Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saiga12 (talk | contribs) at 16:45, 15 July 2010 (→Kavkazcenter !). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Quote from Drug Prevention Organization

I have contributed text to the Arguments for and against drug prohibition page but have had one of the contributed arguments for prohibition removed here on the basis that it does not, in the view of another editor, quote from a reliable source. I am hereby looking for advice on the source.

Obviously debates regarding ‘Arguments for and against drug prohibition’ will not be found in peer-reviewed journals because such a debate is not scientific research as such, although it will rely on surveys that are done by reputable organizations. However this debate is found mainly in the political realm as well as between opposing drug advocacy organizations, particularly between drug prevention organizations and drug legalization organizations.

I have added an argument which appears on Australia’s official drug debate website, which is the ‘Drugtalk’ e-mail listserver operated by the peak body representing almost all Australian drug and alcohol organizations, ADCA. The listserver claims 350 participants (see http://ndsis.adca.org.au/e_list.php) who contribute to ongoing debates about national and international drug policy. This debate listserver has its own administrator and is fully archived, accessible via password from the Drugtalk administrator. I therefore would argue that the text I have contributed to this Misplaced Pages page is from a reliable source, from an appropriate organization that is constantly involved in the drug prevention advocacy area, and which is accessible on the internet as per Misplaced Pages policy.

I have cited the argument below, which is contributed by the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose name appears under this argument on the Drugtalk listserver. The text reads:

The criticism that the ‘war on drugs’ can never be won (and consequently is of no value) is no more true than the argument that police ‘blitzes’ on highway speeding should be curtailed because they fail to eradicate speeding. While blitzes on speeding very successfully reduce and contain the behaviour, policing of illicit drug use does exactly the same. Removing policing of speeding drivers will have precisely the same effect as removing policing of illicit drugs. No one would suggest legalizing stealing because it has never been eradicated. My source is listed as Drug Free Australia - The Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia Drugtalk drug debate listserver 11 May 2010 12.05 PM

Interested in other observations on this one. Minphie (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we have a direct link to the post itself. Also ADRA Australia appears to be a a Christian, humanitarian agency, not a drug prevention agency, or is there another. This makes me doubt the expertise (and thus the reliability) of the source. Nope its the one, it seems that as well as aid they also provide drug rehabilitation services. But I cannot determine if they are any ore qulified then many other lay church aid gruops.Slatersteven (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The organization referred to is Drug Free Australia with website http://www.drugfree.org.au/. The actual quote on Drugtalk reads:

"Remember, also, in your concerns about prohibition, that 95% of Australian do not want to legalise heroin, cocaine or amphetamines, and 78% don’t want to legalise cannabis. You know we’ve had this discussion before and it’s all found on pp 11,12 of the 2007 Australian Drug Strategy Household Survey. So for the relevant argument about Australia and its prohibition of drugs, I think you’ll find that 95% support for prohibition is pretty close to unanimous, and that the ‘drug war’ as you call it, which is no more a war than a police blitz on speeding (a ‘war’ they will never win, but will be supported by the public every time) in Australia has precious few casualties while hundreds die each year from the INHERENT harms of various of the illicits."

This is signed off with the organization name and address and contact details. Minphie (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is different from the quote above, which one are you asking avbout. I also notice that you have changed the name of the organisation you are trying to quote. I would have to say that Drug Free Australia looks very much like an advoacy group. I would also again ask for a direct liunk to the post on drug talk.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to drugtalk. It is a discussion mailinglist and one must become a member to browse the archive. It should be noted that although Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia is the owner of the site they give "no warranty, guarantee or representation about the accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise of the information contained on the email list Drugtalk" so one can not draw from its credibility. And as with the case of other WP:SPS the status of the poster, if they are experts or not, is paramount to wither it is fit for Misplaced Pages. So the remaining question rather is can leading figures of an advocacy organization be considered as "established expert on the topic of the article"? I just assume that they have had opinion pieces - "work in the relevant field" - in "reliable third-party publications" but that really needs to fully established. Steinberger (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In regards to Slatersteven's questions, the URL for the quote is http://www.lists.sublimeip.com/mailman/private/drugtalk/2010-May/006082.html but Misplaced Pages contributors will need to give a username and password to the Administrator via the sign up page drugtalk before being able to access this post. There is no doubt that it can be verified once you have access. The trouble involved, of course, is no more than for a Misplaced Pages editor who does not have access to medical journals needing to get student access or something like that before being able to verify a medical journal quote. You have asked what quote I would use, and it is the first-mentioned quote that I had originally contributed to the Misplaced Pages page, rather than the direct quote from Drugtalk. I believe I have summarized the Drug Free Australia argument correctly though. Also, it is important to remember that Drug Free Australia is the peak body for more than 70 Australian drug prevention organizations, who in turn have memberships of 220,000 Australians, and it is the most authoritative voice in Australia for drug prevention, sought out by the Australian media for comment more than any other drug prevention organization. So again the authority of the organization in this drug debate is beyond question. And of course the 'Arguments for and against prohibition' page is recording the arguments out there, and this is one by an appropriate organization which holds a great deal of logical weight and should be included. Minphie (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Who posted the message? Also it does not matter how many members an organisation has its the qaulity of its work that mattrers not how many people bleive it. In addition perhpas some links demonstating that the the Australian media seek them out mor then any other similar group (by the way they would need top be sought out as experts not just for thier opinions)? Also this seems to be opinion so even if we do accept this you will have top attributre it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The message was signed by Gary Christian, the Secretary of Drug Free Australia, signed with his title, the organization's name, its address and contact details. Minphie (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In relationship to the credibility of the organization, the Queensland Government has established an inquiry into the effects of cannabis in just the last few months as a direct response to a publication they received from Drug Free Australia, and which they clearly acknowledge in this. Another clear evidence of organizational credibility is a much discussed publication by Drug Free Australia on the Safe injection site page where the Liberal party and Independents relied heavily on this Drug Free Australia publication during the NSW Parliamentary debate for the extension of the injecting room's trial tenure in 2007, for example here. Minphie (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• In my opinion it doesn't look like the citation is verifiable to a reliable source as those terms are understood on Misplaced Pages. Dlabtot (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Source of important quote in a national peak body bulletin board archive

I am contemplating adding a small amount of text to the Safe injection site page which refers to important correspondence which is in the public domain between the Medical Director of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) and the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose critique of the MSIC's evaluations has chiefly driven the Parliamentary debate in Australia. One of the two major political parties in that country claim they will close the facility if voted into power at the 2011 election. The NSW Liberal party has relied heavily on the Drug Free Australia critique of the injecting room, which was done in 2007 by a team from Drug Free Australia which included an epidemiologist, an addiction medicine specialist and social researchers who have between them been published in more than 20 top peer-reviewed medical journals on related drug or medical foci.

This correspondence between the two organizations, which is reproduced in full, is sourced from the bulletin board run by the peak body for drug and alcohol organizations in Australia, ADCA which links 1,000 professionals from those organizations within Australia. Called the 'Update' bulletin board, it is administered by an ADCA Adminstrator and is fully archived and accessible via password from the Administrator. The correspondence was posted on the bulletin board because it was of national and indeed international importance.

The correspondence is important because it is the only known source for a claim, by the injecting room's Medical Director, that their own 2003 injecting room evaluators had overstated the number of heroin users in the area surrounding the injecting room. While this argument is cited somewhat obtusely by Parliamentarians in a parliamentary debate about the injecting room, the accuracy of the statement can be better evaluated via a short quote directly from this public domain correspondence from that national bulletin board.

I would like advice on the appropriateness of this source. Minphie (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the actual reference? Can you post a URL, or is it not publicly accessible? In general, what you describe sounds ok, but it really depends on the actual source, and on exactly what text you want to add to the article (be careful not to violate WP:SYNTH by drawing conclusions that are not stated in the source). Also, WP:SECONDARY is a problem for your proposal because selecting items from primary sources could be regarded as cherry picking original research. In conclusion, it all depends. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote is as follows: "Meanwhile would you please note that the new estimate for the IDU population in Kings Cross during the 12 months to 31 October 2002 is 1100, instead of the 4 000 IDUs estimated in the 2003 Final MSIC Evaluation Report - not 2 000 IDUs as you cite in the following: The Drug Free Australia determination of overdoses at 36 times the rate of overdoses on the street is indeed measured using the evaluation's estimate of 2,000 users in Kings Cross each day, (injecting an average of 'at least' 3 times a day resulting in 6,000 injections per day in Kings Cross - p 58 of the evaluation)." This quote clarifies that the injecting room's own staff are stating that their own evaluators overly inflated the user numbers around the injecting room, not Drug Free Australia. Minphie (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is, is it verifiable? How can a random Misplaced Pages reader verify the quote? Dlabtot (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (Not meaning to imply that that is the only question...) Dlabtot (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote is indeed verifiable, but requires Misplaced Pages editors to first sign up for Update by giving a username and password to the Administrator via the sign up page Update before being able to access this post. There is no doubt that it can be verified once they have access. The trouble involved, of course, is no more than for a Misplaced Pages editor who does not have access to medical journals needing to get student access or something like that before being able to verify a medical journal quote. Minphie (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback.com

I've previously raised the issue of pifeedback.com not being a reliable source here in May. However, the single response I got has been challenged by another editor who thinks it merits wider discussion, so here we are again. The pifeedback.com internet forums are used as a source for TV ratings on multiple pages. The ratings at this site are typically reposts from other sites, and there are currently 283 links to the site from multiple articles. Since apparently anyone can post to the site, it doesn't seem to qualify as a reliable source to me. Comments would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hard to conceive of an argument that would be used to justify this as a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The person (its just one person) I (personally) am linking to is Travis Yann. He posts all of the FINAL numbers. His posts are linked via Tvbythenumbers.com, which is a reliable source. If they link to him, and I use tvtn's as a source on Misplaced Pages, it would therefore be unreliable? It seems really hard that some guy would sit home on his computer and make up some random numbers that many people (including myself) wait for. The numbers are further proved to be correct by DVR numbers that (mostly) line up with his in some circumstances.02:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

From: Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes

Do you mind me asking a simple question: What is BEST for the articles on Misplaced Pages in these situations, in your opinion?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I wish I could give a simple answer. I'd never really looked into tvbythenumbers until relatively recently and had let additions to articles slide by. Since there's no definite consensus you can probably use tvbythenumbers but expect the information to be challenged and, if there's a better source available, use it. Pifeedback is definately out though. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that there are no better sources other than these two, whether reliable or not. Particularly for Ghost Whisperer here, we have no other sources. What would be best for wikipedia in this case would be to keep the sourced ratings, whether reliable or not. Using this method would therefore allow different perspectives of both sources be challenged by the reader only. Presenting the source for them to click on to directly lead to where we have taken the information from can allow the reader to determine if they think it is reliable. In this situation, it is not neccesary for Misplaced Pages to interfere with the judgements of its readers. Sourcing the information in no different manner than usual, meaning in no special way, or a neutral way, we do not impose whether they should or should not endorse the source where we have gotten the information from.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

If you're going to cite WP:IAR as a reason for ignoring core policies such as WP:V then you should make sure that you follow the links in its single sentence. The first of these, "improving" states, "it is Misplaced Pages policy that information in Misplaced Pages should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Misplaced Pages a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter." The precise wording of WP:V is: "it is Misplaced Pages policy that information in Misplaced Pages should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Misplaced Pages a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". It would be best to use common sense and allow good contributions; being too wrapped up in WP:V is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings, therefore not improving the article in any way. We are not misleading the user in anyway when we predent the pifeedback.com source because the information is clearly there. But that is my opinion, which obviously differs from an averae Misplaced Pages user. Because of this, we should allow the source and have the reader be able to determine if it is reliable or not, therefore ignoring WP:V and making a dangerous assumption. "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Improving wikipedia would be to provide the ratings. And the only sources for them are these two.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I'm not sure what words of that are yours and what are quotes but, regarding "being too wrapped up in WP:V is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings", ratings aren't sourced if the source is not reliable. If the only sources you have are not reliable, then the information shouldn't be in the article and if you put it in, it can be removed. If you persist in restoring information that has been removed because it's poorly sourced you might end up blocked. You really need to think about whether it's worth losing your editing rights. People have been blocked for far less. I really have to take issue with claims that the ratings are only available from two unreliable sources. Where are they getting them from? They must be available from somewhere. If they're not, then the claims aren't credible. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

He does claim to get them somewhere. But I try to search on Google, Bing, Dogpile, exc. for them, but I don't find anything. The point I am tryign to make is: If it is reliable or not, leave it. When someone wants to see where we got the information from, they click the link and decide for themselves if the sources are reliable. Its simple and resolves the dispute over this issue by Ignoring the rules. And, by the way, since season 2 and 3? is not sourced at all (before your edits and now), we should remov them completely, unless you disagree?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Sorry, I thought I'd already replied but I got side-tracked with another discussion and some vandal fighting. After much research, I can accept the tvbythenumbers refs, only because there is no consensus as to its status as a reliable source. However, in the discussions that I've initiated at WP:RSN, there is absolutely no support for pifeedback.com and, as it's a forum, it clearly falls into the category of WP:SPS, meaning the information from there can't be included in the article. We don't add information assuming that readers will be able to follow links so they can decide whether or not a source is reliable. If it's not reliable, it doesn't go in. As Misplaced Pages:Editing policy says, "a lack of information is better than misleading or false information— Misplaced Pages's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable." As for the uncited information from season 2 & 3, yes, that should be gone. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion you initiated, there is only you, some other guy, and me. Honestly, that isn't a consensus. As WP:IAR, doing what is best for Misplaced Pages, is what is right for Misplaced Pages. In oder to be fair(er?) I will quote some materal from you and I here at the discussion you have started. I'll also ask some people to ontribute to the discussion (without telling them to side with me or you). I'll just give them the link and kindly ask for any feedback they would like to give.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I haven't read this whole argument because my eyes are dry. I just read the beginning and topic sentences. From what I have gathered: use the original sources. Full stop/period.  Davtra  13:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Where is this "guy" getting his numbers from? Source wherever he is getting the numbers from.  Davtra  14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Internet forums don't meet the criteria for WP:RS. I don't see why the other regular source on there can't be used. For instance, on List_of_Ghost_Whisperer_episodes#Season_5:_2009.E2.80.9310 where the pifeedback.com ratings have been removed, tvbythenumbers.com gives the rating 10/9/09 (8.60 million) ; it gives the rating for 10/16/09 (8.21 million) . For the same dates pifeedback.com gives the ratings to be 8.78 million and 8.05 million, so there is a discrepancy there. One of the sources has to be wrong. Is there a reason why tvbythenumbers.com isn't being used to source the remaining ratings? Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I am going to sound Geeky, but the difference between TVBTN and PIfeedback's post is that PFB posts the finalumbers, 24 - 48 (in GW's case, about 72) hours after the preliminary ratings. I have asked Travis where he has gotten the information from and am waiting for a response.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Funnily enough, TVbytheNumbers' reliability as a source has been discussed previously. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The TV ratings can be found on the LA Times too. For those two weeks we have Ghost Whisperer on 8.78 million and 8.05 million which are in line with pifeedback.com. I think this obviously proves the pifeedback.com forum is putting up the right numbers and Chaosmaster's explanation that they are revised figures makes sense. Whether this makes pifeedback a reliable source or not I don't know, but it seems to be reliable in this instance. Personally I would try to source the figures with the LA Times data, and if any can't be sourced then perhaps fill in the blanks with the pifeedback numbers but add a citation needed flag in those cases. If we have the correct figures, we may as well use them - if their numbers correspond with the LA Times numbers then this would seem a legitimate instance to invoke WP:IAR where we have gaps. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For the two weeks after that (23/30 October) the LA Times gives 8.59 million and 8.29 million . Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion. If there are other challenged sources it may be worth going back and sourcing them all through the LA Times, especially if there discrepencies. If you have the number that you want to source it is easy to find using google using the search term: site:articles.latimes.com "ghost whisperer" 8.29 Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there's no doubt that TVbytheNumbers gets their data from The Nielsen Company. See the bottom of page with the ratings that say: "Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2010 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved." The forum, I'm still unsure about. Mike Allen 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It is all a matter of fast overnight ratings or the ones published weekly on nielsenmedia.com and apparently reprinted in the LA Times too. Just by looking at the air date of the show and the publication date on tvbythenumbers for ratings of said random show it is pretty clear that most are overnight ratings. The weekly final numbers once all markets are factored are typically the preferred numbers to cite long term with the overnight being a placeholder subject to revision in an article since it is itself a placeholder number subject to revision by Nielsen. However people don't often think to check the fast overnight vs the final numbers for discrepancies once a rating is in an article. delirious & lost ☯ 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that LA Times do line up with Pifeedback also. And here, I agree with Betty Logan, using the LA times in most cases where we know for a fact that is a reliable source and then using Pifeedback's for the rest with a citation flag sounds fair to me. I do agree with Delarious about people not checking ratings once its published in an article. Many articles state "This show had 5.5 million viewers" one day, the following week there is a more precise number such as 5.48. Its a matter of whether or not you are using prose to explain the ratings or if you have an episode table, in which case the later would be better fit with the precise number.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Would it be okay to use rather than flaging every single rating (which would also cause the table to be disproportinate to the other four)?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Three of the 6 editors who have posted here have discounted use of pifeedback.com outright, as has the editor who replied to the May discussion. Another editor has made no comment on pifeedback.com. Only one editor proposed use pifeedback.com if the figures were not available for the LA Times but prefaced her comments with "Internet forums don't meet the criteria for WP:RS". That editor's "support" was marginal at best. Only you fully support use of pifeedback.com. Adding the disclaimer to List of Ghost Whisperer episodes as you have done breaches WP:NODISCLAIMERS. The information needs to be sourced to reliable sources or not included in the article at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this even being discussed, at this point? Open access forums are not reliable sources, fullstop. Use the ratings as published by Nielsen/LATimes, fullstop. I was pointed at this discussion from my talkpage. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Pifeedback.com is not a reliable source. Misplaced Pages currently suffers from lack of RS use in the arts and entertainment articles. This is a good topic and may this WP:RS be used for the improvement of such articles. --Sulmues (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here by User:ChaosMaster16, though (or perhaps because) I have no connexion to this at all. All my opinion is, why can't the figures wait for the LA Times and Nielsen Media figures to be published (as they are both presumably RS)? There's no great hurry. And if the overnight and adjusted figures are both valuable, have them both. Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As a response to Hipocrite, this is being discussed because WP:IAR states to do what is best for WIkipedia. In this case, we should use the source and allow the reader to determine themselves if the Pifeedback source is reliable or not, after using the LA Times article where possible.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Using unreliable sources is not what's best for Misplaced Pages. I have closed this discussion as it is clear that a strong consensus exists that this forum is not reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

When we have the numbers to list, why not use the source? No other source has the numbers but Pifeedback when LA Times fails to use the numbers.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Furthermore, that is why it is best for wikipedia: We do have the information, and it has been proven to be at least 98% acurate, yet we just ignore the information simply because its on a forum? If the information on LA Times can be used, we will use it, but if not, we should use Pifeedback.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

(Comment requested by ChaosMaster16) There is ABC Medianet, they get there ratings directly from Nielsen and is owned by ABC a trustworthy outlet. But there listings are often incomplete, hard to find, a week after the fact and lacks a bunch of channels. TV by the Numbers gets there ratings sometimes from Nielsen but other posts from Travis Yanan in which they link to his blog and his twitter account as source. His twitter account often links to his post on Pitfeedback, so that would confirm the user. If those posts on TV by the Numbers are accepted so should the ones on Pitfeedback. The best I found from on Nielsen's website is the last week top 10 which is very limited and doesn't seem to have backlog, which would make citing this useless. Nielsen Wire doesn't seem to put concise ratings on the website, with exception of the once in a while top 10 of the month. I frankly don't understand why Nielsen Media Research doesn't just put the ratings on there website like BARB does in the UK. If they do I haven't found it and no-one on wikipedia seems to have either since I haven't seen a single citation to a website from Nielsen for a rating. Currently ABC Medianet is accepted and used for back-in-the-day-shows, TV by the Numbers for recent shows. If TV by the Numbers is globally used and accepted as a good source and it uses Travis Yanan as a source then Pitfeedback should be considered just as good as a source. Does Nielsen post the ratings somewhere users can find them? If so I find it weird that they would be used pretty much nowhere over third party sources such as TV by the Numbers, Pitfeedback, etc. where does the LA Times post the ratings? Deliriousandlost names nielsenmedia.com but that website doesn't load for me. _Xeworlebi  13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

the website requires the "www." but it just leads to the weekly top 10. delirious & lost ☯ 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, but it's a weekly top ten, and has no archive making it pretty useless for citing. _Xeworlebi  15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also been asked to comment by ChaosMaster16. I don't think WP:IAR applies here, because using a forum as is source simply not what is best for Misplaced Pages. I think ChaosMaster16 should read WP:V and WP:RS carefully and understand the principles that underlie them. The point is not to provide any old source and leave it to the reader to work out whether or not it is reliable - the point is provide a reliable source, so that they can verify the information in the article. Ignoring the rules in this case would go against the spirit of the encyclopedia. It's about as open and shut a case as I've seen - you can't use a forum as a source. If the viewing figures are not available from a reliable source, they should not be listed. And attempting to assess the reliability of the information from the forum is both original research and something that the reader is not privy to. Maccy69 (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see that pfifeedback.com is necessarily any less reliable than other source of ratings data, short of getting the numbers directly from Nielsen. A lot of the data seems to be posted by Mediaweek's staff writers, and I can't see an indication of bias that would cause them to fudge the original Nielsen figures. Obviously anyone can post to to the pifeedback.com forums, but there's an apparent level of editorial oversight from a notable media outlet. The company's links to Nielsen are also worth noting. I agree that forums are not usually a reliable source, but I don't see that this one is not reliable. katherine_a (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Like User:Si Trew and User:Maccy69, ChaosMaster16 asked me to comment on the matter. Allow me to point out that when students ask their teachers if they can cite Misplaced Pages, the response in almost every case is to instead use the primary source cited by Misplaced Pages. I think that we have to do that here. Myself, I see it as something of a slippery slope (or, if you are on the other side of the coin, an evolution) wherein TVBtN is barely inclusive as a source, which opens the door to a far more questionable source like Pifeedback.com. Maybe their info is accurate; it isn't the point. It's a blog run by two guys who - at best - might make a mistake which isn't held up to scrutiny by internal fact-checking. At worst, they might fudge the numbers by a decimal point or a 100th of a percent to favor a particular program.

IAR often fails as a skeleton key in bypassing policies and guidelines, which is true in this case as well. It isn't a valid argument to use here. It doesn't benefit the encyclopedia or the reader if their perception is skewed by crappy data sourcing. That would be like using a source that says that 75% of people think that Obama is a sleeper agent for the Jihadists. If its's sourced reliably, then it can be used. However, if the source is a tea party or some such nuttier group forum, the numbers are clearly being skewed. It's an extreme example to be sure, but the prevailing principle is the same. We present neutral, reliable and verifiable information to the reader, so they can form an idea based upon good information. Fan forums and blogs do not meet that criteria as there is little in the way of provenance for their resulting viewpoints. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jack Sebastian, I understand where you are coming from. However, to me, it sounds Unintelligible to know that there information is acurate and not cite them. In all reality, Misplaced Pages credits reliable sources based on acuracy. If there was a situation similar to yours that stated Obama didn't smoke, but was posted on Jokes.com, a site (for this exapmle) that has a repuatation of posting inacurate information, why would we cite that? If Pifeedback posts acurate ratings, the only ratings for an episode in some cases, and there is no other information given by LA Times, why not cite Pifeedback? If however, someone cites Pifeedback for purposes other than ratings, like a post saying "American Idol was canceled in the spring of 2010," that would be proven inreliable beacuse of the reliable sources we have to prove that it wasn't caneceled. ChaosMaster_Chat 15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blogs/chat forums/etc rarely meet RS standards. I'd say get rid this one too. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As I was similarly directed to this page from ChaosMaster, I have no background on this matter. However, it seems to me that this pifeedback.com does not appear to be a reliable source, and should not be used under most, if not all, circumstances.

"If Pifeedback posts acurate ratings, the only ratings for an episode in some cases, and there is no other information given by LA Times, why not cite Pifeedback?"-- ChaosMaster16

Most likely they won't post accurate ratings, as they've done in the past. LA Times is preferred, and if the only source that we have is largely unreliable, then we don't cite it at all. As you say, we don't post information from sites that have a history of inaccurate information. It is not likely, nor even preferred, for a site to be referenced though the data might be accurate for one instance, and the WP:IAR policy applies to neither WP:V nor WP:RS; it hasn't before, and it won't now. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear to me Pifeedback does post acurate ratings as proven by the ratings currently sourced on here compared to the ratings from pifeedback, here. To make it easier to compare, here is the difference in revisions. There are only two differences: the March 5, 2010 episdoe (Org. had 7.36 vs. current 7.35) and the January 8, 2010 episode (Org. had 9.00 vs. current 8.94). Honestly, wave the March episode, and of the eleven numbers that LA Times posts, ten of them prove Pifeedback as providing reliable information (the January episode is off by .06 million) and if you count March, then nine of the eleven (March being off .01 million). ChaosMaster_Chat 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• comment - regardless of actual accuracy of checkable numbers, a forum is extraordinarily unlikely to be any sort of a reliable source. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same thing. If the ratings can be cited by the LA Times or something other than Pifeedback, that would be ideal. But there's clearly no consensus that Pifeedback is a reliable source. Cliff smith 03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to both comments: If the forum is proven to be reliable in the past, specifically one user, it should be reliable in the future. And I, again, agree that LA Times should be used where possible. Other than that, I feel Pifeedback has proven reliable, unless there is information that proves otherwise. ChaosMaster_Chat 03:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As previously noted, it's a slippery slope, CM; we let in one forum/blog-type site, and the next thing you know, folk will be arguing for the inclusion for a host of other, increasingly suspect sites. It's best to just follow the citations presented in pifeedback to their source, and cite those sources. That way, pifeedback is still useful without messing with the reliability of sources policy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pitfeedbacks source is Travis Yanan, were this person gets that information from is unknown, but proven accurate, and cited by TV by the Numbers occasionally, which is generally accepted. If Pitfeedback is considered unreliable then TV by the Numbers is also, and then some 75% of all the ratings can be deleted. _Xeworlebi  09:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Can someone link to this magical LA Times that keeps getting mentioned? Or another source that is considered reliable? I for one have only seen three sources for episodic ratings, TV by the Numbers (most for recent shows), ABC Medianet (most for pre 2007), Pitfeedback (few). I did a search and the last article with an actual list of shows and the ratings was from March. I see no problem waiting a week until final and reliable ratings are in but these ratings appear to be nowhere (except TVbtN/Pfb) except the sporadically averages. _Xeworlebi  09:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the two weeks after that (23/30 October) the LA Times gives 8.59 million and 8.29 million . Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion. If there are other challenged sources it may be worth going back and sourcing them all through the LA Times, especially if there discrepencies. If you have the number that you want to source it is easy to find using google using the search term: site:articles.latimes.com "ghost whisperer" 8.29 Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the discussion is above (below the first quote box). ChaosMaster_Chat 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to google the site to find them rather than use the site's internal searchg but LA Times = Los Angeles Times a major newspaper in the land of television and silver screen dreams. Try googling using this format: site:articles.latimes.com/YYYY/mmm/ "SHOW NAME" or remove the month and year if you want all results. The weekly numbers come out i believe Thursday of the following week. For older shows it would be handy but for current episodes people will still want to use the overnight ratings that are well available the next day so as to fill that blank spot in the episode list. Also i seem to have not found any ratings for May 2010 sweeps; maybe bad googling, maybe not published. delirious & lost ☯ 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I already saw the google trick and know what the LA Times is. I was looking for a site section with the ratings in it. Also see next post. I looked for the ratings for the two last episodes using google search in may, came up with nothing. LA Times seems to be completely inconsistent in there postings. _Xeworlebi  15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that was a response to me, but I already saw that and not really relevant, I'm asking about recent ratings. LA Times only posts ratings (when they actually do) of primetime shows, leaving a whole bunch of shows out. Besides that the LA Times website is just horrendous to find something on. I did some more searches and this is what LA Times has, (didn't search earlier) March 1–7, March 8–14, two missing weeks , March 29–April 4 and nothing after that…

Were does everyone get those numbers from? Nielsen doesn't put them on there website, and Travis Yanan is clouded in mystery. What's with all the secrecy? In the UK BARB just puts them on there website (although in an annoying non-hotlinkable form). _Xeworlebi  15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears that there are two more ratings that were proven correct on Pifeedback by LA Times. In response to you, I was on Pifeedbaack and came across an interesting post by TY, stating that he "gets" the ratings? I could entirely be misinterpreting the message, but it sounds like he is subscribed to a site or some type of information that lists all of these ratings. I just thought it was interesting. And frankly, I think it would be a whole lot easier to have the posts on the site of the company that does the research too, but I think it is because of a deal or a discrepency between NBC and Neilsen that they don't: I think. This is the really unhelpful site for the Nielsen Research Company. And this seems to be the only ratigns on their site, which doesn't help us much at all. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You buy the numbers from Nielsen, or the access to them. It is their commodity. TVBTN turns what they pay for getting the numbers into a website with some advertising and a lot of business, from well us for one, that appears to more than offset their expenses in acquiring the numbers. In Canada the only thing that BBM seems to make publicly available is the weekly top 30; anything else must be bought. And that top 30 includes the 11pm newscasts too. UK ratings are by far the easiest to find.

So sorry to have bothered to try to answer your query about the magical LA Times. You do know that this page has the no-edit-conflict happening here. I had no knowledge of Chaos' response to you until i eventually saved my post and saw his come in between. If you wanted a site section you could have just asked for that instead of making me think you never heard of LA Times before. Forget searching their site. It is the worst construct of a news/business website i have ever seen. And yes, there has been nothing for a long time now. You might look into searching the paid archives if you really want to find ratings; the abstracts are free. Otherwise the LA Times is just as randomly useless as pifeedback is an unreliable forum. Maybe the WMF would be so kind as to buy us a subscription or whatever to the full Nielson numbers so we can use that :P and get Canada's too! delirious & lost ☯ 23:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So that means no matter what Entertainment site we go on, they all pay for it? Meaning they are ALL unreliable? Which also means we would have to deleate millions of TV ratigns from even 12 years ago. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off the track here. The fairly clear consensus seems to be that pifeedback.com doesn't qualify as WP:RS. Are you convinced yet? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not getting "off track". And Frankly, I don't see why I or anybody else would need to be "convinced" on this discussion, which is ongoing. Convinced of what exactly? If you want to convince someone about an issue, Misplaced Pages isn't really the place to do so. Anyway, if the entertainment buisness pays for their information, there is absoultely no way to confirm what they report, much like Yanan. And even if we can check them with information with more reliable sources, like LA Times, there is simply no way to know if either source is acurate. So, since Pifeedback (rather, Yanan himself) cannot be a reliable source even though their numbers are proven acurate, it cannot be used, just like LA Times, TVBTN, Entertainment Weekly, exc, and therefore all ratings, even just mention of ratings in prose format, should be removed. Of course, I disagree with this and like the consensus agreed upon earlier (use LA Times first and then Pifeedback), I think we should do what is best for wikipedia ignoring select rules and allow all of these sources to be used to report ratings on American televison because the information is an important part of a program and the buisness, whether it be for comparison, research or simply to report how a show gets canceled. I think it would be wrong to ignore these aspects on Misplaced Pages, and using Pifeedback, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, all sources that are proven to list correct information, we can continue to list the ratings on articles that deal with TV. I personally think the flag would be redundant in this case, and think we should remove that also, specifically on List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, where Aussie reverted edts based on consensus earlier. ChaosMaster_Chat 16:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

visionsofjoy.com at Bates Method

A FAQ from visionsofjoy.com () has been repeatedly reinserted at Bates Method (e.g. ). Given an incipient edit war, I'd like to solicit outside input on whether this is a suitable encyclopedic source. I am of the opinion that it is not, that the material being inserted is not particularly encyclopedic or relevant (if it were, we'd have better sources), and that the inserted text is both contrived and promotional. MastCell  22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, (pardon the pun), no content from or citation to visionsofjoy.com could be legitimately used in any way anywhere on Misplaced Pages, unless in a hypothetical visionsofjoy.com article. Dlabtot (talk)

Well, this is definitely not a reliable secondary source but given the context - that this is an article about the Bates method (which I've never heard of until now, apparently it's some minority or fringe theory), I think it's acceptable as a primary source with all the usual caveats and disclaimers about using primary sources. I mean, we're allowed to cite 911Truth.org in an article about 9/11 Conspiracy theories, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here, where it was rejected. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge has the right take on this. An alternative solution would be to delete from the article all reference to See Clearly Method, as it has no relevance to Bates Method. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We're getting off topic here. Comments unrelated to the application of WP:RS should be made on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Promotional, POV, website contains the usual disclaimers to the effect that the author is not an eye doctor and shouldn't be trusted as far as they can be thrown, the information is for "educational" purposes only, etc. Warning - off topic: Sam, it clearly states in that section that the SCM contains exercises adapted from Bates although the marketers behind it do not endore Bates "overall". How is that of "no relevance to Bates method"? Famousdog (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

IAE Magazine: Reliable source?

I happened to notice an editor removing a ton of references from articles , and while I have no doubt they're acting in good faith I'm questioning whether this really is not a reliable source. From appearances, it looks like a fairly run of the mill entertainment industry magazine that also has a website . Here's their URL . Opinions? Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems that the reason it was removed was not due to reliability, but because Newsfeeder (talk · contribs) was using Wiki for advertisement by spamming links to the site all over the place. — HelloAnnyong 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure I saw that, but is that enough of a reason to revert what would otherwise be a reliable source? I could see removing them if they were just dumped in the external links section or placed indiscriminately, but based on the Statham ones these actually seemed to help support the material in the article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn't really strike me as reliable. It seems to be a self-published online magazine, and doesn't seem to have any claim of notability. As to using it for the text in the Gossip Girl article, there are other sources out there that could be used. — HelloAnnyong 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I don't feel especially strongly one way or the other but it seemed ok to me. That's why it's good to get other opinions before you go and put everything back. :-) - Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the rationale for the removal was the spamming; the other was because the site itself does not appear to be a reliable source, and would likely not even be accepted as an externmal link even if the spamming wasn't an issue. --Ckatz_spy 05:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is resolved, but I had a look at the first couple of edits and it is classic WP:REFSPAM: add an inconsequential or obvious factoid with a reference that just happens to be a link to your website. If these were not reverted, we would end up with ten fake references in every paragraph in every article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Warchronicle.com and CPRR wrt Stephen Ambrose

I didn't see any substantive resolution to 75.2.209.226's question on the subject prior to its archiving, so I'd like to pose the following followup questions in response to the defense presented for these sources:

1. Wrt someone's private, self-run non-peer-reviewed non-commercially-published website: Does documentation that a reliable source mentions the existence of the website, or repeats the fact that it made an allegation, prove that said website is now a reliable source?
2. When said website is the personal ad-funded property of a Misplaced Pages editor who argues for its continued inclusion, is that not a massive conflict of interest?
3. When numerous traditional reliable sources are available other than said website, why does WP:IAR demand its inclusion as if it were the only reliable source that can be found?

For the record, I'm not arguing that either "side" in the previous discussion was right or wrong about which nontraditional sources should be accepted as if they were reliable. I'm saying neither should be, absent a logical rationale. And for that matter, I would accept CPRR as a reliable source in a heartbeat for most questions on the Central Pacific Railroad, assuming a dearth of other reliable sources on a field that's mostly of interest only to collectors and buffs. But I don't understand why the website's owner wants to use it as a reliable source on Stephen Ambrose. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

CPRR.org is a non-commercial, not-for-profit site that does not charge anything to its users to access it or its content. While it has a few sponsored links on a very, very small number of the over 10,000 pages on the site, none of these were solicited and they produce miniscule amounts of revenue all of which goes to help cover a fraction of the operating expenses (i.e., webhosting) of the site. The paper linked to Ambrose article was not produced by CPRR.org, but is only hosted on the site for free because its topic relates directly to the CPRR. (The page also carries no sponsored links.) Also please see the AN/I discussion located here for a full accounting of the years of misconduct, disruptive editing, "sockpuppetry", and Wikiststalking practiced by anonymous IP User 75.2.209.226 on Misplaced Pages as well as his/her apparent motivation in "challenging" inclusion of the link to the paper in the Stephen Ambrose article in the first place. Centpacrr (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

1. By using the third person, are you asserting that you are not in fact the owner of the website, which uses ads for funding and therefore profits from increased traffic?
2. I would ask that you refrain from further false ad hominem insinuations that I'm a Wikistalker or a sockpuppet, whether or not 75.2 was. I'm about as provably innocent as you can get, given that I'm on the other side of the country and leave my IP open for everyone to see. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• The above reference to wikistalking, etc, is not to 76.22.25.102, but is instead to 75.2.209.226, the anonymous user who posted the original "complaint" and who has stalked me and many other editors on Misplaced Pages since at least 2007 using many anonymous IPs (all of which resolve to SW Connecticut or adjacent areas) as well as several named accounts. My posting above is not meant to imply that there is any relationship or connection whatsoever between that user and 76.22.25.102 whose IP appears to resolve to Washington state. I am also not the owner of CPRR.org, but am instead only an unpaid contributor to it who derives no income or other pecuniary benefit whatsoever from the site. The very small amount of income derived from the few persons who asked to help sponsor the site is not based on traffic. Centpacrr (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to match the information located in the page source code (which contains links to akamai), or the site's about page cross-matched to your user page. However, the CoI question is turning into a derail massively out of proportion to its importance in this specific issue.

First and foremost: Why, in the presence of several other unquestionably-reliable sources, should WP:IAR necessitate using either the highly-questionable warchronicle site (a blog which reads like a collection of letters to the editor) or CPRR site (a nominal museum / amateur hobbyist blog with a specialization completely unrelated to Ambrose)? For the record, my primary objection is actually to warchronicle. But the CPRR site seems equally out-of-depth, albeit more properly attributed. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever with the Warchronicle site nor am I expressing any opinion here one way or another as to its reliability. The only page on the CPRR site (a site with which I have fully disclosed my association on my userpage since registering on wikipedia in 2006) that is linked to the Ambrose article is to a December, 2000, paper that documents more than sixty factual errors in Ambrose's Nothing Like It in the World, his August, 2000, book about the building of the Pacific Railroad of which the CPRR constituted the Western portion built across California, Nevada, and Utah. (The corrections to the errors contained in the paper were all accepted and incorporated by the publisher in the book's paperback edition published in 2001.) By the way, the CPRR website (which has been online since February, 1999), is not an "amateur hobbyist blog" but a comprehensive compilation of period writings, scholarly papers, original source materials, Government and railroad company reports and documents, hundreds of maps, thousands of period photographs, and many other papers, articles, on-line exhibits of artifacts, etc, that relate to the CPRR, UPRR, and Western US railroad history. Altogether the site hosts more then 10,000 separate web pages. Centpacrr (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your forthrightness, but the lack of connection between CPRR and the topic of Ambrose is exactly what disturbs me. If the CPRR site were being cited as a source for the history of the CPRR, I'd probably have no issue with it at all. I don't doubt that it's attracted a great deal of interest from the railroad history community. (Which does make it a hobbyist subject, at least according to these pages ,,. And if it's not being used as someone's main source of income, then it is amateur.) That makes it functionally close enough to peer-reviewed to make me think it's a great RS for non-controversial assertions about the CPRR. But it's not being used as a source for a CPRR article here. It's being used as a source for an article on a modern semi-historian.

Absent spending a ridiculous amount of time cross-checking the paper versions of the book, we have only your word that Ambrose or his publisher accepted and made all of the corrections in the essay cross-posted in CPRR, unless I missed seeing where you have a source which states that. If not, then that assertion needs to be struck from the article as unsourced. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please refrain from using this noticeboard to attack other editors, praise other editors, or discuss other editors in any way whatsoever. Please limit your discussion to the reliability of specific sources for specific citations. Dlabtot (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• My comment was not for the purpose of attacking other editors, only to point out that the original charges made by 75.2.209.226 against the reliability of the source in question contained misrepresentations and the reasons therefore. Centpacrr (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...Regarding CCRP, their About page says that this is a "family run" web site. I don't seem to see an editorial policy, or any credentials of the authors. However, it does seem to enjoy some sort of following within education circles. According to the National Education Association, Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum "features more than 10,000 files with a terrific online library of more than 2000 19th century pictures, maps and descriptions of railroad construction and travel. It tells the story of the Pacific Railroad in human terms with lots of exhibits and first person accounts. It also has a simulation game for elementary students called The Great Railroad Race." History.com lists it as additional resource in this student handout. PBS recommends it as further reading. The Library of Congress says it has an "Extensive collection of photographs related to building the Central Pacific Railroad, as well as its early years of operation. Includes some now (1997) and then (1868) comparison photos." I don't know. My initial thought is that it is probably an informative web site, but doesn't quite live up to the standards set forth by WP:RS. But I could be wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, and for spending the time to look up more information on the subject. It definitely helps.

Separately, my apologies - I should have made it clearer, but it's being used as a source for Stephen Ambrose's bio page, not the history of the Central Pacific Railroad. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear from the beginning, given that RS-iness often hinges on who knows the most about a specific topic. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the whole matter as to relevance would be completely answered in the affirmative for anyone questioning it simply by looking at the one page on CPRR.org that is linked to the Ambrose article which is exactly on the point of the section of the article in which it appears, i.e., inaccuracies in Ambrose's book on the history of the CPRR and the Pacific Railroad. Centpacrr (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, the very fact that this is the only area where CPRR presumes authority on Ambrose is exactly the problem. If a railfan tells me that Reading Railroad should be pronounced "redding", you can bet I'll take their word for it. But if they tell me that reading aptitude scores in the United States have dropped 37% as a direct result of Obama's presidency, I'll take it with a grain of salt because they're speaking well out of their field of expertise. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect, that's just a straw man argument about giving arbitrary process precedence over provable substance. Read the paper and you will find that is an objective, well sourced, and carefully documented exposition of more than sixty demonstrably inaccurate "facts" in the text on Ambrose's book on the subject of the CPRR, and this is exactly the topic of the section of the Ambrose article ("Inaccuracies and falsifications") in which it appears as a source. Whether or not the authors of this particular fact checking paper were paid or not to compile it has absolutely no relevance as to its reliability, it is the documentation and sources upon which the paper is based that does. The three "railfans" (as you call them) that prepared this paper all have decades of experience in researching and writing about the history of the CPRR and western railroads, and even if they have not done so "professionally", an objective review of their paper demonstrates that they are far more reliable sources on the subject as "amateur" historians than Stephen Ambrose proved to be in this case as a "professional" one. And that's exactly the point that the paper demonstrates. Centpacrr (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the third time this IP has brought up this issue, to two different noticeboards. Each time, it's led to a rather lengthy debate. I would not object to the IP having the discussion once. Three seems excessive.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I am not the IP you're accusing me of being. Please note that even CentPacRR has conceded this, and feel free to verify it for yourself as he did. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, please note that the IP you're accusing me of being was arguing for the inclusion of warchronicle (if I understand correctly), against CentPacRR's quite true arguments that it wasn't any more of a reliable source than cprr.org. I don't think either of them is a reliable source for this topic. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept the assertion re identity, though I would feel more comfortable if your user contributions showed either an interest in Ambrose, the Central Pacific RR, or reliable sources in general.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have an accusation to make, make it. If not, I would ask that you not find cute ways to insinuate it and pretend you didn't. Yes, I know this is practically an invitation for you to get me checkusered, but I don't have anything to hide. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(checks own browsing history) If it makes you more "comfortable", I ran into the discussion at NPOV Noticeboard while checking on my own question there about Chernobyl. After digging a little, I thought that the NPOV allegation was on shaky ground, but not the RS question. While looking up more information on the topic, I discovered that it had been brought here but wound up ignored due to TLDR-ing. (Possibly also due to the absence of the originating editor; I didn't look into the timeline of exactly when he got banned for socking.)

I suspect that if almost any editor went through their own contribution history, they'd find material just as likely to get them accused of being a sock when they wiki-walked into a new topic area. Given only one degree of separation, I'd hope for a little more AGF from someone who's tool-enabled. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, thank you very much for the collapse. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the actual topic: Are Warchronicle.com and CPRR reliable sources on Stephen Ambrose? 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I do think the historical context for this question warrants some consideration in how it is handled. It was raised by editor 75.2.209.226, who has now been indefinitely blocked (i.e. see his Techwriter2B ID). 75.2.209.226 engaged in severe wikihounding of several editors, including Centpacrr. One aspect of this harassment involved starting threads on multiple forums (I believe at least 16 threads primarily directed at Centpacrr), for which 75.2.209.226 apparently received a forum shopping warning (and he received other warnings as well). This is one of those threads. To further perpetuate this process (which was designed to harass an editor) is, I think, rather problematic. Incidentally, I should mention that I was pretty much a neutral observer in this (never had direct conflict with 75.2.209.226 myself, though several days ago I posted about the situation at AN/I, which resulted in the indefinite block being placed).

On the merits of the question. Centpacrr is neither an author of the paper nor an owner of the website, nor does he derive financial benefits from the website (nor has Centpacrr ever been harmed by Stephen Ambrose). So there doesn’t appear to be a reasonable case for COI here. The contents of the paper appear to be straightforward factual information and quotations of text from Ambrose, with primary sources cited for the material included in the paper (i.e. high verifiability). Importantly, the contents of the paper are limited to the intersection of Ambrose and railroad history, with rail history constituting a topic on which the paper authors (and website) have clear expertise. Your “reading score” analogy is thus entirely flawed. The authors of the paper don’t presume to make inferences regarding Ambrose in other ways (e.g. his health, his political beliefs, his writing style, etc.). They only speak to the accuracy of his statements writing about rail history (i.e. their area of expertise), and the paper is only cited in the WP article in this regard. Eurytemora (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Minor point - I also would tend to disagree with the characterization that the topic "wound up ignored" here when originally posted, since looking at the archived thread I see an intensive discussion lasting over three days (00:58 May 12 - 09:27 May 15) and involving five editors (with 75.2.209.226 commenting heavily for the duration). Also, regarding the speculation that it might have gotten dropped "due to the absence of the originating editor" 75.2.209.226 - he was only blocked on June 23. Eurytemora (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Eurytemora, could you explain why the fact 75.2 brought up the question makes my bringing up the question suspect, unless you're claiming that I'm 75.2? This is getting increasingly reminiscent of the "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians are wrong" argument, a guilt-by-association variant on ad hominem. And it's particularly tiresome because I'm not 75.2, and I'm tired of answering for his/her behavior as if all IPs are alike. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(Struck because I was probably being hypersensitive about why Eurytemora brought up the point. I'm glad Eurytemora's present, and wish I'd known to contact him/her via talk page notice or via cross-posting a notice to the Stephen Ambrose discussion board. Speaking of which, I'll go do so - better late than never.) 76.22.25.102 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question "Are Warchronicle.com and CPRR reliable sources on Stephen Ambrose?" I see that another editor said "The paper linked to Ambrose article was not produced by CPRR.org, but is only hosted on the site for free because its topic relates directly to the CPRR." If this is true (and it appears to be) then shouldn't the scrutiny be on the authors of the content? ɳorɑfʈ 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Publication at CPRR is tangentially relevant (e.g. the paper is not self-published). I should also point out that one of the authors of the paper (Edson Strobridge) has a commentary (on the precise topic of this paper) published at HNN. The various authors appear to have multiple publications concerning railroad history and their work/expertise appears to be cited by others in the field. Eurytemora (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. This discussion, in common with the previous ones, is framed as "the expertise of this website about the Central Pacific Railroad when it talks about Stephen Ambrose". In fact, it is "the expertise of this website about the Central Pacific Railroad when it talks about Stephen Ambrose talking about the Central Pacific Railroad". It is no different than a website about Nixon pointing out errors in Ambrose's bio of Nixon. Self publication, editorial oversight, yes, these are factors we consider pursuant to WP:RS, but those are not the only factors. It is in my view a reliable source on the railroad. Thus, to the extent that Ambrose stuck his nose into the area of expertise, it's a reliable source for that as well. I do not think it would be a reliable source, on an unconnected aspect of Ambrose's life or work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The scrutiny in this case should be on the demonstrable reliability of the facts and their sources that were cited in the paper, not on whether or not the paper's authors are "professional" historians or not. The whole point being demonstrated by the section of the Ambrose article in which the paper is cited is the abject fallacy of blindly accepting statements made in Ambrose's writings as always reliable simply because he was paid to make them and they were then published in a book. Whether or not those who were able to objectively prove that many statements of "fact" Ambrose made in the subject book were false were then paid by a third party to do so -- or, for that matter, whether or not they have the same academic "credentials" as the late Dr. Ambrose -- just has no baring on that question. Demonstrably false "facts" do not suddenly become reliable simply because they were stated, written, and commercially published by an academically credentialed professional, nor does their debunking become unreliable because those who demonstrated them to be false are "amateurs" who did so without without seeking monetary compensation for their efforts. Centpacrr (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There's clear consensus to use CPRR as a reliable source in this case, and no hard feelings. However, part of my question still stands - is warchronicle also a reliable source in this case? 76.22.25.102 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the warchronicles.com case is very analogous. It’s not self-published, and it appears to be written by a military historian with relevant expertise (specifically USAAF Troop Carrier Historian Randy Hils), whose work is cited by others in this field, and who appears to have articles published in other reliable sources (including HNN). In both cases under discussion, the respective authors did not come through the usual academic route (i.e. doctorate in history), but have gained and demonstrated extensive specialized knowledge in their respective areas (railroad history and military history), have placed a premium on accuracy, and appear well regarded by other historians. Eurytemora (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In addition, they accept "submissions" so there seems to be some sort of oversight going on. And I agree, Mr. Hils's credential, while they wouldn't get him in the door at a lot of history departments, are adequate for our purposes. Are there additional questions unresolved? No matter what the outcome, and exhibiting the same neutrality that the IP has professed, I'd like to drive a stake through the heart of this topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you link exactly where they assert that they reviewed his "submission" (or any other), titled "An Open Letter to the Airborne Community on the History of OPERATION NEPTUNE" for accuracy? By its very title, it suggests it was subject to no review whatsoever.

With all due respect, your "No matter what the outcome... I'd like to drive a stake through the heart of this", your simple reiteration of Eurytemora's characterization, and your pejorative description of me, suggests that you've simply decided to automatically "vote" against anything I say and that you've shot neutrality out the window. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, not true in the least. I call them as I see them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Then would you mind providing the requested basis for the rationale you assert, since it wasn't simply a knee-jerk response? 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, per WP:IRS, "the word "source" as used on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." This discussion has really only focused on the website, and discussion above has convinced me that it is run by an authoritative person in the field. The fact that it accepts submissions is at least surface indication that it conducts a review process. As in common with many website, that process is not spelled out in detail, but neither does The New York Times. I therefore feel that the website is reliable enough not to disqualify it, though I feel that close-in analysis of the article and author should take place at the affected article talk page itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"run by an authoritative person in the field" - I'm pretty sure Hils doesn't run it, whether you think he's authoritative or not. Your lack of comprehension of the arguments you're trying to paraphrase, again, suggests that you're "voting". If I'm wrong and you do know who runs it and have evidence that they're "authoritative", I would welcome the information and the correction.

"The fact that it accepts submissions is at least surface indication that it conducts a review process." - I believe you have that backwards. If it rejects submissions, that would indicate it conducts a review process. There are a number of ill-regarded "journals" that accept every submission that includes the "publication costs". And for that matter, on the same page where it says it accepts submissions, it goes on to say "General comments, questions, raspberries, criticism, corrections, and additional information are also all welcome." 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I will add though – when I get a chance, I plan to add a couple of additional references for this section in the Ambrose article (e.g. Philadelphia Inquirer piece in regards to the military material). Eurytemora (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be most welcome. I'm personally of the opinion that the best cure for theoretically-questionable material is to reinforce it. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(Note - this was written without seeing Eurytemora's response) Qualification: They appear to have consensus for their acceptance for their assertions about Ambrose's accuracy. Is there also consensus for "Note: G.J. Graves comments that "The paper back edition has all of our corrections, but we are not given credit."" being repeated as fact, given that even they don't appear to be endorsing Graves' comment, just attributing it to him?

Also, if if it helps, this is the tenor of the writing in the warchronicle "articles", which read much more like letters to the editor: "Would General Eisenhower have expected US Army officers to pull a gun to the heads of British sailors on D-Day? Should American officers be portrayed as thugs, and should British sailors be portrayed as cowards? Are these the type of men who put their lives at risk on D-Day? The reputation of Captain Ettore V. Zappacosta of B Company 116th Infantry Regiment has been besmirched. British sailors from 551 Assault Flotilla, Combined Operations, Royal Navy have been dishonoured. This bad reporting and blatantly poor research has caused great bitterness and resentment amongst American and British veterans. Popular history it may be, but accurate certainly not!" Full links. Supported text, which also includes an incredibly dubious "I saw it on C-Span" cite (23).

Personally, my gut feeling is that they're probably correct, although they're both describing the same incident - but Stephen Colbert's wisdom aside, my gut is not an RS. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The strong wording you note (i.e. with which Hils closes his piece on the coxwains) – in many ways , that’s not terribly different from many good (i.e. reliable source) Gawker or Village Voice articles. The accuracy/verifiability/reliability of the underlying information in the article is the relevant thing here. Also, just to make it clear - the C-SPAN cite is in the WP article (not in Hils).Eurytemora (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the articles in question and for the possible correction - I was aware that the C-SPAN cite was distinct from Hils, but I think it's a lot better to hear a correction I already knew than to not hear a correction I needed. My apologies for the ambiguity of saying "Supported text, which includes" - I was trying to draw a distinction between the supporting cite and the section it supported, but it obviously didn't work.

Not a particularly critical distinction, but the strong wording was actually in Elsby's piece. (I'm a lot more glad that you read it and were aware of it than I am concerned by mistaking which piece it was from.)

I've only found the one article by Hils on HNN, and a reference to him in another article written by someone else. Could you point me toward other RS's he was published in? That would go a long way. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - thanks for correcting me also; should have referenced Elsby (on coxswains).

I looked into much of this a while ago, and found other references to Hils, etc. at that point. Don’t have time to dig into this again right now (perhaps tonight or tomorrow if I can find the time). Eurytemora (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My point above was that the website qualifies but individual articles might not. Obviously articles which are speculative, editorial, or downright alternate history would not. Source has several distinct meanings, as I quoted. Among these are both the publisher (website) and the article (page). My view is the website is reliable but not everything in there is necessarily reliable. Not everything in The New York Times, a reliable source, may be used on Misplaced Pages, for example certain opinion columns and letters to the editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you might want to look more closely at the articles you're endorsing. That's a quote from one of them. And Hils' piece (the more reliable one) is actually titled, "An Open Letter", while the Elsby piece (the one with the unfortunate wording) is called an article. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know how to ideally deal with the WP Ambrose article ref 23. Looking back into the Ambrose article’s history, it seems that the current composition of the sentence and ref 23 placement reflects the removal of substantive details (in interim edits), which rather muddied the content. Ambrose was using oral histories in his writing, and ref 23 refers to one such recorded oral history (of a Sgt Slaughter) that was discrepant with other information and that was explicitly used by Ambrose. The Slaughter recording was apparently once broadcast on C-SPAN. Eurytemora (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at that one, despite its not being in the original subject. If you saw anything which included verifiable/refutable information at some point in the history (i.e. "broadcast on July 13, 1987 at 1:35 pm"), I'd be much less leery of it. As it is, it comes across as suffering from the same flaw Ambrose seemed to have - if you get called out on giving specific dates that don't match, stop giving specific dates. (For all I know, the editor may have been copying Ambrose's attribution verbatim.) 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually found the C-SPAN recording online, and listened to the whole damn thing (it’s the American Eyewitness D-Day Accounts Forum 05/17/1994). And I dug further into the whole coxswain controversy this morning. As written, the current WP text on the coxswains is not technically “inaccurate”, but a rewrite of the coxswain material might be preferable – not sure. Will share more thoughts when I have a chance. Eurytemora (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"I actually found the C-SPAN recording online, and listened to the whole damn thing" - Wow. That's what I'd call "taking one for the team".

I don't know if we have the same issue with the coxswain controversy; I'll toss mine out.

1. Hils and Elsby are not each describing an incident. Elsby describes both; Hils only mentions the incidents in passing.
2. To elaborate, Hils says this in a list of Ambrose's and Marshall's other sins: "Marshall's credibility has been severely damaged by the discovery of fabrications related to his accusations of cowardice by British coxswains at Omaha Beach." That's all he says about it. To me, a) that doesn't sound like he researched or verified it himself at all, and b) he doesn't actually say anything about Ambrose's involvement in the coxswain controversy, much less that he copied Marshall. It's likely that he did, but to attribute this to Hils is a synthesis that's missing a few pieces.
3. Elsby not only appears too emotionally invested in the subject (the quotes I gave actually feature some of the less histrionic terms he uses), he quotes this debriefing as if it proved him right: "Four hundred yards from the shore the British coxswain insisted that he could take the craft no further. He started to lower the ramp but the platoon sergeant Willard R. Northfleet blocked the mechanism and insisted that the boat was going in farther". That's neither an endorsement nor a denial of either the "Nothing of the sort happened" that Elsby infers or Slaughter's gun to the head.

Honestly, it sounds like men under the intense stress of imminent death later embellished their fragmented memories to the story they wanted to remember, and weren't consciously aware that they might have been amalgamating details from other people's stories. There still exists controversy that should be properly documented, but not in terms of which side "claimed" or "denied" anything - I think it needs to be recounted without prejudice as a he-said-she-said (in which Ambrose unwisely took sides).

My suggestions:

1. Hils needs to be dropped from this paragraph. He doesn't make the claim he's represented as making, and the claim he does make isn't germane to the article.
2. I'll defer to you about whether Slaughter is verifiably (not synthetically) talking about the Northfleet incident; Elsby omits any mention of Slaughter so I can't say.
3. I have extreme doubts about Elsby's reliability as a source, and about warchronicle's reliability in general (in the absence of outside qualifications like Hils'). But assuming that the consensus will be to include him:
4. If Slaughter can be brought in, it needs to be noted that the debriefing Elsby mentions is ambiguous, or simply quote the debriefing - the unsourced "other veterans of the landing have denied that the incident took place" should be struck.
5. Sales' account of the Zappacotta incident absolutely deserves inclusion, as does the fact that Sales was on the boat in question. Terms that explicitly pass judgment on who's right would be inappropriate, but the witness's qualifications aren't inappropriate in the slightest. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've continued digging into this. Will try to post something tomorrow. Eurytemora (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to synopsize it for you until you get back (these are my own conclusions which are open to challenge, not final group conclusions):

1. Warchronicle appears to have little reliability of its own, as a self-published website that posts submissions (or general comments, questions, raspberries, etc) without any apparent editorial review. No one has shown otherwise, only asserted that they "accept submissions" and insinuated that they might therefore review or reject unreliable material, which are the true tests. Warchronicle does not confer reliability, but it does not negate it either in the case of individuals (i.e. Hils) who have unique qualifications that make them RS's independent of warchronicle.
2. Hils is likely an RS, taking on faith that you've seen other instances of him being published besides the one HNN piece. But it seems to be moot at this point, because he doesn't actually make any claims about Ambrose's role in the coxswain controversy, or about Ambrose repeating Marshall in that matter.
3. I personally believe Elsby is nigh-worthless as a source in terms of his conclusions. He hasn't been shown to be published or respected as an expert. He omits contradictory accounts, misrepresents sources, and inflates Ambrose from a flawed historian to a Monster who Desecrates the Graves of Servicemen. But he at least appears to give accurate quotes from his sources, given that he's quoting them in language that contradicts the conclusions he draws from them. It would be far better to have original sourcing for Sales and for the debriefing, but I don't think that's possible. What are your thoughts on whether an unreliable source can be trusted to accurately quote a reliable source (such as Sales or the debriefing)?
4. Reiterating a point, strong consensus appears to be that CPRR is a reliable source wrt their essay, since a majority of the assertions they make therein are directly about or tangential to railroad history. But CPRR does not put their reliability behind Graves' assertion (that their corrections were incorporated), or call it accurate. They're simply repeating what someone told them, and it doesn't touch on railroad history. I didn't see any contradiction to this, but it's worth repeating to allow challenge before dropping it as not reliably-sourced. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• The point regarding all corrections to the errors documented in the paper having been incorporated in some later editions of the book is now moot as, in an abundance of caution, I deleted it from the article on my own on July 2nd as not currently independently verified. Centpacrr (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't realize you had. Doing so suggests that I was in error in casting aspersions on your principles - I apologize. I should have AGFed rather than being as cynical as I'm wont to be in cases of apparent economic benefit. Economic benefit and high principles are not mutually exclusive. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm suspecting that now that the discussion has gotten down to brass tacks, it ought to move to Talk:Stephen Ambrose.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted followup at Talk:Stephen Ambrose. Eurytemora (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rasmussen Reports

A number of editors are battling to keep a version of the article that relies heavily on self-published group blogs to make a claim about the political partisanship of the subject. Are group blogs like Daily Kos and MyDD reliable sources in this instance? WP:RS and WP:V seem to say very clearly that they are not, but it appears there are a number of people who don't see it that way. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if, one at a time, you told us: What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant talk page is here. The section is relying almost entirely on blog sources to make a political statement, causing significant undue weight issues anyway. All the points can be made using reliable, non-blog sources. The section of the article that keeps being restored with the bad sources is here, with the inline references in place to ThinkProgress, Daily Kos, MyDD, Media Matters, HotAir.com, and Right Wing News.com, none of which are appropriate. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing, if you want to have a constructive discussion of this, would be to point to one specific citation for us to discuss. After we reach consensus about the first citation, we can move onto the second, and so on. If you don't want to discuss specifics, you're just wasting your time and everyone else's. Dlabtot (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's all the blog citations. It's not simply one - are you saying that some self-published blogs are okay? I have pointed you to where they are and who they are, the policy appears clear in this instance. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you aren't willing to discuss any specific citation, I'm marking this as resolved. Feel free to re-open the discussion if you wish to discuss anything specific. Dlabtot (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm unresolving it since you somehow think this is about one source. It's not. Did you look at the article and discussion in question? If you're unwilling to do so, leave it to someone who is. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for asking questions about sources and citations. It isn't for general discussion of the sourcing guideline or the verifiability policy. It isn't for making blanket pronouncements about the reliability of any one source or category of sources. And it definitely isn't for rallying support for your 'side' in a dispute. But if you have questions about the applicability of a specific source for a specific citation, this is the place. Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the specific use of Daily Kos, MyDD, Hot Air, et al. Are you actually patrolling this board to help out, or what? I am asking you questions about those sources, and you seem to be stonewalling me in terms of responding. It's a yes or no. If you can't answer, tell me so I can find someone who can. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't attempt to answer a question that hasn't been asked. Do you have any specific question about any specific source or citation?

What is the url of the source in question?

What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?

Dlabtot (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 9 of them. I'll go to RfC instead, clearly this is not a place that can help the situation out. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some self-published blogs are okay. Now can you please provide specific examples as requested? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've linked the section already. Please take a look. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have a specific concern you want to address here in the manner Dlabtot has repeatedly tried to solicit from you (which I think shows an admirable level of politeness and restraint), coming to a board and making general assertions of wrongdoing then asking editors to come join you at the board in question could be perceived as canvassing. This is true whether you're at this board, RfC, or anywhere else.

While canvassing is not inherently "wrong" per se, it doesn't often improve quality of discussion unless the editors you're trying to canvass have useful, specialized knowledge of the topic in question. By asking editors to go into a discussion such as you've described above blind, you've almost negated that possibility.

And if I may speak bluntly? Trying to fight consensus, whether you consider it to be fair or unfair, is almost always a losing battle that few people would charge into without strong motivation. Unless you have the experience and knowledge for how to show diffs that give people reason to believe you, I personally believe you would be far better off letting this go, no matter who's "Right" or "Wrong".

There are plenty of useful, low-stress tasks you can work on, like adding information for a favorite hobby or contributing to a reference desk where you have specialized knowledge or... well, just look around. Fighting a battle you're not equipped for will usually only end in frustration and stress to the point of grief, followed by abandoning the project. That doesn't do anyone any good. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I did exactly what I'm supposed to do. It's fine, I've moved along to a dispute resolution process that might resolve the issue one way or the other, since no one here is willing to do so. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources

WP policy on self-published sources (WP:SELFPUBLISH) seems vague as to what qualifies as a self-published source and what does not. Apart from academic papers, books by established publishers, magazines, and newspapers, please give several examples of what is and what isn't self-published. I am particularly interested in the work product of organizations and websites which don't clearly qualify as news organizations. Drrll (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to start by searching for "self-published" in the archives of this page. Then, if you still have questions, feel free to come back. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at "self-published" entries in the archive, but that didn't help. Does the self-published designation only apply to self-published books, press releases, and personal websites, or can it also apply to non-news organizations? Examples I had in mind were The Heritage Foundation, the Center for American Progress, the Media Research Center, and Media Matters for America. Drrll (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd that you couldn't find this discussion of your question in the archives, considering that you precipitated it and participated in it. Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I found that. The question of whether that one specific source was self-published was not decisively determined. Drrll (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is that material that we do not regard as properly published, i.e. it has gone through no process of peer review or fact checking, can in general be regarded as self-published. If that isn't clear in the policy and guideline you might want to suggest an improved wording. "Non-news organisations" is such a broad category that we wouldn't be able to make a general ruling on them. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If a single individual produces and has control over all content, without other editorial oversight, then it's self-published. Jayjg 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion of climatologist Judith Curry re a pop-science climate book

Recently, I posted the following information at The Hockey Stick Illusion, a popular-science book, at the "Reception" section (diff):

Climatologist Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, wrote: "I recommend that you read the “Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford. ... The book is well documented, it obviously has a certain spin to it, but it is a very good book." Source: Who Started this Ruckus, Anyway?, posted by Keith Kloor, June 18, 2010.

The quote is taken from an interview of exchange between Curry and another scientist at a discussion hosted by Keith Kloor, a well-known environmental journalist and former editor at Audubon Magazine. His resume is here, and he would easily qualify as an "expert journalist," I believe.

Editor Kim D. Petersen removed the quote, commenting "While i am 99% convinced that this is Curry - WP:BLP states categorically that we cannot use this as a reference, since the medium isn't reliable for this." Discussion at Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#rm_Curry seems unlikely to reach a conclusion. On advice of another editor, I'm moving the discussiion of whether to use this source and quote here.

While a strict interpretation of WP:RS and WP:BLP might disallow the source, this would appear to be a gray area, "best treated with common sense" per the regs. I'd be happy to contact Curry and confirm that Kloor did indeed convey her remarks accurately. I think we would be unnecessarily depriving readers of (so far) the only published climatologist's opinion of an interesting book. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside for the moment the sps questions, which I agree are in the gray area, your quote seems entirely inappropriate, the ellipsis removes necessary context, and the reader is left with an impression quite different from what Curry meant to convey, imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlabtot (talk • contribs)

Collide-a-scape.com appears to be a personal blog by Keith Kloor. As such, I think its use would collide (apologies for the pun) with WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources, which seems quite definitive on that topic: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." This blog is clearly not written or published by the subject. There appears to be no exemption for blogs by "expert journalists". The only exemption is for "online columns" hosted by news organizations, which clearly doesn't cover personal blogs, "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which again clearly isn't the case with a personal blog. I can't see any wriggle room in BLPSPS that would allow the use of this blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If everybody agrees that the source is actually Curry and the only resistance is due to policy, just invoke WP:IAR. That being said, I agree with Dlabtots sentiment that you are misquoting him. Curry was recommending the book to Bart Verheggen specifically, not making a general statement people should read the book. Yoenit (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the problem with using a personal blog - which is the reason why BLPSPS exists in the first place - is that you have no editorial oversight. The basic principle of reliable sourcing is that whatever we cite must have gone through an editorial process. That guarantees that at least one other person has seen, hopefully reviewed and approved the material. A personal blog lacks the editorial oversight that reliable sourcing requires. Particularly when it comes to material about living persons, you need that oversight to be in place. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There is no doubt that it is Dr Judith Curry The above comments from her were a follow on from an interview with her on Kloors site mark nutley (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it is not an interview. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not say it was an interview mark nutley (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The context is that Curry (who is a she, if it is indeed her) is recommending the book to understand the climate sceptic view (specifically the one surrounding climateaudit.org), she also points out that the book has been completely ignored by mainstream scientists. It is not an interview - but rather a cut/paste from another comment thread. Elevating this to a reliable source is to my eyes rather problematic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If Curry's comments are notable, then you should be able to find them reported in a reliable source. TFD (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Kim - it changes the situation substantially. WP:BLPSPS and WP:NEWSBLOG both state: "Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." That seems pretty conclusive to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Good points from Dlabtot and Yoenit. As for ChrisO's point about citing a blog, we need not cite the blog. Instead, we can cite Curry herself. In this case, it falls under WP:SPS: she's an established expert who has been published in the relevant field. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See the comment right above, how do you justify citing a blog-comment - which isn't allowable by policy (with no exceptions given). As i read policy, it is specifically to ensure that people aren't taking things out of context that you can't cite commentary - and that is ignoring that we have no verification that this is Curry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We are never allowed to cite comments to a blog post, as stated above. Besides, there is no proof that Curry made that post She doesn't appear to have an account, so anybody could have posted using her name. Yoenit (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You're looking at this the wrong way. We're not citing a post made by a reader per se. Instead we're citing Curry herself as an SPS. Posting a comment to a blog is simply the way she choose to publish herself. (Sorry to use bold face, but this is the key point I am trying to make and don't want anyone to miss it.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yoenit it is her, she has been interviewed by Kloor on the site mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy is quite clear on this, it is not allowed. Posting a comment on a blog is not a way to publish yourself as a respectable climate scientist. I have no doubt it was her, but there is no way to prove it. Anybody could have made that post under her name (in fact I just posted as Judith Curry on the site). Why do you think this sort of stuff is not allowed? Yoenit (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not her blog, so not exactly a SPS, and if she wants her views presented for publication she has plenty of other options for publishing them. Also, she's not a subject expert on the topic of the book, which is not about hurricanes, and has professed ignorance about the claims in the book. . dave souza, talk 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Posting a comment on a blog is not a way to publish yourself as a respectable climate scientist." Perhaps, but this has no basis in policy. It's not up to us as Misplaced Pages editors to say how scientists should behave. OTOH, I am sympathetic to the argument that we should verify that this indeed was Curry. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is explicitly set in policy that we cannot use such commentary - so your "its not up to us.." statement is rather far-fetched. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why don't we cut the Gordian knot, ask Dr. Curry for a quotable opinion on the book & a free CC license, archive it under the OTRS files, and cite that? Would that satisfy the objectors? Or should I just do it, & see what happens? I've corresponded with Dr. Curry in the past & found her pleasant & cooperative. Thoughts? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A perfect solution, and one i did not know existed, well done pete mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason we don't conduct original research of the type you are proposing is that it is as against our bedrock policies. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the "Citing an email" section on this noticeboard for a similar case and some reasons why it is not allowed Yoenit (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's OR -- but what if we just ask her to confirm she wrote the bit at Kloor's, & that it's OK to use it here? Pete Tillman (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No. We have to base our editorial decisions on material that is verifiable to reliable sources. Not on original research we conduct (for example, our own personal correspondence.) Dlabtot (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this issue ("can I use my own personal correspondence as a reliable source?") before, and the consensus has always been that it should not be used. I suggest taking a look at the archives of this page. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No one said anything about citing an e-mail as a source for article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is effectively what is being proposed, albeit at one remove: using a personal email to convert a unreliable source into a reliable one. But since the personal email is itself an unreliable source, that can't be done. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's original research no matter how it's used. Dlabtot (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, so when Hipocrite sent a personal e-mail to Newsweek, was he wrong? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is definitely and obviously conducting original research. I'm not sure what you mean by 'wrong' or why you keep bringing this up. Dlabtot (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the discussion above at #Newsweek's "The gaggle" blog. He gained some useful though uncitable information that way, but we had a reliable third party source (the New York Observer) describing Newsweek's editorial arrangements and confirming that the blog is under senior editorial supervision. Hipocrite's email was not needed to confirm that and it would not have sufficed by itself if we had not had that reliable third party source. But that case was fundamentally different - it concerned a piece written by a journalist working for a major news magazine and published on its website under editorial supervision. The presumption was always in favour of "The Gaggle" being a reliable source. None of those circumstances apply in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot: I bring it up because a Newsweek blog is being cited by our Climategate article even though Newsweek makes no claim that the blog falls under their full editorial. So Hipocrite e-mailed Newsweek who said that it does and cited that e-mail as evidence that the blog falls under their full editorial. If it is original research for us to e-mail Curry, then it is original research for us to e-mail Newsweek.

Yes, that is original research which was unnecessary anyway because the blog obviously is an official blog under their editorial control, spurious and disruptive claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Dlabtot (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: Can you please tell us where in the New York Observer article where it says that this blog falls under their full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you apparently haven't checked what I wrote in the earlier discussion, let me repeat it: "The New York Observer article clearly states that (1) "The Gaggle" was established by Newsweek's editorial staff; (2) it is written by the weekly's reporters; and (3) it is edited by the senior editors". Hipocrite's email merely confirms that. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No one's disputing the fact that the blog is written by Newsweek's staff. The question is whether it falls under their full editorial control. Can you please tell us where in the New York Observer article where it says that this blog falls under their full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the newsweek discussion in the newsweek section and keep this for the comment Curry made. Yoenit (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Time to reboot the discussion, I think.

First, Yoenit remarks above, "in fact I just posted as Judith Curry" (19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)), at Keith Kloor's site here (last comment). He was apparently unaware that this is a moderated forum. His imposture was promptly detected and removed. Yoenits' concern that "anybody could have posted using her name" (19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)) has been answered: "EDITOR: Removed test comment by imposter.//KK"

Second, from the discussion so far, it's clear that we need a publicly verifiable confirmation that Dr. Curry indeed wrote what (we almost all agree) she wrote. She has been an invited guest at the Kloor forum; for instance, Kloor interviews her here. My proposal is to contact Kloor and ask him to verify Curry's contribution regarding the Montford book (perhaps for him to emaill Curry to confirm this), then add a public editorial note to that discussion.

Assuming Kloor is willing to do this, would this satisfy the objections to using Curry's comments on the book? --putting aside (for the moment) what exactly should be quoted. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, NO. Dlabtot (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to say why? --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean, repeat what I and many others said in the discussion above? No, there is no need, just as there was no need to 'reboot' the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dlabot, you appear to be a regular here and I'm trying to work with you (and other such editors) to see if there's a way to make Curry's remarks verifiable, and thus usable here. I've proposed asking Kloor, the moderator, to publish an editorial statement at his blog saying "Curry wrote this stuff". Public & verifiable. Now tell me what's wrong, please. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't 'make' something verifiable; it's either verifiable by way of being previously published in a reliable source, or not. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tillman: Because you're using a third-party blog to verify that that the blog is reliable. A better approach might be to contact Curry herself to see if she would post something on her site verifying the account is hers. I think SPS will be satisfied then. However, given the 'imposter experiment', now might not be the best time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Which would be irrelevant to the question of whether http://www.collide-a-scape.com/ is a reliable source in this instance, which is the actual question we have before us. Dlabtot (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• AQFK: Yeah, I doubt she'd go out of her way for Misplaced Pages right now. Kloor either. Sigh. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot, I agree that the blog is not a reliable source for this content. However, I'm suggesting a new source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this source is fairly iffy. As someone else said above, if prestigious scientists like Curry are starting to talk about this book, then it won't be long before their opinions are mentioned in more reliable sources. One thing her statement does do in the meantime, however, is bely the comments by a couple of editors that this book is being ignored by non-skeptics. Cla68 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Curry is the only "prestigious scientist" who has talked about the book, pro or con. Otherwise it has been completely ignored by the scientific community. That's hardly surprising given that it's not a "popular science" book (as misleadingly described above) but a collage of already-falsified claims written by a fringe non-scientist for a section of the public that is hostile to climate science. It's merely one of dozens of similar works of politically driven pseudoscience. There's nothing I know of that makes it stand out from the rest. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it fair to conclude from your statement that you personally don't appreciate Montford's book, the conclusions that he draws, or the fact that Curry thought the book was worthy of recommendation? Cla68 (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out the obvious flaw in your statement that "prestigious scientists like Curry are starting to talk about this book". They're not "starting to talk about this book". Curry is the only "prestigious scientist" to have done so, and your statement merely speculates about what other scientists might do in the future. There is certainly no indication that they will take any greater notice of the book. It has been out for, I think, about six months. In that time it has received zero reviews from scientists (including Curry, who didn't review it). It is not cited anywhere that I can find and has been ignored in print by all but a handful of right-wing columnists who have generally only mentioned it in passing. So Curry's comments certainly can't be taken as indicative of any trend in opinion. But I think we are in danger of straying off-topic here - getting back to the issue at hand, it's clear from this discussion that there's a fairly strong consensus that Curry's comments are not a reliable source and the policy prohibition on citing posts left by readers is clear. Unless anyone has any new points to make, I suggest closing this discussion as resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have one last remark, about my posting as Judith Curry: the comment in question was "testing whether it is possible to post under a false identity" + a link to the current discussion, so it is no surprise that my comment was detected and removed by a moderator. However, what if my comment had been a serious reply to other comments? Would the moderator have known I was not Judith Curry? Yoenit (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Curry herself noticed your impersonation, and posted a warning at Kloor's blog that any posts allegedly by her at other blogs would be imposters.

Impersonating someone is a pretty drastic way of making a point -- it gets you banned here, and isn't appreciated anywhere. In RL, it's known as "fraud". I urge you not to undertake more of such "tests". --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Link? Did she confirm that the comment we're discussing is hers or that the account we're discussing is hers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

wow, it is actually true . It was never my intention to seriously impersonate her, but it seems it would have been discovered anyway. Yoenit (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, what should we do? Should we send her a polite note explaining that Yoenit intended no harm? Should we contact an admin or Jimbo on how to proceed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to do nothing. I did it, so it is my responsibility. I assume a mail from me to her will be enough to deal with the issue. I strongly suggest that you do not attempt to contact Jimbo. If you want to report me for it, do so at ANI. I have no idea which policy might be relevant here though. Yoenit (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Yoenit meant no harm, and he has apologized, so that should end the matter. I think his impersonation was a bad idea, though. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to notify Jimbo of the situation. This may reflect poorly on the project itself and think that Jimbo's diplomatic skills may prove useful. I suggest we wait until we get some feedback. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Court Documents

Can we use court documents as a source to determine a legal outcome? I ask this because there is a dispute over at Prem Rawat in which court documentation seems to be the only source to determine if Mr. Rawat was emancipated by a Colorado court. Essentially we are not looking to gather facts from the documents, just the judge's ruling. However there is an editor who insists that this source would need a secondary source to prove its validity. Thus the matter is "Are court documents reliable sources for determination of a judicial ruling." As ridiculous as it is, this argument actually exists. Ronk01 talk, 02:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How could a random Misplaced Pages reader verify that the court document actually says what the article says it does? As long as that's possible, and there truly is no interpretation involved, it would be usable as a primary source, I think. Dlabtot (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here in the US all court docs are avalible after a certian period of time, an editor with time on their hands could find them. Ronk01 talk, 02:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If that flippant response is meant to be an answer to my question about how could a reader verify it?, then no, such a document would not be usable on Misplaced Pages. Dlabtot (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Court documents need to be verifiable. If the documents aren't available yet, then they are not verifiable. Also, caution should be used when using primary sources. If the information is worth including, a secondary reliable source will most likely have reported the information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Per Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources:

Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material.

Please find a secondary source. Jayjg 03:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is in fact a secondary source available that we are currently using in deference to the court documents, but the same editor who opposes the court documentation is opposing the secondary source which seems to be rather reliable. Ronk01 talk, 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate exactly what is meant by "court document" here. A judge's final verdict/decision is a reliable primary source of fact as to the outcome of the trial. A complaint or indictment is a reliable primary source for the fact that wrongdoing has been alleged, but it is NOT a reliable source for the fact that any wrongdoing actually occurred (and, as others have noted, extreme caution is needed here - especially in a BLP). A trial transcript is not a reliable source for fact... it might be an acceptable primary source for a quoted statement of opinion in limited situations.

But Jayjg has it right... if something from a trial is worth mentioning in an article, it is likely that a more reliable, secondary source will have noted it... and, if so, we can and should cite that secondary source instead. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, all court documents are primary sources and should be used with extreme caution. Note that it is not true that all court documents become public after a period of time; in many states lowest-level court records are often destroyed, except for information as to the outcome. I know juvenile court documents are destroyed in many cases after a period of time, as an attorney.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am the editor who put forward the "ridiculous" argument. Actually all I did was copy from WP:PRIMARY which Ronk01 described as "simply not true". Above Ronk01 says "There is in fact a secondary source available that we are currently using in deference to the court documents, but the same editor who opposes the court documentation is opposing the secondary source which seems to be rather reliable". In fact, there is no secondary source cited for Rawat's "emancipation". Despite this discussion and numerous requests asking him to provide sources he inserted this unsourced material in the lead. Thanks for upholding Wiki policies and guidelines.Momento (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Momento, I have provided you with sources, I contradicted your argument for application of WP:Primary, since we are not interpreting, and the above seems to prove you wrong, as long as we use the outcome files a fact sources only, we are fine. I oppose much of this secondary source obsession anyway, secondarys are just as flawed as primarys. Ronk01 talk, 15:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it's not verifiable, it's not reliable. Dlabtot (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is more verifiable than government documentation, which are cross refferneced hundreds of times, unless of course we are willing to say that all government documentation is non-verifiable, which would damage many, many articles which rely on facts from government documents that don;t get that much press or academic coverage. (I am thinking of CIA, Patriot Act, and any number of articles that rely on government documentation. Ronk01 talk, 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could explain how a random Misplaced Pages reader could verify it, it would be verifiable. Since you can't, it's not. Dlabtot (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to Ronk01's claim that he has provided sources for his edit, he has not. One source he provided is cited in the article but contradicts his edit. The other is cited in the article numerous times but not for the edit he made. I am going to remove his edit and would appreciate it if any of the people in this discussion could come to the Prem Rawat article to ensure that Ronk01 abides by Wiki policies and guidelines as he ignores me when I point them out. Thanks.Momento (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, this discussion is hypothetical since no one has found the court documents that are only assumed to exist. Until these documents are found this discussion doesn't seem likely to lead to a conclusion. I suggest we drop this thread until we can discuss actual sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Youtube

Can somebody confirm to me whether the use of youtube as a source is acceptable? The source in question is not from an official channel, and is copyrighted. I've have been warned for reverting the addition of this source, and would like confirmation on whether this is an accepted source. As an aside, the article in question is a BLP. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 03:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You Tube has been used to prove TV content in the past IIRC. Copyright issues don't even come into it under those circumstances. In this case it has been used to prove a wrestler's billing (where they come from) which appears to be the subject of the dispute. Under these circumstances I would consider it reliable enough to disprove the accuracy of the previous source. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to any of these previous circumstances please? In addition, what happens if the video gets removed? WWE regularly has videos of their television shows taken down from youtube. What happens then? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not post the link, the article, the diffs, the talk page dispute, etc? That would sure make it a lot easier for editors to discuss the issue. Dlabtot (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought the general question would have explained enough, but of course.

• Editors: myself, User:Justa Punk
• Article: Eve Torres
• Diffs: me re-adding sourced info (not sourced by youtube), Justa Punk adding youtube source, while removing sourced ifnormation in the article, me saying youtube shouldn't be use as it illegally hosts copyrighted info, Justa Punk reverts.
• I decided to being it up here instead of breaking 3RR, in the hopes that this will resolve the matter. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The first thing about youtube is that a lot of their content are copy vios, and we have a rule against linking to copy vios. Some stuff is published there by the copyright holder, and it's reliability will depend on whether the publisher is reliable outside of youtube. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's just a regular uploader. This is the uploader of the video in question. It's not one of the official WWE channels. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually recently proposed this based off of the numerous related guidelines and policies Misplaced Pages:Video links.Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This particular instance is certainly contributory copyright infringement since the uploader put it up without permission. It looks like some of his other videos have been pulled based on doing that. You are tottaly correct to remove it.Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and opinions everyone. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We cannot broadly state that YouTube is or is not a reliable source. In most cases, YouTube is not the source, it is a host. For example, a US government video could certainly be public domain, but the government agency would be the publisher. Many organizations and companies have channels on YouTube and could be considered reliable— although primary —sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  02:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as we can generally state that most of the time content in New York Times will qualify as a reliable source, we can also generally state that most of the stuff on you-tube does not qualify as a reliable source. "Official" sites are quite few, the quantity of materials posted on the official sites is quite limited as a percentage of overall material on the site and an overwhelming majority of attempts by editors to use you-tube are not from that limited quantity of material on the site that might be acceptable. Active Banana (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Purported Hepatitis C Virus Image

This posting is about an image and whether the editor who posted it can be considered a reliable source.

This image can be found both here and here, and also here, all from the same source, a former Misplaced Pages editor who's parting remark to readers is "Goodbye forever."

That's it. No other source is indicated anywhere.

The question, then, is How do we know this is the Hepatitis C virus? The answer, without some kind of reliable documentation, is We don't know that this is Hepatitis C virus. Conclusion: the image should either be deleted or its caption modified to reflect its uncertain source.

Discussion of this issue can be found here. In the course of that discussion I changed the caption of the image, as indicated here. That edit was immediately reverted, here.

To me it's perfectly obvious that the image has no reliable source. Assumed good faith is no reason to accept it. Looking for consensus on this. BruceSwanson (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

uhm, your rationale seems to be: user submitted => not reliable source => delete/modifier of uncertainty. We might as well close down wikicommons if we start doing that, as any picture can be faked. I have to admit I don't know much about about the policies surrounding pictures on wikicommons, but my gut feeling says leave it as it is. The only case where this is not HCV is if the editor was acting with the intention to deceive everyone and I see nothing to support that in his contributions. What is the reason you doubt this picture is HCV? Yoenit (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the reason I doubt this pictures is HCV? Its lack of a verifiable source, that's what. Your personal gut feeling is no substitute. As for the fact that "all pictures can be faked", that would seem to be a cause for greater vigilance, not a total lack of it -- and by that I mean that you seem to oppose inserting the word purported into the caption. Or don't you? BruceSwanson (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I could try to explain it again, but several other editor have already tried to do so. You are wrong, they are right. Yoenit (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That image is far too ambiguous to determine a viral identity, though it looks like a hepatitis virus in my professional opinion (can't tell if it's C though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronk01 (talk • contribs) 08:23, July 6, 2010

So I take it you support my position in favor of removal. BruceSwanson (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This again? This was, I believe, dealt with weeks if not months ago at Talk:Hepatitis C virus#HCV picture (and here and here) to everyone's satisfaction but BS'. The threshold for the use of images is fair use or copyleft, and whether it looks like what it is supposed to, not reliability, which governs sources. This looks very much like forum shopping when numerous editors have already commented on the inappropriateness of the edits. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the comments by WLU immediately above, I urge readers to follow the three links (particularly the last one) he provided and judge for themselves whether the issue was dealt with "to everyone's satisfaction" except mine, thus warranting a charge of "forum shopping". BruceSwanson (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01's comment seems very much in line with Graham Colm's comment here, clarified here as stating we can't be sure that it's a hep C virus, but is acceptable since that's reasonably what a hep C virus is expected to look like. I don't believe Ronk01 is endorsing a removal, just like WhatamIdoing didn't either here; nor did TimVickers, or Scientizzle ever remove the image, or revert to BS' preferred version. The only person who thinks this image is problematic is BS, and the policies and guidelines he has used to support his advocacy for removal on this page and others look more like a mis-application than an interpretation in line with the community norms. So far, Bruce, the image is acceptable to everyone else and people seem to agree that WP:RS does not apply for images - WP:IMAGE does. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Images don't require a reliable source. If you think the image isn't what it purports to be then you need to gain to consensus on that issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any exception in WP:V for images. It says, pretty clearly and plainly, " All material in Misplaced Pages articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research." Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That discounts pretty much any pictures taken by any editor, the molecular diagrams of proteins, medicines and chemicals, and how could an image be original research? The account uploading the image has left, but there is no evidence it was ever used to upload false information. Also, the next line is "This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions" - which doeesn't mention images, and images have their own policy at WP:IUP that doesn't mention reliability as a criteria. There was never consensus for the removal of the image, and BS has a history of idiosyncratic interpretations of the P&G and pointy edits against consensus, mostly in relation to his belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought that there's a policy or guideline that images generated by editors are preferred because they avoid copyright issues. I'm not sure where I remember reading it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:IMAGE talks about the copyright issues. However, it doesn't negate the verifiability policy. Dlabtot (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a Request for Comments on the issue at WT:V. Dlabtot (talk)

The image is consistent with hepatitis C virus. At this point, we pretty much have to decide whether to trust that the original uploader acted in good faith. And, perhaps, whether Bruce is acting in good faith. MastCell  23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How does MastCell know what a Hep C virus looks like? Has he seen one, or another image of one? Has anyone? If so, where? As for good faith, the "original uploader" was one PhD_Dre. Look, admire, and assume good faith. And come to think of it, isn't PhD_Dre telling us not to assume good faith? He is, isn't he?

Here's something pertinent. Says nothing about good faith. It does say of images that:

BruceSwanson (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Advanced Media Network RS?

Is Advanced Media Network RS? 211.30.103.37 (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

not inherently unreliable, but I would say it depends on what you are using it for. Article? statement it supports? Yoenit (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think of using it for reviews and interviews for WP:ANIME. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is a reliable source for that. Yoenit (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I seriously question that. While they appear to have some editorial oversight, it's minimal. If that were that's the standard for a mainstream news coverage site then standards have really fallen as there is no indication the site nor anyone on it meets WP:SPS. Over at WikiProject Anime and Manga we are not sure about its reliablity and I've removed it from our list until it can get a more thorough review.陣内_Jinnai 05:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Their sister site Kombo.com seems to be accepted by some other media outlets. Similar with jeuxfrance. More research is needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the review for Glass Mark for example:

• It lists the review equipment used --> similar to Mania.com reviews
• Reviews are done by staff
• Attributes used images to its sources --> All images have AMN logo on it, preventing people from distributing their pictures around as a unaltered screenshot of the anime
• Most importantly: it has a clear judgment of the anime at the end of the page with a summary of it in a tabulated format. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 23:52, 8 Jul0y 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• Mania.com which was formerly animeondvd.com is also one of the premeire review sites on the web which is known for editorial overisight and factchecking. That hasn't been shown here and looking at the AMN's staffing page I could say the same for almost any review website out there that is just above a blog.
• Finally style can easily be mimiced and is not a sign of reliability and watermarking images is done by many sites not deemed RSes.陣内_Jinnai 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• If they have editors, their writers are paid (fast but not hard rule), and they've had other RSs mention their findings, then they're reliable without evidence to the contrary. Without that kind of judgement, it's just our opinions (imagine Israel/Palestine, pseudoscience, etc.). I've only seen them pass the first test that I mention, but they may be able to pass the other two. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Peregrine, about your third point they've had other RSs mention their findings, that doesn't really prove reliability. Anime News Network frequently uses Moonphase's finding and yet Moonphase is not RS. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• How is it possible to tell if a staff gets paid for their reviews? I doubt many reviewers will state that they get paid X amount in their reviews. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

I won't oppose this one but don't give too much weight compared to ANN or Mania.com . Reviews are pieces of PoV that why you must have good reasons to mention them in a Misplaced Pages article and have to find a good balance between the different opinion based on the expertise of the reviewer and/or the reach and impact of the review website within the targeted audience and beyond. I find ironical to tag pieces of PoV as Reliable. Getting paid for reviews in the Anime/Manga field is uncommon, many RS reviewers don't make a living out of it, even more got only freebies like reviews copy and press accreditation for anime/manga convention. --KrebMarkt 06:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• So how do we prove that they get paid for their reviews? 211.30.103.37 (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• Very difficult as much as i remember i only found once a such evidence with an official forum post looking reviewers for hire mentioning that they do pay reviewers but not much. --KrebMarkt 19:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• From their recruitment page:

Any staffer of appropriate age will also receive several press convention passes (depending on age restrictions of attending event), Anime press events and conventions, video gaming events, and plentiful anime material to review (DVDs, Manga, Visual Novels, etc. [if applying, and approved for, a review position)

• So I guess they don't get paid but they get given freebies. So what now? 211.30.103.37 (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• Well as someone whose done such reviews for a site (ComicsOnline) and now a new one (

• Cited by: Brigid Alverson (RS due to writer of Publisher's Weekly and School Library Journal - 1 2

Cited by Wired (magazine) - 3 (A national magazine is RS yeah?)

Therefore cited by RSes. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Don't see the latter on wired and merely citing ins't generally enough otherwise tons of sites would be viable RSes.

Per WP:SPS (bolding my emphasis):

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.

陣内_Jinnai 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

www.buddhistchannel.tv

Would an article on www.buddhistchannel.tv be considered a reliable source for controversial material about a BLP? ie this article for ? Per this disclaimer page it appears that anybody can submit an article to Buddhistchannel, though it does appear that there may be some moderation and editing articles before they are published.. Personally, I find the article polemic in tone, and likely a partisan posting as part of an off-wiki dispute concerning the man which has spread onto Misplaced Pages,( See ) and it is not clear that Buddhistchannel has the kind of editorial oversight required per WP:RS. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the highest quality sources are clearly in order, which I don't believe www.buddhistchannel.tv to be, though I would like to get the opinions of other editors about this. FYI, there is a similar posting at BLPN, but no response to date, so I thought I would try here. --Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that that they have a disclaimer absolving them of all responsibility of the content they publish, "While the greatest care is taken in the information contained here but no responsibility is assumed for any errors or omissions and no liability attaches to the Managing Editor, Lim Kooi Fong and or any person and/or company appointed by him for the development of this site and its content therein for any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly by or from the information or ideas contained, suggested, or referenced in this site. No liability is assumed for any third party content on this site.", I would say no, it's not a reliable source. I doubt if any legitimate news source such as the New York Times or BBC News has a similar disclaimer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The article in question is not making claims for veracity of allegations, only that allegations exist, where, and by whom. Article is clear about subject's denials. What we are looking for here is simply a tertiary source to validate the existence of allegations beyond outdated print publications, and in particular an unprecedented letter sent by 8 senior American Zen teachers calling for action against another. This was in 1995, but only revealed more recently, so it is not in dated print pubs. Our standard shouldn't be the New York Times. We need verification of existence of allegations only - the evidence is overwhelming, and I would argue that perhaps certain editors involved in entry have particular axe to grind, clouding perspective.Tao2911 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, I think our standard probably should be the New York Times. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, then most of Misplaced Pages would go poof in an instant. Here is the Buddhist Channel editor page - while they publish a disclaimer for content (a legal necessity), they clearly also have clear, high editorial standards for fairness, balance, and egalitarian coverage of Buddhism. This source is of considerably higher quality than many others cited on nearly every page in Misplaced Pages. "Using the latest web technologies on content publication, the BC remains the world's only dedicated Buddhist news servcies, providing daily updates and in-depth coverage...To augment the BC's premier position as a Buddhist news site, five prominent Buddhist individuals were appointed as members of the "International Advisory Panel (IAP)". Each of the panelists - coming from different countries and with expertise in various disciplines - is expected to play a critical role in establishing the Buddhist Channel as a truly global, web based media platform...The BC will remain loyal to the 'non-sectarian' emphasis of the news coverage. It shows in its logo, a three petal lotus of different colors, each shade representing the mainstream schools of Buddhism."Tao2911 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Any source that claims it isn't reliable, isn't reliable. Dlabtot (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a gross mischaracterization of their quite standard legal disclaimer - they repost articles from other news sources. Of course they have to have a disclaimer for content they didn't generate - however, their statements clearly show that they have an editorial policy that promotes fairness and balance, and that they are selective about content. It's not just a chat room or news dump. Come on - review the site, people. Furthermore, I would like to say that one has to look beyond the simple "brand" of the source - the New York Times prints retractions every day - and review the actual content being reported. Is it accurate? Is it fair? A sort of willful ignorance is being displayed when sources are being discounted just because they are not a major daily newspaper. In this case, validity is gained in part precisely by the source being of special interest in the field of Buddhism as a whole.Tao2911 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• NYT's disclaimer: "Neither NYT nor NYTimes.com represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Service by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk. THE SERVICE AND ALL DOWNLOADABLE SOFTWARE ARE DISTRIBUTED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. YOU HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT USE OF THE SERVICE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK.". It's a standard legal nicety that has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable. Fences&Windows 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling there was one of those. Nice work.Tao2911 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That disclaimer appears to be about the Member Center section of the web site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no equivalence at all. It's not a disclaimer for NY Times-produced content, and it's nothing remotely like the www.buddhistchannel.tv discliamer, which says: "no responsibility is assumed for any errors or omissions". Dlabtot (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not reading it right. It is a disclaimer for all content on the site (there is a separate section for user-generated content), and it says in brief that the NYT does not endorse the reliability of any information placed on the site by any person or entity. This is a standard legal disclaimer. It basically means that if you rely on the information and it causes you harm or loss, that's your problem. Fences&Windows 16:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s. "The Service" is defined as "The New York Times on the Web ("NYTimes.com"), an Internet service of The New York Times Company ("NYT") (the "Service")." Fences&Windows 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how a CYA disavowal of liability can be immediately translated into an inherent lack of reliability. As pointed out above, even The Grey Lady has this kind of standard, boilerplate legal disclaimer regarding its content. The reliability of a source is determined by its enacted practices, not by the espoused-but-largely-ignored principles forced upon it by risk averse lawyers. ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The critical difference between the two disclaimers is that the NY Times disclaimer simply says that it will not be "liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any such Content, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising therefrom" whereas the www.buddhistchannel.tv disclaimer says "no responsibility is assumed for any errors or omissions". A disavowal of legal liability for damages and a disavowal of responsibility for errors are two entirely different things. Dlabtot (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm just not seeing that distinction. ElKevbo (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But I don't think it's talking about the New York Times as a whole, just the Member Center section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the URL is deceiving. The same Terms of Service is linked to in their standard footer from all over their website. (What a neat example of how confusing and misleading URLs can be for external users! Usability folks have warned against that for years but it's an oft-forgotten lesson.) ElKevbo (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

ElKevbo: OK, you don't see it. That doesn't mean it's not there. AQFK: Section 2 of the user agreement covers NY Times content; Section 3 covers user generated content. Dlabtot (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh geez, this is becoming too messy. I'm talking about material in section 5 and you're misquoting material from section 2 (the statement you quoted above appears to apply to material from wire services).

Regardless of the specifics of the NYT and their confusing Terms of Service (thank you lawyers!), my original point still stands: interpreting standard legal boilerplate disavowing liability as making a source unreliable is an untenable position. ElKevbo (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that it is 'legal boilerplate disavowing liability'. The NY Times disclaimer fits that description. The www.buddhistchannel.tv disclaimer does not. That is the distinction. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You and I completely disagree and I don't think we're going to change each other's mind. Can other editors please weigh in? ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"AQFK: Section 2 of the user agreement covers NY Times content; Section 3 covers user generated content." Dlabtot, OK, thanks. I see that now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My view is that the decision about reliability should not be decided based solely on the legal disclaimer issue. I'm personally more concerned with whether buddhistchannel.tv has the kind of editorial oversight required to show that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per RS. Based on the various about us -type pages, this is a news service: it publishes or republishes content submitted by the public, rather than write original content. Their choice of material is wide. Buddhistchannel.tv appeare to republish what are likely copyright infringements of mainstream news sources, such as this Reuters article and also thoroughly unreliable sources such as this republished wordpress blog. The article in question has been posted anonymously, and I am not clear that the owner and the four staff who "also edit and moderate articles" part of the time, constitute enough of a reputation for and interest in fact-checking to make it a reliable source for a controversial material about a living person. --Slp1 (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! That is the kind of analysis and discussion that should take place to determine reliability. If the above statements are accurate (no judgment of you, Slp1; I simply haven't taken the time to independently verify them) then the source is not reliable in a broad sense. Of course, specific instances may be judged different depending on the context. ElKevbo (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :-). However, if you could find the time to check my statements and the evidence and then pronounce on this website, that would be great. The more voices the better in my view. --Slp1 (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Errors or omissions" is a legal term of art. Individuals commenting here might want to review Professional indemnity insurance for why someone might disclaim "Errors or omissions." I don't see how a legal disclaimer means that a site lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Does this site have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - is it used by other, obviously reliable sources? Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the article in question - byline states it was written by/for this site. it meets standards of journalistic English and NPOV. It is simply reporting on the prevalence of allegations of abuse against a religious leader, using among references a website that contains photocopied archives of evidence for said allegations of abuse. Issue here is simply reporting of ALLEGATIONS, for which we also have numbers of print pub. sources not in dispute. BC.TV site however provides crucial later info not in earlier print pub texts.Tao2911 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That site is fine for non controversial simple statements but has not the journalistic authority and editorial checking of a wikipedia reliable source and should in no way be used to attempt to verify opinionated and POV comments that are supported by the organization that is publishing them. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. What we are using the source for is the FACT of there being ALLEGATIONS, ONGOING CONTROVERSY, and especially the existence (including transcription and pdf of original) of a letter from 8 zen masters calling for Shimano to be disciplined. There is NO POV being expressed; only facts! These facts quite clearly include that Shimano denies all wrongdoing. If source is ok for your "non-controversial Facts" it should be fine for existence of facts that there simply is controversy - which is not in dispute here. We have other sources. This one is helpful.Tao2911 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The print publications are far better sources than the website, which is questionable, at best. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pure conjecture. Your argument has no consistency or coherence. If the web article proves the print source to be inaccurate or incomplete or simply dated, clearly one form is not inherently better than the other. This is wiki's strength. Duh.Tao2911 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no debate about there being allegations of abuse. The wish is provide up to date, more accurate info about said allegations, so that limited and hence inaccurate earlier sources can be corrected. Don't lose the thread for all the hypotheticals. We are talking here about one added line and a few word diffs.Tao2911 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: the above discussion shows that some good-standing editors have doubts about the reliability of the source, and the source is wanted to introduce pretty inflamatory material into a BLP. Conclusion: no way! To add serious allegations to a BLP, you need very reliable sources (plural), not a single source which, as the above shows, is not known for reliability in the Misplaced Pages sense. If a serious allegation is worth adding to an encyclopedic article, there should be several sources for the allegation (because otherwise the material is of very dubious encyclopedic value). Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this site has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Such a reputation needs third-party support, not their own claims. I couldn't find any true reliable sources that have cited or used information from buddhistchannel.tv, which would be required to show it has such a reputation (see WP:RS#Usage by other sources). First Light (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No one is addressing the actual particulars of this case. The facts in question in this article contain their own proofs in the article - the whole letter in question is quoted, with source. This letter is acknowledged all over the place online. You don't have to be willfully obtuse here - you can verify that a source is indeed accurate. Wiki guidelines suggest this, folks. We are not hogtied by some perfect measure and rule.

This is not a "serious allegation" we need proof for. We have undisputed sources for allegations of abuse. What this article provides is proof of significant letter confirming allegations by peers years after last printed source. This is being widely discussed in Zen field, and has been for years. Again, allegations are NOT IN DISPUTE. This article is a helpful adjunct, to bring info up to more recent past and make issues more comprehensible. I wish someone would actually carefully review the material and context, instead of this "angels on needle heads" debate.Tao2911 (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors please review Shimano talk here for particulars.Tao2911 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"We are not hogtied by some perfect measure and rule." - WP:BLP is pretty DAMN clear that we are indeed "hogtied" to the use of sources of the highest quality regarding contentious claims about living people. Active Banana (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course! But that is NOT the only measure here - is article fair? Yes. Is it balanced? Yes. Is it reasonable? Yes. Does it meet standards for NPOV and content? yes. Is it the only source of controversial info? NO, its not even one of the primary THREE. Is their any reason to suspect subject matter to be forged, falsified? Clearly not - no one is arguing so. Look at the actual material - don't just wade in with more template blasting and hypotheticals, of which we have pages now.Tao2911 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the particulars of this case, then: buddhistchannel.tv (a non-reliable source by WP standards), used to support an allegation that several "American Zen teachers wrote a letter...recommending (subject of a WP:BLP) be disciplined or asked to resign" (a controversial allegation) = "no way" should this source be used in violation of WP:BLP. ("Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." First Light (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

www.buddhistchannel.tv has no particular reputation for accuracy or editorial oversight, and publicly disavows responsibility for its contents. It therefore does not qualify as a reliable source, and in particular may not be used as a source for any claim whatsoever in WP:BLP articles. Jayjg 06:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia

Does wikipedia consider the New Catholic Encyclopedia a valid source?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As always, it depends on what statement it is supporting. No source is 100% reliable. Give an example of a statement and a citation from NCE, so that others can show you how to evaluate. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pg 191 article about John Cassian.

"He was also a leading exponent of Semi-pelagianism and is considered its founder. Revered as a saint in the Eastern Church, he was never canonized in the West, although his feast is kept in southern France, particularly in Marseilles on July 23." LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also the Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions By Wendy Doniger appears to validate this statement as well.. And also page 984 "From that point on, semi-Pelagianism was recognized as a HERESY in the Roman Catholic church."LoveMonkey (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably someone is disputing that this is a reliable source ... I don't care to speculate on what basis. Could you take a look at the instructions for posting a question at the top of the page and include the missing details? (diff of the disputed edit(s), talk page discussion, etc.) tia Dlabtot (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here goes.

• Source number 1)
• Source number 2)
• Articles are the East-West schism and Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences
• The articles are locked down in a dispute and there is a need for consensus to add the statement to the effect of :"that the Roman Catholic church condemns the Semi-pelagian teachings of John Cassian."

And also that I think that Cassian's status as a saint in the Roman Catholic church is ambiguous and it should be clarified that Cassian is not really considered a saint in the church. I was going to get to that after this disagreement.

• Article talkpage diffs.

Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry addendum the statement should be to the effect of :"that the Roman Catholic church condemns the Semi-pelagian teachings of John Cassian as heresy." Thanks Again LoveMonkey (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just spent twenty minutes looking at it and I still could not find the dispute about this source. Could you please provide a specific diff where someone objects to the use of the The New Catholic Encyclopedia? You can find an explanation of what I mean by a 'diff' here: WP:DIFF Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've found the relevant section of talk page, but I'm still not sure who - if anyone - is saying that The New Catholic Encyclopedia is not a reliable source as Misplaced Pages defines the term. Trying to read that discussion is like trying to swim in cotton candy. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK at least the cotton candy is candy and tastes good. Uh I haven't added it yet because the "Old Catholic Encyclopedia" is now not considered a valid source. What is states is not valid according to the talkpage and an earlier entry here. So I was looking for approval in advance so to try and not have a 3 page argument on the article talkpage in order to use the source on the talkpage let alone even at this point adding it to the article. Since the Roman Catholic editors on the article talkpage say that what any source other then their sources and the Pope can not speak for any Roman Catholic position (yes thats the position they -Esoglou and Richard are now taking on the talkpage for the Catholic - Orthodox theological differences article).LoveMonkey (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical sources can still be 'reliable sources' for particular citations. 'Reliable sources' is a term of art that has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages, as described in WP:RS. However, in general, sources can only speak for themselves. Therefore when in doubt, use attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for that last statement being lost on me. What is meant by "Therefore when in doubt, use attribution".LoveMonkey (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Attribute the material to whoever you are citing. In other words, without attribution: "only blue widgets are genuine widgets", with attribution "according to the Widget Encyclopedia, only blue widgets are genuine widgets". Dlabtot (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is good advice thanks Dlabtot.

Talk:Forging and Commator's links to metal-art.com.ua

Commator (talk · contribs) has been adding to this, and other metalworking articles, a number of links to their commercial web site. These have been added as ELs, and as references. The linked site is "relevant", in that its topic area is related to the subject under discussion, however it has almost no content on it. It's way short of the WP:EL standard. I don't even see it as adequate for a reference: not merely not being WP:RS, but not even enough for a reference in passing. I'm happy to accept (in the spirit of WP:AGF) that they could be knowledgeable in the field and have knowledge that could usefully be added to this article, however the content accessible on the linked site is nowhere near enough.

Their discussion since is welcomed, however the style of these two threads could be seen as needlessly personal and combative:

• Wizard191 inhibits the insertion of information
• Andy Dingley promises a war of editing.

This went to RfC a week ago, links to metal-art.com.ua |Talk:Forging but the editor still sticks to their position and continues to regard unanimous comments by a number of other editors as merely a vendetta against their site. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.metal-art.com.ua does not look to be RS. Commentary about other editors is not appropriate for this noticeboard and is counterproductive. Dlabtot (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My intension is to undo Wizard191's action, which removed my contribution. My goal is to contribute to the article section "History" the text:

"Since the advance of the PC era the manufacturing of complicated and unique forged items is usually accompanied by realistic 3D computer simulation. This accurate and relatively fast technology allows accumulate all needful knowledges, equipment and intermediates for the future forged items before the starting of manufacturing. Computer 3D modeling is now not scarcity even for small companies."

i Forging Process Modeling. This footnote supports reality of using 3D computer simulation in forging.

ii On CAD/CAM hardware and software usable in forging. This footnote tells which tools are usable.

iii 3D modeling in forge. This footnote supports reality of using 3D modelling in small forging companies. --Commator (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just commented at the RFC that it seems clear that the site is not helpful for Misplaced Pages. For this kind of issue, I would post at WP:ELN, or at WT:WikiProject Spam if very persistent. I do not support the edit proposed above by Commator because the useful content that would be added to the article is not significant, and we do not add links to commercial sites merely to illustrate their availability. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that there may be people with imagination of spam and useless changes everywhere in Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq from these ones and has clearly declared this on own page: <<... most of my time is taken resisting the erosion of articles by unhelpful changes or linkspam additions ...>> --Commator (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq. Your website is not close to being a reliable source, by Misplaced Pages standards, nor does it meet the standards laid out at WP:EL. You are specifically violating WP:EL#ADV. Continued addition of links would be spamming. First Light (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Has opened your own article Asclepias cordifolia and found this your link: "Asclepias cordifolia (Heartleaf Milkweed)". Plantaxa. Retrieved 2008-12-21.. It was only first opened one from many your articles. --Commator (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a dead/expired link in that article. I've replaced it with a valid reference to the same Barrett and Gifford (1933) book, this time from the USDA website. If you find any more like that, feel free to let me know. First Light (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of making assessment of not related with your profile links, it would be better for all if you continue your own contributions and permanently check your own array of links from Misplaced Pages. --Commator (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, instead it would be appropriate for you to respond the way I did when you pointed out my missing link, which was to fix the problem. In your case, that would be to find a truly reliable source—and additionally, to learn WP policies about what is a Reliable Source, Conflict of Interest, and adding external links to your own site. First Light (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I try to do what I can for a <<... world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge ...>>. It would be better for all if you'll try to do so too. --Commator (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In view of the discussion above and at Talk:Forging, I have removed the link from a number of pages because checking showed that where used as a reference, the text in the article was not particularly helpful, and the statements were not verified by the reference. This LinkSearch currently shows links only here and at Talk:Forging. Johnuniq (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Commator is now trying to add links to his metal-art.com.ua site to 3D modeling. As apparently with his prior attempts, the links don't match up with the text he's inserting, which poorly duplicates content already in the article. He's also under the mistaken idea that Johnuniq put me up to opposing him. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

From the Revision history of 3D modeling

18:57, 12 July 2010 TheRealFennShysa (Undid revision 373125337 by Commator (talk) rv poorly written (and unnecessary) addition based on poor and/or advertising links.) (undo)

18:53, 12 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 373081101 by TheRealFennShysa Two weeks TheRealFennShysa said nothing until Johnuniq not invent this "claims are not supported by the refs") (undo)

13:52, 12 July 2010 TheRealFennShysa (rv - claims are not supported by the refs) (undo)

07:12, 12 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 372613341 by TheRealFennShysa His action has obviously the Johnuniq's influence. It may be even Johnuniq has encouraged him to do so.) (undo)

17:34, 9 July 2010 TheRealFennShysa (Undid revision 372609268 by Commator (talk) rv to prior version for similar reasons as Johnuniq offered) (undo)

17:03, 9 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 372566601 by Johnuniq (talk) The article readers and authors not criticise the contribution.) (undo)

11:43, 9 July 2010 Johnuniq (rv edits by Commator: some of text is obviously true, but the claims are not supported by the refs; link is unhelpful; see Talk:Forging#Rfc: Commator's links to metal-art.com.ua) (undo)

09:34, 5 July 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)

02:42, 4 July 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)

10:04, 2 July 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)

07:08, 2 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 370969106 by JamesBWatson. His contrib. seems to be a bad shaded act of personal vendetta and national dislike) (undo)

09:19, 30 June 2010 JamesBWatson (Revert edits which (1) introduced an inappropriate link (see WP:ELNO) and (2) was not in clear English (e.g. "lets prepare all needful knowledges").) (undo)

06:04, 30 June 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)

04:40, 30 June 2010 Commator (→Models: Added reference to material "Forging Process Modeling") (undo)

09:35, 27 June 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo) --Commator (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

From the en.wikipedia.org, by Edits (reverse), with Page = 3D_modeling

Edits___User_____________first edit_______last edit

11(10/1)TheRealFennShysa 2009-12-14 20:37 2010-07-12 18:57

10(6/4) Commator 2010-06-27 09:35 2010-07-12 18:53

1 (1/0) JamesBWatson 2010-06-30 09:19 2010-06-30 09:19

1 (1/0) Johnuniq 2010-07-09 11:43 2010-07-09 11:43 --Commator (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

From the Revision history of 3D modeling

18:28, 20 May 2010 TheRealFennShysa Reverted 2 edits by 78.150.159.60

16:29, 18 May 2010 TheRealFennShysa Undid revision 362809339 by Enanko

19:10, 12 May 2010 TheRealFennShysa Undid revision 361710890 by Skhedkar

15:23, 26 March 2010 TheRealFennShysa Reverted 1 edit by 178.92.88.150

06:18, 22 March 2010 TheRealFennShysa Reverted 3 edits by 210.193.14.11

22:38, 21 February 2010 TheRealFennShysa Undid revision 345381763 by Baiutti

17:32, 10 February 2010 TheRealFennShysa Undid revision 343182985 by Parametric66

20:37, 14 December 2009 TheRealFennShysa Reverted 2 edits by 78.149.94.189 --Commator (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Transcript of a lecture hosted on a student organization's page

• Note: Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources

I'm pretty sure this isn't a reliable source, but since the user is persistent I'm bringing it up here. At dispute is a citation in an article where the subject made a talk at a student organization. A transcript of the talk (the only one apparently) was put on a freeweb style site student organization's page. The student organization apparently had consent to make the transcript, but that is all that has been said about it. I've tried to explain that that consent doesn't mean anything since it's hosted on some site where anyone could upload anything and claim anything. the only thing I've found in the archives here is someone mentioning that a lecture or talk would only be a reliable source if a transcript existed and while he didn't specify, I'm sure that the intended meaning was that that transcript existed on a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistent user here. I must add that the "freeweb style site" in question is owned by the student organization. _dk (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are they an organization that has a reputation for editorial oversight and fact checking like say the New York Times? Exactly what kind of student organization is it ? It doesn't seem to be one that uses real names. When you say student organization, are you basically just saying "an interest club" at a university? Even owning the domain doesn't make it a reliable source, except for anything about them. Not for claims made about others.--Crossmr (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you had the mind to bring the issue over there, then I assume you would allow others to do the talking in your stead? When the page in question is a transcript of the lecture, made with the consent of the person who gave the lecture, is the club stating any claims? I believe the answer is no, and I await the opinions of the denizens on this board. _dk (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a discussion, anyone can contribute. Who approved it is irrelevant. It is where it is published that is the problem. It is a self-published source and as such cannot be used as a citation on wikipedia unless the source is created by the subject of the article which it is not. Can you deny any of those things? The club is making claims. The club is claiming that that transcript is accurate and happened. Per wikipedias guidelines and policies we simply cannot take them at their word because they don't meet our threshold for a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please post this question at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This page is for discussion of policy, not of specific sources. LK (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please tell us what article is involved, and give some information about the student organization. And which country would help as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is Imperishable Night, a game. The student organization is "La Bomba: General Amusement Research Circle" of Hitotsubashi University. The country is Japan. The point of contention here is if a transcript that is approved by the speaker posted on the host's website is reliable. I had wanted to use that source to cite a statement that is now appended by a cn tag in the article. Hence I want clarification if the view "Who approved it is irrelevant" presented by Crossmr, denying any case-by-case analysis, is one that is endorsed by Wikipedian consensus and not of one single user speaking improperly on behalf of Misplaced Pages. _dk (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes because we're speaking of where it is published, not who approved it or who said what or even what is contained on the page. Self-published sources refers to where the content is hosted. Random wikipedia editors need to be able to trust that the source is reliable and that what is said there is true, random student club website isn't it. Where is the evidence that the subject has unequivocally stated that what is contained on that page is 100% authentic and will always be 100% authentic?--Crossmr (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You need not repeat yourself, I already know exactly what you are trying to convey. Will you give other people a chance to form their own thoughts? If you worry about them changing the content, there are technology like webarchives that makes it readily apparent if a page has been changed or not. To summarize my points: I believe the student organization, being the host of the lecture, is an authoritative source for the lecture that had been given on their grounds. Considering, also, that the transcript was made with the approval of the speaker (maker of the game), the transcript is therefore reliable as a faithful representation of the lecture. _dk (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable. We do sometimes use convenience links. This is an informal student group and the information is trivial anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with IMJ, not reliable. Verbal chat 12:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In order for them to be authoritative they'd have to be published and recognized experts in the field. That is the only situation under which a self-published source by someone who is not the subject should be used. Authorization has no bearing on whether or not wikipedia considers it reliable. Misplaced Pages is concerned with the place in which it's kept. Anything that is self-published has a very narrow set of terms under which it can be used.--Crossmr (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes....you've repeated yourself for the fifth time now. But now that your assessment has been supported by two other individuals I am satisfied and will drop the issue. Though I wonder, if the information is trivial anyways, why had it been challenged to begin with. _dk (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Because I'd already removed an obviously bad source from the same piece of information. You replaced it with another bad source.--Crossmr (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a few other ways for something to be citable as a source. For instance, material published by advocacy organizations is usually allowed if the organization's opinion is influential on the topic, and this is an ambiguous area between primary, secondary, and self-published sources. See if you can establish a reputation for this web page you want to cite. Are we sure this page belongs to the student organization? Who links to it; does the school's web site link to it? Do they have a reputation for accurate transcriptions of guest lecturers? Is it cited by other works? Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

AllAfrica Global Media

This website - http://allafrica.com/ - isn't used on any article I have edited. 'All Africa' mirrors African newspaper websites as well as digitising National newspapers from different African countries. I was wondering whether, considering the stability of the website, it could be used when the site/web page that it mirrors isn't available online. Would there be an issue with this? Thanks. Ukabia...tark 13:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be used as a Convenience link, but the actual source being cited would be the original newspaper. Dlabtot (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Ukabia - talk 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the number of Chveneburi

Hello, are the following sources reliable for the numbers of Chveneburi?

1)

2)

3)

4)

Please see also this dif for the original edit Yoenit (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(numbered sources for ease of discussion) 1) unsure if publisher is generally reliable, but possibly 2) greenwood is general publishing firm of academic works so unless there is specific reason to doubt, this is reliable source 3) if as according to wikipedia article, joshua project keeps population figures "with Christian progress status indicators" it is a site with a particular POV and unless there is evidence that other reliable sources use them for data, I would think not. 4) Tore Kjeilen does not meet the criteria for a self published site and it is unclear how much editorial oversite and fact checking is present. So - 1 out of 4? Active Banana (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You state you are unsure if the publisher of link number 1, Multilingual matters, is generally reliable. Looking around on their website I don't see anything which would point the contrary, so I am gonna assume it is reliable as well. Yoenit (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry.com as a reference?

I was looking at some biographies today and noticed generic links to ancestry.com used as references for birth dates. (See references in Pat Brown). I thought, "hey, that's cool, someone linked some genealogical information." Then I noticed these links were not to specific entries for the individuals at ancestry.com. The links were to the front page. That struck me as surreptitious advertising for ancestry.com since a) the link is to the front page of the site, and b) the site requires paid membership to access their data. It also occurs to me that information in ancestry.com is not authoritative since it can be entered by anyone and isn't subject to editorial review. So, is a link to ancestry.com a valid reference? Vantelimus (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote no, especially when the link is just to the front page. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The proper place for questions of this nature is at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  02:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree too. You occasionally see links to the front page of other sites too—I doubt it's generally intended as promotional, but it's bad form nevertheless. (I wonder; is a specifc user or IP range adding links to ancestry.com all over the place? That would be problematic and indicative of surreptitious advertising.) TheFeds 03:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are over 800 links, almost 200 to the home page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  11:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources

For the situation you just described, no, it is not a reliable source. (There some articles which are written by the Ancestry Magazine staff writers which might be reliable.) For past discussions, see:Question about Ancestry.com and Ancestry.com A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll also add that if the people involved are living, then the BLP policy kicks in, which says that the dates of birth should only be included where they have been "widely published by reliable sources". If the information is only available behind a paywall, then it can hardly be considered widely published.--Slp1 (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, Ancestry.com contains user generated material without editorial oversight, and thus fails WP:RS. Jayjg 21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

PMAnderson and Democracies vs electoral states.

On List of wars between democracies User:Pmanderson contantly re-adds Dean V. Babst's article "Elective Governments — A Force For Peace." The Wisconsin Sociologist 3 (1, 1964): 9-14;" as a source. However, that article does not talk about democracies, but about elective governments, ie goverments that have elections. That is not generally accepted as being a democracy, for example South Africa under Apartheid was an elective government, but not a democracy. IMO it's WP:SYN to use it as a source for wasr between democracies, when it only talks about wars between elective governments. Am I wrong?

The first time I took this up was here: Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies#The_Boer_wars. It was re-added recently: --OpenFuture (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a verbal quibble: that the founder of democratic peace theory, writing a paper about "elective governments", did not mean democracies, when he wrote about the peace between states which elect their legislature and administration, with secret ballot and civil liberties.

Since this good soul seems to like R. J. Rummel, I present a link to Rummel's summary of Babst's paper, which uses the string democracy repeatedly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, or at least you're being overly pedantic. Fences&Windows 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it pedantic? The article was once called "exceptions to democratic peace theory", and Babst list certainly fits there. But the article was renamed, and as a result of that renaming, everything that's not actually a war between democracies has been removed. PManderson tried to revert those changes, but finally gave in that only those conflicts who in fact have WP:RS that calls them wars between democracies should be included. Despite this PManderson uses sources that does *not* call the conflict wars between democracies, in an apparent attempt to slowly revert the article back into it's pre-rename state. He refers to that Rummel calls Babst definition of electoral governments "democracies", but that would then be WP:SYN or at least he should use Rummel as a source, and not Babst. An electoral government is *not* a democracy in normal usage. As an example, Apartheid South Africa would fit Babst definition. *Nobody* would call it a democracy. Now if the article was renamed back or to something else, that would be another questions, but Titles should match the article content. Then we can't add conflicts that isn't wars between democracies, and then our sources must claim that the conflicts was between democracies. That clearlyand obviously means Babst source is not useful as it claims no such thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Politics of South Africa: Democracy and Racial Diversity was published in 1977; that would appear to answer the loudest claim here.
• It is quite true that South Africa under apartheid was only a democracy for some people, and that is what was wrong with it; but it was a democracy for them. This effort to adopt a single view of democracy as the only one is the problem here; Rummel also denies that Israel was a free state under Golda Meir - but that is not the consensus view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Democracy for some people is not democracy at all. And if you had bothered to double check the book title you used, you'd know that the book isn't a description of South Africas politics, but a *prescription*. Apparently also a "vapid" prescription written by a supporter of apartheid. . Obviously somebody that supports the system will call it a democracy, that goes for every regime. Even Cuba, USSR etc has been called a democracy by it's supporters, even though it's blatantly obvious that this is not the case. That's why we can't use one source that says "it's a democracy" and another one that says "it's a war" to say "It's a war between democracies". That would be WP:SYN and every single conflict in the 20th century would have to be listed, as every single state has been called a democracy by it's supporters. And that is why we must restrict ourselves to using sources that claim the conflict is a war between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Democracy for some people is not democracy at all. That's your opinion; however virtuous it may be, it is not consensus of the sources. Please stop blanking Misplaced Pages to install your opinions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the right to vote isn't a part of the modern concept of democracy is patently absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Somalia - Transparency International and Somali news sites

Hi there, I'm unfortunately involved in a fairly frustrating discussion on the Somalia talk page. In it, an editor (who I believe is biased towards painting a rosier picture of Somalia than is entirely neutral) has stated that Transparency International's Corruption Index ranking for Somalia (180/180) should not be mentioned, because he claims it is not a reliable source. Pressed on why, he says it's because he believes one source of the ranking, a Matt Bryden, is not reliable. Here a second reliable source question comes up. To support his allegation that Bryden (a UN Monitoring Group's chief coordinator) is unreliable, he provides a bunch of, in my view, amateurish looking news reports (1, 2, 3, 4) and asserts that those are reliable (I do not agree). My opinion is that the Transparency Index has its detractors, but it is still a widely used metric of perceived corruption. But while many Misplaced Pages articles use the index, on the Somalia page, there is no mention of corruption at all, despite it placing dead last and several high profile corruption allegations over the past year or so (namely misdirection of UN food aid and government collusion with pirates). I believe Transparency International is a reliable source on its own ranking, and that its ranking, being the most commonly cited metric of perceived government corruption, is notable enough for inclusion. I was hoping someone with more experience on reliable sources could weigh in on this issue. Thanks a lot, TastyCakes (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As has already been repeatedly explained to the editor above, the fact that Transparency International's corruption index is used on other articles on Misplaced Pages does not in itself mean that it is a reliable source, and specifically with regard to Somalia. This is because Transparency International bases its corruption index on a small group of specialists on each given country and also because "there is evidence that perceptions of corruption are influenced by the disclosure of major scandals" (c.f. 1). Transparency International's corruption index is thus by definition not a one-size-fits-all metric; it necessarily varies in reliability from country to country depending on the sources used for those specific countries. Unlike most other countries, Somalia is also plagued by disinformation in the media, which is precisely why there's an entire article devoted to Propaganda in the War in Somalia. And as it so happens, Transparency International itself admits that its idea of corruption in Somalia is based on a recent "UN monitoring group report assertions about corrupt diversion of food aid". The report in question has drawn controversy for not one, but two key reasons: 1) it was prepared by one Matt Bryden, who is an unreliable, biased contributor with direct ties to advocacy groups (here is a photo of him at a rally for his cause) and a long history of publishing dubious material on the region (1, 2, 3, 4), and 2) the actual sources Bryden relies on for his corruption charges are unsubstantiated anecdotes featured in completely unverifiable Somali-language articles and blog posts published on low-key websites (namely, the following: 1, 2, 3). That is fact. What is also fact is that those sources fail not only WP:VER, but also WP:QS and WP:REDFLAG. Since the corruption charges in question involve specific individuals, those unreliable sources likewise fail WP:BLP. That's pretty much it. The editor above, however, insists on arguing that Transparency International's corruption index vis-a-vis Somalia is still somehow reliable despite the country's well-documented problems with disinformation in the media, the dubious sources the report it was based on uses to obtain its corruption allegations -- sources which have been expressly identified in this way -- and the unreliability of the author of that paper himself as a neutral contributor. Let's put it this way, if Transparency International's corruption ranking for Spain were primarily based on a report by someone with a long history of direct involvement in and advocacy for the Basque separatist movement, and that report in turn obtained its actual corruption allegations from unverifiable Basque-language sources -- sources that have been expressly identified in this way -- no one would question the unreliability of said sources. The present situation is no different. Middayexpress (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

One non-involved editor's opinion: Transparency International's Corruption Index is most clearly notable, and used by countless reliable sources specifically regarding Somalia. There's no question that any of those reliable sources could be used to support inclusion in the Somalia article. If you have a problem with Transparency International's particular rating of Somalia, then you could also include a neutral, third-party reliable source that raises the issues you bring up. In my opinion, www.wardheernews.com wouldn't qualify as that reliable or neutral source, so you should find something more mainstream and neutral. First Light (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is not Transparency International's corruption index that is the question here; it is specifically its ranking for Somalia. As I've already explained above, citing a lot more than that Wardheernews article (which, by the way, is indeed a reliable source that even the Huffington Post deems trustworthy enough to republish material from (e.g.), including editorials (1)), Transparency International bases its corruption index on a small group of specialists on each given country, and "there is evidence that perceptions of corruption are influenced by the disclosure of major scandals" (see this). The "expert" that Transparency International readily admits its idea of corruption in Somalia is based on is a recent "UN monitoring group report assertions about corrupt diversion of food aid"; that is the "scandal" in question. This report, however, was prepared by a gentleman with a long history of open advocacy and publishing dubious materials on the region, as many sources have repeatedly highlighted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). And as I've also pointed out, the actual sources the author of that report relies on for his corruption charges are unsubstantiated anecdotes featured in completely unverifiable Somali-language articles and blog posts published on low-key websites (namely: 1, 2, 3). So it's both the author himself and his sources that are the problem. There are also not just many journalists that describe Bryden's latest report as unreliable, but three governments (Somali federal government, Puntland regional government and Eritrea) and one international organization (the UN) as well. None of the above can be said for any of the other countries ranked in Transparency International's corruption index; none of those other countries rankings were based on reports from such openly biased parties and dubious sources, parties and sources that have been expressly identified in this way. And if they had been, no one would have trouble understanding why this is unacceptable, especially given Misplaced Pages's rules on reliable sourcing (see my Basque/Spain analogy above). Middayexpress (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that multiple mainstream and extremely reliable sources (Forbes, BBC, etc.) feature the Corruption Index's rating of Somalia can't simply be removed from the article. If those other sources you mention really are deemed reliable by Misplaced Pages standards (which is different from Huffington Post standards), then they could also be included in the article. Since most/all of the mainstream sources give credibility to the rating, there is still no legitimate reason for excluding that information. First Light (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Most/all mainstream news sites do not at all give credibility to the rating. Some merely mention it, as they do with news on murder allegations, lawsuits, Enron, etc.. That's not an endorsement, much less an appraisal of the reliability of the corruption allegations' sources; that's reporting. The articles I have cited above, on the other hand, expressly identify the very sources of those corruption allegations as unreliable, not to mention the person behind them. Further, WP:RS is clear that the actual source of the corruption charges (i.e. the creator of the work) "can affect reliability". And the actual source of the corruption charges is not Transparency International itself. TI, again, bases its rankings on a few so-called "experts" on the country in question (see this), which it itself admits in this case is that dubious UN report by Bryden. That is the point. Similarly, WP:QS also specifies that questionable 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. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

Bryden's paper fits that description to a T, as not only does it completely rely on innuendo for its corruption allegations (unsubstantiated claims drawn from articles and blog posts published on low-key, foreign language websites, and which are thus unverifiable), it is also promotional in nature (1). So actually, it's not that there are no legitimate reasons to not include the ranking; it's that the ranking clearly belongs on the Propaganda in the War in Somalia article since it is directly based on a questionable source citing contentious claims about third parties. Middayexpress (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I still hold that repeated and widespread reporting of the Corruption Index rating on Somalia in mainstream reliable sources, by itself, merits its inclusion in the Somalia article. Your sources and argument haven't convinced me otherwise, and I'll leave it at that. First Light (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not appealed to Misplaced Pages policy to substantiate your argument; you've just shared your opinion. The consensus process, however, is unfortunately not determined by popular vote. You must attempt to prove your argument citing actual policy, something which has yet to happen. Middayexpress (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the exchange above demonstrates my frustration at the Somalia talk page in a nutshell: the obvious is pointed out, and Middayexpress repeats the same convoluted argument to use unreliable sources to dispute something that everywhere else on Misplaced Pages is accepted as a notable, reliable source worth mentioning in country articles. TastyCakes (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You were certainly right to bring it here, and I hope other non-involved editors aren't discouraged from getting involved in this discussion by the wall of words. First Light (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's reliable and worth noting. Lot's of coverage in the highest quality sources. The sources generally attribute to TI, so we should as well, "According to TI Somalia is the most corrupt country." or something. - 14:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

TastyCakes: If proper sourcing were what really concerned you, then you would have first and foremost taken exception to Bryden's use of anecdotal evidence to obtain his corruption allegations, material that was drawn from completely unverifiable foreign language articles published on low-key websites and blogs as I've explained above (references that have also been expressly identified as unreliable by third party sources). Instead, you've attempted to question the very sources that simply point out how unreliable Bryden's foreign language references (not to mention himself) are to begin with. Your line of argument that since Transparency International's corruption index is used elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, it is thus reliable for Somalia as well, is likewise completely invalid since Transparency International bases its rankings on the work of specialists on each country it ranks, and its rankings therefore necessarily vary in quality from country to country. Those other countries' rankings are also not largely based on a controversial report that was prepared by someone openly involved in advocacy, with a long history of publishing such dubious reports to boot. And yes, TI's actual sources most certainly do matter:

"We find that there are many limitations to corruption indicators due to the methodologies used in aggregating or averaging, the reliability of the sources on which they are based, and the varying definitions of corruption utilized."

Moreover, TI's corruption index doesn't even use the same number of surveys per country; in Somalia's case, it bases its ranking on only 3 surveys (viz.), almost 3 times fewer data sources than some other countries and the absolute minimum required to be included at all in the index. This too directly affects the reliability of its rating:

"The CPI relies heavily on “expert assessments” of corruption, representing the views of a small number of people.16 For the most part, these expert assessments are carried out by expatriates of the countries involved. The longer these expatriates are living outside their country of origin, the less likely they are to have an accurate understanding of the current situation in the country. Absolute objectivity is difficult to achieve, and most people naturally will be biased toward either a government or its opposition. To the extent that the expatriates making the assessments of corruption are members of particular economic or social groups, expert assessments of corruption may be biased."

The corruption index also does not even measure the extent of corruption among the population as a whole -- just in the public sector:

"As the website of TI pointedly notes while the Index identifies Somalia at the very bottom of the ladder in 2008, that does not mean that Somalia is the ‘world’s most corrupt country’ or that Somalians are the ‘most corrupt people’. All it takes for a country to be very corrupt is a few powerful politicians and officials perpetrating corruption on the rest of the population... All sources measure the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or size of bribes) in the public and political sectors."

Lastly (and this is key), Transparency International's CPI does not take into account changes in corruption regulation that might have taken place in the considerable lag-time that's inherent in its metric:

"Since corruption is the result of entrenched dysfunctional institutions in a country, changes at the country-level will be slow to appear. It will take some time for anti-corruption reforms to take effect after they are introduced, and even longer for people to notice the effects of the reforms so that perceptions to change. Since the CPI uses up to three years of data, then even if there are reductions in corruption according to the most recent figures, those advances will be tempered by the inclusion of previous years data. The 1998 CPI Press Release even states, “It needs to be emphasized, though, that it can take some time for these actions to influence international perceptions, and be consequently reflected in the CPI."

WP:RS itself indicates that "some scholarly material may be outdated". And as another editor already explained to you on the Somalia talk page, many such major anti-corruption measures have recently been implemented that the CPI simply has not factored in yet or weighted properly. This includes Somalia's central government's recent hiring of Pricewaterhousecoopers to monitor development federal funding and improve transparency, as well as the resumption of its relationship with the African Development Bank, something which only became possible due to what the AfDB itself describes as "the formulation of a national plan and the establishment of a functional Central Bank and effective anti-corruption commission". Similarly, the new Puntland regional administration's (term started in 2009) has also implemented numerous reforms such as the expansion and improvement of its security and judicial systems, and the establishment of a transparent, budget-based public finance system (1). This only serves to make the CPI's ranking of Somalia an even more unreliable measure of corruption in the country. Middayexpress (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• No problem using this source, with attribution, like any reputable advocacy organization. Dlabtot (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it seems we have 4 opinions for and Middayexpress against, can I safely put this into the article now? TastyCakes (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that it even matters, but that's actually 2 opinions vs. 4 (see the Somalia talk page again). The consensus process is also unfortunately not popular vote:

Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision. Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Misplaced Pages proper, such as when electing the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee.

That means there won't be getting around the discussion process, especially what I have just posted that belies the claims of "corruption". If you think there is, bear in mind that there is always a higher authority one can appeal to that won't have any trouble seeing the situation or what it is -- an authority that actual understands and values Misplaced Pages's rules. Middayexpress (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:Somalia that there is unanimous consensus here among uninvolved editors for inclusion of the TI Corruption Index ranking in the Somalia article. First Light (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added the information to the article here. In it I cite the Transparency International ranking, the UN Monitoring Group's report, and a New York Times article saying the report is disputed by the Somali government and businessmen and the UN World Food Program. TastyCakes (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As Midday pointed out concensus is not based on popular vote, indeed if i were to do a mass transparent canvassing campaign and suddenly the score was 40 against inclusion compared to 5 for inclusion, this doesn't equal concensus. No! concensus would be for either side to convince the other of their argument for inclusion/exclusion and then agreeing to a compromise, regardless in whose favour it is. This is something that hasn't occurred here, that so-called 'wall of text' has yet to be countered, and do tell us why a respected Somali news outlet like Wadheernews is not legimate enough to be featured on wikipedia? --Scoobycentric (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Scooby (and Midday for that matter), please read wp:rs and once you're done, if you still don't see why the UN, the New York Times and Transparency International are reliable sources on alleged Somali corruption and awdal news, Garowe Online, American Chronicle and Wardheernews.com aren't, come back and talk. TastyCakes (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I would not count American Chronicle as a reliable source for any Misplaced Pages article. I am not sure how their editorial policy (if any) works, but from what I've seen it is essentially no better than a blog. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Scoobycentric: Midday was adamant about excluding any mention of TI's corruption ranking of Somalia, even though it is reported by countless mainstream reliable news organizations. That widespread mainstream sourcing is why every non-involved editor here will continue to say that 'of course it meets WP requirements for inclusion'. Midday never responded to that issue. Nor did he respond to my very first comment in this thread: "There's no question that any of those reliable sources could be used to support inclusion (of TI's ranking) in the Somalia article. If you have a problem with Transparency International's particular rating of Somalia, then you could also include a neutral, third-party reliable source that raises the issues you bring up." I think the only unanswered question is whether wardheernews.com, etc. meet WP:RS. I don't see that yet with wardheernews.com, but that's where you should be tying to make your case - proving that your sources meet the standards at WP:RS, including that they are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." First Light (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Tastycakes, if you actually read Middayexpress's reply on 00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC), you would have noticed his use of sources such as AllAfrica.com and NYTimes together with Somali news organisation such as Garowe Online and Wardheernews, the onus is on you to provide the exact reason why the latter two specifically are not reliable sources, just stating this as many times as possible doesn't make it fact.

Garowe Online and Wardheernews almost certainly fail the criteria for reliable source, particularly on political issues. The reasons (straight from wp:rs) are they are apparently self published, they have no reputation for fact checking or accuracy, and in some cases their material appears to be "unduly self-serving", they print as though they're the mouthpieces of local powers (which they almost certainly are, on some subjects). AllAfrica seems a more borderline case, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as a strong source (it republishes Garowe online's material, after all). You are correct: I did not read Midday citing a New York Times article supporting his allegations against Matt Bryden, or any of his other complaints. Could you please provide that link again? TastyCakes (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Firstlight, as you have may have noticed i share Midday's stand on this issue, because i have perused the report this ranking is based on myself. The report quoted websites that are considered highly biased, and have very little credibility amongst analysts, or Somalist scholars (see Midday's replies for more detail) therefore it shouldn't come as a suprise that editors knowledgable about this report's flaws are 'adamant' that the index based on this report was not added. However it is now, with a detailed explanation about the criticism + reforms in governmental institutions accompanying it. As for Wardheernews, i feel this is simply a case of not being familiar with this highly respected newsoutlet reporting for the Somali world, because in no way should i have to defend Wardheernews's credibility, accuracy and fact checking, when multiple different politicians and important figures from different walks of life already have. --Scoobycentric (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages only reports what reliable sources are reporting. The news sources that constantly report on Somalia's ranking in the Corruption Index clearly qualify. What's not so clear is wardheernews.com as a reliable source, by Misplaced Pages standards. The article that you just linked makes it even more doubtful in my mind. That's my opinion - pretty simple and very straightforward. I'll let others add their two cents, because I don't really have anything more to say than that. Peripherally, I would add that the Somalia article and talk page are full of broader issues that will probably need some mediation sooner or later—issues that probably include incivility, name-calling, nationalistic editing, WP:OWN, and WP:UNDUE. First Light (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Combatant Status Review Board transcripts

This is not really a question of the reliability of the source, but more how to cite it. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post host a number of documents released by the US government about detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The NYTimes hosts the exact same material here that the Washington Post does here, with the NYTimes site including an additional page. On Al Fand training camp these two sources are treated as though they are not the same and that they were "published" by the NYTimes and the WPost. To me this is akin to linking to the same AP story multiple times on different sites and claiming they are published by each of the places it appears. The article is currently up for AFD, so it is understandable why somebody would seek to inflate the number of sources in the article to give an impression of greater notability than is really there. In my view the publisher of this work is the Combatant Status Review Tribunal and the two sources are the same. Another editor apparently feels differently. How should this be cited and should they be treated as two separate sources? Apologies if this is an improper venue, not sure where else to ask though. nableezy - 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I ran into this at WP:ORN#Your opinion please... concerning original images. The original images and duplicate sources issues are both perplexing. In general of course there should not be duplicates: if two reliable sources publish the same document, we should choose one of them as a reference. However for the Guantanamo issue I would be inclined to use both sources because the fact that two independent publishers have chosen to carry the material lends a useful degree of credibility to the very unusual documents. Also (in some cases I looked at, not sure about the article mentioned above), the duplicates are in different formats and each has its own useful characteristics. I don't know that Al Fand training camp warrants its own article, but the material should be included somewhere since it is important. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with the articulately stated view of Johnuniq with regard to the question posed.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ComicAttack RS?

Is ComicAttack RS? It's about page: About - shows that it has staff. Though it mostly focuses on OEL comics, it does have manga and anime reviews.

Example review: here

They also release news articles for anime and manga: example

It has been mentioned by Melinda Beasi in her reviews. Beasi is RS in the anime and manga field due to writing for PopCultureShock. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Simply having staff doesn't make one a reliable source. Having a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight does. Have they been cited by other reliable sources as a source of information? "ComicAttack" doesn't appear in the google news archive at all, so the chances of that are pretty slim. I'd say no.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cited by PopShockCulture here and placed on the same level as Newsarama. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

No, it isn't cited. It's linked for an interview, they're not citing information. And who? PCS seem to be on par with comicattack. Their address is a gmail address for pete's sake. They seem to be nothing more than a group blog. Also attaching a username to your signed-out sig isn't allowed. We have no proof you're that user account. if you want to put your user account name on it, you need to sign in and sign it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, I don't see why he isn't allowed to do that? I've seen administrators doing it when working while logged out. I've done it myself as have other users. Can you point to something that shows it is against some policy? No view on whether either site is a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AnmaFinotera on the first point --KrebMarkt 09:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Has he claimed the IP with his user account? I don't see anything obvious noting that, and it's been a few days. The IP could claim any account. We have no idea that account belongs to that IP.--Crossmr (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing pattern & editing time (ANZAC time). Extremely difficult to impersonate another editor pattern especially on the interpersonal communication side with editors used to teamwork & interact with that person. --KrebMarkt 11:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue i'm inclined to give weight to Manga Recon (PCS) due to the quality of its key contributors

• Katherine Dacey former Senior Editor at PCS Manga Recon: Interview as Manga Recon Senior Editor, Manga reviewer for the School Library Journal, , panelist twice during the 2010 American Library Association Annual Conference "The Best Manga You’re Not Reading" & "Good Comics for Kids: Building a Graphic Novel Collection for Young Readers"
• Erin Finnegan creator of the PCS Manga Recon: Publisher Weekly, Shelf Life Column at Anime News Network, Reviewer for Otaku USA --KrebMarkt 09:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  Which might be fine by they still aren't citing comic attack, they're simply linking to an interview.--Crossmr (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Well you were asking also about PopCultureShock RS thus i'm replying you on that point. Reviews are pieces of PoV and i find it rather funny to tag a personal opinions reliable instead we should focus weight given to those opinions. --KrebMarkt 11:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The original question was if ComicAttack was an RS, I asked for reliable sources citing it and demonstration that it had a reputation for fact checking. The response was a group blog linking to an interview, but not citing it. Even if PCS is a reliable source, they haven't done anything for ComicAttack.--Crossmr (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon

There is (again) a battle raging over whether or not Lawrence Solomon is an Environmentalist . Would the following canadian newspaper be a reliable source to finally put this issue to rest? The Metropolitain as it does describe as such mark nutley (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I wonder - why is there a problem including the alternate, sourced PoV that he's a "free market environmentalist." It appears that you're attempting to censor one PoV because it's not yours. Hipocrite (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change your question? Please comment on content not contributor please mark nutley (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I am commenting on the content. A PoV is being censored from the content. Why? Hipocrite (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No you are commenting on me trying to censor a source. This section is to ask if the source i have presented is acceptable for use in the article, if you wish to discuss another source please do so on the article talk page or open another thread, thanks mark nutley (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of this newspaper, even though I live in Quebec where it is published. I gather it is a freebie that one can pick up about town. From the "about us" page, it "is a journal of opinion, reflection and the arts", and indeed the article in question is clearly framed as an opinion column (see the I, we statements) rather than journalism/news. It appears that The Metropolitain accepts unsolicited manuscripts, but it does have a editorial board full of names I recognize and with a background in journalism etc. So... the article would be a reliable source for the opinion of David Solway (described in our article as being known for his "polemical outspokeness") but nothing more. --Slp1 (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this source help resolve this dispute? FactCheck.org: "Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon..." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a "letter to the editor" and thus the personal opinion of one Jarrett Wampler. Not a suitable source in my view.--Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. That's what I get for trying to answer questions first thing in the morning when I'm just starting to wake up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:-) Yes, I totally understand. A strong cup of coffee is essential to get my brain cells firing in the morning too! Slp1 (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Information about small and remote communities.

One of the great things about Misplaced Pages is the drive to make sure that information is accurate and verifiable. This can present problems for information about small and remote communities. Often there are no published sources of up to date or detailed information. Should standards be lower for this kind of material or should we just accept that parts of the world that do not have newspapers should fall off the radar?

If you start making exceptions (we dont need to have reliable sources for Xtype of articles becuase they are hard to find), then it becomes then it becomes, well reliable sources are also hard to find for Ytype of articles too, so there should be an exception for them. And Ztype articles, AND QRSTUVtypes as well!

I do not see any reason that the community would decide to accept lower standards for any type of article. If there is not much in reliable sources for us to say about a particular topic, we just dont say much. Active Banana (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also if its not noticed its unlikely to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, his specific example was keeping things up to date. Notability is not temporary. Fences&Windows 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And detailed, so it mighyt be that in fact there is no notability.Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There has to be some level of sourcing, whether it's secondary, primary, or self-published by an expert. Usable sources are probably out there; dig a little deeper. Try local newspapers, government statistics, and so forth. Though, if this part of a notablity debate, consider merging an article about an isolated village into an article about the region. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Census data serves to give a backbone for most communities in the United States. Actually any country should have similar basic information, even if it is not on-line or easily accessible. There is a great temptation if the editor is familiar, lives in, or has spent some time in a remote or tiny place to engage in some original research. Bois d'Arc, Texas is an example where both I and others who are familiar with the community have added material. I see very little harm done in such instances but strictly speaking, about half of the content of the article comes from two individuals who have visited the town, myself and 67.142.171.20. No strong objection could be raised to deleting most of the article, but doing so seems a waste of time and a dis-service to our readers.

Bottom line, I'm not sure time spent identifying and deleting such information is well spent. However, there is a problem if such information is wrong. And there is no way to check. Perhaps there are 2 houses in Bois d' Arc, after all it's been twenty five years since I was there. Fred Talk 18:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Fred Talk 18:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Townhall.com a reliable source for proving opposing opinions?

I wanted to include a sentence stating that there is mainstream right wing criticism of teh Southern Poverty Law Center. I wish to use an essay published in an opinon journal as evidence of this fact The article is written by a mainstream conservative activist/personality (Matt Barber-- he has a mention in http://en.wikipedia.org/Conservapedia). The essay pretty much says the SPLC has drifted from its civil rights mission and now maligns mainstream right wing personalities.

My attempt to include this reference has been contested because townhall.com is not a reliable source. However, I am not using the article as a means to prove fact, I am using teh essay as evidence of criticism. I would also like to anticipate criticism that this is original research, but I am not sure if this is the venue. So here are my questions: can a mainstream opinion journal be used as evidence of criticism? Is it original research to include a statement acknowledging published criticism of an

I wish to include some form of the statement: The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'.

discussion of this point is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Claim_of_controversial_sources.

revision history is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&action=history Mrdthree (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's make this simpler. We could construct a template saying that someone at Townhall has viewed the subject with suspicion; we could even have a variable for the poster. We would then be able to add this to almost all articles on American politics and foreign countries - including most of the posters at Townhall, of course.

Or we could leave the opinion-blogging where we find it. The second seems simpler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say its RS for his opinions, then it just becomes a matter of determining if his opinions matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A better way of putting it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are saying I should use it in a list of particular criticisms, revolving around the radical right notion. FOr instance: Some right-wing commentators, activists, and scholars, including Ken Silverstein, Matt Barber, and Carol Swain have criticized the Southern Poverty Law Center for attacking mainstream right-wing individuals while 'unmasking' and 'keeping an eye on the radical right' Mrdthree (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Then it both fails WP:RS and as a WP:PRIMARY source you are using it to introduce WP:OR and improper WP:SYNTH. So, no it should not beused, and not in this way. Verbal chat 17:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right. Why is Matt Barber's opinion significant -- especially to be included in the lede? Who has appointed him as the spokesperson that represents the "mainstream right"? Who even says he is part of the "mainstream right" rather than the "radical right"? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Townhall.com is mainstream. It has a reasonably big readership, publishes AP, has a biweekly print journal and a mainstream publisher Salem Communications. Matt Barber is a regular columnist there ]. That said, I think your hit the main issue on the head-- mainstream and radical are vague labels and it is important to have multiple opinions when using them in wikipedia.Mrdthree (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I summarize this as a decision that it is a reliable source for the statement? Mrdthree (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No -- Matt Barber is NOT a reliable source for the statement that you have proposed which is The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'. It would be a reliable source for The SPLC is seen with suspicion by Matt Barber because he believes it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to say there is mainstream criticism, you'd have to find a mainstream source to support that statement. Isn't that rather obvious? So the answer is no. Dlabtot (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just given Mrdthree a 3RR warning. One problem is that be believes, to quote him, that "Consensus is not a Necessary feature of wikipedia policy. Truth is.". Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And that Townhall is a mainstream source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made mistakes. Very true. I correct them when people point them out. In any case, please offer an opinion on the topic when you post here. thanks. Mrdthree (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is one of original synthesis. You cannot take two or three essays, even if the source is reliable and the opinion is notable, and generalize it to say there has been much criticism or many critics. You'd really need an analysis piece to support that wording. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The alternate wording, Some right-wing commentators, activists..., X, Y, Z is better, though it belongs in a Criticism section, not in the lead. I also wouldn't consider Dr. Swain to be right-wing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is better, but the actual sources are people fingered by the subject organization, saying that they're not racists, really they aren't. Whether or not they are, this is scarcely notable, unless independent sources note it.

Prof. Swain is (according to our article) a member of Princeton's little right-wing groupie, the so-called James Madison Society, the friends of Robert George; doubtless there are little earthquakes around Montpellier in Virginia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

One further point, why doesn't that article have "praise" and "criticism" sections? That's pretty unusual for an advocacy group. The whole article has an almost promotional tone. It shouldn't be too hard to find material for either a praise or criticism section. But for criticism especially, you'd want to use generalist sources before citing specialty conservative publications. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not encourage praise and criticism sections; they collect edits like this. At the same time, any promotional tone should be removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms will presumably be of specific operations (besides the section I see on financial questions), and should be so stated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont mean to confuse things, I should have said townhall.com is mainstream right-wing, not mainstream. However, here I am interested in whether Townhall.com is a reliable source for statements such as (1) there is mainstream right wing criticism of the SPLC or (2) there is Matt Barber's criticism of the SPLC or (3) nothing. So when you weigh in, try and weigh in on one of these topics too. Mrdthree (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's reliable for number 2. Whether to include it is an editorial decsion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite so.

I regret to see that Mrdthree has declared his activities a "mission". I've mentioned WP:TIGER; perhaps he'll think again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use the noticeboard to comment about other editors. Dlabtot (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is my proposed summary: an opinion piece can be used as a reliable source to indicate that the author has criticized a specific organization and as a reliable source for the reason the author has criticized the organization. However it is a editorial decision as to whether the authors opinion is relevant to the article. Agree? Mrdthree (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for that. In any event, this discussion is not about rewriting policy. It's about who is Matt Barber and is he a reliable source for adding this sentence to the SPLC article:

The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'.

Clearly he's not and Mrdthree's latest effort to refocus this discussion away from the ACTUAL LANGUAGE PROPOSED and the ACTUAL SOURCE suggests to me that he/she also realizes that. If the intent is for this discussion to carry over into the SPLC article discussion, then the actual NEW language should be discussed here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that we are not debating content here. My understanding is that the purpose of this blog is to debate the application of WP:RS policy to a particular case. The case involves an edited, opinion magazine and an opinion. IT has been stated and I agree that a primary source opinion piece cannot be used to substantiate claims made in the opinion piece (assuming this is a primary source). However, it can be used to substantiate the claim of what someone said and who said it. Then the there are separate issues to be addressed in discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard), not relevant here: OR, SYN, and relevance/significance. Mrdthree (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Kuri-ousity RS?

Is Kuri-ousity RS? About page with staff listing

Lead editor (Lissa Pattillo) is reviewer for Anime News Network example

Shannon Fay has written for Animefringe and MangaLife - both RS by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#General

Website has been cited by Anime News Network: 1, 2-end of page, 3

I can't tell whether the reviewers are paid or not. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

AkibaBlog RS?

Is AkibaBlog RS? Used as source by Anime News Network - 1, 2, 3 211.30.103.37 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

It appears to be a standard self-published source, in this case written by a "Mr. Geek" (I assume that's not his real name). Therefore, it does not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg 00:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The English version is backed by HimeyaSoft USA:

From project discussion:

This may be one to take to the RS noticeboard for a review, mentioning that the site that comes closest to being the newspaper of record (ANN) uses it as a source. — User:Quasirandom 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

211.30.103.37 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Not sure how any of that is relevant to WP:RS. It's some guy's blog. Jayjg 01:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used

Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used as an WP:RS source for the following statement "The MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media."as done here specially and more generally as an WP:RS source for the Hockey stick controversy article and related areas? Nsaa (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cutting to the chase

Look, the book is a reliable source for some things, and not for others. It's not reliable for scientific facts - it's from an individual who believes in the minority or fringe view that the entire body of science regarding Climate Change is wrong - but I don't see anyone proposing to use it for that. It's usable for the opinion of the author on controversies in the climate-change space, as a polemic. Further, it's probably reliable for dry historical fact (On June 23, 1934, John Smith shot his dog). In the context of this discussion, the proposed use was to source "MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media." No one doubts this to be true - in fact, we have other, obviously reliable facts that say it. We can all have beliefs about why some editors want to use this source - I share those beliefs. They are not relevent.

However, the second part of this request was " more generally as an WP:RS source for the Hockey stick controversy article and related areas?" Possibly. It depends on what you'd like to use the source for. Typically, we do not use polemics as sources for disputed facts or for scientific statements. Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Your summation seems reasonable to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source is a term used on Misplaced Pages for a source that is used to verify material. Saying that a source is 'reliable' doesn't mean that we can rely on the material in it to be correct - it simply means that it meets our sourcing guideline. Our neutral point of view policy requires that on any topic, we present all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Common sense indicates that often, when significant viewpoints disagree, some of those viewpoints must be wrong. That doesn't mean the sources in which they were published are not reliable sources, as the term is used on Misplaced Pages. Dlabtot (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Using a self-published article by an academic who is not a specialist in the field

Looking for Jonitus by C.J. Verduin], an article by Kees Verduin at the Unversity of Ledien, is being used as a source for our Sons of Noah article here . My removal and addition of a cite tag has been reversed, with the claim " this is valid historiographic information". Dr Kees Verduin's home page says:

Field specific My interests lie in hypertext, databases, information management in general, graphics, and (statistics) computer applications in education and not necessarily in that order. Through my participation in the M & T education, I browse occasionally some time in the history of probability statistics and just recently with Christiaan Huygens busy. In addition, a collaboration with Iris' s Life of toemalige Safety Office of the University of Leiden a smallcommunication module to display works created

Not Field specific Besides the above interests I hold myself in my spare time also working with art-historical topics, the question of the identity of the figure GIIOHARGIIIVS an example. Other things I want to spend some attention to, are The image of Jonitus the Campanile of the Duomo in Florence.

I don't see how his self-published article can be a reliable source. I can't find it mentioned on Google Books or Google Scholar. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for claiming this is a reliable source whatsoever. The "not field specific" interests of academics should absolutely be published by a reliable publisher if we want to treat them as reliable sources here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything he researched is correct and in the historiographic sources, and this is pertinent information to the subject that should not be suppressed on a pretext of his supposed credentials. Otherwise we might have to cite Jehiel ben Solomon Heilprin and all the other historiographic sources that have written about this subject individually... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Everything he researched is correct ..." See WP:TRUTH. Your argument has no bearing on reliability, which is what this noticeboard is about. The source is not a reliable one. Move on.Griswaldo (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything he researched is correct and in the historiographic sources. Then cite the sources. This is a reasonable guide to research (he's done what we do, but without the footnote), but not a source itself; look up Michael the Syrian and cite by page number so other people can find it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly not WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

John Prescott

John Prescott said: “I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh. People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country.” here (WalesOnline) Please advise if you consider his statement to be self-identification of his nationality. If so, would it support the lead saying: "John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott (born 31 May 1938) is a Welsh former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom." Talkpage discussion here. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks to be a reliable source for that statement. Dlabtot (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors on this page might wish to be aware of the lengthy discussion at Talk:John Prescott#British. There is no dispute on that page over what Prescott has said, or over the fact that it comes from a reliable source - . The unresolved question is over appropriate balance and weight in the wording of the opening sentence of the article, together with the various meanings of the term "nationality", and the weight to be given to the essay at WP:UKNATIONALS. Those are not matters, in my view, for which this noticeboard should provide advice. Am I right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Dlabtot (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. (Is everyone always this polite here?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the statement is considered to be John Prescott's self-identification of his nationality. Daicaregos (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source - agreed. He is Welsh, and has said he is Welsh - agreed. The opening sentence should reflect the fact that he is Welsh and only that, without reference to the fact that his nationality is also British - not agreed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the venue to discuss article content. However, it is disingenuous to suggest that I am intent on stating that John Prescott is Welsh and only that, without reference to the fact that his nationality is also British. Daicaregos (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point - I withdraw that. But I was referring to the two (or three) wording options currently being discussed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. Kit Sources

I'd welcome everyone's thoughts on the following sources:

unitedkits.com historicalkits.co.uk prideofmanchester.com

Some people have raised concerns regarding the reliability of these sources because they are considered fansites. The first two in particular, however, are just the most comprehensive sources for Manchester United kit information on the internet.

Thanks, Tom (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fansites are, by their very nature, not reliable as they are not authoritative. Relying on unreliable sources simply because they are comprehensive is not a good idea. Misplaced Pages needs a variety of sources to verify information anyway, so comprehensive sources shouldn't be given any more weight than any others in general. In addition, if reliable information can be found on a fan site, it can also be found in an actual reliable source, as fan sites just regurgitate information from elsewhere. --13 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

unitedkits.com is the personal website of two United fans. historicalkits.co.uk appears to be the personal website of "Dave". prideofmanchester.com is the commercial website of Neil Jones, "Jim" and "Rob". There is no indication that any of them satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg 01:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But unitedkits.com has photographic evidence to support all of it's kits. Lets say the author of one of these sites released a book using exactly the same information, would that be reliable? Tom (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Who would the publisher be? If it was self-published, then no. If it was published by a university press, then yes. It all depends on the editorial oversight. Jayjg 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK gotcha. Thanks for comments. Tom (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Death by Government used at Mass killings under Communist regimes reported by User:OpenFuture

Page: Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Source: Death by Government, Google books, Link to chapter defining Democide

• Diff or proposed edit: R. J. Rummel coined uses the term "democide", which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder.

Comments:
Think that even if it is supported by the text (which I am not sure is clear), this falls foul of WP:SELFPUB with regards to the proposed wording (because, if he claimed a coinage, that would be self-serving even if true). We could say that he "used" the term, but not that he coined it. Also, if you have encountered objections to the use of the cite, I reckon they are probably on weight grounds rather than the reliability of the source per se.--FormerIP (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We'd need an RS that says he coined that term in that book. Selfpub and primary/OR. Also, not an RS per discussion above. Verbal chat 11:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: Think that even if it is supported by the text (which I am not sure is clear) - From the box at the top of the page: "Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder." It's obviously supported.

Verbal: You have a point, but if we change it from "coined" to "uses", would it be OK then? I'm sure it's easy to find a source to say he coined the term too, but that's hardly the point here. Who invented the term is irrelevant, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant it may not have been supported because it was not clear that the author was claiming to have coined the term. I hadn't seen the discussion above (thank you Verbal), though. Since the usability of this source seems to be heavily disputed, I would say it would be best to keep that discussion in one place. The modified statement passes RS, IMO, but it seems clear that the noteworthiness of the source in relation to the article is contested, so the edit shouldn't be made until that is resolved. --FormerIP (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been no discussion about "the noteworthiness of the source in relation to the article", so it can hardly be contested. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Scotch mist? To be honest, OpenFuture, this seems a little like asking your dad when your mum has said no. --FormerIP (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not about "the noteworthiness of the source in relation to the article". It's about if the book is a reliable source. You might want to read that discussion before you decide to insult people. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we now arguing over who coined the term Democide? R. J. Rummel, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, has compiled statistics accounting for the number of people killed worldwide by “democide,” a term he coined to describe intentional killings by governments mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, OpenFuture, I didn't mean to be insulting.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The book is the same thing as the source, I think. The discussion above does not seem to be restricted to whether it is a reliable source and I think it is pretty clear that it did not result in a consesus to use it in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the book is a reliable source, and the well reasoned arguements above proved it. I believe there was a consensus for it`s use as those arguing against used wp:idontlikeit as the only reason for it to not be reliable mark nutley (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above does not seem to be restricted to whether it is a reliable source - No, but the discussion above *should* have been restricted to whether it was a reliable source, because that's what is relevant, and what this noticeboard is about. Why does the people who don't want Rummel to be used as a source always so intent on discussing everything else than the subject? Stop going off on tangents, it's disruptive. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the issue here?

There is no source that Rummel coined the silly word (still unknown to the OED); on the other hand, this is not the place to discuss whether this irrelevant sentence belongs in any article other than the one on Rummel, and the one on the word itself. That isn't a WP:RS issue; it's an WP:ONTOPIC issue.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean apart from the one i just posted above? mark nutley (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Which post? This one? You could have put that much more succinctly: "I like Rummel and I'm going to ignore all the documented problems with his methodology."

But none of that answers either question:

• What source of any kind do you have that Rummel coined democide?
• What does that matter to the article in question? The history of words belongs on Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1. The coining issue is already over and done with. Read the rest of the discussion above.

2. Stop trying to change the subject. Why do you people always change the subject when you are cornered? What is it that is so painful with RJ Rummel being quoted once in a while? Honestly? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is, again, no answer; and a leap to a conclusion. Rummel should be cited on significant things on which he is reliable; I've cited him myself. But whether he uses an obscure and ill-formed neologism is on topic only when explaining his system. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

obscure and ill-formed neologism I think not 934 hits on google scholar and 6,570 on books mark nutley (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. A word used primarily in Rummel's own works, and solely in discussing them, is indeed obscure; and we can discuss whether it is used often when it is listed by the OED (as it is not), or if it ever achieves, say, 1% of the uses of genocide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your wrong, the majority of books are not by rummel, how many books do you think he has written? The term is far from obscure mark nutley (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I think this conversation has gone far enough; encounters by writing with somebody who has not understood what I have actually written and has not responded in English are unlikely to be productive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop this off topic discussion, both of you. This is about whether he is a reliable source for the above statement and *nothing else*. If you feel that statement shouldn't be in the article, PMAnderson, then bring that up on the talk page of that article. Stop disrupting. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your right and i am sorry, it is of course a reliable source for the edit in question mark nutley (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a primary source for the edit in question; but like much use of primary sources, the question immediately arises: if it's not of interest to secondary sources, why should we, a tertiary source, say it at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a primary source exactly what's needed for the question of how somebody defines a concept? Please note: If he is the source of the word or not, is no longer an issue, as the word "coined" is stricken from the text in my proposed quote above. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help with this source

does it fulfill the requirements for reliability?--Gniniv (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The context in which it was used was

...pointing to Shem's descendant Joktan as the direct ancestor of the East. reference: Origin of Sinitic Peoples from the Sons of Noah?

Comments:
It's a self-published, non-peer-reviews web page by a non-scholar on a scholarly subject. The author has no apparent notability and is not quoted by anyone as far as Google Scholar knows. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes there is absolutely no indication that it would be reliable. Gniniv can you please explain why you thought it might be? You should not bring clearly unreliable sources here every time someone questions them just in case. This is disruptive and a waste of time.Griswaldo (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, why didn't you go search for an academic source that this was claimed; you would have found Joseph Needham, here, with an actual history of the pun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center Blog Reliability

I wanted to add a sentence to the History section of the article on the SPLC. The sentence I wanted to include is: The SPLC maintains a blog entitled Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right. The reasons for inclusion being (1) the blog is notable work by the subject (2) the fact that the blog is directed towards a particular political orientation is notable (3) the blog/newsletter used to be called Klanwatch. The source for the title is the blog for the Southern Law Poverty Center http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ (archived copy here ). The discussion has been that media sources refer to the blog simply as Hatewatch and that the blog is not a reliable source for the subtitle see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Include_mention_of_Hatewatch_blog.. Mrdthree (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the SPLC blog http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ (archived copy here ) a reliable source for making the statement: "The SPLC maintains a blog entitled Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right." ? Mrdthree (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because according to the source you posted, that isn't the title, the title is 'Hatewatch'. It says quite clearly and explicitly: "Hatewatch is written by the staff of the Intelligence Report..." Dlabtot (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. Verbal chat 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its dispute resolution. You are saying the blog is not a reliable source for the statement but I disagree with your assessment. There is little ground to discuss after that, so I am seeking another opinion as is the purpose of the RS board. Mrdthree (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't discern any WP:RS question. Dlabtot (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the second appeal to this board on the SPLC article and there is a third one made to the Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard. On the OR referral he has already stated here that he intends to make yet another referral to this RS Noticeboard. There are no shortage of editors contributing to the SPLC discussion -- all issues can be resolved there. The last two referrals were made less than 24 hours after he initiated the proposal at the SPLC discussion page.

In this case, he misrepresents the issue which is basically one of content. The article already has this sentence, In 1981 the Center began its "Klanwatch" (now "Hatewatch") project to monitor and track the activities of the KKK, which has been expanded to include seven other types of hate organizations." The term "Hatewatch" , rather than Mrdthree's preferred longer name, is the one used overwhelmingly by reliable sources. The issue is primarily one of (1) interpretation (what is the official name of the blog --it is not clear from the single source that is subject to this referral) and (2) weight (does one source outweigh the vast majority). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom, Verbal and I are really the only ones discussing these issues. I would like another opinion. Mrdthree (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is about 48 hours old and your proposal for a vote, which led to this referral, is less than 24 ours old. Actually three other editors have contributed significantly to the section (one of them has even started a new section to propose an alternative) and two others have weighed in to basically say, based on several other POV driven discussions you have started, that there is little point in continuin to respond to you. There is plenty of interest at the SPLC board -- you just need to slow down and take one thing at a time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I summarize your position as being that the blog is not a reliable source for the proposed statement? Mrdthree (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a statement to cla rify.Mrdthree (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As the link dose not work no.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was down for maintenance or something. You can access an archived copy here http://web.archive.org/web/20080822104330/http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ Mrdthree (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again I would point out that as the link is dead you cannot use it to say they maintain a blog called Hatewatch. You might be able to say they used to maintain one, but until they are up and running again that is (at best) all you can say. Especially as this archived page appears to be two years old, hardly up to date. I would say that yes its RS for its title. .Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its back up.Mrdthree (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not really a WP:RS question, it's more a WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problem. You need reliable secondary sources that discuss this blog

1. to avoid WP:NOR, as you can't insert claims based on your interpretation of primary sources (the website), and,
2. to avoid WP:UNDUE, and to ensure the material is actually notable.

--Jayjg 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify on how its POV or OR. Do you think that I am pushing a point of view by mentioning the text on the blog, or do you think I am doing original research by claiming its a subtitle? Would it be POV/OR to say that it hosts a blog called Hatewatch (formerly Klanwatch) whose motto (headline/subtitle/subheading) is 'Keeping an eye on the radical right' ? Mrdthree (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A large part of the SPLC article is sourced to the SPLC website. Does this mean that the article is built on unreliable sources? Mrdthree (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As for relevance, no where in the history of the article is it mentioned that Hatewatch is a blog. It mentions that Hatewatch grew from Klanwatch but it does not mention that Hatewatch is currently a blog hosted by SPLC whose motto/headline/subtitle is "Keeping an eye on the radical right". The motto is important because the mission of Hatewatch is much broader than was the mission of Klanwatch. Hence additional information, provided by the subject is illuminating. Mrdthree (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you produce claims based on your analysis of the website's contents, then it's OR. If secondary sources don't discuss the blog, then it's likely not notable, and therefore discussing it would be WP:UNDUE weight. The way to avoid all this is to find reliable sources discussing the blog, and cite what they say, not your own analysis of the website's contents. Jayjg 01:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not looking to make an analysis of the website. I am trying to state what is published on teh blog by the subject. I want it to speak for itself. I am open to any fair statement that offers such a description. However what appears to be disputed is which description should be given for the text "Keeping an eye on the radical right" is it a subtitle/subheader or headline? Or do you feel that is something that cannot be resolved without introducing POV? Mrdthree (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Preisgenau.de

What appears to be a glorified blog (first mention ever on english WP) is being used by an apparently conflicted SPA editor (see user page of http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Playmobilonhishorse) to put a "controversy" on the Amazon.com article. See Talk page of Amazon.com article and recent edits to article. Input please to review. Input please on use of this "source" and whether the editor is taking a personal legal conflict into the article.(http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Amazon.com&action=historysubmit&diff=372974843&oldid=371796532)...... Cookiehead (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean http://preisgenau.de ? It does not seem to be a "glorified blog", since it seems to offer comparisons of 2 million products. Not to say that's a sufficient claim of reliability as a news source, but you're weakening your case right in your first sentence. --GRuban (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters yet again

Does this edit improve the article in question? WP:RS is the cited rationale behind it. Croctotheface (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So the question is actually whether the Media Matters for America is a reliable source in this case. It's a column by a partisan organization. I don't know much about MMfA, but I'd be wary about using that as a source in this case. Especially the first citation, which claims Chicago Tribune said something. Well, can't you use Chicago Tribune as a source there? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to just cite the source being quoted. My question is basically whether we're better off with the fact tag and no source than with the MM source. It seems like this edit makes the article worse, whereas replacing the MM source with the Tribune or with something else would likely make the article better. Croctotheface (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is a BLP. The material is not directly relevant to the person (heck, there are asides about others who are also living persons which are contentious, and for which MMFA is not a reliable source under the new standards). All of which should be excised, and not just questioned. Contentious claims require especial care in all BLPs. Collect (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the Media Matters post titled 'AP falsely claimed Obama has "delivered no policy speeches" on campaign trail' you will note that AP did no such thing. There was one article by Nedra Pickler which took that point of view. I subscribe to Media Matters and find it generally accurate, but this post is a good example of the point of view being expressed which, while not unfounded, creates a false impression. Associated Press is a cooperative, actually much like Misplaced Pages in that there are many reporters and many viewpoints being expressed and little if any central editorial control. Essentially Media Matters for America is an operation with a strong point of view, and inherently unreliable with respect to the conclusions it draws. I think it can be used to locate the articles and positions it talks about, but as it is a media monitoring operation, the media that it monitors will usually be the better source. Fred Talk 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the fourth sentence of the article, by-lined "by Nedra Pickler The Associated Press", is "He's delivered no policy speeches and provided few details about how he would lead the country.", it's odd that you would assert that the the article does not claim that Obama has "delivered no policy speeches". In other news, black is white, up is down, and freedom is slavery. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Steven L. Akins (aka Akins of that Ilk)

The article Akins is about a Scottish and Irish surname. At the beginning of the month, 97.82.45.48 (talk · contribs) / Wyvren (talk · contribs) appeared and replaced the page with a pasted text from his Myspace page of "Clan Akins Association" . The back story is that the concept of the clan originated a couple years ago with Steven L. Akins, who pretends to be the chief. Akins pretends to have a coat of arms, that shows he is a clan chief. He actually petitioned the Lord Lyon (the judge of Scotland's heraldic office) to be recognised as chief but was declined. The writer of this list of clan genealogists notes: "In November 2004 I spoke with the Lyon Clerk and Keeper of Records and was told that Akins is not recognized as Clan Chief by the Lyon Court. His application to the Lyon Court contained fraudulent information". Heraldist and genealogist Sean Murphy, who broke the MacCarthy Mor scandal, has shown Akins has faked wills, and suspects he has faked photographs of heraldic-engraved tombstones ; the only verification of these dubious engravings existence are heavily edited photos submitted to websites (like findagrave.com) by Akins himself (see Talk:Akins#Request_quotation for examples of WP:SYNTH using these photos). One of the stones is that of the man in the faked will. There was actually a story published in a Scottish tabloid about Akins attempting to plant a fake tombstone in Scotland . Murphy also shows that Akins is a plagiarist, in his dubious book on druids (Akins claims to have translated a German copy of an ancient Irish manuscript, which supposedly proves the Nazi's Aryan racial views) A review on amazon.com mentions the plagiarism as well .

Anyway, Wyvren's Myspace page was, for a time, was made of the exact same text as that from content originating from Steve Akin. I encouraged Wyvren, on his talkpage, to add sources throughout the article, and he did! However, in the few sources I've been able to double-check, I've found he constantly adds claims that do not appear in the sources, and cherry-picks what information to include-exclude (ie. that MacLysaght states that in Ulster, those of name are of English and Scottish origin, and that the name itself is derived from the English name; see Talk:Akins#Sources not adding up). I wish I could double-check all the sources he lists, because I have my doubts now. The real issue is Wyvren's illustrated heraldry (Steven Akin's 'chiefly' heraldry). All of it originates from Steven Akins, the only verification of any of it is himself, and the content he has uploaded to, and various websites with host 'family coats of arms'. I don't see any reason to take Akins seriously, or his heraldry. I'm getting fed up 'debating' with Wyvren. I've only go so much 'Wiki-time', I want to get out this article's talkpage, and actually work building other articles. But he keeps putting in information that can't be verified, all under the guise of real sources. Can someone look into this Steven Akins, and give an opinion on whether you think he is reliable for an encyclopaedia? Or whether photo-shopped findagrave photos have any bearing on anything?. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a reliable source issue, it sounds like a fundamental conflict about loads of things at once. Not sure how to handle that best. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of it sounds like primary sources, which are only allowed for straightforward statements about themselves. So a photo of a coat of arms merely shows it "exists", not that it is authorized officially as anyone's coat of arms. &c Peter jackson (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do a search on "house of names" and 'scam' you'll see a lot of criticisms. Commercial sites like House of Names and Celticstudio.com should not be used as sources. I'm busy this morning but will look at this article again later. Findagraves is dubious also. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

DVD covers

Can't recall if this has been asked but are DVD (or even video, whatever those are) covers RS for what the film is about?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable as a primary source. But I'm not sure how much useful information that you would get from a DVD cover. You should probably look for better sources, but it's certainly acceptable. BTW, if the film is a work of fiction, you're allowed to cite the film itself for it's plot as long you don't do any interpretive analysis. See WP:FILMPLOT#Plot. (If the film is not a work of fiction, I'm not sure if WP:FILMPLOT#Plot applies.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Often not, particularly with low-budget/cheapo reissue DVDs, martial arts films in particular. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would say it is reliable. It may not necessarily be right though. I would use cautiously, especially in the cases Michig cites.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this is where we need more detail. Which film is it? What does the DVD cover say? What content do you want to support using this source? Which article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

At best it's unlikely to be useful, since it won't tell you anything that cannot be found in secondary sources, and you can't do any analysis based on it. Jayjg 01:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thge LAst Battle (Luc Besson) and it says its a p;opst apoclayptic film (which is what I intend to use it as a source for). Its a quick and nasty source for now, whilst I look for sources for otehr mediSlatersteven (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

Slatersteven: How about this source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine, but this is also a more general question as the list of such films is wholey unsoucrced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Covering the race of a victim and her attackers

It seems over on 2009 Richmond High School gang rape we've got a bit of a debate going about mentioning race in an article about a rape. The reference being used is a piece from the LA Times: Sandy Banks, "Finding a deeper lesson in high school gang rape", November 07, 2009. There are two questions:

• Is the column by Sandy Banks sufficiently reliable to be used as a source for the race of the victim and her attackers?
• Given the context of the discussion in the column, is it reasonable to use it to justify including race in the article?

I'm not sure that both are really questions for here, although I believe one is. The discussion is pretty much going in circles now, so any input, in any direction, would be welcome. - Bilby (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

For greater clarity: The story ("Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue") referenced below by Richmondian, who is an "involved editor", as am I, is not about race as an issue in the crime itself, but about race as an issue in the authorities' decisions as to how much security to provide to a given school. The headline is misleading, which is no surprise. I have no information about the reliability of "Colorlines.com" as a source. To the best of my knowledge, there is no WP:RS source that concludes race was a factor in the crime. Bielle (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Are there any other sources to corroborate the races of the victim and her attackers? BTW, the author doesn't really say the racial background of the attackers. Instead, it says "her attackers were described to me by students..." That's a distinction that should not get lost in the article (assuming it should be in the article). Also, for the benefit of those reading this, the author's bio is available here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, it would be WP:UNDUE. Even when I search specifically for it, the sources generally don't mention it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WP:WEIGHT, race isn't even mentioned until the very end of that source, yet somehow is featured prominently in our article. In the lede, no less. Of course, in order to judge weight, we need to look at all the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion columns in mainstream newspapers are reliable sources for the author's opinion, and should be used with attribution. But they are not generally considered reliable for facts, certainly not in a case where the alleged facts are presented as anonymously sourced hearsay. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• We can find a better source for this statement than an opinion column where the author has to explicitly rely on hearsay from underage sources. Here, San Francisco Chronicle. "P- is the only black suspect named in the case. S- is white, and the other suspects are Latino." --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that one. :) It doesn't mention the race of the victim, though. - Bilby (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would avoid it. If race was not made an issue, there is no particular reason to mention it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The reporter seems to have interviewed witnesses to the rape, as well as having expressed an opinion. So it is typical newspaper reporting of the testimony of witnesses to the event, not hearsay. She says, "In the Richmond gang rape case, I was surprised that so many readers made race the subtext. And they took me to task for not mentioning the race of the victim or her attackers." So there must be an original report by the reporter who wrote the opinion piece which does not mention race. So she, and others made an editorial decision that race was irrelevant, which we can, or not, take as a guide. If there is a fact to be reported it is that many people assume the attack had significant racial elements instead of it being the multicultural event that it was. So, good source, but perhaps not relevant information. Fred Talk 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reliable sources don't make race was an issue in this case. And in fact the opinion column source was written in part to explain why this reporter concerned didn't think it was a useful factor to talk about when reporting on the attack. Ergo, we shouldn't doing what amounts to synthesis by mentioning something that most reliable sources, one explicitly, have determined to be irrelevant. This is most particularly true in the Lead. --Slp1 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources say the race of the victim (LA Times) and the attackers (LA Times and SF Chron). The source also says that numerous people have written in about the racial dimension. Still not enough? See "Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue" which came right to the top when I googled. Seems like that's an open-and-shut case: race IS an issue in the case and a simple mention of it is not WP:UNDUE. If there were a section labeled "Racial Dimension" that would be taking things a little bit far. I can also tell you, first hand, that the local papers bend over backwards to conceal the race of attackers. Frequently there will be a crime and the attacker will be described by height, weight, clothing, but not race. Being from the area I can also state that the school has only a handful of female white students, which definitely raises eyebrows when one of those are the victim of a vicious gang rape, hard to imagine that its just random chance that one student was chosen without regard to race. Guys, its ugly, but racism happens. Richmondian (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The opinion column is definitely out for statements of fact like this. It's fine for sourcing the reporter's opinion (in this case, her opinion that she was justified in not making race an issue in the actual news article). Also out, obviously, is a Misplaced Pages editor's personal opinion that it's "hard to imagine" race wasn't an issue. Of course there may be some other sources that do discuss/mention/make a big deal about race; how to deal with that is an editorial decision that should be made at the article at hand. It looks like the discussion is progressing.--Cúchullain /c 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

www.rn.nps.gov

The above website is used extensively in Wikipeidia. It is used in literally hundreds of articles on US buildings to cite the fact that the building is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) ... it is one of the core citations used by the NRHP project (and in many of their articles it is the only citation given in the article). The website is supposedly the front page of a NRHP database. I say "supposedly" because, unfortunately, it does not work. It may have given access to a database at one time in the past... but if so, it no longer does this. It is essentially an unsupported dead link. So can it be called a reliable source for saying that a specific building is listed by the NRHP? Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the discussion here of help to you?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please continue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#NRIS_website_will_move here (the discussion Wehwalt links to), instead. Yawn...about the repeated attempts to drum up contention... --doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the NRHP Project is aware of the problem, which is good... but that does not answer my initial question... Is the www.nr.nps.gov site reliable or not?

The site is broken (in that the search function no longer works), but it has a link to the current official site, where search does work. I would say it meets the minimum standards of reliability. Ruhrfisch _><>° 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply... so shouldn't we cite the "official site" instead? and shouldn't we go further an cite the actual page that talks about the building? To give an example... for our article on Crane Hill Masonic Lodge... rather than citing the old non-working site... or even the new search page ... shouldn't we require citation to the actual page on the building? Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For years, this has been the oficial site. As the "here" link from Wehwalt will tell you, we're trying to decide how to transition from the old official site to the new official site. It's impossible to link to individual pages on individual properties; your "the actual page on the building" link produces a message of "HTTP Status 404 - /internal/internal.jsp". FYI, the most important part of nr.nps.gov still works — our citations depend on the complete database, which can be downloaded from the Download Center that appears on that page. Finally, the old official site is quite reliable; there's no less reason to trust it than there is to trust factfinder.census.gov for official US Census Bureau data. Linkrot isn't a reason not to trust data from a website — that's why all the style guides require an access date, since information may change from day to day. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the links to actual pages (or at least skipping everything except the final click) can be generated. Here's the link to Crane Hill Masonic Lodge. I explained the link at User talk:Doncram#Querying NRHP Focus, but Doncram and I haven't been on the best of terms lately.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra, sorry I didn't comment specifically about your suggestion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings to use type of specific NPS Focus link instead of linking to the NRIS database. Honestly, in the context of what has seemed like undue negativity and personal tone in your comments about me, and given that you emphasized your own comments were driveby in nature (that you wouldn't watch the page any longer), I thot it was probably best not to respond directly. Sorry if my not commenting caused you further confusion.

But, I wouldn't recommend the specific type of NPS Focus link you suggest, to replace NRIS references generally and in that specific case. NPS Focus links like your example for Crane Hill Masonic Building might serve to document merely the fact of NRHP listing, but cannot serve to document architecture type, acreage of listing, and many other fields that we routinely get from NRIS, which are simply not available at the NPS Focus link. In the List of Masonic buildings article, NRIS (via the Elkman interface) was my source for architecture, year of construction, and other factoids supported by references to NRIS; NPS Focus was not my source and does not provide that info. And the NPS Focus link would surely frustrate readers and editors even more: it is a slow link, and it suggests that NRHP nomination documents and corresponding photosets will be available in PDF files, which is unfortunately false in most cases. In your Crane Hill example, the link gives URLs to click with false promise. Clicking only yields new reports that the files have not been digitized. Even that is false! They are digitized but just not available via the NPS Focus system; I know you know that because you have collected electronic copies. The NPS Focus site is pretty awful, frankly, and linking to it seems to me to be more unfriendly to readers than linking to NRIS. --doncram (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Focus website does list many facts found in the NRIS database. Granted more may appear in the database, but Focus clearly shows architect and year built, as well as listing date and location. Focus even tells you what the site is notable for (in Crane Hill's case, it is "Social History" and "Event"). No, it's not as great as the NRIS database, but as the site says, it will "soon" be taken down. Also, instead of making users search through a database, this performs the search already (thus the slightly longer load time) and puts the user one click away from reading information (if we use reference numbers instead of names). I'm not saying it's better than the NRIS.. just more user-friendly and more updated. Yes, it gives false links to pdfs, but over time they will be uploaded. Right now the site is lacking, but over time, I see these links as the way to go. For all we know the NRIS database could be taken down tomorrow, and we'd be screwed. It's time to look for a long-term solution and update our references. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The search page of the website is not a reliable source for anything, and never was; you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a proper citation. Individual pages on the website are reliable sources for whatever they document. To document something from the site you need to use the individual pages; for example, this and this are reliable sources showing properties that were listed, the NRHP listing numbers, and the date of listings. Jayjg 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Many featured articles use the {{GR}} series of templates, even though they're rather similar to the link we're discussing. If featured articles permit links to the search page, there's no reason that this link should be in question. The issue with the nr.nps.gov site is that it can't produce links to more direct pages, so this is the only way to use it as a reference. Both MLA and Chicago permit links of this sort when more direct links aren't viable, and if it's good enough for academia, it's good enough for us. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The website actually can produce links to more direct pages, as I showed in my previous comment, and regardless of what MLA and Chicago allow, it doesn't meet our WP:RS requirements. To repeat, you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a citation that complies with Misplaced Pages's requirements. Jayjg 03:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be an untenable and unrealistic position, Jayjg. Of course we should always require direct links when pat all possible but I'm sure that there are some reliable sources where that is impossible. Saying that a particular database is unreliable or unusable just because it has a shitty interface seems over the top. (I think this a bit analogous to citing books. We don't force people to cite page numbers which, in essence, is telling the reader to "go look it up." I would love for us to require book citations to include page numbers but that's as untenable as your stance.) ElKevbo (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but GA and FA articles, for the most part, do cite page numbers, and if they don't, they usually have a page range or a chapter cited for easy reference. Blueboar and Jay's concerns have been raised for years now (and I've raised them myself in the past with no satisfactory answer forthcoming) and nothing has been done by the NRHP project to alleviate the problem. It's time for the project to find a better solution. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A proper citation to "hard copy" certainly does include page numbers... and we have a template for situations where they are not given. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A second issue

Doncram's comments here and at Talk:List of Masonic Buildings raise another (related) issue... from what I understand, a lot of the time when information is cited to the NRHP database, what was actually relied upon was User:Elkman's "Who Has" search tool... which is used as an intermediary to query the NRHP database. This means that the editor adding the citation did not actually look at the NRHP database being cited, but at the results of Elkman's program.

Now, Elkman's program seems to do an accurate job of finding information on the NRHP database, and I would trust it to give accurate results, so I don't have a problem with editors using it as an intermediary program to query the database (despite it being hosted on a personal website) ... but I do have a problem with not including any reference to this intermediary program in the citations. I think some reference to its use should be included per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Kavkazcenter !

Hi, I know that on Wiki we should also use other sources also from another point of view BUT this is in that case ridiculous. Just read this part of an article.

About a 500 strong Mujahideen unit is fighting in different front lines and Mujahideen reinforcements are on their way to the battle zone.

Report further added, that about 38 American invaders so far have been killed or wounded, with some of enemy tanks have been destroyed, while five Mujahideen embraced martyrdom ::with another four wounded. It is to be mentioned that NATO and US have never confirm Taliban's summary of casualties of the occupation soldiers. The occupation command keeps their ::count of casualties which are several times lower than the numbers reported by the Taliban.

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2010/06/28/12257.shtml

I am for banning this source forever. It's not another point of view it's a Terrorist site without any connection to the reality. Bullshit - Islamic propaganda.

No, it's not a reliable source, per this previous discussion. Jayjg 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer!

Is there a possibility to ban this source ?

1. Barber, Matt (March 2010). "Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared "Left-Wing Hate Group"". . Retrieved 2010-07-11. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
2. ^ Template:Title=Hatewatch: unmasking the radical right. Cite error: The named reference "oldhatewatch" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. ^ Template:Title=Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right. Cite error: The named reference "hatewatch" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
4. Template:Url=http://web.archive.org/web/19981206135537/www.splcenter.org/klanwatch.html
5. Ken Silverstein. "The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance". {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |date accessed= ignored (help)
6. Barber, Matt (March 2010). "Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared "Left-Wing Hate Group"". . Retrieved 2010-07-11. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
7. Carol M Swain. "Guilt by Association: The Southern Poverty Law Center Hurls a Punch". {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |date accessed= ignored (help)
8. ist of Members of the House of Lords Uk Parliament
9. "WalesOnline - News - Wales News - John Prescott learns of incest among his Welsh ancestors". WalesOnline website. Media Wales Ltd. 2009-11-30. Retrieved 2009-12-01.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution