instead.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The owner's manual is a primary RS. However, the extrapolation of that one data point to "many vehicles since 1990" is original research because it creates a fact that's not present in the source. With careful wording, the source could be used without creating any new facts. For example, However, not all vehicles leave the cigarette lighter connected when the ignition is off still provides useful information to the reader, but requires only one data point to satisfy truth. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• The owner's manual is a fine source for technical info on that make/model of car. It's not a good source for a broad claim like the one above. There are general maintenance manuals and teardown manuals that will probably have information like that. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire business of distinguishing primary/secondar/tertiary sources tends to confuse more than it solves. Questions that it should resolve, but doesn't, are: Does this source establish notability or at least noteworthiness? Can we assume that what it says is true? Is an inappropriate level of interpretation needed to understand the source and put it into its proper context? In this specific case the answers are No, Yes, No. Hans Adler 14:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Howard Bloom and Global Entertainment and Media Summit

Is this source a reliable source for the BLP on Howard Bloom? The page indicates that it's a social network. Does that mean Bloom himself wrote it? Nightscream (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The overall site is a social network, but the page looks like it's advertising a conference. In situations like this the person in question or his publicist either wrote the blurb or approved it. It'd therefore be a primary source and need to follow those standards for inclusion. DreamGuy (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Momlogic

With regards to this edit specifically, I'd like a second opinion on whether Momlogic.com and The Consumerist would be considered reliable sources. -- œ 02:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are quite extraordinary claims backed up only by semi-reliable sources. If it was for info on what kind of video games they have at Chuck E Cheese it would be fine. But neither is an RS for those claims. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it because they're both blogs? I wanted to make the point that blogs aren't what they used to be. These sites that label themselves as blogs, like the two mentioned above, are more like news magazines. Yet when we see "blog" we automatically think "unreliable". -- œ 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They're not personal blogs in the sense that "blogs" is used in policy here. I would consider them "weak" secondary sources. A variety of citizen-journalism type sites count as "published", but the editorial process is often not rigorous enough for exceptional claims. RS-ness is a continuum. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On top of reliability concerns, we also have to consider other standards here, and that one seems like it would fail WP:UNDUEWEIGHT criteria. In all of the history of Chuck E. Cheese some online blog(or online-only news magazine to give them the benefit o the doubt) says something and somebody wants to devote paragraphs of space to it? If that were at all notable there'd be sources that were indisputably reliable all over it. Adding that text would violate WP:NPOV rules on fair handling of the topic because it's advancing claims made against the company by some nobodies. Even minor lawsuits, if it ever got that far, typically aren't mentioned unless it got some major news coverage. We are an encyclopedia, not an advocacy group or tabloid paper. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is MovieTome.com a reliable source or not?

Is there a list of "acceptable" sources for WP:BLP articles anywhere? If so, can someone please leave me a note on my talk page? I see an astounding number of articles sourced to MovieTome and I don't feel its a credible publication that should be cited in any encyclopedia, including Misplaced Pages. Again, PLEASE follow up with me or copy me on my talk page as I don't check this noticeboard often. JBsupreme (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

'World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society'

An IP has described their conferences as 'notoriously bogus', and is challenging the use of their papers as sources on Talk:Topological computing. Anyone an expert on computing, 'topological' or otherwise, who can pass an opinion? ninety:one 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Using unpublished conference talks is a bad idea in general, these have little editorial review and no formal peer review. I'd say you'd be best to stick to the actual scientific literature. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This AFD may be of interest and to the point; particularly DGG's comment. --Slp1 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for some statements, not for others

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This reads far more like an op/ed piece rather than reporting, and as we know, "ews reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact"; "ome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact." WP:RS. In what ways can we use that source in the context of WP:BLP, where we are concerned about "ontentious material ... poorly sourced" and directed to write "responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone"? Can we use it as a source that supports purported statements of fact about Palin, or only as a source for statements about the source's opinion of Palin?

I'll give some specifics. Fmr. Gov. Sarah Palin made some remarks critical of Obamacare; the source says that Palin is "wrong," and that "othing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision." Is that a reliable source for a fact claim in Palin's article that she is "wrong"? Or is it a reliable source only for a statement in the form of "the AP"--or Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, the nominal author of the source--"argues that Palin is wrong"? And either way, is it acceptable to substitute the loaded word "false" for the word "wrong" and citing the AP story? (Crossposted to BLPN). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So the question for the noticeboard is: Is the Associated Press a reliable source for fact checking the statements of American politicians?""

No, that isn't the question for the noticeboard. The questions for the noticeboard are, in the heightened scrutiny of a BLP, (1) should a statement in what appears to be an op/ed piece a reliable source for a statement of fact, or only for statements of opinion? (2) how much license do editors have to paraphrase, substituting loaded words like "false" for the word "wrong" used in the article? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are mischaracterizing. Palin was wrong, that is not an opinion, it is a fact. And the AP is without any doubt a reliable source for referencing this fact. Dlabtot (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You believe I'm mischaracterizing a question that I asked? Interesting. I've never been accused of Dissociative identity disorder before. ;) At any rate, you doubtless see the circularity of arguing that this is a statement of fact that can be included because it's a statement of fact rather than opinion. If that game has become acceptable, I think Baccyak4H's comment at the crosspost has the better of it: "The piece's statement is as much a statement of the opinion of the writer as to future possibilities as is Palin's herself. Stating an opinion as fact is a rhetorical shortcut widespread among unscrupulous/lazy journalists (and politicians, for that matter). But without question they are both opinions, and should be presented as such." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are mischaracterizing your own question. You are characterizing it as an honest, good-faith question. It's not. It's disruptive forum shopping. Dlabtot (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Asking a question about the application of the BLP and RS policies at the BLP and RS noticeboards is forum shopping? Really? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the answer is unquestionably yes. Dlabtot (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's similar to if the AP were to report that the president of the Flat Earth Society is wrong about the shape of the Earth. We are not required to say that "the AP argues that the president of the Flat Earth Society is wrong". Dlabtot (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the claim that this is even "contentious." Palin's statement was obvious nonsense; it's been refuted by every reliable source that's actually examined the text of the proposed legislation, including a Republican US Senator from Palin's home state. It wouldn't be encyclopedic to call Palin a "liar," but when she quite publicly and prominently says things that aren't true, and that generate substantial media coverage, it's neither "responsible" nor "conservative" to pretend otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It approaches the definition of contentious to contend that someone is wrong.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the answer yes, but Dodd has been warned about his contentiousness in asserting that the AP is not an RS for Sarah Palin. He has (since the warning) argued tendentiously on the talk page, where consensus is strongly against him, and now has brought the issue here as well as the BLP noticeboard. This is a good bit of kerfluffle, and I'm not particularly impressed with Mr. Dodd's activities. Given his general bent on editing the Palin article, it is difficult to AGF on this. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to comment on KillerChihuahua's point bout consensus: if there is a range of views, or two sides of a debate, there *isn't* a consensus, and any single editor is entitled to their view.Martinlc (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, however we all know that WP "consensus" is virtually never "unanimous agreement" and consensus on an article on probation, such as SP, is even more spotty. My point was that Dodd is being tendentious, per my role as admin who generally enforces probation on that article. That is all. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, I did not say that "the AP is not an RS for Sarah Palin." I said that "he AP is (after a fashion) a reliable source for *reporting* but not for independent analysis of this kind." Albeit in the more abbreviated style required in an edit summary, I was raising the same issue raised in this posting, and it is an entirely valid question given the policies cited above and WP:BURDEN. You evidently go the other way on the point, and that's fine, but one can go the other way in good faith. It's a little silly to claim that what I've said at Talk:Sarah_Palin#AP_not_a_reliable_source.3F is tendentious - and somewhat ironic to cite that policy, which is concerned in part with editing that "does not conform to the neutral point of view," when my stated rationale has been to preserve NPOV. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliablility of sources at Amir Kror Suri

A wikipedian claims that the sources which I have provided for Amir Kror Suri are not reliable. There are 6 references and 2 external readings which I have not used as references but they do provide information on Amir Kror Suri. Out of these 6 sources, 3 of them are foreign sources while the other 3 are Afghan sources.

We have to remember that we cannot find a lot of english material on every topic related to Afghanistan. Most of the materials are in Pashto and Dari languages. You can find few general books related to Afghanistan in foreign langauges but they don't go into the details and they don't cover everything.

A third person's opinion is requested. (Ketabtoon (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

The "Wikipedian" who believes that the article should be tagged is me. The character Amir Kror Suri is legendary. There is not a single historical document proving his existence - I had to neutralize the article in which Ketabtoon (talk · contribs) claimed that this character was in fact a living person. So far, he has totally failed to provide scientific and scholarly sources for his claims. His argument is mostly based on a controversial book known as Pata Khazana - and this book has been proven to be a forgery for decades (see Abdul Hai Habibi for more details)! Except for 3 easy links to Google Books which he (admittedly) does not know and which are not visible anyway, he has nothing to offer. He fails to cite the two standard reference works of oriental studies, Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica, in this regard. Therefore, I still maintain that the article should be tagged and checked for neutrality. Tajik (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't know what the deleted sources are. One way or other it might be nice to wikify the links with some text. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Blog to verify 4chan meme

Hi. A question has been raised over at Talk:4chan as to whether the following source: can be used to verify the existence of "pedobear" as a 4chan meme to be mentioned in the article. The editor providing the source notes that the blog in question "is an employer with a professional staff", which may set it apart from your random blog out there. Opinions are sought from the sourcing experts on this fine noticeboard.

I get the impression that there are editors entrenched in "pedobear must stay out" and "pedobear must go in" positions, so I would invite and encourage any creative solution that breaks that particular dyad into a million pieces. -GTBacchus 22:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another important point. My source, the Geek Pad Show (run through comedy.com), has an editor and its panel of columnists includes professional journalists, thus quite explicitly fulfilling the reliability requirements for a blog (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F). For example, one of the columnists, Amanda Meadows, is a writer for "Seventeen" and Dave Eggers' prestigious "McSweeney's" publishing house.74.233.42.34 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the user that this source would suffice on most any other article, but when it is referring to a random and anonymous message baord that has no permanence, this kind of citation (with the reasoning that they are "professional journalists") does not mean that what they blog/write about is solid truth, verifiable, or reliable. Gpia7r (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that a source you would consider reliable on "most any other" topic suddenly becomes unreliable when the content they discuss is ephemeral and hard to pin down. Aren't many topics difficult to verify first-hand, and isn't that why we develop trust in certain secondary sources? What am I missing? Who would be a reliable source for information on 4chan threads? -GTBacchus 23:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing, I don't think there would be a reliable source for such a subject. In this case, a number of journalists or college students can make claims, but who can verify them? What's to say they aren't just following the crowd with the claims that are made? It's a very gray area, and although parts of it we can verify due to the existence (pedobear being an internet meme), it's just impossible to attribute it's creation to 4chan, 2chan, Ebaums, or any other website. Gpia7r (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Who can verify most claims made by journalists? Other people who were there, right? Most events in the world aren't archived, except in the reports of people who were there. If you trust a journalist not to "follow the crowd" in meatspace, then why not in cyberspace as well? I fail to see why they suddenly become suspected rumor-mongers on the Internet, when the content is no less verifiable than most events in the world. We can report that "so-and-so source says that Pedobear is a meme that is prominently featured in threads at 4chan." What's problematic about that? -GTBacchus 23:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Then it enters the realm of notability. If we don't know where it was created, why post it on 4chan rather than 2chan? The other "memes" posted on the 4chan article have their own pages (rickroll, chocolate rain, etc), and I think Pedobear may belong there rather than a line in the 4chan article tying it to Child Pornography. Regarding Journalists: Most of their comments are biased, so it's hard to believe they've done their research or fact-checking on such a sensitive topic. Gpia7r (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Does any source call it a "2chan meme"? Does calling something a "4chan meme" mean that it originated on 4chan? Not in the English I speak, it doesn't.

Pedobear should have its own article, and it seems entirely appropriate to mention in the 4chan article - not in the lead - that Pedobear is one on a list of memes popularized there. Does that seem reasonable? -GTBacchus 00:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not a more "sensitive topic" than.... hundreds and thousands of other real-world topics, on which we happily rely on the credibility of journalists, at the BBC, at the NYT, on Reuters, etc., etc. -GTBacchus 00:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as 2chan goes, we only know 2chan came before 4chan, and that "Kuma" existed there (the Pedobear origination). The inclusion, how it was originally worded, seemed to be for the purpose of calling attention to an unverifiable claim, one that shouldn't be exclusive to 4chan. I think it's perfectly reasonable for it to have it's own page if there's enough substance for it, and the fact that it's an internet meme on 4chan should be enough to briefly mention/link to it from the 4chan article.

"Sensitive topic" referring to the link to Child Porn, which I'm sure anyone can form a pretty quick opinion of and assume anything "linked" to it is horrible and terrible. Gpia7r (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep my own counsel on whether a symbol used to satirize pedophilia is "horrible and terrible"; that's certainly outside our purview as a 'pedia. I agree that a minor mention in the 4chan article seems quite reasonable. If someone wants to claim that Pedobear specifically "originated" on 4chan... I have yet to see a source that backs that up. -GTBacchus 00:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, a Google books search indicates Personalising: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Icon Group International, Inc. cites Misplaced Pages as a source about Pedobear. Google scholar turns up an M.S. Masters thesis mentioning Pedobear, for what it's worth: Шизомби (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You see, when they start writing the histories of the Interwebs, these things will be discussed, and it's already starting to happen. The trick on Misplaced Pages to dealing with these topics is to be patient enough that you can come in with higher than expected standards, and then no one can tell you no. Otherwise, you hit no end of static. I've seen it happen over and over... -GTBacchus 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Icon Group International" is a horrible semi-automated publisher. --NE2 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dowling college as RS?

