Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

→

Talk:Oyster sauce#Non-Asian oyster sauces

Issue: Steak and Oyster sauce was a common English recipe documented as early as 1815 ref The Times, 17 August 1815; Mendicity

My intoduction of the above refrerence has prompted the challenge I call bullshit on your Times reference.

I have uploaded the section : But could someone, with access to the time database confirm the validity of the refence? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it may be reliable, although it's hard to tell with that small snippet. I think you have an editing disagreement over what to include in the article more than a reliability problem. And this board doesn't do much with those. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I went into the Times Digital Archive and found the reference checks out accurately on column B of page 2 of The Times of 17 August 1815, in a report of the inquiry of a House of Commons committee into 'Mendicity in the Metropolis'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is FindArticles.com reliable?

I'm working on improving the So Yesterday article and I notice there was a source confirming the July 15, 2003 airplay release date and July 29 retail date, but I'm not so sure of the reliability. It is an archive of an article from Business Wire (which I'm not sure if it's reliable or not either), but their website only has a limited archive of press releases. Could this FindArticles.com archive be used to confirm the release date? –Chase (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's reliable. Everyking (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

FindArticles is just a consolidator, you need to look at the underlying article/author/journal/publisher. In the case, as you note, it is Business Wire which, while generally reliable, is often not independent of industry news releases. --Bejnar (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Bejnar. Dlabtot (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo! Music - Chart Watch UK by James Masterton

Just interested if the Yahoo! Music Chart Watch UK by James Masterton is considered a WP:RS. SunCreator (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes.—Kww(talk) 16:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Seemingly biased editorials

Are op-eds in major newspapers considered reliable sources for supposed events that no other reliable sources publish?

Specifically, I am taking about this source. The article paints a very negative picture of the Islamic Society of Boston. But the authors of the article headed organizations that were sued by the ISB, which, IMO, renders them non-third party sources. Not surprisingly, then, the article uses rather biased and non-objective words to describe members of the ISB and others associated with it: "purveyors of the most intolerant religious teachings on the planet", "a hate-mongering preacher", "warped views".

Further, it makes statements of fact that I find hard to believe: "[ he Yusuf al-Qaradawi ] ... has urged that the Jews be murdered “to the last one.’’ "

Qaradawi is quite controversial, but the above statement is rather unbelievable. Should we accept the above source as legitimate or ask for other third party sources that report (and not editorialize) statements.VR _talk 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tough one, at least in the issues it raises.

First, there is the general question of whether an op-ed can be a reliable source.

My two cents' worth is that it can if the assertion is credible and the publication is reliable. Boston.com is the Website of the Boston Globe which is certainly a reliable source, so a phrase such as "the Haitian earthquake of 12 January 2010" could be used as a reliable source for that being the date of the earthquake's occurrence. (Obviously, there would be thousands of more clear-cut reliable news sources for that particular piece of information, and I use it only as an example).

In this respect, newspapers' own editorials - which at the more reliable papers tend to go through an editing process not dissimilar to that given to the news - can be a reliable source. Individual columnists less so.

Then there is the particular question of whether a pair of guest columnists can be reliable sources for this rather extreme assertion apparently unreported elsewhere.

If you Google for the expression "kill them to the last one" it seems to be a fairly common turn of phrase in anti-Jewish Islamist circles - I presume it may originate from some historical figure. So that makes it less unlikely that al-Qaradawi has said it.

However, if there is not a single other report of him using those exact words, there has to be a fairly substantial doubt that he actually said it. It may that he said something very similar, and these authors are paraphrasing, and perhaps the Wikipedia article could do the same - American opponents of Qaradawi have suggested that he called for all Jews to be killed.

Which article is it, by the way? Barnabypage (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would argue no. An op ed is not news reporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnabypage: this started off at the article of Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi, where this is bieng used to assert that Qadhi denied the Holocaust as of 2009. Qadhi did make statements denying the Holocaust in 2001, but retracted them, and as of 2008 stated that he fully believed in the Holocaust. (I brought this example up at BLP noticeboard seperately)

But I wanted to know whether such a source can be considered reliable at all. Wouldn't it be better to use unbiased and more serious reports?

Thanks for your response Wehwalt.VR _talk 21:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Op eds (and even regular editorials), can be used only to source opinions held by their writers/publishers and are not a reliable source of "facts". Such opinions should be weighed for dueness and always need to be attributed in-line. Furthermore, in this particular case if the op-ed is used as a source for the writers' view of ISB, the CoI of the authors should be plainly stated just as Boston Globe itself does. Abecedare (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. But how do we judge dueness? I don't see the authors of this op-ed as very notable people (by contrast someone from the Anti-Defamation League would be a more notable commentator).VR _talk 21:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

i've looked into this briefly. It appears that the Boston Globe ran two op-ed pieces with opposing views of the Islamic Society of Boston on the same day, the other by Michael Felsen.[1] One way of handling this is to briefly give both sides of the matter. Will Beback talk 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

VR, answering your question about "how do we judge dueness", here are some parameters to consider:

The amount of literature on the subject. If we have numerous books or articles written about a subject, highlighting a single op-ed may not be due. On the other hand, if the subject is relatively obscure, an op ed may provide useful content.
The authority of the source. For example, if the US State Departments issues an opinion on ISB, that will almost surely be worth including; ditto for a state official; or, a scholarly article or book published by a reputable publisher; or, as you say ADL; an op ed by relatively unknown authors, less so.
Whether the opinion has been cited by other reliable sources.
Whether the claim raises redflags. If a claim is singular or exceptional, we demand higher sourcing standards; conversely for a commonly accepted claim, the exact source used is less important.

The above points are generic (and, not exhaustive). For this particular article, my sense is that the inclusion of the Boston Globe op eds would be supported mainly by #1. The strategy, Will Beback suggests of citing the two contrasting op-eds seems sensible. The current version:

Reports of ties to radical Islam have been controversial.^{Boston Herald October 23, 2003}

is unacceptable, both in terms of the non-specificity of the claim, and incomplete source information. Abecedare (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Will Beback's suggestion is important in the case of the ISB. But about Qadhi and Qaradawi etc. who are not discussed in the second article?

Also, how important is it to defend one's remarks than to simply state them without substantiation. WP:RS, on multiple points, calls us to use sources that have an enhanced process of "fact-checking" and not use sources simply based on "personal opinion". Thus, the very least a source can do to satisfy this is substantiate or source the claims its making. the current source does no such thing. I find this inexcusable, since sourcing one's facts (or hinting at where they come from) is practiced by scholars writing books to nobodies writing blogs.

And even in wikipedia, when we make criticism of people, we usually refer to sources that make a reasoned refutation of these people (whether the reasoning is correct or not), not simply those who place a label upon them, don't back that label, and move on.VR _talk 17:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Help needed verifying if a Czech source is reliable.

<noindex> Is [2] a reliable source? Using an online translator it seems it is in Czech. It is being used to confirm a person has acted in gay pornographic films - "Czechoslovakian competitive bodybuilder and model appearing in several gay porn films". If this is not reliable enough can those looking offer an alternative source? Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 14:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a tabloid, and a pretty low-standard one at that, judging by its front page. Not a reliable source for an encyclopedic BLP. --JN 466 21:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a tabloid, as such I consider it unsuitable for contentious info, for confirming entirely trivial info, I would let it pass. The information in this case is contentious, as such Blesk is unsuitable. I notice that the claim is absent in the Czech article Czech article. There is a discussion here cz:Wikipedista diskuse:G#chybi zdroj, exactly on whther to use the Blesk as a source for the porn statement. The Gtranslate is completely garbled - with my limited Czech I read it as a total no-no, they do not accept the info from Blesk. (I would expect a bad source is "špatné zdroj" - "chyba" is more like an error, or a mistake, but my Czech is quite bad.) </noindex>. I would noindex this discussion, but the tag doesn't seem to work, piped his name instead. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure your efforts to hide the name of the individual are going to help, since they were listed for quite some time in List of male performers in gay porn films with the Blesk link, a non-functioning link, and IMDB as references. I recently removed them, which was the impetus for the question here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, nice catch, locating sourced contentious info, when everybody is chasing their own tail, gravely concerned about unsourced (and mostly entirely innocuous) articles. Even if he did porn films in his youth (aged 18-21), for money, no regrets, and no family condemnation, according to the Blesk article, he now has a family and children, and he may wish not to have this posted on the global billboard forever. The fundamental problem though, is Blesk, not Wikipedia. The same info is in the Polish and Malay (??) articles. I will contact them later, must go now. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Web Gallery of Art

Is Web Gallery of Art a reliable source for information about a nineteenth century artist? --Defender of torch (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say no: the only two staff biographies provided (at http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/ekren.html) indicate they are not qualified art historians, and the site is quite adamant that it is "not related to any museums or art institutions". (BTW, I am sure the site is well-intentioned and it probably is fairly "reliable" in the common English sense of the word rather than the Wikipedian one - in other words, it might if necessary be used to establish facts which you could then substantiate via a more Wikipedianly reliable source,.)

What fact(s) do you need attribution for? Barnabypage (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Georg Feuerstein book Holy Madness published by Hohm Press

The book Holy Madness, by this guy Georg Feuerstein. At issue is this book is published by this guy, controversial guru Lee Lozowick [3], who uses the Hohm press, [4] to self publish his own books as well as the books of others. The book is being used as a source to bring in contentious claims about another controversial guru, Adi Da. Concern is that book appears to directly source internet attack sites and there are concerns that there may be editorial bias, or a lack of editorial oversight, even though technically not self-published. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Hohm press a vanity press? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Journal of the Neutraceutical Association of America

This is being used as the main source in several articles on dubious nutritional supplements. IT doesn't strike me as a reliable source. I have found blog references (themselves unreliable as sources for wikipedia) that said that the journal is funded by a guy who is himself a major sales person of "neutraceuticals" and is mainly used as a sales brochure for supplements masquerading as a scientific journal.

My own digging seems to support this and it would appear that the journal is not peer reviewed, is not affiliated with any sort of school and is - to be blunt - not an academic journal at all.

I thought it'd be best to bring this here before taking precipitious action (which will likely involve more than one stubbing and a couple of prods). Simonm223 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to do our own investigations (which count as source-research, not original research). This journal is certainly claiming to be peer-reviewed and those listed as being on the editorial board include several working for prestigious universities. But I wouldn't recommend a UK academic trying to raise their profile in the REF to publish in it! One thing we would see for real academic journals is an academic publisher like Sage, Cambridge, Taylor & Francis, or Harvard, and I'm not seeing that in this case, which rings alarm bells. (These publishers do publish journals for organisations and learned societies so the involvement of the Nutraceutical Assoc. is not necessarily a problem in itself.) I doubt if it's listed at ISI, though it may be at PubMed, worth checking both as well as the electronic services like Ingenta and Gale. The citation index, if available, should always be a major guide for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got a couple of articles on even funnier fake journals mentioned here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nerdseeksblonde . "Peer" of course means just that, ad and sales people have peers just as much as medical researchers. If you try to highlight the evidence, while avoiding OR, issues with source quality should be apparent to reader. If source is notable, perhaps it has been critiqued by others and an article on the source would help the reader. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

www.atta.travel?

Is this page suitable for citation as a source on Singita Game Reserve? It's a third party, possibly a Trade association (or "more than" that) but not a regulatory body. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine for uncontroversial facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC notification

A Request for comment which may be of interest to the reliable sources noticeboard: Template talk:Unreferenced#RFC: should this tag be allowed on stubs?. Fram (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

everyhit.com

The issue of finding reliable chart sources for British positions has come up again. In a nutshell, British charts are produced by the Official Charts Company, with the BBC being the first publisher of the chart. They are then republished in numerous physical media. Online, they are archived by the Official Charts Company for 100 weeks. This leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the primary and best online source converts into a deadlink in slightly under two years.

Various online archives keep information for longer. At WP:GOODCHARTS, the recommendation is to use chartstats.com, a recommendation that has been a source of controversy due to the anonymous nature of the archiver. These objections were primarily brought up by Goodraise.

Recently, Goodraise has objected to the use of everyhit.co.uk, specifically in the featured list reviews for the Pussycat Dolls and the Black Eyed Peas. This archive, while once again being an anonymously archived copy of the data, can be demonstrated to have been treated as reliable by multiple news sources. It was

This level of use in my mind establishes the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS. At the very least, I think it qualifies as a legitimate convenience link because the original source of the data has an impeccable reputation.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources expected to go dead can be archived case-by-case by editors using WebCite; obviously this doesn't help with links already dead. Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a somewhat related topic to whether we can treat everyhit.com as reliable, but it is generally untrue with chart sites. All the archive facilities I am familiar with have difficulty recovering data retrieved from databases and searches, as opposed to be directly encoded in the source HTML.—Kww(talk) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

the use of everyhit.com in those undoubtedly reliable sources as a source of information proves reliability. They would not use the source if they didn't think it was reliable, they have their own reputations to protect. and there are many more examples of its use. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on this a bit, but can this discussion group clear up for me if Zobbel and αCharts are considered reliable? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of fully meeting every requirement of WP:RSN, no. In terms of literal accuracy, in that they seem to correctly archive the things they archive, yes. Zobbel has problems with conflating charts: it can be difficult to determine which chart an album charted on unless you know the qualification rules for each chart beforehand. Acharts accurately archives charts that are unofficial charts to begin with, WP:GOODCHARTS is silent on Zobbel, and recommends against using acharts for good and featured articles. There are some times it is hard to avoid using Zobbel, as they are the only archive that preserves position 101-200 on the UK charts. Allowing its use is a case-by-case matter with me. Acharts is wholly unnecessary: every piece of data it archives is available on an official licensed archive as well.—Kww(talk) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I see that aCharts can be replaced, but with what? Going by everyHit, this seems to only archive no's 1-40, is there another website i should be looking at? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 01:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

British charts excepted. WP:GOODCHARTS recommends chartstats.com, but everyhit.com is arguably better when dealing with the first 40 positions, because of the usage noted in this discussion. It would be nice to get back on the original topic: the reliability of everyhit.com, and whether the references from news sources establish a reputation for reliability.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will start a separate discussion elsewhere. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there books that provide these lists? Couldn't you just provide a reference to a relevant ISBN, then it would be valid for all time? Hibbertson (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the books over cover up until 2006/7, so anything after that still needs a web-based archive. Mister sparky (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Mister sparky. The days of large paper tomes detailing the complete histories of a chart are gone.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Convenient lists may not exist in book form, but the UK charts are still published on paper, aren't they? On a side note, it would be nice if this thread received some feedback from editors not involved in discography articles or FLCs. Good raise 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Weekly trade magazines, yes. Technically possible to reference? Certainly. Reasonable? Not very, especially when there's an archive available that reliable news sources feel is reliable enough to use. Would you please respond to that point?—Kww(talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have preferred to simply abide by the consensus of uninvolved editors, but since you're asking for my opinion, I'll state it. Is it reasonable? That's not the question. We need to cite reliable sources. EveryHit.com is either reliable or it isn't. Whether it's inconvenient not to use it is irrelevant. So, is it reliable? Since in this case, outside citation is the only indicator of reliability, I'd like to see more than just a handful of links. Good raise 06:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to get some outside voices. At this juncture, it seems unlikely. We agree more than you think, BTW. I'd love to have some rock-solid, fully licensed and attributed permanent archive of these charts. The vast majority of my edits are eliminating poorly-sourced information and correcting sources. I'm between a rock and a hard place on this one, though. If I go 100% purist, I would be pushing for citations to the physical charts. In practice, those are unverifiable, though: very difficult for editors outside of the UK to get access to, and not easy for the average UK citizen to access, either. If someone cited a position in a UK chart to ChartsPlus, I would wind up verifying it against Everyhit and ChartStats, and, if it mismatched, I would wind up either deleting the information or correcting it to match the information found in the archives because, whether they meet WP:RS or not, their accuracy has not been brought into question: if the mismatching information was referenced to the physical chart, the odds are that the information is incorrect, not that all three archives got it wrong. Worse yet, I can see people forging the physical citations as the path of least resistance: look up the date on EveryHit, and forge the reference based on the information retrieved from there. Of course, when people verify it, they will look at ChartStats or Everyhit to verify, completing the loop of forgery.

I've asked Mister sparky to search diligently for more high-quality references to everyhit.com. Hopefully, we can find enough to make you feel more comfortable. I would also like to hear your views on these cites with regard to WP:CONVENIENCE. That's a guideline that I have tried to engage in discussion with you about multiple times, but you have never replied.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since WP:CONVENIENCE leads to an essay, I'll ignore what is being said there and instead assume that you meant to link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Convenience links, which, by the way, is a style guideline, as opposed to a content guideline. First off, pages given as convenience links need to be reliable sources. They are not exempt from that. Secondly, it's "convenience links", not convenience references. When the original source goes offline, you place a link in the reference to the original source (in {{cite web}} this is done using |archiveurl=), not replace the whole reference. ChartStats and everyHit.com may accurately archive the raw data of the official website, but their pages are not true copies of the originally referenced ones.
If you're saying that we should rather openly use inferior sources than risking forgery, then I'll have to strongly disagree. Since we are all volunteers, it makes no sense to call any one of us lazy, but if an editor is unwilling to do the proper footwork to write the kind of quality articles that our readers deserve and instead resorts to such improper methods, then the project would be better off without that editor. I'm not willing to accept bad sources for that reason, let alone supporting the promotion of an article using it to featured status.
At this point, the only two things that I can picture persuading me to accept everyHit.com as reliable is a substantial amount of high quality, third-party usage/recommendation and/or advocacy from several uninvolved editors. Good raise 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say allow it. We have to have some flexibility in how we do things, and I think you've made a good case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good link: BBC Radio One specifically recommends using everyhit.com to search British chart history.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to chime back into this discussion, this time for the correct reasons (and because I don't think this has been quite resolved yet). I just wanted to point out that looking through a lotta, lotta discographies - especially FLs - pretty much every one of them link to either ChartStats, or everyHit. So firstly, does the above link satisfy Goodraise (which I think ultimately could be considered a consensus on the subject), and secondly, if it doesn't, what should happen to the discogs? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

well i think general consensus has already been reached about chartstats and everyhit amongst the majority of editors and reviewers because throughout my months of working on discographies and taking part in flc discussions, so far User:Goodraise has been the only one to object to their usage. Mister sparky (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This still messes up once it gets to FLC's on discographies though, and I can see many of them taking the same course of action: Goodraise reviews, Goodraise doesn't like everyHit, Goodraise doesn't support, DaBomb fails it, end of discussion. I'm not slating his reviews, considering i can't argue against his judgement, I just think it would be good if this website ws established as good or bad. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no single link has changed my mind, nor did I expect that to happen. EveryHit.com is not only a self-published source, but also an anonymously published one. A handful of instances of usage by other sources and a one-line recommendation alleviate some of my concerns, but ultimately, they don't raise the website to the same level as the website of The Official Charts Company or, for example, a print magazine that publishes the figures. In your terms, the website will never be established as clearly "good or bad" (unless significantly more third-party usage/recommendation shows up). Consensus can change. Even though the Black Eyed Peas discography was promoted while using it, there is no guaranty that the next FLC using everyHit.com won't fail because of that. It's the risk of using less-than-premium sources. Personally, I probably won't oppose an FLC if my only concern is the usage of everyHit.com, but I won't support either. As for Chart Stats (previous RSN thread here), that is another matter. I see no reason to stop opposing its usage. Good raise 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on ChartStats, I was never too sure about that website. So to conclude, you're fine with sources like this? As well as that, isn't it quite likely that most of the articles in Category:FL-Class Discography articles, now, shouldn't be? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 13:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am reluctant to use everyhit.com as a reliable source for UK Singles Charts. While there is rarely errors is any of the main chart sites, if there is some it is in everyhit.com

In my experience reliable sources for UK Singles Charts are in order of quality:

The Official Chart Company (short term archive only)
Chart Plus (but this is WP:PAYWALL).
Chart Stats (Top100 only)
Music Week (not link friendly - subscription required. Top75 only, short term archive)
BBC (Top40 only, no archive)
Polyhex.com (not link friendly - have to search. Top75 only)

Other sites such as everyhit.com, aCharts and Zobbel are generally not as good quality and I ~~wouldn't be adding them~~ suggest instead using any of the six listed above to any FA type article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Upon further reflection I realise the situation of finding an error in a chart source is akin to looking for a spec of dust on a pinhead. The above discussion of supposedly 'impeccable reputation' like the BBC made me laugh and put into context that in fact, a BBC news source is much less reliable. Chart information isn't open to much interpretation, it is fixed information, an exact thing that is verified and checked to the OCC at the time. That means very little historical error ever occurs. So I am open to pass even everyhit.com off as a WP:RS. If one is ever in any doubt then multple referenced could be used, and even more in the most unlikely event of there being a conflict(has this ever occured in UK chart data on wikipedia?) then an email to the OCC will soon give you a solution. SunCreator (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not as much solving a dispute; its more deciding what sources are reliable enough to be included in an article which passes FA or FL status. In the past, some of the above sources have failed these. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what articles previously failed and be able to read the related discussion to see if it applies in general terms. Charts in the 1952-1960 could be a sticky point because at time there was more then one chart(meaning you could have a conflict between say an old printed magazine and the official charts), also some old charts between Christmas and the new year did not actually get published at the time. SunCreator (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

so basically, after all the discussions all over wiki that have taken place recently reguarding uk chart sources, other than the OCC and ChartsPlus, we're still no closer to a firm decision over what is acceptable and whats not. i guess they'll just have to carry on being treated on a case-by-case business, which sucks. Mister sparky (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Kww and User:Goodraise both asked for an uninvolved editor to comment. I think that I qualify. Maybe you could post a note to them asking for further comments. It may well be we can get agreement now. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can a newspaper know the views of a community?

Is a Jerusalem Post article, reporting that Richard Goldstone's standing in the South African Jewish comminity has plummeted following his UN report a reliable source,[5] or is it necessary to cite scientific polls to make claims about changes in the popular perception? For discussion, see Talk:Richard Goldstone (6, 10 and 15). --Jonund (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would attribute to the Jerusalem Post, inline.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is actually an editorial which should not be used for facts especially for a biography of a living person, because columns lack the fact-checking that an article would have. Also, it does not make any sense to use an Israeli newspaper for a South African subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not an editorial; it's a news article. The journalist, Amir Mizroch, was raised and educated is South Africa. --Jonund (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be his blog entry, It would be better to source the origional articel. Is thre any reason to assume that this blog has any links to the Jerusalem Post? Also the JP link appears to go to the JP front page, not to any article, as such it clearly does not support the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the cache, which takes you to the specific article.[6] It's specified as: Middle East & Israel Breaking News » In depth » Front Lines - the week that was » Article. The advantage with sourcing to the bog that reproduces the article is that the cache is likely to expire. But the footnote should give information about the original place of publication. --Jonund (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Readplatform and Homepagedaily

Is the blog, http://www.readplatform.com/electric-retard/, a reliable source? What about http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article4966-electric-retard.aspx? The relevant article is Electric Retard which is currently being discussed at deletion review. Before the article is undeleted and listed at AfD, I want to know if these are reliable sources.

I am inclined to believe that the first source is unreliable; see the tone of the articles listed at http://www.readplatform.com/, the homepage. The second source is possibly reliable per Pcap's comment at the DRV. Thank you for taking a look at this. Cunard (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a bit of background on HPD - it appears to be owned/run by Richard Neville (writer) and is used as a source on Roxy Jezel and Abbywinters.com.

ReadPlatform is a tricky one because it is an interview, so the question might be can we rely on it not to have just made up the interview? It might not be any use for demonstrating notability but it might work for sourcing information. Currently being used as a source on KASMs. (Emperor (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

A website used as a source on other Wikipedia articles does not determine that it's reliable. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

However, it does indicate that some editors found the sources to be reliable, and the fact that the sources haven't been removed from the other articles indicates that other editors found them to be reliable as well, or at least didn't care enough to remove them. Cerebellum (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And I wasn't saying it was reliable - what I was doing was providing background, including the fact these are already in use which makes it especially important that these issues are resolved here, rather than piecemeal in the AfD or on the other pages. The adult film articles would probably survive the removal of the HPD links but KASMs' sourcing is already poor and it could be problematic. So in essence I was supporting the move to discuss it here.

On the two sources:

HPD might itself be deemed reliable and possibly notable but that piece on their site is really just a passing mention of the webcomic and is not an in-depth piece, you just wouldn't include such an article in a well-rounded and well-sourced article as it adds nothing. The fact that it is and is one of the few third party links is a cause for concern. The other articles are longer and more in-depth so could be of some use. It'd be worth checking out the writers to see if they have done things elsewhere which would help with the RS assessment.
RP is a blog but the interview is relatively wide-ranging and would be useful in providing useful out-of-universe material. However, can we consider it reliable?

So I think there might be a case for HPD in general but not that piece and RP might be useful for that interview. (Emperor (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

I agree that neither source can be used to establish notability. The HPD source does not have sufficient context about the webcomic, while the RP blog is clearly an unreliable source. The author of the RP blog is Robert Foster; a click on his name brought me to the page "All Posts by Robert Foster". The quote from Foster: "I'm a sham and my life is a shambles." and the subsequent link to Blogspot indicates that Foster's articles are not reliable. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Are the following sources and articles reliable?

Source:

http://www.britannica.com

Articles:

Complaint: I had quoted some material from the above source but some people think that the articles aren't reliable.

Parties involved:

sandeepsp4u
deshabhakta
nihar
unspokentruth

Concerned material: Encyclopedia Britannica labels RSS a "militant Hindu organization"^[1] and says that "Hedgewar was heavily influenced by the writings of the Hindu nationalist ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and adopted much of his rhetoric concerning the need for the creation of a 'Hindu nation'. Hedgewar formed the RSS as a disciplined cadre consisting mostly of upper-caste Brahmins who were dedicated to independence and the protection of Hindu political, cultural, and religious interests."^[2]

Would appreciate a third party opinion.--Evox777 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider the Encyclopedia Britannica reliable. But if other good sources contradict it both sources / POVs should mentioned.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The concerned users have not put forth any credible source opposing the above material. All they do is complain about how "biased" E. Britannica is and have made numerous attacks on the author of these articles. Here are some other sources supporting my point:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/09/world/india-bomb-kills-10-in-offices-of-group-of-militant-hindus.html?pagewanted=1 Refers to it as "group of militant hindus"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5186703.ece Refers to it the group as "Extremist Hindu group"
http://www.france24.com/en/20081115-united-states-politics-obama-indian-slammed-with-extremist-link-accusations Refers to it as "part of a network of extremist Hindu groups"

--Evox777 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On invitation and for answering the complain of Evox777 i am hear and bellow are my counter claims and reference's which proves that the content of Britannica is not always correct and never be considered as fully neutral on few topics. Acceptance of Britannica about the mistakes on the articles of Hinduism and related org, they founded it wrong and promised to bring the necessary change which will take time http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1 this is indian NGO who had asked Britannica to revive the content.This is another claim made by a 12 year old boy http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article506346.ece and Britannica had to accept the claims about the mistakes made by there so called experts. This is the book written by Kister's http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aUhjQgAACAAJ&dq=0897747445.&ei=AZ5qS6bFCYOSkASAsvyuDQ&cd=1 who had beautifully compared different encyclopedias and had doubted about the neutrality of Britannica's articles.

Moreover This are journals published by University of Chicago written by George L Burr http://www.jstor.org/pss/1832843 in which he had clearly mentioned its neutrality and laughed at Britannica and its contents.

In this news link also the Britannica is doubted http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n. Irish news had alleged Britannica for providing wrong information about the history http://www.independent.ie/national-news/britannica-errors-spark-unholy-row-2045150.html

My point hear is only that the information of Britannica can not be considered as authentic and free from biasness. Britannica is a form of corporate structure in which people are paid employee and no one can say that what mind set a person have writing the article on any person or organization. Regarding the complain of Evox777 this are his words and POV "reputation of an organization involved in mass killings, question anything remotely critical of the organization" which shows the users mind set while editing the article which is a dangerous sign while one is doing a selfless contribution to an open source, because one can't contribute neutrally if he/she had mind set for the particular person or org.

One more thing i will like to bring in the notice that the user had tried to fill the article with the references of Britannica only in different sections. My question is that how much advisable it is to use the same reference's again and again and filling the whole article. I can bring more reference's if asked by my contributer friend. regards --Sandeep (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article will clearly show the biased nature of Britannica Hinduism and its beliefs http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/

This is the article published by university of Chicago written by Amy Barverman http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index.shtml She had clearly mentioned that the so call religious scholars use to mis concept Hinduism and RSS is the social and cultural organization working in india for the prevention of Indus religions.--Sandeep (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James. There have certainly been claims made that all three of these sources, the Britannica, the Times, and the New York Times, have biases. (The Britannica, for example, isn't too fond of us! :-) ) But that is not the same thing as saying that they are not widely and generally relied upon, they are. If we can find some similarly reliable sources that say that the RSS is neither extremist nor militant, then we should write something like "The Times, New York Times, and Encyclopedia Britannica call the RSS extremist[ref] and militant,[ref][ref] but The Daily Foo, Professor Bar, and The Baz Journal disagree.[ref][ref][ref]" Until then, though, these are pretty good sources. --GRuban (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Britannica, The Times, and The New York Times all qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia doesn't demand neutral sources, since those are as rare as hens teeth, and generally in the eye of the beholder. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with our friend G.Ruban and that's what i was saying since long. I just want to ask that can a whole article be edited with a single source and that to in so much controversies. The same references is getting used in every section of the article just to make it POV. There must be some standard to edit certain things on the basis of discussion and considering the view points of every user with proper neutral references. If one references say that one is a murder and another says that he/she is a holy person then i think that we must avoid discussing about that issue and concentrate on other parts... what my friends says ????????--Sandeep (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You should use other sources to put counter claims into the article, you cannot remove valid cited content. If you think the article has too many negatives in it, which are all sourced by reliable sources, then you should put in some positive things backed up by reliable sources. You cannot continually remove others cited content from reliable sources because you disagree with it. --Taelus (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Britannica's certainly reliable but it's just one RS and it even seems to disagree with itself as it uses a militant label in one article but not the other. I agree with other comments here. Labels like 'militant', 'right wing', 'nationalist' etc etc are opinions and there will be many different labels in different RS. As NPOV says, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys.--Evox777 (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As said by my friend Sean.hoyland that facts must be selected and not the oponions and this militant tag is the oponion of the Brittinica so how can we consider it as a fact. I also consider Brittinica a reliable source but it is little biased to some topics and that to about RSS it is confirmed by my refrences of Hindu Jan Jagruti's mail conversation http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1 . So hear i will request all my friends that in this case we can't consider Brittinica as reliable source. --Sandeep (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Britannica has an article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) itself. But RSS is not referenced to as 'most militant Hindu organization' in it. Rather, in an article on an unrelated topic Hanuman, the author of article opines that RSS is most militant Hindu organization. So, there is clear inconsistency with respect to whether Britannica considers RSS as 'most militant organization'. Considering this, dear admins, will it be a good idea to mention in wiki that Britannica says "RSS is most militant Hindu organization"? Further, this stray remark about RSS in Hanuman article is not substantiated with anything related to it before or after it in the article. One more thing to note here is the quality of article Hanuman on Britannica. This article by controversial writer Wendy Doniger translates 'Ramayana' from Sanskrit into English as "Romance of Rama" which is completely incorrect. Admins, please suggest if you think it is good for an Wiki article to quote from Britannica's Hanuman article. --Deshabhakta (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As per the articles of Titchener which is included in the trusted archive of Indian University press the secondry articles of Brittinica are not adapted for intelligent readershttp://www.jstor.org/pss/1413113

I will also request admins to stop the user Evox777 using the references of Brittinica as this is still in discussion and yet come out with some conclusion.--Sandeep (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As per the Analaysis of Hinduism Studies of America AAR people who are famous for there biased nature on south east religions. AAR people not only holds Key positions in Brittinica but use veto incase of artilces related to south-eastern religion http://invadingthesacred.com/content/view/71/52/

The fallowing article is clearly showing that due to few scholors like Dongear and Brittinica the Hinduism and its org is badly shown in west countries http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_030314.htm--Sandeep (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Musicnotes.com

Resolved

Conclusions were: Not an RS for the song as recorded/released. Paysite should not be linked to. Cite only with attribution, mentioning that info is per sheet music published by the named publisher. --JN 466 11:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am currently doing a GA review, and the nominated article cites musicnotes.com (sheet music published by Alfred Music Publishing; the specific link is [7]). The source is cited for song details such as the number of instruments used, that it's in E minor, and that its tempo is 130 beats per minute.

I am not happy with the fact that the link invites me to download software, "including 5 free songs", and I reckon the link has to go. The publisher is clearly reputable though, and theoretically the sheet music could be cited like treeware, without a link.

However, using sheet music in this way raises a reliability question. Does anyone know how faithful such sheet music is to the recorded version of the song, and whether it can be used as a reliable source for describing details of the song as released? I am concerned that the arrangement reproduced in the sheet music may be simplified, leaving out a lot of details (overdubs etc.). As far as I am aware, such sheet music is designed to enable amateurs to play a song at home. It is not designed to be a faithful representation of the song as recorded. --JN 466 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is at least one FA that uses the same type of link: [8]. --JN 466 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Musicnotes provides a digital copy of the published sheet music. It does require some freeware to view the digital copy, but I don't have any reason to believe the freeware is dangerous (I have it installed on multiple machines). In the cases that I have both a physical copy and a digital copy of the same song, the reproduction is faithful.

There are limits to using sheet music as a source. Some sheet music is specifically a transcription of a particular recording, and others are adaptations to make it playable for a given skill level or instrumentation. Generally, if the key has been changed, there's a note like "capo up to fret x to match recording" or something similar, but that isn't an absolute rule. I'm skeptical of using any sheet music that isn't specifically labeled as a transcription.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheet music is a curious thing. You can buy any piece of sheet music and, when played, it will certainly sound like the tune you wanted. However, I've found considerable variations between sheet music published from different sources, including chord structures, keys, and even timing. Even the sheet music that I have for The Dark Side of the Moon, replete with prism design and direct from Pink Floyd publishing (from memory) is noticeably different in places to what is present on the album.

I consider sheet music guide to the rough structure of a song, but unless its a well-known piece like "Moonlight Sonata" or "Nocturnes" (and even then, timing, weight, and pace are down to personal preference), where differences would be instantly obvious, you're better off not considering it a 100% reliable source. By the way, I've bought plenty of things from musicnotes.com and the software is harmless. Parrot of Doom 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with a good deal written here: I dislike pay-sites that read my location and software before requiring me to download software. Some pop sheet music is unreliable - more or less none would give the full score, but no statement on the page requires this - but the paper version would be preferable. On the other hand the site has an endorsement from the American National Standards in Music Education chairman and, it turns out, gives correct info, in that the song IS in E minor and runs at around 130bpm (though this latter depends on a very non-classical reading of the word "beat", since this means the song is taken as being in common time continuous triplets, whereas it really ought to be notated in 6/8). I must say here two tangential things. First, if the song's lyrics can be quoted without source, why would the above straightforward information be unacceptable OR?! Second, there are a few other problems I note in the article, such as describing the tempo both as "up-tempo" and "moderate", that are unsatisfactory, though not concerned with RS since here both seem to be OR!! Redheylin (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that 'sheet music' even when from the DIRECT music publisher is JUST the copyrighted version. The ACTUAL performed version by the ORIGINAL artist may vary somewhat and also the lyrics may vary a bit. I don't believe that it is appropriate or necessary for Wikipedia to provide details to re-create the music.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about sheet music, but if it was an official version provided by the artist or their company, you might say "The official sheet music says the song has 100 beets per minute" or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AGREED. If it has to be included at all, attribute it to "The official sheet music..." to distinguish it from the 'performance' version which may be slightly different.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with musicnotes.com as far as their viewing of the sheet is concerned. They have the transcripted different keys, which I havenot found in any other sheet music websites like Sheetmusicplus etc. Hence I generally prefer using Musicnotes.com only. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of this discussion so far

Thanks to everyone for weighing in. So, deriving a tentative conclusion from the above input, if we cite musicnotes.com –

the link to the paysite/software download page should go, and the sheet music should be cited like treeware, without a link
whenever we use the sheet music as a source for a song's tempo, expressed as x beats per minute, or for descriptions of any other musical details, we need to indicate in the text that we are citing ~~Alfred Music Publishing's~~ sheet music published by whoever the publisher of the sheet music is in the specific case, and not a source describing the actual song as recorded and released.

I believe the Madonna FA should then be updated accordingly, as it will otherwise encourage further inappropriate use of this source.

Unless someone wishes to argue that this summary is incorrect, I propose we can close this thread with the above conclusions. (I'll wait for a day or two before closing the thread to allow for further input.) --JN 466 14:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that not all of the sheet music in Musicnotes is from Alfred Music Publishing, in fact most of them is from the Hal Leonard Corporation. It really depend on each artist. Frcm1988 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I hadn't realised that. --JN 466 18:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I just saw the link from the article you are reviewing, and that particullary song "Radar" is published by Windswept Holdings LLC, other Britney Spears' songs are published by Universal Music Publishing Group, and there is also another that is from Sony/ATV Music Publishing. The best way to know what company published the sheet music is to scroll down the page to the section Product Information, and then to the third option: Song Details, there is some information, composer, lyricsts, date and publisher. I know that some users just simply put the Alfred Music Publishing in all the references without even bother to look if that is correct. There should be some warning about this, because these could lead to some copyright issues. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! (Another thing I hadn't realised.) --JN 466 21:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT the summary bullet points, if it is 'corrected' to reflect the subsequent discussion of checking which EXACT publisher/company is their source.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with this version as long as we attribute the proper publisher of the sheet music, like UMG for Britney's songs, WMG for Madonna's songs, Interscope for the Gaga songs etc. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not entirely correct, the artist's record label is not the same as the publishing company. The music publisher is the one that owns the copyright of a song and is responsible for the payments to the composers and writers. For example Madonna's label is Warner but the company sold most of Warner Bros. Publications to Alfred Music Publishing including Madonna's catalogue, altought some songs like the ones from the soundtrack of Evita are published by the Hal Leonard Corporation. Lady Gaga's label is Interscope which is part of Universal, but her publishing company is Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Amended above, and added "in the text" to make clear that in-text attribution is meant. --JN 466 19:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Stedman Pearson

Somebody marked the issue resolved, but I still have concerns. My concerns are these: 1) The references for the legal charge do not seem to be reliable for an accusation such as this. I have seen that numerous people try to push gossip sources as reliable, and I would like to see this one properly sourced. Since there is no disagreement that the charge was a real one, I am not sure why this request is unreasonable. 2) The editors that have been making these edits have been attempting to shut down the discussion on this issue by making charges of bad faith and refusing to engage in any discussion whatsoever. This concerns me because it seems to be the way that some people make bad faith BLP edits. I am not saying this is the case, it just seems to be. In any case, I would like to see more input about the use of these sources on this BLP before this issue is closed.--Jarhed (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue already is closed, Jarhed. You seem to be the only person who can't accept it. The article you refer to is extremely well sourced and starting thread after thread about its sources on this noticeboard as well as on the article talk page itself is only going to make you look petty and childish. 80.47.8.103 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That answers my concerns how?--Jarhed (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe there may still be a BLP concern there. The cited source says that he "admit[ted] public indecency and agree[d] to be bound over for a year for £100 at Kingston court, after an incident at a public lavatory". In our article, this has become "He later pleaded guilty to the charges and was fined £100 and agreed to be bound over for a period of one year." The source nowhere states he "pled guilty". As far as I understand, being "bound over" is not a conviction, nor does it imply any wrongdoing. "Being bound over for x amount of money" does not mean that the person was fined x amount of money, it means that the person will be fined if they violate the terms agreed, or that the money acts as a surety. Is there anyone with more legal clue than me who can clarify this?

Beyond that, given that being bound over does not mean being convicted, I question the judgment of including this in an encyclopedia article. We are telling our BLP subjects that they can expect encyclopedic coverage from us, not journalism. Have we made good that claim here? I doubt any reputable encyclopedia would include such a thing. --JN 466 20:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the material. Here is an explanation of what binding over means in UK law: [9] It is not a fine, but a cautionary order: it specifies a sum of money that will be forfeited if a defined type of misconduct should occur during a specified period. --JN 466 21:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal for the reasons you cite.--Jarhed (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have honestly never read such utter nonsense. Firstly, to be "bound over" is a sentence that necessitates either a guilty plea or a guilty verdict for a criminal offence. People cannot be bound over if they are found innocent. Being bound over means that you have to sign a written agreement stating that you will be of good behaviour for a certain period of time after commiting an offence, otherwise you will have to pay a penality. You can also be fined and bound over for a further sum of money simultaneously - the two are not mutually exclusive measures (see this Metropolitan Police Authority document but Google a few court cases yourself if you like). The source you quoted says that Stedman Pearson "admited public indecency" at his hearing at Kingston Court. Admiting to a charge in court is pleading guilty. Honestly - what do you think pleading guilty means? And at no point did his article page mention the word "conviction", nor is that a necessary factor for the inclusion of these details. The article merely stated what he was arrested for, that the matter went to court, and the sentence the court gave him. One source says he was fined, another says he was bound over for £100. It would most likely be both, but regardless, this incident still happened and there were four valid sources to prove it. I think the pair of you have bitten off far more than you can chew here. Roguana (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with the inclusion of these facts in the article, but I disagree with you about the reliability of the cites that have been given thus far. What do you mean, "the pair of you have bitten off far more than you can chew here". Are you accusing me of something untoward?--Jarhed (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If a person is found guilty of a crime, that is a conviction. A fine is a penalty. Neither applies to a bind-over. A bind-over is not a conviction or a penalty. An individual does not have to be convicted of a criminal offence to be bound over. The source cited (not a very high-class source at that) said he was "bound over for £100". --JN 466 21:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To put a point on it, the sources given so far do not describe any of the official details, do not explain the charge, and do not give the official outcome of the case. All of these need to be taken into account when making decisions about the notability of the incident and whether such should be included in a BLP. I would appreciate it if the editors who want this data in the article would come up with a reliable source for the criminal charge.--Jarhed (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

question

I am sure this has come up before. Another contributor feels it is essential to add "a liberal weblog" after Huffington Post, in the article for a journalist and historian who is also a regular contributor at the HP, the first time HP is mentioned.

The HP is like a print newspaper, in that the authors are generally chosen for being authoritative or otherwise notable commentators. Is it really necessary, or even a good idea to append "a liberal weblog" to "Huffington Post"? Would we do this for a print newspaper?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That question is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh? Okay. Can I ask where you think I should have asked this question? Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You can ask at the article talk page, if there aren't enough participants you can ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion, or if a third isn't enough, make a Wikipedia:Request for comments. Now that you're here already, maybe you can put a link here, and someone will follow it, because we're not a bureaucracy, but this really isn't the right place, it's a question of context, not reliability. This is the board you would go to to ask if a statement by the Huffington Post counts as a reliable source for a statement in one of our articles, but how it should be qualified next to that statement isn't this board's jurisdiction. The New York Times has been called liberal, and the Wall Street Journal has been called conservative, but as far as this board is concerned they're both reliable sources for most news statements. --GRuban (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is appropriate to ask such a question here, because attribution is part of the proper use of sources. It comes up fairly often with regard to citing political advocacy groups, that the best way to cite is often by qualifying it as "according to the liberal XYZ" or the "pro-LMN group QRS", as long as the labels are fairly universally agreed upon, that they help in introducing the quote, and we use a touch of understatement. i.e. it would be juvenile to prefix the Wall Street Journal as "conservative", but it would be appropriate to qualify an obscure anti-smoking advocacy group as such.

Which article is being asked about, and what is being cited? In general, it may be appropriate to include "liberal" with regard to the Huffington Post, because pretty much everybody, friend or foe, would identify it as liberal, it adds useful attribution to readers who might not be familiar with the source, especially if it was being compared/contrasted with a conservative source. On the other hand, the term "weblog" is probably not helpful, as it implies a personal website with no editorial control. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Sites as "Reliable Sources"

Can other sites be considered "Reliable Sources"? I am currently in a discussion on the Symphonic rock and Progressive Rock talk threads over changing the name of the genre "Symphonic rock" to either "Symphonic Progressive" or "Symphonic Prog". I have used Progressive Rock sites such as the [Gibraltar Encyclopedia Of Progressive Rock], [Prog Archives] and even on-line stores such as [Amazon] as "Reliable Sources". The first two as sources specific to Progressive Rock and the latter as a "General Usage" reference.

GEPR & Progarchives - checking the about us and who wrote GEPR?, it seems that they are written/maintained by " fanatic progressive rock music collectors" and accept user contributions. I'd say not reliable unless the main editors/creators can be shown as subject matter experts, or the websites have been described as authoritative by other sources (music journalists/papers/journals). I wouldn't consider Amazon reliable for genres either. There are several books listed as references on the Progressive rock article, two in particular I think are very good, Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture, and The Music's All That Matters: A History of Progressive Rock. Perhaps checking these books can find material that supports your position.--Glumboot (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I will check into the background of the GEPR. The owner is quite knowledgeable and has written lengthy articles on the subject. I already have "Rocking The Classics" and have used it on the Symphonic rock page. I will see if I can get my hands on the other book you mentioned. Firstlensman (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PR newswire and Ajax world magazine

Is this content here Azax World magazine a reliable source it is reporting some content from this source, http://www.prnewswire.co.uk I couldn't see the authors name and it looked like you only need to register to upload content? Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Material on PR Newswire is essentially self-published and thus not a reliable source for most purposes. If this court case is of any significance there should surely be a report of it in an Israeli newspaper? Barnabypage (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot article that was submitted by a Wikipedia editor

Is this Slashdot article, which was submitted by a Wikipedia editor, sufficient for Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or Wikipedia:Notability purposes? The discussion is currently occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, specifically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM#Pending Slashdot Story/Review. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A search of the archives indicates it has generally been ill-favoured as a reliable source. –xeno^talk 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable. It's user/member submitted material that doesn't show any inidcation of reliability or editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No real editorial oversight and no peer review, plus the fact that this "article" was "published" within hours of its "submission" clearly make the case (in combination with Xeno's comment about the archives) that this is not a reliable source. Unit Anode 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot.org is a reasonable source, and generally meets WP:RS, although with a certain degree of caution. Articles posted there are subject to editorial discretion (although comments following articles are not). The degree of editorial vetting that happens on Slashdot is definitely far less than in, e.g., a peer-reviewed source, but it is not a self-published source like a blog or personal website.

The above comment about the rapid publication schedule Slashdot is either bad-faith or a misunderstanding. The New York Times or CNN, for example, are eminently reliable sources, both of which often publish within minutes of the events they describe. The fact a source has an editorial review of hours (as opposed to days or weeks) merely describes the type of events and process it uses, but does not speak to its reliability (or the notability of topics addressed).

The mere existence of a Slashdot source is not a sufficient reason to keep an article under AfD discussion, but it does add to the general weight of available sources. In particular, discussion of a topic in a Slashdot article lends a fair degree of credence to the notability of a topic, but is somewhat less useful for reliable and verifiable facts about the topic. LotLE×talk 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is a carry over from a rather heated discussion for AfD re JWASM, where lines are strongly drawn. So far except for xeno's, all other comments are from interested parties in that AfD. I'd recommend that the comments be read here, but that editors involved in the AfD recuse themselves from influencing contention regarding Slashdot, as their analysis is demonstrably partial, as mine would be. -- spin^control 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous person can sign up and submit an article. That is not reliable by any means. The fact that the article references Wikipedia shows it's not that reliable. Even wikipedia prohibits using wikipedia as a source.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Referencing Wikipedia indirectly, i.e. for more information, in which was never done in the original submission but as apart of the editing process by Slashdot, is vastly different from referencing Wikipedia as a primary source of information for said article/story. The primary source for the Slashdot article was the JWASM website and direct test cases against the tool. Please also note, that Slashdot does not allow for anonymous editors. Anyone can call up a news station/paper and submit a story, but whether they choose to verify and then publish it is an entirely different and controlled process. SpooK (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

- They do allow anonymous submissions. They don't publish under real names. (Please spare me the odd example of a reliable source that uses an occasional psuedonym. How many RS's use nothing by handles?) There is no evidence of editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

When's the last time you refused to read a book or article because it was published under a pseudonym? Let's try to put things in perspective here. An attempt to correlate editors under pseudonym as unknown/unreliable people is not the same as an uncontrolled editorial process. Also, I supplied an example of editorial oversight, thus disproving such claim. The whole article doesn't necessarily need to be rewritten by an editor to be considered edited. Such assertions are merely examples of denying the antecedent. SpooK (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you totally missed the point. I acknowledged that there are even psuedonyms in the media. (Yet you felt the need to point it out, as if I denied it). What I said was that it is more the exception than the rule for news sites to not use real names. Your example of editorial oversight is faulty. They take the anon submission, they add a few lines and publish. BTW, overlinking your responses doesn't make them more valid. Same term 3 times in as many sentences? Another one twice in 3? Bottom line, I say they don't meet RS. That is my contribution to the consensus process. Take note, I'm not the only one holding that opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I was in the middle of writing my response when you edited yours to include the psuedonym comment... and I didn't feel a need to change it :P Your assertion of the lack of editorial oversight lacks proof. Unless you have a statement by the editor that claims they did absolutely nothing to edit that article, then you have no proof and therefore no case to back up your claim. I respect your right to claim that this doesn't provide a WP:RS, but make sure to back up any further assertions with solid proof and not mere conjecture. Accountability is an important factor in this situation. SpooK (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your example of editing process seems to be a message board with such usefull comments as "I'm also a big YASM fan. YASM can generate object files for Windows, OS X, and Linux. That, combined with its macro features, let you write a single x86 file that can be used on all three platforms. I'll certainly take a look at JWASM, though!" Exactly how is that helping to improve the article? It’s a message board; one that does not appear to operates (for example) a non-soapbox policy. Moreover is there any indication that these posts are from experts likely to be able to pick up errors?Slatersteven (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the article (the top part) with the uncontrolled/edited responses. Think of the main article as a Wikipedia entry, and the replies to the article as the talk page of a Wikipedia entry. SpooK (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see so the example of edit process you gave was not an example of the process but of the end result. So we do not kn ow how they (or why they) added the new text just that they did. \forgive me but oyu use of the term editing process led me to assume that is what we were segin (a bit like seeing the edit history page on wiki). The main differance seems to be removal of text, why was it removed? I can't actualy see any alterations beyond this so it only an example of them editing text, not checking it.Slatersteven (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is weak-point in the Slashdot editing process, in that it is not as transparent as Wikipedia. I'll request the information about the process directly from the editor. I'll let you know what the response is, if there is any. SpooK (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. A Wikipedia editor did not like the way an AFD was going, so he wrote a review for Slashdot, and then cited it as a potential "source." Sorry, but that is the definition of original research, saying nothing about the fact that Slashdot is not a reliable source. Unit Anode 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, I am not property of Wikipedia. I don't remember signing any contracts that state I cannot participate in other venues. Furthermore, I have not contributed to the main JWASM page until I posted the external link to my published Slashdot review. To say that being an editor here and at Slashdot is mutually exclusive, is foolish. There is no WP:COI as I have not contributed to JWASM or its corresponding Wikipedia page prior to the AfD. Also, to assert yet again that my Slashdot review is only to "save" the JWASM Wikipedia page is false and I consider it a personal attack against my character... which I have informed you of multiple times, so please desist. Moreover, in this AfD process, Unitanode has failed to comply with WP:AGF. SpooK (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You have admitted, both here and in the comments of your "article" that the main reason you wrote it was because of the AFD. That's simply not on, and it's not acceptable for use as a source. Unit Anode 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And a link where he admits that he wrote it in response to the AFD. Unit Anode 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"My effort to write this review is a result of an AfD situation that occurred at Wikipedia, yes, but my desire to do so is for the sake of the tool itself, i.e. personal interest." (emphasis mine). That's a direct quote. This is simply not acceptable, and negates whatever shred of reliability Slashdot may have had, at least with regards to this issue. Unit Anode 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Main and only are two different contexts. This particular AfD motivated me to go ahead and do the Slashdot article, as a result it is undeniably my main motivation. However, and as stated previously, whether or not Wikipedia cares about the relevance of my review is not entirely relevant to me. Posting that review on Slashdot was sufficiently rewarding in itself despite any sway that it will make on Wikipedia. JWASM's notability will continue to increase over time, and if it isn't notable enough for Wikipedia at the moment, that's fine with me. With that being said, my latest responses have been to address faulty assumptions and hasty assertions by various people, including you Unit. Again, a healthy dose of WP:AGF can go a long way to a mutually understood and beneficial resolution. SpooK (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot is obviously nowhere near a reliable source. If you even think it might be, you should not be giving opinions on whether sources are reliable. --TS 01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see an experienced wikipedian drop by. Basically some folks were rules-lawyering whether JWASM was notable not not. So then some other folks figured heck, we can use slashdot as a reliable source, because if you ruleslawyer, it sort of does fit that description. ;-) Of course, if you just want to apply common sense, you can see how JWASM might be somewhat notable... ;-) (there's not many assemblers out there any more, I was surprised to discover) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to ruleslawyer; this isn't a unique situation. Slashdot is a secondary source like many other news organizations. However most articles are essentially letters to the editor, so they should be relied on very lightly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode's comments here and on the AfD that triggered this discussion are belligerent, and he self-consciously states that he will not WP:AGF of other editors. Moreover, his position is absurd. It seems to be that if a WP article discusses a topic--not only as an editor of a WP article, but also a commenter on its talk page or an AfD about it--that editor is barred from writing about the same topic for other moderated publications concerning the same topic. Not for the New York Times, not for the Journal of Programming Languages, nowhere that might externally indicate relevance or notability of a topic. The fact is that Slashdot is really not the most carefully edited publication in the world. But it is an edited publication. The large majority of submissions for Slashdot articles are rejected (my understanding is that their acceptance rate is along the lines of 1/20th), and those articles that are accepted are edited by paid staff editors before publication (yes, often sloppily modified, but it's only the paid staff who can actually publish on the website--in articles, not in comments). The submission and subsequent publication of a review of JWASM--by a recognized expert in its field--by Slashdot indeed is relevant to the notability of its topic (although indeed should not be a sole indication of notability). The fact that the recognized expert happens to be a WP article is irrelevant... FWIW, I have also had an interest piqued by reading WP articles, and subsequently published moderated articles in various WP:RSs as followups to that acquired or renewed interest. And I very much hope that experts in other fields have done and continue to do likewise. LotLE×talk 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. And my statement about AGF was only that once bad faith has been clearly demonstrated, there's no further need to assume good faith. And now a Slashdot vandal has shown his/her colors at my talkpage. The review itself was written in response and as a result of the AFD, and is not by a noted expert. It's by an anonymous username at an unreliable source. You're hitching your wagon to the wrong horse here, Lulu. Unit Anode 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And sorry if it sounds offensive, but if you want to be taken seriously it probably doesn't help to use adopted names on Wikipedia. Cunard, Spin, and whatnot are signs that you don't want anybody to care. Use your real name. Why not? Are you ashamed? --TS 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of about a dozen reasons why people should use pen names on Wikipedia; in fact I'm of the opinion that they should have been mandated on WP from the beginning. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Those people work for slashdot. When wikipedia wants to start giving me a check, I'll happily use my real name. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to use our real name, that's not a fair criticism. I only use mine because I want to! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi - slashdot vandal here. Sorry, I shouldn't have said that, and I won't resort to personal attacks again. I'd just like to say that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day 123.243.237.83 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a good thing to do/say. If all slashdot vandals are like you, they're welcome to drop by and chat too! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So you want more people that react like this to those with whom they disagree? "Hi! I've come here via slashdot, and read your control-freak-like attempts to maipulate people. This otherwise normal user (and occasional positive contributer, although I don't spend my life on wiki) just wants to say you're a dickhead. Thanks!" Unit Anode 16:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A few points about using a Slashdot article as a source:

It does count as a secondary source, though a "weak" secondary source. They only print a very limited number of the articles submitted to them, showing that the opinions expressed are at least notable.
Slashdot cites would really be RS to back up statements such as "has received praise from the open-source community", or in cases where the Slashdot article performs an analysis of other sources that would fall just outside our WP:NOR policy.
The comments are not RS, though there is a ratings system for comments. When making a convenience link to a Slashdot article, consider raising the comment threshold a few notches to include mainly the productive comments.
There's still a guideline about citing yourself. Even if you're published in Nature, you should ask for someone else to add the cite. Though if it's under time pressure in an AFD debate I would forgive this.
Use of pen names is not a problem, and is pretty common in some areas in computing, especially in some aspects of computer security. People use pen names for decades and can conceivably earn expert reputations under their pen names. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The slashdot article is an issue of appropriate expertise. It may offend a number of Wikipedia editors but SpooK in fact has the expertise to write the review and that expertise comes from outside Wikipedia. It is a case of attacking a detached person writing a review beyond the influence of Wikipedia editors who has nothing to do with the JWASM project and did not write the original stub for JWASM. Content of a review is a technical issue, not an internal issue subject to the opinions of Wikipedia editors who don't want a topic to remain in Wikipedia.

Hutch48 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to argue expertise, there is a provison called WP:SPS that allows sources written either by topic experts, or subjects of a biography, to be cited as RS even in material that doesn't go through an editorial process, like a personal website. It sounds like there's some case to be made for either of those routes to RS, and I feel it is inappropriate to be removing sources in the middle of a AFD. That said, self-published material wouldn't count towards notability, and even if we decide Slashdot is a secodnary source, we really need several strong secondary sources for notability. I'd suggest merging to our article on WASM, especially if the syntax is very close. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To address Unitanode's claim that the aforementioned Slashdot review/article is not written by a noted expert but instead someone anonymous, and further implying unreliability of said article source, please review the following facts. It can easily be seen that I am Odoital on Slashdot between my responses there to Unitanode and my alternate account here. A quick look at my Wikipedia user page and corresponding history page shows that my real name and personal website link have been posted at Wikipedia since 2007. My personal website lists the programming projects/endeavors that I am associated with. As a prime example, I fronted the initial/major effort in bringing 64-bit support to the Netwide Assembler, as well as implementing the 64-bit PE/COFF and Mach-O object formats. The operating system I have been working on, for nearly the last decade, has been and is currently developed entirely in x86 assembly language. The assembly language community and related forum, that I currently float the hosting bill for, requires more effort to maintain than someone with merely a inexpert/passing interest could offer. My previous and current jobs have employed me primarily as a professional software developer. I am currently pursuing a college degree in software development/programming to mach my current level of experience, i.e. the sheepskin that says I can do what I am already doing, full-time while holding a 3.9 GPA with a full-time job and full-time family. As one can see, I may not be a critically acclaimed "expert" in software development, nor do I think I am, but I am definitely not an "anonymous" or ill-informed person either; obviously enough of my peers (including ones that don't necessarily get along with me) agree that I am capable of producing a technically unbiased and objective review of JWASM in such a manner as I have. Again, accountability is an important factor in this situation. For those who may have made this slight factual oversight, please ensure that, in the future, you are presenting the facts and interpreting the rules... not the other way around. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Slashdot does not meet our RS guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a news organization with an editorial process, and is well-respected in the software community. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "news organization", as no "news organization" would post a "review" from a non-staffer within hours of its creation. It is not a reliable source, and this "review" was basically an attempt at an end-run around the RS and NOTE questions raised at the AFD. Unit Anode 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot is well-respected, and people in the software community treat it as a news site. It does meet the standards of a secondary RS, as there is an editorial board that selects maybe five of the hundreds of submissions to run each day. There is an issue that what's under discussion is essentially a letter to the editor that has been published in an RS, and there is still a question of notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Being well-respected and treated as a news site in the software community does not a reliable source make. I was a bit more open-minded about this up to the point where they posted this review within hours of its submission. No respectable news agency does such a thing. Unit Anode 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is "hours" a problem? There's a handful of editors, if they're all together or online they can check facts (online as well) and make the call as to putting it in. The new media works quickly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Submit a story idea, book review, movie review, or a software review to the New York Times website. See how long it takes to get published. Yes, the very fact that Slashdot published this within hours speaks to its lack of reliability as a source. Unit Anode 16:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the fact that the response you wrote to Squidfryerchef only took you 13 minutes speaks to its lack of reliability as to its content. -- spin^control 16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be funny, if you weren't so serious. I'm a person, you know that, right? Slashdot is an organization, which posts various types of content. Comparing my response time to the time it took them to post a "review" is, well, frankly quite odd. Or simply a way of "spinning" (per your username) unrelated facts to fit your preferred conclusion. Either way, Slashdot isn't going to be considered a reliable source, and this article will be deleted soon. Unit Anode 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are merely carrying your partiality over from the JWASM AfD. It stops you from making reasoned comments on the issue at hand. -- spin^control 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: To clarify, the article at AfD won't be deleted because of the lack of reliability from this site. It will be deleted because it's not notable. (Note that notable does not mean popular or useful). Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about notability is irrelevant here. -- spin^control 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So? It's still part of the reason this discussion is even taking place. All I did was clarify that the AfD issue unitode mentioned isn't really reliability, it's notability. Lessen the confusion. But I didn't realized you'd been appointed the owner of this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The question here is whether Slashdot is a reliable source. If you want to talk about JWASM, the place is here. It's that simple. -- spin^control 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So sorry for trying to clarify and make sure people didn't get those issues confused by the way unitode phrased it. But guess what? After 11,000 edits, I could have probably figured out where I needed to go on my own. Or maybe I just don't care to follow you orders. But you enjoy your ownership of the discussion my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the confusion lies in that Unitanode and others wish to maintain their assertions that Slashdot, and thus the review I submitted, is not considered a reliable resource for the purpose of denying it as a WP:RS and therefore cannot add weight to WP:Notability for JWASM... not WP:Verifiability in which is already covered. I don't think that anyone in the "for" camp is claiming that said Slashdot article in itself is sufficient to establish WP:Notability, but I, at least, was certainly under the impression that it would help as per Elen of the Roads' and Kim Bruning's advisement here. Acknowledging my Slashdot article/review obviously leads down a slippery slope from attempted absolutism of the rules to the more gray-scale world in which we live. In short, some people have reduced themselves down to attacking the good faith and position of others, including the reliability of Slashdot, by asserting unfounded personal opinions/attacks instead of stating the facts (in which requires research/investigation if you don't know them) and reasonably interpreting the rules. Once again, a mountain has been made out of a molehill by Wikipedia deletionists instead of figuring out how to improve the situation to benefit Wikipedia and interested parties. SpooK (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot is simply not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever. Dlabtot (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot has no significant editorial oversight, and no reputation for reliability. As Dlabtot says: "Slashdot is simply not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as the reliability of Slashdot, they have a group of editors and an editorial process that's no different than what you would find at a print magazine. Except that yes they do work quickly, but that is the nature of the medium they work in. IEEE Spectrum did an article about a year ago on Slashdot which talked a bit about their editorial selectivity if we still want to pursue this. There is also the matter that most of these articles are essentially letters to the editor, which may make them a weaker source for some topics, but still meeting the bar for RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As this very thread has shown, Slashdot is little different than a WP:SPS. If someone want to insert a "fact" into a Wikipedia article, all they need do is throw it up on Slashdot, and then cite themselves. Again, no significant editorial oversight, no reputation for reliability, and not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not just anybody can throw up a fact on Slashdot and then come back and cite it as published. This is a case where somebody wrote an article about a software program, a group of people at Slashdot check through the article, try out the program, maybe make some calls, and decide to run the story the next day. It's similar to a letter to the editor published in an RS, or it's similar to an article a freelancer might send in to a print hobby magazine about computers. Slashdot is not Associated Content. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? How do you know that's what happened in this case? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the reliability of Slashdot

Spook said:

Furthermore, I have not contributed to the main JWASM page until I posted the external link to my published Slashdot review. To say that being an editor here and at Slashdot is mutually exclusive, is foolish. There is no WP:COI as I have not contributed to JWASM or its corresponding Wikipedia page prior to the AfD.

A look at the history confirms this [10]. Regardless of anything else, and it's a bit disconcerting no one pointed this out, this is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If you wrote an article, even if it's in a reliable secondary source do not add it yourself. Mention it in the talk page and let others decide whether it has any merit in the article. Being an editor here and at Slashdot is not mutually exclusive, but editing articles to promote content you edited in Slashdot is. Remember that even if you have good intentions one of the inherent problems is that when you have a COI, it's very difficult for you to be neutral and adding links to somethign you wrote is always going to come across as needless self promotion Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an article on a product that is distributed for free could be considered "spam". There may be a problem with COI, but I'm going to assume these are new editors and aren't familiar with all the policies and politics of WP. More importantly, it seems like editors are trying to delete the material as "punishment" for a perceived breach of COI. If there's a COI problem, that can be discussed with the editors. But don't remove content that may be useful to the rest of WP's readership because of COI. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Free" is a red herring in this case. People spam charities on here, and we still remove it as spam. Secondly, this wasn't just COI, it was gaming the system. Finally, Slashdot is a blog. They post links to other sources, and post opinions & interviews with no editorial oversight. Get an actual tech journal/magazine to publish the article, then we can come back to this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point being that whether an editor was "gaming" the system or not is not reason in and of itself to delete an article. It's a reason to have a discussion with the editor. We don't remove parts of the encyclopedia simply to spite people who we perceive as breaking the rules. But as far as being a "blog", it may be published in the format of a blog but it is not a personal webpage or a community blog where any member can publish. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions about the editorial review process at Slashdot - are based on what? Dlabtot (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. This was a DRV discussion about avoiding deletion. Once it became clear that finding reliable sources was the problem, the user WP:GAMEed the system by trying to get an article published to support RS. And yes, Slashdot is a blog because its members have no editorial oversight. it doesn't matter if it's not open to the community in general... but it basically is anyway, given the "article" was published with no editorial process whatsoever. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not so. There's hundreds of thousands of members. You can become one tonight if you want. But they can't post a new article, only comments. For an article, whether a book or movie review, passing along a news tidbit, or a letter to "Ask Slashdot" to be posted, it has to be selected by the editorial staff. Slashdot has an editorial board, including some full-time staff, who select maybe ~~ten~~ twenty or so out of the hundreds and hundreds that come in every day. Perhaps the other day they felt that review of an assembler was important enough to run. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot, here's the article in Spectrum[11], with four or five paragraphs on the second page about editorial selection. Here's some snips: Every day, Slashdot receives anywhere from 200 to 500 story submissions from readers, but it runs only 20 to 30 of them... Malda and his team judiciously fish out only the best.... If the story meets their criteria to be ”stuff that matters,” it gets categorized and placed into an appropriate section of the Slashdot site, such as Linux, Supercomputing or Geeks in Space. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a guy ("Commander Taco") and a few of his buddies (including "Scuttlemonkey", "Soulskill", and "Samzenpus"), running a blog on steroids out of his home. There are some really interesting blogs out there, and this may be one, but they don't qualify as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading slashdot for over a decade and I think Jayjg has summed it up best. Dlabtot (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Every news source has to start somewhere. If we looked at, for example, a small hobby magazine, it would be started by "some guy" and a few employees. They would comprise an editorial board, and decide which articles to accept from freelancers. Slashdot is no different, other than that it's distributed electronically. And it would be appropriate to select movie and software reviews from Slashdot as secondary sources, because Slashdot editors decided the review was notable enough to print. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my previous description of the website is the situation today, not ten years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In 1997, it was just a blog. But according to our own article about Slashdot, it was sold a couple years later to a software publishing company, which eventually became SourceForge, for several million dollars. There's people behind the pen names, too, some of which have their own entries on WP: "...run by its founder, Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, working out of his home in Dexter, Michigan. He shares editorial responsibilities with several other editors, including Timothy Lord, Patrick "Scuttlemonkey" McGarry, Jeff "Soulskill" Boehm, Rob "Samzenpus" Rozeboom, and Keith Dawson." With an editorial board, corporate ownership, and 13 years of respect from the open-source community, it's definitely more of a media outlet than just someone's blog. The only caveat is that most articles are essentially letters to the editor, and there's certain things I would use them for ( sci-fi movie reviews, technical details about software ) and certain things Slashdot would not be an RS for ( history, religion, BLP other than interviews of figures in the open-source comunity ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

...still run by Commander Taco out of his home. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as part of his duties as a salaried employee of SourceForge/Geeknet. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who pays 'Commander Taco', Slashdot does not do fact-checking, which is why they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading Borough Libraries

The article List of people from Reading, Berkshire draws heavily for it's WP:RS on two web pages published by Reading Borough Libraries Great People of Reading and Other Great People of Reading.

It looks like the the ultimate source for this list is The Oxford DNB but my question is, are these pages WP:RS given there is a clear WP:COI between Reading Borough Libraries and promoting Reading ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No opionion on the source/COI issue, but any entry on that list should be a linked biog and the fact that they are from Reading should be independently verifiable from the biog's article. Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the COI issue is a bit of a red herring, the list is purely being used as a convenient source which reduces the need for a large number of separate sources within the list. Both lists are good at stating the person's connection with Reading (which could if desired, be further checked against the ODNB), most look pretty solid, the only one which looks a bit tenuous to me is claiming Wilfred Owen. The definition of "great" the library list uses is probably narrower than our definition of notable, and might well exclude those who are more infamous than famous, but that doesn't seem to me to be a reason to exclude it as a source, just not to rely on it exclusively. David Underdown (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs on Yeshivat HaRaayon HaYehudi

Yeshivat HaRaayon HaYehudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- another editor (Eliscoming1234 (talk · contribs)) wants to use blogs as sources (e.g. [12]). I have indicated on the talk page that this is unacceptable, but my attempt to remove these references and ask for better ones was reverted. This should be a straightforward matter, but rather than get into edit war I'm looking for feedback here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the official blog of Yeshivat HaRaayon HaYehudi linked from hameir.org (e.g. http://kahane.hameir.org/content/blogsection/0/9/) and (while the site was accessible) from kahane.org (see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://kahane.org). Therefore, this blog is a reliable source to the same extent as kahane.org and hameir.org. Per WP:IRS, self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. --Vicky Ng (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this is their "official" blog. Even that first site you give isn't active. In fact none of them are active. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Blog states it was created to "KEEPING THE AUTHENTIC JEWISH IDEA ALIVE THROUGH THE LIGHT OF TORAH!"; virtually the same reason why this Yeshiva was created. The blog also links to to this website, a website of the Yeshiva. I never said that the blog officially represented the Yeshiva, only that they preach the same thing. Whether or not the website are "active" has absolutely no importance in this discussion whatsoever. Please keep your personal comments to yourself. David Ha'ivri can most definitely be considered an "expert in the field" as he is the one who founded the blog and has been one of the most active people in the Kahane Movement.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sites are inactive due to government persecution. The fact that they are inactive, however, is not relevant, as both featured links to the blog while they were active. --Vicky Ng (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That comment is irrelevant. However, I will respond to it. Only www.Kahane.org was taken down due to "government persecution". www.Hameir.org connection died or something, and the Blog just hasnt been posted on in a bit.

Eliscoming1234: first, it seems that you do not distinguish between my comments (I believe that the blog is RS in this case) and those of Nomoskedasticity, who started this discussion. Second, the fact that one of blog editors calls himself David Ha'ivri does not prove his identity or link the blog to the Yeshiva. A link from an official or closely related web site does link the blog to the subject of the article, making it a permissible source, per section of WP:IRS quoted earlier - without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. So, no need to argue about expertise here. Finally, although it is not relevant here, a number of related web sites were taken down under pressure from US and Israeli governments on owners and/or hosting providers, including the original content of kahanetzadak.com. --Vicky Ng (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if the links in question could be verified, I fail to see how they constitute evidence that this blog is the "official site" of the yeshiva. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Den Store Danske Encyklopædi

Power.corrupts (talk · contribs) has been removing several unsourced BLP tags and adding links to Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, claiming that is a reliable source since it was once professionally manged. But since then it has been converted to a wiki that anyone can edit and that is the source that Power is linking to. He claims there is editorial oversight, but according to their editing guide anyone can edit it. I contend it is an invalid source per WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS and would like him to stop adding links to it to articles claiming it is a source to support the verifiability of the topic and to comply with the BLP policy. MBisanz ^talk 06:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful to find other sources discussing this. I've looked at the links, and find:

"It is our goal with a free, ad-funded online encyclopaedia to create a site that Danish Internet users choose as their primary source of information retrieval.

How to reach us is through a credible and updated lexicon, which provides answers to most - a national reference work. This will be achieved in collaboration with users, since anyone can update and nyskrive articles by editors, assisted by a large group of experts can subsequently edit and in most cases also verify. It also provides longer term, other sources of information than the traditional Encyclopedia article such as book titles, relevant text passages from books, internet links, etc.

The main difference between the large Danish and other websites with factual knowledge such as Wikipedia is that we offer verified versions of articles. Not all the articles and not necessarily of recent developments / detail in the articles. But nearly all the articles there will be a verified version, so our users always have a base of information they can trust.

We want to create a genuine, open knowledge project that at once can gather and disseminate the collective knowledge of Danish. Collective, because everyone can contribute and provide their insights. Spread, because the content generated by users may be freely used in all other contexts, and because it has been easy to do just that through an open API.

By opening in February 2009 contained the Great Danish all articles from Gyldendals encyclopedias; majority come from the Great Danish Encyclopaedia. In addition, we have supplemented with a number of other works. In total, there were initially collected from more than 161,000 articles. All edited and verified by leading Danish academic experts.

Who are the people behind? Work on the Great Danish performed by an editorial team consisting of around 15 of Denmark's most talented public lexicon. All of them have years of experience in writing and editing the best lexicons. Our main role as editors is to assist and support users and experts to write so readable, credible and timely articles as possible. You can read more about the editors here."

Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Power.corrupts is correct, that encyclopedia is edited. I believe they use a system that is somewhat similar to flagged revisions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I updated the article Den Store Danske Encyklopædi with some facts. MBisanz is correct that "anyone" can edit it (if you register an account, I believe submitting personally identifiable information) - but the material issue here is of course if there is editorial oversight over contributions, and there is. This can be seen in the Poul Schlüter article, last edit is by "Redaktionen" (the editorial staff) - sort of a flagged revisions system. I would like to emphasize the innocuous nature of the Poul Schlüter article, terse and factual information on the prime minister for 11 years, no contentious information, and no unchallenged information. What precisely is the BLP concern per WP:BLP policy? Power.corrupts (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the personally identifiable info part, the registration translation says:

Fill with username, your real name, email and password. The username is the name that you now wish to apply at The Great Danish. The user name can be your real name or an alias. The user name is unique and can not be changed retrospectively. Two users can have the same username. Other users will see your username and your real name, but not your e-mail address.

Also, it doesn't matter who is doing the edits, if it is a registered user or an "editor" since neither has cited their sources on that article, so any of it can be whatever they wanted it to be. It is no more than what Flagged Revs is on WP, and no one says that transforms WP into some more authoritative source. Also, "Redaktionen" in this context means any one of a dozen people, so we really have no idea who approved the content. Looks no different than a moderated web forum. MBisanz ^talk 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A "moderated web forum" - are we enjoying ourselves, MBisanz? You are not a law school, do not let finesse overshadow the material issue, which is that BLPs should be sourced -- I have used Denstoredanske as a source to verify name, DOB, that this particular individual was indeed Prime minister, member of the EU parliament, etc, etc, trivial, factual and benign information that is highly unlikely to challenged. Yes, we can criticize Denstoredanske for not revealing its own sources (a trait it shares with many other encyclopedia), which does not readily facilitate independent verification of claims. Denstoredanske do have a reputation for fact checking, there is oversight by a permanent editorial staff, articles are "approved" or "verified", and it is probably the most readily available online source in Danish, as almost all paper media (far more exhaustive and authoritative than online media) hide articles older than three(?) months behind a pay wall. Can we agree that it may not be suitable for contentious information, or for information likely to be challenged. But for benign information it is acceptable for the time being. I have sourced a number of other Danish BLPs, and accessed and referred to in-depth profile/portrait articles in Danish media, mostly to preempt future foreseeable WP:N discussions. It not only takes darn long time, but these sources are not readily available online, you either have to seek a library, or pay to get past the pay wall. Should we try to be constructive and non-dogmatic in these turbulent BLP times. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen the exception in WP:V or WP:RS (or especially WP:BLP) that we can use poor quality sources just because it is hard to get good sources. For the Poul Schlüter article, I don't see why these free sources were so hard to find as to rely on a self published wiki for sourcing: Danish gov't, NYTs, The Independent. Those three sources took me, a non-Danish speaker 10 minutes to find and none of them are behind a paywall, so I do question your reasons for relying on Den Store Danske Encyklopædi for the exact same benign, factual, information. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Perspective, please! It took you 10 minutes to source an innocuous article to your own standards on the longest serving prime minister in Denmark in the 20th century (please add the sources btw). It takes me about the same amount of time to source less internationally known individuals (still passing WP:N) using less accessible sources; and much more time if the topic is difficult. I see BLP articles being PROD'd at a rate up to three per minute for being unsourced, I see you AfD articles with few minutes apart, and I'm told that 50,000 BLP articles are in need of urgent attention. I have cleaned up the backlog of unsourced Danish BLPs for 2007 and 2008, more or less single handedly I feel. What exactly are you thinking of with "we can use poor quality sources just because it is hard to get good sources" - in the present context, it's a comment from outer space. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's based in the original paper encyclopedia, reviewed and edited by over 1000 experts selected by a reputable publisher and the approval status of each article is flagged. As described in our article: "While registered users may contribute with content and upload images etc. a professional and long-time editorial staff will maintain oversight over contributions.[5][4] The status of an article shall be clearly flagged, if it is user-generated content or if it has been approved by the editorial staff.[6]" This is enough for the approved articles to qualify as RS's, imho good enough for BLPs.John Z (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not however identify which editor reviewed it. Some of the editors have specialties only in images, popular culture, etc. That would be like saying WP has admins who review content with flagged revs and some of them have doctorates in religion, so therefore our articles imported from the Catholic Encyclopedia must be reliable. Just doesn't hold water to impute that accuracy when we can't verify the authorship or the authority. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Many encyclopedias' articles are not signed. A reputable publisher affirming that an article has undergone competent review is enough. Many newspaper articles are written and edited by unnamed staff, for instance.John Z (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The only exception in Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 is if the author is attributed, the author isn't attributed here, only a group of authors. MBisanz ^talk 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't self-published.John Z (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow you here Matt. The Economist doesn't contain a single author name (except Letters to the Editor) but no-one really doubts its reliability as a source. (Do they?) The site claims to have an editorial oversight process, on what grounds do you claim the process is insufficient or erroneous? Certainly for uncontroversial facts, using them as a source shouldn't be a huge problem. Franamax (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazon.com for digital music release info

Tonight, I discovered via Amazon.com that a second digital release will occur for the song Bad Romance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I added the content to the article using the Amazon.com MP3 store page as the reference. It was reverted by Legolas2186 (talk · contribs) the first time around because it was a "retail link". I brought this up on his talk page where he suddenly changed his reason for removing it stating that "Amazon fails as a WP:RS" where the only discussion concerning this has been when I brought up the issue with his reverts on his talk page. The third time he stated that if I added the content back it would be considered vandalism.

A good portion of the other releases concern the content existing on iTunes, so stating that Amazon.com is a "retail link" and should not be used is pointless. He has told me that my addition of this information with a source is considered vandalism, and I have never encountered anything in WP:RS or WP:VAND that states that this. Clearly, there needs to be some outside input concerning the use of this Amazon MP3 Store link. Legolas2186 states that "Amazon chooses to sale a product irrespective of the owner's agreement, while itunes only sells licensed and copyrighted products released to them". All of the Amazon.com MP3 store is mirrored on iTunes, so I do not see why this would be a reason against using the Amazon.com link as a source. If next week, the iTunes Store has this content and I add it, there would be no opposition against my addition of the content it seems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, can Amazon.com be used as a reliable source when it comes to (digital) music release ~~dates/~~content? And where the hell was there a discussion that says Amazon.com cannot be a reliable source, as Legolas2186 suggested?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazon is not a particularly good source for future releases. The most appropriate source is the publisher of the material, and even then you should say that the publisher has plans to make the release. As we all know, publications can be delayed. In the case of books and recordings already published, then they are their own source. They should usually be found on Amazon, which will usually have the publication date correct, and will probably be in libraries as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

But this is a music release, for which there is a defined date by which the content will be able to be purchased and downloaded from the website. This is presumably because the digital content is already available via the website, but not available for purchase.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Amazon may believe it will have the material available on a certain date, but that doesn't mean they will. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But the reference is to be used to show that the digital album exists. Not what the release date is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If they are selling it now, then it's reliable to show it exists. If they will be selling it, but they not yet, then it isn't reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So because it cannot be bought currently, but they state that it will be available for purchase in the near future and they list all of the content that will be available on this future date, this link cannot be a reliable source?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Very OR alert about my comment. Amazon often list items (such as books) that they say will be published then are not (they eventualy send you an e-mail telling you htat the book has not been published). As such I do not beleive that they are RS for future releases being released, onlt that they might be released.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The book thing happens with music, but it's not the retailer(amazon,itune,books etc) pulling/changing it, but the originator(labels/record company etc). In essence the problem is that future dates for music are planned dates and thus they are subject to change or cancellation. Maybe future dates in music are WP:CRYSTAL or at least many of them are because they fail 'almost certain to take place'. SunCreator (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that I added a statement (or a list) that said that this digital album exists. I did not use the Amazon.com page to say when the album is going to be released but that it is going to be released. The reasons as to why Legolas2186 removed it seems to just be because the reference is to Amazon.com and not, say, the iTunes Store which is certainly not accessible to everyone. I have not gotten a good enough response as to why this particular link cannot be used, other than from Peregrine Fisher in that it should not be allowed just because the album has not been released yet. I think that this is ridiculous. Why should a link to the iTunes Store page following its release be the only reference used on the article? Why can't a link to an Amazon.com page prior to its release be used? And what if after the album is released it is only available via Amazon.com? Would I have to argue against Legolas2186's reasoning here that just because it is only available on Amazon means that the content cannot be added to the article?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW Amazon mp3 download pages (as well as iTunes) are linked to from both lady gaga's official site discog and Interscope records release pages so whatever reasoning is given about licensing issues seems bogus to me.--Glumboot (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Legolas2186 reasoning is most likely incorrect, but he is trying to save himself time. The subject is perhaps best discussed elsewhere. Links to iTunes are likely the standard (or standard for that editor). iTunes has a website also, you can link to them without installing iTunes. SunCreator (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the sites are reliable for release dates. Not because the site it unreliable but because for commercial/logistic reasons it is often advantageous to move the release dates at the last minute. I do think it's fine to use amazon as a wp:rs. I will comment more on the above issues when at a PC(currently on iPhone) and above section is to big to add comments. SunCreator (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

One week later

Bad Romance - The Remixes Part 2 on Lady Gaga's website
Bad Romance (The Remixes, Pt. 2) - EP on the iTunes Store
Bad Romance - The Remixes Part 2 on Amazon.com's MP3 store

Clearly, Amazon.com's MP3 store is a reliable source for information on digitally released music. Legolas2186 should not have edit warred to remove the link to the Amazon.com store, which was probably just because he does not want to use it as a source. It turns out that after he reverted me for the third time, he added a hidden comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And you instead chose to revert for the fourth time. Nice 3RR? Anyways the concern over Amazon which I feel is that its WP:CRYSTAL ways as pointed out above. Many times I have noted that they start selling music, without any official release from the recording association and even selling starts, leading to street date violations. A similar thing happened to 50 Cent's latest studio album where retail outlets like Amazon, Walmart and some others started selling the album before release date compelling the recording company to push back the release, holding the street date sales. If so, then do we really consider Amazon a reliable source in that case? We need a consensus here instead of Ryulong going on adding it without achieving the desired result. I left a hidden comment in the Bad Romance article urging editors to contribute in this discussion. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR concerns a series of three reverts over a 24 hour period. The last edit I made to the page before reverting your removal of the tracklist was on February 4. It is currently February 9. That is a 120 hour break between reverts. The article currently uses the iTunes Store's link as the reference, so you cannot remove it because now it is reliably sourced (I am currently listening to the MP3s I bought from Amazon.com). None of the editors who contribute to Bad Romance made any comments here. You didn't make any comments here until just now.

Clearly, when it comes to digital downloads of music albums, singles, or extended plays, Amazon.com's MP3 Store can be used as a reliable source until the album becomes available on the iTunes Store, after which the Amazon.com MP3 Store link can be replaced by the iTunes Store link.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL LOL! This is getting beyond ridiculous. So you actually want to add an unconfirmed link for temporary reasons untill the album comes out? Why can't we just wait for these few days and add the reliable iTunes link? What's the hurry? Are you affiliated to Amazon or something? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In practice, it is confirmed. If you aren't paying attention to what I am saying Amazon MP3 is a reliable source when it comes to digital music releases.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is reliable for digital music releases. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to repeat Amazon is a reliable source. I see no reason to amend the source now or in the future. Lady Gaga's website doesn't have a date so that's not much use. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply because the date has arrived. Lastly the issue that above is called 'street date sales' has some basis, although it happens to all retailers. For commercial reasons or even human error sometimes a digital release is stopped or moved even after sales start. SunCreator (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per suncreator, crystal would only apply if the date was in the future, thanks. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 13:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would WP:CRYSTAL apply to a tracklist of a digital album?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Both future release dates and future tracks selections can change. SunCreator (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Granted track listings change less often then dates - and most changes I've seen are to add an additional track, but if something happens like a band member leaving suddenly then things can rapidly change. SunCreator (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would WP:CRYSTAL apply to a tracklist of a digital album where the website that is providing the digital album has samples for all of the tracks that are intended to be sold?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I answered that already. SunCreator (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

iTunes

Like to add this in while it occurs to me. This track which in the UK is only currently on the album Jay Sean Featuring Sean Paul And Lil' Jon - Do you remember. iTunes have recently revised the album date to 12 February 2010 - two days ago. However that is not correct it has been there for ages, it's been in the UK charts(based on album track downloads) for a while now see chart info (you'll find it as #23). So iTunes are not without faults! SunCreator (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgism

This article currently lists a great many notable people as "Georgists." (Ambrose Bierce [22] Matthew Bellamy [23] Ralph Borsodi [24] William F. Buckley, Jr. [25] Winston Churchill [26] Clarence Darrow[27] Michael Davitt [28] Henry Ford[29] Mason Gaffney David Lloyd George [30] George Grey [31] Walter Burley Griffin[32] Fred Harrison William Morris Hughes Aldous Huxley Blas Infante [33] Mumia Abu-Jamal[34] Tom L. Johnson Samuel M. Jones Wolf Ladejinsky [35] Ralph Nader[36] Francis Neilson Albert Jay Nock Sun Yat Sen[37] Herbert Simon Leo Tolstoy[38] William Simon U'Ren[39] William Vickrey [40]. Frank Lloyd Wright[citation needed] ) The main problem is that some of the references are from a group dedicated to Georgism, and many of the other cites do not actually call the person "Georgist." It also relies heavily on such sites as "cooperativeindividualism.org" which is part of [13] the Council of Georgist Organizations , which also may not qualify as a third party publisher either. Can someone kindly review the claims made in that article about notables being "Georgists" whether or not anything outside the Georgist community makes the claim? I fear this is like using any organization's publications as proof that famous people were part of it <g>. Collect (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

cooperativeindividualism.org appears to be the personal website of Edward J. Dodson. Or am I missing something? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are websites recommended by articles in established newspapers considered reliable?

The reason I ask if because of this article in the Toronto Globe and Mail[14], which uses and recommends the self published Road Scholar website (but also is a verification that the author is an employee of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation). Does this make that website reliable in any way? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It adds just a little bit to indicate that it might be reliable, but only that little bit. We have to apply our own criteria. As you'll see from WP:RS, we're looking for authorship and for a history of fact-checking. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading the article, however, helps. It says that Shragge was a professional writing for the Canada Department for Highways for 30 years. Looking around a bit more, seems he edited a book called From Footpaths to Freeways: The Story of Ontario’s Roads published by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.[15][16] That added to the Globe and Mail and National Post relying on him [17] seems to weigh in favor of Shragge meeting "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" bit of WP:RS. --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I have that book (Just got it yesterday) actually, but it only says "produced by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications". Who knew? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that http://www.michiganhighways.org meets the criteria for inclusion? Chris Bessert and his website are regularly featured in the Detroit Free Press, his he's a professional cartographer with the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, which works in transportation and infrastructure planning for the Grand Rapids Metro Area, and his site has come recommended by the Library of Michigan, the FOIA Office at the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Grand Rapids Public Library and other official sources. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For such questions, also see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Usage_by_other_sources.John Z (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Debka.com

Is the Debka.com website a reliable source? Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust any 'exclusive' from them, and their spin on verified stories is extreme neocon/likudnik.--Glumboot (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not reliable. It isn't a matter of bias, it's a matter of record of accuracy. That site publishes things on the basis of poor information and rumors, sometimes scoring spectacular scoops and sometimes dismal failures. It should not be treated as a normal news source. Zero^talk 06:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that confirms my suspicions. Mjroots (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Woah, there. Which article is it being used in, and what statement is the citation used to support? It's pretty clear that this source will be RS for some topics but not others, and we should be having a real debate over this. For example, if this is for a biography, you can seek other sources. On the other hand, if this is about a military event in Israel that was mentioned on Debka before the mainstream media, then it may be appropriate to cite Debka. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes Debka itself gets into the news by being the first to report something. This reporting might be notable enough for WP in some cases (it amounts to using Debka as a source about itself, which is permitted). However if the report is true and relates to something notable, mainstream news sources will be available for it. It is hard to imagine a case where a claim made in Debka and not confirmed anywhere else can be cited as fact. Zero^talk 02:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Per a request on my talk page, the article in question is Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409. An editor cited Debka as the source for the accident being the result of a terrorist attack. I looked at the source, decided it wasn't reliable and reverted the edit. I also brought the issue up on the talk page. So far, no reliable source has claimed an Al Qaeda involvement. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've studied the issue and while I don't think it's appropriate to cite Debka out of the blue as it is now, if we had a paragraph about the debate on whether the incident was an accident or sabotage, and sabotage by whom, then we would have sufficient context for Debka'a opinion.

Here's a Times Online article about whether it was "storms or sabotage", with cautions against taking eyewitness reports of "explosions" at face value;[18] here is a UPI article about claims and denial of Hezbollah involvement;[19] and an AP/Washington Post article entitled Lebanese minister rules out bomb on Ethiopian jet;[20]. There was also an article in the Canada Free Press about the crash that went out of its way to mention Ethiopia's campaign against al-Shabaab.[21], so we no longer have an extraordinary claim relying solely on Debka.

I've looked through Google Books for information about Debkafile and examples of how it is cited, and it appears their opinion is notable even if prelimary reports shouldn't be taken as gospel. I think Debka could become an RS in this context if all those other sources I provided were used to build a paragraph, and if Debka's opinion was attributed as such, and if it was quoted as something like "counterterrorism news outlet Debkafile pointed out...", so the reader will know this came from a specialized source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

gibnews.net

There has been some discussion on wp:ani about the above site as a reliable source for wikipedia, with one editor calling for it to be blacklisted.

Can I request an independent review of the site from uninvolved editors and not the 'usual suspects' with an agenda one way or another.

I wrote the software behind the site, but the content is provided by established authorised users. It is NOT a wiki or blog but a repository of press releases.

If there are any suggestions on improving it, eg by including a statement from the content providers, that can be implemented. --Gibnews (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From [22] it appears to be nothing but a publisher of press releases and opinion pieces. This makes it at best a primary source. Hut 8.5 23:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Who ensures that the press releases have been faithfully and/or accurately transcribed by the owners of the website?
How can a reader tell that the owners of the website are choosing to censor certain material - ommitting words, sentences, or paragraphs? Especially when the owners "reserve the right to remove any content without giving a reason."
This begs the question, who is behind gibnews.net? The "company" and its staff are anonymous. Who is it that can remove content without giving a reason? If I want to find out who runs the GBC or FSC I can [23] [24].
You are the site's webmaster. Do you wield editorial discretion? If you do not, can you demonstrate that you do not, for example, by providing the name of the owner of the site who will attest to that fact?
If you do, is it not a serious conflict of interest that you are attempting to use the site as a source in Wikipedia, yet you wield editorial discretion over what is posted there?
How can a reader tell that the owners of the website are not cherry picking certain material to publish?
How can a reader tell that anyone wishing to post a press release or opinion there is free to do so? (e.g. would one of the very small number of Gibraltar residents who voted to return to Spanish rule be able share their opinion or post press releases free of censorship?).
Who are the people who share their opinions? Are they experts in their field?
Do any other reputable organisations demonstrably use gibnews.net as a source of information? If so, please provide them.
Governmental bodies and media outlets in Gibraltar have their own distribution channels, e.g. [25] [26] [27] [28] and extensive archives [29] Why does Wikipedia need to resort to this private repository of information?

These questions at the very least need answering. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally the metric used for web sites that are referenced as news sources is whether or not there is editorial oversight. The Gibnews.net site seems to have a disclaimer that makes it clear that there isn't any. WP:RS states that reliable sources should have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Again, the Gibnews.net site disclaimer asserts that it makes no claim on accuracy and doesn't check anything it publishes, it only presents it "as-is". In general, press releases themselves are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, except as sources for what one entity might "claim", so should a site that simply publishes press releases be treated differently? As Hut 8.5 suggests, they may be useful as primary sources. WP:PSTS describes how primary sources should be used. -- Atama頭 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may comment - Red Hat, while I understand your concern with this site and Gibnews's affiliation with it, I also have to say that you need to keep this all in perspective. Don't all news sites "cherry pick" content, to some extent? Does it matter if anyone is free to post? Before you react to that, realize that my gist here isn't to say you are wrong - it's that you're barking up the wrong tree. Concentrate on why the site, as-is, doesn't meet our criteria for a secondary source. Don't push the same buttons over and over; let's try to all get somewhere here. Assume good faith that Gibnews wants to help build an encyclopedia, and try to reject any notions of some nationalistic ulterior motive. If we show that this site doesn't work for a secondary source, then all the other stuff doesn't matter, including Gibnews's affiliation with the site. Simply being involved in a news organization doesn't exempt one from participating in this project, or even using said news source. I hope you see what I'm trying to say here - Atama is on the right track for an acceptable answer for everyone involved. Gibnews seems like a reasonable person; let's treat him like one and maybe he'll respect our views, also. Tan | 39 01:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tan, I disagree with what you say there. The info on self published sources is clear [30] and conflict of interest is a very serious matter. For better or for worse, Gibnews does hold a strong political view on Gibraltar's sovereignty (as is his right), it is a political hot potato, and it would be highly dubious if he were using a website he controlled to advance a POV. My questions were merely attempts for him to show that this is not the case, so I consider the "pushing buttons" comment not to be assuming good faith. Also I think you are confusing the reliability of a source with whether its usage constitutes original research/synthesis. That is not the point of this page.

Anyway, it may help to examine an example usage by Gibnews, without dragging the content dispute here. We were trying to establish on the Talk:Gibraltar page Gibraltar's level of self-government in order to choose an acceptable wording for the article. An editor put forward a series of sources from governmental and international bodies [31] supporting one view, one of which I picked out as especially definitive wording, which was from the Government of Gibraltar [32] Gibnews, who holds a differing view, replied that these references were "out of date" [33] and he then asked us to read a press release on the Gibnews site [34] calling for applicants to join the Gibraltar Police Authority as supporting evidence that Gibraltar enjoyed full self-government with respect to internal security, contradicting the aforementioned governmental sources. Comments? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ps I notice a similar discussion above Sources which appear to be copies of reliable sources in which an editor commented "So either it's a primary source (from the company's own site) or a copyvio, so in neither case does it demonstrate notability and the reliability of the hosting site must be considered." The important part is italicized. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I was trying to say, in a nicer way, was for you to step out of the room for a bit. We know your stance, you've reiterated it a lot, and I think it's a fair request of Gibnews for uninvolved people to review and comment on this. Look at the sheer mass of text you've added; this is yet another battleground for you, right or wrong. Tan | 39 02:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Merely explaining the background and responding to your reply directed at me rather than on the subject at hand (that you could have placed on my talk page), that's all. Being "involved" doesn't bar me from adding my views - which were no lengthier that some of the posts you'll find above on this page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still don't think you understand what I'm trying to say, but thank you. Tan | 39 03:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Atama I suggest that reports on gibnews.net can be used as a primary source. Gibnews writes at [35] "There is scrutiny of content, and content providers are told that in the TOS. But the contributors are REPUTABLE ORGANISATIONS. Anything libelous would be removed to comply with Gibraltar law which is very different to that in the US. So far I am informed nothing has been removed.The site provides an archive with permalinks of press releases in Gibraltar, 'as-is' without alteration. Some of the material is not available anywhere else, and even where it is, the links are guaranteed permanent.The rationale for 'banning' references to it is not clear, Yes I wrote the code behind it. No I do not write the content referenced in wikipedia."

I understand that it runs scripts, written by Gibnews himself, which aggregate external reports, many of which are not available elsewhere. It would be nice to have some external confirmation that the site is regarded as an accurate reporter - Gibnews may well be able to point us to one. But in the meantime, given that we have the above statement from Gibnews himself that nobody at gibnews.net actually changes text or adds content to this site (perhaps he'd like to make this absolutely explicit?), I feel that we should assume good faith.

Red Hat mentions that Gibnews has used reports on this site to support his position. I suggest that this is not relevant to the reliability of the site itself, and that issues of possibly-inappropriate use of primary sources to support an oversimplified position are best left to the relevant talk page. Where indeed I hope they are already being dealt with. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I make the point that I have specifically asked for an independent review of the site and not the biased opinions of the editor who is trying his best to get it banned because he does not like the content. Thank you Richard & Tan for putting the record straight. The site policy, which can be read here. If I have strong views on the sovereignty of the country I reside in its no surprise! Those views are shared by 99% of the population However, gibnews.net carried material from ALL political parties in Gibraltar without bias. --Gibnews (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Totally uninvolved. Can you show me where other, obviously reliable sources have cited Gibnews? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on that, it needs some research. Good point. --Gibnews (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hipocrite, I think this is a pretty fair point. My other concern is that while it's nice to assume good faith about other editors, I don't think we should apply this to sources. I think a source should be verifiable and reliable, and certainly I believe that a news site needs some sort of editorial control. If the news site is an aggregator of other news sites (forgive me if I've misunderstood something here) then I don't see why we can't reference those news sources directly. And if we can't source the news sources directly, then are those news sources in turn reliable or verifiable? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews.net acts as an archive of press releases and news stories from a number of contributors. Not all of them present the material online, and even where they do, their archives are not always complete or in good working order, indeed I just found an example Here Click on any of the press releases for 2006. --Gibnews (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So why can we consider that the press releases you have on the site reliable? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because Red is involved, that doesn't make his points any less valid. If you want your site to be used here, I suggest you answer his points.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone whose entire knowledge of this subject comes from this section, I think that most of Red's points are irrelevant to this discussion. There is an obvious conclusion that gibnews.net (the site) as a republisher of primary sources is not a secondary source and so can not be used as such. The only question remaining to be answered is "Is gibnews.net a reliable republisher of primary sources?".

If the answer is no, then it should not be used as a source on Wikipedia and no more discussion needs to take place. If the answer is that it is reliable, then the primary sources it republishes can be used in articles where there is a consensus among editors of the individual articles to do so. Any personal attributes of gibnews (the Wikipedia editor) are irrelevant to this discussion, as are any views he does or does not hold about any topic.

Whether gibnews.net (the site) hosts content from all points on the spectrum of opinion regarding the sovereignty of Gibraltar is also irrelevant as it is not the only possible source for reliable references regarding Gibraltar - each article needs to be balanced, and if primary sources supporting only one side of the debate can be found on gibnews.net then references supporting the other side can be found from other sources.

In a hypothetical dispute between Russia and France, it is conceivable that ITAR-TASS and AFP would each only carry primary reporting that supported their country's side of the dispute. This does not mean that we cannot use either as sources, just that we cannot use either as the only source - something we should never do anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The questions are an attempt to get Gibnews to demonstrate that the site is a reliable and faithful archiver of press content. (It is fairly obvious that a press release is a primary source.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The following is moved from my talk page, as I do not feel it is approrpriate to try and sidestep this discussion in that way:

Hi, posting here because I don't want to fill up the RS page. This site demands special attention, because of the potential conflict of interests involved. This editor is very active at Talk:Gibraltar, and holds very strong views about its relationships with Britain and Spain. Maintaining a NPOV at that page is at times very difficult. A Wikipedia editor is using material from a site that he runs (even if it's just storing away documents he didn't write) to edit a page which has constant POV problems, so there is a very real potential conflict of interest. For example, it would be very easy to twist the meaning of a press release by editing out certain sentences. Or indeed, to omit a press release entirely from your archive, because it contained something you didn't like. Such a selectively operated collection of primary sources would be implicitly biased, and the site would not be reliable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking your points individually

Potential conflicts of interest are dealt with at WP:COI. Just because one user has a potential conflict of interest with a source, does not mean that source is not reliable.
If the press releases are edited then it is not a reliable source, regardless of who or why they are edited.
If the press releases are not edited, and it can be verified that they are not, then it is reliable. This is what the discussion is attempting to determine. If they are not edited it is irrelevant that they could be.
If it cannot be verified either way whether they are edited or not, we cannot verify whether the site is reliable and it should not be used.
Just because a press release is not in an archive does not mean anything, other sources exist, and we should never rely on just one source.
It does not matter whether primary sources are biased or not. What matters is that the articles are not biassed. This is done by citing multiple sources that verify all sides of an argument. For example the governments of Spain and Gibraltar hold differing views about the sovereignty of Gibraltar, as so both sources are biassed about the topic. However both sources are citied in the article, because they are reliable sources that verify their respective positions.
The appropriateness of a single reliable source for verifying a specific article is a matter for discussion on that article's talk page.

I think that you would do well to remember that "reliable" and "biased" are independent qualities. For example, the Government of Gibraltar is a source that is both reliable and biased, while an unsourced Wikipedia article can be both neutral and unreliable. Also, I would caution you to comment on the content and not the person as several of your contributions to this debate are aproaching personal attacks against user:gibnews. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm, that is exactly what my questions above which you dismissed are trying to establish. Anyway, it is a moot point because Gibnews has already kindly given answers to them below. And, I disagree with your understanding of bias. For example, in statistics we have something called selection bias. Anyone whose sayings or writings have been taken out of context and (mis)quoted in the media will understand the importance of selection bias in that context. The lead of that article sums it up nicely. "If the selection bias is not taken into account then any conclusions drawn may be wrong." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Some Answers to editors questions

Hipocrite Q. References to material on gibnews.net

ACE Encyclopaedia, An online repository of election information

Gibraltar Environmental Safety Group - a large respected NGO

Gibraltar Stock Brokers

London School of Economics

Forces Family Support Group

Mercopress Uruguay

Universidad Complutense de Madrid UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 12 (Octubre / October 2006) ISSN 1696-2206 LO ESTRATÉGICO EN LA CUESTIÓN DE GIBRALTAR by Luis Romero (in Spanish)] Link used

Tbsdy Q. why can we consider that the press releases you have on the site reliable?

The site is published and read in Gibraltar, it would not last a week if there were disputes with the content shown and the providers, However, as noted some press releases are available on other sites, feel free to check that the versions agree.

For an example of policing of websites see This item

Dæ dαlus Q. Answer Red Hat questions.

I'd rather not get into a long debate with that editor as there is a long history of conflict. BUT as you ask.

Who ensures that the press releases have been faithfully and/or accurately transcribed by the owners of the website?

The content providers do that.

How can a reader tell that the owners of the website are choosing to censor certain material - ommitting words, sentences, or paragraphs? Especially when the owners "reserve the right to remove any content without giving a reason."

The mission statement for the site, and the terms of conditions state specifically that does not happen. The reference to removing content is a legal requirement to avoid litigation. In the event it would be necessary the entire item and the content providers access would be removed. This has never happened. All sites and hosting services TOS contain similar provisions.

This begs the question, who is behind gibnews.net? The "company" and its staff are anonymous. Who is it that can remove content without giving a reason? If I want to find out who runs the GBC or FSC I can [36] [37].

Neither of your references give the name of their webmasters. However the issue is the content which is provided externally, so the question is inappropriate.

You are the site's webmaster. Do you wield editorial discretion? If you do not, can you demonstrate that you do not, for example, by providing the name of the owner of the site who will attest to that fact?

See above

If you do, is it not a serious conflict of interest that you are attempting to use the site as a source in Wikipedia, yet you wield editorial discretion over what is posted there?

See above.

How can a reader tell that the owners of the website are not cherry picking certain material to publish?

It really does not matter. If the material there is both accurate and provided by the content providers, then its a valid reference. Its hard to cite material that is not there ...

How can a reader tell that anyone wishing to post a press release or opinion there is free to do so? (e.g. would one of the very small number of Gibraltar residents who voted to return to Spanish rule be able share their opinion or post press releases free of censorship?).

That is rather scraping the barrel, The terms of use say: We invite organisations based in Gibraltar who issue press releases on a regular basis to participate in this website by entering their content directly, or emailing us. As of today there are no organisations in Gibraltar proposing any political relationship with Spain. But a news site does not have to express EVERY opinion, the issue here is whether the material presented is reliable.

Who are the people who share their opinions? Are they experts in their field?

The website does not have 'an opinion' it presents the material submitted by its content providers, who are named and listed.

Do any other reputable organisations demonstrably use gibnews.net as a source of information? If so, please provide them.

See answer to the other editor above for people citing material from it. including:

Luis Romero in an academic paper for a Spanish university.

Luis Romero Bartumeus es periodista, Master en Paz, Seguridad y Defensa (UNED), jefe de Relaciones Externas de la Mancomunidad de Municipios del Campo de Gibraltar. Miembro colaborador del Instituto de Estudios Campogibraltareños. Autor de El Estrecho en la política de seguridad española del siglo XX (2003), Algeciras, APCG. Su principal línea de investigación se centra en la seguridad en la zona del estrecho de Gibraltar.

Governmental bodies and media outlets in Gibraltar have their own distribution channels, e.g. [38] [39] [40] [41] and extensive archives [42] Why does Wikipedia need to resort to this private repository of information?

Not everyone has an online archive of their press releases.

1. The GoG archive does not always return documents and they are in .pdf format 2. The Gibraltar Chronicle limits access to its archive and it has changed recently.

The links on gibnews.net are by design permanent.

3. www.gbc.gi does not provide a public archive of its news stories, only todays.

4. The FSC has its own arangements and I don't think they contribute to gibnews.net although they would be eligible to do so. As their site changes regularly maybe they should.

Similarly the GSLP publish press releases on their own website, but only from 2009 and the site format changes regularly and the CMS used has been troublesome. But again you can cross check material there against gibnews.net.

SUMMARY

For the avoidance of doubt, I registered my username here shortly after doing some work designing templates for that website, and it seemed a good idea at the time, not realising the amount of hassle I might encounter on Wikipedia from some editors. Later realising there might be some confusion - although its a sufficiently general term - I tried to change my username to something else but it did not work.

I also registered the domain ecrg.eu - the content on the European Conservative and Reformists Group is not mine either any more that the content of Wikipedia belongs to Jimmy Wales and whoever wrote the wikipedia software, but I expect they would defend its integrity robustly.

The issue should be reliability of the content not an implied personal attack on the site owners or myself.

--Gibnews (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the answers to my questions, Gibnews (still digesting them). In the meantime, I have one more:

What is the financial relationship between you/the owners, the site, and the organizations whose press releases you post there? For example, do organizations have to pay to host content there, and do you receive compensation for operating the website, either directly because the money goes into a bank account owned by you, or indirectly because the money goes into a bank account owned by a registered company who then compensate you for your work on the site?

The reason I ask is to establish whether there is any possibility of source soliciting. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The reply comes in three parts.

1. My finances are none of your business, and quite irrelevant.

2. The site makes it quite clear there are no charges to content providers.

3. The content providers are organisations like

The Government of Gibraltar
The Police
The Governors office
The Opposition
The Ministry of Defence

Are you seriously suggesting I bung the above organisations brown envelopes in order to write press releases to win arguments on Wikipedia ?

--Gibnews (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is really more appropriate at WP:COI (I didn't know about that page until another editor posted it here), but I was just asking you to clarify that by linking to your site - and let's be clear about this - it is your site, and it's only you that so desperately wants to use it - that you would not be in a position to financially benefit, because, say, you were being paid by organisations to promote their material on the interweb. If you did that on Wikipedia, that would be everyone's business here, not just yours. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets say it again, I wrote the scripts and templates. The domain is owned by a company. That is a separate legal entity to me. I find it to be a useful resource and others do too. It has primary sources which are not available anywhere else. The information is from significant reliable entities. The website is FREE and a handful of links from Wikipedia do not get me excited.

The content providers listed above, who comprise the bulk of the contributions really are not the least bit interested in 'being promoted on the net' They are not-for-profit organisations, not commercial companies - Stop barrel scraping, its empty. --Gibnews (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the question about finances is out of line. Gibnews, I don't think you need to answer this question. For the record, you've done enough to convince me now, you have turned my previous negative opinion around about the site and I now believe that for things such as press releases the project is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia.

It might have been more helpful if you had edited under another username, but as you have been here for so long I don't think it's an actionable point :-) While you built the site, I'm going to AGF on this one and believe you when you say that you don't have a negative COI with regards to this source. If anything, that you are willing to explain that you built the site goes to my mind that you are being honest about your position. I apologise if my comments in the block proposal were out of order, but I was particularly concerned over a number of areas, all of which you have now addressed. Thank you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Financial journalists disclose whether they own stock in ABC Corporation if they write a report on ABC Corporation. Companies must disclose if they have funded research into their product that they then publish. Executives must disclose if they have given presents to government officials. My financial questions to Gibnews were no more intrusive than those kinds of disclosures are. I was not asking how much he gets paid or what is in his bank account. It is frankly rather naive to say my question is out of line, and anyway, I was asking no more than what is written at the COI behavioural guideline section on financial matters [43]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this at WP:COI as on two occasions now, my COI-related questions have been dismissed out of hand. As I said there, if there are no COI objections, I won't pursue the matter any further and will continue to deal with usage of this site as a source on a case by case basis. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that the financial questions have been answered perfectly satisfactorily - Gibnews (the editor) has no financial relationship with any of the organisations that publish press releases on Ginbews.net (the site), and gains no financial benefit from the site being mentioned on Wikipedia. Publishing press releases on the site is voluntary and free, there is no financial incentive given to organisations to publish their press releases on Gibnews.net and there is no restriction on them publishing their press releases in other locations as well. Based on all the answers given by Gibnews (the editor), I believe that Gibnews.net is a reliable republisher of primary source material. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Famous Pictures Magazine

Is the Famous Pictures Magazine [44] a reliable source for a copyright status of the photos presented there?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Er ... no. http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=User:DeanLucas "Hello. My name is Dean Lucas and I'm the admin and as of this moment the only contributor to the Famous Pictures Project. I'm something of a history nut and have always been fascinated by famous pictures and the stories behind them. I started out this project as a book concept. I've tried to submit the idea to a number of publishers but no luck. Plan B was this webpage. I've recently added ads in hopes of paying the bills to keep this site going." I think we want a bit more in the way of qualifications than "history nut". --GRuban (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No. WP:SPS websites make all sorts of claims regarding the copyright status of the material contained in them. These claims are often incorrect. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Gideon Levy

This is a contentious article on a controversial Israeli dissident journalist. As such, it suffers frequent edit wars and disputed sources. The latest dispute raises some issues which I think require general clarification.

A hostile comment has been added to the article, sourced to the Israeli news aggregating site "Omedia".[45] This site is currently undergoing upgrade, and none of its content is available. Following the link originally cited in the article gives a 404 page unavailable error.[46] In an attempt to check the validity of the source and the context of the comment, I discovered the same text at a different site -- a blog by an Israeli settler in the Golan Heights, Uri Heitner.[47] The blog asserts that Heitner wrote this text, as does a second website quoting this.[48] These appear to be the only two sites where the text is currently available.

Despite this, another editor claims that the text was actually written by Ran Farhi, an editor at Omedia, and is repeatedly restoring the text, sourced to Omedia.

I have two questions here: 1) Is there any justification for repeatedly citing an unavailable link, rather than an alternative site where the text is available? 2) Is a blog a reliable source for extremely hostile comments about a living person? Would Omedia (if the material originated there, rather than on a blog" be acceptable?

Please note that all of the sources here are in Hebrew. There is a separate issue, which can probably be resolved, over the accuracy of the translations used. I am asking here merely about the reliability and relevance of sources.RolandR (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On your 1), a live link is only a small part of an RS. Many RS have no weblink at all, for example books. One could cite a Ha'aretz article with the date, article title, author and no link; its reliability would not be affected. We give links where possible as a courtesy to the reader, and a dead link should not be included as it is just wasting the reader's time. On 2), you must on no account use a blog as a source on a BLP. Would Omedia be an acceptable source? I don't think so. This looks like op-ed rather than news, not good for a BLP, unless perhaps you can show it was written by a notable commentator. If Omedia is really a "news aggregating site" then it is probably a reprint, but from where? If you cannot even be sure who authored it, if different websites have given different authorship, then it should not be in the article. You might want to post on WP:BLPN for further views. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But Omedia exists only as a website. If it is down, there is no way another editor could verify the alleged contents of a page there. I should have added that the relevant page is not even available from the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine. This has been discussed round in circles on the BLPN noticeboard; but the offending passage has still been repeatedly restored to the article. I agree with your assessment of the sources and their reliability, as it seems do most of the editors on this page; but this has not prevented the continued war of attrition going on there. RolandR (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My view is in line with those of the two uninvolved editors who commented on WP:BLPN. There is no indication that this source is reliable. The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add material from it. It should be kept off this BLP unless it can be shown to be RS. 1RR applies on a BLP. Repeated attempts to add it should be regarded as vandalism. I think that is all the can be said on this noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the two editors on BLPN are involved but that's not really the issue. As for the BLP, there is no BLP concern since the source is just one of 3+ that say the same thing and all are reliable. The crux of the problem, for me, was that RolandR saw the Omedia article and suddenly insisted that he'd never seen it there (contradictions in his comments on this matter are in abundance). Moving past that, there's really nothing special in the Omedia article and, preferring to keep the article moving than to insist on reviewing the gaming problem, I'd rather not use this source while Omedia is down.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is about the fifth time that Jaakobou has accused me of lying in this matter; if he does so again, I will file a complaint about his behaviour.

In any case, this is irrelevant. He can provide no sources for his claim, while I can provide two for mine. As the person wishing to add this smear, the onus is on him to prove that it is relevant, reliably sourced, and not in breach of BLP. So far, he has failed on all three counts. RolandR (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On BLPN, another editor reports that he wrote to Heitner, who confirms that he wrote this piece on his blog.[49] So that should resolve this matter. RolandR (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this the way Wikipedia works?

After 11 days on this board, the discussion on the topic Shakespeare authorship question source is bogged down with no clear consensus. Four uninvolved editors say the source meets Wikipedia standards as an acceptable WP:SPS. One uninvolved editor dissents. I tried to summarize, but when I said it appears to be a consensus I was slapped down and a long, non-productive discussion followed. Who actually makes a decision as to whether the source is reliable when four editors say it meets standards and one doesn't? Whatever you call it, the status quo is not a consensus. Is this the way Wikipedia works? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll never get a definitive opinion on WP, because we are all volunteers, and all equal. All you can get out of a board like this is a "sounding" of opinions of people not directly involved with your topic. If you feel your source is reliable, and there is no overwhelming consensus against it, go ahead and use it. Unless it's a BLP issue, a source doesn't have to be stellar to qualify as a reliable source; the bottom line should be common sense and general agreement on the article's talk page. Crum375 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There's the rub - there is no general agreement on the article talk page.

As you noted, there actually is a clear consensus, notwithstanding the desire of some to ignore it. Consensus is not unanimity. Dlabtot (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Err, there's a clear on-going discussion, which is making progress. A number of issues are still unresolved. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RS discussion Talk:Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus#Proposed addition to Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus.23.2FTransmission

Are these 2 citations reliable sources for the two sentences proposed for the XMRV Article?:

Dr. Jerry Holmberg of the DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability stated at the CFSAC meeting on 30 Oct 2009 that, because studies have now associated XMRV with prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the committee will investigate the blood safety threat from XMRV.[50](pgs 22-23)

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group has been formed according to the Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Association of America, and included in the planned investigations are validation studies for XMRV testing, evaluation of the incidence of XMRV in the populace and blood supply (including subgroups), XMRV transmission studies, and human disease associations.[51] Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at WP:MED. Medicine-related articles must have sources satisfying WP:MEDRS; none of these sources does. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS does not apply here, there are no medical claims, only details on formation and scope of a working group investigation on blood safety. Ward20 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If so, then you're engaging in speculation based upon the opinion of one individual as reported in a primary transcript. Such information is of no consequence and should not be included in an encyclopaedia, especially not in a medicine-related article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, Ward20 was summarising a written statement read out at a CFSAC committee meeting read out by the senior technical advisor for blood policy within the OPHS HHS on behalf of his boss the Assistant Secretary for HHS responsible for Blood Safety. -- TerryE (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Acronym Finder

Is Acronym Finder a reliable source for the use of neologisms? "While the database is not open content, users can help to expand the database by submitting new definitions, which are subject to editorial control" - is it enough for reliability? Black Kronstadt (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

Again, user: Osm agha is reverting, deleting what he doesn't like about Arabic biased content, i think some intervention is required about this article. thank you.

I don't know what the underlying articles are, but in exploring whether they are RSs this may be of interest -- especially if they are papers in Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Yemen ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index --Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the issue has to be adressed, it's a flaming war here, thank you.

Nothing is done yet, with abnima, or with me!

www.debating.net

I am doing some work on a number of articles on University Debating. Most, if all reference on them come from www.debating.net or flynn.debating.net.

While this is clearly a Primary sources, however is it a reliable one ?

The reason I ask is I am planning to tydy up Grand Finalist & ESL Champion Team Members section of the European Universities Debating Championship article most of which is referenced to one or other of the above sites. However before I do I just wanted to check that it is appropriate to use those sites as references. Codf1977 (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Codf1977 has brought this up, let me give some background about the sources in question on the European Universities Debating Championship page. The flynn.debating.net website is now largely a blog website, but it hasn't always been so. The website started in the 1990s. The blog section was added only in 2005, and over the past few years has become very popular and so has largely taken over the site. But it was originally a debate wesbite with information about debating tournament results and general information about debate, not a blog. Most of the references on the European Universities Debating Championship page are from the older pages of the website and not the much newer blog section. Singopo (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would add that neither source says BDU hosted the event, they both say Berlin, and only Berlin. As such to claim these two sources can be used to say that the BDU hosted the championships is OR, and possibly Synthsis.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to find other sources, there are precious few. I am wondering if this is even notable givven the dearth of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another issue the BDU web site says they compeated in 2001, but the flynn.debating.net website does not [[52]] (though there is something called BSU which is similar). So do we have another source for compeating teams in that year? As some one has to be wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

could be a typo - 'D' & 'S' are next to each other on a British keyboard - Not that is an excuse. Codf1977 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case then I would say that (given its the only thing they are talking about) they would not be RS, becasue they obviously do not check thier facts. It also makes me even more unsure about notability, its so notable even they can't be arsed to get it right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

University debating is notable, but the articles have too much detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying University debating is not notable, I am however concerned that the articles on WP are making the subject look a lot more notable than it is and that all the results and being drawn from one guys website, which is clearly a closely linked Primary source.Codf1977 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sort of. I am not saying that university debating is un-notable perse. But what I am asking (and therefore if the answer is to hte negative that its not notable) is that there appear to be no third party RS we can use to establish the notability of the EDC. Effectivly the competitions notability rests soley on the fact they say it exsits and that people take part.

You may, unfortunately, be right - another example of that is IONA Debating Circuit‎. Codf1977 (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So can we treat the above sites as WP:RS ?Codf1977 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone (unconnected with the above articles) please advise on this. Codf1977 (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please someone must be able to give some help ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm unrelated to the sites in question, and to the subject of university debating for that matter. As an outsider, but fairly experienced Wikipedia editor I find it hard to classify the sites as reliable sources. Even for the old, pre-blog part, it is unclear to what extent the information was checked, what the editorial policy was, etc. It may have some "street cred" in the debating community, but I believe more is required in order to be considered a reliable source. A site like IMDb, for instance, though highly regarded by film buffs still fails to clear the barrier. Favonian (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources which appear to be copies of reliable sources

I've come across a couple of articles that include citations to copies of reliable sources, and I'd like some input on them. The articles in question are Grief Recovery Institute and Ebsco Publishing, although other articles may have similar issues so a centralized discussion is appropriate. Each of these articles contain citations to copies of reliable sources which are hosted on the subject's own site. It's significant that each of these articles was created by editors with a likely conflict of interest. I attempted to replace the references with ones that linked directly so they could be verified, but was unable to do so. This could be because copies are not available online, or because copies simply do not exist. I'm here because I'm hesitant to remove sources which may be reliable, but uncomfortable leaving them in because they can't be verified. Thoughts?--otherl left 18:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, some of those are probably copyright violations, and shouldn't be linked to. Others would probably require a trip to the library to confirm. The WSJ ref on the GRI article is likely both. There's enough info on its page to create a non-hyperlinked reference to the WSJ article. It's probably real, but you can't know for sure. You might look at this policy, although it doesn't talk about copy vios. Tough call. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So either it's a primary source (from the company's own site) or a copyvio, so in neither case does it demonstrate notability and the reliability of the hosting site must be considered. Doesn't sound nearly as tough after your reply. Thanks!--otherl left 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem. Say they have perfectly copied a WSJ article (and I think they have). It's a copyvio that can't be linked to, but it's a pretty good lead on a source and establishing notability. The WSJ puts their stuff behind a pay wall, so it's always hard to verify their articles. So, it's then up to us experienced editors. If we want to delete the article, we can say "doesn't count, since it's a copyvio and I haven't seen the original". If we want to keep it, we can say "there's a good WSJ article on the subject, can someone help me check that it says what we think it says". (I think User:Hunter Kahn has an account that would let him check, and he's pretty nice about this kind of stuff). It's a weird situation, because it's experienced editors on one side, and COI newby editors on the other. So, do what you think is right, but be aware that you are the one making the decision: it's not out of your hands because some policy is forcing your hand. Basically, how nice do you want to be? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

See if WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO apply. --JN 466 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The pay wall issue can be overcome easily... Most public libraries will have a subscription to the WSJ's web archive. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so sure their copy is a copyvio, on the web illegally? It's an article about them, after all; news organizations allowing their subjects the right to reprint articles about them is hardly uncommon. The author's email address is hyperlinked right on the page if you want to confirm that they have the right to it. Here is another copy.[53] --GRuban (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER says it is okay to link if the site has licensed the work. There is no evidence of that here. If someone has licensed a work, they explicitly say so. If you have further doubts, I'd suggest you contact User:Moonriddengirl, who has an excellent grasp of copyright issues. --JN 466 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"If someone has licensed a work, they explicitly say so." Not at all. In general reprinters just write the equivalent of "This article originally appeared in X", and don't add "and we're not stealing it from them, honest." Here are, oh, 8 million examples, at least the first few dozen seem to be from highly respectable sources, including not a few law firms.[54] You seem to think we should assume they're all breaking the law unless we have proof to the contrary. That's not how it works. If we have reason to believe they are breaking the law, that's one thing, but we shouldn't just assume it. --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)http://www.grief.net/Media/Wall_Street_Journal.htm

I believe we shouldn't just "assume" that they have licensed the material without any evidence indicating so. I believe such evidence might look like this: [55] --JN 466 18:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

JN asked my opinion here. My opinion is "It depends." :) I've seen plenty of subjects that have taken material about them to republish at their own websites (or repost on Youtube) where licensing was highly implausible. Immediately comes to mind a DJ and model whose manager has had some COI issues. They seem to think that their website can serve as a resume/scrapbook, and (of course) this isn't so. I believe GRuban is right that a good many of them do obtain permission, and JN is right that a number of them do acknowledge it (even if they don't think it's that kind :)). Practically, WP:ELNEVER provides us a little more leeway than much of the other prohibitions of WP:C. I think we need to exercise some individual judgment here to determine if content is likely licensed, which might in part be made up of the stature of the hosting organization and the other contents of their website. I also think that where possible we should view and verify the original, since it isn't impossible that reproduction could be altered. And, of course, it seems very likely that they will have cherry-picked what sources they reproduce to serve their own purposes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have (legally!) accessed the WSJ article via a commercial news archive (Factiva) and compared it to the alleged copy at [56]. The two have identical text except: (1) The Factiva version does not have the side-bar (the list of statistics in the box labeled "THE GRIEF INDEX"); (2) the Factiva version does not give the URLs for GRI and SHRM. Apart from this, you can cite the information in the article to WSJ. Whether you can also link to [57] is a separate issue. Zero^talk 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Emporis

Is Emporis considered a reliable source? They review and include sourced submissions [58] per "To add new information to our database, we need a reliable source. A source can be newspaper articles, the official website, architectural reports or blueprints." ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

According to our article Emporis, they are frequently cited as an authority on building data, and that's cited with a number of good news articles, so I'd say yes, for those purposes. What's the specific question? --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a diff [59] and here's the edit history [60]. Let me know if you need more information. I don't want to be seen as trying to bias the outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what an innocuous list of information to war over.

This romanesque revival structure served as Springfield's City Hall until 1979. It is almost 10 times long as it is wide. [61] (referring to Municipal Building (Springfield, Ohio))
Sandstone, neo-gothic structure [62] (referring to St. Raphael Church (Springfield, Ohio))
Brick, beaux-arts structure [63] (referring to Shawnee Hotel)
Brick, beaux-arts structure [64] (referring to Tecumseh Building)

Is that really it? I could even see the argument that these last 3 don't even really need a source, you can see a building is brick by looking at it, we have photos, or you can use Google Maps photos or the equivalent. For something as innocuous as this, Emporis, which is used by the New York Times and Washington Post for much more controversial things, [65][66][67] should be plenty good enough. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Inter-Disciplinary Press

Are these papers reliable for citations about politics in black metal? I guess they are, since they look like academic publications and therefore may be the most reliable sources for such citations. Though some people in Talk:Black metal have doubts about it. Black Kronstadt (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

At a glance, I'd say the summary of the paper from the academic at McMaster is a reliable source, and the paper from the radio station music director might be if it's a significant radio station. What assertions specifically are these sources being used to justify? Barnabypage (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's about the existence of anarchist / radical leftist black metal bands. If the paper by J.Davisson is a reliable source, then that kind of black metal is notable enough to be mentioned in the article (the other sources are either not reliable enough, or are primary sources). Black Kronstadt (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look into Davisson a bit further and see if s/he is generally a respected commentator on the subject. The source doesn't seem obviously unreliable... Barnabypage (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Move of WP:Reliable Sources, and implied promotion of RS to WP:V policy

My apologies if this isn't the normal place to post this, but apparently a significant change was made to WP:RS and I wasn't aware of the debate, despite being very active in reliable sourcing debates, and I'd like all the regulars here to know about it. For some reason, the WP:RS guideline was retitled as "Identifying Reliable Sources". Which seems a little stilted to me though not too bad, and a new shortcut WP:IRS was created.

However, the shortcut WP:RS was moved to a section within the policy WP:V, which is a very big deal which seemed to happen without a separate debate. To me, this has the effect of promoting the reliable sourcing guidelines to the level of a policy, because when most people discuss reliable sources, they think "RS". Also there are many links to the RS guideline all over Wikipedia, including anchor links which will be broken if the shortcut is changed.

There's also been a large amount of instruction creep within WP:V, which is supposed to be only the basics of citing your sources; compare a 2006 version with today. I've decided to "be bold" and change RS to point back where it belongs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's Who not RS?

http://www.marquiswhoswho.com/products/WAprodinfo.asp

Is this not a RS? You can nominate a friend. You can write your own biography. (see lower left) To me, that is a paid directory, not a RS. If you disagree, I am open to listening. JB50000 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not even close to a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Long established on wiki as not a RS. Ty 07:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will now not write a new article based on a biographical entry that I saw there. I was debating what to do. Thank you. JB50000 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. You can nominate a friend, but there is no reason to believe he/she would necessarily get in. And, it's not a paid directory. (They try to get people named to buy copies for themselves, or to give to friends, but they don't charge for listing.) That being said, the entries are written by the individuals in question, so the details are not usable, although the fact of listing may be a general indication that the person is notable. (Disclaimer: I am listed in "Marquis Who's Who in America". I assure you that I didn't pay anything for the entry.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... the notability issue is interesting... the entire concept behind Who's Who is to be a listing of notable people... however, WP:NOTE calls for notibility to be established by reliable sources... if Who's who is not reliable, then it would not qualify for establishing notability. So we have a listing of notable people that can not be used to establish that they actually are notable. I love a good paradox. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's Who only pretends to be a listing of notable people, so there's really no paradox at all....~

There is a difference between (A&C Black's) Who's Who and Marquis Who's Who. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

100-year old Catholic encyclopedia

Does the 100-year old Catholic Encyclopedia qualify as a reliable source? If so, what if about when it's contradicted by more recent scholarship? It's commonly cited on religion pages. Catholic Encyclopedia Leadwind (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic encyclopedia, is not reliable, age(100 as you yourself say) , and it is full of grammar and syntax errors as well. Thebans written as Thesbians and other such "gems"Megistias (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends, in this case more than in others. It's a reliable source for Catholic positions in the early 20th century, in particular in the US. It's not a reliable source for current doctrine or other viewpoints. In most cases, it should probably be be treated as a primary source. That said, I doubt that it is "full of grammar and syntax errors". There may be some shifts in English usage, but Thespians and Thebans are simply two different things. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephan has it right... The old CE is reliable for a statement as to what Catholic thinking was 100 years ago... but not for a statement as to what Catholic thinking is today. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes i know but it was ThesBians in CE, not Thespians :). catholic Megistias (talk)

Do you think the authors of the CE were referring to this? :>)

Seriously, even the most modern and up-to-date reliable sources contain the occasional typo. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As always, reliability depends on what it is being used for. If it's about some obscure saint of a thousand years ago, and there are no more recent sources - of course reliable. Just use common sense. If more recent scholarship contradicts it, usually go with the more recent source, how much so being a matter of judgment and consensus.John Z (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How words are being born!But yeah its just oldMegistias (talk)

It's generally not considered reliable, much like other century-old tertiary sources. As far as I know, it wasn't even an official church publication, so it's really the author's/editors' views on a topic, not the Catholic church's. While it might be possible to use it as "a reliable source for Catholic positions in the early 20th century", that would essentially be using it as a primary source. And while it might also be used for information about "some obscure saint of a thousand years ago, and there are no more recent sources", if in fact there are no more recent sources, then it's unlikely the topic itself is appropriate for Wikipedia. It's best avoided. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence it is considered particularly unreliable, via searches on gscholar and gbooks, and note it is used as a reference or resource in some articles at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I strongly disagree about the unsuitability of such a topic if there are no more recent sources; wikipedia shouldn't be censored by recentist bias. Common sense and consensus deals very well with such old sources, in my opinion. Reliability questions are much easier to answer if they are more specific.John Z (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Censored" is a very harsh word, John, and, I think, entirely unwarranted here. Wikipedia typically judges notability based on reliable sources discussing a topic. If no sources besides the 1907-1914 Catholic Encyclopedia discuss a topic, then it is not likely the topic satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would only use such a harsh word in a discussion with a friend who I respect and esteem (and to say so out of place but publicly, who has been unjustly treated by the wiki-powers-that-be). I can only speak from my own POV, that of a rabid inclusionist who believes that there is a greater and more present danger of eliminating articles, sources and editors rather than including them, and with my own prediction that such an article would squeak past an AfD, based on the reliability of the encyclopedia.John Z (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you John, I really appreciate your saying that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We use it a lot for biographies of popes, and as was said above, for obscure saints. But scholarship moves on and it isn't recentism to give preference to newer sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For obscure saints it sounds very appropriate. After all, our articles on botany rely heavily on century-old editions of the Brittanica. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Toon Zone

Toon Zone (www.toonzone.net), sometimes credited as ToonZone, is a news and information website on the animation industry, ranging from American cartoons to anime. A search on Google News yields several pay-per-view articles from the Oakland Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and Kansas City Star that cite toonzone.net. It was also cited by Anime News Network [68][69] and Space.com [70], among others. Of course, their forums and wiki would not be considered reliable per policy. Arsonal (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look good based on this. Some of their writers may be experts and able to stand on their own, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I considered that as well but wanted to get a broader opinion. There is a listing of the "army of volunteers" here. Arsonal (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be considered a reliable source as a whole. Most of the "staff" are just random animation fans, and it is primarily hosted content of other people rather than an actual legitimate content provider and news agency itself. One of the "site owners" qualifications is "I love cartoons". Its basically a large fansite that gives hosting to apparently anyone and I couldn't find anyone in the list who is an actual expert. While some folks may site them sporadically (those two ANNs are from 2002), I think it would be better to just citing the reliable sources rather than ToonZone (i.e. if the Chicago Sun-Times chooses to site them in a story, then we're trusting that the reliable source itself checked/confirmed what they reported). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Juan Cole and List of charities accused of ties to terrorism

This is a mutually agreed upon request from a mediation cabal mediation (parties: Bonewah, GRuban, mediators: Vicenarian, PhilKnight). The Wikipedia article List of charities accused of ties to terrorism has an entry for the Capital Athletic Foundation. The entry is based on multiple sources, but this RSN question is about this one: "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s “Charity” a Front for Terrorism", by Juan Cole, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2006, pages 28-29. Is this a reliable source for the entry?

The arguments against are that:

this is an opinion piece, which is unacceptable per RS "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." The article even states at the bottom that this is "commentary" first appearing in Mr. Cole's blog.
the only place this editorial directly accuses the CAF of supporting terrorism is in the title, the statements in the body are weaker
that Juan Cole is a dubious source for such a statement, being a professor of middle eastern history does not make one an expert on everything that occurs in the middle east.

The arguments for are that:

the entire List is a list of accusations, not of facts, and is clearly labeled as such; it makes no statements of fact other than that the accusations are made. The facts of all accusations in the list are highly disputed, except for one which is admittedly wrong.
the title is an important part of the source article, and quite clear
The New York Times calls Juan Cole "a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan" [71]; Harper's Magazine calls him "one of the nation’s leading historians focusing on the Middle East"[72]. He has published multiple academic peer-reviewed books on the modern Middle East, and is widely cited as an expert on it by PBS [73], UC Berkeley [74], the New York Times, [75] (>2000 results), MIT [76], NPR [77] and so forth, meeting WP:RS "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", while the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a 17 year old magazine, published in by some pretty heavy hitters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonewah (talk • contribs)

1. Speaking as someone who's written lots of op-eds, op-ed authors very rarely get to title their own pieces: the titles are chosen by newspaper staff, and usually to fit the space available. If the only evidence for the "link" is the title of an op-ed, it can't be attributed to the op-ed author, so the author's reliability is presumptively irrelevant to the question.

2. Generally, "terrorist" is not acceptable nomenclature unless the organization named as terrorist has been so identified by a government. Juan Cole's hyperbole (and reading that overwrought op-ed makes it clear that the "terrorism" appellation is rhetoric rather than scholarship) doesn't count.

So all in all, I say no. THF (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"A" government? Is there a specific list of acceptable governments? Is there a reason why political maneuvers, such as the back-channel lobbying that saw the MEK listed, then removed, on several of these lists would be allowed but opinions of academics would not be? If we do actually need "a" government to make the accusation that a groups is a "terrorist" group the article should be retitled List of charities associated with groups designated as terrorist by one of six governments nableezy - 17:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is obviously, unambiguously, and indisputably RS. Dlabtot (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that Cole is accusing Abramoff of funding terrorism... so it seems to be a reliable source for the existance of the accusation ... WP:RS is only part of the issue. The guideline does not exist in a vacuum. It must be considered in conjunction with our other polices. So, while the source may be reliable for a statement as to the existance of the accusation, we also need to ask whether mentioning the existance of the accusation at all gives the accusation undue weight. I am not convinced that Cole's opinion is note worthy enough to pass WP:UNDUE. The issue of whether a source is reliable for demonstrating that "opinion X exists" becomes moot if, for other reasons, we should not say "opinion X exists" in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

blogs and myspace as references establishing the occurrence of specific concerts of a music group.

Some confusion has arisen in the band Lesser of Two's editing process regarding whether certain blogs and myspace content is acceptable to verify that particular concerts occurred. I have contended that such self published references are acceptable in the WP:SELFPUB exception for non-reliable self published sources especially given the context. They are relevant and there is little doubt to the authenticity of the information. I believe that some editors believe any "blog" or myspace site is never acceptable as a reference. I do not see that to be the policy. Could someone help clarify who is an administrator?noodle 07:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but being an administrator isn't required to make a statement about policy, though the experience most admins have helps. (Also, you haven't gotten an administrator's response for a week, so I'm feeling a bit bold.) A self-published statement, such as on band's personal web page, myspace, or blog, is considered a reliable source for non-controversial information about the author, in this case, the band, as long as you can be sure the statement was actually written by the band. That a specific concert occurred seems non-controversial enough, though it would help if you gave the specific context. (If the statement is that they gave a concert in space hosted by Greys from Zeta Reticuli that might be a bit controversial.) --GRuban (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium (aka, sub-academic-quality peer review)

Citizendium has been discussed before here ("OK if not spam") and here ("it's a mess"). Neither discussion mentions the (new?) distinction within citizendium between "approved" and nonapproved (draft?) articles. I believe that unapproved Citizendium articles are no better than wikipedia ones (ie, not RS) but that "approved" articles there have gone through a peer review that should make them RS.

The reason I bring this up is this proposal in the Voting Systems wikiproject. The point is that there is a lot of expertise on voting systems which is not published in any RS. My idea, in line with what User:Abd proposes, is to use existing forums (electowiki and the election methods mailing list) to bring enough expertise to write and peer-review some articles on Citizendium, then use those articles as reliable sources for wikipedia. I'm not talking about cutting-edge "I just thought of a great voting system which obeys criteria X, Y, and Z"-type stuff - that will never be stable enough for Citizendium - but about getting basic simulation data like Yee's pictures "vetted" as being accurate and unbiased. Homunq (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Our goal is to cite the most reliable sources on any given topic. Citizendium is a tertiariy source, and as such will never be the most reliable source on any given topic. Anything it says will have been said more reliably and in better context by a secondary source. Because of this, it should be used as a research tool for finding these reliable sources, not as a reliable source in itself. so... go to Citizendium, sure, and see what they cite in their articles... then go read those sources and cite those sources, not Citizendium. (By the way, this is the same advice I give my students about doing research on Wikipedia.) Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that this is an area where there is a community of knowledge and practice which, in general, has little access to reliable sources. Although there are a number of mathemeticians, economists, and political scientists on the Elections Methods mailing list, papers on these topics - even high-quality papers - tend to languish, because the subject is in a no-mans-land between these disciplines. (It is also, admittedly, an area that attracts amateurs and POV - but I would distinguish that from a more-typical fringe set of theories, because voting system theory is mostly considered too trivial for academic mathematics, not too inaccurate; and although there is a fair amount of POV, the mathematical ground rules are accepted by consensus). The point of publishing on Citizendium would be to use an existing infrastructure to peer-review sources which meet all Wikipedia criteria for RS except peer review. In other words, in this case, it would take on functions akin to those of an academic journal, and thus, while themselves sourced, its statements would become effectively a secondary source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Homunq (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah... you want to use Citizendium as if it were an accademic journal... to publish original research, claim it has been peer reviewed, and then cite it here? I don't think that would fly. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I want to actually peer review it there. There is a real group of peers already existing on the EM mailing list, including most of the top acknowledged experts in the field; a diverse and contentious bunch, who nevertheless IMO have the ability to agree on the standards for certain consensus and NPOV work. This would take time, but it is clearly more feasible than founding an academic journal for the purpose. I understand your skepticism, but please consider it from my perspective. There is decades-old work which is accepted as valid within certain unquestioned limits by a community of experts, work I have found out about third-hand through ideological opponents of its authors, which still constitutes WP:OR by wikipedia standards. Citizendium represents a good-faith attempt to create a peer review process for reliability, and this process appears to me to meet the explicit standards of WP:RS. My proposal would allow an improvement of the relevant articles in Wikipedia, which, in many cases, already reference or include the "OR" (but people let it slide because the various POV groups can accept that it's NPOV as it stands, and it's in no-one's interest to denude the articles of accepted facts.) Homunq (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should ask it concretely. Assume for a moment that a vigorous expert peer review process had happened on Citizendium, and that through that process, an article there had reached "approved" status (equivalent to FA here). What, if anything, would constitute sufficient evidence of the vigor of that process to use it as an RS here? To me, if the EM list were aware of it, it's continued "approved" status would be enough, but I infer you see things differently.

(On a broader note: yes, I know that some unapproved parts of Citizendium are just effectively POV forks of Wikipedia. I do have some faith in their process, though, and would be gratified to see the two encyclopedias work in complementary and not just competing ways.)

Homunq (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Some characteristics of a reliable peer-reviewed source are

authenticity – once peer-reviewed and published, articles cannot be changed
acceptance by other publications, that is, a decent impact factor.

A publication can't start a peer-review process on Monday and be considered a reliable source on Tuesday; it would take years of consistent high-quality articles, acknowledged as such by other publications in the field, before it would be a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good response. As to factor 1 (authenticity), that's part of the Citizendium process: an article version is, once accepted, always accepted; that is, it's still considered valid although superceded by other versions (provisional or accepted in their own right). Factor 2 (acceptance) is, of course, much much harder. So hard in fact that a whole lot of what counts as RS in wikipedia is a long way from that. (Just as an example from another RS question I've been involved in, NarcoNews is not a high-impact source, for instance, but it has enough of an editorial policy to be an RS on simple facts.) So what's different about the case I'm proposing? Just the fact that it's an academic topic? And yet the relevant credentials of those I'd (hope to) involve would not be a factor? Homunq (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be Citizendium's goal to have a reputation for academic level peer review... but it ain't there yet. And it is that reputation that we need. Another wiki can not be used as an end run around WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not their goal. However, they do have an editorial policy easily more stringent (for approved article status) than many edited online news sources which are commonly accepted as cites in Wikipedia such as (looking above here) Huffington Post (for non-editorial content... perhaps a better example would be TPMMuckraker).

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The question here is: if there are several "established expert"s who have not "produced" the material, but who have reviewed and approved it (through a formal, rigorous, but sub-academic process like that of Citizendium), would that still count? If so, how many experts would it take, and how could one demonstrate that such experts were independent (ie, not a POV clique)? Homunq (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What independent reliable source thinks Citizendium's accepted articles are just fine, and are suitable for citing in serious work? If you give us quotes from these independent sources, Citizendium is a non-starter. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In my last message, I wasn't basing any (hypothetical) reliability on Citizendium's own subject-specific reliability. The reliability would be that of the "established expert(s) on the topic of the article" who vouched for the Citizendium article. Citizendium itself would only be validating the fact that these specific people had gone through a formal process in which they vouched for the article.

If not Citizendium, aside from academic peer review, is there any way for a special-interest community which includes such "established expert(s)" to produce an RS survey of common knowledge in their field of interest, if that knowledge is not already otherwise published in an RS? The facts in question are not novel and advanced enough to be publishable in the academic press, yet are generally too technical to be publishable in for an audience of the general public. There have been books on the area which, though meant for a general audience, do include some technical aspects, but these books are rare, and do not systematically survey the common ground of knowledge. Homunq (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure... an established and acknowledged expert could publish a book... we could probably even accept the information if it were published on a website. The key is that it has to come from someone who is acknowledged as an expert. Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Could they edit or otherwise review and approve a book or a website? The point is that the community does the work, and the experts provide the review and a verifiable seal of approval. (Thus the Citizendium proposal, though that's not central; I'd love suggestions of other accessible and transparent review mechanisms.) Homunq (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

bump (on question directly above) Homunq (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

BB, your recommendation often won't work, because CZ, unlike WP, doesn't have a policy of giving citations for everything. I agree that, as a tertiary source, it's less reliable than secondary sources, but WP has to make do with whatever sources its own editors may have found by any given point in time, which will often mean tertiary ones.

It might help if I summarize the CZ procedures here. Firstly, note that the term"editor" is used in a different sense. Over there, it means an expert, ordinary contributors being described as authors. An editor's qualifications are stated on their user page for all to see. They've been verified as true along with their identity by the CZ authorities, who've also judged them sufficient to qualify as an editor.

An approved article must have been approved by 3 editors, or 1 if that 1 has made no contributions to the article other than minor copyediting. The name(s) of the approving editor(s) can be found by a link from the article. Note that this is different from the normal procedure in peer-reviewed publications, where the reviewers are anonymous. Peter jackson (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I found a directly applicable guideline: "An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online." Personally, I'd say that CZ meets the forum qualifications, and voting systems meets the field qualifications. Can I get a second opinion on both questions? (Then I'd start the work of creating a quality voting systems article on CZ, and convincing enough acknowledged experts to register there and approve it.)Homunq (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So what articels and information do you want to use this to cite for? Also how does this site check the credentials of its editors?Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What information: I'd like to create a version of the Voting system article here, over there. Honestly, the article here has big holes in its citations. For instance, over half of the central table on criteria is just allowed to exist by consensus - it's verifiable mathematically, not by citation. Such an article could also use results which are verifiable through open-source software (such as Warren Smith's IEVS or Ka-Ping Yee's visualizations) and draw conservative, consensus conclusions from such results which would constitute OR here (note that the conclusions Smith himself draws go far beyond that. I really do mean "conservative, consensus".) I believe that I could then get a diverse group of voting system experts with relevant credentials to vigorously review and eventually approve such an article.

I expect that there would be a healthy similar role for CZ in other areas in which there exists a diverse community of credentialed experts with a substantial body of common knowledge that's not published in reliable sources.

How CZ confirms qualifications: When you apply as an editor (not just an author) there, you are asked for documentation of your credentials, which is checked by the "constables" (roughly equivalent to WP admins, though their role there is more as enforcers and less as facilitators).

So, does anyone (dis)agree that, if I get 3 acknowledged experts to approve it, this would fit under the guideline I cite in italics above? If nobody agrees, there's little point really to doing the work.

Homunq (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Homunq, you are asking for a theoretical approval (not binding!) of a theoretical possibility, and Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Sure, I proposed a similar idea, more or less (more than two years ago!), as you mentioned, but I would not expect it to be approved here if it hadn't actually happened already, if there were not a publication already in existence that could then be judged on reliability. So if you need approval first before the work is done, it won't happen. My recommendation is to help develop a Citizendium article! And then try to put material in articles here based on it, if there aren't better sources, or ask here at the time if necessary. I'll say it could be useful, it could be better than the status quo. Or maybe not. Depends. --Abd (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not ask do they check the credentials I asked how mthey check them? Moreover what are thier criteria for expertise, do they for exampple accept the university of pay and you get a degreee?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Abd: You're probably right. Basically, I was pre-checking to see if there were any insurmountable obstacles, not to get a binding pre-approval.

Slatersteven: "How" depends on the documentation. I don't know the exact details, but basically they look for some kind of third-party confirmation on the web, or for scans of official documentation. They look at your whole CV - degree, publications, employment. They are not looking for best-in-field, just for everyday credentials. Your confirmed CV is posted for all to see. Homunq (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So basicly their 'experts' may not be of a high calibure but any one who has a qualification. As to Cv's we have this [[78]] which tells me nothing about how he obtained his credentials, unless this is not his CV. We have this [[79]] Who claims that a hobby interest makes him able to work on that subject. Many of the others read like either hobbyists or ordinary profesionals (in the sence of working within an industry), not experts in thier fields. Certainly there are also many high level proffesional but how can we tell who will edit the material?Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

CZ, even their "approved" articles are not reliable sources. There are serious lapses in quality control. Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I'd be interested to hear more. Still, I think I've explored it enough to expect it would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and that with good enough experts, CZ could be a citable source. (It's only to fill the gaps in Voting Systems, to get it back up to its erstwhile FA status without losing information) To work. Homunq (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way Homunq's hypothetical could ever work would be if it could be clearly demonstrated that every one of the citizendium reviewers were previously established experts in the topic field (ie considered experts not because citizendium considers them so... but because they have written academic quality papers/books etc. that have been published outside of citizendium and have a non-citizendum reputation). This senario could concievably place a particular citizendium article on a par with other traditionally published encyclopedias. However, since citizendium does not currently work that way, nor is it ever likely to work that way, the hypothetical is not realistic. We must continue to say that citizendium is not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Blueboar. I think that, technically, just one (very high-calibre) expert reviewer would be enough, though of course 2 (solid) would be better; there's no need for every one of the reviewers to be "expert" by WP standards, since each is independently approving the whole of the article. Also, while I agree that it is (very) unlikely that CZ as a whole will work that way, I think it's not unlikely that individual articles could meet this standard. So my take-away is that CZ is not per se reliable, but it does contain enough information to potentially establish reliability, which is good enough for me. Homunq (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But is there any method that we can use to determine if an article has been edited by experts in thier fields, or just any one with the right qaulifications (by thier standerds)? Also where would we stand over articles that have not yet approved (the site seems to be full of them).Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1. We're not talking about who edited the articles, but about who reviewed and approved them. This information, along with a confirmed CV, is linked from an approved article. That should be enough to establish whether or not they're relevant experts by a WP definition. 2. Unapproved articles would NOT be RS (in principle no better, and in practice often worse, than corresponding WP articles). Homunq (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes we are, those who create articels appear to be called Authors, editors are the persons who review and approve articels it would seem.

So you are sugesting that we shuokld check each article each time some one wnats to use one to see if its been peer reviwed by relevant experts. Moreover what happens when an article has had an expert review it, but changes have been amde after this by non experts?Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Homunq, it seems to me you have already gotten a very clear, firm answer, but are continuing to try to pick it apart. Citizendium is not a reliable source, at all. no matter how you try to twist the "approved" thing they are doing, or try to say "well this one was reviewed by one claimed expert", it will still not be a reliable source. It is not a "peer reviewed" anything, its no different from Wikipedia and is not usable as any sort of source. And if, as you note above, they are not required to provide sources, they obviously are not experts nor professionals writing reliable sourced materials either as no peer review work would accept a lack of valid scholarship. And no matter how much you twist it, not it is not something to be decided on a case by case or article by article basis. It is not a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, you put me in an untenable position. If I disagree with you in any way, I am confirming your charge of "picking it apart". Since this whole thread is based on a hypothetical, I'll drop it, but I reserve the right to pick it up later if it becomes a concrete question. I agree with Abd and Blueboar - I made a mistake in pressing a hypothetical. Homunq (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/254649/Hanuman

[2] ttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/919613/Rashtriya-Swayamsevak-Sangh

[1]

[2]