Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 9 December 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.

This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.

If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.

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, 463

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

open ended question on sources that could best be labelled as misleading or "hoax"

Hi, this is a rather open ended request for more people to look at a bit of a mess on a thermodynamics topic- one that often attracts perpetual motion machines and other odd ideas. We've been debating this page for a while now, http://en.wikipedia.org/Law_of_maximum_entropy_production and got a consensus to merge. However, part of the issue is a content dispute between a small group ( conjectured one person) or "Team Swenson" contributors and all other parties. Team Swenson wants to make this an article about Swenson. If you look at the talk page, now redir into my user space, you can see some of the issues. This isn't so much about a POV any more as much as questioning the validity of the sources. One editor was unable to confirm with a journal that an article existed, another seems to be from a "journal" controlled by Swenson. If anyone is interested please help discuss at talk page. Thanks.

Gisborne Herald and The Local

The New Zealand Gisborne Herald offers a news and interview article with a music personality. The Swedish English language paper The Local offers a news report of an event.Both small circulation publications with editorial staffs. They look like their articles are, per WP:V, based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But an editor claims one is not "notable" and therefore not usable but the other is. Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not require that sources be "notable"... we require that they be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The new argument (without relevant wikilinks) is that one of the two is not "high quality" enough for wikipedia: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example The New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain" "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." Thoughts??

Whether they are reliable sources I would question using them because if a story has only been covered by them then it cannot be notable, unless it is local coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

One is a lengthy interview with a controversial music figure/political writer, with some summary political commentary, so he is the story. The other is local coverage of a local speaking event by that individual, and some local groups' pros and cons about his speaking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The subject has no connection with those countries. If the story was notable it would have been covered by other newspapers, like the English broadsheets. If they did not consider it newsworthy then the article should not mention it. See WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". The key word is "prominence". The Four Deuces (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What statements are these articles being used to support, and in which articles? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, apparently this relates to the article Gilad Atzmon, the subject of the Gisborne Herald and Local articles. But the issues involved in this RSN discussion are still unclear to me. Do the Herald and the Local portray Atzmon's views in a way that differs significantly from how they are portrayed in more prominent reliable sources? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The two sources are used to show that the subject is anti-semitic, which is not found in other sources. In the NZ case he is quoted out-of-context (which is implied OR/SYN) and in the second case he is called anti-semitic in a headline and this is backed up by an opinion from the Swedish Committee Against Antisemitism. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as these go as sources, and bearing in mind that they are proposed for a BLP, then I can find no fault with either. In each case the papers are behaving as respectable local papers should. In the Gisborne Herald, Atzmon is given space to present his views. What he says there is not inconsistent with what he has said elsewhere, and it is very unlikely that he was misrepresented. Obviously if he made any complaint about inaccuracy in this interview then this source should not be touched with a bargepole. In the The Local, the story starts with a complaint against an invitation for Atzmon to speak, and then there is a response from those who invited him. Nothing here is at odds with what other sources report about Atzmon's views and the responses to them. If we are looking for reportage in the UK broadsheets, then there is the possibility of using comments by David Aaronovitch, a respected commentator for The Times. I believe there have also been statements by Michael Rosen, whose views are notable, even though he may not have made them in a high-quality source. Caveats about weight still apply. This BLP has been dogged with POV problems. I would advise brevity both in the exposition of Atzmon's views and in the summary of criticism of them. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

An interview is a primary source: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Also quoting what a group in Sweden says about someone living in the UK makes no sense. When writing an article one should use the major sources and report what they say. Searching for obscure sources that state what one wants to say goes against neutrality. Why do you think that the editors are using these obscure souces instead of mainstream sources? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that an interview given to a newspaper is a primary source - it's something that we could do with more comment on. The nearest example in WP:PRIMARY is "an account written by a witness". But an interview is written up by the journalist, not by the interviewee. I also don't understand your line of argument in "what a group in Sweden says about someone living in the UK". If the article subject visits Sweden and people there object, then that might be notable. I completely agree with you that we should be looking for the major sources, but it seems to me that this article has to do three things: 1) report on the subject's artistic endeavours, 2) report what his stated political views are and 3) report on how they have been received. Of these, 1) is the most important. 2) and 3) must be brief, to the point and balanced. Both the sources raised here can be assumed verifiable. There may well be preferable sources, but that discussion needs to go back to the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you just looking for sources to indicate that Atzmon has been called anti-Semitic? If so, try the Jerusalem Post, Hürriyet, and The Jewish Chronicle. Or are you trying to find sources for Misplaced Pages to state outright that he is anti-Semitic? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>To answer the question above: Do the Herald and the Local portray Atzmon's views in a way that differs significantly from how they are portrayed in more prominent reliable sources? The answer, No. The Scotsman and The Guardian both have similar interviews which mention accusations against him. And an Observer news story mentions another specific incident of an accusation. Note that it early was established that we should not use quotes from the article out of context of what the author said, though that also is being violated by a POV editor. Finally one of sources mentioned was used in past but after an OTRs an admin deleted it an a lot of other material as being too much of an attack article; and recently people felt that the whole section was too long so not every single attack/criticism explored. Those other two sources are new. So to me the issue is just if those two article are of equal merit as WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Herald does, the Local does not. The Herald is the only newspaper on the net that alleges that Atzmon has been accused of antisemitism for his statements on Zionism and Israel, rather than his statements on Judaism. To answer your question Metropolitan90, the Herald and Scottsman articles are being used to attempt to portray the allegations of antisemitism against Atzmon as a result of his statements about Zionism and Israel, rather than his statements regarding Jews and Judaism. The Scottsman and The Guardian do both have interviews with Atzmon, however both refer to the controversy surrounding his Anti-Jewish statements, not his anti Israel ones, as the Gisborne Herald alleges. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/mar/06/gilad-atzmon-israel-jazz-interview, http://living.scotsman.com/features/39I-thought-music-could-heal.3804991.jp Similarly, if Carolmooredc remembers correctly, the article was locked with all of these quotes inside. Her statement that "an admin deleted it an alot of other material as being too much of an attack article" is factually wrong, as one can see by looking at the diffs. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=284054107&oldid=284053969 It was locked for violation of BLP, but certainly not for being an "attack article" and nothing was deleted. Similarly the statement that "recently people felt that the whole section was too long so not every single attack/criticism explored." is an interesting take on the truth, it's referring to the two editors from the BLP noticeboard who tried to edit the section before the above editor completely removed their contributions, replacing them with a section several times longer, though slightly shorter than her original edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642088&oldid=321461856 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642476&oldid=321642088 Drsmoo (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually one has a problem with multiple accusations of antisemitism for any and all reasons. But Drsmoo is so absurdly opposed to admitting that a number of reliable sources mention that Atzmon is accused of antisemtism for criticisms of Zionism (6 in the article), it is absurd. I think it's a game to get me to focus on the accusations and not on Drsmoo's hatred of Atzmon (illustrated by these two hostile diffs he refused to remove and an admin had to: (1, 2). CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source that states that Atzmon is accused of antisemitism for his staements on Zionism, than it should be included. You can also include the opinion of a notable person who believes Atzmon's statements about Israel/Zionism are antisemitic. And yes, you should be focusing on the article, rather than focusing on my opinions as an editor (personal attacks if you will) Drsmoo (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done that at least 8 times, 2 examples being Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Do_sources_say_criticism_of_Zionism_led_to_charges_of_antisemitism.3F on the talk page and in User_talk:Master_of_Puppets#Drsmoo.27s_issues_and_response informal mediation and you just deny it and no else bothers to opine. Obviously once again the issues are being obsfucated here. So pardon my frustration. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly not see the difference between responding to your arguments, and explaining what the issue is and "obfuscating"? Drsmoo (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel your hostility towards the subject (esp. in your talk page edits which an admin just had to revert because you refused to) and anyone trying to do an NPOV edit of the article is so severe that I have cataloged various editors' complaints about you at Wikiquette Alerts. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point it might be sensible to move the discussion away from "here's a source, can we use it" back to the quality of the article, its structure and balance. The basic structure is in place, with the music first, followed by writing, and then views. That's good. It might be possible to merge the writing section with the views section, but there are also reasons not to. There is still some work to be done on the music section, with far too many red links. This is quite typical of music biogs, when you take material from sources that want to give credit to every musician involved. It's not necessary to do that in WP. We just need to know about major collaborations that the Atzmon's been involved with. Those will usually be with notable musicians - when they're not, consider whether the musician becomes notable simply by the fact of collaboration with Atzmon. The writing section is OK for now, I think. Views is the problematic bit. Ideally you would set out Atzmon's viewpoints as quoted in RS, weaving in criticism as it was expressed of those particular points. That's not so easy as with some BLPs. For example of a politician you get the format Day 1 major speech-Day 2 favourable comments in some of the press, denunciations in other bits of the press. That's not happening in this case, probably because Atzmon is less prominent as a political figure, therefore his views are not widely reported, and those who wish to take issue with them only do so at the moment of an invitation or if they carry out investigative journalism to track down statements in minor sources. That leaves this BLP with a problem for weaving between the statements and criticism. As it stands I don't think it sets out Atzmon's views clearly. It does include some major criticism. What it must definitely not do - and go to BLPN for more advice on this if needed, is to draw its exposition of the subject's views from the critical sources. Keep referring back to GA and FA on controversial people to see how they handle the difficulties. Best of luck, all. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensible remarks. Note that as early as April 2009 I argued (Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_2#Using_3_recent_WP:RS_interviews_in_NPOV_way_without_WP:OR) for using primarily neutral interviewer sources to make points and NOT just using quotes from hostile critics AND cherry picked quotes from the more neutral interviews to make an editor's WP:OR points. Several editors agreed in subsequent threads. And yet that is what Drsmoo keeps reverting back to - using quotes from Gibson to make his points, even while denying completely that what Gibson says about Atzmon is relevant! And no one else will bother to contest his doing so any more, perhaps because of the Wikiquette Alerts|persistent behavioral issues I complained about to wikietiquette. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Any help with editing the article, itsmejudith, would be appreciated. Drsmoo (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Version with Non-WP:OR use of WP:RS in politics section