So I picked this article up from new page patrol, stripped it of promotional/peacock words, and now I'm feeling that the citations aren't RS. The citation (http://www.dowling.edu/news/news.php?eventid=414) seems to have a dual role of promoting the school (which I have never heard of) and really seems like an advert to me so it might not be "reliable". A google news search on the person (Joseph M. Balcuk,) brings up nothing from established sources, and a search on Merbs brings up unrelated topics. I also know nothing about children sites, such as so I don't know if the awards aren't just self-aggrandizing, non-consequential "awards". I'm really skeptical on notability at the moment/reliability of the sources, so can anyone more knowledgeable comment on this? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just a press release, with all the self-aggrandizing puffery and unsupported claims you can normally expect in those. WP:PRIMARY applies here. Can't be used to establish notability or controversial information. I'll look at the article too to see what else is going on. DreamGuy (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Video as RS for BLP

Holy Cow Swami, a documentary movie by Jacob Young (WVEBA, 1996) is used for BLP as a reliable source. Please revert with policy on use for BLP.Wikid 08:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What article is it being used in? Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

in Kirtanananda Swami article.

I take it that it can not be used as a RS for BLP. Wikid

notability in citations?

Is it true that "Notability does not apply to citations" Talk:Illuminati? In this case, the claim in the article is that there are multiple modern groups that call themselves the Illuminati or some variation thereon. The webpages for the "groups" held to satisfy the sourcing requirement for that claim seem to be just that, webpages. Unless there's some evidence that there are real groups behind those webpages and that they are notable in some way, they wouldn't seem to warrant mention. I don't have a problem with the editor who said this; there's no heated argument, but I am interested to know what really is the case regarding notability in citations, for this article and for future editing. The issue is somewhat intertwined with reliability (does a webpage actually substantiate that a group exists), and perhaps WP:EL. On other pages, I've seen NN groups removed as linkspam or the like. Possibly WP:OR as well, in that the question "are there modern groups that call themselves the Illuminati?" has been answered by a web search resulting in webpages, rather than by finding a reference that states that there are modern groups that call themselves the Illuminati and substantiates it, like the Encyclopedia of Associations perhaps. But that may be an overly aggressive application of OR. Шизомби (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations must be to reliable sources. If you would post the actual citations here, rather than simply describing them, we can discuss whether they meet the guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Illuminati Order" Official website of The Illuminati Order Orden Illuminati Consejo Central México The claim as I understand it is that these links/groups need be neither notable or reliable; that their mere existence substantiates the claim. I pause at that. Шизомби (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are all self-published sources; if Misplaced Pages had an article about "The Illuminati Order", for example that link could be used in limited circumstances in that article. Otherwise, no. Dlabtot (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Google cache

Where do we stand on the use of google cache for website which have now gone offline? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do provide some details. Dlabtot (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm thinking of this this to clear up if a certain statement was made by the scientific jury who examined a free energy machine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The question of the google cache is irrelevant in this case. http://stjury.ning.com/ is not by any interpretation of the guideline, a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it reliable for claims made about itself if they are not self-serving? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It's just a blog. Dlabtot (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If what is being cached was/is a reliable source, then I'm ok with using caching services to avoid dead links. I would prefer we use the internet archive, because I think google's cache generates dynamic links that rot over time. but I agree w/ Dlabtot above, the ur-source (as it were) isn't reliable. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

History wars

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

Please see Talk:History wars#Article protected for one week. There is a long running dispute over the content of an article (Hence the protection). Currently the debate revolves around a dispute on these two points of view:

PBS: 'We have two sources that state what is the position of most Australian experts/historian: John Connor "Windschuttle's argument that genocide was not committed in Van Diemen's land should be directed towards popular historians and journalists who hold this idea rather than those in academia who generally do not." and Levene (which is used as a source in the article) "The debate about whether the term genocides is applicable to the broad Australian context... However it is notable that while comparative genocide scholars assume the specifically Tasmanian case to be on of unmitigated genocide, the majority of Australian experts are considerably more circumspect." both are already cited on this talk page, so I will not repeat the citations. The sentence states exactly what the two sources say and quotes a third source Anne Curthoys, who holds a similar opinion is also quoted later in the paragraph. ...'

Likebox: 'What bothers me is that you/PBS are trying to use criteria of VERIFIABILITY to try to settle claims of UNDUE WEIGHT. Verifiability issues are settled by finding specific sources for specific claims. Undue Weight issues are NOT settled by looking for sources that say "This is what most people believe". Undue Weight issues are settled by actually googling and looking at what most people believe.'

I have just posted to the page 'Likebox you are completely wrong about how one establishes and represents a position in an Misplaced Pages articles please read WP:WEASEL and then read WP:SYN in light of WEASEL. But do not take my word for it ask at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard'

And I am posting this here so that an editor who is not involved in the dispute can explain to us whether Likebox is correct that "Undue Weight issues are settled by actually googling and looking at what most people believe." or if as I have suggested one needs sources to verify statements like "most scholars ..." rather than using google or other similar techniques to establish the position of an academic dicipline --PBS (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If the question is: Are google search results considered a reliable source? the answer is no. Dlabtot (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, this is not at all the question. The question is how do you establish WP:Undue_Weight? If somebody brings your attention to a fringe theory, for example, the theory that the photon has a small positive mass, instead of zero mass, you will not find specific sources that refute this statement. Instead, you will find a whole host of sources that say "Light is massless" without qualification. That in itself qualifies as evidence that the statement "light is massive" is held only by a minority. This is exactly what the policy ofWP:Undue_Weight is designed to address: fringe theories should always be qualified as fringe, but since there are always too few sources specifically devoted to refuting the fringe theories, you need to establish the preponderance of belief by looking around at what people believe.

In this case, PBS throws smoke in the air by taking comments which assert that most experts don't like to throw the word "genocide" around lightly, which is true, and confusing that with the statement that most experts agree that Windschuttle's account of the events on Tasmania is accurate, which is not true.

That most experts disagree with Windschuttle is easily established by reading their own words. Only Windschuttle and a few people at his right wing publication "Quadrant" subscribe to the history he is promoting.

This fact is so well known, that I am boggled by the degree to which PBS denies it. It seems he has never read anything within Genocide scholars, nor the reliable articles that dismiss Windschuttle's story as a fabrication.

There are not many sources specifically about Windschuttle's theories, just as there are few sources that say the Earth is not flat. People just write assuming the Earth is round, and this is evidence enough for undue weight that the Earth is round is the majority opinion.Likebox (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is how do you establish WP:Undue_Weight? OK. That question is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable. We don't get into questions of undue weight or other NPOV concerns. The correct venue is Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, it is only Likebox claiming that the specific issue that Philip has referred here is Undue Weight, please refer to PBS's comments above. Webley442 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I already responded to the question of google searches as RS. It a question that has come up frequently. They are not. Dlabtot (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can Misplaced Pages present the fringe nonsense of Keith Windschuttle without commenting about the well accepted majority position that he is minimizing massacres?Likebox (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Likebox, this has nothing directly to do with Windschuttle or his theories. The cited Connor sources is very specific on that particular issue "Windschuttle's argument that genocide was not committed in Van Diemen's land should be directed towards popular historians and journalists who hold this idea rather than those in academia who generally do not." --PBS (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

All these wackos are spouting fringe nonsense. There are hundreds if not thousands of scholars, like Madley, who did primary research on Tasmania and who wholeheartedly agree that it was a genocide. These people are in the majority even among only those scholars that have done significant primary research.

on the talk page, they are not within the scope of comments which aid the development of an article unless you can provide a source which backs up the statement that "These people are in the majority even among only those scholars that have done significant primary research." And therefor see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. ... Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, ..." --PBS (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

Regarding recent changes to Many-worlds interpretation and Afshar experiment I would like to pose 2 questions.

1. Are editors entitled to remove any material for science article that is not backed by a peer-reviewed publications, whatever other notabile and verifiable sources it may have?

2. Are editors entitled to do so selectively, or would that constitute WP:POV ?

1Z (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, they are. Scientific material not in a peer-reviewed or otherwise reliable source is not valid for inclusion.
2. No, it does not, it complies with WP:FRINGE. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is not customary for RSN participants to make broad rulings about interpretations of the guideline. The noticeboard can only deal in specific sourcing questions, and is also not a forum for the discussion of WP:NPOV issues. As is stated at the top of this page: Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

First, there is a difference between "notable and verifiable" sources and "reliable" sources (not every "notable and verifiable" source is reliable). I would say that if something is backed by reliable sources (which include, but are not limited to Peer-reviewed journals), it should not be removed without discussion.

That said, Dlabtot is correct... this is not the place for broad sweeping statements. To properly discuss the recent changes to the two articles in question, we would need to know a) the statements from the article that are at issue, and b) the exact sources that are being used to support those statements. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Big-Boards.com

Is http://www.big-boards.com/ a reliable source for notability of a web site? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heck no. It doesn't look like a good source or link for any purpose here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary Null vis a vis AIDS denialism

Is this article by Gary Null a reliable source for AIDS denialism? Would Null be considered noteworthy in the world of AIDS denialism? Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a WP:SPS I believe. He has an article (Gary Null) so his views may be notable. But, AIDS denialism is a very controversial subject, so highest quality sources should probably be used instead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

BVE Trainsim

The article BVE Trainsim is abut a niche computer program for which there seems to be no reliable sources available. As such, the editors of the article draw from self-published sources, e.g. personal websites, open wikis and public forums, thus pushing personal opinions instead of facts, and think that the quantity of sources outweighs the quality. There is some dispute over which sources are acceptable, and thus which content is allowed. I have studied all relevant Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, and am quite convinced that the following sources are unreliable, self-published sources - thus unacceptable for backing any information. The editors of the article are unfortunately unresponsive on the article's talk page, thus I want to have a second and independent opinion on the reliability of the following sources before I take any further action.

• Tonekham, Simon,
• TrainSimmer.com,
• Feigenbaum, Peter,
• Barten, Alfred,
• Danstater, David,
• BVE Routes Wiki,
• Black, Vince,
• RailUKforums,

Is there a notability guideline for stuff like this? If there are no reliable secondary sources, perhaps it is too "niche" for mention in Misplaced Pages (not saying yeah or nay... just raising the possibility). Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As with many articles on free software, reliable sources in Misplaced Pages terms are extremely hard to come by, as the commercial games magazines don't review such software, even though there are often large communities on users who use the software. This also applies to non-games software. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that WP:SPS should apply nonetheless. The reason couldn't be more obvious: If I created a webpage, writing anything I like about the software there, and then use my webpage as a source, I would be indirectly adding my own opinions to the Misplaced Pages article. Whether it's my personal webpage or that of someone else doesn't matter. It's even more problematic as you can be 100% sure that if a personal website is talking about the software, it's writing about the good aspects and displays the software in its best light - hardly leading to a neutral article, but - if anything - to promotion (advertisement). 87.123.121.202 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most appear to lack reliability. However, Alfred Barten seems to be the exception as he seems to be known and to have been published elsewhere. The Wiki site would be RS only for noting that it contains a listing of "routes." Unless there is other RS material out there, most of the article could reasonably rely on the software itself and its documentation for description of its features (those obtainable from looking at the software). Software programs are themselves published works, and this seems to be the same situation as we encounter for the bulk of articles dealing with films, novels and other published works (whether it is the title page/credits, plot summary, etc.). The article cannot, however, become a "review" offering the opinions of editors. • Astynax 17:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This article was in a bit of a dire state, agreed—I did an initial drive-by clean about 72 hours ago (my first edits to the article), but it needs further work. The cleanup resulted in an (unsigned) request on my User_talk: page to which I was able to respond to five hours later and later still, to replace all of the {{cn}}/{{or}} entires in the WP:LEAD (my primary concern within the time available)—it is reassuring to see such fast turn arounds within Misplaced Pages and refreshing! Of course, I would encourage other—perhaps long-standing(?)—editors to actively seek reasonable references, and preferably cull what appear to be the previous blog and and wiki sites.

In the interests of full disclosure, my experience with OpenBVE has been via the Debian packaging for inclusion into Ubuntu—there is documentation (changelogs, introductions, manpages) available as a result of this, but it would be improper to add those as source material myself! —Sladen (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A list of sources, with a request for comments on reliability was added to the article's talk page in May by the same editor, and I responded to each one. One of those, BVE Routes Wiki, is on the above list. Since the article simply notes that the Wiki exists and lists a certain number of routes, which can be easily verified, I think this is a reliable source for this purpose. I note that material from uktrainsim.com is used twice as a reference in the Rail Simulator Misplaced Pages article and no-one has queried its use there, although it seems that all the other Train Simulation articles in Misplaced Pages are more detailed and do not seem to have been subjected to the same level of scrutiny as BVE Trainsim .Chris1515 (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fact or opinion this is the question

Here is the quote and a link:

"Ahead of the withdrawal from Gaza, both Landau and his colleague from Israel's Channel 2 Amnon Abromovich said openly that in order to ensure that the withdrawal from Gaza went through, the media needed to protect then prime minister Ariel Sharon from all criticism. Landau openly admitted that he ordered his reporters not to report on allegations of criminal misdeeds by Sharon and to underplay the significance of the ongoing police investigations against Sharon, his sons and his close associates. "

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1200308085522

The article is Haaretz newspaper

Here is the link for discussion page

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Haaretz#Discussion_with_Malik_August_14.2C_2009_Caroline_Glick

I am looking for an experience Wikipedian for help --Rm125 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument is simple. My opponent claims it is an opinion not a fact. This is nonsense. First of all Caroline Glick is highly reputable writer. Second. If a highly reputablr Jerusalem Post reporter accuses Haaretz aditor-in chief David Landou of another highly reputable newspaper in Israel falsly is a big deal. In such you would expect a HUGE scandal. Well nobody said anything and Haaretz didn't deny it. Third.Opinion is when somebody says " I think this hapenned" on the other hand a fact is when you say " This what happened" This is clearly the case of fact not opinion. Just because this article in in the opinion section doesn't mean the quote constitutes an opinion --Rm125 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the argument is simple. Glick writes an opinion column, clearly labeled as such at the top of the page. Whether she describes something as a fact is irrelevant. Her column isn't a WP:RS. — ] (talk · contribs) 22:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - This is the diff in question. Please note that it involves allegations concerning living people. — ] (talk · contribs) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the ins and outs, but this looks to me like a statement of fact (a claim) rather than an opinion. As long as there is an attribution to the person making the claim, then that should be okay, in my view. It would not be okay, however, to present the claim without the attribution. BUT there is an additional issue as to whether the statement in question is notable enough in context. The Jerusalem Post is probably more likely to be notable than not, but I don't know enough to make a definitive judgement.

I'm not very convinced by the BLP claim. If there is a (very public) source that the Haaretz editor said something and no evidence that he or anyone else has denied that he said it, then how does BLP arise? I'm assuming that we are not dealing with gossip here, but with a source that is quoting someone as saying something--FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What about WP:RS#News organizations? "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact".

Also, "no evidence that he has denied that he said it"? What about WP:PROVEIT? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

As far as BLP, accusing a newspaper editor of ordering his reporters not to report the news is a serious allegation. — ] (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Think we're almost agreeing regarding WP:RS#News organizations, Malik. The journalist who makes the claim should be attributed, otherwise the material should not be included. As long as Rm125 is agreeable to including the attribution, then I see no problem.

The issue around WP:PROVEIT goes as follows, IMO: if it is quoted in an RS, then it is includable, unless there exists strong contradicting evidence. If Landou was quoted in the Jerusalem Post and never claimed to have been mis-quoted, then what he said must be includable on Misplaced Pages. There is no prima facie BLP issue in quoting what someone has verifiably said. --FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It clearly is an opinion piece, so any claims made have to be attributed to the author rather than cited as fact. Dlabtot (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely an opinion piece. Attribute. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Republication of unreliably sourced material

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

Let's call this a hypothetical question, although I have seen the situation twice in the past month. A blog which is not considered a reliable source states something about a well-known person (eg unreliableblog.com says that Famous Actor told them s/he had an affair with Famous Singer). Mainstream media sources, which are generally considered reliable sources, republish the information, crediting it to the unreliable blog (eg "According to unreliableblog.com, Famous Actor and Famous Singer ..."). It seems obvious to me that the information is made no more reliable simply by having been reposted by reliable sources. Am I wrong?

Feel free to point me at previous discussions, as I'm sure this comes up from time to time. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point us to the two times you've seen it in the past month? We can't really answer hypothetical questions. Dlabtot (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. What references in the mainstream media do is make the fact that the claim is made reliable, but they do not make the underlying claim itself reliable.

Where I think this might have impact is in BLPs... prior to the story being picked up by the media, we would not include the claim in Misplaced Pages (under the "no SPS claims in BLPs" rule). But once the media has reported on what the blog says, then I think the situation changes... we can mention that the claim has been made (stated as an opinion, with proper attribution to the blog, and citing the news story). Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean we should. Generally, gossip and rumors aren't encyclopedic, no matter how widely they're reported. "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. . . . If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are our filter. If they use unnamed sources (like in politics), named sources (like a cop), a blog, or don't mention their sources, it's still an RS. If they feel the need to credit the assertion, then we probably should too. If it's about an actress sleeping with a singer, then it's an editorial decision whether or not to include it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source is doing nothing more than saying "that blog says...". This is a different situation than saying "our reporters have learned...". Having a trusted friend tell me that she overheard someone in a bar saying something doesn't make the person in the bar any more (or any less) reliable... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A good illustration of why it is so pointless to attempt hypothetical discussions here. If it were like this, then... but if it were like this, then... but it it were like this, then, but, but, but.... And inevitably, hypothetical answers end up being applied where they just aren't appropriate (actually, this is usually the reason the question is posed as a hypothetical in the first place.)Dlabtot (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this isn't the first time the question has been raised, so if you know of any past discussions, please point me to them. I understand and share your frustration with hypotheticals, but both examples are likely to provoke more heat than light. I'm looking for a general confirmation of the idea that having reliable sources repost information -- attributing it to an unreliable source -- does not make the information any more reliable. How we deal with that instance appears to be another question, but I'm interested in opinions on the first one, first. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you unwilling to point us to the two times you've seen it in the past month? Dlabtot (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is the case in this instance, but often when editors are reluctant to post diffs of the actual edits in question, the accuracy of their characterizations turns out to leave much to be desired. Dlabtot (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that show of good faith. I've already stated my reason for not wanting to name the actual articles in which I have observed this situation, but it's a moot point since my question is general rather than about those specific articles. I'm not sure how I could mis-characterize the general case which is above, in bold type. If you're not interested in offering an opinion on a hypothetical question, then don't, but please don't badger me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this about the Economist editorial on paul krugman? Protonk (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Is this the portion of the show where editors make guesses instead of offering opinions? ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why this question has gone back and forth so much. It is clear what the answer is. We would NEVER EVER EVER allow a "reliable" source that said x fact and that reliable source used Misplaced Pages as ITS source. We already have policy in place about that. A newspaper using a blog and clearly stating its source is a blog is no different. The fact that the newspaper is coming out and stating that it is according to a blog is the newspaper's way of saying "dont blame us if its false". As I've repeatedly stated over and over, and which some people dont seem to get, just because a source is generally "reliable" does not mean it is reliable for every single piece of information in it, you must use the context, there are many instances in which a reliable source is not reliable for a particular piece of information included in it. This is one of those cases that it doesnt matter how reliable a source is normally, the fact that it is sourcing the information to a third-party blog that would not pass muster with our RS policies on its own makes the information unacceptable. Except to the extent that one could put "according to x blog, which states y information" and then you would source it to the reliable source and not to the blog itself.Camelbinky (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's the part where we offer general advice about hypotheticals only to have the real situation be soo idiosyncratic that the general suggestion actually comes back and bites us in the rear. I just figured I liked your part of the show better so I skipped ahead. ;) Protonk (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As much as I'm adverse to sticking my oar in when not directly involved...I have to say that, in regard to BLP articles, it is not sufficient to use a typically accepted news outlet (e.g. New York Times, BBC etc.) as a reliable source for contentious issues if they only quote an unreliable blog or gossip site as the source of the information. It would seem to me that if the information was verifiable by their own journalists and vast network of researchers, the 'reliable source' would certainly confirm the information. If they're hedging their bets by adding the caveat "'x' blog reports", then we certainly shouldn't be adding it to any of the BLP articles. ponyo (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for regurgitating what I just said. Thanks.Camelbinky (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Take care to look at the times your edit and their edit hit the page. You both were probably composing your statements at about the same time. I'm not sure that "regurgitate" is the appropriate verb. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I did hit an edit conflict when I posted, and reposted without reading Camelbinky's comment. I would think that this apparent "meeting of the minds" would be seen as a positive event? Regardless, no 'regurgitation' was intended; I assure you I was able to come to a similar conclusion all on my own. Cheers, --ponyo (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Amazon.com a reliable source for this sentence?

Is Amazon.com considered a reliable source for the following sentence in the Cape Feare article: "The episode was selected for release in a 1997 video collection of selected episodes titled: The Simpsons: Springfield Murder Mysteries."? (comments can be left here or at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Cape Feare/archive1) Thanks, Theleftorium 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Questionable review source for TV show

There seems to be a dispute going on over at the Torchwood: Children Of Earth article page regarding what is an acceptable source for critical reviews. The reviews in the "Reception" section are mostly from professional television critics who work for established publications or websites. However, somebody has included a review from a writer called Lawrence Miles, who is not a professional critic. He is basically a Dr Who fan, albeit a notable one who has written some spin-off novels and unathorised episode guides (but nothing for television) and is known in fan circles. He posted his review on his personal blog. This has led to a debate about whether or not he and his review meet the criteria for WP:MOSTV#Reception and WP:RS, and also WP:SOURCES (which one editor has stated is policy and not just merely a guideline that can be seen as flexible). There is also an issue about whether his review (which I admit does come across as gushing fancruft) actually warrants inclusion in the first place as it doesn't particularly offer an opinion that isn't already covered in other reviews in the section. Perhaps someone can have an unbiased look? GoldCoaster (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The source cited is Blogspot. Whether it was Hitler, Einsten or Churchill writing, it should be removed unless a WP:RS-passing source can be found. And even if there was, that man has not written anything for Torchwood, just Doctor Who, making his opinion rather irrelevant. Would the opinion of a bus driver be worthy in an article on a nationwide train strike? No. Out of interest, hat is the ratio of users wanting to keep the comments and those wanting them removed? DJ 01:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS is generally meant to apply to factual material. A reviewer's opinion is not factual material, and WP:RS should not apply to it. (Of course, if WP:RS were to be applied, every blog would probably pass the test, since the blog is the source for a statement of its author's opinion -- and this should demonstrate why WP:RS is not the appropriate test to apply here.) I would think that the appropriate test(s) would include the general reputation of the reviewer and the extent to which the review reflects a nonfringe opinion. The pertinent tests involve not Misplaced Pages policy but editorial judgment, and should be determined by consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't go down that road. There isn't some exemption for 'reviews' because you think they are just opinions. Our guideline for reliable sources and our policy on verifiability apply to reviews as well as they do factual claims. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I think reviews are "just opinions." Reviews are "just opinions." Because they are "just opinions," they're self-authenticating. And reviews can't possibly be subject to WP:V in the same way that factual claims are; otherwise they'd all fail WP:V and be off limits for use in Misplaced Pages articles, because de gustibus non est disputandum. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you declare what you think to be a fact doesn't make it so. A review is on the spectrum of 'author interpretation/creation' along with most works of non-fiction and journalism. If we adopt some sort of arbitrary distinction and say things like "the foundation is concrete" is a fact and "Michael Bay's movies are soulless" is an opinion, then there is not only a lot of room in between but the borders of our definitions are porous. Works of non-fiction present narratives, or at least dominant perspectives without (sometimes with) comment or explanation. Selection of sources, parsing of events and depiction of outcomes are all the product of the author. 'Factual' reports on the stock market crash of 1987 proceeded from the assumption/opinion that portfolio insurance exacerbated the crisis when evidence today suggests that it was not. Are the statements from sources (both named and unnamed) in those articles and reports opinions? Because they clearly aren't 'facts' in the sense that we would like. And their presentation is prejudicial toward a set of perspectives which are hidden to the reader. On the flip side, is Roger Ebert's review of a given film solely his opinion? Surely some pertinent "facts" from the film must surface during the review? The cast? The crew? Are those facts? Do we trust Ebert to relay them accurately? Are they elemental enough that trust is not required? What about scenes? Is the statement "the movie is too long by at least 20 minutes" just as much of an opinion as the statement "the lead actor and actress lacked chemistry together"? What if Roger Ebert writes a column in a magazine about lenses? Is that column a collection of his opinions about lenses? Is it a fact because it doesn't come under the 'review' umbra? Can it contain facts? I'm not asking these questions to batter you about the head and shoulders. I'm asking them to point out that we don't have a clear distinction between 'opinion' and fact'. And if we did it certainly wouldn't be one that says "factual claims need to meet RS but claims in reviews don't have to come from RS's". Protonk (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a self published source, and reliable as to Lawrence Miles's opinion. Whether it should be used is based on whether he is a expert on the subject, and in the case of a review, I would say also whether his opinion is notable. He sounds borderline as an expert, and judging by the current state of the article about him, borderline notable. Two borderlines is not good, but WP:V does not automatically exclude the information, either. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

With respects to WP:RS, its not a matter about whether or not reviews are factual or just opinion. We already know that reviews from critics are just opinions. The issue is whether or not a review written on Blogspot is a reliable source, particularly by somebody who is not a professional TV critic. Although blogs are generally not appropriate as sources for Wiki articles, there are some exceptions such as when a journalist or field expert writes on their own company, newspaper or academic blogspace (any of which would help to establish their identity and credentials). However, this review was done on Blogspot, which is a free blogging site open to absolutely anyone. This would surely fail WP:RS. Another problem is that the source also just links to his blog, on which there is masses and masses of information and readers must sift through the whole thing just to find the quote that was cited (therefore creating a spam/promotion issue). As for the notability of the person in question, I feel its inappropriate to include his review because he's just some guy that only hardcore Dr Who fans are familiar with. Ray Bradbury said that Close Encounters Of The Third Kind was the best sci-fi film he had ever seen. Philip K. Dick famously referred to Disney's The Black Hole as crap. Arthur C. Clark listed Star Wars in his top ten sci-fi films of all time. All of these are relevant because they are all leading, renowned, well-respected science fiction authors who would widely be considered to be experts in the field. But who the hell is Lawrence Miles? He's nobody. He's a self-proclaimed fan of Dr Who who has written a few unauthorised episode guides and some spin-off novels. There is no editorial oversight involved in his review (as per WP:V#Questionable_Sources), and he has (according to his own article page) publicly admited to writing unfair reviews whilst he has been drunk (if a professional critic did that, they'd be fired). In addition to all of these problems, his review does not seem to warrant being in the article and, looking through the article's edit history, it was obviously placed there by Torchwood fans as they try to turn the page into some kind of ridiculous fanpage rather than an encyclopedic article. Unfortunately, this kind of practice is quite common on sci-fi articles that tend to attract a fanboy element. Kookoo Star (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sound on Sound

Hi, I am planning to work on the article "The Reflex" and I was wondering if the information from this website is considered reliable so it can be used for the "Writing and recording" section of the article. Thanks in advance. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - this is a long-established professional magazine.--Michig (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the quick reply. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources appropriate for medical and health-related articles

Hi, user LeadSongDog, a guy that "deal with transformers routinely" is trying to use an article's commentary where the author expresses his own opinions about generalities without making any specific conclusions, using words like: "It is hard to believe", "I give most credit to studies where", "I doubt that", "I appreciate", "it seems unlikely", "Unfortunately, there are reasons to believe", in a Misplaced Pages article (Alzheimer's disease) which, as any other medical and health-related article, has specific reliability guidelines WP:MEDRS. Additionally the little time between submission and publication of such article's commentary doesn't reflect the nature of a peer reviewed article. I don't see why and how, such commentary should be cited under WP:MEDRS and user LeadSongDog himself failed to expose so, but he continues pushing its use. Since the issue is unresolved for more than two days I'm bringing it to the noticeboard.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a pointer to past related discussions: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Comments_by_an_expert_in_a_.22letter_to_the_editor.22_pure_opinion_Vs_plausible_expert_opinion_and_fact., Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Reliability_of_Articles.2C_Commentaries.2C_etc._that_appear_in_a_Scientific_Journal., Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior if I understand the question properly. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's probably similar but we are talking about a medical and health-related Misplaced Pages article, that has specific reliability guidelines WP:MEDRS. I don't see even how we can take a conclusion of that commentary, because of the wording and absence of definite conclusions (it doesn't even has a summary or section) and he also goes beyond the topic it was supposed to comment (associated risk of occupational exposure), theorizing about causation and ideal studies.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to ask at WT:MEDRS. My second is to determine whether or not the person quoted is an 'expert' as it were on these sorts of things and if he is, include his comments in the article as his opinion. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if he is an expert, it would be difficult to determine that. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? profile, work page, publication list, pub list from scholar including who cites whom. Doesn't seem that hard to take a stab at what his field of expertise is and what kind of work he has done. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

He is an expert but WP:MEDRS predicts the inclusion of "expert committee reports or opinions" not of a single expert commentary.

And his opinions aren't conclusive, at the same time he criticize the methodology, "I doubt that these pooled effect estimates are meaningful and they should be considered with caution.", later, when talking about "causation" he agrees with association " the majority of studies in the meta-analysis suggested an association. (...) Since completion of García's literature search (...) only one small case–control study did not. It is hard to believe that these associations are entirely due to bias."

And his later study concludes, talking about causation, "The results of our study support the hypothesis that magnetic field exposure plays a role in the etiology of Alzheimer’s disease"--Nutriveg (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I read MEDRS the same way you do. I also don't really see how the nature of his critique precludes its use as an RS. If he doesn't make conclusive statements then we don't use his words to support a conclusive claim. We can use his words to support a claim that the studies he is commenting on should be treated with caution. Invited commentary from field experts plays an important role in scientific discourse. So long as the journal inviting the commentary is reputable and the commentary comes from an expert, we should include it, insofar as good judgment would allow. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

He critizes the methodology, not the conclusion: "association", which he supports. He recommends caution for the "causation" "because of the lack of known biologic mechanisms". The text in dispute is about "association".--Nutriveg (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. What does that have to do with this noticeboard? the actual dispute over the text is a matter for the talk page. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you said: "We can use his words to support a claim that the studies he is commenting on should be treated with caution." I don't see that so clear, exactly because of the nature of the source: "a commentary", that makes no conclusion.

WP:MEDRS is not just about what, but also about how, like "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source", "Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors" and "expert committee reports or opinions, (...) are weaker evidence than the scientific studies themselves".

So I don't see why/how we should cite a commentary at all, because commentaries aren't organized as articles, with clear conclusions, so the conclusions we can take out of them are merely interpretative and bias to decontextualization, which disrespects WP:MEDRS overall principles.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I think we are talking past each other. I'm pretty sure that MEDRS doesn't mandate a format for sourcing. I'm also absolutely sure that this isn't a primary source. I'm perfectly willing to concede that our articles shouldn't weight claims supported by this source as strongly as claims supported by stronger secondary sources (i.e. peer reviewed studies) but that has more to do with the mechanism of selection and fact checking than structure. But let's do this. Your stance on the subject is clear. My stance on the subject is clear. Let's let some other folks either here on RS/N or involved with the dispute weigh in and we'll see how the discussion moves along. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the issue here is one that stems from two different ways of approaching a claim. One way to approach a claim is to attempt an experiment/observation/test to try to falsify or confirm the claim. This is generally what has happened with regards to EMF safety concerns with mixed results. Alternatively, one can make mechanistic arguments for or against a claim and dismiss/accept the claim out of hand. This is done in the case of, for example, the claim that exposure to outer space is deadly. We pretty much accept this as fact even though no randomized control studies of this environment have been done. In the case of EMF-safety concerns these two groups essentially talk right past each other. The clinical trial group cares not about the mechanism and the mechanism group cares not about the clinical trials. Which group is right? In my book they probably both deserve equal hearing. This is my own editorial opinion, but I think it reasonable. MEDRS is slanted towards clinical trials research because that's the most common research available in the medical community. But mechanistic arguments are also valid and valuable, even if they are relied on less and do not feature as prominently at MEDRS. I say give them equal say. In this case, I think the "commentary" is actually just as good as the clinical trial. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no "mechanism group" here but both accepting "occupational association" and the commentary discussing causation and more detailed research in order to get closer to it. But you made your point about the use of the "commentary" as a source.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I'm reading between the lines a bit, but it is well-acknowledged that EMF-paranoia has some very strident proponents who are not, shall we say, mainstream? Many times their claims are denied for lack of mechanistic rigor and, indeed, studies attempting to link EMF with various conditions have never really posited a mechanism beyond general fear. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's just talk about the reliability of that source "commentary" for now. You're reading way of the lines, the majority of the studies support the association and no one is discussing causation. Roosli makes no "mechanistic" study until what I know. His commentary, but not his last "peer reviewed scientific article", is being pushed as POV denying occupational association. But his commentary doesn't state that or have that purpose. That's the problem with commentaries, they don't provide a clear conclusion (nor are peer reviewed) so they leave space for interpretation (WP:OR) maybe because of that they aren't listed as a source in WP:MEDRS.--Nutriveg (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is no mechanism then there is no relevant association. If the opinion of the author is that studies are problematic and he is taking the tack because the associations have relevant weaknesses or problematic priors, then it is reasonable to use such commentaries in our articles. This perspective is wholly different from simple correlative studies and should be treated as such. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that a commentary is non peer-reviewed (only editorially) and therefore a less perfect source per MEDRS it is of course relevant since it directly talks about an specific article that is wanted to use as a source and as such it should be noted in the article. However this article only adds to other articles that are being provided in the talk page that point towards a much less consensus among experts that Nutriveg is willing to admit. Specifically he/she has one time and another tried to dismish PMID 18805878 as a source. I will like to ask for comment here about this specific source since from my point of view is of similar quality to the meta-analysis he provides; but with opposite conclusions. The commentary on the meta-analysis is just another indication that conclusions of the the meta-analysis should be taken with great care and that there is truly no agreement on the effect of electromagnetic fields. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry people are discussing their own opinion about the subject and making interpretations of that commentary instead of evaluating if a source of that kind, that talk about generalities and makes no clear conclusions is a reliable source for a medical article by WP:MEDRS. I'd like to hear more opinions about that and if that's the case I'll update WP:MEDRS to include "editorials" (as it's classified by the journal) as reliable sources and that people can take their own conclusions (WP:OR) from such commentaries, since they don't follow the language, rigor and structure of scientific articles. Since I'll assume the opinions here are not biased towards that specific subject.

Taking this commentary as an example one may similarly include in a Misplaced Pages article that veterinarian's psychological sanity is affected by "ready access to drugs, social and professional isolation, subconscious acceptance of euthanasia as a treatment option, rising client expectations and financial pressures.".

Garrondo, while as well talking about "causation", now brings another source we had previously discussed about being reliable for medical articles. He supports that a review (Kheifets,2008) that assumes to supposedly review "any health issue" which the leading author "consults with utilities" and "works with the Electric Power Research Institute" fills WP:MEDRS "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field". If consensus agree with that, that's open another precedent for similar advocates (industry or fringe) making general conclusions.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kheifets article I have already said in the AD talk page that its article has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal and that means that experts in the field (not you or me who are not) have considered that it was reliable, it had no important technical fallouts and was in summary a good review of the existing literature. This is what truly converts an author into an expert: if a reputable peer reviewed journal decides an article is suitable, then we should not be the ones crying aloud that the author has no knowledge on the field or has a COI. We are not the ones to decide that, but true experts (reviewers). Deciding that from your point of view an article is not suitable is WP:OR since you are implying to be above the peer review proccess of an specific journal: what you are truly saying is something like I do not really care about what experts think about this article or author: I believe it has no value. (Just as a secondary note: I have never talked about "causation" No epidemiological study will ever bring conclusions on causes and I really do not know where did I gave you the impression to be talking about causes.) --Garrondo (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

On causation you've brought "there is truly no agreement on the effect of electromagnetic fields".

About the expertise, WP:MEDRS is clear to separate the publisher from the writer WP:MEDRS "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field". If your argument was true the last part should be omitted. As I've said before I don't see how to prove expertise in "any health issue" and to my knowledge Kheifets is an expert in "issues of interest to the electric power industry in the USA".--Nutriveg (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the fundamental issue is being skirted here: the difference between a medical study and a scientific evaluation of a claim. I read the commentary as being an excellent source of giving an alternative opinion about a series of medical studies that are of a controversial and dubious nature. We can complain about the supposed motivations of each of these camps arguing about the safety of EMF, but it all boils down to ultimately two different means of analysis. I, personally, do not think the commentary's analysis is any less powerful or deserves any less WP:WEIGHT than the statistical analyses of medical tests. This is probably due to my bias as someone who prefers to see plausible mechanisms before correlations or causations are reported (I'm a Bayesian and not a frequentist). Skepticism about correlations and causations inferred from medical tests only is, in my opinion, rightly given more weight when no plausible mechanisms explaining causations or correlations exist. Fair? Perhaps not, but I do think it is closer to WP:NPOV than the alternative. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Treat similar to self-published This is a commentary, which is the academic equivalent of a long letter to the editor or, more precisely, an op-ed piece. Based on comments above, this author appears to be an expert in this area for the purpose of complying with WP:SPS. However, there's absolutely no peer-review involved. This means: Yes, you can use it for any statement that is directly made in the letter; No, it's not the single most stellar source for most purposes; and Yes, you need to explicitly attribute the views directly to the author. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  To be fair, there is some peer review involved here. The writer was not just given a blank slate and a blanket permission to write whatever he wanted to. The editor and perhaps even the reviewers of the article were given a bit of editorial control over his commentary. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Please cite the source.

"The International Journal of Epidemiology is produced six times a year and publishes original work, reviews, articles of interest and letters in the fields of research and teaching epidemiology." "Letters intended for publication should be marked 'For Publication'". The criteria doesn't seem to be much different of regular letters.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote you give does not seem to contradict what I was saying. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how " the reviewers of the article were given a bit of editorial control over his commentary" since letters don't follow the same review process, where the articles are submitted and available online for review trough the reviewing tool.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because the letters don't follow the same review process doesn't mean that there is zero editorial control. "A bit of editorial control" need not exclusively entail submission and availability "online for review trough the reviewing tool". There are other ways to exert editorial control. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Treat as reliable for narrow statements of how the paper has been received by the wider community and statements of the author's opinion. Anything cited to commentary should be explicitly attributed. Whether the source should be used is beyond the remit of this board, but with an article on or over the bleeding edge it seems appropriate to include the commentary. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Usability of Keiffets review

• I still have doubts on the usability of Keiffets review Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 18805878, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=18805878 instead. since most commentaries have been on the use of the commentary on the metaanalysis : Nutriveg says that it is not a reliable source. While it seems that we have already agreed that it is published in a reliable journal he is saying that the article can not be used because: (I quote his/her words): leading author "consults with utilities" and "works with the Electric Power Research Institute" and therefore does not fill WP:MEDRS "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field".. I believe that we are not the ones to judge whether somebody is an expert. My point of view is that from the moment the article is admitted the author can be considered an expert. However this is not even the case here: the author has no less than 46 articles in pubmed that tackle epidemiological facets of electromagnetic fields exposure (at least there were 46 articles by an author with that name; and a fast look them seemed by the same person since treated similar topics). No matter the author POV or where he works he is clearly an expert in the field. It is not very easy to have 46 articles in a similar topic in peer-reviewed medical journals.--Garrondo (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also looked at her working site as a professor () and her curriculum (). If she is not considered an expert by wikipedia then there is something wrong on WP:MEDRS.--Garrondo (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

She is not an expert in "any health issue" as her review proposes to be. Talking specifically about the "ELF-EMF Alzheimer's" field, she is neither "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill". She had written/co-authored many articles because she has been making studies for the industry for more than 20 years.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

By Misplaced Pages standards, she definitely is an expert. Having her reputation impugned by a journalist and someone who can only be described as fringe-advocate for EMF paranoia does not discount her academic degrees, publication record, committee standings, etc. Perceived conflicts of interest may be of incidental interest, but the reputation of this scientist is not so tarnished as to warrant exclusion or marginalization of her points. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have created an specific subsection for the question on weather the author can or cannot be considered an expert to ease commentaries. I have asked for specific input in the medicine project.--Garrondo (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely an expert. She was the head of the radiation program for the World Health Organization, and she's now a professor of epidemiology at UCLA, and there's still some question about whether she's an expert on the epidemiology of radiation? She was on the radiation standards safety committee for the IAEA], and we're asking whether she might know a thing or two about the harmful effects of radiation? She's been on the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)'s Standing Committee on Epidemiology since 2001, and we're wondering if she might know something about the epidemiology of non-ionizing radiation? She's published dozens of papers, including papers about this specific risk factor in several different diseases.
  Of course she's an expert on the epidemiology of radiation. Khiefets is exactly the kind of person that Misplaced Pages should be using as a source. I can't even imagine a more appropriate source. (Having said that, her status as an expert still doesn't authorize editors to exceed the usual conservative, "obvious to the non-expert" reading of her paper.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A professional lobbyst Herself, has said to work "with the Electric Power Research Institute (...) and consults with utilities.", I just cited another source. She was invited to those committees by others professional lobbysts. I repeat she is not "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill", not in Alzheimer's EMF research neither in "(all) health issues" as her review concludes.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the conclusion of her 2008 review, "extensive epidemiological research conducted during the past 20 years on occupational EMF exposure does not indicate strong or consistent associations with cancer or any other health outcomes", is a rephrase of an 2005 industry proposition "It would be useful for the summary to include a clear statement that the scientific research does not establish ELF EMF as a cause or contributing factor in any disease or adverse health effect, including cancer.". A puppet.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers

The article on David Ogden Stiers contains the following passage: "In May 2009, it was reported by mainstream news sources that Stiers came out as gay, based on an interview published by the LGBT blog Gossip Boy" in the section "Personal life". Stiers has also been added to Category: Gay actors and Category:LGBT people from the United States on the same basis. There is a fair amount of talk page discussion about this (see here) but it seems to have devolved into actually contacting Stiers' publicist instead of examining the sourcing. I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that www.gossipboy.com is a reliable source, the question is whether or not the republication in mainstream sources (attributed to the Gossip Boy blog) makes it acceptable for inclusion in a BLP. I believe it does not, but I don't intend to get involved in this since there's some blatant POV-pushing going on. Enjoy!

I am only posting this here since it was requested in the above section "Republication of unreliably sourced material", although it wasn't my intention to bring it here (and it probably belongs at the BLP noticeboard if anywhere). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the source is really Stiers himself. Since Gossip Boy isn't reliable, we might wonder if they made the interview up, or adjusted his words in some way that was not accurate. The ABC and MSNBC articles show us how far to trust the interview, which is far enough for the sentence in Personal life, even though it is a BLP, in my opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Peregrine Fisher here. If it's reliable enough that ABC and MSNBC are going to relay it, it's probably reliable in general. We should be cautious with BLP, but we shouldn't be overcautious. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can include a comment to the effect that a rumor was repeated by the mainstream media (ie we can report that the rumor exists) ... but for categorization we need to defer to Self-identification by the subject. Unless Stiers has definitively stated that he is Gay, we should not categorize him as such. And we definitely should not do so on the word of a gossip site. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We judge sources by their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. One of the main ways to determine this reputation is to see if they are cited by other, established, mainstream reliable sources, such as ABC or MSNBC. It almost seems like the real problem here is the word 'gossip' in the url of the source. I don't see how the name of a source is in any way relevant to this guideline.

"Unless Stiers has definitively stated that he is Gay, we should not categorize him as such." - "GB: You are gay. Right, David? DOS: Yes, I am. Very proud to be so." sounds pretty definitive to me. Calling this a 'rumor' does not seem consistent with the facts. Dlabtot (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the word "gossip" in the blog's name certainly doesn't help to lend an air of credibility, but I don't think that's the issue. The blog does not appear to be high-profile, high-traffic, or widely referenced. It has an Alexa rank of 16,777,215. A Google news search turns up a grand total of 7 (seven) hits. Based on that, I can't see how this could possibly be considered a reliable source. Given that Stiers has never publicly said before or afterward that he was gay, why would anyone take an interview published in an unknown blog at face value? I think this situation is clearly, obviously, and unambiguously one where a single unreliable source has been given given undeserved credibility. Simply having been referenced (attributed) by mainstream news over this one interview does not magically lend it credibility. Without intending to be insulting to anyone here, I am appalled that there is even the suggestion that this is acceptable sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

High-profile, and high-traffic, Alexa rankings, and other irrelevancies are not part of our reliable source guideline. A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is. And citations to the site by MSNBC and ABC certainly do speak to that reputation. Further, despite some earlier characterizations, this is not a case of a reliable source repeating a rumor spread by a blog. It is an interview conducted by a website that was subsequently reported by sources that no one disputes are reliable. ABC and MSNBC both have an established editorial process, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and they put that reputation on the line when they reported this story. Dlabtot (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And yes, since no one is really gonna dispute that ABC and MSNBC are reliable sources, especially for uncontroversial statements like "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am . Very proud to be so." ", perhaps WP:BLPN would be more appropriate for this query. Dlabtot (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The blog in question has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It has a very small number of citations, and they seem to be related to this one interview. ABC and MSNBC have not claimed to have fact-checked or confirmed the information in the interview, they are merely repeating what was said and quite deliberately labeling the blog, not themselves, as the source. I agree that citations by reliable sources build the credibility of other sources, but this is a small low-traffic gossip and rumor blog, not the Southern Poverty Law Center. Here's a sample (from http://gossip-boy.com/More_Gossip_Boy.html):

WORDS OF THE DAY: LONNIE, LU, SYPHILITIC

(July 18, 2009) We're not going to tell you what Southeastern Oklahoma's dumbest dung pile did, we're just going to do our best to convey what degree of respect she holds in our minds. Ask Lonnie Lu Anderson if her racist redneck ass has seen any part of the world beyond sixth grade or Hazzard...er Pittsburgh County! Ask her if her family realizes it’s not the 1890’s and the savages don’t need beaten to death until they learn English and and fall to their knees to praise Jesus! And if you just want to travel to the Arson Capitol of the World and kick her teeth (both of them!!) down her throat, well that’s on you, but you’ll be eligible for our monthly Attaboy Award. Just be sure to tell her that next time they have a Fourth of July hot dog eating contest that her vajajay and brothers don’t qualify. LONNIE LU ANDERSON (918) 470-7895 (Well that’s what we’re thinking she looks like!) Lonnie Lu: the only whore in McAlester that the Death Roll boys said "Get that smelly fleabag bitch out of here! We ain't paying a Little Debbie Oatmeal Pie for that nasty cottage cheese dripping shit!!'". Stupid Lonnie Lu is in a county where the median income for a woman is $19,886, which is about three grand less than what an Oklahoma City 7/11 clerk makes, and she's worried about being overtaxed - those dern revenoo agents. God, do they go to the bowling allies and round the slop hoes up or something? All that money the state spent trying to educate Lonnie Lu those 5 1/2 years she spent in school could've been saved had they just tossed a stained mattress in the back of her brother's truck and let her get on with what life had in store for her. And let's not forget any time a country gal has two names that means her mother didn't know which of her own brothers the baby daddy was, so named future hare lip corrective surgery candidate after both. The next news item we pray comes out of McAlester is someone's 1970 Dodge Charger rear ended a short bus and introduced Lonnie Lu to the Krispy Kritters for Khrist revival. Finally, maybe Lonnie Lu wouldn't be so jealous of a truckload of Mexican workers were her own husband out on a job instead of at the trailer asking their 6-yr-old daughter for a lap dance. Dumb tax protesting bitch doesn't get that the city she lives in, McAlester, has two industries: corrections and military ammunitions. So just about everyone in town is sucking on the taxpayer teat at some level. When your mothers warn you about syphilitic whores who have lost their minds, you'll know who they're talking about from this point on.

To quote from Misplaced Pages:BLP#Sources: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link". This is a single, unreliable source - mere reposting by reliable sources does not mean that there are multiple sources and it does not make the source any more reliable based on this single instance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the bulk your comment is really on-topic. Let's get to brass tacks: Are you claiming that ABC News is not a reliable source in this instance? Are you claiming that their statement: "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am . Very proud to be so." ", is not correct? Do you have some reason to believe that this story was not subject to ABC News' standard fact-checking and editorial process? Are you claiming that David Ogden Stiers did not give this interview, or that his words were fabricated or something? I'm having trouble understanding just what the objection is here. Dlabtot (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Brass tacks or red herrings? ABC News is did not interview Stiers. MSNBC did not interview Stiers. An unreliable blog did. Since it is an unreliable source, I have my doubts about the interview (see the collapsed section above for a sample of the blog's content and make your own judgement). ABC News does not claim to have fact-checked the story and did not need to, since it merely republished it with attribution. On the ABC News site right now, they quote someone as saying "I remember one time being on a spaceship and standing there on the spaceship and the floor and the walls disappeared. And I was staring at the Earth". I don't think ABC News will stand by that as fact-checked, merely as a quotation, much the passage you posted above. Have you given up your claim that Gossip Boy is a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, since you failed to answer any of my questions, I'll assume it was because I asked too many at a time. Let me just ask one, and see if you are willing to give a straight answer.

Do you think that this statement by ABC News "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am . Very proud to be so." ", is not correct? Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ABC News is quoting the interview with attribution. I am sure that Gossip Boy published that because I have seen it, but since it is not a reliable source and since Stiers has not publicly stated before or since that he was gay, there is reason to be wary of the actual content. In fact, asked if he were gay in relation to a gay-themed play that he was directing, Stiers stated that he wasn't. (I have no interest in whether or not Stiers is gay, I only mention it as a reason to doubt the veracity of the interview.) Is it correct? In some sense, yes, it is a correct reposting of what an unreliable source says, and attributed to them. Is it any more correct than the quote by the alien abductee I posted above? No. Does it make ABC News a source? No. Feel free to move on to your next question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ABC News did not say that gossipboy published it; ABC News said that DOS told it to gossipboy. So your statement that: I am sure that Gossip Boy published that is not actually an answer to the question:

Do you think that this statement by ABC News "In a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am . Very proud to be so." ", is not correct?

I find such difficulties with simple discourse to be rather tedious. Could you please explain what the essence of the problem is here? ABC News and MSNBC clearly believe that David Ogden Stiers gave this interview. Do you disagree? Why? Do you or do you not believe that gossipboy fabricated this interview? Dlabtot (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to argue about why ABC News phrased it in the way that they did, since they are not the source. I believe we agree that the source -- the one and only source -- of this information is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter if I think the interview is genuine or fabricated - it is an unreliable source and therefore unsuitable for inclusion as a reference. Again, to restate the issue one more time - Does a reliable source reposting with attribution validate what an unreliable source has said? To me, the answer is clearly no. The reliable source is not taking responsibility for it. To you, the answer appears to be yes. Is that a fair assessment? This is the same issue I raised earlier as a hypothetical (exactly because I didn't want to get bogged down in arguments about David Ogden Stiers or reliability of a given source or specific wording in an article). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are simply unwilling to answer the question? I don't think we are having a constructive dialogue here. It may be difficult for you to accept, but it looks like the consensus is not the answer you were looking for. Dlabtot (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you given up your claim that Gossip Boy is a reliable source? This blatant and rather clumsy mischaracterization of my comment rather dims my hopes for a constructive dialogue here. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a mischaracterization, but if you say it is now, then I guess I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I take it that we are agreed then that Gossip Boy is not a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We have our rules for a reason: so that we don't make the decisions, and reliable sources do. Someone could say that Gossip Boy is reliable because they've followed them from their beginning, and they've never made a mistake. That wouldn't cut it, obviously. On the other hand, no one should be saying that Gossip Boy is obviously unreliable, and they fabricate their interviews, without RS backup. Both positions require an actual reliable source. We happen to have two. I do think that since it is a BLP, and it involves someone coming out, which is controversial, maybe we should double attribute. How about 'According to ABC News, in a recent interview, the Emmy-nominated actor, 66, told the Oklahoma City blog gossip-boy.com, "I am . Very proud to be so."'? Mabye even 'According to ABC News and MSNBC..., if we want to be extra careful. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed your comment while writing mine, somehow. Also, someone above thought that my initial comment meant that gossip boy is a RS. It is not an RS, or if it is, that's a whole other discussion. This info is hinging on ABC and MSNBC, and their use of gossip boy, not gossip boy itself. Do not, I repeat, do not just cite gossip boy for the info. Go with the two RSs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the initial post here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: It has been >3 months since MSNBC, ABC and The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on David Ogden Stiers' interview in which he is reported to have said that he is proud to be gay. Since then has Stiers disputed the claim, or have any of these sources published a correction? If yes, we should not include the claim per BLP. If there has been no retraction or dispute, what are we debating here ? Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we should be requiring denials before we evaluate the credibility of the sources. I'm actually more interested in the general case of unreliable information being republished (and attributed) by reliable sources, but I was asked to post a specific example and the earlier thread about the general case was somewhat petulantly closed because it dealt with hypotheticals. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DC, I'm genuinely confused: you are saying that we should arbitrarily dismiss the reporting of MSNBC, ABC, Philadelphia Inquirer (as well as these news websites , ) even though there is no dispute regarding the information ?! Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is more or less what I'm suggesting, but it's not arbitrary. Since the original source is unreliable and there are no other sources, it fails to meet the sourcing standards outlined in Misplaced Pages:BLP#Sources. There is a case to be made that the reporting about the interview in other sources is notable enough for inclusion, but no amount of attributed reposting (not reporting) in reliable sources makes the original source any more credible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We can report the information, because it has gone through an editorial process wherein editors at MSNBC, ABC et al have determined the source to be trustworthy enough (at least in this instance) to republish its reporting. Anonymous wikipedia editors are not competent to make this judgment by themselves, but editors at these news organizations are!

This is really a very common occurrence, where information is regarded as reliable after it has undergone editorial review by competent authorities. For example, a report posted by a university student on his webpage will (in general) not meet the WP:RS standard. However after it has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal it is considered reliable,even though it is the exact same report attributed to the same student. I am sure you can construct other similar examples. Abecedare (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, anonymous editors at WP (like you and I) routinely decide what is or isn't a reliable source, as I'm sure you must know. The "reputable journal" from your facile example suggests peer review or at least editorial oversight. This is neither a scientific essay nor hard news. It is essentially a fluff item, republished in the entertainment or gossip sections of newspaper and blog sites. Do you really think their editorial policies and practices are equivalent? Do you think that the editorial policies for those sections of the news are as stringent as, say, their political section? Do you think that their editorial policy on reposting something with attribution (and therefore lessened liability) is the same as it is for their own research? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point, we can say that editors in the know and who are uninvolved have deemed the sources reliable for the statements per our rules. That's pretty much the end of it as far as this noticeboard goes. Further discussion can take place on the article's talk page, or go to dispute resolution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever edited that article and I can't say I have ever had any involvement with the subject. I don't care if he's gay or if he's not. In what way am I involved? I tried to ask a hypothetical question to avoid getting entrapped by the details of any specific case, but I was rebuffed. I have yet to see a convincing argument about the transference of reliability to unreliable sources, but I seem to be encountering a number of roadblocks and red herrings in attempting to discuss it. Please bear with me, I am not intractable, but I do require some reasonable arguments to be convinced that I am wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple question: Is Gossip Boy a reliable source?

I really do apologise for dragging this out and I'm sure some editors will find it tedious, but I am astounded by the last two replies above ( & ) which seem to suggesting that the Gossip Boy blog is a reliable source. Just to be sure I'm not missing something, let me put it as simply as possible - is Gossip Boy considered a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A quotation in Osho

Please ref: Article = Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), Talk page section = Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Thompson quotation...

I would like to ask if it would be appropriate to cite the following website, http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/rajneesh.html, which holds a quotation that is also in the Osho article in this section (if it hasn't been removed from the Misplaced Pages article). Can this website, "enlightened-spirituality.org", and its contributor, Timothy Conway, be considered a reliable source?

Also, please consider two more websites as possible reliable sources for the same quotation: http://www.sannyasnews.org/latest/archives/27 and http://www.rebelliousspirit.com/osho-webzine/1476/show/sharing

The quotation is as follows:

I am not a disciple and I do not consider Osho my master, but I cannot hide my admiration for the old man. I think his contribution to expanding human awareness has no parallel in human history. There have been other masters, but no one has been so effective in reaching so many people during his lifetime as Osho did. Also, his insistence on laughter, enjoying life and humor as religious qualities makes him stand alone in the world of mystics. Finally, he helped to liberate, sexually and from social conditioning vast quantities of spiritual seekers that would have, otherwise, ended up ranking with some ascetic, repressive guru, and thus contributing with more repression and self-torture to this world.

— Anthony Thompson

I should also note that there has been a lively discussion on this page before I realized that it was the incorrect place to ask about sources.
 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of these sources are reliable. The key here is where the quote originated ... It is seems to be an email from Thompson to Conway that Conway put on his wepage. I don't think we can call that a reliable source.Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original first appearance on Thompsons blog, ] the sannyasnews have reposted it with his permission. So, I think that makes it a third party citation, Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We can also see that it is a faithful representation of the original as we have the self published source. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible, Blueboar, that perhaps at least one of the proposed sources is at least "reliable enough" for this application? I suppose what I'm really asking is, "How is source reliability objectively determined and applied?" There may come a day when I'm experienced enough to help out on these source pages, plus, if I can better distinguish how such a question is answered, I won't be clogging up this page in the future with similar requests. According to the first paragraph on this page, source reliability is heavily determined by context. Both I and at least one other editor have spent a good part of the day trying to locate reliable sources for this quotation. I don't mind continuing to look, but I'd like to have a better idea, within the existing guidelines and policies, of what I'm looking for before I trouble you with another source or sources. Thank for your help and your tolerance of my newness.

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  21:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected... the original was not an email... it was a blog posting on Mr. Thompson's blog. However, personal blogs are not considered reliable sources for information on Misplaced Pages (see WP:RS and WP:V) The fact that this blog posting was subsequently quoted in other blogs, personal websites and eventually on organizational websites does change the fact that the original was unreliable to begin with.

It comes down to this, why should we trust or care what Mr. Thompson has to say about this Osho guy? ... does he have any expertize on the subject, has he ever published on the subject in an academic journal (or equivalent)? Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar for your continued tolerance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the importance of 3rd-party reliable sources in the case of quotations was to show that the words were actually spoken or written by the original person who is being quoted beyond little or no shadow of doubt. It is verification that the words were not just posted and forgotten, or spoken first by someone else, but actually quoted by a 3rd party, and perhaps criticized or expounded upon, a 3rd party who must also be considered as trustworthy and reliable to some preferred degree. Is this not at least partly correct? Or am I way off the beam?

We should bring ourselves to trust anybody who is quoted, especially as it pertains to biographies. Since this is not a biography of a living person, the cruciality is not so enhanced, but a degree of care must still be taken. I have personally come to trust that what Mr. Thompson has to say about Osho is an accurate description from his POV, and it deserves to be in the article and to improve the article to actually contribute to the NPOV of the article. While Thompson did know Osho when he was alive, he apparently did not "fall under his charismatic spell" and was able to calmly and professionally answer some of Calder's criticism's of Osho. The above quotation, having also been quoted in its entirety in the Conway piece, but with no other words from the rest of Thompson's essay around it, reaches me as important enough to include in and to improve the Osho article. However, I do realize that, no matter how important and helpful I or anyone else might consider this quote to be, unless at least one reliable 3rd-party source is found for the quote, it cannot be used. This is why I am continuing to search for a better source, and yet I also hope that my previous search was not in vain. I hope that at least one of the three sources I provided above is at least reliable enough in this context to use with and to support the Thompson quote.

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  23:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) PS. If I'm not mistaken, any and all "original" renditions of a quote are "unreliable" and unusable. However I do not understand how this has any bearing at all on the reliability of a 3rd-party quoting source.
• (ec) PPS. To answer one more of your questions, I have not found any instance where Thompson has been published other than his original article and subsequent 3rd-party quotes of his article on the web. However and again, this goes to his notability, and until and unless a policy or guideline can be shown to require the notability of people who are quoted, then this issue can only be considered as minor, if considered at all.

The Sannyasnews site is reliable enough and responsible enough to be a reliable source for this uncontentious quote. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Off2riorob, and if others agree, then the other two sources are also quite trustworthy, reliable and good as well!

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  23:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:RS#Self-published sources and the WP:SPS section of WP:V. It isn't a question of whether the other sources have accurately quoted Thompson... the question is whether the article should quote Thompson in the first place. Ultimately it comes down to determining if Thompson is a reliable source. If he isn't, then it does not really matter how many websites quote him... he remains unreliable and we shouldn't quote him. Tied in with this is the question of giving Thompson's views Undue weight by quoting him.Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look at those self published links, Thompson although amongst people that follow Osho he is respected as informed on the subject, he is not really a published authourative expert. I would say that inclusion i would not be undue weight as the article is long and this is in the comments about osho section and the comment itself is not contentious in any way, just says, that he admires osho for in his opinion doing this and that... I am unconvinced that its inclusion is really wrong for the article or wrong for the project. However I am not very experianced in the strength of sources...Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a good thing. If I read you correctly, Blueboar, then it should be okay to use the Thompson quote. You say that "ultimately it comes down to determining if Thompson is a reliable source". If Thompson were not a reliable source, then would his article almost in its entirety be published on a burgeoning news website devoted to sannyasin, followers of Osho? Would his article be quoted on an official Osho website? Would Thompson be quoted by an author of many essays on many subjects, Timothy Conway, and criticized by Conway, if he were not considered a notable person by Conway and Osho followers alike? Thompson may not be notable on a global level, but then neither was Osho. I never heard of Osho until fairly recently when I stumbled across his Misplaced Pages article. There should be no question of Thompson's notability among those who follow and who are "in the know" about Osho's life.

We wouldn't even be here if we did not think that Thompson was a reliable source. We are here to find out if the three 3rd-party sources, or any one or two of them, are considered reliable enough in this context to be used to source the Thompson quote. May we please have a decision on this? Neither I nor fellow editor of the Osho article, Off2riorob, are experienced enough to make this decision. There is no doubt in our mind that the Thompson quote would improve the Osho article. The only doubt we have is whether or not any of the three sources we searched for are reliable sources in this context. If they are, then we will use them. If they are not, then other sources, better sources, will be searched for. Thank you very much for a speedy decision in this matter.

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  16:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I am understanding the issue correctly:

• Someone named Anthony Thomas wrote a blogpost "CHRISTOPHER CALDER, KRISHNA CHRIST AND HIS LYING OR MISINFORMED "LOST TRUTH". in September 2007. His profile says that he is a "psychotherapist/University professor" and he has not written any previous or subsequent posts on his blog.
• Various other websites www.sannyasnews.org, www.rebelliousspirit.com, and www.enlightened-spirituality.org have quoted from Thomposon's blogpost. However none of these websites appear to be acceptable as reliable sources since their publishers are either unknown, or have not been shown to have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking.

So the only case in which we can use Thompson's blog post as a reliable source, is under the exceptions listed ubder WP:SPS, namely if it can be shown that Thompson is an acknowledged expert on new religious movements in general, and/or Osho in particular.
Off2riorob you mention that Thompson is "respected as informed on the subject". He himself says that

I have researched on this subject for over 22 years now and I have interviewed a lot of current and former disciples, visitors and friends on this subject. I have been 8 times in his commune in India, now called Osho meditation resort. So, I consider myself an expert on this theme: Osho´s life and work.

Can someone list what is know about this blogger, for example (1) which university does he work at (2) what is his educational and research background, (3) what (besides one blog post) he has published in the area and, (4) if/where that work has been cited by reputable sources ? Such information will help us decide if he does indeed qualify as an expert and if his blog post is usable as a source. Abecedare (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, has Calder's article "Osho, Bhagwan Rajneesh, and the Lost Truth" been published anywhere besides generic websites such as this one ? If not, Calder should not be used as a source on wikipedia either, and Thompson's rebuttal may be moot. Abecedare (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This comment is not a big deal, it is simply a well written, sourceable comment from a man that it is not disputed that is knowledgable on Osho and has commented around the web, wiki lawyering about its inclusion is a waste of time. its totally harmless. I have taken it out twice as unnotable and uncitable to a wikipedia reliable source, but hey, the person that inserted it, asked me to leave it in as it was not much trouble and I agree with Paine, it is a simple harmless comment that is well written and imo reflective of Osho's work. Sometimes here the depth of guidelines to control inserts is used here to over rule common sense. I have been also programmed to react in the same way, oh no, is is unreliable, oh no it is self published...well the truth is that it is a simple comment that is non disputed and is around the web and it's insertion does no harm at all to the article or the wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

rob, there is nothing gained in adding some randomer's strongly POV remark, doing so does not benefit the quality of any article, and it does not serve wikipedia long term to add random opinions here and there because we can. If every Osho fan who rolled in here adds their favorite quote where will be? Qualified and appropriately sourced opinions are already presented in the article, personally I think they should suffice for now. There is no concensus for the inclusion of this item. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi, It is a POV remark, it is thompson's opinion, but that is clear..so not really a problem. I can easily agree with you, right now over this, I agree with you when you say ...where would we be if we had random comments from john and harry, perhaps I can support removal and more discussion about the addition. As I said I have twice taken it out myself but on interrogation from the inserter I consider the comment harmless. For the wiki lets take it out for now, it is a single comment from a slightly notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that WP:V requires that all quotes be attributable to "reputable, published source". Since a blog post by an unknown person does not fall in that category, it cannot be used in the article; even local consensus cannot overrule core wikipedia policy. Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

More wiki lawyering..... this is atributable to a reliable source, so it can be overruled, ... have a look at what is being inserted Abecadare, you are quoting core policy that is designed to protect the wikipedia.. this discussion is over a harmless comment that whilst we have been discussing it has remained harmless in the article.. this is not a case of core policy at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"this is atributable to a reliable source" What reliable source ?

PS: When a query is raised at this board and uninvolved editors respond based on wikipedia policy, calling it wikilawyering is not really civil, and doesn't reflect well on an experienced editor such as you. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well ok, I take the wiki lawyering back, you are involved previously in this topic aren't you? Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion over this has been moved to my talk page. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Abecedare. Thompson gives some details of his qualifications here; he claims he is extensively published in his native Spanish. However, I can't actually find any evidence of relevant publications, i.e. in google scholar or google books. Not RS. --JN466 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Calder is the same sort of thing – a self-published website. We don't feature Calder, so Thompson's rebuttal of him is indeed moot. --JN466 15:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, Jayen, please remember that I didn't bring this here to debate the merits of Calder or because Thompson answered some of his criticisms of Osho. This is about sourcing a harmless quote that I believe balances out the rest of the section and sets forth avenues for further expansion. If not Calder, who by the way is notable enough among Osho followers to be mentioned in an adversarial way both on the official Osho website and the Sannyasin News website, then some of the others already mentioned in the section might be more detailed in the future to continue to keep the section and article NPOV. And to give our readers more useful information about Osho and his followers, both when he was alive and now that he's dead.

All I would like here, in fact the only reason I came here, is because I sincerely believe that Thompson's quote improves the section and the article (not to mention Misplaced Pages), and that all I need is an experienced and decisive editor to check out the three sources I submitted above and to rule on which, if any, would be okay to use to support that the quote is a real Thompson quote. One website is a burgeoning news source for those who still follow Osho's teachings; one website is the official Osho website (both of those websites printed Thompson's words almost in their entirety, so this shows me that Thompson must be considered notable among Osho followers); one website is full of essays by its webmaster about many different subjects and includes not the whole Thompson essay, but only the exact same quotation I want to keep in the Osho article. Hopefully, one or more of those web sites is reliable enough in this context to be used to support the quote. If none of the three sources are adjudged supportive enough, then I shall find others if I can. Thank you again for your experienced input and counsel!

 —  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  17:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Departure from scholarly standards?

A question about reliability for source 6 at Asian fetish:

I think that an undergraduate's paper for some sort of research forum is not a reliable source. Even professors only count as reliable when they publish appropriately (academic press or peer-reviewed journal as opposed to blogs). I understand that universities should provide experience-building opportunities for undergraduates but this does not make them authorities on a subject. We do not have a Kripke here.

I'm not sure why there is a problem with removing the Maggie Chang source and corresponding claims. 76.226.139.221 (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Although the forum page does not discuss the point, I assume there was some faculty review of the project proposals and final report. However it is not clear what standards they were judged at and as far as I can tell the student report has not been cited by any other book/article. So IMO this is a non-ideal source for wikipedia, but it can still provide a good entry point for literature search by wikipedia editors. Instead of citing the report directly, see if you can verify the cited claims using the bibliography in the paper; that is a better option than deleting the claims outright. Abecedare (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be okay as an external link, but not as a source.陣内_Jinnai 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Student research papers/essays fail both WP:RS and WP:EL quite dramatically and should not be linked to. As Abecedare says, if it cites sources perhaps those sources could be used, but a student's work is never acceptable in itself for any link or cite. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Otakon

Can a report by Otakon 2009 saying that the voice actor Johnny Young Bosch that he will be voice acting a role in Dissidia be used as a RS? Otakon is an anime convention, however it is the largest of its kind in the US.陣内_Jinnai 08:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please give the details of the reference? LinaMishima (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Straight from Dissidia's talk page "Johnny Young Bosch and Stephanie Sheh were at Otakuthon 2009 back in Montreal. During the conference, somebody asked Stephanie if she was voicing Terra in Dissidia due to rumors. Stephanie, however, denied this rumor BUT Johnny confirmed his role as Firion for the game. I was there when this question was answered, I swear it, no jokes. The thing is, does having hearing a confirmation but not having any material is valable to update this page? (WebJiCi (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC))" Fractyl (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Random reports of what somebody claims they heard at a conference are in no way reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Parc Cwm long cairn

I am considering nominationg Parc Cwm long cairn for WP:FAC, but first, I wanted to check some of the references used to confirm that they would be considered reliable. They are:

1. megalithics.com defining the characteristics and location of the Severn-Cotswold group of cromlechs;
2. Neotomb for the orientations of Neolithic chambered tombs in Glamorgan and Gwent;
3. parc-le-breos.co.uk for details of the nearby river's effect on the cromlech and for excavation details;
4. stone-circles.org for details of a nearby stream and general information about the cromlech;
5. explore-gower.co.uk for details about Tooth Cave and Cat Hole Cave.

Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I can't get in to the first one due to browsing restrictions on the computer I'm using at the moment (probably not a good sign so far as reliability goes)
2. Number 2 seems to be self-published, so unless you can find evidence that the author should be regarded as an expert, this one's out.
3. The website of a local hotel doesn't seem to be the best thing to use for this sort of thing to me
4. Self-published again
5. Self-published

I suspect an FA reviewer would also have concerns about http://www.ukcaves.co.uk/onecave-tooth, this again seems to be self-published, though at least in this case there is a references page, which moves the site up a notch in credibility, though one of the references is to another site by the same author. http://www.encyclopædia.org/Cotswold-Severn also doesn't seem the best source, as another encyclopaedia it's a tertiary source, we prefer secondaries, and worse still, it's a wiki itself, anyone could edit the info. David Underdown (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Oh well, back to the drawing board (or rather, the Google Book search). Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mashable.com as a reference for Facebook

I added this:

Users can create groups according to their interests or areas of expertise. It will appear in the search results of Facebook if the group is on public.

This is the source: Would this be considered a reliable source? The author is Howard Greenstein. Eivmeidwl (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this previous discussion which concludes that Mashable is not a reliable source has already been pointed out to you. I agree, simply based on the large number of errors and misinterpretations I have seen in it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would argue that for the basics of a service's functionality, there is no issue with using manual pages from the provider of the service itself. A primary source would be entirely appropriate if no further analysis is being done. Obviously, however, if no such page exists, this is a problem. LinaMishima (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In that archive from long ago there was no consensus about Mashable being an RS or not. Even if it's borderline, those are hardly extraordinary claims we're citing it for. But you should be able to find that information in other sources, in fact, the mainstream media never seems to stop yammering about Facebook. I agree with Lina that a primary source from Facebook itself should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will add primary sources from Facebook. Eivmeidwl (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

single mention in a foreign language tech blog to show notability: reliable?

is http://www.genbeta.com/web/files-forever-nuevo-servicio-de-dreamhost enough to show notability for the "files forever" feature from the webhost Dreamhost? this is the only blog/source that mentions this one feature, and now Dreamhost has a whole section on the feature, based on this source. is this good enough?

I don't think a single mention in a tech blog (of whatever language) is enough to establish notability. WP:NOTE requires substantive discussion by reliable third party sources that are independant of the topic. Blog postings are not usually considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Genbeta is considered notable enough to list on Google News, and they have an Alexa rank of 15K and change. There are a plenitude of other blogs out there I could have added, but this seemed to me to be roughly equivalent to linking to TechCrunch. Also, if a web host's new feature is interesting enough to cover in other languages, that seems to me to hint even more at notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

last I knew, listing a blog in google news doesn't make it reliable, techcrunch is irrelevant, OTHERBLOGSEXIST is invalid, and it's irrelevant what language it's published in as far as notabllity is concerned. Your reponse is puzzling. Perhaps you should step back from the article and gather your thoughts (posted by User:166.192.216.235)

This is actually a systematic problem in Tech related articles... the Tech world tends to announce and discuss new software (and even new hardware) in the bogsphere long before it gets mentioned by non-blog industry media sources... This lag time often makes it difficult to substantiate whether the new tech is notable or not. Since we don't consider most blogs to be reliable sources, we have to wait until the tech gets noticed and discussed by non-blog industry media. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a problem, that's a good thing. We are not a rumor blog. We are not for breaking news. We are for verifiable facts that can stand the test of time. What you see as a "systematic problem" is the entire POINT of an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTE simply doesn't apply in this case, because that refers to whether or not a subject is notable enough for a separate article, not individual items of content within an article. The issue is whether or not this tech blog is a reliable enough source to verify a brief description of a service offered by this notable company. The content is completely non-contentious with no extraordinary claims being made, so a cast-iron "BLP quality" source is completely unnecessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Two comments: 1. don't conflate notability with reliability. 2. While we prefer English sources, foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable. Dlabtot (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• • so what is the consensus here? other than scjessey and sarekandvulcan, who have been edit warring to include the blog and section it advertises -- their stances are known. is this a reliable source in the way it's used? more input is requested for clarification. please view Dreamhost and say whether you think this is acceptable usage. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

    This noticeboard is not the appropriate venue to be making false claims of edit warring against good faith editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn't even come close to being reliable for establishing notability, and I can't see how anyone with a grasp of the concept that there is such a thing as a threshhold for notability could miss it. If this proves notability, then any old anything on the Internet would, and then there would be no notability policy in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, we are not using the source to establish notability. It is only being used to verify the existence of the service. Notability has absolutely nothing to do with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. As a preliminary, the language of a reference is irrelevant. For content in an article, the judgment of what is a Reliable source depends on the the type of article, and the type of material. Uncontroversial factual content about a product can certainly be taken from a reliable blog, the company's web site, or even an advertisement. If it is challenged that the material is not accurate, other sources must be presented. For many topics, even controversial judgments of opinion can be taken from reliable blogs--their authority is that of the blogger, who is frequently a well known commentator or industry expert. A blog is merely a form of publication, and blogs have variable standards of reliability--as do newspapers, magazines, and everything else; in some cases , something called a "blog" is in all other respects a formal publication- Furthermore, even with respect to notability, there have been topics at which coverage by well known bloggers considered authoritative has been accepted at AfD as showing notability--this is fairly common with respect to science fiction critics, and also in some fields of computer technology. Reliable|not reliable is a continuum, not a black|white distinction. (I am not familiar with this particular subject,so I am talking in general; but Google News is only a rough standard, especially for purposes of notability, as they include a good deal of straight public relations.) DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability vs. interesting enough to mention in article about notable company

I'm breaking this out to make sure it's clear. It's not a question of whether "Files Forever" is notable enough to have its own article, which it clearly isn't. The argument is being made that this feature isn't notable enough to even mention in the article. However, the Notability guideline clearly states "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Therefore, arguing that this section should be deleted because the source doesn't show notability is incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Court judgements

Are court judgements made in jurisdictions that have legal requirements to be impartial (and are generally recognized as being impartial) reliable sources? For example, if a Canadian court says here (at paragraph 1090) that the Hells Angels meet the Canadian statutory definition of a criminal organization, would that be a reliable source? Would it make a difference if it was upheld on appeal as to whether it was a reliable source? Would it make a difference about what country the decision was made in (say North Korea instead of Canada)? Singularity42 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source. Strictly from a sourcing standpoint, you could, for example, say something similar to, In June, 2009, a Canadian court held that the Hells Angels met the Canadian statutory definition of a criminal organization. Whether that would be appropriate in a particular article, however, is a different question. Dlabtot (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is literally a primary source. the structure of most court documents is complex. We may consider a court document 'primary' with respect to legal formulation (in some cases) because they are not removed from the decisisonmaking. But much of the big D Discourse going on in a court document is analytical and sensitive to context. Many appelate court decisions represent hundreds of person hours worth of deliniating various decisions and evidence. For some of those, quoting them as a secondary source would not be inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it goes through a process before it is published. But it is the original and primary source for that legal opinion. If a newspaper or magazine were to publish a story about that opinion, that's a secondary source. And when, for example, an encyclopedia amalgamates various primary and secondary sources into an overview of the topic, that's a tertiary source. Dlabtot (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So, I guess that leads us back to the discussion taking place here. Would such a court case be enough to justify the use of Template:Infobox Criminal organization? Or would a secondary source, such as this newspaper article be what's needed? If neither are, what would be a reliable source to justify the use of Template:Infobox Criminal organization? It seems to me to be a legal distinction... Singularity42 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't want to be rude, but I think a recitation of the conventional wisdom on primary and secondary sources is not an appropriate response. When we classify a legal opinion as a primary source we place it in the same category as a found historical object or a value in a tax collector's book. The thrust of my point was to say that such a characterization is wrong because it breezes by the different elements of the analysis. Using the standard taxonomy of sources, the Unabomber's Manifesto was a primary source up until it was republished in Time magazine, when it became a secondary source. I'm oversimplifying of course, but the point is that the medium and mechanism are largely immaterial. The nature of the work determines its status. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand you, and detect no element of rudeness. I just think you are wrong, for the reasons I already stated. If you think those reasons are overly obvious, so be it. Dlabtot (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is best practice to avoid heavily relying on court decisions, laws, treaties, and other such documents. They are most appropriately used as accompanying material to other reliable sources. The Toronto Star is a highly reputable newspaper, so it is an appropriate reliable source. The court cases could be used in a secondary footnote referring readers to the decisions in the context of the Star article. That said, while it is strongly implied that the Hells Angels are a criminal organization under the Canadian legal system, using the court case and Star article to make the full assertion seems to go beyond what the sources present. Especially for such a controversial assertion as labelling a group as a criminal organization, the sources used to support the claim should be very explicit about the point. Editors should also exercise due diligence to ensure that such an opinion is not a tiny minority view. Additionally, navigation templates, categories, and similar tools should represent the mainstream or at least majority view of the subject. --Vassyana (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We can report what a court judgment says, but we cannot endorse their conclusion as factual. This is simple, basic encyclopedia writing, and I'm surprised there's any question about it here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't think raising the question was frivilous. The original question leads back to a wider debate, one that may be more difficult to answer. We have Template:Infobox Criminal organization, but no clear policy about what is a reliable source to justify its use. Russian Mafia uses it without the need for sources, since "Criminal organization" is implied by the title (i.e. "Mafia"). Mara Salvatrucha uses it with the source being a news article citing the FBI (which some editors in other debates on the issue have argued is not a reliable source since they would be biased). Anyway, I think this more narrow issue has been concluded. The most we can do with a court case, no matter the type and level of court, is say Court X says Y rather than Y is a fact. Singularity42 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All material needs interpretation, selection, and fair quoting, and appropriate use, primary as well as secondary. The standard taxonomy of sources is a crude approximation, the various parts of a court judgment have different weight and significance. What the Toronto Star or any newspaper, magazine, legal book, or scholarly article reports of a court judgment may or may not be correct-- by unconscious or deliberate misunderstanding, error, bias, or even manipulation. No work is beyond question. The court may decide correctly, and the newspaper get it wrong, or may decide incorrectly, and the newspaper follow it. The Star does not decide who is a criminal. For the other example, Time's republication of the Unabomber's manifesto is not a secondary source, in any taxonomy; it is the reprinting of a primary source. Time's discussion of what it said and meant is a secondary source. DGG ( talk ) 14:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question conserning the relaibility of the source, Beacon Light of the Himalayas

Comments would be helpful on the reliability of the source, Beacon Light of the Himalayas being cited on the Transcendental Meditation article , 5th paragraph.

• Fundamental points about the source include:

The source was published as a souvenir, probably by the individual running the week long “conference “ at which Maharishi Mahesh Yogi spoke. The source seems to be a transcript. Part of the book 18 of 170 pages are stated to be a transcript of Maharishi’s words. The rest of the book is made up of addresses, pictures, and pages in Hindi or Sanskrit.

• Those supporting the books’ reliability say it can be used because the book in mentioned in other sources as a transcript of Maharishi’s words, verifying that the words are the Maharishi's. .As well, the book itself attributes 17 pages of text to Maharishi.

• Objections to the book's reliability include, the publishing record of the book:

From WP:Reliable Sources

Misplaced Pages articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process… How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

The book was published by the organizer of the conference, not a publishing house, so is self published. There was no “reliable publication process”.

And again from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made….

The book is being used in the Transcendental Meditation article but Transcendental Mediation is never mentioned in the book. Concerns are that, by relying on other sources to support the assertion that parts of the book are Maharishi's words, and therefore by extension must be about the TM technique, WP:OR is violated.

• Extended discussion is here.(olive (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

I disagree about the OR assertion. The topic of a source will not always be identifiable by specific keywords, especially for religious and spiritual teachings. For example, the third epistle of John the Prebyster makes no mention of "Jesus", "Christ", "Christian", "Christianity" or any other such explicit keywords, but it is unquestionably a Christian text (as part of the standard biblical canon). If a number of reliable sources make it clear that a source is regarding a particular topic, we should accept that the source is about a particular topic. To argue against the body of reliable sources is OR, not accepting their report. (That is not to say that we should report grossly inaccurate information, obvious misstatements, aberrant tiny minority views, or anything of the like. However, such concerns do not appear to be the case here.)

That all said, a source such as this should only be used as supplementary and complimentary material. For example,it would be appropriately used to provide illustrative quotations to accompany material cited to reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources. As another example, it would be suitable as a secondary citation to accompany a main citation to a reliable source discussing the material. Overemphasizing such material, citing it to highlight aspects not highlighted by secondary reliable sources, using it to push points not represented in other reliables, and similar usage almost assuredly runs into the territory of undue weight and other serious concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that you have identified the salient point about this source. As shown on the TM Talk page olive linked to above, multiple reliable, independent secondary sources identify "Beacon Light" as the Maharishi's first published book on Transcendental Meditation. So, there isn't any legitimate question that the words attributed to the Maharishi aren't the Maharishi's or that it isn't about TM (although he hadn't invented the term just yet). The book appears on its face to be a compilation of documents from the Maharishi's "Spiritual Renewal" conference in October 1955 at Kerala, including transcripts of speeches delivered by the Maharishi, published and printed by the organizer of the conference. To argue about it being "Self-published" misses the point entirely, as self-published sources certainly can be used in Misplaced Pages, with limitations. It is best characterized as a Primary Source, and as such certainly can be used in a Misplaced Pages article, subject to the various policies on the limited use of Primary Sources. A short quote or two can hardly be regarded as giving the source undue weight, as it is hardly the sole or even primary source for the article, particularly for an article as extensively footnoted as the one in question. Fladrif (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana I appreciate your response, and you make some good points.

I'm not convinced that the comparison to Christianity is a true parallel. The gospels underlie and support Christianity's philosophical structure. If we look at the gospels for specific techniques, not guides but actual techniques, to support a Christian life there aren't any really. The Catholic Mass as an example isn't described explicitly as far as I know, so we can't really use the gospels to describe or support descriptions of that "technique". I certainly could go into the gospels and tack together references that would seem to describe the Mass for example, but the Mass as we know it today is never described in the gospels.

No one doubts the words in the Beacon light can be pretty closely attributed to the Maharishi. He comments are more philosophical though, and at no time does he explicitly describe the TM technique. I could go into the book and put together certain words and phrases that would seem to describe the technique, still I can't say that the technique itself is being described, nor can anyone else. No one knows when the present day technique was finalized. There is evidence that the technique was once a single-mantra technique, for example, and later became a multiple-mantra technique so the book as a source used to reference aspects of the TM technique as we are referencing it in this article, not the Philosophy but the technique itself, are pretty weak, by Misplaced Pages standards hardly reliable, and do rely on a synthesis OR combination. Its critical to this discussion seems to me, to separate the philosophy from the technique, just as it is in the gospels to separate the Mass, from the gospels and the philosophy they give rise to.

The most fundamental concern though with this book is that it doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion because it is self published.

The book may be described as a primary source as Fladrif says, but then again even a primary source must describe what it says is being describes and I don't see that here.

I think what we have in this book is more accurately a historical reference in which can be seen the glimmerings of what would become the underlying philosophy, and a technique for meditation.

I agree then that this source should as Vassyana says be only used a s supplementary and complimentary material. I don't necessarily agree with how Fladrif interprets that, but we can be deal with that with in more discussion on the TM page. Thanks for the input both. I think we have more clarity on the subject.(olive (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

I'd like to see if any other uninvolved editors have any thoughts or comments on this question.Fladrif (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Is a one time comment by a UN ambassador a reliable source for defining the governing status of a territory?

... Or is it only enough to say that "Ambassador xxx in year xxx said that (...)"

Currently, the Gibraltar article has the following first sentence: "Gibraltar (Template:Pron-en) is a self-governing British overseas territory"

The citation refers to the following source: Gold, Peter (2005). Gibraltar: British or Spanish?. Routledge. p. 259.

The text says: “(…) in October 2001 (…)” “(…) on his annual address to the UN Fourth (Special Political and Decolonization) Committee (…)” “Caruana revealed that he had an ally in this regard within the UN itself. He referred to a paper written by the Chairman, Ambassador Donigi, in which he had proposed that a referendum should be held in Gibraltar on the question: “Should Gibraltar remain a self-governing territory of the United Kingdom?”. If Gibraltarians voted so to remain, Donigi argued that Gibraltar should no longer remain on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.”

(please notice that the UN as an organisation -not an individual UN official- regards the status of Gibraltar as "non self-governing" pg.3)

I am not sure this third-hand transcription of a UN officer’s proposal for the text of a referendum is enough reference (although I will admit that it does indirectly refer to the current status of Gibraltar as a self-governing territory).

Maybe the article should only say that "Ambassador Donigi mentioned the current status of Gibraltar as self-governing in the proposed text for a referendum in 2001"? --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the citation with one from the Encyclopædia Britannica. I'd also like to point out that it is misleading to represent the Special Committee on Decolonization's list as the official position of the UN, it is not. The only reason Gibraltar was ever included, was because it was listed by the UK. In any case, the UN has no power on the matter. RedCoat10 • talk 10:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for info on gangs

An IP editor is trying to add large amounts of information to articles using sources I can't see passing WP:RS, however, I'll ask for some other opinions. The sources in question are: Folk Nation.com . Chicagogangs.org . This is primarily happening in the article Maniac Latin Disciples. Is there anyone who actually sees these as reliable sources, besides the IP editor? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of indications that these are reliable sources, I would have to say that while interesting they do not qualify as reliable sources. Being listed as a cool or useful website in a regional magazine is not at all sufficient to establish reliability. They could be considered reliable if they were cited in academic works as sources, explicitly stated to be reputable sources in other high quality venues, or so on. Similarly, if they were clearly and explicitly written or edited by an established expert, they would qualify for limited use under WP:SPS. I do not see them as fulfilling either of these requirements, or any other comparable measures of reliability. --Vassyana (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. I understand and share the editors frustration. There is a lot of info on topics like this one, but most of it isn't on sites that will pass RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If a source says that "Something is X except...", is it correct to silence in the article the "except..." part?

The Gibraltar article (see above) says that "Gibraltar (Template:Pron-en) is a self-governing British overseas territory".

The current citation from the Encyclopedia Brittannica says that "Gibraltar is self-governing in all matters but defense."

Other alternative sources are:

• The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report says that Gibraltar has “almost complete internal self-government”. Also that the responsibilities of the Governor are in the areas of "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” (pg. 16) (i.e. they are not the Government of Gibraltar's responsibilities).
• The country profiles of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office say that the Governor is responsible in: "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” .
• The Chief Minister of Gibraltar says that it has "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." (page 4).
• The country profiles in BBC say that Gibraltar is “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”

Is it all right to not say "except..." in the text of the article when the source of the citation does?

Which source would be best to explain the nature of Gibraltar's government? (I think that the most accurate would be the country profiles from the UK FCO or the Report by the UK FCA, but I'm not sure).

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All self governing territories do not have complete control over external affairs, that is why they are self governing territories and not sovereign states. Further explanation on the division of powers can be found later on in the article, there is nothing wrong with saying it is a self governing British overseas territory in the introduction, its perfectly clear and an explanation on powers can be found by reading the British overseas territories article. This debate is pointless, everyone on the talk page of the article has rejected your view its not self governing so you bring it to other places instead. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer (which I know from the previous discussion). I will very much appreciate to hear some external opinions. Also, to be accurate, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick has accepted my view and Narson is neutral. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you name any self governing territory that has complete control of its own affairs such as defence / foreign relations? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We have already discussed about this, and there is no agreement. There is a wide variety of degrees of self-government (look at the FAC report that I link above, for example). I would like to have some external opinion, please, and see if we can find an idea for solving the current dispute. Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Very true that there are a wide range of levels of self government, but no self governing territory has total control over its own affairs, otherwise it would be a sovereign state. I there for dont see the need to say "except... .. .. " in the first sentence. Its a self governing British overseas territory, thats all the info they need there. They can read further down the article about powers or on the British overseas territories article.. I dont see why there is a need for change. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for change and we are not silencing the 'except' part: it appears in the 'Politics' section, which is reserved for a more comprehensive analysis of the nature of self-governance in Gibraltar. You have already had the external opinion of users over at the Neutral point of view noticeboard, all of whom did not agree with your proposed edits. You are also misusing this noticeboard - there is no doubt that the Encyclopædia Britannica is a reliable source. If you dispute the content it cites, you should discuss it on the article's talk page, namely Talk:Gibraltar. RedCoat10 • talk 13:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I know there is no consensus (BTW you don't need to insert the link to that word!), that's exactly why I posted these questions! (as part of the dispute resolution process). I also know your position about this and that -so far- nobody in the NPOV noticeboard has expressed an opinion openly for or against either position. I only want to know 1) if other people think it's OK to silence the "except..." part in a citation in the same place where that citation has been inserted (the lead of the article, not 160 lines below!) and 2) which source do they think would be best for describing the nature of Gibraltar's Government. You don't want to know what other people think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

RSN is not a part of the dispute resolution process. All we do here is discuss the reliability of sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really an RS issue, but a Style dispute over the best way to word the first sentence of the lede. I would actually remove the citation from the first sentence (thus removing the question of whether the sentence accurately reflects what the source says).

WP:Lead_section notes is that lede paragraps do not need to include any citations ... the idea being that the lede is simply a summary of the rest of the article. Any information contained in the lede should be discussed in more detail elsewhere in the article, and it is the details that should be properly sourced and cited. With this in mind... as long as the Gibraltar article discusses the nature of Gibraltar's self-governance (ie mentions that defence is an exception) somewhere in the article, it does not need to do so in the lede, and especially does not need to do so in the first sentence. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see that WP:Lead Section has changed a bit since I last looked at it. It used to clearly say that citations were not required in the lede. It now leaves it up to consensus. In any case, my point stands.

Pehaps a solution is to save the self-governing discussion for later in the lede... I don't actually see a need to mention the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing in the opening sentence. Styalisticly, the opening sentence should briefly and simply identify the topic of the article. You are answering the question: "What is Gibraltar?" And the answer to that is geographical: "Gibraltar is a peninsula at the mouth of the Mediterranian Sea." Once you have established that, you can mention its political status: "It is self-governing territory in all matters except defense (which is controled by the United Kingdom)." as a second sentence. Just a suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that 1) this is not a RS issue 2) citations are not generally needed for the lede section 3) it would be inappropriate to expiate on the nature of Gibraltar's self-governance in the lede. However, I would be reluctant to omit mentioning Gibraltar's political status in the lede, not least because it would be unnecessary and less useful for the reader (I think most countries/nations begin with a political description). It would furthermore give the impression that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is somehow disputed which, unlike the Falkland Islands or Kosovo, it isn't. I also don't see why we ought to pander to the objections of one particular user (viz. User:Imalbornoz) who seeks to deliberately misrepresent the actual status of Gibraltar to push his own POV. RedCoat10 • talk 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Blueboar has the right idea. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

De Hollandsche Molen and Molendatabase websites

Are the Dutch Molendatabase website and the De Hollandsche Molens website considered to be Reliable sources? These have been questioned at T:TDYK where I nominated the De Heidebloem, Erica article for DYK. I believe that both meet WP:RS. De Hollandsche Molens is one of the premier mill societies in the Netherlands. The Molendatabase aims to cover all windmills past and present in the Netherlands and Belgium. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Gold, Peter (2005). Gibraltar: British or Spanish?. Routledge. p. 259.
2. "Gibraltar". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 18 August 2009. Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution