Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 49

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

Sources making opinions as RS's for asserting the opinion as a fact.

There is an on-going dispute at Shemale regarding whether an opinion offered in multiple but low-end sources can be stated as an unqualified fact (including in the lede). The discussion pertains to the connotations of the word "shemale." On the one hand, the term is used in multiple peer-reviewed, scientific articles both in the human and non-human animal literatures. On other other hand, there are authors of low-end sources (pop-books, advice-columns, statements from activist organizations) who opin that the term is derogatory, especially when (innaccurately) applied to postoperative transsexuals.

I am of the opinion that both uses should be included and that the RS's permit statements such as "The term has been called derogatory in some contexts" or "The term is innaccurate and often considered derogatory when applied to people who have completed sex reassignment surgery" etc. Another editor (user:Jokestress) believes that the sources are sufficient to merit the statement "The term is considered derogatory by most trans women", which is a near-verbatim statement from one of the sources, but which, in my view, is really just the opinion of the author of that source. Any input would be appreciated.

The scientific references (neutral connotation) include:

    • Shine, R., Phillips, B., & Waye, H., LeMaster, M., & Mason, R. T. (2001). Benefits of female mimicry in snakes: She-male garter snakes exploit the amorous attentions of other males to warm up. Nature, 414, 267.
    • Mason, R. T., & Crew, D. (1985). Female mimicry in garter snakes. Nature, 316, 59-60.
    • Rubenstein, D. I. (1985). Animal behaviour: The serpent's seductive scent. Nature, 316, 18-19.
    • Moore, M. C., & Lindsey, J. (1992). The physiological basis of sexual behavior in male reptiles. In C. Gans and D. Crews, Hormones, brain, and behavior: Biology of the reptilia, vol. 13, physiology E, pp. 70-113.</ref>
    • Blanchard, R. (1993). The she-male phenomenon and the concept of partial autogynephilia. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,.
    • Blanchard, R., & Collins, P. I. (1993). Men with sexual interest in transvestites, transsexuals, and she males. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181, 570–575.
    • Bailey, J. M. (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. Joesph Henry Press, ISBN 978-0309084185.
    • Dixon, D., & Dixon, J. (1998). She-male prostitutes: Who are they, what do they do, and why do they do it. In J. Elias, V. Bullough, V. Elias, & G. Brewer (Eds.), Prostitution: On whores, hustlers, and johns (pp. 260-266). New York: Prometheus.
    • Olsson, S.-E., & Möller, A. (2006). Regret after sex reassignment surgery in a male-to-female transsexual: A long-term follow-up. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 501-506.

The sources for the negative connotation include:

— James Cantor (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:James Cantor is trying to downplay the negative connotations of this term because his friends Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey use the term uncritically. He left off a few reliable sources stating this is negative, so let's put some key ones here:
  • Castañeda and Campbell: "Using the term she-male for a transsexual woman would be considered highly offensive."
  • biologist Joan Roughgarden term is "degrading and has been borrowed from the porn industry."
  • biologist Julia Serano: term is "derogatory or sensationalistic."
  • Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation: term is a "dehumanizing slur" and should not be used "except in a direct quote that reveals the bias of the person quoted."
  • sex columnist Regina Lynn: term "has nothing to do with actual transgendered people."
  • sex columnist Sasha: "Many transgendered women are offended by this categorization."
  • Ditmore (Trafficked Persons Rights Project): "...most transwomen find the term abhorrent."
Sources in article. The term has been used as a slur for all trans women for over 30 years. That's how Janice Raymond used it in her 1979 book The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male. That's where the term came to be used to trans women, and it's certainly not value-neutral in its original use (she says trans women metaphorically "rape women's bodies" by our existence). The opinion of James Cantor's friends that this is not offensive to most trans women is simply not borne out by the sources. Jokestress (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Jokestress can try to impugn my character all she wants: I have long been the one of the two of us to wear the relevant associations on the sleeve…well, on my userpage, anyway. For her to insinuate that I am the one of us trying to hide the relevant associations that we share is bizarre.
To the topic at hand: Whether the term is derogatory when used for a postop transsexual is not the issue. The issue is your use of questionable sources to overstate the opinions of their authors as facts.
Sources that are: (1) written by activists and activist-scholars writing outside their knowledge area without editorial oversight, (2) composed of only vague and informal language, (3) demonstrably incorrect with regard to other statements about the term, such as its origins, and (4) in disagreement with multiple, much higher end scholarly outlets…are not sufficiently reliable for stating their contents as lede facts instead of as the opinions of their authors.
Both uses of the term, as used in the scientific/medical literature and as preferred by some activists, merit mention, without all the excessive verbage to play out off-wiki activism and effect the social changes one seeks.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This might be more my looking for clarification than giving true opinion for now, but we'll see as I try to cough this out into words. Let's pretend this is any normal harmless article but something that would still have opposite perspectives. Almost always, we'd shove away any quotes that were at all WP:WEASEL-like, and if the quotations could not be listed without that POV twist then one would probably need another source. From the sources mentioned/briefly quoted above, it would appear some are flatly said as fact but others deliberately sound opinionated. I see "would be", "many", "most". Others are precise; "has been", "in a direct quote", "nothing". Obviously you can't use them all, or use multiple sources in the same areas without contradicting yourselves. ...Ok, now, are the actual RS status of the articles themselves being put into question, or just the content in these more limited scopes? We know that not everything in, say, an established journal can pass "reliable" if an article is under what would be seen as under academic standards if sitting anywhere else. Human rights experts, field-specific biologists and sex columnists (as given) I'll assume are going to pass a test as usable. From an encyclopedic standpoint, those speaking objectively vs subjectively might need separated sections, or all combined in one general area regardless of summary separated. At least avoid putting objective along with subjective in the same paragraphs or sections at all. That's not a complete solution, and my guess is that some sources will eventually have to be pulled because their scope as being opinion (regardless of what that opinion is) simply won't be able to fit in to an encyclopedic article, or as a stretch there could be a general catch-all section outlining extremely detailed examples of experts in the field contesting but a few words. ↓
Since this isn't as "mainstream" topic of scientific discussion and is something many around the world run away from every trying to deal with, I think examples of heavy division are more appropriate than, say, the ongoing continuous expanse of scientists with varying opinions for climate change which has forked into many articles and categories and is up in AfD in some way constantly. Everyone knows that's a contested topic and they know why; the split is so huge with so much weight that pulling apart into different articles seems at least somewhat reasonable. For this article? People know there are contested views but they probably don't know that details between experts in the field. To me, that's an informal encyclopedic mandate to account for different perspectives. ↓
It's up to the reader to make their own judgment in the end, so so long as they can do that as subjectively as possible afterward you've probably done what you could. Good luck, I know this was rather in-cohesive but I'm freewriting while thinking for the most part. I'll certainly be checking back here to see if any other insCheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I for one fail to see how Cantor's sources constitute any sort of argument against the statement in dispute, "The term is considered derogatory by most trans women". Herpetologists are not reliable sources for whether trans women consider something derogatory, nor is Blanchard. The proper sourcing for a statement like that would be publications by members of the actual trans community. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue whatever in saying that the term is derogatory when applied to transsexual women (transwomen), for whom the term is innaccurate (it disaffirms their status). (In fact, I have said so on the page several times.) None of the cites, however, says the term is derogatory when applied to pre-surgical folks who elect to retain that status. It is the over-extention of the term on WP beyond what is provided in RS's that is the problem.— James Cantor (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
How may times has this been brought up at RSN? Anyway, most of us aren't experts on the issues involved. But it doesn't seem like an extraordinary claim that some might find the word "she-male" derogatory. It at least doesn't sound very polite. I would suggest using terms such as "some" or "many" find this offensive, not "most", because to get a reference for "most" it should really have a statistical basis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Do any of the "neutral connotation" sources above explicitly state that the term is "neutral"? Or is that just a Wikipedian's assessment of how they are used in the source? Jayjg (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary indicates non-neutral connotations in its defintions of valent terms, and it includes no such indication in its entry for she-male. If you can suggest any other sources that make neutrality explicit, I'd be happy to look them up.— James Cantor (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You are continuing to miss the point. We're not looking for sources that happen not to mention that it's considered derogatory. We're not looking to infer based on those sources whether the term is or isn't considered derogatory. And we're not looking to do your research for you. Do you, James Cantor, know of any reliable sources which explicitly state that the term is not considered derogatory? If not, could you please stop continuing to push this issue long after everyone else is tired of it? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand the point entirely. You are asking for the logical equivalent of a list of people who are not suspected terrorists or if I have stopped beating my wife. That is, your question has a rhetorical rather than genuine purpose. You are free to disagree with me all you like, of course, but passive-aggression will accomplish little. As for what everyone is tired of, do you have a list of this everyone? I'd like to be sure that I do not miss the next election for who speaks for us all. Personally, when I am tired of a topic, I simply stop talking.— James Cantor (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that there are no sources stating that the term is "neutral", and a number stating explicitly that it has a negative connotation, we have no choice but to go with what the sources actually say. WP:NOR based on inferences Wikipedia editors make about how sources use a term aren't appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CAIN

Is this a reliable source: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/index.html Conflict Archive on the Internet. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

is this [[1]] (it appears to be a site about offering corporate advice, not a political analysis org) RS for the claim that "Dr Phil Edwards" is the nom-de-plume of Stuart Russell?Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You may pick better references in google]. - Altenmann >t 21:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not a reliable source for that information. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Earth (eoearth.org)

Resolved
 – Encyclopedia of Earth (eoearth.org) should not be regarded as a Reliable Source, but the articles they cite are often reliable. Those articles should be used instead. --LK (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

NOT RESOLVED Tandem editors piled in here to sway the argument and this relates directly to a conflict of interest toward mainstream by LK and CRETOG8 and The Four Deuces who can be viewed as one voice and are under discussion here for editing tactics in detriment to the project topic ban and here also in that connection. Encyclopedia of Earth is very good and reliable information. The larger point here is that the article in question is ONLY published on E.o.E. and therefore if the author and topic editor conform to r.s. values then the article is fine. The one in question does. Both the author and topic editor are academic all stars, notable, and recognized as such extensively. Examine this carefully for confirmation of that fact here, and note that a group of editors is trying to strip reliable sources because of a difference as to their pov. skip sievert (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved
 – per previous decision by User Lawrencekhoo (LK) above; eoearth.org should not not itself a reliable source and each article should be scrutinized independently. Skipsievert was the sole vocal objector and has done nothing since.
Comment: Just because one person decides something is "not resolved" does not actually mean it's actually "not resolved". Wikipedia is about consensus and not about stalling an overwhelming consensus of other editors. See WP:STICK. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
End opinion-- with no strong consensus forming to support, there is no reason not to follow Lawrencekhoo's suggestion. Consider this an AGF non-admin courtesy "close" after more than a full week of no activity. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
As Skipsievert has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for massive POV-pushing,[2] this matter can be considered closed. LK (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to gauge the reliability of the Encyclopedia of Earth, and the weight it should be given, particularly in economics articles. It's a wiki, but in theory its contributors are limited to experts, requiring approval, and its content is controlled by (likewise expert) topic editors. I've been somewhat uncomfortable with it as a source, but haven't excluded material from it yet.

One striking example is this section of an article on environmental and ecological economics. As the concluding section of an article on those topics, this is a fairly freeform bashing of mainstream economic practice. I'm not saying that the bashing is undeserved (that's a different topic). I'm saying that this matter of poor composition (both within the section and the placement of the section within the article on something different) is a bad indicator of the editorial control that goes into eoearth.

While eoearth is a wiki, the information on who added what when is hidden from public view, so it's impossible to judge if the article has been "corrupted" from some earlier state. I'll assume the topic editor has approved it in its current state.

Yes, I think you can assume that it is authored by the topic editor. If that person is a practising economist, then it could be reliable. The critique of mainstream economics that you linked to is a fairly common minority viewpont, although there are some idiosyncracies in this particular version. There should really be better stuff in textbooks on ecological economics (distinguished from environmental economics). A bit more context would be useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, something written by a 'topic editor' can be inserted into articles in that topic editor's area, essentially without review. This makes it seem like some of the articles, or some parts of them, are essentially the same as blogs. Blogs by experts in a field perhaps, but since they are unnamed, there is no way to verify. I believe that means that they fail as a reliable source. LK (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
LK, I don't think that's right. The article I linked above has as "Lead author" Robert Nadeau and as "Topic editor" Cutler J. Cleveland. (Both appear to me from those little bios to be the kind of experts we'd recognize as appropriate editors of academic journals.) As I understand it, any number of editors could edit the article, but their edits wouldn't "go live" without the topic editor's approval. So, possibly Nadeau's done most of the work on that article but if there's someone "responsible" for the article, it would be Cutler. I do gather that Cutler could do as you say, and insert material into an article under his own review, but he would still be identified as the one responsible. So I'm sorta OK with that, if I stopped there and took it at face value. The trouble for me is that there's this mess in an article, which to me clearly violates their own "commitment to objectivity" as well as simply being low-quality. That makes me think that content isn't actually being reviewed before going live, or that the standards being applied are very low. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the bit about 'unnamed' editors, but you're actually agreeing with me about the blog like nature of the site when you say that Cutler can insert material freely into articles under his own purview. This makes it similar to an academic's blog, say, Brad deLong's blog[3] from UC Berkeley (at least for those parts written by Cutler himself). LK (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree w/ cretog, it is a fair step above a blog, but well below a peer reviewed resource. Equivalent collaborative references have been established by non-profits and advocacy organizations. I don't know how many of the articles are written by subject matter experts or whether or not they are venues for advocacy, though. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I would not use these articles as sources because they are tertiary. Good secondary sources have footnotes and are reviewed by other academics. I would suggest going to the "Further Reading" section of the article,[4] and using the sources listed there. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As much as I would love to see a source for information debunking the myth of the self-regulating market I have to agree with The Four Deuces. Go to the "further reading" section of that article for sources certainly but it is not, itself, a RS. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If Encyclopedia of Earth is not a reliable source then there is no such thing as a reliable source ;). It is beautifully done, and it is peer reviewed and topic edited and the largest reliable information resource on the environment in history. See this page for more information. Economics in regard to environment is just one of many subjects published there. The Environmental Information Coalition (EIC) is comprised of a diverse group of respected scientists and educators, and the organizations, agencies, and institutions for which they work. The EIC defines the roles and responsibilities for individuals and institutions involved in the Coalition, as well as the editorial guidelines for the Encyclopedia. -------The Secretariat for the EIC is the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE), Washington D.C., USA. NCSE is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization with a reputation for objectivity, responsibility, and achievement in its promotion of a scientific basis for environmental decision-making. The Department of Geography and Environment and the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University also provide editorial support. skip sievert (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • As it doesn't suit peer-review criteria, there are actually a lot more varieties of reliable sources. Just because something calls itself an "encyclopedia" doesn't automatically grant WP:RS. Take Wikipedia itself as an example. As discussed by others there seem to be plenty of other viable sources around that could be used. Datheisen (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • there are plenty of sources debunking the myth of the self-regulating market. :P Protonk (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem with tertiary sources is that there is no way of resolving a conflict between information found in them and information found in other sources. You cannot follow the footnotes and you cannot read learned papers commenting on their contents. BTW the Encyclopedia of Earth is not "peer reviewed" and does not claim to be. It is not an academic journal. (Of course peers review the articles but that is not the same thing.) The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the rest of the site, but that section on economics is pretty slapdash. It conflates classical with marginalist with neoclassical economics, for one. Then it proceeds to complain about general equilibirum as though Arrow and Debreu's blackboard economics comprise the sum total of economic knowledge in the 20th century. There are much better (and even more strident) criticisms of neoclassical economics, namely by McClosky or Mirowski (I could name a dozen others). Protonk (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good example of why these sources should be avoided. It requires expert ability by editors to review them. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Dog doesn't eat dog. Encyclopedia of Earth is an encyclopedia and thus tertiary. Even though it has signed articles by experts which leads towards RS; the purpose is to produce a general encyclopedia, not a specialist work. Not RS: General Purpose Tertiary Source. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite comfortable with that. We can think of other tertiary sources that are reliable (e.g. the new palgrave). A source's level of analysis and distance from an event plays a role in how we might choose among sources, but it doesn't really impact how we might choose whether or not to use a source. Nothing in RS or V demands that we avoid tertiary sources (to the best of my understanding). We might be better off trying to grapple with the questions of authorship, accuracy and advocacy for this source. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel strongly about this. Palgrave is an academic press, the publishers of Encyclopedia of Earth (the EIC) aren't. Palgrave commissioned academics to produce articles on specialist topics. EIC appear to have worked up a collaborative group of people just kicking around. Palgrave aimed to produce a specialist encyclopedia aimed at the academic community. EoE is a general encyclopedia. That's the difference between RS and non RS tertiaries. (of course, RS tertiaries also must be signed, but in this case both instances are signed). An example of another RS Tertiary would be Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (for the United Kingdom), for the same reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, with respect, both the new palgrave and EoE are (relatively) specialist encyclopedias, but you are offering reasons why new palgrave would be a reliable source. Those reasons have to do with accuracy, accountability and editorial control. They don't have to do with the subject matter. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic well done information and all peer reviewed at Encyclopedia of Earth. Just an example of new articles from their RSS feed... fantastic scholarship/credentials and most interesting variety here and and the peer review is top notch. skip sievert (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) It is not "all peer reviewed". Your link shows that they reprinted an article, "Environmental factors in birth defects" that "appeared first in Environmental Health Perspectives—the peer-reviewed, open access journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences." The Four Deuces (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

How is that wrong. A peer-reviewed source decides that another peer-reviewed source meets it's standards. EHP is a reputable journal of high standards. That it is open access is a plus, if anything. o.a. does not mean reader-contributed blog. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel it is wrong (though I may disagree w/ others), but it presents a problem. A number of the articles listed contain some template at the bottom which says "some of this article has been taken from XYZ PD source". By itself that is fine but it obscures the authorship and one of the strengths Skip and others are leaning on is the status of the "topic authors" within the field. How much of the articles are effectively pass-through filters? How much of the articles are original? How does the topic author function? We don't need answers to all of these questions but I should hope we have answers to a preponderance before we declare the site to be eminently reliable. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Encyclopedia of Earth unlike Wikipedia is peer reviewed. See this page for more information. - skip sievert (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at the current DDT article, it states that some of it is copied from a PD open access source. I don't think it is peer reviewed in any sense that we consider at RS. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Even if a source has some material is deemed appropriate and we find to fit RS it does not automatically mean all contents meet standards. There is a substantial list of persons at the high end of that field listed and I've no doubt there is a lot of good information there. Since it does literally call itself a Wiki-- just a reviewed Wiki-- that means that in order to best directly qualify as reliable that their editors and peer list would have to adhere to the same WP:RS WP:N and WP:V procedures we have. There is no evidence whatsoever that is carried out. There is no way to view thoughts on articles from reviewers or look at citations in the articles. If something is copied from a PD open access source and left there, then the filtering and review process can't be that entirely deep or detailed. If it wouldn't hold up here, it wouldn't hold up somewhere that claims to hold higher standards. Really, I don't think the entire site should be disqualified, but at no time is article-specific review inappropriate. It openly admits that 2 of its 3 general information sources are original research and open content ... both of which being inappropriate here. We'd have to really narrow down what would qualify there as reliable per our guidelines by determining what content comes from the third category. Datheisen (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The standards on E.O.E. are much higher than standards on Wikipedia. No comparison really. All of their material is peer reviewed or under supervision of topic editors that have to approve any or all of what ever material goes on the site. Their information articles are published in academic journals and university publications. That is the main source of information there. The academic credentials of the topic editors is beyond question, as in notable contributors to mainstream academic thought with many leading researchers and educators being the group responsible for the information there. skip sievert (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"Main" source of information and source of "all" information are different things. As in my last comment, I'll remind that 2 of the 3 sources the organization says it uses for information are almost entirely not permitted on Wikipedia under WP:RS guidelines. Could you please address the comment by The Four Deuces above about how a specific article was copied from an open access journal? We're looking for answers and not progressively more detailed statements about the same part of one opinion. Datheisen (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You should read the Wikipedia article on peer review. Encyclopedias and textbooks are not peer-reviewed and are not criticised in academic writing. The trouble with these sources is that there is no way to resolve conflict between claims made in them and those in other sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the use of Gross Domestic Project, abbreviated GDP. If it isn't an error, I would think it deserves some mention. I've found a few sites that use the term, some of which were obvious typos, but I haven't found a site discussing the distinction, which would seem to be an important topic if the term is a legitimate one in economics. Has anyone heard the term?--SPhilbrickT 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, major flag against reliability and I feel silly I didn't spot this sooner. The article in questions is using GNP, which is a lightly-favored version of GDP. Though it does have a specific definition and is a completely usable statistic for things, the definition used in the article is completely different than any other definition I could find and is not the same as the definition used in Wikipedia's article. Honestly, that substantially raises the burgeon of reliability as a source if it's using a fringe definition at best. The fact it doesn't itself use other sources for the data and doesn't explain why it's using a different formula than the "normal" GNP tags it as original research and subject to WP:SYNTH. There needs to be other uses of GNP in this same way given to reach a consensus that what they use is an appropriate definition, as a consensus cannot be reached on only 1 suggestion. Consensus can of course change over time, but a stand-alone fringe definition which stands in contradiction to Wikipedia's normal definition and other usage in what has been proved under RS standards here is a million miles from new consensus... especially with only one editor speaking out strongly in favor of the source. Unless more information or other diverging opinions come forward that can add to this discussion, it should be closed per WP:CONSENSUS as more doubts continue to arise. Datheisen (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Some comments about GDP/GNP: The use of GDP vs. GNP is mostly an accounting concern (some countries GNP and GDP are basically the same, some countries skew one way or the other, it depends greatly on measures not captured in GDP and GNP along like expatriation and immigration/emigration). The 'commons' criticism of GDP in the linked article is a little overblown but recall that Kuznets made very similar points in his remarks to congress arguing for the use of national accounts. I suspect that author/authors of the article in question are incorrectly using GDP/GNP interchangably, but their stances on how we should measure national accounts don't make the piece an unreliable source. From an advocacy standpoint, the piece has problems, but not all sources are neutral. I still submit that the eoe is not generally a reliable source but please try to disambiguate our feelings about claims the source makes with the reliability of the source. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't suppose anyone comes and formally "closes" these threads, but based on this discussion, I'm going to work from the place that Encyclopedia of Earth is not a WP:RS. I don't agree with some of the stronger statements some have made here-for instance, I think (some) other encyclopedias are reliable sources. I had leaned toward accepting eoearth also, until recently. I think that the way they're set-up in principle could lead to a RS, it's just they haven't gotten it ironed out yet. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cretog8 your original protest was that you did not like the sentiment in the link to the article you gave. That is the gist of what is going on here not whether this E.o.E. is a reliable source... it is a reliable source by neutral standards, and a reliable source can not be voted out of usage here. Your original comment was this One striking example is this section of an article on environmental and ecological economics. As the concluding section of an article on those topics, this is a fairly freeform bashing of mainstream economic practice. end quote Cretog.
So... what is going on here? More insistence that mainstream views are good or truthful views and any thing questioning those views... even done by the Establishment via - Encyclopedia of Earth is up for tearing down? This discussion is not good. I see problems. When leading scholars of subjects are discounted by editors on Wikipedia because of differences of opinion. Not good. skip sievert (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not discounting that section (BTW you are better off pointing to some better article on eoe as the exemplar) because I disagree with it. Some of the points I agree with. I'm discounting that section because it is shoddily written and factually inaccurate. And the reasons I (and others here) are discounting eoe as a reliable source have nothing to do with that section itself. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, but I fail to see how the points I have made of who is producing this material and how it is being produced, and the quality of the scholarship and people involved... is not the first and foremost thing to be looked at. As said there is no comparison to the standards there and here, as to those standards being peer reviewed and top notch... all around. And yes I do think this is over-spill as in contesting material as regards the current debate on issues on the Econ project page. skip sievert (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Again. You keep using the words "peer reviewed". As we define it "peer review" is not a process that occurs at eoe. Second, comparing eoe to wikipedia favorably only gets you so far. Third, my point about the source and editing process is critical. If we are relying on the authority of the "topic author" to lend credence to the source, then discussion of articles which appear to have been copied in whole or in part from some other source is important. Lets say we have a topic X with some distinguished "topic author", but all articles in that topic have been copied from a government website. What happens then? Protonk (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I also don't see the (essential) difficulty of articles copied from other sources. If they are truly carefully vetted by the topic editor, then the topic editor is claiming responsibility for them (in my view), and therefore could be considered (part of) a reliable source to the extent that the topic editor is considered the sort of editor who makes for a reliable source. My use of the example snippet was to show that (in spite of my previous expectations) it appears that topic editors might not be exercising the kind of care we'd expect. I do admit that the section in question initially struck me because if its POV, but if it had been part of another, more appropriate article, I might have overlooked it. As the conclusion of an article on a very different subject it was conspicuous in its low-quality, and apparent violation of EoE's own editorial principles. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue is (for me) not articles which are copied wholesale from PD reliable sources, but articles which are copied piecemeal. Permit me to make an analogy to WP (with the obvious caveat, for the analogy hawks out there, that there are other differences between eoe and WP). We use PD sources in articles as text (sometimes as whole or parts) without direct attribution (in some cases). Where direct inline attribution does not exist, we don't know where the pd source ends and the article begins. Obvious problems crop up w/ old PD sources like the 1911 Britannica or the Catholic Encyclopedia, but new PD sources like Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships can generate errors as well, and we can't retrace those errors as well. Second, (less analogous now) if I am relying on the credentials of the topic editor to justify the reliability of a source, then the source ought to be written or supervised by the topic editor. Where that appears not to be the case, we should be concerned. In other words, the NYT is a reliable source without question. But we can't use the imprinteur of reliability from the NYT to give status to a wire report that they reprinted. We report it as coming off the wire. Same idea should apply here. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think I get it. But I still think that, in principle it's OK. I'm imagining a topic editor, let's call her Amy, who everyone would agree is an expert in the subject and is unrushed, devoting serious time to the editing duties. And she's looking to create an encyclopedia of fairly complete, noncontroversial articles. If there's material chopped from outside sources and inserted, Amy carefully vets that material in just the way she would vet original material an author adds to the article. If there's an article imported whole from another source, Amy looks over the article and accepts or rejects it based on the same criteria she would a brand-new article. Or, she doesn't approve it in the same way, but marks it as essentially, "Here's an extended quote, which is significant, but maybe would not have been approved for publication here." It seems to me we give editors (and authors) that much respect on reliable sources regularly, on to things like textbooks. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems like this should be handled on a case-by-case basis, with a bias towards not using it whenever possible. All uses of Enc. of Earth should note which version is being used (determined by last updated version). Personally I doubt I'll ever use it, and the lack of a permanent link like we have for Wikipedia articles is troubling (unless I'm missing something). Seems like this shouldn't be used until there's stable hyperlinks and more transparency. See below. II | (t - c) 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to know how to do this on a case-by-case basis. I understand a main goal of identifying reliable sources is so that they one doesn't have to judge case-by-case. I'm sure there are ways to argue case-by-case (I've just made the argument about an NYT piece being a RS because it's not being used to source significant theory), but that's certainly tricky. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The intro to this page says this:

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

This is generally a place to solicit more attention to a particular use, not necessarily to broadly paint sources as "always reliable" and others as "always not reliable". But yeah, in general I think this particular source should be always avoided, because it's too mutable. II | (t - c) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That blurb describes a likely outcome of the process. It would certainly be desirable to give a solid up/down for any source, but some sources (like this one) may simple have too much internal variation to declare it to be reliable. That said, Cretog's point deserves some time. while RSN could make case by case declarations, the idea is that we save some effort and make as broad a claim as possible given the appropriate info. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
So, is it a reasonable read from this discussion that we can treat eoearth as a non-RS, unless a more specific context is brought here for discussion and the consensus is that it's a RS in that context. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I think us 3 are pretty much on the same page with this. It's not that the content is necessarily going to be unreliable, but it's not guaranteed to stay the same. If Robert Costanza writes on article on the ecosystem's valuation, sure, it's reliable (he led a study on that which was published in Nature), but we don't know how it will change or whether he wrote the whole thing. Maybe Skip can nudge the EoE to be more transparent and provide stable hyperlinks, but even then, the wiki model is probably too uncertain. II | (t - c) 00:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Whether there is consensus and what the consensus is has become a matter of practical debate here. Comments are welcome. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your own knowledge may not include knowledge of people in an article like this that wrote and topic ok'd it as it being peer reviewed Lead Author: Cutler J. Cleveland (other articles)

Article Topics: Energy and Ecological economics This article has been reviewed and approved by the following Topic Editor: Robert Costanza (other articles) Last Updated: August 22, 2008 Net Energy Anaysis, look at who wrote it and verified it. skip sievert (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Online dictionaries: http://www.wordwebonline.com and http://www.etymonline.com

I am editing Shemale, which is a slang term usually used for male-to-female transsexuals who have not yet completed surgery. There is some debate regarding the connotations of the term. (Talk page discussions available here and here.)

Several of the cites are definitions provided by online dictionaries, and it is not clear to me which (if any) of these are RS's. Wordwebonline.com, for example, accepts "corrections" to its entries as submitted by its users rather than by linguists or other experts. The autobiography of the author of www.etymonline.com suggests credibility, but I have no other knowledge of him, his work, or his reliability.

Any input would be appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it A Wiki (and this sounds like a dictionwiki) is not RS, as it can be edited by anyone and as such may never say the same thing two edits in a row.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Having now loked at the site in question ( a link would have been nice) [[5]] it is not a wiki. You submit errors [[6]] it looks like it is not automaticly changed. Now the only question is how are these submisions used, there is no information that I can fiind on the site. So the obvious question is does its definition differ from otehrs?Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ay, therein lies the rub. The debate at Shemale regards whether or when the term is derogatory, and the sources differ on this point. Because the page should match the range of definitions that occur among RS's, we need some uninvolved opinions about whether http://www.wordwebonline.com and http://www.etymonline.com are RS's and (therefore) how much (if any) their contents should be reflected on the page to avoid WP:UNDUE. To evaluate their status as RS's on the basis of whether they agree with each other would spoil the point. (Just for the record, I am of the opinion that both the neutral and negative associations should be provided, and other editors are saying much more extreme things like 'almost all transwomen find the term abhorrent'.)
My apologies regarding including the links in my initial question. Although I included the links in the section's header, I did not include them in the text of my question.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: did anyone use established paper dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary before asking online opinions? Jim101 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
No, no one had yet mentioned any established dictionaries, although I have added cites to research articles regarding the term as used by scientists (neutral in valence). The OED online entry reads:
[13.] she-male, (b) slang, a passive male homosexual or transvestite.
1983 L. R. N. ASHLEY in Maledicta 1982 VI. 144 Gays use shemale for faggot. 1984 Sunday Times (S. Afr.) Mag. 11 Nov. 14/3 And the cause of Marilyn's misery? Well it appears he has been finally ditched by George in favour of another shemale called Gemma.
Although the OED does not give any of its usual messages about negative connotations, the negative defintions would still merit mention if they appeared in RS's that disagree with the OED. So, I think my question remains: Are http://www.wordwebonline.com and http://www.etymonline.com RS's for this kind of issue?
— James Cantor (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, the source you choose is a bit gray, and the question you asked may be outside the scope of just simple word definition. The way I see it, you are asking a complex sociology-linguistics question and trying to back it up with online dictionary. May I suggest that you move on to a higher quality sources and consult the professors at the Department of Anthropology. Jim101 (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Etymonline is pretty good. I'm not familiar with WordWebOnline. I am aware that there's some sort of war over word meanings in the transsexual community, so this might require a specialized source that discusses in depth the difference in word usage. I would take editors' claims that a word always means one thing with a grain of salt. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WordWebOnline gives no indication of editorial oversight. Etymonline is the personal website of Douglas Harper, who is not a recognized expert in the field (his area of expertise is history, not the English language). Neither qualifies as a WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A historian of U.S. history should be reliable for the usage of the term in the Davy Crockett quote. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No, not really. History and etymology are different disciplines. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, this isn't tracing the linguistic features of the word back to ancient Sanskrit, he's being quoted on popular usage of the word in early America. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a WP:SPS, and the author is not writing in his area of expertise. There's little more to say on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Whatever Davy Crockett might have thought of she-males is a better question for a historian than a linguist. As far as other places in the WP where Etymonline is used for etymology, it's a pretty powerful resource and I'd be loath to deem it unreliable. Fortunately, Harper's website seems to be earning a repuation as an etymology resource as well. SPS says widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources are a good indicator of reliability, and there's many instances of that in Google Books,[7] Google News Archive,[8] Google Scholar,[9] and from .edu domains.[10] Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It may be powerful, and seems well-written. There a lots and lots of powerful, seemingly well-written, self-published sources out there. Wikipedia itself gets plenty of Google books, scholar, etc. hits. Nevertheless, they can only be accepted as sources if they comply with Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider tracking down that issue of Maledicta cited by the OED. It's likely to be a useful citation for connotations at that date.

My own take, FWIW: it's a term that is rarely used outside of sex work and, as a result of that, most transsexuals other than sex workers find the connotation negative. - Jmabel | Talk 02:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Understandably so. Folks who sacrifice so much to bring their anatomy into line with their identity wouldn't want to be refered to as still not having achieved their goal. It's the folks who want specifically to retain their penis while seeming feminine otherwise that would accurately be called she-male (as done in the bio and medical literatures).
I'm not sure that frequency of mention in porn is a helpful metric, however. The amount of porn published (especially on the Internet) so entirely dwarfes the amount of scholarly literature on sex that everything sexual on WP would wind up summary of porn content. (Of course, it does merits mention in articles, however.)
— James Cantor (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A dictionary, like an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. Reliable or not, Wikipedia uses secondary sources. Check the references or footnotes in the dictionary to find some. The OED, mentioned above, is an excellent source of secondary and primary sources.--otherlleft 13:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel

Does The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel meet Wikipedia's reliability standards?--Pink Bull (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

At first glance I would say so - though it seems to have a somewhat unusual funding model, there's no obvious reason to see it as any less reliable than any other professional publication. Barnabypage (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You have to ask two questions
(a) who writes articles there? - I don't know.(b) Can you write a wikipedia sricle about the magazine? - I doubt; google search: "Metropolitan Corporate Counsel is" -site:metrocorpcounsel.com. - Altenmann >t 05:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be as reliable as any journal or periodical published by a professional body, association or union (e.g. the AMA, the CFA Institute, the AFL-CIO). From their FAQ: "MCC receives financial and editorial contributions primarily from law firms and service providers." They have a conflict of interest for statements that directly affect law firms, lawyers and corporate counsels, but should be reliable for statements that don't involve a conflict of interest. If in doubt attribute the source of the statements in-line. LK (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

First World War

Is http://www.firstworldwar.com considered a reliable source? ResMar 01:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not peer-reviewed or academic writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
...Fuck, not the answer I was expecting. Um, can you direct me to a good online WW1 encyclopedia then? ResMar 02:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You know already where to ask: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Also Talk:World War I. - Altenmann >t 05:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You might also want to inform yourself about reliability in relation to Tertiary sources (ie: encyclopedia). Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Our guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source does not require peer review. The importance is that it must have an editorial process. I have no idea if the site qualifies. Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source for what is always the question? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A word of caution however; this is by no means an academic website. It's authored as spare time permits and is geared towards a general rather than scholarly readership. Given this, it is not recommended that this site be used for academic reference purposes for school or university papers from http://www.firstworldwar.com/about.htm If you want to use content on this site, you might do well to ask the editor for his sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For history articles let's continue to set the sourcing bar high and require peer reviewed books or papers by historians. In my experience, the Military History project is one of the best on the encyclopedia and can always help with sourcing. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, the problem isn't that I can't substitute, it's that you guys gave me a negative answer but no positive source, and I don't have any text resources. This is why I never really worked Mihist articles in the first place...and now I have to completely rewrite two days of work...sighResMar 13:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Whale Wars, Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and self published information

Paul Watson is the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the adventures of that group is documented in Whale Wars on Animal Planet. I found this self published article on the Sea Shepard website written by Paul Watson about his views on some criticism the group, show and he took from South Park creators. According to WP:SELFPUB it is alright to use this for his personal biography but does that also apply to the Whale Wars documentary of his life or the article on his organization? IMO it does. Alatari (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to use material published by an advocacy group - carefully attributed - to show how it has responded to criticism. But that article on Whale Wars! Again, you probably could use an article by Watson to show how SSCS responded to criticism of the series. First, though, all the cruft needs to be cleaned out and the article rearranged in order to foreground what independent sources have said about the series. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The first bullet point is "the material is not unduly self-serving." The fourth bullet point is "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." The information at their site obviously iss self serving and Watson's books + independent sources discuss that Watson manipulates the media and how he is proud of it. A cartoon made fun of them. We don't need to give it extra weight by adding in a long rebuttal and we certainly do not need to link to a site that attempts to manipulate its readers and has possible inaccurate information. The cartoon men were bad. Period.Cptnono (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The cartoon critique of Watson and SSCS was so scathing that a small rebuttal line could be allowed. The fishing industry (FIS) organization took that South Park critique and rolled with it (I made sure that was sourced) so to balance the NPOV, I thought a rebuttal was in order. Alatari (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The answr isn't forcing balance. The issue is finding RS to provide commentary or reworking the already existing prose if it is scathing.Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not prose; it's a direct quote and pretty nasty one at that. Removing a direct, notable quote, no matter how nasty, isn't called for. It's WP:COI for him or his staff to edit the article with a comment and I was trying to offer a NPOV. Alatari (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like it's a weight thing rather than a source thing. If you want to simply state that a rebuttal then the SSCS website would be an appropriate source. That warning about self-serving - we don't want to get into a huge debate about unduly because obviously any advocacy group's website is going to serve its aims. Just ensure that if you do refer to the SSCS website you attribute properly and don't include too much from SSCS when it looks like the TV series was really panned in the serious press. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

GlobalBeauties.com

Just looking for some opinions on whether GlobalBeauties.com is reliable, as many articles on beauty pageant contestants rely solely on this site to establish notability and verify content.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. They seem to cited a bit by other sources: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=globalbeauties&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=global-beauties&ned=us&as_user_ldate=&as_user_hdate=&lr=lang_en&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
They seem to be considered more reliable by news sources in non US or UK countries. They do seem to have some sort of editorial staff.[11] Their editor is Henrique Fontes, executive director of Miss World Brazil.http://www. postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=118&num=202527 I would say that yes, they are reliable for beauty pageant info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this YouTube video an RS?

Is this YouTube video a reliable source to support an edit indicating the Pittsburgh Steelers may go to the Los Angeles Stadium? If not, which policy would this fall under as WP:RS does not appear to specify YouTube? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not. YouTube does not "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - in fact, it performs no fact-checking at all. It's essentially like a free video blog. See WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS states: However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet.
It would help to include in the footnote how many minutes/second the relevant info is in the audio. (Note: this was published on the producer's website so there are no copyright issues.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure. But to qualify, there would need to be a proper attribution of when or where this was originally broadcasted, and by whom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
CLick on the video and you get to the youtube page which has following info: wlunews, April 24, 2009, Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League, was featured in a panel discussion on leadership and sports at Washington and Lee University on April 21, 2009. A link to full screen mode obviously is not the best one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I say source the producer's website, not the YouTube video. Make sure to include a retrieved date. YouTube is not a reliable source. As an example, I've seen videos promoting Rollercoaster Tycoon 4, which in fact does not exist; it uses pictures from RCT3 as a sham promotion. CycloneGU (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
You have to be careful of copyvios on youtube, which prevent us from linking to them. In this case, it looks OK. It's not really a news story or whatever, so it's basically reliable under WP:SPS. The NFL commissioner is definitely an expert on this subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of times when Youtube is not reliable because of use of copyrighted material, including material that might be tampered with. And if a Producer has it on their regular web site as well as Youtube, then obviously use the latter. But if the producer only makes it available on Youtube it's ok to use. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone actually verified that there is anything on this lengthy Youtube video that actually supports the proposition that the Steelers are a candidate to move to L.A.? What are the actual words that Goodell is supposed to have said? I ask because several previously offered sources for this edit seem not to have supported the proposition.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Following up on the above, I did my bit for the project by sitting through this hour-long video (actually quite interesting in parts) and I didn't hear anything that related to the notion that the Steelers are candidates to move to Los Angeles. I am inclined to think a video like this could be RS in the right circumstances, but unless I just missed something in the viewing, I would be inclined to delete it here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Afrosquad Interviews

Along the same lines as the ErosZine request above, I would like to see if quotations from this website can be used in BLP. Also, does the introduction (article about the interviewee) meet RS guidelines? See Afd discussion for more information. -Stillwaterising (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, it is not reliable... I find no "about us" information that indcates who runs the site or why we should consider it anything more than a personal website. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It may not have what you are looking for but this is the best I could find. Since the author said this was an email interview, if I could obtain the original email could that be used for quotes? -Stillwaterising (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I wrote that history. It was just meant to tell the fictional story of the Afro-Squad. If you would like any real information about the authors or website, please contact me at afrosquad@afro-squad.com. The interviews are legitimate.Ninjapimp69 (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That page simply reinforces my view that we are dealing with a personal website, which is not a reliable source. Sorry to disappoint. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Blueboar... Though they are to be commended for the ridiculously strange variety of photoshopped images. "The Complete Index of NinjaPimp Infro-mation" just doesn't seem like it'll work out for Wikipedia use. There's no actual contact info which is never particularly helpful, and the only places on that website that send you elsewhere are to self-promotional social networking we're quite fussy about excluding. Oh and that's just regarding sources. ...Alright, I admit I'm stumped on how to keep this sounding as serious. I also have no idea under what category I'd object to notability under. Um... WP:DUCK? That statistical graph on the second link might inform me that pink "KrazyMan" has a maximum funk level, but with no citation? Can't help. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I need to source his funkiness. If I get a quote from James Brown, will that help? (just kidding)Ninjapimp69 (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems SPS. Nothing about an editorial staff, even a volunteer one. Was able to find this article in the Arizona Star, "Afro Squad is a funky, righteous site"[12], but that's about it. You'd have to make a case to have it in the article at all, especially for a BLP, never mind using it to establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I am the owner of Afro-Squad.com. I also own Wrestling911.com. I am the primary contributor, but others help as well. Jordi Scrubbings has done a few interviews. He owns theserioustip.com. The news articles are somewhat like Weekly World News, so I am sure that hurts our credibility. As for the interviews, I just sent an e-mail to the people I interviewed and then I posted their replies. E-Mail me from user page. I had some spam issues, so I quit putting e-mail addresses on the site. You guys had some fun responses. Let me know what you want up there, and I can try to help. Heather and I e-mailed back and forth a bit, back in the day. I have a list of interviews on the main page.Ninjapimp69 (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Fun responses perhaps, but also normal legitimate normal concerns regarding Wikipedia policy that you'd have to correct before it seems we could view it any differnetly. Sorry. Well, you do have about 5 days left before this is likely to be closed if you'd like to make a very large effort. I'm going to still go with my original statement of WP:DUCK, since if a homepage can't even find anything in press to flatter itself then it probably doesn't exist at all. Could say this candidate is a website version of WP:GARAGE. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. What are you guys looking for to make the interviews a legitimate reference? If I have that, or can produce it, I will. If I don't, I won't.Ninjapimp69 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
About all you could do is try to get the interviews published in a reliable source. The problem isn't the interviews themselves, but where they are published. Your websites are not considered reliable sources by our standards. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If the Arizona Star article said they had a great reputation for interviews, there might be some wiggle room. But sourcing is stricter for biographies; we really want to see that there's an editorial board. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a WP:SPS. It does not meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

Graemedavis (talk · contribs) is the author of Exploring Beedle The Bard (ISBN 1934840793). The user came to the Beedle the Bard talk page and asked to have his book included in the article on several grounds, including that his book being released eight days after is significant, and also that not including "what is still the sole book of literary criticism on the subject" is making the article non-NPOV. In full disclosure, Graemedavis has made no edits to the article itself and has kept it only to the talk page.

The thing is, I really don't believe that his book warrants inclusion in the article. He has repeatedly stated that his book came out eight days after Beedle the Bard did, and he believes that that merits being noted in the article. Seems to me that adding that would only being using the article for promotional purposes. The book fails the WP:BK criteria - the book hasn't been mentioned in any secondary places, it hasn't been peer reviewed, and it just doesn't seem like it should be used for anything. The book is published by Nimble Books, who, according to their site, specializes in crowd-sourced book. Davis commented that his book isn't crowdsourced and that they are a reputable publisher, but I can't find any secondary information on them, and they seem to be little more than a vanity press.

In full disclosure, I asked Graemedavis to make some recommendations on how to have his book included in the article, and he did. But all of his recommendations seem to be attempts to get his book mentioned in the article. The user opened a MedCab case for this issue without going through the other usual channels of DR, but I've been looking at alternatives before heading into a case. I took this issue to WP:COIN first since it seemed like it could fall under their jurisdiction, but this seems to be the better place for it.

So I guess the question here is: should this book be considered a reliable source? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing the summary presented above. This issue is presently adopted within a MedCab discussion, though it was agreed to try again on the Beedle the Bard talk page. I'm not at all sure this is an appropriate place to be discussing a topic which has wider ramifications.
However ... Nimble Books LLC is not a vanity press. It is a trade/commercial press which specialises in quick to print books typically on political or media events (hence its name). Books by Nimble Books LLC have been cited by dozens of articles on Wikipedia (and indeed this book on the Spanish Wikipedia). My book "Exploring Beedle the Bard" pays a royalty. It is of a piece with countless book sources cited on articles throughout Wikipedia. There have been numerous efforts to exclude the book on notability criteria (though these apply to articles not sources). It would also be possible to look at the specific book and author (me) as a reliable source. For example this book can be seen in context with other books I have written at http://www.amazon.com/Graeme-Davis/e/B001JP16LM/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 Graemedavis (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "dozens" you're talking about; I'm only finding 13 places where Nimble is referenced, and of those only one or two actually use any Nimble books as actual refs. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
For starters here's a few articles on Wikipedia which mentions books published by Nimble Books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hawaii_(CB-3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter_(SSN-23)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Feast_for_Crows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington_class_battlecruiser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dillon_Burroughs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_Escobar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Curtis_(broadcaster)
This discussion has become a dialogue. I think this should be on the MedCab page including wider issues. Graemedavis (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just bumping this thread. Can someone give their thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BOOKSPAM. The question to be asked in that context is not whether Davis' book is a published book about the topic (obviously it is), but what actual content in the article can be sourced to it that cannot be sourced to the other references that were already included. What unique value does it add to our article? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Huh, I didn't know that we had that that policy. Having not read the book, I can't actually say what could be taken from the book and used in the article; we'd have to rely on Graemedavis to do that - and that's almost certainly an unacceptable solution. He's stated that his book mentions plot holes, "the uneven literary quality of the tales, their suitability for children[...], the literary sources and parallels of each of the tales, the moral points they are making, and lots more." But adding in that sort of text and sourcing all of it to one reference would seem to be putting undue weight on his book, and it would probably border on WP:TRIVIA.
The rest of the article is well sourced - it was promoted to a good article status. In looking at some of the FA-class novel articles, I don't see any sections about literary criticism, and it doesn't seem like something that's really done for contemporary novels. Assuming we toss out the criticism part of Davis' book, there isn't much left aside from his book being released eight days after Bard was. And that's a violation of bookspam to me. So to answer your question, then, I don't see a whole lot of unique value in adding his book. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
"Unique value" can certainly be discussed, but I think we need this back on the MedCab thread with a view to getting a way forward with the issue in the round. Graemedavis (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This might be stating the obvious, but the way this needs to be looked at is if the proposed reference to the book had been contributed by an independent editor, me for example, would it have the necessary level of content per policy? I think the author should avoid further discussion for a period, rather than trying to influence it (which is the way it comes over – true or not). He has made his points, has not directly contribute to the article, all of which is good. It’s now beginning to look a little too much like lobbying. Proposed content must be decided on policy. Leaky Caldron 11:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.. I guess it depends on how much the editor added. If it was paragraphs of analysis taken from the book, I would have called it out on its weight. If it was adding in little tidbits about plot holes into the plot section or eleswhere, I would have asked about trivia and the need to include that sort of thing. If it was a sentence calling the book a "considerable achievement", I would have questioned that on its inclusion at all, since that doesn't really mean anything.
Part of the problem is that, if the author avoids further discussion, then it ends. It's really just me and him at this point, which is why we've looked at outside help. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi Leaky_caldron and everyone, I will be thrilled if I can back out of this debate. I think we've established that the book "Exploring Beedle the Bard" is a source which could be cited to support a reference on the article. I've outlined some of the areas where this could be done - and there are lots more, especially around literary sources and the whole area of Dumbledore's Notes (almost half of "The Tales of Beedle the Bard" but scarcely mentioned in the article). It would be great if an editor who is neutral on the issue could have a look at "Exploring Beedle the Bard" and see what and where citations or material could be added so that the article reflects in a neutral manner all the published views on "The Tales of Beedle the Bard", including this book. Annyong is surely right that undue weight and trivia both need to be avoided - there is a path between the two. This is why it needs an independent editor, and if this can be done I will be very happy to have no more to say on the issue. Right now a good chunk of the book is available as a Google preview, so access is easy. Graemedavis (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it a big deal that there hasn't been anyone but Annyong responding to Grammedavis's (presumably un-self-aware) self-promotion? I've been eying the discussion with distaste for some time, and basically agree with HelloAnnyong's position. --Pi zero (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Anakinjmt is also semi-involved in this discussion, and they are also in agreement with me (and yourself). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Judging from http://www.nimblebooks.com/ it's a WP:SPS. Unless the author is a published (elsewhere) expert, then it's not notable enough to include, or an RS. "Nimble Books is an innovative and, frankly, idiosyncratic independent publisher that focuses on publishing timely, colorful, thought-provoking and concise books on a variety of topics that are of interest to, well, me. The business model is nimble, too: no fees to the author (ever), no inventory, no advances, no returns, better royalties." It sounds like print on demand, mostly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been a regular watcher of the page and been fairly active in the discussions. I hadn't been able to comment in the past few days due to real life taking a demand. My single issue has been "Has this book been peer-reviewed?" Have there been reviews posted of this book giving credibility to the content within? Reviews from New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, and other sources of book review. I could write a book analyzing Beedle the Bard, but if it wasn't reviewed by reliable third-party sources I wouldn't say that my book was credible enough to be used. It has never been about the content of the book but the credibility. We don't even need to cite the book's credibility on the article page itself. Simply showing it in the talk page would suffice for me. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've found this discussion through the talk page of Beedle the Bard. I have to agree with HelloAnnyong too. (Side note: I have to say for the record that Graemedavis has been remarkably cool-headed and civil of late; not editing the article itself goes a long way.) I have to agree with Anakinjmt that peer review is the stumbling block for me; the fact that the book was published only eight days after Beedle argues, if anything, against the reliability of Davis's book as a Wikipedia source. There simply was no time to have a peer review before publishing, so it's not a great source for our article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought I was going to be quiet about this one but maybe this actually helps. My interest in this whole issue is around how the Wikipedia systems respond when someone is straightforward and tells Wikipedia the truth. What usually happens when a book is published (on just about anything) is that the authors' friends and colleagues edit Wikipedia articles and reference the book in (with or without the author's knowledge). Then the marketers for the publishers often wade in - particularly in the case of the big publishing houses. These marketers are employed by the publisher not the author, are often part-time and often paid by the job or even by results. All this breaches Wikipedia guidelines and all in all isn't very nice (and I don't do it and I don't want it done for me). With this book (and one other) I've tried talking to Wikipedia on the appropriate talk page. I can tell you it hasn't been a very nice experience. At a quick count we are now into double figures on the number of policies that have been invoked as a possible reason to exclude this book in all circumstances. I think the only one we are left with as a possible is RS. It is now getting exceptionally thorough treatment under the heading of Reliable sources, the sort of treatment that the mass of sources just don't get. Had Wikipedia guidelines been broken (by friend, colleague, publisher's marketer or anyone else) it is most unlikely this book would have got anything like the attention it has received - look at the (much lower) reliability of sources frequently used throughout Wikipedia, including those that were until very recently on "The Tales of Beedle the Bard" page. At the moment I'm looking at the idea that I am an absolute fool to try to be straightforward with Wikipedia - rather in the future I should just sit back in the knowledge that someone else will breach Wikipedia guidelines. Actually I don't like this, which I suppose is why I'm still bashing on about it. The Reliable sources issue is ultimately a judgment call, not something which is absolutely crystal clear, and in a perfect world would be made by someone who does not have the baggage of this discussion. If people are interested in the background I can point out that the editor of "Exploring Beedle the Bard" is a Harry Potter specialist - the writing and editing were done in tandem. The book was possible because both author and editor could schedule time at the same week. Yes the book is up for academic review as a work of lit crit on children's literature. It will get there, but the academic world takes months to write anything then journals in this area take upwards of a year to actually publish. Graemedavis (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The bookspam you describe happens more often than it should, but it's by no means the norm. Take a sample from "random articles" if you want to check that. Yes, the use of your book is getting more attention than most sources do, but that's because Harry Potter articles are high profile. The bottom line for me is that you are not really an academic "in the field", i.e. you don't have a background in criticism of present-day children's literature, and this particular book of yours is not with an academic publisher. That's in contrast to your earlier work, which might well be reliable for articles on Anglo-Saxon English. I'm sure you do know that there's a line between scholarship and popular writing, and if you're honest with yourself you know which side of the line Exploring falls. Sorry not to be able to support you on this. Why not keep editing articles in which you don't have a direct interest, as you have expertise that would be valuable? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Itsmejudith an interesting post. We seem to be perilously close to the idea that bookspam works but being honest with Wikipedia doesn't. I haven't edited The Tales of Beedle the Bard page in any way as that would be a Conflict of Interest. Somewhere in the COI guideline is the idea that editors who have COI should post to the talk page of the article, which is what I have done (recently and last December). This is supposed to start a polite discussion with a view to making the right decision for the article - yet on both occasions it has unleashed what feels like a lynch mob. Yes I know Wikipedia is not for the thin-skinned, but there has to be something fundamentally wrong here. As an aside Nimble Books is a popular publisher, but that doesn't preclude academic quality or scholarly merit. Graemedavis (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I recall seeing that once upon a time, probably in the COI guideline as you say. I think it can work, depending on how one goes about it. Make a simple, factual post on the article's talk page, as a new thread (so it's completely up-front), stating that the book exists and you are the author. Other objective information about the book, as relevant. No request for its use, let along lobbying for its use. Answer questions about it if you are asked, remembering not to request or lobby. With the right tone, there should be no unpleasantness generated by it. And then, without unpleasantness, other editors will choose either to use your book in the article, or not to, either of which is a successful outcome if it's what's best for the article. That's a long-term strategy for you, rather than a short-term one, to measure success by what's best for the article rather than by whether or not your book gets mentioned. Thinking in terms of asking to have your book mentioned only generates friction, without increasing the likelihood that your book will, in fact, be used. I don't seem to be able to lay my hands right now on my copy of The Selfish Gene, but I distinctly recall there being a chapter in it called "Nice Guys Finish First" about why it can be in the selfish interest of genes to play fair.
By the way, you mention the large number of policies that have been mentioned as reasons for not including your book in the article. That's an illusion. At first view, from the outside as it were, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines may appear to be a miscellany of independent blocks, but it's possible, after some time working within them, to develop an intuitive sense of the coherent whole that they belong to (but aren't the entirety of; not to downplay the policies and guidelines, but to some extent they are just the syntax used to frame discussion). --Pi zero (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy break

Are you one of Graeme Davis? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Graemedavis is Graeme Davis - I tried to use a username that is just about my real name but it has been less transparent than I thought. And an interesting post Pi zero. After this experience I will be very reluctant to try a COI post on a talk page again. The absurdity is that with most publishers (not as it happens Nimble Books) a publisher's marketer "bookspammer" will come along and make a posting in a few weeks' time anyway, and I don't like this system at all. But I guess I have to live with it - its not me doing the bookspamming though I know it happens. In theory Wikipedia has a system to declare COI on a talk page and for a discussion to take place without unpleasantness - my experience here has been that this isn't working properly or even at all. The friction a COI message posted on a talk page generates (just by being posted) seems so great that the matter is already decided simply by the act of making the posting. Looking at the Beedle the Bard talk page right now it seems pretty clear that the community have decided that they don't want to use the book (though we are back to the red herring of notability and false assertions that it is self published). It seems to me that the policy on which an argument for rejection could reasonably be advanced is Reliable Sources in that it is through a popular and not an academic press. Yet this in itself is a judgment call - Wikipedia is full of sources not published through academic presses. Graemedavis (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean one of the Graeme Davis' listed at that page. If you are notable, it may effect the use of your book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears that he is Graeme Davis (mediaevalist). He created that article, and on the talk page there's criticism of that and of his continued editing of it. The article survived an AfD in 2007. The Personal Website external link at the bottom of the article links to the personal page of the author of (among other things) Exploring Beedle the Bard.
Regarding the self-publish question, I asked him what standards were imposed on him when publishing the book. His reply. --Pi zero (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
...So are we allowing the book into the article? And if so, in what capacity? I'm pretty sure that putting "Graeme Davis said X about story Y" in every synopsis will violate WP:WEIGHT. Similarly, the Beedle the Bard article should not be used as a WP:COATRACK to promote the book. And the other thing I'd mention is that I don't see a whole lot of use on Wikipedia for analysis in articles. Neither the novels article template nor the non-fiction article template call for any sort of analysis. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
All valid concerns. There is something to be said, however, for taking things one step at a time. I suggest we concentrate here on the reliable-source question, not allowing ourselves to be distracted from that question by the later question of whether-and-how we would use it if we decide here that it's admissible. If we should decide here that it's admissible, then we can take the discussion back to the article talk page, and consider the whether-and-how question without being distracted by the admissibility question.
I'm actually now (unexpectedly) more than half convinced that it's admissible — but I don't consider the question properly settled, yet. It appears that Graeme Davis is, personally, notable in the technical sense of the term. That doesn't make him a celebrity whose pronouncements make headlines, but it does bear somewhat on the reputability of his book. As a matter of propriety, someone should look more closely into the publication standards for Nimble, since we now have a couple of rather clashing assessments. Where the admissibility question goes from there, I'd just as soon wait to decide when we get there (so giving myself more time to think it over). --Pi zero (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced on the reliability of his book. As I've stated before, I haven't seen any peer reviews of the book and nothing that has been peer reviewed using Exploring as a source. Frankly, I just don't see how this book could pass RS standards. Anakinjmt (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Exploding Boy assessed the book on the talk page and noted several problems with the book. I'm with Anakinjmt on this: without any peer reviews - or any other reviews of the book really - I don't see a reason to use or trust it.
In looking at Graeme Davis' own article, I don't really see how it passes WP:PROF. But I do have this question: are all books by a notable author inherently reliable, regardless of topic? Here's a really ridiculous example: suppose Michael Crichton wrote a book about, I don't know, carrots. The book has no citations or references; it's all his own work. Would we consider it to be a reliable source for the carrot article?
As to Nimble's publication standards, I can't find much information on it. I suppose we can trust what Davis wrote on the talk page, but the Nimble Books websites doesn't make any mention of peer review or fact checking or anything like that. And there are no news articles to talk about it either, so it seems somewhat hard to trust... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I read Exploding Boy's assessment after I wrote the above, and sort of wished I'd just left off the words "more than" — as in, "I'm half convinced" versus "I'm more than half convinced". I really am trying to be even-handed about all this (easier said than done). Some data came to light that are on the positive side of the admissibility question, so I added them into this thread for consideration.
The question of WP:PROF is discussed in the AfD; his claim that the Wikipedia article on someone else with the same name had damaged his career is... thought-provoking. Of course, if the AfD was, in fact, influenced to some extent by that point, then to just that extent it makes the continued existence of the article less significant for our current discussion.
No, I agree that books by a notable author are not automatically reliable. It does seem reasonable to give some subjective weight to the "distance" between the topic of the book, and the author's expertise. This book isn't solidly within the author's expertise, but does have some proximity to it. Looking over the preview pages on Amazon, I suspect the book would have benefited from relying more heavily on his expertise.
The participants in this discussion generally seem to feel that these additional data don't change the bottom line — the lack of reviews is a serious obstacle to admissibility, and Exploding Boy's assessment is pretty damning. Subject of course to new data, I'm willing to concede for now that Exploring Beedle the Bard can't be treated as a reliable source of literary criticism.
The reservation on that is because it is less clear to me whether we could admit, say, historical background within the book that falls more closely within the author's field of expertise. At the moment that seems to be a purely theoretical question, because I don't see such information fitting into the article; but if such were added to the article at some point, would Exploring Beedle the Bard be cite-able for it? --Pi zero (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Reading the discussion above is a very strange experience - it is almost as if people are making some sort of assessment of my personal CV. I'm clear that posting to the talk page (as COI suggests) has been a mistake - but I can't undo this. The very act of making such a posting de facto determines that the item will be rejected. As a consequence the debate is still at the level of looking solely at arguments to exclude the book, not looking at the for and against for admissability and making a measured decision based on the evidence. That I need to make a statement that I'm a lit crit specialist strikes me as symptomatic - I have a PhD in a lit crit discipline, I lecture in lit crit (among other areas), I research in the discipline of lit crit (among others). There's plenty of material published which shows my credentials. "Exploring Beedle the Bard" is a work of lit crit and is central to the area I'm qualified, experienced and published in. Yes it is by a popular/trade/commercial press and is written in an accessible style - as a consequence it might even hold readers' attention. But it is still lit crit. I don't think the idea of reading a few pages of this book and posting a criticism is appropropriate - what are the academic qualifications of the person doing this? (someone who is identified only by a username that is clearly not a real name.) Graemedavis (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm rather upset that you think bringing up you are the author was a mistake. Frankly, I don't see how, unless you think it was a mistake because that automatically means your book won't be considered. If so, then I'm afraid you don't understand how Wikipedia works. The fact that this discussion has gone from the talk page over to a MedCab to COIN to now here shows considerable effort on the part of editors here to ensure that the issue is discussed candidly and thoroughly. Continually saying that "it was a mistake to bring this up" means you won't do things like this again, which won't help become a better editor. Again, nothing wrong at all with you bringing it up. It just means we figure it out a lot faster and sooner.

Secondly, again, there have been NO peer reviews of your book. Your credentials aren't relevant, and IMO, neither are the credentials of the publisher. It's the credentials of the book given by peers, and you have thus far failed to provide one example of a peer giving credence to the book. Nothing in any print media, either by review or using your book as a source, has been offered. It falls on the person providing the source to verify its credentials, not the author's or the publisher's, but the book's. For example, if I wanted to use the source "MuggleNet.com's What Will Happen in Harry Potter 7" by MuggleNet and someone challenged the credentials of it, I would say that A: The book is written by two New York Times Bestsellers who both work for one of the largest Harry Potter fansites B: Reviews of the book have been posted in Publisher's Weekly, the New York Times, and other review places for books and C: The authors have been interviewed on television and in print about the book. All of this gives their book credit. Yet your book, on the other hand, hasn't done any of this, at least not as far as what I've been able to find nor as far as you've shown. You must understand this because this is the crux of the argument against using your book as a source. Don't get distracted by questions of your credentials or the credentials of the publisher. That doesn't matter nearly as much as the credentials of the book itself. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Anakinjmt, I am not rising to the tone of your post. Because I was up front with Wikipedia and posted on the talk page (as suggested by COI) that I had written a book it has unleashed what is tantamount to a campaign to exclude the book for any reason anyone can think up. There has not been an impartial assessment of the pros and cons of admissability. Bluntly if I produced a glowing review of my book the spirit of this argument is that someone would want a review of the review. And then a review of that review.
As I see it this is where we are up to. The book is by a qualified specialist in the field. It is published by a trade/commercial/popular press which pays a royalty (which has a specific interest in HP) and has gone through the review processes of that publisher. For all Wikipedia sources the RS criteria is ultimately a judgment call, but there is no clear reason in the RS policies to exclude this book. The book is comparable to very many books cited as sources throughout Wikipedia (and as with very many books cited on Wikipedia a review of the source is not available - indeed I've not previously come across a case when they are even looked for). It is cited on the Spanish language Wikipedia. Had the author - me - not made the foolish decision to be up front with Wikipedia editors by making a talk page posting (as suggested by COI) the book would inevitably in time have been used to inform the article. As it is still the only book of lit crit on BtheB and covers central issues not in the present article treating it as an inadmissable source seems unfortunate.
An off the wall suggestion to resolve this - is there any reason why the English Wikipedia cannot cite the Spanish Wikipedia as a source for something? It occurs to me that some of the issues raised by "Exploring Beedle the Bard" have found their way onto Spanish Wikipedia and that citing this source might break through the current disagreement. It would at least mean that the English Wikipedia article would not be leaving out areas. Graemedavis (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This is from WP:RS: "Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles". Also see WP:OSE. Basically, other stuff being on Wikipedia elsewhere is not justification for inclusion here.
As to the point about how your book would have made it into the article without your interference, that may be true. Someone would have still questioned the book's credibility, though, and maybe there would have been an edit war about its inclusion, and we would have ended up here anyway.
At this point, I think we're stuck in an infinite loop. Graemedavis keeps telling us that his book is notable and it's the only literary criticism out about Beedle the Bard, and we keep refuting it. I think at some point we need to just call it an day. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info regarding using Wikipedia as a source. That won't work then.
The infinite loop point seems correct. I don't know whether Pi zero or anyone can see a way of breaking it. This would be the best solution - I still feel that there should be an answer. A situation where someone gets slammed for not breaking Wikipedia's rules seems fundamentally wrong.
Or how is this for a suggestion? Wikipedia editors are specifically invited on the BtheB talk page to look at "Exploring Beedle the Bard" to see if they think there is relevant material which could be incorporated within the article. The question is phrased as a positive - it is a case of looking to see if there is anything that is relevant, not offering a personal critique. Presumably the issue of admissability of source would still remain. But it may be a more productive argument if a particular fact or view is advanced for inclusion against which admissability can be tested. Yes this might start an edit war, but an edit war between editors none of whom have COI is something Wikipedia knows how to deal with. An observation I am making is that in view of this debate no editor is likely to want to consider touching "Exploring Beedle the Bard" unless some of the heat is taken out of it, and an invitation would do that.
Or what other solutions do people have? Graemedavis (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You're asking us to get into an edit war over this? No, we're not doing that. It's not like there are really any editors pulling for inclusion - it's just you (and part of Pi zero). To go through the article and add in "This part of the book may be JK Rowling's interpretation of X character from old book Y" and repeatedly source it to your book would be adding undue weight, and it's really unnecessary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Despite his earnest intentions, GDs involvement here is continuing to cloud matters and is likely to prove a stumbling block to acceptance. He is not neutral. Despite AGF, I’m having difficulty reading his suggestions without knowing his interest in inclusion. It is essentially individual bias. This needs to be looked at as if an uninvolved editor had introduced this proposed content [13]. How would it be handled? Leaky Caldron 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I stated this somewhere way back, but that sort of addition would have probably been removed, or at least contested on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT. It's just too much sourced to one reference. As for the "considerable achievement" comment, it adds absolutely nothing to the article. Actual reviews of the book should be used in the reception section. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And again Graeme, your credentials and your publisher's credentials mean nothing! You keep going on about how you're a literary expert and your publisher is a trade/publisher company which pays a royalty. First, just because it pays a royalty doesn't mean a thing about the company. And secondly, once again, it doesn't matter if you are a literary expert. I honestly don't see why you can't get wrap your head around that. Once again, I'm upset at how you think, for whatever reason, because you brought this up yourself you made a big mistake. Again, I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. I, for one, am not setting out on some personal vendetta against you or your book. I am simply judging it based on how it fits reliable source criteria, and I don't think it does. Honestly, stop thinking like all of Wikipedia is out to get you and your book. Not only is it not true, it's also highly annoying. You need to assume good faith about your fellow editors and that they are being unbiased as they are supposed to be. I have seen debate and discussion going on about this. I have not seen any proof that an editor is being unfairly biased against you or your book. If we really were, we wouldn't be trying to help you understand why we don't think the book fits the criteria. We'd simply tell you. So please, don't insult me or the other editors by assuming we are being unbiased. Not only is that NOT assuming good faith, as we're supposed to do, but you know what they say when you assume something. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There's not much more to be said - there's certainly a feeling of going round in circles. I've just been sent a link with information about the publisher Nimble Books LLC which I post in case anyone is interested: http://74.125.95.132/external_content/untrusted/www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/admins/case_studies/pdf/nimble_books_cs.pdf But I see from Anakinjmt's post that the RS issue is not about publisher and not about author. That may be (but there has been a lot of discussion about precisely these two issues). I'm left with total befuddlement about what the RS issue really is about. Yes a review of a source would be nice but very many books cited by Wikipedia don't have reviews (yet I've never been challenged to provide evidence of a good review for a book I am citing as a source in a Wikipedia article, nor have I seen such a challenge made to another editor). It is true that some books get almost instant newspaper reviews (but only some, and the quality of these reviews may be an issue); academic reviews just aren't that quick. What I have taken from this experience is that in this case Wikipedia's COI guidance (that someone with COI should discuss on the talk page) either doesn't work or hasn't been properly applied. Graemedavis (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden relationships in Judaism

The above AfD concerns an article, whose sole current source is

  • Ronald L. Eisenberg , The 613 mitzvot: a contemporary guide to the commandments of Judaism, Schreiber Publishing, (2005)

Ronald L. Eisenberg is a radiologist and a lawyer.

Is he a reliable source for discussion of Forbidden relationships in Judaism (the article at the above AfD).

Furthermore, is an article about forbidden sexual relationships, in Judaism, reliably sourced if it is based entirely on his writings?

Newman Luke (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is unreliable... but I would not call it "definitive".... meaning that we should not base an entire article upon it. If this is the only source on the topic, it does not establish notability... (however, I suspect that there are other sources that exist). Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
What about an entire article based on this one book. In rivalry to Arayot, an older article about the same subject, under the title usually given to it in Jewish literature? Newman Luke (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a different question, and not one that is really in the scope of this noticeboard. (That said, I have already opined at the AfD that I think the articles should probably be merged, with the understanding that the merger may result in having to rename). Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Spinprofiles acceptable as a source?

The article Eric Moonman was recently greatly expanded by User:Davidmillerglasgow. It appears that the content he added was more-or-less directly copy-pasted from Eric Moonman's article on Spinprofiles, available here [14]. As this website makes its content available under the GFDL, this is not a copyright issue, but it does raise sourcing issues - is this a reliable source? My judgement is that it appears to be a wiki, so the answer is probably 'no'; can anyone else provide advice on this? Robofish (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Spinprofiles can be considered an RS because, as you say, it is a wiki. However there seem to be a number of references from RS in the article you note. If they can be verifuied then they could be used to support statements in WP Jezhotwells (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Celina Jaitley

Apologies if this subject has been addressed previously. Is a Twitter account an RS? Thanks Tiderolls 05:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If we can be absolutely sure that it belongs to the person (for example through third party sources), it is a reliable self-published source and can be used in limited circumstances. However changing the name of the actress based on the twitter account name is not a legitimate use (for all we know she may have chosen this twitter account because Celina Jaitley was already taken), and we should rely on independent and better quality sources instead. Abecedare (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. Many thanks. Tiderolls 05:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Rauschning

On the talk page of world war II (Nr. 16 "Poland wants war with Germany..") Paul Siebert proposed to me to start a discussion whether Rauschnings books are reliable sources that can be cited in this major article. In particular it is the question whether his book "Die entdeutschung Westpreußens und Posens", Berlin 1930 could be cited. The passage about this book in the rauschning article has been deleted, but I will try to create it again, so, that You can get a notion of its contents. user:Jäger 01:45 19 October 2009 (CET)

Please paste the proposed content here if there is currently a dispute on the article involving reverts and changes. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Could You please tell me, how this can be done? The "save paste" function is not active after editing of the section.user:Jäger 22,13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Article Page -> History -> find the diff, copy the diff link, paste the diff link. OR History, find a version you "like", copy the text in question and the full citation in question, paste here. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I will try to give a short overview over the discussion. The question is whether the book "Die Entdeutschung Westpreußens und Posens" by Hermann Rauschning

File:File:Die entdeutschung Westpreußens und Posens (book by Hermann Rauschning - front page).jpg

can be looked at as a reliable source for Wikipedia. In this book Rauschning presents reports and newspaper-articles collected by him since january 1919 about atrocities against the german population in the territories which had become under polish control as a consequence of the treaty of Versailles. He sais that until 1930 more than 800.000 germans had been expelled from their homes by the polish govenment and certain militias. In the course of the discussion on the talk page of world war II (Nr 16 "Poland wants war ..") several other sources were presented which consent with Rauschnings thesis that there was a systematic ethnic cleansing policy of the polish govenment in that time. Some discutants said that Rauschnings book contained nothing but Nazi-propaganda because he was a Nazi when he published it. But they disregard that he became a member of this party in 1926 when Hitler was far away from having absolute control over it and when large parts of the SA were dominated by pure socialists like Otto Strasser and Gregor Strasser who were exiled later - as Rauschning himself -because of their opposition against Hitler and his inhuman policy. user:Jäger 01:45, 21 October 2009 (CET)

"Rauschning presents reports and newspaper-articles collected by him since january 1919 about atrocities" => PRIMARY => Not OR. You can quote Rauschning's commentaries on the sources, but you need to make that clear, and only if he's commented, "Rauschning on "Article X, Daily Newspaper, 1919" p XX". And given that he's politically contentious, I'm sure people would expect a Verbatim quote and translation on Talk: Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank You for this note! It is absolutely no problem to make verbatim quotations e.g. the the geman original and the english translation. The problem is that everything what is written in the Rauschning article or elsewhere about this book is deleted immediately. Newspaper-articles are very rarely quoted in this volume. Rauschning used principally the depositions of eye witnesses. He began to collect these reports after he had been made a "Reichkommissar für die besetzten Gebiete" (Imperial commissioner for the occupied territories) by the democratic geman government of that time. This work has absoutely nothing to do with the Nazi-party. user:Jäger 00:00, 22 October 2009 (CET)

Uh no. IN ADDITION to the fact that this is a primary source, Rauschning was a "reactionary who became a Nazi leader" hence, as a Nazi (yeah, he later broke with Hitler - this makes absolutely no difference) that makes him a totally UNRELIABLE SOURCE. Yes, he can be quoted to illustrate WHAT HIS opinion was (though seriously - is there a need for that?) but what Jager is trying to do is to present Rauschning's views as a verifiable fact. Unless the inclusion of text from Rauschning's "book" is VERY CAREFULLY WORDED so as not to mislead the reader, I will keep deleting immediately these attempts to sneak Nazi sources into Wikipedia, and if Jager persists, I will report him. I can't believe the question of whether this is a RS is even being considered seriously.radek (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is what user:Jäger has been attempting to use the book for in the World War II article (eg, [15]) and is still pressing for. Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile I could find out that Rauschning did not join the nazi-party before 1932 (Brockhaus Enzyklopädie Vol. 22 page 578 of the recent print-edition 2006), "Die entdeutschung.." which appeared in 1930 therefore can not be nazi-propaganda. radek´s only argument against it is completely refuted by this fact. The statement, given in the Hermann Rauschning-article, that he has supported the nazis since the twenties is completely unsourced and has to be removed! What is written in this book is the plain truth and is confirmed by innumerous depositions of victims and eye-witnesses existing in the Bundesarchiv and in the Herder-Institut. The book is indeed a RS! user:Jäger 00:15, 30 October 2009 (CET)

Nonsense. Rauschning was politically motivated, a reactionary, and at least one of his books is now considered to be pure fabrication. He is not a RS. His book also is a 80 years old - it has to be treated as a primary source, and a suspicious one at that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The book is only a RS for what Rauschnings (and perhaps the Nazi party) claimed had happened with the German minority in Poland, not for what actually did happen. It should not be used as a RS for that, as it clearly was in the dif presented by Nick-D. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

TV by the Numbers

I'm coming here to ask whether or not the site TV by the Numbers is a reputable source that we can use on Wikipedia. Some editors want to use them for ratings on The Vampire Diaries (TV series) and List of The Vampire Diaries episodes as seen here. Like I said in the discussion about this on the article's talk page, I think we should use Entertainment Weekly as a source since we already know it's reputable, but if TV by the Numbers is found to be a good source, I'll let it go. Rocksey (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[16][17] Previous discussions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Are those unresolved? What was the decision? Rocksey (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a blog published by two individuals, Bill Gorman and Robert Seidman. It does not qualify as a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but other editors kept saying it was fine to use it. So should I take the sources out now and replace them with more reputable ones, or should I just wait until there's more discussion on this here? Rocksey (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was deemed unreliable, but if you've got better sources, use them instead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried to, but it keeps getting reverted. Rocksey (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is deemed unreliable. See my comments above. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel that it's unreliable too because it's self published by Gorman and Seidman who admit on the site that they're newbies still trying to get it together: [Gorman and Seidman acknowledge that they’re still total newbies (even after being at it for two years now), but with your help, they hope to learn.] Rocksey (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It is cited (very) frequently by other RSs, so it is not cut and dry. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there anywhere else I can take this question where it will have a better chance of getting resolved? Rocksey (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

AllExperts.com Encyclopedia

I searched through the list of posts to the noticeboard but not find more than a passing mention of this source. Other articles appear to use this source without issue. This site claims to have articles written by experts. I was wondering if the article for Heather Harmon can be analyzed in particular. The link for AllExperts can be found here.

While AllExperts' entry is similar to the old version of the Heather Harmon article, it does have information that seems to have been obtained through independent research. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It's a well-known wikipedia mirror, and therefore completely unacceptable as a reference. Just check out virtually any article of significant size, like Bruce Springsteen. Some of the scrapes aren't current, so there is some variation from current wikitext, but the sourcing is obvious. In this case, it's sure to have been sourced from the deleted Wikipedia article on the website. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't find an article on AllExperts about Springsteen. All I found was this list of questions and answers. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[18] Not exactly hard to find. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I see now that it's directly from a different article that is no longer on Wikipedia. I withdraw my request. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AllExperts claims it is written by "experts", but I don't see signatures of these experts, however I see lots of mirrors of old and new wikipedia articles. I think it pages from this website are inadmissible sources for wikipedia, unless they are signed by real recognized experts in the corresponding fields. - Altenmann >t 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Look again. The experts list their qualifications. The questions are answered by experts, not anonymous experts. You can identify who wrote what. In contrast, some people in Wikipedia are violently opposed to experts and want to revert the edits of experts! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions about self-serving sources, minority view sources, and third parties

I would appreciate some feedback on the following. Is there agreement that these statements are within the letter and spirit of the Wikipedia guidelines?

  • One of the restrictions on the publication of statements by fringe, extremist or self-published sources is that the material cited should not be unduly self-serving. This is primarily a limitation on using such a statement to establish truth. It is not a limitation on using it to state and define what a person’s beliefs are. For example, a scientist may have gained notoriety because he claimed to have produced cold fusion. He may be quoted as saying “I have produced cold fusion” as long as this is presented as his statement and belief and not as the generally accepted belief. This statement, after all, is the reason that an article about him is being written in the first place.
  • Another restriction on the publication of statements by fringe, extremist or self-published sources is that they should not involve claims about third parties. If in an article about Scientist A, who claims to have produced cold fusion, a statement is made by Scientist B denying the claim and asserting that Scientist A is a “crank,” then Scientist B is not considered a “third party” for purposes of restricting rebuttal by Scientist A.
  • In an article about a person who has gained notoriety because of his scientific beliefs, apart from issues such as libel there is no condition that must be satisfied before the content of the beliefs can be fully set forth. It is not appropriate to withhold a full statement and definition of such beliefs on the grounds that they are a minority view or that they have not been published in a respected journal or that they are not regarded as legitimate by experts in the field or that the person lacks requisite expertise in that area. In many cases the only reason that the person is having an article written about him in the first place is that his views have aroused a great deal of opposition. To say that in such an article his beliefs may not be clearly set forth until the opposition is removed or until it is demonstrated that he is not a “crank” would defy logic. After the beliefs are set forth there should be an evaluation as to whether they are regarded as generally accepted.

Thanks --Swood100 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are these hypothetical questions or are you thinking about a particular article when you raise them? --FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, this concerns the Michael Behe article. I am new to Wikipedia. I happened on the Behe article and I was amazed at how one-sided it was. I proposed that Behe's statements should be presented in rebuttal of the accusations made against him and also as an accurate statement of his beliefs. I was shot down for the reasons that are mentioned in these statements. I thought that a point of view outside the context of the article would be helpful. --Swood100 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Behe article, so far as I can see, it is stated what his beliefs are. However, to lend any credence to them, when they are so widely rejected, would be to give undue weight to them. If you see specific problems, I'd encourage you to discuss them at Talk:Michael Behe, but what I see there are fringe sources being used exactly as they should be—to verify what the belief is, while using third party sources to determine acceptance or rejection of such beliefs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I'm sorry that I mentioned that this comes from the Behe article. The questions I ask are general ones, with applicability to any article. Are my statements accurate statements of Wikipedia policy? --Swood100 (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure someone will address your question, but I would like to warn you about a common mistake of newcomers (since you are saying you are one). While it is OK to say that "Jonh Wunderman invented inflatable shoes", it is not OK in wikipedia to write any logical constructions based on claims of Wunderman, such as "Jane Critic's claim that inflatable shoes do not exist is incorrect, since Wunderman invented them", unless you can find a reference to a third source which makes basically the same conclusion. Unreferenced conclusions of this type, however trivial they may seem, are called "synthesis" and disallowed in wikipeidia, see "no original research" policy. - Altenmann >t 03:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You write: "It is not appropriate to withhold a full statement and definition of such beliefs" - this is a slippery slope, colleague. Some cranks have written VOLUMES with their beliefs. Surely we cannot put them into wikipedia in full, for whatever propose. There must be a clear reason to go beyond summary. I must understand one reason you want to expand a perticular piece of a belief: you think that a critic misinterpreted it while rebutting. But what you can do with this? You can only find another publication which convincinly proves that this critic misinterpreted something. Here comes your second issue, "Scientist B is not considered a “third party” Again, it is a yes and no. Wikipedia is not a place to store endless chains of bickering back and forth: they may drag for years and involve hundreds of ping-pongs. If an issue is closed, there must be a summary of the final judgement, rather than detailed exchange. If the issue is still live (as of today), then this must be quickly terminated something like "Sci B says Sci A is a krank, whereas sci A denies this". - Altenmann >t 03:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • My final remark, please state clearly which exactly statements of wikipedia policies you are summarized/interpreted in your three paragraphs. Please keep in mind that whatever your understanding is, the final say is the actual policy. If you believe you have found a loophole, you have to discuss it in the corresponding policy page. If several policies are involved in the issue, you start a discussion on one talk page and post invitations to join discussion in talk pages of all other involved policies, to ensure broad involvement. For example, right now I am posting an invitation in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. - Altenmann >t 03:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


I fully agree that a person's own statements cannot be cited as a reliable source for the proposition that his theories have scientific validity. However, they can be cited as a reliable source as to what those theories are. This seems to be a no-brainer, but there appear to be those who would deny it. I believe that the relevant guideline is WP:SELFPUB, where it says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves . . ."

When I said “It is not appropriate to withhold a full statement . . .” I excluded cases of libel, etc. and I would also exclude cases where the content of the beliefs is too voluminous. Also, the question is not the point at which we have to stop the back and forth exchanges. The question is whether Scientist A is precluded from any rebuttal at all.

I think that you make a good point that I should really take these questions to the talk pages dealing with these specific issues. I will do that. Thanks for the feedback. --Swood100 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


I should point out that using Michael Behe and science in the same sentence is problematical as:

  1. Behe's work has been publicly disavowed by his own university department.
  2. There's a whole constellation of scientific organisations lining up to reject intelligent design, which his work attempts to buttress.
  3. His claimed examples of irreducible complexity have been rebutted by experts in the fields he attempted to draw these examples from.
  4. All sorts of holes (e.g. exaptation) have been blown in his central concept by experts in evolutionary biology.

To say that Behe is WP:FRINGE is an understatement. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As for using a statement from scientist B that scientist A's ideas are wrong, the term "third party" is useless. In fact, it is always useless and if it were in my power I would expunge it from the guideline. What the defective guideline is trying to say is that if and only if scientist B's statement was published in a reputable publication, and scientist is not part of some extremist or fringe movement, then the statement may be used. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


I already know Hrafn's views on this subject, which are that in an article about a person who has gained notoriety because of his scientific beliefs the content of those beliefs in the person's own words cannot be defined and set forth unless it is clear that the person is not a "crank." I can't believe that this is a view that is held generally, but that's what I am trying to find out.--Swood100 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article should describe both Behe's views and the general "lack of acceptance" (to put it politely) of these ideas in the relevant academic field of evolutionary biology. Wikipedia cannot give undue weight to these views, which means they don't even merit a mention in the article on evolution, can be summarised briefly in the article on intelligent design, and described in some detail in the article on Michael Behe. However, at no point should these views be presented as if they had any acceptance among experts, or equal validity with real science that has appeared in the scientific literature. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
An article is not capable of giving undue weight to its own topic. That is, an article on evolution may dismiss creationism very quickly but an article on creationism, while mentioning notable lack of acceptance by others, can't minimimze its coverage of the topic based on being fringe in some other catagory or class. So they claim to be scientific but scientists largely reject them, that still does not make the creationist a "fringe" within the field of creationism. There are articles on both sides of the abortion debate and there are plenty of people who believe in Creation. Merit, as defined by whatever "relevant" group, is not a question for wikipedia but it may be helpful to probe for sake of making a complete article. Note also that there can be a concern about field-shopping or picking a group from which to determine prominence. In this case, since they claim to be scientific, various "scientific" communities maybe relevant for consideration but the existence of these "cliques" ( I'm making a point with word choice ) doesn't make creationism a fringe belief within itself. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rosemarie Esber, Under the Cover of War

I wonder how to deal this book for the topic of the 1948 Palestinian exodus :

  • Rosemarie Esber, Under the Cover of War, Arabicus Books & Media, LLC, 2008.

My main concern is that Rosemarie Esber got a PhD for a thesis directly linkted to the topic in 2004 from the University of London [19] but that since then, she is introduced as an 'independant scholar'. More, Arabicus Books & Media seems to have published nothing but her book : [20] and that all that sounds a self-published work even if (reading the book), it is a work of quality... 87.67.11.48 (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem that she is an independent scholar per se. It is a bit disconcerting, however, to see that Arabicus Books have only published one book, but I notice that they have at least planned another [21]. There is no sign that it is a self-publishing press either. But even if we treat it as self-published, it seems to me that Esber meets the criteria of being an "established expert" in that she has a PhD in the field, published in scholarly journals in the topic,[22], an article by her appears on this bibliography produced by a scholarly journal [23], and the book has already received at least one scholarly review [24] .--Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Merci pour cet avis indépendant :-) 87.67.25.13 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
De rien :-)--Slp1 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User-submitted reviews

The PC version of the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has received a notable backlash in the form of user-submitted reviews. The average user-review on IGN is 1.9, on Metacritic is 1.6, and Amazon.com is less than 2 out of 5 stars. The content of these reviews would not be used as a source, but would the average score of user-reviews be worthy of mention in the article? It is notable that the average user reviews across these major websites is almost entirely negative compared to hugely positive reviews from professional reviewers.    Jhonka 03:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is notable, someone should have noted it. There are a lot of statistical anomalies if you look hard enough ( in fact, a 1 out of 20 will be significant at p<.05 LOL). I find a lot of interesting observations and stories but you have to look at the notability and even to some extent the archival value of these observations. Do you want an encyclopedic article on every car, movie, or widget that was more bad than most but didnt' do anything singular like kill people? If someone has noted the badness, there should be a secondary source to that effect. I'm not commenting on yes/no, just trying to add perspective and thoughts. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

anecdotage.com

Anecdotage.com appears to be a site where people post funny anecdotes. Many wikipedia articles are citing to anecdotage.com. One example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries#cite_note-12 It seems to me not reliable, but it appears the site has not been posted on this page before, and wanted to get some more opinions. Nightkey (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't hit this nor seen the site but you have to ask what of encyclopedic merit, beyond maybe the site itself if it has achieved notability, could possibly be shown here? Maybe a notable anecdote that was shown here prior to achieving notability could ref the site, maybe a modern Mark Twain could get started at such a place, but otherwise you'd have to ask what claim it could back up? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

www.chartstats.com

We're having an issue on some featured lists reviews in relation to Chartstats.com. It is clearly an amateur site, and is used as a convenience link. The actual author is unknown and apparently intentionally anonymous. It was, however, the site I chose to recommend in WP:GOODCHARTS as the source for UK chart positions, which is now causing problems as those editors that chose to follow my advice as they try to get featured status for discographies.

The problem is that the official site, www.theofficialcharts.com, doesn't provide reasonable archiving: it has slightly less than two years of data available, and, since it provides no search facility by artist, has no method of sourcing a discography column: each and every peak needs an independent link to substantiate it, and all of those links go dead in 100 weeks or less. In fact, it doesn't source peaks at all: a link to a song with a given number on a given week doesn't source the concept that it wasn't higher on a different week.

All of the unofficial archives have some issues. acharts.us is also anonymously published, and zobbel.de has some problems with merging multiple charts together (i.e., an album position of 25 may be on the main chart, the compilation chart, the soundtrack chart, etc, and you can't tell by looking which one it is).

Because of that, I can't describe the use of chartstats.com as ideal, but it seems to be the best of a group of bad choices. None of the other unofficial archives are better in terms of having a recognized publisher, and the only archive that is published by a recognizable publisher isn't usable. In terms of being reliable in the traditional sense of "can be trusted to provide accurate information", I'm not aware of any problems with chartstats.com.

There are printed copies of the individual charts. With some additional research, it would be possible to determine an issue of Music Week that published the physical copy, find someone with the physical copy, and from that find the page number, article titles, etc. required for a physical citation. That process would need to be repeated for each song, as no summaries are available in print form. Ironically, the best way to find that would be to start with the data from chartstats.com to determine the week of the peak occurring. Technically, that information would still not truly source a "peak", because the physical list can't predict what will happen the following week, while chartstats has the luxury of being continuously updated.

One other thing to consider is that while none of the online chart sources for the UK is ideal, they can be cross-checked. Acharts, everyhit, chartstats, and zobbel all independently claim to archive the Official Charts Company. Within the top 40 positions for the last 100 weeks, that can be directly verified. Outside of that, the data can be crosschecked between the different archives. I've done random spot-checking in the past, and always came back satisfied.

Given this status, and that no one has yet found a reason to doubt chartstat.com's accuracy (as distinguished from the conventional Wikipedia definition of "reliability"), is it reasonable to treat chartstats.com as a reliable source for reporting chart positions in the UK? Or are we going to force discography authors to reference only paper sources despite the existence of multiple databases?—Kww(talk) 15:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of its utility, it's still a WP:SPS, and an anonymous one at that. It's not acceptable as a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:SPS includes the statement "some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found". Wouldn't the ability to cross-check the material with three other archives and a substantial subset against the original source count as "substantial independent evidence"?—Kww(talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Have any of the other reliable sources specifically stated that "chartstats.com" is reliable? That's what would count as "substantial independent evidence". Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why that is the only "substantial independent evidence" that is acceptable. The original source (The Official Charts Company) is known to be reliable, and that reliability is attested to via numerous sources: the BBC faithfully reports their charts (and bases radio programs upon it), and two publications, Music Week and Charts Plus, reproduce it each and every week. The question now is whether chartstats.com is an accurate reproduction of that reliable source, and that can be verified. Why is the notability of an archive a substantial obstacle to deeming it reliable when no one can demonstrate a single instance where it has made an error? When its output can be verified compared to between three and four other Xerox machines, depending on the date and chart position? —Kww(talk) 03:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the "substantial independent evidence for their reliability"? Which reliable source will "verify" that chartstats.com is reliable, keeping in mind that Wikipedia editors are not considered to be reliable sources? Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I would think that comparing a number from one database to a number in another would fall under "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived" from WP:OR. Surely a test for equality is a routine calculation. You are treating this as if chartstats.com is the original source of the chart, which it is not: all that is necessary per WP:Citing sources is to demonstrate that we can be "reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original." I don't see why the ability to do a multiway comparison of a large subset of the data doesn't provide that "reasonable certainty".
I've cheated a bit and moved this topic back down to the bottom in the hope of attracting another opinion or two.—Kww(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Which you've done. "self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources are a good indicator of reliability." Do you have that - that would be the easiest way to check the box here. Hipocrite (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

chartstats.com itself gets 190,000 Google hits, but that count is contaminated by Wikipedia mirrors. There's a good smattering of what I think of as "second-tier" references: answers.com, popjustice.com, we7.com, etc. Not New York Times or Washington Post material, but above "Fred the neighborhood ranter's blog". The original source of the information, The Official Charts Company, is impeccable: not many organisations have a regularly updated page on the BBC tracking their output, and two separate magazines, Music Week and Charts Plus, republishing their output on a weekly basis. That impeccability is why I keep focusing on verification of chartstats as a convenience link, not as an original source. If chartstats were the original source of the information, I would be arguing vociferously that it failed WP:RS because of the inability to demonstrate that people were relying on it. In this case, what I'm arguing is that it is an accurate archival of information that people rely on, and that our ability to cross-check against multiple archives validates it.
One issue that I realize isn't obvious is the varying scopes of the different archives. The official one, theofficialcharts.com, stores the top 40 positions for the last 100 weeks. Everyhit.co.uk stores 40 positions forever, and is clearly reliable (I can point at BBC articles that reference it). Chartstats stores the top 100 positions forever, and Zobbel stores the top 200 positions forever. Music Week publishes the top 100, but has no archive, and Charts Plus publishes the top 200, but has no archive. Thus, if the position falls in the top 40, we can validate it against a clearly reliable source. If it happened less than 100 weeks ago, we can validate it against the original source. If it falls between positions 41-100, we can cross check against Zobbel, and, on demand, against the two physical publications.—Kww(talk) 12:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think these types of sources should be allowed, but it's kind of a bigger deal than just one RSN thread. It would apply to the TY by the numbers question above, and lots of other questions that appear here. TV by the numbers had to take down a bunch of Nielsen archives after receiving a cease and desist copyright vio notice from Nielsen, so I wonder if there are any copyright considerations with this site as well? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on British copyright law, so I'll let the Official Charts Company decide whether the archives are infringing. I don't think this needs to be much bigger than one RSN thread, myself: I viewed this as a convenience link, still do, and was quite surprised an editor objected at FAR because of its use.—Kww(talk) 01:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, the question is whether unaffiliated websites which archive sales data from reliable sources are reliable. I don't think an official (as far as wiki goes) ruling has ever taken place, although a lot of similar sites have been deemed unreliable or borderline. I think most of those rulings have been knee jerk reactions.
I think the site in question, and ones like it, should be considered reliable. Leaving copy vio issues aside, it's pretty trivial to copy lists and host them on a website accurately. With a careful look (which you've done), I think it's pretty easy to determine that the data in question is correct. So, I would say it's reliable.
Say a website was a mirror of the public domain US census. We'd say use the official page, but we wouldn't be saying that because the data is incorrect in any way, just that we should use the highest quality sources when available. In this case, this is the only source, so I say go for it.
The other option is to say that no source exists, which I don't think benefits our readers or editors, and is a too strict interpretation of RS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It still doesn't meet any of the requirements of WP:RS. That's how we judge whether or not it is a reliable source, rather than on utility or formatting or anything else. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my penny worth to the discussion. In my experience, Chartstats.com is extremely reliable. I've cross-referenced it with the Guinness British Hit Singles & Albums book many times and never, ever found it to be in error, both in it's chart positions and it's "weeks spent on the chart" information. The site was also endorsed by Record Collector magazine as a good, reliable source for UK chart information a year or two ago (that's how I initially found out about the site).
For what it's worth, in my view, the official WP:RS criteria isn't always a good fit for music related articles. For example, Allmusic is accepted because it's a professionally run website and while it's certainly a great resource, it's not always factually accurate. Yet, a self-published fan site, no matter how meticulously researched and well written it is, isn't acceptable for Wikipedia. This seems like nonsense to me because someone like Alan Fraser who runs the extremely well researched Bob Dylan fansite Searching For a Gem without doubt has a greater and more detailed knowledge of Dylan than anyone writing for the Allmusic website does. I’m not knocking the writers of Allmusic, they have a wide ranging knowledge of music generally, but a guy like Fraser is a specialist on one artist, so why should the information on his site be rejected? Don't get me wrong, I’m not saying that all or even most fansites should be considered reliable - a lot of them are crap - but any band/artist of any note almost certainly has one or more high quality fansites that are far more reliable than a "general music site" like Allmusic. The WP:RS guidelines seem to work well for most subjects or areas of knowledge, but they’re a bad fit for music in my view. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That endorsement by Record Collector would make it reliable by any definition. Can you provide me with specific reference so that I can make this argument go away?
And, to Jayjg, I think you are seriously mistaken in refusing to apply the standards necessary for a convenience link to a convenience link. The Official Charts Company is a reliable source by anyone's definition, and chartstats is simply an archive of that reliable information. Clearly if chartstats were the original source, the data would be unusable, but it is not the source whose reliability needs to be judged. As a convenience link, the standard is simply that we can be "reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original." What would it take to get you to that level of certainty?—Kww(talk) 03:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha! I knew that you were gonna ask me that. I'm afraid I can't recall the specific issue and I don't have time to go through my Record Collector back issues to find a specific reference but I know that they did recommend it because, as I say, that's how I first heard about the site. Sorry I can't be more helpful. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
What makes us "reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original"? In your response, please make sure the answer does not boil down to "because a Wikipedia editor said so". Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Because any editor that chooses to can validate the information. The verification does not require taking any individual editor's word for it. The essence of WP:V is that verifiability relies on having provided sufficient information that any Wikipedia editor with the inclination and resources can verify the information. In this case, you have the official records at www.theofficialchartscompany.com (which I presume you are not challenging), and you have the contents of the archive in question. You have the links to other archives making similar claims. You can, should you so choose, dig up individual hard copies of the printed lists. Validate to your heart's content. There's no need to take any other editor's word for it.—Kww(talk) 12:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Please review the previous comment. The essence of WP:V is that a source has editorial oversight, or is widely recognized by reliable sources as a reliable source, not that a Wikipedia editor can independently "validate"/assert that its contents are accurate. No amount of wishing or arguing will change that. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Please review the concept of a "convenience link" from WP:Citing sources#Convenience links, and stop misapplying WP:V in support of positions to which it does not apply. Nothing in its standard of "reasonable certainty" requires third-party validation.—Kww(talk) 16:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if the WP:Citing sources style guideline trumped the WP:V policy (and it doesn't), Chartstats.com does not appear to qualify as a "convenience link" as outlined by WP:Citing sources#Convenience links. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement in book published by WND Books--Purpose: to reflect that author warned of risk before event happened

At Anwar al-Awlaki, to reflect the fact that a book was just published with the following information before the Fort Hood shooting, I inserted the following:

In their 2009 book that preceded the Fort Hood shooting, Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry reported that a senior Homeland Security official had warned that Awlaki "is actively targeting 'U.S. Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen.'"[1]
  1. ^ Gauvatz, Dave, and Sperry, Paul, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, p. 64, WND Books (2009), ISBN 1935071106, 9781935071105

Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina wrote the forward for the book.

The book has also spurred a request by four members of the House of Representatives for an investigation.

An editor is asserting that WND Books is not an RS. I posted the book at the RS policy talk page, and got positive feedback for including it. I'm now bringing it here as well.

The editor claims the language is defamatory. But there is nothing "negative" in that sentence that is not already stated in the article, supported by citations to other RSs:

  • “the US Treasury Department identified Zindani as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist"
  • "he is on the UN 1267 Committee's list of individuals associated with the Taliban or al-Qaeda”,:
  • "a former FBI agent identifies Awlaki as a known "senior recruiter for al Qaeda", and a spiritual motivator"
  • "his sermons were extremely anti-Israel and pro-jihad"
  • “The FBI learned he may have been contacted by a possible "procurement agent" for Osama bin Laden"
  • “He is often noted for targeting young US-based Muslims with his lectures"
  • “Evan Kohlmann calls Awlaki "one of the principal jihadi luminaries for would-be homegrown terrorists. His fluency with English, his unabashed advocacy of jihad and mujahideen organizations, and his Web-savvy approach are a powerful combination." He calls Awlaki's lecture "Constants on the Path of Jihad", which was based on a similar document written by the founder of Al Qaeda, the "virtual bible for lone-wolf Muslim extremists."
  • "Awlaki's "44 Ways to Support Jihad" is described by the NEFA Foundation as a pro-Al-Qaeda document that incites English-speaking Muslims."[btw--I didn't put that in, and don't know if that is an RS]
  • "Author Jarret Brachman said that Nidal Malik Hasan's contacts with Awlaki should have raised "huge red flags". According to Brachman, Awlaki is a major influence on radical English-speaking jihadis internationally.”

There is obviously no BLP violation if the info is true (as reflected in sourcing to RSs...which we have). The best defense against libel is the truth of the matter asserted. The reason it is relevant to state it is that he made the statement before the Fort Hood incident (the other parallel statements were generally after).

I don't see anything on this noticeboard about this book publisher. There is inconclusive non-consensus fact-specific discussion on this noticeboard about the use of articles from the magazine that owns this book publisher. That includes the view by Hipocrite, who has also weighed in her, that the magazine is not an RS.

Would appreciate peoples' thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of WND as a source of opinions is certainly allowable. It is absolutely RS as far as stating opinions about the person, and as far as stating when the author held those opinions. This is not a matter of fortune-telling. Collect (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that citing WND is more like citing a political advocacy group than a traditional news organization. Which is still allowable with attribution, though there are some caveats involved if it's a BLP. I would not call them an "extremist" source however, because they do not advocate for political extremism. They simply have strong viewpoints on a variety of issues.
However, I Googled that quote and was led back to two articles in the London Daily Telegraph, one a few days old,[25] and one from last December.[26]
They both cite a Charles Allen, an undersecretary at DHS during the Bush administration, as giving that statement that October. The WND book is on Google Books, and while I can't get the page cited, there is a snippet cite in the endnotes to a Charles E. Allen speaking at a conference called GEOINT. Another web search leads back to the DHS.gov webpage, where the speech is presented, quote and all.[27]
So, as this speech appears to be the ultimate source for that quote, I'd suggest using DHS.gov instead of the WND book. However, if the WND book provides any additional analysis, we can revisit the issue of citing it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
" Like WorldNetDaily, WND Books is "fiercely independent," telling the stories that other publishers won't." I would argue that any WND book needs to be shown to be a reliable source, not assumed to be one, given the reputation of WND. I certainly would not want to use the book in question as a source of facts (which is how it was being used) and I would like evidence that the authors are reliable sources to use it for analysis.
Well, for the "radical online lectures" quote above, we now have a reliable source in Dhs.gov for the speech, the speaker's name, and what context it was presented in, so we can use that instead of WND. But the wording should say that DHS was who warned about this person, and it probably shouldn't be so closely coupled to the material on Ft. Hood, unless the more recent Telegraph article is used to make that connection. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Squid -- Perfect. Well, quite obviously the book was in fact a reliable source in this instance. I've reworked the paragraph given your very helpful addition (thanks for being the unusual editor who seeks to improve matters rather than solely pontificate) here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be more an advertisement for the book/the authors, than adding a noteworthy fact - most of them are coming out currently in WP:RS. So in this case whole sentence seems unnecessary, especially given questions about these editors. WND as a publisher may be OK in other circumstances. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The reason it is notable IMHO is because it was being flagged by the author before the events of Feb. 6. Everything coming out now is ex post facto.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
But that's your WP:OR saying it's notable. Not a WP:RS saying - gee, these guys warned about this before it happened. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed] czar

This is the page in question ..... [28]

In the United States, the informal political term "czar" is employed in media and popular usage to refer to certain executive branch officials. There have never been any U.S. government offices with the title "czar",[citation needed] but various governmental officials have sometimes been referred to by the nickname "czar" rather than their actual title.

The earliest known use of the term for a U.S. government official was in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945), during which twelve positions were so described. The term was revived, mostly by the press, to describe officials in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Subsequently, until the George W. Bush administration (2001-2009), the term was little used except in reference to the "drug czar."[citation needed]There's a real question of verifiability here.

The oldest citation that I can find on the subject.

"The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt" [FDR Czar] [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You don't have to say there "never have been" - just say it has been a nickname, then you don't have to prove the point. Check books.google if you want more refs in general. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It's original research. You can't do google searches, and then draw conclusions about historic uses of terms based on them. Use a proper etymology source that discusses the topic. Jayjg (talk)

01:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Kim.

Sun Myung Moon's papers for controversial political claims

Can we use Messiah Sun Myung Moon's newspapers for controversial political claims? In this case it is the Washington Times being used to call Shaker Elsayed a fundamentalist.[30] We don't use the Church of Scientology as a reliable source for information about its enemies. Should we use the Unification Church as a reliable source for information about its enemies? ~YellowFives 12:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. The Church of Scientology does have a news publication, Freedom Magazine, which it uses to make often quite lurid claims about its enemies. However, it's explicitly branded as the voice of the Church of Scientology. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Washington Times claims to be the voice of the Unification Church. It's certainly heavily influenced by the UC but it doesn't position itself as the UC's house newspaper. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
At least Scientology is upfront about it, then. Moon has said

We even have to utilize the media for the sake of church development. The church is the mind and the media is the body, to reach the external world. We should begin that movement and activity in the United States, because the Washington Times and UPI are headquartered there. Once we establish our organization in the United States, it can be expanded to the world without much alteration.[31]

but apparently not on the Washington Times' website. ~YellowFives 17:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The paper has the potential to be as reliable as Fox News - they're both considered conservative and are sometimes seen as mouthpieces to be used against enemies. Quotes from the paper should not be given undue weight, which in this case means that if they're the only one making such a claim making it at all may be too much.--otherlleft 13:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation, that makes sense. But if there are other sources, isn't it preferable just to use those other sources instead? What more does a biased source add? ~YellowFives 17:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Here we go again! The news portions of Fox News and the Washington Times are Reliable Sources. Just because their opinion portions may lean to the political right doesn't automatically make them non-reliable sources. That's as if we were to say that the news portions of MSNBC and the Huffington Post are not reliable sources because their opinion pages lean to the political left. Such statements as the one above are a disservice to Wikipedia and scream of political discrimination. Wikipedia is suppose to maintain a neutral POV, therefore to exclude a reliable source due to its opinion portions, would itself violate said neutrality. If we are to go about removing all sources that have a right leaning opinion portion as reliable sources wikipedia could not maintain its neutrality, and it'd become just as bad as Conservapedia. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Although not "the voice of the Unification Church", there has been questions raised repeatedly about the editorial independence of the WT (including by former senior staff). This should mean that considerable caution should be taken with it as a source -- and that "controversial political claims" would be better cited to a less questionable source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all that. I wouldn't take one news report from any newspaper, including the New York Times, as establishing a "fact" on a controversial issue. In this case the word "fundamentalist" has so little meaning that it would probably be better not to use it at all. Borock (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


I am unsure that Elsayed should be strongly defended per [32] "It is evident that Muslims should not expect justice, Shaker Elsayed, secretary general of the Muslim American Society, told reporters later. Muslims are besieged after 9/11, for no fault of their own." [33] "For all those reasons, the mosque has come under closer scrutiny by prosecutors who say its brand of Islam may be encouraging sympathy for groups like Al Qaeda. " ("The mosque" refers to Elsayed's mosque). " And though its leaders adhere to Wahabism" strongly implies that Elsayed is a "fundamentalist" in the Western sense. All this from the New York Times. The Imam had earlier been in the NY area per [34] "Imam Shaker El Sayed, the principal of the Al-Ghazly Islamic School in Jersey City, where Mr. Nosair sent his children until the beginning of 1989, and many Muslims argue that the killing of Rabbi Kahane was not in violation of Islamic law." Leading me to believe there are sufficient sources to corroborate the WT statements. Unless, of course, saying that Muslims feel murdering Kahane was proper is not an unusual claim. Per the NYT, the man is a Wahabist who justifies assassinations. Collect (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to say that than to use the almost meaningless term "fundamentalist." Borock (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Times does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, that's why it's not RS. It's ownership is less relevant. Dlabtot (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen nothing supporting this claim. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical Marker Database

Is this site reliable? Seems much like IMDb, and in fact uses similar initials HMdb (but this site is about historical markers). Its a good source for FINDING information even if we cant use, but I'm curious if it is usuable as a source itself.Camelbinky (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not RS. I'm sure most of the photos are genuine, but it is user-generated and subject to a) errors and b) hoaxes. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Web Archives

Is http://www.archive.org/web/web.php a reliable source (specfiicaly pages like. [[35]] and [[36]] (which also contradicts other more up to date sources)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Using web archives appears to be recommended here: Wikipedia:Dead_external_links#Web_archive_services --FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The Internet Web Archive is a reliable source for the contents of website pages at a given point in time. Which "other more up to date sources" does the Internet Archive "contradict"? Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The BNP website contradcits almost all of the contact information [[37]]. This [[38]] does rather contradcict one of the sources (The Advisory Council section).Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The Internet Archive shows what the BNP website said at the time. The BNP has undoubtedly updated its website since then. The Internet Archive is a reliable source for the contents of the BNP website at the time of archiving. Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
But is it an RS for what the situation is at this time (which is what it is being used for). Indead can any archive be an RS for anything other then historical (not current) matters?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not an RS for any current claim, it's only an RS for what the website said at a specific point in time. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd add that what the website said at a specific point in time is not necessarily unnoteworthy just because it is in the past. "In 1994, the stated position of the BNP was x.." may well be useful to the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
And I'd add that one should try to avoid citing primary sources like this, as one inevitably runs into WP:NOR issues. It's best to cite secondary sources that discuss the BNP. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
So if X says the BNP kick kittens and the BNP's consitution says They do not Kick Kitten then we would use the source that says they kick kittens? Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If the BNP were indeed "kicking kittens", they would not likely be a reliable source as to whether or not they did so. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You would say "source A says X, while source B's website, as of month/year said not-X". Citing primary sources can be tricky, but if you choose your words carefully you can do it without intorducing original research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
So (regarding the structure of the BNP) we would say that "according to web archive .org the BNP's Advisory Council meets three times a year, whilst according to the BNP's current constitution (on its website) is meets 4 times a year"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Is that all this is about? Using an "X said A, Y said B" format for something like that would create a false, or at least greatly exaggerated, dichotomy. Better to word this as "meets three(cite) or four(cite) times a year". Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me but that passage creates a false idea that the differance is not due to diffrent sources being in contradiction, which is the case (and the issue). The current (and indead archived) consitution does not include any statments about the number of meetings a year being open to change. There is no false dichotomy here, they contradcict each other. Nor is there a greatly exagerated one so again I will ask the question, Is the web Archives page an RS for current (not historical) information (given that clearly its information can be out of date)? By the way another question why does a page writen by (and formaly posted on the BNP website) BNP suddenly become RS just becasue its stored ina differnt location?Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Because it's not a material contradiction. Whether an organization meets three or four times a year is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant. We would do well to simply say "they meet several times a year" and cite the current page. As far as being RS, the homepage of the BNP is a valid primary source for other than extrardinary facts about the BNP, in articles about the BNP. And Archive.org is a trusted archiver. The archived page is still a primary source, but it can still be used on Wikipedia subject to the same caveats. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive.org is a reliable source for the content of the archived webpage on the date is was archived, not for any substantive claims. Reliability as a substantive source depends on the creator of the archived page. Archive.org itself is not a substantive source, and should not be treated as one; it's an alternative means of accessing web content that is no longer hosted at its original URL, either because the site/URL has been removed or because the page in question has been altered. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So (In this isnstance) it is no more reliable then the BNP's own website? Now given this should the source used not be the most up to date one (where there are contradictions)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't even see a contradiction, one source describes past practice, the other current practice; the article would describe current practice only, unless there's some particular reason why past practice, or the change involved in the current practice, was particularly significant. "Under the [most recent revision/date adopted] constitution of the BNP, its Advisory Council meets at least four times each year [cite]." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The contradiction is that as it stands the article uses the older version as the source, and that is contradcited by the current version of the constitution. Moreovert has been susgested that both versions shold still be present (that would create contrradiction). I agree that it should only describe curretn practice, that is my point.Slatersteven (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It is no more reliable than BNP's own website, and no less so. However, as said before, primary sources should be avoided in any event, except for non-contentious material. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
So are you saying that because it moves from one website to another it stopes being a primary source?Slatersteven (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
No, not at all. It's still a primary source, even when archived on the Internet Archive. Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Primary sources are generally avoided because "they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." This is not a concern when we're simply repeating straightforward factual statements in an article. When reporting census information about a US community, Wikipedia regularly cites US Census Bureau publications [39]. When identifying the members of a corporate board, Wikipedia cites the corporate website [40]. I'm not even sure, strictly speaking, that these are primary sources, though: the primary source for census figures would be the collected data, not the report of it; the primary source for the corporate board would be the relevant corporate resolutions. If we read the definition of primary sources that strictly, then the BNP constitution as published on the website would be a secondary source, with the primary source being the party resolution (or whatever) that established the relevant text. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think that the OR concerns go away when "we're simply repeating straightforward factual statements in an article"? Also, please note there are significant differences between the US Census Bureau publications and the BNP website. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not so much what I think; I'm trying to describe what seems to be the consensus/practice for handling such material. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The BNP's constitution is hardley a controversal area. All I wanted to know was if the BNP's curretn constitution should be used insteaed of an out of date constitution for its structure. I belive that this has largley been resolved. The issue of web archives beiing used for non-historical informarion is an ancillery (but pertinant) point. This has not been resolved. As to being a primary source, this needs definition as (using the definition that appears to be being used here) any source that comes from the praty making the claim is a promary source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
They're both primary sources, but there doesn't need to be any O.R. introduced if we write carefully. It seems immaterial whether an organization meets three or four times a year. We should simply say they meet "three or four" times a year or better yet, "several" times a year. If we start amplifying immaterial details to create a false dichotomy, then we may be straying into original research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If it was the only contradiction I would agree, it is not. For example the current Wikipage (from the archive source) says “the organisers of the party’s most effective regions”. The current constitution says (on the same subject)“ the organisers of the party’s regions”. This is a rather more significant difference, and is more evidence that the web archive page holds information that is out of date.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe Squidfryerchef's suggestions are off target. The organization's actual practices can't be reliably sourced from either version of the constitution, which is prescriptive rather than descriptive (note the way I suggested phrasing the content). And I don't understand why an outdated archived page should be used as a source when a current version is accessible. Would anyone cite an archived page from www.whitehouse.gov to support a statement like "Both George W. Bush [cite archive page] and Barack Obama [cite current page] are reported to be President of the United States"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are right as far as that goes, but in reality neither the archive nor the current website should be used. There are an abundance of reliable secondary sources that write about the BNP, all relevant information should be gleaned from them. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So ina s ituation were only the BNP mention something (or is the only place thier response is reported) then that should not be in the article? How about when the BNP constitution says X, but other sources say the constitution says Y?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using a primary source, such as an organization's mission statement, in an article about the organization, and it's often useful in filling out uncontroversial details that secondary sources might not comment on. Even if it's an organization you disagree with.
Hullabaloo's comment about the number being prescriptive vs. descriptive is valid. Just because the consitution says they meet three times or four times doesn't mean that some meetings might not be cancelled, or that extra meetings might be held. That's part of the reason why I suggested the wording "meets several times a year". Another way to handle it would be the clause "according to their consitution".
The analogy about both Bush(cite) and Obama(cite) both reported to be POTUS doesn't fit, not unless the President could be changed willy-nilly. Reporting that there's three or four meetings shows that the number had changed in the past and might well change in the future, and meetings may be cancelled or added at will.
However from looking at other materials online, the number of meetings reported by other sources is very divergent. One BBC web page says the council meets monthly,[41] though this is a very brief mention in a 2001 page about a Panorama program. A website called "Lancaster Unity" from 2007, said that the advisory council hadn't met for nearly a year, and the page was even titled "BNP's Advisory Council to be shut down".[42]
So this number could be 3 or 4, or 12, or even 1. It seems to me that the reports of the meeting schedule, whether they're all RS or not, vary too widely to even attempt describing in our article. We should probably mention that there exists such-and-such a council and leave it at that.
Another thing we may want to look at is that some of the comments on the other Lancaster Unity articles imply the meeting minutes are published on the BNP website(!) ( and I'm assuming the presence of minutes is how LU is estimating meeting frequency ). If true, that's a lot more descriptive to readers. Something like "the council prints its meeting minutes on the BNP website", with a cite that's simply a primary-source link to an listing of these minutes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Which brings me back to my point, If an RS says that the BNP do X and this is contradicted by their constitution which should we use? Actualy the Bush Obama example is not that inapt. The President is open to change, just not willy nilly (do you have a soource that says that the number of advisory council meetings changes willy nilly?). The question was can out if date websites be used for up to date information?Slatersteven (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
We have sources that peg the number of meetings at 12 one year, then 4, then three, then one which says almost an entire year went by without a meeting. That sounds to me like the meeting schedule is pretty irregular. But if you're looking for sources that point out a contradiction between what their constitution says and how many meetings they actually hold, that's pretty much a moving target as both numbers change from year to year. i.e. you can't use an secondary source that says they had monthly meetings in 2001 to contradict a primary source that said they were supposed to have three meetings a year in 2007. This all sounds pretty trivial to me, why do you care how many meetings they have in a year? Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Becasue (as I have already pointed out) its not the only areas where the web acrhive page and the curretn edition of the BNP constitution differs. By the way one of your sources is 2 years old, one is 8 years old. That looks to me like very out of date infiormation, that reflects a political prties changing cirucmstances over an 8 year period. This is about how reliable arfe sources that prinit (or are used to repeat) out of date information contradicted by other (more up to date) sources, and what is more reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
That still doesn't explain why any of this is encyclopedic or why we should point out a contradiction. I don't know what the original debate was about but if this is a number that changes every year, it may not be worthwhile to decribe every change in an encyclopedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Squidfrychef's point above is important; if secondary sources haven't draw attention to this, then why is Wikipedia bothering to discuss it? Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me but I was not aware that there had to be a controversy for a source to not be RS for what it is being sourced for, merely that it had to be demonstrably inaccurate. Also (and I have to say this again) the issue of the numbers of meetings the Advisory committee has each year is not the only difference between the web Archive source and the current BNP constitution. Moreover as there is no controversy over this issue would not the BNP’s own current constitution be the best source for information about its structure and organisation?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall re-iterate what this was originally about is a source that demonstrably has out of date information on it RS for current events? Now it appears that this has been answered and that answer is no it is not RS for current information.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The internet web archive gives information at a point in time. It does not given current information. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
So thats a yes then it is not RS for up to date information?Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a "yes or no" issue. It's a reliable source for the contents of the website at a specific point in time, and should be avoided as a source in favor of reliable secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is, eithere its RS for current information or its not. What you seem to be saying is that its RS for historical information (I accept that) but that its neither/is/nor/may/ be Rs for up to date and current information (despite the fact it clealry contradicts more up top date information from the very people it archives pages for). This is not aboout weere I can find this information, is about is this RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

xxx-business-review.com as source

Balaji.ralla (talk · contribs) has been diligently adding news content to business articles, citing websites managed by Progressive Media Group, e.g.

I'm concerned that these xxx-business-review.com sites simply reprint press releases, so they are not reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

For example, in the citation added to GlaxoSmithKline (diff) the pharmaceutical-business-review.com story (here) is a cut-down version of the GSK press release (here), and is the same as tens of other websites - see FDA Approves GSK's H1N1 Vaccine).

Likewise, in the citation added to Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group (diff) the Banking Business Review story (here) is a cut-down version of the JLT press release (here).

Fixing all these examples means either removing a load of content or leaving it unreferenced (or supported only by a company press release). What should I/we do? - Pointillist (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to notify the contributor and explain him that he has to look for original sources. Balaji.ralla doesn't look like spammer. Moreover, these sources were used even before he became active, and most probably he just went with the flow - Altenmann >t 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I notified the contributor at the same time I posted my note here, and invited xem to join this discussion, of course. But (given the relatively large number of instances) what is the next step: delete the content or leave the content but delete the citation? - Pointillist (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I've now added a warning on the Portal:Pharmacy and Pharmacology/Web resources page to say that the Company resources aren't necessarily reliable. - Pointillist (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • XXX-Newswire: You see these a lot, prnewswire, businessnewsire etc, and yes you want to go right to the company website if possible as these groups only dissemsinate information from companies. For public companies trying to release material information in the US, there should also be a related SEC filing that may be a better source than the company website ( these are archived with more or less stable links right now, company website may be dynamic and filled with hype too ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that feedback. It is a waste of effort if editors are carefully trying to find and cite references when the sources are already known to be unacceptable to the community. Ideally, editors would have a way of checking whether sources are acceptable. Do you know whether anyone has proposed a way to do this? - Pointillist (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure these are unacceptable, that is AFAIK they faithfully replicate press releases, but there are better links and places to find the same information. A press release that is linked from the SEC is still a press release and contains the same text as the newswire sources. However, it tends to be more useful and doesn't promote a ( perhaps useful) commercial relay service. This is not a big distinction, I don't think anyone is suggesting that newswire coverage is indepdent but if that is the case I should reiterate that usually they just copy whatever they get from companies and don't edit or pass judgment. So, if these is confusion, a press relase has not gained independence from a company by "coming from" an xxx-newswire service. To answer your quesiton, I'm not sure if wiki has a DB of domains or not. May be helpful I suppose but a single domain is not monolithic- nytimes accepts blogs or user feedback that don't have the full faith and credit of a journalist etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I should have explained that these sites do rewrite the press releases slightly and they don't link back to the original releases, so they clearly can't be regarded as trusted archives. I have three concerns:
  • It takes effort to find the original press releases and converting the articles to use them, e.g. re-casting statements so they read "the company announced", changing the reference to point to the company's PR archive and wrapping it in {{cite web}} etc. Companies don't have a duty to maintain online archives of press releases anyway.
  • Company press releases are primary sources. When you link back to company press releases you can end up with a company article that is supported only by primary sources (e.g. JLT). They don't necessarily tell a balanced story (why should they?). GSK announced FDA support for its H1N1 virus on 10th November. The FDA announced support today 16th. The company's release included a load of details that the FDA didn't mention, and (naturally) excluded the fact that four competitors' H1N1 vaccines had been FDA approved two months earlier.
  • This sort of material can be a big deal commercially, e.g. GSK eyes £2bn flu vaccine sales Financial Times Oct 6th 2009 and Tamiflu boosts Roche sales figures (sales of $1.9bn in the first nine months were more than four times ahead of the same period last year) Financial Times Oct 15th 2009.
Editors should be told about problem areas like this, and ideally there should be a wiki-base of sources where contributors can look for comments about specific sites before using them as references. - Pointillist (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
OK : Well, minor grammatical changes etc wouldn't normally matter. And, sure a press release is still limited by its nature as to what it can substantiate, again the newswires don't consistitute indpendent notice (" as featured on prnewswire, this drug is super duper"). Actually, I love making fun of biotech press releases. More mature companies can be just as much fun but usually the real fun of biotech is in the science. I remember one in partcular about an asthma drug test that was all "positive" except for one sentence near end of non-boilerplate about "there was no change in pulmonary function" suggesting that drug had no chance of working( and indeed they abandonned to work even with all the positive adjectives ). Normally editors know about these things, but it is OR or COI that causes problems to arise but it would be nice to have a DB maybe for argumentation and quick/complete refutaion. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Love that example, thanks! This isn't the right place to discuss it, but of course a sources database would have other major advantages for less experienced editors. E.g. if built as a portal (with iframes for browsing references), it would be a great starting place for finding references and could do most of the work of packaging them into the appropriate citation templates. There are a lot of possibilities... - Pointillist (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

News releases are primary, self-published sources, no more reliable than blogs. Show me a press release which meets the criteria for reliability and I will be glad to accept it as the exception that proves the rule.--otherlleft 13:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

They are often authored by notable institutions and are reliable sources about the speaker. A notable blog or blog by a noted blogger may be citable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Where ref is not being used to reflect truth of statement, but only that ref made the statement

This is a follow-up to a previous question. I now have a clear RS for a fact (along the lines of "a Homeland Security official said x"). In addition, I would like to reflect that a later book reflected that the Homeland Security offical said x.

So I'm not using the book to reflect what the official said. Rather, I just want to reflect that the book reported it.

An editor has deleted my entry, arguing that the book is not a RS. The diff is here. Thoughts? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at details but a reliable source depends on the claim. It seems if the source S claims "A said B" and you have a statement from A that "I said B" it would seem the source could at least be presumed to be right or reliable about this statement. Now, if you want to mention that "A said B" and not do original research, it helps to have a reliable source that made the observation and that it relates to a prominent view about A. If S is thought to be a reliable source about the beliefs of viewpoint V, then indeed it seems fitting to make the observation and cite both S and your primary source as an aid to the reader. If source S is making a fringe or view of unknown prominence, you may want to qualify or ignore it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
No fringe theory here. It's actually a quite topical issue (Fort Hood Shootings related). It's the second sentence below ("This was also reported ...") that the editor insists on deleting.
"In October 2008, Charles Allen, U.S. Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, said al-Awlaki "targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen."[1][2] This was also reported by Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry in their 2009 book Muslim Mafia, which was published three weeks prior to the Fort Hood shooting."[3]
  1. ^ Rayner, Gordon, "Muslim groups 'linked to September 11 hijackers spark fury over conference'; A Muslim group has provoked outrage after inviting an extremist linked to the 9/11 hijackers to speak at a conference which is being promoted with a picture of New York in flames," Telegraph.co.UK, December 27, 2008, accessed November 14, 2009
  2. ^ "Keynote Address at GEOINT Conference by Charles E. Allen, Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis /Chief Intelligence Officer," Department of Homeland Security, Release Date: October 28, 2008, accessed November 14, 2009
  3. ^ Gauvatz, Dave, and Sperry, Paul, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, p. 64, WND Books (2009), ISBN 1935071106, 9781935071105

--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue of sourcing, but it may be an issue of undue weight. Basically there are two reasons why "Bob said foo" might be usable in an article: either to validate foo (which requires that Bob be a reliable source), or if the fact that Bob (as opposed to George) said foo is notable. If Bob isn't a reliable source and isn't notable, then stating that "Bob said foo" is usually a WP:COATRACK for getting foo into the article, which is undue weight. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
More importantly, you or someone asked about the reliability and relevance of this source above Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Statement_in_book_published_by_WND_Books--Purpose:_to_reflect_that_author_warned_of_risk_before_event_happened. If you want to use it in two articles, just ask generally about it, not make two different sections here when you are challenged both times on using it. And as I say above, no WP:RS thinks it's notable that they predicted that and it doesn't add much to the article; more a an advertisement or pat on back for authors/book. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't overstate any connection between the GEOINT quote and what happened at Ft. Hood, which is implied weakly if at all by the Telegraph article, nor should we imply the WND book was forecasting the future. I'd rather see the GEOINT quote moved up to the section on "activities", not in the section about Ft. Hood. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I would agree with the deletion of the book Muslim Mafia as a source for Charles Allen's statements. Given that we already have a transcript of his speech from a U.S. government web site and a major newspaper (The Daily Telegraph), saying that the book also mentioned it doesn't add anything significant, and the polemical nature of the book may distract readers from Allen's statements. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Diversity news page" on Latin American Britons

This source claims that there are "probably somewhere between 700,000 to 1,000,000 Latin Americans in the United Kingdom". This number seems far, far too high when compared with reality, yet the rest of the Wikipedia article has been distorted to suit this reality. Something need fixing here? Source dodgy?--Sangthebirds (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this source before. It says "probably" and "guesstimates". I seem to recall that my view was it could be used so long as the tentative nature of the estimates was made clear. But if there are multiple sources with very different estimates then just leave this one out. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In my view, the source mentioned by Sangthebirds (talk · contribs) doesn't seem particularly reliable. On the other hand, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office reach the same conclusion on page 5 of their Latin America to 2020 paper (available here): "At any one time there are between 700,000 to 1,000,000 Latin Americans visiting or living in the UK". Gabbe (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions on RSN are:

Gabbe (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

<looks at page> Tara Palmer-Tomkinson - huh? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


And hold on a minute - Latin-Americans living in the UK would not be the same as Latin-American Britons which is the subject of the article. So a figure for the number of Latin-Americans visiting or working in Britain is inherently unreliable to give us the number of people who have Latin American histories but are British citizens. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but Latin American Britons redirects to Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. Gabbe (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
But the stat is being used for the statement about "latin American Britons" - so my stance is it's unreliable because the original source does not use such a term or claim that the number relates specifically to that particularly group. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, now I see what you mean. Gabbe (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Scholar writing about his own faith group

Editors are arguing that a chapter in this book is not a reliable source, because its author, Ron Geaves, a Professor of Comparative Religion at Liverpool University, is writing about his own faith group (he is a long-time follower of Prem Rawat). He has published peer-reviewed papers on his own as well as other faith groups in reputable journals.

Are the arguments against using the source reasonable and compatible with WP:RS/WP:NPOV? --JN466 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say that, for facts as opposed to opinions, the source looks very good. Whether he is an adherent or not, he was the one chosen by the editors, who are apparently respected academics, to write the section of this book. The publisher, while not one with which I was previously familiar, also appears reliable. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
First, Jayen hasn't notified the other concerned editors about this thread, which I think is always a good idea. Second, I don't see where any editors are arguing that this is a totally unreliable source. They are questioning it, but I think Jayen is misrepresenting the discussion. Third, and this is an important point, Ron Geaves is not simply a long-time follower of Prem Rawat. Geaves was, according to some accounts, one of the first Western followers of Rawat, then known as Guru Maharaj Ji. Since then he has helped promote Rawat, including speaking on his behalf. Geaves' involvement with Rawat is analogous to one of the apostles in the Christian faith. Fourth, a concern to some editors is that Geaves does not generally disclose his involvement with Rawat in his writings, implying that he is an objective observer. Fifth, some of Geaves' assertions about Rawat either contradict or provide a very different view than other scholars on the topic. Sixth, he is proposed as a source for use on topics where we have no independent sources to provide other views. In conclusion, I don't recommend excluding Geaves categorically, but when he is used his affiliation with the subject hould be identified, and his assertions should be attributed to him.   Will Beback  talk  17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
First, you were notified of this thread 8 minutes before you commented here: [46]; so have the other editors. I've linked the relevant discussions we have had for editors to read, above. These discussions speak for themselves. I will not comment on your opinions on apostledom, save to say that any author has the right to play an active role in his chosen faith community, and that the methods which we use to establish reliability are not based on authors' religious allegiance. Where Geaves contradicts others, WP:NPOV says we should give his view and that of others, in proportion to their published prominence among the most reputable sources. Here is Geaves' disclosure in the book concerned: [47]; I find it unlikely that the editors would not have known about his background. Geaves has published in this field for some years, and was originally encouraged to do so by academic colleagues. --JN466 17:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Forum Shopping Alert JN is supposedly a member of the Prem Rawat Wikiproject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat. That project agreed a process for assessing the 'usability' of sources across the articles that the Project encompasses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat/Current_article_issues#Source_assessment_framework. That such a process was agreed was particularly significant because the project itself was a development of a mediation that followed an arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-07-06/Prem_Rawat#Request_details and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2 . JN expressed disatisfaction with the assessment process but made no attempt at proposing an alternative approach -other than to require other editors to agree with him. Despite there being an agreed process to assess the sources concerned with Geaves JN unilateraly introduced new usage of a Geaves source into a Project article, fomenting a confused and largely purpossless discussion on the article talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#Followers. Having failed to get his way JN now seeks to bring his battle here, without even notifying the RAWAT Project moderators. JN has now posted what he describes as a "Courtesy note" on Project Members' pages -with a request for us not to participate here ! JN's actions reflect much that was repudiated by the Rawat2 Arbcom - RS/N participants need to be aware that this discussion will come within the scope of the arbcom decisions. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll second some of what Nik is saying. Prem Rawat sourcing discussions come with a pedigree. Please don't make broad up/down decisions based only on what is presented here. Protonk (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs), like two or three other users who will probably drop in here any minute ;), is a single-purpose account who was admonished in the arbcom case he mentions, was topic-banned for a month earlier this year, and has indeed proposed a very idiosyncratic source assessment process that is without parallel within Wikipedia. This simply needs outside eyes; the discussion links are above. --JN466 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
And why shouldn't your fellow editors be allowed to comment Jayen, when you've felt free to usurp the project process without consensus from the rest of us? This is so unhelpful to the collaborative process on these very contentious articles about Prem Rawat. No one has refused to examine Dr. Geaves as a reliable source, in fact, it's on the list of Project sources to review. There's absolutely no urgency to add the particular edit Jayen is fighting for and it's upset the apple cart of the Prem Rawat Project. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Readers here should be aware that Prof. Geaves, as well as being a follower of Prem Rawat for 40 years, is the only scholar to have written about him for the last 20 years (the reason being that Rawat is no longer, in spite of much attempts by his followers, 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense). If Geaves was unconditionally accepted as a reliable source it would put him in the position of having a monopoly on writing about Rawat's current activities. --John Brauns (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I checked that assertion in google books, and found it was far from true. Here are a number of books published over the past 5, 10 years which comment on recent activities of Rawat/Elan Vital:
There may be more. This search was quite useful; some of these are new to me. I'll add these sources to the project page. JN466 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

JN, this appears to be a list of compendiums of new religious movements, none of which appears to include any original research. I'll be happy to be proved wrong as I would welcome non-Geaves research, post-1990, into Rawat, but the brief glance at these books suggests I'll be disappointed. --John Brauns (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

John, they clearly comment on events after 1990. The very first book linked above cites Barker 1995. The second one cites Barrett 1996, right at the end of the section. The third covers "present practice" up to 2005. And I am tired of your moving the goalposts all the time, John. Above you claimed no scholar had "written about him for the last 20 years" and he was "no longer notable". Being proved wrong on that one, you think up another objection. We have been discussing Geaves for two months now in this manner. Nik said Geaves was wrong in saying DLM was disbanded and Elan Vital was created. I showed that Geaves was fully in line with half a dozen other top scholars and encyclopedias. I was told that all the other scholars were wrong too, that Nik knew better, and that Geaves was still unreliable. Geaves says, Rawat's national events in the States attract 5000 to 6000 people, and you, Sylviecyn and Nik claim in unison that Geaves is lying; even though on your own site you yourself say that events in the West are consistently attracting audiences of 5000, even 8000 on special occasions in the 90s. And so forth. I realise that nothing I or anyone can say will ever make you accept that Geaves is a reliable source in WP terms. Would you like to bring a new objection now? Does it have to be original research after 2005? JN466 03:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC):
JN, as I said, I am happy to be proved wrong about these sources. Looking at the third, Dr. Nigel Scotland's book, published in 2005, I see that he states "Currently, Maharaji's teachings include: Maharaji is a Divine Incarnation". I am happy that this should be included in the article on Rawat. There may be other gems in these sources so I thank you for posting them! However, I stand by my concerns about Geaves, and it would be nice if you address them specifically on the prem Rawat project page. --John Brauns (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
John, I have little desire to discuss Geaves for another two months with three ex-followers of Rawat's who are only here on Wikipedia to edit articles about their ex-guru. Let's just note that feedback here on this noticeboard leans towards the view that Geaves' chapter in Gallagher/Ashcraft is a RS in the Wikipedia sense and fine to use with attribution. --JN466 06:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
JN, please remember to assume good faith here. You cannot on the one hand say that Geaves' 40 year allegiance to Rawat doesn't matter, and then claim that other editors' former allegiance DOES matter. If you would actually acknowledge and address the concerns other editors have (some of whom are not former followers), then there's no need for the discussion to continue for months. --John Brauns (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[48] Answered on John's talk page. --JN466 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as nobody-in-particular, passing by by chance, may I observe that there'd seem here to be a confusion between a "reliable" and a "neutral" source. It is evident that scholarly controversy might and frequently does arise where experts have opposing views. In that case neutrality demands that neither view be excluded. Particularly, it would not be acceptable to assert "this expert is unreliable because he takes a partial view and so must be excluded". Here, Geaves may be held to be non-neutral on particular points but his credentials establish him as a reliable source in the field unless and until peer review decides otherwise. Since he cannot be excluded, therefore, and his affiliation is declared, then if there are views on certain matters that oppose his, the views in question should be identified and may be established as notable by another source with a comparable degree of reliability. This is one of those cases where the other option, exlusion of both views, would wipe out wiki-valid data. Finally, again, let us not confuse the neutrality expected of editors with the reliability and notablility expected of sources cited. Thanks for your attention. Redheylin (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Redheylin, thanks for your input to this debate, and what you write is absolutely correct for topics where other, neutral, reliable sources to counter the non-neutral source exist. Unfortunately, for the subject of Prem Rawat, in recent years, although there is a wealth of information on the internet, there are no other sources that qualify as reliable, which is why most editors of Rawat articles are arguing that Geaves be used with caution. --John Brauns (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

At Mass killings under Communist regimes some editors wish to include The Global Museum on Communism as an external link, and debate through discussion of the policy at WP:ELNO has focused on the issue of verifiability of the source.

Is The Global Museum on Communism a Museum of the expected quality of Museums?
Does The Global Museum on Communism meet the verifiability standards expected of Museums?

Ease links:

Mission statement
Body holding curatorial responsibility
Museum contact information

yours with thanks Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the site is an internet-based "virtual museum", and makes no claim to be a museum in the traditional bricks-and-mortar sense. I believe that the correct standard would be that of a website, rather than of a museum. The website is a product of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. The most recent discussion on the talk page about this website can be found [here]. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be simply based on a IDON'TLIKEIT by Four Deuces. As long as Edwards is a historian, he is considered reliable though probably in the interest of caution the source should be attributed.radek (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

May involved editors of Mass killings under Communist regimes of all kinds please allow uninvolved editors from WP:RS/N to do their job without spilling Talk: or AfD discussions over to here. Myself, and AmateurEditor, have outlined sufficient information for WP:RS/N editors to make use of, and myself and AmateurEditor disagree on the point, so the two positions in conflict have already neutrally established the debate in the hope of uninvolved editors discussing the point. This is not a voting contest. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please just note that the foundation was established by a special act of Congress. "Established by Authorization of Congressional Resolution H.R. 3000 & Presidential Approval, Public Law 103-199" Smallbones (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the act. The Congress encouraged the Council of Captive nations to form a foundation. The Act permitted the Council of Captive nations or such a foundation to collect money for to establish a monument, and permitted use of land for the monument. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a RS. It uses idiosyncratic definitions to support its cold war propaganda POV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that it is not a reliable source, and don't know what you mean by idiosyncratic definitions, but since this is about an "External links" website, the issue has been whether it meats the criteria at WP:ELNO or WP:ELMAYBE. WP:ELMAYBE specifies consideration for "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Here are examples of the knowledgeable sources contributing to the website: [49][50][51][52][53] AmateurEditor (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the directors who have WP articles: Lee Edwards (chairman), Paula Dobriansky, Jay K. Katzen, Grover Norquist, Donald L. Ritter, and Aldona Wos. Notice that all these people are part of the American radical right. The chairman was the first person to establish an American branch of the World Anti-Communist League, which itself was extremely controversial. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an RS - I visited the "News page of that web-site and would applaud what they're trying to do. But I'd go to their source for every fact they claim and not treat them as a reliable source. 86.169.183.36 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_49&oldid=1144572679"