Since ItsMeJudith opened up other issues in the politics section, I decided to ppost here a diff to the revised version of this section correcting what I believe are WP:RS violations, among others. See this diff which I explained with this edit summary: More NPOV, non-WP:OR version of politics section; use quotes in context of what Secondary Sources say, not editor's WP:OR; per various talk page and noticeboard comments. It is based on comments I have gotten in various places that deals with the WP:OR issue (cherry picked use of Atzmon quotes out of context of what the secondary source said about those comments). Specifically new paragraph two and new paragraph four. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Need for WP:MEDRS/N noticeboard

We need a parallel noticeboard to deal with medical sourcing: WP:MEDRS/N. Currently such matters end up at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine, but that's unsatisfactory. We need a separate noticeboard which is watched by medical professionals who understand the complexities of medical matters and medical research, understand our RS policy, and understand the MEDRS guideline. What think ye? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am hesitant about the idea of carving out topic specific sub-noticeboards... One of the benefits of RSN is that it is broad based. Because we get editors who are not subject specialists looking at the issues raised here, we get different perspectives on those issues. That is a good thing. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for a separat board: perhaps encouraging more use of this board would do the trick? WP:MEDRS isn't that hard to understand; the gist of it is, avoid the popular press for medical statements, use peer-reviewed secondary sources over primary sources. The single biggest problem occurring in medical articles I've seen is overreliance on primary studies in place of secondary review articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is odd that wikipedia singles out medicine when Ted Turner would probably be a reliable source on religious topics. I'm not saying to policy is bad for the resulting article quality, but certainly the same issues apply in different areas. Also, work in primary sources ( " we found pathway X" ) can be covered significantly in other source (" pathway Z depends on pathway X") that are not explicit review articles on (" review of pathway X") coming up in the pubmed review catagory. I've found some people go overboard on secondary source issues but then again I am prone to original research. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am not really familiar with where people are currently typically asking. But I think the following is worth reading anyway.

It depends on what you want to achieve. Noticeboards only work well if there is sufficient traffic so that people get there for one reason or another, so that it gets on their watchlist. Currently Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) could essentially function as the noticeboard that you have in mind. If you move it elsewhere you are a priori likely to get less traffic there, not more. (It takes a while until it's on everybody's watchlist, and you don't get it on your watchlist for editing MEDRS itself.) For an example of what you probably don't want, look at WP:N/N. It was started almost a year ago and is still virtually unknown. (It's not being used because it's not on the noticeboard template. It doesn't get there because it's not being used.)

Since traffic at WT:MED seems to be moderate, I propose using the MEDRS talk page as the noticeboard. Initially people will still ask their questions at WT:MED or here. Just move them to the proper place and continue there. This way people will see it at WT:MED and get a chance to follow it to MEDRS. After a while there will be enough traffic there, and people will go there directly. By that time, all MEDRS questions will get into a single archive.

If there is so much traffic there that you really need to separate WT:MEDRS and the noticeboard, use the following trick: Move WT:MEDRS to WP:MEDRS/N, and then immediately back. Then create the noticeboard out of the redirect. This way all editors watching WT:MEDRS will automatically watch the noticeboard as well, ensuring that you don't lose the traffic in the transition.

Alternatively you could use the same trick starting from WT:MED, but some people might not like this. (And you will only find out after you have done it.) Hans Adler 01:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The key to noticeboards is traffic. There are big ones like the NPOV noticeboard that don't have enough traffic to work. The best thing to do is answer medical source questions here, and take questions you're involved with here. We have that cool way to search the archives up above, and after a while you can create a library will answer questions directly, or at least inform decisions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Would that sort of move between WT space and WP space even work technically? In any case, I doubt there would be much difficulty getting people who watch WP:MEDRS or WikiProject:Medicine to add WP:MEDRS/N to their watchlists. My rough sense is that many editors have not grasped the distinction between what MEDRS considers a secondary source (reviews of papers in peer reviewed publications) and the broader definition used elsewhere (the papers in peer reviewed publications themselves). Accordingly, I'd commend a trial period with the new noticeboard. LeadSongDog come howl 02:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone can always be bold and create one. If it doesn't get much traffic, we can always close it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, that's a brilliant trick you've got there to make sure it gets/stays on people's watchlists. Right now I've been using MEDRS talk page, but have been rebuffed and told to post at the MED talk page. That's why I feel the need for this noticeboard. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But keep in mind that if the trick works between namespaces (LeadSongDog seems to doubt it, but I see no reason why not), then as a non-admin you can only apply it once. Your experience suggests that you may not be too welcome to do it with WT:MEDRS, but you still have a choice between WP:RS/N and the project talk page. However, since they are rather busy and likely a number of less active people won't be interested in the new noticeboard you should discuss it there first to take some wind out of their sails once the complaints come in. I just came up with the trick; I have never seen it used, and for all I know it may have been in common use before I joined Misplaced Pages (2 years ago) and then abandoned because it was heavily frowned upon. Just be careful, and perhaps ask an old-timer too. Hans Adler 08:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view the noticeboard as it is right now, putting a note in the medicine project and the WP:MEDRS is much better than dividing efforts in a new forum. Is there any proof that the actual system does not work? --Garrondo (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that direction is also worth exploring. Brangifer has expressed a concern about people commenting here not being qualified in the medical profession. There might also be a problem with people who are active here initially not even being aware that MEDRS exists. Perhaps a little template saying "This question relates to WP:MEDRS" could help raising awareness for the fact. It would also assist any editor who might want to create a separate archive page for MEDRS-related questions by moving all the archived threads with that template. (I just saw that WT:MEDRS already has a notice telling people to come here for questions relating to specific sources.) Hans Adler 08:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This just shows there is a need for a method to alert medical science savvy people. If the ones at Talk MEDRS don't want their discussions of the policy itself disturbed (which is understandable), then using their talk page won't work, but using a general RS board which deals with everything under the sun doesn't work very well for this specialized area. We still have a need for some solution. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears there are some 76 watchers for WT:MEDRS. Is that a critical mass? LeadSongDog come howl 05:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

<-- I don't know, but since they don't want notifications on that page, then something needs to be done. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The banners at the top of WT:MEDRS say it all. That page is for discussing the guideline, not discussing articles. Just like I'm sure folk at WT:V would be distracted if all sourcing issues went through the policy talk page. If the question is purely whether a source meets minimal reliability standards, then this noticeboard is fine. But many issues tend to be more complex than just the use or abuse of sources and a post at the WP:MED project page may be more appropriate. And, yes, WT:MEDRS doesn't have enough watchers. I don't think we need a new noticeboard. Colin° 11:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see wisdom in creating a MEDRS noticeboard but unfortunately I don't see consensus for it. Concensus would be needed and enthusiastic volunteers to watch list it. There has been recently discussion on wiki med project of adding a to wiki med banner a link to MEDRS to encoourage better sourcing for articles as many editors, especially new comers are not aware or familar with MEDRS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have either enough editors to watch a new noticeboard or enough questions to justify the overhead. Taken together, all WPMED-related pages seem to average of less than one new RS-related question per day.

MEDRS tells editors to ask questions either here or at the project's page (watched by ~300 people of varying levels of activity). Our existing infrastructure seems to be perfectly adequate: questions asked at one of the two named forums usually get a response.

Furthermore, not all "MEDRS" questions are actually covered by MEDRS: questions of social and political controversies aren't scientific facts and are therefore just plain old RS issues. On those rare occasions that someone posts a technical problem here, the regular RSN folks can always ping related projects for subject-matter experts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ask.com

Is this site reliable for the Barbara Bush quote at the top of the article? Nightscream (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, but you could probably cite if challenged. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. See which attributes it to Lenny Clarke. I can find no reliable source for attributing it to Barbara Bush, and Clarke is a noted comedian. And misattributions of quotes are common -- that someone attributes a quote to a person does not count for much. Collect (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Ask.com is not a reliable source as discussed in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. It does not do significant fact-checking and is often inaccurate. Nevertheless, it often has useful information that can then be searched for in a more reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ask.com is entirely too inconsistent to be considered RS. Dlabtot (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, AskMen.com has a professional editorial staff and I would consider it to be reliable in many cases. However, given WP:BLP and the lack of corroborating sources, I wouldn't use this source for this particular claim. If this quote is legit, I think you would find a lot more sources for it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Palestine Telegraph; Adallah's Newsletter, Electronic Intifada, Journal of Refugee Studies, Dissident Voice, and Islam Online

Would appreciate input as to whether these are RSs or not:

1. The Palestine Telegraph for book review (of author up for AfD)
2. Adallah's Newsletter for ref to article written in it by author in article "selected works" list (article on author is up for AfD)
3. The Electronic Intifada for book reviews (of author up for AfD)
4. The Journal of Refugee Studies for book review (of author up for AfD)
5. Dissident Voice for interview of author up for AfD
6. Islam Online for book review (of author up for AfD)

--Epeefleche (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer this, we need to know what these are being cited for.... how they are being used. Would you link to the article (or better yet some difs to show exactly how they are being cited). Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary response: The Electronic Intifada is biased and not in line with the facts, support terror groups like Hamas and hence a very problematic source. Adallah's offices are located in Israel and formally it's an Israeli organization but I would not count on it, I think that it have a bad record with facts and would look for information on that when I've free time. As for the others, don't know them but in general Palestinian media have a very biased approach (examples: ) you can also find information on many Islamic/Arabic/Palestinian media sources here and here. For the meanwhile I would recommend to avoid usage in any of these sources.--Gilisa (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Bias does not necessarily equate to unreliability... as I said... we need to know context. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, so allow me to rephrase it, there are many documentations of false information coming from Palestinian media sources.--Gilisa (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some specific examples of 'false information' coming from specific sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

True... which is why we need to know the exact context of how these particular sources are being used. We can not simply say: "Every Palestinian media source is unreliable in all circumstances". Instead we need to look at the specific source and the specific circumstances. For example, are they being used to support a bald statement of fact (if so what fact), or are they being used to source a statement of opinion (if so, who's opinion)? Are they being used to source a quote (and if so who are they quoting)? Their level of reliability is going to be different in each of these situations. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Electronic Intifada

..has come up before Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#The_Electronic_Intifada which includes multiple examples of reliable sources citing them. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)..and let's not forget their role in Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First, as for electronic intifada, even if it was cited by many reliable sources it still doesn't mean that there are no examples of where it provided false information (but indeed it's usually more biased than fallacious). Also, I didn't say that we can't use Palestinian sources, just suggested that based on their controversial reputation they will be scrutinized more carefully.--Gilisa (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saying there are examples means nothing. You have to actually provide those examples for your words to carry any weight. Dlabtot (talk)

Sean.hoyland, the wikilink to CAMERA is really unrelevant for this discussion (what more that it would be ridiculous to assume that there are no such groups on the behalf of the Palestinian issue, or that just motivated by anti semitic agenda and likewise-in fact I would be surprised if they are not taking part in it themselves). I think that this discussion will became more scathing after false reports examples would be given. As I told, I would search for suce soon.--Gilisa (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the context in which reliability is required has not yet been specified by Epeefleche, you are not in a position to say whether it is relevant or not. However, I expect the context to be this book review for this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Very bad example, we were not discussing on such cases where there is a direct link between subject and source. So, back to the issue, as I said-if source is proved to be unreliable it's not even about the context as whenever one cite it he/she would also be expected to provide other sources to support the already-fishy source and in any case they would have clear advantage and replace it...So, there is no point in your context argument.--Gilisa (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sean, you only provide context for one of the texts questioned above. Do you know why the others are being questioned? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for sure. I'm just guessing that Epeefleche's questions relate to the sourcing for the Jonathan Cook article because the source list matchs in many cases and Epeefleche has been involved with the article and associated deletion discussion. I assume Epeefleche will come back and provide the context for each source. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, if Sean is correct, then what is being cited are reviews of Cook's books from these sources. (I assume they are being used to establish notability). A book review is always reliable for a statement of what is said in the book review. Whether the review is worth mentioning is another issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've added, to the initial entry above, the context in which these are being considered now--most for book reviews of books written by an author (Jonathan Cook, as surmised above), whose Wiki article is up for AfD. If they are RSs, they would count towards his notability; if not, not. But as these sources may be used as RSs in other wiki articles generally, where possible it would be helpful to get input as to whether they are RSs or not (as a general matter). I recognize that they may not be RSs for facts or for book reviews by non-notable people (for the same reason that a blog book review by a non-notable individual blogger's website would not be a RS for inclusion in a wikipedia article), but may be acceptable if (which is not the case in the above, I believe) RSs for the purpose of reviews by notable people. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK--to spur conversation, let me share my view. I've looked carefully at these sources. I should preface first by saying that I am (at this point) voting to keep the Jonathan Cook article, as I believe other sources that have surfaced are sufficient to evidence his notability. I believe, however, that none of these six os an RS, and that none of them are acceptable as a book review unless the book review is written by a notable person (not the case in the Jonathan Cook article). Should any of them carry a book review by a notable person (say, the leader of Hamas), I would on the other hand view the source as an RS. Does anyone disagree with any of that? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I might disagree... Let's remove the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from the equation... if Cook were an author who had written books about Alpine politics, and the cited sources were book reviews from Swiss media sources... would you have the same objections that you do now? Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. As I said -- I'm voting to keep the Cook article. I'm on the side of those arguing for his notability. I just don't think these are RSs. (I think there are RSs sufficient to support his notability). If Abdullah's Newsletter were instead Hans Federer's newsletter (or Joe Smith's Newsletter, or Hogarth Pinkerton V's Newsletter, or Judah Levine's Newsletter) I would say its a personal blog non-RS ... no question about it. I reach the same conclusion as to the others.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Palestine Telegraph is a relatively new online newspaper based out of Gaza. I don't see why it does not constitute reliable source. It has been used as an information source by mainstream news sourcess like the BBC.

It appears to be a non-notable 23-year-old's blog-like work, its predecessor self=identified in the past as a blog, with an all-volunteer staff of volunteer reporters that includes "citizen journalists who do not take assignments from editors or paychecks from corporate controlled media". Is barely mentioned by mainstream sources. This seems to fall squarely into the non-RS category described here, and in general doesn't have the indicia required by wp:rs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Adalah is a legal NGO based in Israel that advocates for the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel. I don't see why it cannot be used as a source reviewing Cook's work.

I don't see how the fact that it has filed a registration form to be considered an NGO makes Adallah's Newsletter a RS. There is nothing indicating that it meets the requirements of wp:rs. Here is a list of 53,750 NGOs and other development organizations; do you believe they are all RSs? NGO, by itself, does not an RS make.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Electronic Intifada, while certainly partisan, is a reliable source for reviews of Cook's work.

Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot understand the objection to The Journal of Refugee Studies at all.

Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dissident Voice may represent a minority viewpoint, but provided it is not given undue weight, I don't see the harm in including its reviews of Cook's work, given his greater popularity in non-mainstream circles.

Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Islam Online is a perfectly fine source for reviews of Cook's work, just as would be Christianity Online or Judaism Online, if they existed. Tiamut 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. You're basing your view that it is an RS on its name (and the same with Christianity Online and Judaism Online)? Frankly, I don't think that's the criterion. Furthermore, if the publication were limited to subjects covered by its name, which of Cook's books do you believe are on the subject of Islam? I don't see it. Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets? I don't see evidence of it on their site. And articles such as this one don't encourage me to think they are an RS, quite frankly, as elements of it (beyond the bare headline/main topic of Irving's release] appear along the lines of fringe theory support.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll insert my thoughts under your references to the pubs. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is hard to respond to because people seem to want to know a) if the sources are good to establish notability of an author and b) how they are generally. And most of them are complex cases and only possible to comment on in context. The exception is the Journal of Refugee Studies which is an academic journal published by Oxford Journals and reliable in virtually all circumstances. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Palestinian Telegraph meets Misplaced Pages's definition of a questionable source. Its use of "citizen journalists" and its recent history as a simply a blog. "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" - Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (emphasis mine).Cptnono (talk)
• http://dissidentvoice.org/ looks to be the same since it is a "radical newsletter for peace and social justice". It looks like they take
• also take ssubmissions. They have such an axe to grind (in "combating pro-Israeli, pro-American spin") that I would not trust them.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)::
• The Journal of Refugee studies gets some credit for being academic. They admit to being biased (in that they are trying to accomplish a goal through promotion) but that shouldn't completely prevent its use.
• Islam Online appears to have a full staff. I would assume, just from a quick look, that they are professional enough. They try to assert this all over their about page.Cptnono (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify what you are saying in regard to bias in the Journal of Refugee Studies? Academic journals like this are the best sources that we have in WP. This one comes from a centre at the University of Oxford, is published by Oxford Journals and refereed in the normal way. I don't understand why you think it might be biased (although even if it was, that would not affect reliability). This does illustrate how the way that the question is framed here makes it difficult to answer. The status of these sources in general is a different question from that of whether they are appropriate in a particular context. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

They are biased in the fact that they have a "commitment to improving the lives and situations for some of the world’s most disadvantaged people". It sounds morally just but it doesn't mean they don't have an axe to grind which is clearly shown on their website. That ebing said, they use "world-class academic research" and are part of a reputable institution. I find them reliable but felt it OK to point out that they aren't a neutral source.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure on the context, but in general Electronic Intifada and Adallah are unreliable. 'Dissent Voices' describe themselves as "newsletter dedicated to challenging the distortions and lies of the corporate press" which makes them nothing more than an advocacy blog with little to no notability and not much of a wiki-reliable source. There's probably issues with the other sources since there seems to be a common theme here but I don't have the time to give them a proper look-see. Jaakobou 13:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the context is only whether reviews in these sources indicate notability of Jonathan Cook. And since the AfD on that article has had extensive discussion and seems to be moving towards conclusion, then I don't know that there is much else to concern us here. Except that to inform our future discussions I would just restate that per policy academic journals are with few exceptions good sources while internet advocacy sites are likely to be problematic. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is actually still useful since these sources are being used in an article that will more than likely be kept.Cptnono (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviews by unreliable sources as an indication for notability? I don't know. It doesn't sound like a good measure. Imagine a person is smeared by unreliable websites and someone wants to create an article based on just that. This one seems more like a question for the notability forums than for the reliability forum. The sources, in themselves are not reliable. I would like to hear other explained opinions and thoughts on the notability issue. Jaakobou 09:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an update is in order. The article is good to go since there is coverage from sources. What about the potentially bad ones? Of the list up above, are there any that are not RS. I personally feel that a couple of them are so biased without a proven track record of proper editorial vetting that there is no way they can be trustworthy in my opinion. I would prefer the Barnes & Noble or Amazon websites over Palestinian Telegraph (don't be fooled by the name) and dissadentvoice.Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's called The Palestine Telegraph and the spelling of the latter is dissidentvoice. Please try to get the names right. Tiamut 12:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

disputed ref on the Pete Townshend page

a "slow edit war" is going on on the Pete Townshend page (here is the latest in a series of diffs adding/removing the same content & ref). on the talk page one user asserts that his/her reason for repeatedly removing that bit is that the link used as a ref is an "attack site". could someone step in and sort this out, please and thank you? Sssoul (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Seems like a ton of policy was ignored here. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

thank you kindly – i did point out WP:EDITWAR to them, but they both seem convinced that it doesn't apply to them.

if any other editors have the time to state their views on that talk page, that would be great too. thanks Sssoul (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No the individual in question Sciberking is a sockpuppet account attempting to push a Pro-Jimmy Page, anti-Pete Towshend agenda based of his edits on the I can't explain, Pete Townshend page. See the Wiki Libs Sock Puppet investigation and Scieberking was found to have been numerous socks, however has yet to be banned. - I can't seem to find why it can't be kept in, but if you point it out what passage it is that keeps it from exclusion, but if you can find it, I am more then willing to let it go, --Occultaphenia (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Scieberking cleared by CU of suspicion, Occultaphenia blocked as sockpuppet of long-time puppeteer User:CosmicLegg. --King Öomie 20:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Psychoenergetic Systems

This journal (NB: not the book by Stanley Krippner) is used for numerous references in the Precognition article, to support claims which look rather WP:FRINGE-y. The editor who added that text also used the Journal of Scientific Exploration as a source. I see from past discussion that JSE isn't an RS for our purposes. So what's the status of Psychoenergetic Systems (ISSN 0305-7224 apparently) - is it more legitimate than JSE or not? Thanks in advance for any feedback. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Three volumes were published from 1974 to 1979. The references I can see in the Precognition article at the moment are both from the same issue of Vol. 3, although no date is given, so the references are incomplete. The journal was published by Gordon & Breach Scientific Publishers, which I note was involved in a number of disputes with scholarly societies. One online document from a university centre says that its journals were at the bottom of the hierarchy. The publishers were subsequently absorbed by Taylor & Francis. It all looks pretty fringe to me, as does the article as a whole. I would check the status of all the journals cited in the article. A high status journal should appear for a number of years and be published by a mainstream publisher such as University of California, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Sage or Taylor & Francis. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this answer. I'll remove it from the article where it's used as a source for purported fact. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

RS query

Related to Hawaii hotspot. Is this considered reliable? It's an online university. Edyg said that she'll "leave this one to the community" to decide so I'm taking it here. ResMar 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Open University has a good reputation and its learning materials can generally be considered reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a Conflict of Interest in that I reviewed Hawaii hotspot at WP:FAC and have agreed to fix a bunch of citation formatting issues. The Open University materials in use in the article are Tertiary Textbook equivalents; and is a reliable source as used. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much! ResMar 02:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove

There is a an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove. It would be helpful to include a link to a commercial search engine in the template. But this means that there will be external links outside the "External links" section in hundreds of articles. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? See Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove? -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AUSTRALIAN DOCTOR WHO FANDOM

Which fans were responsible for the formation of the Supreme Council of Time Lords in 1983?

Who was the editor of Time Loop, the Australian Doctor Who fanzine?

What was Paul Kennedy's involvement in the Australian Doctor Who fan movement?

Chewy6202 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Reliable sources board is not a forum for asking for sources. Paul B (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

US Naval Ship's Cruise Books

I am a veteran of the US Army and US Navy.

My time in the Fleet was served aboard the USS Ranger (CV-61). During my time as ships company, as opposed to being part of any of its airwings, I did one WESTPAC. This cruise was the Ranger's 30th Anniversary cruise (Pearl) and began on 14 July 1987 with us casting off sometime between 0900 and 1000, I cannot remember that detail and looking it up is not an easy task. From that cruise, during which we relieved the USS Miday and her battle group, and airwing, we became the second US Carrier to take up station in support of Operation Ernest Will. I have my copy of our ships cruise book, which documents many things from the Captain's words at the front about what we had been through, ports of call. The information also includes which airwings were deployed aboard Ranger and their Commanders and XOs, and all personnel.

There is no copy of it online that I have found, yet. Ancestry.com is working to place as many cruise books on its site that it can, and so far as quite a few, but they do not have any from the USS Ranger (CV-61) at this time.

I want to know if a ships cruise book is considered, currently as a valid and reliable source. And if not, a clear explanation as to why not.

Thanks,

FosterBDAV (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the criteria of Reliable Sources is that it must be published.--LexCorp (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this published material by any official department of the U.S. military or more like an in-ship job done by a group of sailor?--LexCorp (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this falls in between "published by the Navy" and "an in-ship job done by a group of sailors" ... In many ways, cruise books are analagous to a high school's year book. I think they would qualify as Self-published by the ship, but they are "officially" self-published. Editing these books is an official duty assinged to members of the crew (on smaller ships this editing duty will usually be a secondary assignment, while larger ships it will be a primary assignment handled by media specialists from the Navy's PR division).

To me the question is one of Verifiability... whether such materials are published in the sense of "made available to the public". Is there an archive of cruise books somewhere, one that a member of the public could access if they wanted to verify what was contained in the cruise book? Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) ::Cruise books like many other documents will be RS for some things and not for others. Certainly they will be more useful if there are one or more copies available in a public facility such as a library or museum, otherwise verifiability becomes a challenge. Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Incidentally most of the Rangers cruise books are a available on auction sites, prices seem to vary wildly. Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Verifiability (of content, not just so other editors can check) is definitely an issue even when dealing with more formal U.S military documents. If I am not mistaken cruise books are documents to familiarise new personnel with the ship, building camaraderie and boosting moral, thus some may even argue they are a kind of in-house propaganda. Either way, it seems to me that even if they are deemed as reliable sources, they could only be used as primary sources. Thus one will have to say something akin to "According to the 1991 edition of the ship's Cruise book such and such event took place and such and such people were present". No very encyclopaedic at all--LexCorp (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, cruise books are not used to familiarize new personnel, they are more like high school yearbooks, with pictures of the crew, ports visited during the cruise, and overviews of significant events in which the ship was involved during the period. Cruisebooks for aircraft carriers will also include all of the aircraft squadrons and any other personnel not ordinarily assigned to the ship but aboard for the cruise, such as SEAOPDET personnel, EOD detachments, and the flag staff for the admiral. They certainly aren't propaganda, but they aren't reliable sources either. Anything which would be included in a cruisebook should be available *somewhere* in a reliable source. Most likely, however, they won't be available on the web. Since the Ranger was stationed at NAS North Island in 1987, the San Diego Union-Tribune should have some material available, although it's likely to be behind a pay firewall or not in the online archives. I'm not sure if any site has (hard-copy or microfilm) archives of the old North Islander newspaper, but I'm pretty sure that similar information would have appeared in that newspaper, the base newspaper, and it should qualify as a reliable source. Horologium (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• My suspicion is no. We never made cruise books, but the collections which were made by yeomen or support staff/groups were always avowedly unofficial. What wikipedia is looking for are published sources, military documents are used for convenience and necessity where those documents are official, describe some important facts and are verifiable by our readers (this doesn't necessarily mean web-available or free). Protonk (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cruise Reports

A couple of "Cruise Reports" have been added to the Biography page of Fiona McLaughlin. These are made available on the website of http://www.whoi.edu, which potentially makes them sources. However they lack publication dates and there is no information on where, or if, they are otherwise officially published. They have been listed as publications but I suggest despite their article-like appearance they are in practice an extension of the website. Are there any suggestions on whether they should be included as publications as per the current layout or should their status (as non-academic standard reports) be made clearer?—Ash (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is up for deletion as being unnotable, it might be good to find some really notable sources about her. These won't make a difference, even if good ones. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about citing "about the author" type material

I was wondering if it is OK to cite the "about the author" section of a book (i.e. the info often found on the back cover or a dust jacket flap) for basic biographical information about the author. I would consider it a primary source, and obviously it can't be used to establish notability, but I would think it is permissible for basic information. Other opinions?\

Assuming it is permissable, how would be be cited? Like a normal book, but with a note saying it is the about the author section?

Thanks, ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the information... I would say it has very limited reliability. Far better to look for something more reliable (perhaps a review of the book). Blueboar (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the book reviewer is likely to get biographical information about the author from some other source than the "about the author" section? In any case, to answer the question: my feeling is that it probably doesn't undergo much if any editorial review and should therefore be given as much reliability as other self-published sources by the subject: ok for simple factual information that is unlikely to be contested such as the author's birth date, not ok for anything contentious. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good summary. In my experience the usual practice is for the publisher to ask the author to submit a short biog. On the behaviour of a book reviewer, it depends on the reviewer. Most reviews wouldn't carry any biographical information anyway. Then again, in academia, the reviewer might know the biography of the author well anyway (their careers have run in parallel), in which case there might be some detail that didn't depend at all on the publisher's blurb. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with it being included. As long as there aren't unverifiable or unrealistic claims (such as " has visited Mars twice, and has published 2,000 books), I think the information is fine. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Article from textbook on Critical Psychology

Is this article from this textbook a RS for this edit? It is being contested by an editor on RS grounds. T34CH (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO this is an RS, but, since it comes from a school with a particular bent, this should be made clear. I'd favour a piped link of this kind: "Rushton's findings have been criticised by critical psychologist ZZ Cernovsky...".

I'd add that, looking at the diff, the points that are being made may fall short of being perfectly clear for the reader. So, although I think it is an RS, some talkpage discussion about wording might be beneficial.

Additionally, I see that the article is under mediation, which might need taking into account, in terms of whether the edit was in itself reasonable (although it doesn't change my answer to the question). --FormerIP (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would hesitate to label Cernovsky a critical psychologist. He studied psychology at the University of Berne and the University of Zurich, taught at the U. of Maryland, U. of Western Ontario (seems he's been there at least 12 years), and on U.S. military bases overseas, and has seen his articles on this exact subject published in a large number of mainstream journals. It does seem that the 1997 article was the last time Cernovsky published about it though. Of course there are other sources for this issue, but I was wondering about this one because it was the one an editor tried to use.

Side note: As for the mediation, I'm a party and I don't see how this particular edit is directly affected. It may be affected later by discussions on the scope of the article, but I don't think that means we should exclude valid RS criticisms of points made explicitly in the article. T34CH (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I'd repeat that it looks to me as if the wording could do with some work. And it does appear that he is a Critical Psyschologist. This shouldn't be taken as denoting that his views are devalued, just that he belongs to a particular school of thought, which ought to be made clear. If this is plainly wrong, then, of course he need not be so identified. As a non-specisalist in this, although it looks to me like a valid RS, I wonder if the wording could do with some work purely to make it clearer what is being conveyed.

In terms of the mediation, I'm just flagging it up. What would otherwise be a good edit might be seen as disruptive when mediation is underway. I don't intend to look into that, just saying that if my comments are null and void because the edit is basically disruptive, then so be it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair points. I'm not sure how we can prove that he's not a "critical psychologist", but after a good search I've not seen him described as one anywhere. Looking at the intro to the chapter in question, it seems the intent was to challenge the mainstream usage of standardized tests, so he's certainly critical of that. As for C.P. being a "school of thought", I'm not convinced this is the case. Despite what the WP article states, all I see is that C.P. is any writing which challenges some aspect of mainstream psychology, suggesting to me that you can be mainstream on 99% of current psychology but publish a paper in a C.P. journal on the other 1%. As for the language, that can be worked on. I just wanted to gather up some outside opinions on the general addition of this information and source before taking it to the talk page myself. T34CH (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam Gay Video Directory (RfC)

Frequenters of this board may wish to comment at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. LadyofShalott 20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

TMZ

What were the policy based reasons we don't consider TMZ a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Per these two previous discussions it actually appears pretty reliable, see in particular NY Times: "The site has become a reliable source for the mainstream media". However, the big caveat is that the kind of material they publish, and their salacious commentary on it, is likely to run into WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and/or WP:BLP issues. I think User:Badger Drink summed it up well: "If something notable and encyclopedic is covered by TMZ, chances are it will also be covered by several other news outlets which are superior to TMZ" and "If something is only covered by TMZ - with no alternate sourcing options - the overwhelming odds are that it is completely non-notable".

In some ways TMZ might be better treated as a primary source, as the facts per se that they report seem to be quite reliable, but any analysis or commentary from TMZ is in the vast majority of cases unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Their paparazzi videos in particular I think should be seen as primary sources, not to mention the privacy/BLP concerns they raise. Siawase (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

World Magazine

Is World Magazine considered a reliable source? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to many issues in religion World Magazine must be used very judiciously because of its declared bias of conservative evangelical Protestantism. However, when reporting on an issues where that bias is in abeyance, it can be given comparable weight to other primary news sources such as local newspapers who do a modicum of fact-checking. It should not be used in preference to primary news sources with better fact-checking reputations such as the New York Times. It should not be used in preference to secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Book published by Lulu.com

During the shale oil extraction article peer review process, the reliability of of the following source (Farkas, Tamás (2008). The Investor's Guide to the Energy Revolution. Lulu.com. p. 85. ISBN 9781409202851. Retrieved 2009-03-14.) was questioned. Although the information seems to be adequate, the publisher is not reliable and this book is the main published work by the author. Could it be considered as reliable source or not? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lulu is a vanity press; this work is thoroughly unprofessional in presentation (the acknowledgements to "a cute girl" are particularly telling), and the book itself describes its author's qualifications as "an independent thinker and experienced international investor". The Preface indicates that this is written by a 2007 college graduate; he claimed 5 years' experience in stocks at the time he wrote the book; and he holds shares in some of the companies he discusses. The bibliography might be useful, but this work itself is a far cry from meeting RS. Maralia (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, would be removed then. Beagel (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bowling for Columbine

There is at Bowling for Columbine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a dispute over the use of sources, including both reliability in general and appropriateness to the article. A diff showing usage is here.

1. Is http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html a prominent critical analysis of the film or a self-published polemic?
2. Is http://www.rkba.org/research/rkba.faq reliable for gun-ownership and crime statistics? As it does not mention the film, is it being used as appropriate contextualization or as inappropriate original synthesis and coatracking?
3. La criminalité cachée en Suisse et ses répercussions sur l’opinion publique: situation actuelle et évolution des 20 dernières années, Berne: Stämpfli is also being used in Gun politics in Switzerland, but I am not sure what it is.
4. http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html is a Wall Street Journal article from 1999; the film was released in 2002.

- 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Self-published polemic.

2. rkba.org does not look like a reliable source for any topic.

3. Don't know. (Haven't looked at the source.)

4. Assuming that that piece was really published in the Wall St. Journal as claimed by the non-RS site that reproduced it, I would not call it an "article", but rather an opinion piece. It does contain statistics, and it's reasonable to expect that (if it was published in WSJ) there was some fact-checking on those statistics. However, it is cited in the "Bowling" article not as a source of data on Switzerland, but rather to support a statement about criticism of the movie ("The stats have also been called into question for ignoring countries like Switzerland and the Czech Republic, which have gun laws similar to the US but death per capita numbers similar to the countries above."). The WSJ piece does not in fact criticize the movie (it was published before the movie), but appears to be introduced to help a Misplaced Pages contributor advance his/her own original research to support a particular POV. --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding (3). It looks as it it would be very difficult to trace this source, and it's not in English, which makes it hard to be entirely sure about it. I think it is reasonably clear already, though, that we have a case of OR. Where four sources are used together to attest to the same facts and three are identified as failing RS, I think it is a good guess that if there is a fourth, inaccessible source, then it is likely to be of a similar character. Given the title (it appears to be a book about unreported crime in Switzerland), I think it is unlikely that the source will contain an analysis of Bowling for Columbine, but that this is an attempt to coatrack information about Swiss gun crime which is not directly relevant to the article. The cite contains no page reference, so, stricly speaking fails WP:V, and I would just delete it for that reason. It does contain reference to two editions of a Swiss newspaper,. although it is unlear why. If these are indended to indicate indirect citation (ie that the information is actually taken from these editions of the newspaper, which in turn cites the book), then I find it odd that the newspaper refs are included in all three instances of the book being used as a cite on WP (ie I wonder if the cite has been copied from the Gun politics in Switzerland article simply because it looks authoratative and would be hard to challenge). In summary, I would delete it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding (3). Martin Killias is the editor for La criminalité cachée en Suisse et ses répercussions sur l’opinion publique (Hidden crime in Switzerland and its impact on public opinion). Martin Killias is a respected author and editor of works on crime and criminology in Switzerland and Europe. He works for or with the European Committee on Crime Problems. You can see a partial list of works for which he bears some responsibility at WorldCat. His works can be considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages; however, just because a source is generally reliable does not mean that it is used appropriately in a given instance. What is said in the Misplaced Pages article needs to reflect what is said in the source including, as appropriate, the context. Additionally, in preference to a work in French, a work in English should be used. Killias, Martin (1993) "International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide" CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal/Journal de l'Association Medicale Canadienne 148(10): pp. 1721-1725, for example, might contain the information that is sought to be authenticated with the newer French citation. --Bejnar (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Transparently not an appropriate source for an article about a movie. Hipocrite (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Forum postings

I am working on an article about a film (Gulaal) and some of the information is sourced to some forum postings that the director of the film made in response to fan questions. Is this a reliable source? Since it's on a blogging site and the director is the one posting the information I'm thinking it would fall under WP:SELFPUB, but I'm not sure. Copana2002 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at their about page of the passion for cinema blog site (and assuming it's accurate) it seems quite a few movie industry people are on the site, so it seems likely that the user is indeed the director. But I can't find any mention that the site actually verifies the identities of the users, so another reliable source identifying him as such would be better. If the user can be assumed to be the director, it should be fine to treat his blog entries and comments like any other self published source. Siawase (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK thank you, Siawase. Copana2002 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Establishing notability of YouTube videos

The article for the German film Downfall has a section on the re-subtitled parodies that have been appearing on YouTube over the past year or so. Because there are literally hundreds of these, the article source contains the prominent notice: "Parodies may be noted here ONLY IF THEY HAVE BEEN COVERED BY INDEPENDENT AND RELIABLE SOURCES."

By reliable here I'm assuming "reliable for the purposes of establishing the video's notability" rather than factually reliable because there are no facts to check: the only question is whether the parody is notable. Only three such parodies have been kept in the article: they've been political in nature and were covered in the New York Times, the Globe and Mail and the Jerusalem Post.

I've removed a mention of a Star Trek parody video on the basis that the source provided — a few sentences and an embedded video near the bottom of this post on the blog "trekmovie.com" — is not a reliable indicator of the video's notability. It's a Wordpress blog which, from what I can gather, will post pretty much anything Star Trek-related; further up the same article is an embedded video showing how to make an Uhura dress for Halloween.

Another user has reverted my removal and it's turning into a game of ping-pong, so to quickly resolve it I'm asking for opinions here and will respect whatever the consensus turns out to be. 77.103.113.127 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that trekmovie.com is just a glorified fan site. As far as I can tell, this 3-year-old site is doesn't have a clear editorial policy and the staff appear to be fans. I'm not even sure if they're writing in a professional capacity or of they do it on a volunteer basis.

Relevant section of WP:RS:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

In order for this to even be considered an acceptable self-published source, one would first need to establish the credibility of the editorial team. Even then it might be acceptable in it's area of expertise, which would be Star Trek, not German films. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that blogs and YouTube are not reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Some blogs and some youtube videos are reliable, but in this case, only parodies mentioned in RSs should be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Asking Jimbo his birthdate

A discussion at the Talk:Jimmy_Wales#.22Sources_differ_about_whether_he_was_born_on_August_7_or_8.2C_1966.22Jimbo Wales article raises the question of reliable sources for a subject's birth. I don't believe asking the subject makes sense when sources differ, but what if the subject did produce a birth certificate?

Scientific American (editorial) quote in RealClimate

Is the editorial content at:

• "Science & Technology Web Awards 2005". Scientific American Online. 3 October 2005. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

reliable for any purpose other than the opinion of the Scientific American editors, hence inappropriate as included text? My apologies if another noticeboard is more appropriate, but the question seems to revolve around whether the text is reliable in context, rather than the question of WP:UNDUE weight for the quote.

Previous discussion thread at Talk:RealClimate#Scientific American (editorial) quote, and other preceding threads in that talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The opinion is relevant to the article, and Scientific American is a reliable source. Of course we want to mention in an article about a science web site what other reliable science publications think of the site. It's no different from including reviews by recognized book critics in an article about a book. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific American is definitely a reliable source... but as the quote comes from an editorial, there should be in text attribution ... something like: "According to Scientific American... 'blah blah blah'" Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Or say, "In 2005, Scientific American named RealClimate one of the top 25 science and technology web sites." It's factually accurate and automatically has in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The attribution is already (and has been since at least Jan 1,2008): "In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing: ....". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another PhD question at Entrepreneurial Mindset

I'm not sure if I should be bringing this up here or at the OR board, but Entrepreneurial mindset relies heavily on an unpublished (I think) PhD by the main author of the article, Max Senges. There may be a COI issue here, especially as his name is even in one of the section headings. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PhDs from reputable Universities are currently acceptable as RS. "Published" is a misnomer. Misplaced Pages's use of "published" means made available to the public. In academic circles, published can mean indexed, or published as a monograph. Australian PhDs, for example, are never "published" even if they're full text online. A monograph book related may be "published". If the source has been accepted as part of a PhD, and if it can be consulted by people (within reasonable limits, like physically being present at the Institutions library), and if the doctorate was awarded by a credible university, then the Thesis is an RS. There may be WEIGHT problems though, or UNDUE. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the claimed thesis (pdf format), and the website, single sourced, undue, delete cruft not substantiated with inline citations. Its a WEIGHT, UNDUE and single source issue. The source itself is unreliable as I can't find a claim that the PhD was accepted. If this "http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TDX-0307108-140133/" indicates the thesis was accepted / degree awarded, then the thesis is as credible as Universitat Oberta de Catalunya is (which appears to be a credible university). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.american-automobiles.com

Reliable source for car related articles? I found that a user has been including links to the site. It seems of a fairly high quality and has some interesting information, so rather than simply removing them I have left them in as a potential source for future improvements that would see the article no longer have need for the EL. The question is though, would information from that site be admissible? Unomi (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a WHOIS lookup of the site, and I don't feel it is reliable since the registrant lists a contact address linking to globalprofitgroup.com. ArcAngel (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Webcomic Reviews

I'd like to question the reliability of multiple sources pertaining largely to webcomics:

• Crush! Yiff! Destroy! - statistics for the site ranks it at #1,056,173 in terms of popularity.

• Master Zen Dao Meow Webcomic Book Club - this is essentially a forum. Reviews are user submitted. It's essentially like citing "some guy". This wouldn't fly in a review of a print comic.

• The Webcomic Overlook is a blog being cited in a small number of articles. Aside from being self-published, statistics for the site put it at 478 unique hits, total, indicating that it is not a popular or known website, certainly not popular enough to warrant its own article, much less to be used as a source. The majority of its uses are as external links, indicating that the author of the site has repeatedly added his own page to articles of comics he has reviewed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

If C!Y!D! is a review site, then popularity isn't an indicator. Comparative review structure to relevant print media is. Your description of MZDWMBC is that it is not a reliable source as it lacks oversight prior to publication. TWO's self-published status is sufficient to mark it as not a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any of these sites are comparable to relevant printed criticism. From what I can tell, the author of TWO doesn't really read through the comics he reviews. The overtly negative reviews appear to have been written more to generate hits than anything; author is also belligerent towards criticism of his reviews. Aside from the poor quality of the writing, neutrality issues and the fact that it's a blog, TWO links seem to have been frequently added as external links by the author. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Letter from the editor a valid external link?

This file is a letter from Fred Woodworth to the person that runs "The Classic Typewriter page." The letter is being used as an external link in Killian documents controversy. Is this a valid external link? Hipocrite (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Try asking this question on the WP:ELN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did that already but forgot to remove this. Feel free to disregard. Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Kew railway line, Melbourne

There are quite a lot of references / citations on this page pointing to Railpage Australia forums. As far as I know, forums (and other self-published sources) are not counted as WP:RS except in extreme circumstances. Replacements to these sources would be highly appreciated. 120.155.108.74 (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Far right

Are the articles listed below reliable sources for including the Muslim Brotherhood in a list of Far right political parties, or are they only reliable as a source of their authors' opinions? The sources do not actually use the term far right to describe the Muslim Brotherhood.

• Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi and Al Qaeda by John Loftus
• The Nazi-Islamist Connection by Herbert Eiteneier
• The Enemy of My Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam And the Extreme Right by George Michael
• Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World by Jeffrey Herf

The Four Deuces (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that the book published by George Michael does include extreme right and Militant Islam (which also include Muslim Brotherhood). Should these books and sites be included as source for the far right knowing that the Muslim Brotherhood does have influence from the nazi since WWII?--71.249.247.144 (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The book by Michael claims that the far right and radical Islamics have cooperated not that radical Islamics were part of the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

They would certainly be reliable to source an attributed comment as to the authors' opinions on the matter. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But is it adequate to include the Muslim Brotherhood in the list of Alleged far right organizations, which basically lists neofascist and neonazi parties? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the far right topic, extreme right has these attributes stemming from racial supremacist to religious extremist. religious extremist include jewish, christian, hindu and Muslim fanatics. To singled Islamist from far right association just because of one opinion is not wikipedia policy but personal opinion. According The Four Deuces this was base on minority or revisionist opinion because he/she can't accept the fact that islamist was influence by 20th century european fascist. Until now I haven't heard The Four Deuces provide the source of statistic that it came from minority or revisionist view from "reliable source". Now I'm not denying there are friction between modern days far right and Muslim group, however there are still Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist Groups that are sympathetic to Islamist group due to their common interest against United States Government,Israel and the west such as the Aryan Nation who called for cooperation with Al-qaeda. --yin and yang 15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are also islamist group such as Hamas that adopt hitler salute

It would seem to me that inclusion in the list is based on a simple criteria... are there reliable sources that label group X as being "far right". If yes, the group can be included in the list, if not, then it can not be included. So the question is... are their reliable sources that directly apply the term "far right" to Muslim Brotherhood (or any other Islamasist group)? (note: I am not talking about sources that say that such groups are influenced by the far right, or that various far right groups sympathize or cooperate with a given Islamasist groups... I am talking about sources that directly apply the term "far right" to the specific Islamasist group.) Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the source that i found (which i have not include as a source on wikipedia) use the term "Right-Wing political islam" which also include muslim brotherhood in it.--yin and yang 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

If Islamic fundamentalist cannot be included as far right just because some writer claimed far right only applied to european fascist why should "hindu nationalist" or jewish extremist be included since it was also a some writers opinion that claimed "hindu nationalist" and "jewish extremist" as far right.--yin and yang 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Radio Ga GA

Are radio inteviews RS, if you cannot actualy hear what they say. For example ? From this source I cannot verify what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a good read if you have the chance. There are also lines throughout different guidelines and policies. WP:Access to sources addresses ease of verifying sources. Assume good faith, ask if a transcript is available, get a full citation (template optional) which will hopefully include a quote in this instance, search online (even if a page cannot be linked for whatever reason at least you can verify for yourself), and even go as far as contacting the station to see if they have archived material available on their website or mail.Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources for drug articles

Is it acceptable for the article Mephedrone to use sites as Erowid and ] as reliable sources? I think it is better to limit the information than to include uncertain information. Ulner (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a lot of essays and guidance specific to drugs and medicine including specificly more tolerance of primary sources or things other than popular press. But, in any case, a source is reliable or not depending on what claim you want it to support. If you just say " Eropwid says blah" then you can presumce the source to speak accurately

for itself. But, you may not want to site it as proof of safety and efficacy for a given indicatio ( Even if you cite the FDA, I'd do so overtly, " leading the FDA to conclude that water is safe and effective for the treatment of dehydration when used as directed."). Probably the best sources are on pubmed ad I wold at least include a survery of these to make sure that you have captured a decent cross section of knowledge on whatever you want to prove from your putatitve source. Sure, you can find "Reliable" sources to say anything but then if there are different opinions, you want to get the prominence right. I would also mention even the guys in white coats get things backwards often, other guys in white coats usually correct it but only after people have died in misguided clinical trials. So, I woldn't take too militant of an attitude, see any of my comments on antioxidants which are militantlu advocated by many reliabile sources but not proven to be "good" in some contexts. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Law & Order: Criminal Intent (Season 9)

I tried PROD tagging Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9) first, but the main editor removed the tag and someone else said it should be reported elsewhere. This page consists of largely WP:OR along with Twitter and Blog postings for references where there are any citations at all. Allowing this to go on it is ruining Misplaced Pages in my opinion, since it is very difficult to get any admins to help with it (in Admin defense, I know they are busy with vandals and malicious edits). Thank you for any help that can be provided here. Trista (user name Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article in question is Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, AQFK. I had a problem with an uppercase letter. And thanks for not biting a rank tyro (been here awhile - admit to not knowing everything!) T. TristaBella (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Article is now at AFD. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Family foundation School article

Please review the new addition to the Program section of the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/Family_Foundation_School It is being discussed on the talk page whether the blog posting from the owner of the facility on their child website of their main page can be considered a reliable source. the blog is straight from the leadership team (including owners and administrators) who post responses to the recent controversy surrounding their facility. I think the blog and its contents are extremely relevant to the article and believe that the blog site can be considered a reliable source since it is directly owned and operated by the Family Foundation School administration.

Thanks in advance for your reviewing this. Flyboi9 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the source you propose to add to the article as a wp:RS.

I think you are referring to this source, but I am uncertain.

Further, you have introduced this into the article, though it appears to be unrelated to the subject (no mention of the school). I have removed it (wp:SYNTH), but restored it based on the possibility of input from more knowledgeable editors. You might seek support for that here, but I am very unsure this is the right forum. Since people who watch this board are likely to be interested in sources, one or more might be able to help- Sinneed 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an EL that I had opposed, www.TheFamilySchoolTRUTH.com. It is a strongly anti-school self-published site, and it appears to be claimed as written by one of the editors ( article suffers from possible wp:COI issues on both pro- and anti- school sides ). The EL was warred into the article and I am not removing it again at this time, but I still firmly oppose its inclusion, as I think it fails wp:EL for this article.- Sinneed 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Several questions regarding sources used at Twisted Scriptures

I should state upfront that I have doubts that Twisted Scriptures passes WP:BK. It certainly fails points 2-5, and I'm doubtful about #1. Taking a look at the sources used in the entry have brought forth several concerns I would appreciate additional input on.

1. Is it problematic to use blurbs or reviews posted on Amazon.com, by Amazon (as a marketing tool to sell books) as evidence of the "reception" of a book? The entry creator is arguing that Midwest Bookreview is open about the fact that their "reviews are also available through Internet bookstores such as Amazon.com" (from website). If Midwest Bookreview is a notable publication, and if the independently published review is cited I would not be asking this question, but the issue is that Amazon.com is being linked instead, and their use of this material is, in my mind, equivalent to cherry picked quotes used by publishers on back covers. After all they are just trying to sell the book.
2. If someone wants to use information from a footnote of a book or journal article how should this be done? See just below for the text in question. The problem here is that the journal author being cited does not ever mention Chrnalogar or her book (Twisted Scriptures) in the body of her article, but uses it, along with another author to exemplify a point in a footnote. The quoted text below is from the footnote. I find using footnote text like this dubious in general, but if it is allowable doesn't it need to be qualified heavily? When I read this I expect that Wong is discussing the book directly. Indeed it adds a lot of credibility to the notability argument -- but alas its just an example used in a footnote.
3. *Chrnalogar points out that mind control does not need to occur only with sever tactics, writing: "All that's needed is an environment where the information can be controlled, and more importantly, the way people perceive that information." She cites mind control characteristics identified by Robert Jay Lifton, and asserts that only six of his "psychological themes" are required in order to manipulate followers in a cult.
4. Does anyone know what What Magazine is? Since it is being used as a primary source for the "reception" of the book I'm not entirely sure that "reliability" is the issue, but notability certainly is. Should reception criticism published in non-notable sources by non-notable authors be used to establish notability? Especially if there is no indication that the publication or the author of the criticism have any expertise in the relevant fields?

Thank you for your comments. Another set of eyes on this entry in general would be appreciated because, like I said, I do not believe it meets WP:BK but this is only evident when one digs deeper into the sources and how they are used.PelleSmith (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1. http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2006/04/hamas-adopts-nazi-salute.html
2. The Adrian Goldberg Show, Talksport Radio (UK), 6 July 2009
3. ^ Wong, Catherine (Summer / Fall, 1999). "St. Thomas on Deprogramming: Is It Justifiable?". The Catholic Lawyer. 39 Catholic Law (81). The St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research of St. John's University School of Law. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution