Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 82

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85

Mountain heights

Over at DYK there is a discussion about sources used in the Cordillera de la Ramada article for the heights of various peaks within the range. The particular sources being questioned are peakbagger and summitpost, both of which are regularly used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains (they have their own cite templates for them). I have myself used heights from peaklist, which does explain the source of its heights (mainly their own analysis of SRTM data). As this comes up every now and then at DYK, it would be good to get a definitive answer on the use of these sources, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication on any of these sites that the information being posted or compiled is subject to editorial review. The articles look like they are user-generated. I seriously doubt that these qualify as reliable sources. I should think that there are published governmental surveys, or other published sources that are reliable sources for this kind of information. Fladrif (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reponse Fladrif, I think that these sources are being used precisely because there are areas of the world that lack good published elevation data. Template:Cite summitpost is used on more than 160 articles, Template:Cite peakbagger is used on about 700 articles, so there are likely many more that use them without the template. The article that I used them on was Altyn-Tagh, in People's Republic of China, where detailed maps are difficult to obtain. I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains. Mikenorton (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand the problem. When reliable sources aren't convenient, convenient sources start to look like they're reliable. The fact that these sources are being used in a lot of different articles doesn't make them reliable. It is unfortunate that they are being used in multiple articles; editors will have to find better sources, if not online, then elsewhere. I should think that there are reliable source available, because I doubt that the sources currently being used simply invented the statistics out of whole cloth. Fladrif (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
For most countries, I don't think there are 'published governmental surveys' giving reliable information on the heights of mountains. I tend to agree that peakbagger and summitpost aren't reliable sources as such, but then sources which are subject to editorial review come up with a surprisingly wide variety of heights for mountains and can't all be reliable. Peakbagger and summitpost probably get near the present-day consensus, at least. I'm inclined to think they are better than no sources, but better not used in new DYKs which will be on the main page, if only for a few hours, I've replaced them in Cordillera de la Ramada. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

re lead sentence at Facial (sex act) I

Another editor and I in dispute over the opening for Facial (sex act).

The current lead is

"A facial is a term for the sexual activity in which a man ejaculates semen onto the face of one or more sexual partners."

While I contend that it ought to be

"Facial is a term for a scene or image in pornography which a man ejaculates semen onto the face of one or more other actors."

This is an important point in my view: is this something in porno, or a notable aspect of human sexual behavior?

I'm not saying that no one has ever done this in real life, just that there is no data. We don't know if it's done at a notable level or not. And if there's no data we shouldn't make such a contentious assertion, even if "everyone knows" that this is common (and for an example of an approach to something that "everyone knows" people do, see Gerbilling.)

I would like the sources for this assertion to be of the highest quality - a government or academic study with hard figures would be best, or lacking that some peer-review scholarly work or material from very highly regarded sources.

But the source for the statement is page 194 of the book Sex for Dummies by Ruth Westheimer and Pierre Lehu, 3rd edition, published in 2006 by For Dummies (that's the name of the publishing house), ISBN 978-0470045237.

My take on this source is:

  • While Ruth Westheimer ("Doctor Ruth") is famous and has parts of a sexologist's education, she's mainly notable as a media personality (call-in talk show, TV ad pitchman, etc.). As far as I can tell, she's never held a professorship or worked as a therapist or researcher or done scholarly work or written a scholarly book. (Pierr Lehu I can't find much on, I surmise that he's her ghostwriter or research assistant.)
  • The name of the publishing house is "For Dummies", and they are not an academic or scholarly house (they publish titles such as "Cake Decorating For Dummies" and "15-Minute Workout For Dummies" and so forth). They were bought and are distributed by Wiley, which is a respected publisher; how much editorial control Wiley exerts (if any) I don't know.
  • The book, "Sex For Dummies" is not a scholarly work, hasn't been subject to any kind of peer review that I know of, and I'm not confident that was rigorously fact-checked.
  • The book is not available in my library network (which is always an issue with low-quality sources) and I don't have the scratch to buy it myself. A page number is given, and it's on Google Books, but that page is unavailable. However, a search on "facial" does return (as its one meaningful result), page 194, with only a snippet available, this being "The porn industry has introduced a new facet to oral sex, the facial, where the man ejaculates onto his partner's face..." So I don't know where Westheimer gets her data. And note that even then, after all this, to the extent the source has any value, it tends to support the notion that we're talking a pornography concept.

Altogether this source does not come close to meeting WP:BURDEN for the statement it references, in my view. What say you?

(The contending editor has other sources, although not as good I don't think, and I have the sinking feeling that we're going to have to work through each one here (which is why I labeled this thread "I"). But let's start with this one.) Herostratus (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Wiley exerts quite close editorial control - http://www.dummies.com/Section/Write-Dummies-Books.id-323934.html. Incidentally, there was never a publisher called For Dummies - before Wiley took over the brand, they were published by IDG, another reputable firm. Barnabypage (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I have provided multiple sources on the talk page. It is clear from them that porn made it popular but it is not just in porn. RS does not mandate that it be scholarly sources. Ruth Westheimer and Dan Savage are respected in the field. One of the sources provided was even from a NY Times best selling author. The editor is attempting to change the scope of the article. This is not necessary.
This (blog I assume is acceptable under WP:RELIABLE as the publisher is a news organization) sums up my thoughts on it pretty well: "Plenty of sex acts made popular in mainstream pornography, like facials..."Cptnono (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The source - Westheimer's book - is certainly reliable. It does not matter that the publisher is not an academic press. It does not matter that the particular page in question is not available online. The dispute over the wording of the lede and arguments over WP:BURDEN are outside of the scope of this noticeboard, and should be resolved elsewhere. Fladrif (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, I have provided all relevant details to the books added so the reader an verify them on their own. But yeah: WP:OFFLINE is one of my favorites.Cptnono (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Blech. This sex act isn't exclusively confined, not by a long stretch, to pornography. The lede should just say its a sex act and explain it. If there's good sources that show porn "mainstreamed" it then use them to flesh out the background on the act in the article. This is pretty much a no-brainer (and this discussion a sign of wikipedia dysfunction, but i digress).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. You could try something like A facial is a sexual activity in which blah blah blah. Common in pornography, it blah blah blah.... Since the act performed within a pornographic film is still a sexual activity, that kind of phrasing doesn't - if anyone remains really concerned - necessarily imply either that it occurs outside of pornography or that it doesn't. Barnabypage (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's see. First of all, thank all of you where kind enough to provide advice. So far, not counting Cptnono, we've got three people who where kind enough to give advice (I'm not discounting Cptnono, but some of his remarks address other sources and right now I am trying to get a sense of this one source). I'd like to ask some follow-up questions if the advisors would care to address them:

  • Bali ultimate, you didn't really address the question of the source, the gist of your advice being "This sex act isn't exclusively confined, not by a long stretch, to pornography... This is pretty much a no-brainer". So you are saying that argument by assertion (e.g., "I state that such-and-such is true" or "everyone knows that such-and-such is true" etc.) is a sufficient source for material on contentious issues? Or what are you saying?
  • Barnabypage, you also didn't address the question of the source, but you did say "I agree" (with Bali ultimate), so are also saying that argument by assertion obviates the need for other sources? (Your other point, which I guess is that there's no substantive difference between movies and real life, is probably outside the scope of this board, I think.)
  • Fladrif, thank you for addressing the question of the source! I appreciate that. Your points about academic publishers and off-line sources are well taken. You said "The source - Westheimer's book - is certainly reliable." Could you expand on that at all? Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Er, no. I'm not proposing that assertion beats sources. I'm agreeing with Bali ultimate that the lede should just say its a sex act and explain it. I assume from what you're saying that there is no real dispute or lack of sources that (a) it is a sex act and (b) it occurs in pornography; the question is whether we have a source saying that (c) it also occurs in real life. So as a compromise measure, pending the discovery of such a source, I proposed a wording that would leave possibility (c) open without definitely asserting it. (We do need a bit of WP:COMMON here - we must recognise that it surely occurs sometimes in real life and therefore we shouldn't dogmatically deny it just because we can't at the moment source that.) Barnabypage (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, as to the wording: in my opinion there is a big difference between movies and real life. But nevermind about that, that's outside the scope of this board. As to the reference: if I understand your reference to WP:COMMON correctly we don't need a ref due to either common sense or common knowledge. This seems an odd interpretation of WP:RS, especially since the issue is contended. (And if something is prima facie true, why would there be no refs.) It seems this interpretation would likely spawn edit warring. After all, per your argument, one could insert (for example) "Jews torture Arab babies" as a statement of fact in an article with no need for a ref since obviously that has occurred sometime in the history of the world, and there's no need for data on how notable or common this is. This seems a most idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:RS. Herostratus (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Um, no, I don't mean we don't need a ref. I am saying that we shouldn't be dogmatic about limiting the definition to the context of pornography unless we have a source clearly saying that, because common sense suggests that the act probably also takes place outside pornography and that the same term would be used to describe it. Look at it this way: we all accept that the act exists in pornography. So there are two possible realities: (a) it exists exclusively or nearly exclusively in pornography, or (b) it exists in pornography and with non-trivial frequency in real life. Since we don't, at this point, know for sure whether (a) or (b) is the case, or have a reliable source to tell us, an open-ended definition which allows for either possibility is the only one that does not run the risk of being downright wrong. But probably Kenilworth Terrace is right and we should take this to the article talk page if you want to discuss it further. Barnabypage (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should remind everyone what it says at the top of this page - "Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer." This is clearly a content dispute that belongs at the article talk page. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry, I was just giving the passages as background. I should have been more succinct. OK, if read it aright what we have at the end of the day (not counting myself and Cptnono) is:

  • One editor (Fladrif) saying the source is reliable (albeit only with the flat statement "The source - Westheimer's book - is certainly reliable" with no further elucidation).
  • Two editors (Bali ultimate, Kenilworth Terrace) with no expressed opinion on the reliability of the source.
  • One editor (Barnabypage) who I guess doesn't regard the source as reliable, because of this statement: "Since we don't, at this point, know for sure whether (a) or (b) is the case, or have a reliable source to tell us..."

OK. Thanks again for your input, it is appreciated, and sorry about the conversation turning down unfruitful paths. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.rissc.jo

The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre has been used to single-source some statements in the (controversial) BLP of Adnan Oktar. The Centre does not have its own Wikipedia article, does not appear as a publisher on Google Books and does not appear as a cited publisher on Google Scholar. Consequently I do not believe that its website should be considered a quality reliable source as per the criteria of WP:BLP. Fæ (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Its website is located here [1]. The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre is an independent research entity affiliated with the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought. It is headquartered in Amman, the capital of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The members include a distinguished list of Professors and Politicians [2]. The 2009 version of "500 Most Influential Muslims" report was done in conjunction with The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service Georgetown University cmcu.georgetown.edu.
The 2009 and 2010 report themselves are mentioned a quarter of a million times on Google [3], including all major news outlets
Its chief editors Prof. Joseph E.B. Lumbard and Prof. Aref Ali Nayed are known academics. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It is reported on Google Scholar [4], Google Books [5], and Google News [6] --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The RISSC website is a good source for the fact that Oktar was in the list of 500 influential Muslims. We don't have an article on the centre, but we do have one on the list, 500 most influential Muslims - which has been tagged for notability since August this year. Whether it is relevant to include in the article that Oktar was on this list isn't really a sourcing question but a weight question. The list did get independent media attention. In the Google search I found a critical article in the Guardian, which specifically mentioned Oktar, too, so that would be a usable source. Whether you can use the potted profile in the list is a slightly separate matter. It isn't the best of sources for his biography. And at the moment I am only seeing this info in the lede. The correct place is the body of the article, and the lede should only summarise the article and not include new information. The research centre has an impressive number of professors associated with it. It is working within a particular political position, and whatever it says about independence, it is obviously associated with the Jordanian government. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ion Mihai Pacepa, National Review Online, Pave the Way Foundation

Is

a WP:RS when it comes to allegations that the KGB engaged in a secret plot to undermine the Roman Catholic Church? Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been many discussions in the archives about the National Review. It is a RS notwithstanding that it has an editorial POV. The source can be used with attribution to the author and source. As there are many other sources on the subject-matter, I should think it unnecessary to resort to this source when there are better ones. Fladrif (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, with attribution. National Review meets RS, but more importantly, Ion Mihai Pacepa's opinion is notable. He was a high-ranking intelligence official from Romania who defected to the US, and wrote the expose Red Horizons which played a role during the 1989 revolution. The cite should be attributed to Pacepa. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Through the Jade Gate to Rome as a reference

Dear All:

I was most surprised to receive a friendly note from Dougweller on 13th November, 2010 that a book of history I have written may be removed as a reference by anyone on the grounds it was self-published. He suggested that I raise the issue with you here. The reference to my book is:

  • Hill, John E. (2009) Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty, 1st to 2nd Centuries CE. BookSurge, Charleston, South Carolina. ISBN 978-1-4392-2134-1.

The details on it may be examined (as well as a number of pages in it) at: http://www.amazon.com/Through-Jade-Gate-Rome-Centuries/dp/1439221340/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290321725&sr=1-1

For some background on the book: First of all, I have been working on it (off and on) since 1979. I have visited numerous archeological sites, museums, specialists in many related fields, and travelled many thousands of kilometres along the routes mentioned in the book, all at my own expense. I have just returned from another 3 and a half months in India exploring trade routes, museum collections, connecting with interested scholars, and giving talks about my book. I am hoping to bring out a low-cost version in India soon so it will not only be distributed in South Asia, but more affordable for scholars and students there.

With the help and encouragement of Profesor Daniel Waugh I posted two early drafts of the book on the Silk Road Seattle website run by the University of Washington in Seattle, and asked readers to comment, criticise or make any suggestions. I had an overwhelming responjse of several hundred letters and emails from people in more than 40 countries. Many of them kindly sent copies of their own articles and books as well as detailed constructive comments and I have had an on-going correspondence since with many of them, often scholars who are leaders in their fields. Quite a large number of experts have checked the whole or part of the book (many have read the translation) and I have had no negative comments whatsoever. The biggest job was for me to distil all the information I was recieving so it could fit into one book.

I was contacted at one point by a professor of history at Binghampton University in New York to ask if they could publish the book. I agreed, and a contract was signed. After about 2 years I was all ready to publish with them when they said it would have to be published in two volumes. I did not want to do this for several reasons - mainly that it would be too expensive for the average person (let alone student) to buy, as well as being unweildy, and it would have required me reformatting the whole (very complex) document. So I refused, and said I would get it published myself. They were very dissappointed and asked me to reconsider. (I should add that, after the U. of Binghampton asked to publish the book, I was contacted by another university in Pennsylvannia and asked if I would publish with them - but at that point I was already working with Binghampton).

So, I ended up publishing it myself through BookSurge (now named CreateSpace), a fully owned subsidiary of Amazon.com.

Without trying to blow my own horn too loud - I must say I have had nothing but praise since. First of all, I received five unsolicited 5-star reviews on Amazon.com, most from well-repected scholars.

Moreover, it (or its earlier draft version which was on line for several years) has been quoted and/or cited in numerous scholarly works (see: http://www.google.com.au/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22The+Western+Regions+according+to+the+Hou+Hanshu%22&btnG=Search+Books for thirteen such citations or quatations). Some of these sources also refer to the draft annotated translation of the Weilũe, which is still on the Silk Road Seattle website.

Recently, it has beeen quoted from, and referred to, several times in Rome and the Distant East: Trade Routes to the ancient lands of Arabia, India and China [Hardcover] by Dr. Raoul McLaughlin, Continuum (July 6, 2010), ISBN-13: 978-1847252357, as well as several references to my draft version of the Weilüe. Dr. McLaughlin has also referred to it in his "Suggested Reading" box at the end of his article, “The Lure of the Orient” in History Today, August, 2010, pp. 10-17.

It has also been favourably reviewed in the Silkroad Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 127-128, by Professor Daniel Waugh of the University of Washington (you can download a copy of the pdf file of this journal at: http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol8/), and there are several other reviews due to appear soon in other journals.

Finally, Bettina Zeisler's detailed article, “East of the Moon and West of the Sun? Approaches to a Land with Many Names, North of Northern India and South of Khotan.” In: The Earth Ox Papers. Special Issue. The Tibet Journal, Autumn 2009 vol XXXIV n 3-Summer 2010 vol. SSSV n. 2. Edited by Roberto Vitali. Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dharamsala, H.P., India. pp. 371-463, contains a couple of quotes from my book and a thankyou in the Introduction for my assistance, and both my book and draft version of my translation of the Weilüe on the U. of Washington Silk Road Website are listed in the Index.

Unfortunately, it has been quoted from or added as a reference to numerous Wikipedia articles by both myself and others, so it is impossible for me to list them all here (although, If you wish, I could send a representative sample).

I do hope you will look favourably at my request that the book be accepted as a suitable reference to Wikipedia.

Please let me know if you would like any further input from me (and also, of course, please let me know when you make a decision).

Sincerely,

John Hill (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the only parts of the above explanation we can really consider here on WP are the citations and reviews by outsiders. (That is of course no offense to the book, which may or may not be very good. We can't judge that here.) To me good enough citations and reviews are good evidence that a publication is a source considered reliable in the field. I should perhaps say that it was once pointed out to me that WP:SPS is likely the most relevant policy and as it is currently worded does not literally say this. It only covers cases where someone has OTHER publications published elsewhere. Do you have any of those? Anyway, my position would be that the spirit of our policies when read overall would make citations and reviews relevant if they are good enough.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Quotations from specialists have no bearings. Specialists have the capacity to overcome the deficiencies of questionable works through disciplinary expertise. Of more interest is the review in The Silkroad Journal, which unfortunately is not peer reviewed ("While the journal does not currently have a formal peer review process"). Daniel Waugh is an appropriate specialist to conduct a peer review however. Sadly, it appears that this journal is a pet project of Waugh, at least from the volume of work he's putting into it. The review appears as a "Book Notice," not as a review. The best thing said here is, "All this erudition and judicious incorporation of the most recent scholarship is particularly noteworthy in that Hill is an independent scholar, living far distant from any academic library. His book is a tribute in part to the power of modern electronic communications, since the first publication of it (which went through two editions) was on the website of Silk Road Seattle. This then made it possible for the larger scholarly community to access the work and provide him with feedback." I have very mixed feelings about the reliability of this work in terms of wikipedia's policies. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Andrew Lancaster above, I have had one article printed previously in a peer-reviewed journal: "Notes on the Dating of Khotanese History", which was originally published in the Indo-Iranian Journal 31 (1988), 179-190.
I should add something here which I did not mention earlier, partly because I never imagined I would have to defend my work this way, and partly because I didn't really see it as relevant at the time. However, Professor Alfred J. Andrea, Professor of History at the University of Vermont, and President of the World History Association thought my book was "good enough" to insist I enter it for the World History Association's Book Prize 2010. I did so, and, although I did not win the prize, I would think that his opinion of it should be in its favour (see his review of my book on Amazon.com). I have never received any serious criticism of it, only praise, in spite of the fact I have actively sought criticism from a wide range of experts and academics in the field for several years on the Silk Road Seattle website and other online forums and in personal correspondence.
I would like to reiterate here that the five excellent and detailed reviews I have received on Amazon.com were all unsolicited and four of them are by notable Professors currently working in the field.
I should think that my book, which has been quoted and/or cited in works by 20 serious scholars - leaders in their fields, should be more than enough for the book to be an acceptable reference for use in the Wikipedia.
I wonder why the book would have been more acceptable if it was not "self-published"? I do know for a fact that many publishing houses (including many big-name academic publishing houses) nowadays give minimal editorial attention or asssistance to writers. Also, the book was accepted for publication with one University and another said they would be happy to publish it - so I don't understand why "self-publishing" should be held against the work.
Finally, if this argument about it's suitability as a reference continues, may I suggest that a copy be given to some appropriate people to assess or, failing that, some of the many scholars who have already quoted or cited it be contacted to gain their impressions of it? I really don't have a lot of spare time and energy at the moment to go on trying to justify my work in this way - I am too busy trying to get my next two books ready for publication while I am well enough to do so. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think it is unsurprising that WP requires more discussion for unusual cases. That is not a comment about the quality of someone's work, but more to do with the obvious challenge WP faces in trying to avoid problems when anyone can edit anonymously. We do not all know each other so we need bits of outside evidence we can "hold on to". Anyway, to me the citations and reviews of your work are relevant, as long as they are in good enough independent and relevant publications with fact checking, and also your other publications are certainly relevant, again if it is in a good relevant publication. Also keep in mind also that RS discussions are often not black-white: stronger claims tend to need higher RS strength.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
If you had chosen to publish in an academic mode, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as the work would be reliable according to wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't countenance the acceptances by presses you claim, as we are incapable of taking your word. If you can demonstrate the author is an accepted academic specialist, that counts towards reliability but does not entirely demonstrate it according to general wikipedia policy (my experience with Eastern European scholars publishing outside of the academic press means that it reduces a work's reliability in my eyes). Amazon reviews do not persuade me. This is a case where Wikipedia's policies poorly serve the encyclopaedic process. You claim that the work has been through a scholarly review process, and I am strongly inclined to believe you given the characterisation of the work in the "Book Notices" previously listed.
As such, I propose to Ignore All Rules in relation to this source, to better the encyclopaedic project, and my opinion is that the source be treated as a standard High Quality Reliable Source per academic sources. Unusual scholarly opinions in the work, should as in all cases, be characterised as such. Non-academic-consensus views in the work, should as in all cases, be characterised as such. I strongly suggest that the author of the work not insert the work into any article, but rather, use article talk pages to draw other editor's attention to the potential usefulness of the work. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Andrew Lancaster and Fifelfoo,
Thank you both for the time and energy and careful thought you have put into the situation regarding the use of my book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome as a WP reference. It was most kind of you. I am now much clearer on your positions and concerns and the reasons for them and will do my best to follow your recommendations. I look forward to keeping on making WP a better and more reliable source for us all. Cheers, best wishes and regards, John Hill (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon Sexuality

There's a reference used again and again in many cartoon wiki pages discussing the possible homosexuality of the characters. I have nothing against this, but the reference itself seems completely unreliable. It's one 'paper' written by one author (Jeffery P. Dennis) whose only publication I can find is his own website; the article contains nothing but his own opinions. Other references from the Animation World Network (AWN) are just quotes from that article. Any other references and URLs regarding this one article that I've followed up have turned up blank. The wiki editors adding these references could be Dennis for all I know.

I believe these sections and references place undo weight on the subject; anyone could be the subject of potential homosexuality, that doesn't mean all biographies deserve a section regarding it. I don't believe that what basically amounts to one man's blog is a valid reference. I believe these edits contain material that is heavily POV, contains original research, and places undue weight on the subject in these articles: Scooby-Doo (character)‎, Shaggy Rogers, Daphne Blake, Velma Dinkley‎, SpongeBob SquarePants, Pinky and the Brain‎, Heffer Wolfe‎ and Yogi Bear.

How do I go about some kind of arbitration or consensus process to dismiss this reference for these and any other articles? Judgeking (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor that it is unreliable. The claim that Velma and Daphne (who don't even talk to each other often) are a lesbian couple shows that it is unreliable. It is only worth mentioning if many people or at least one very notable person mention it. I have also bought User:TheRealFennShysa at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard because it seems possible that he has a connection with (or is at least a big fan of) the author. JDDJS (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this the paper Jeffery P. Dennis (2003). "Perspectives: "The Same Thing We Do Every Night": Signifying Same-Sex Desire in Television Cartoons". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 31 (3): 132–140. doi:10.1080/01956050309603674.? It looks like a peer-reviewed academic publication to me. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The author is stated to "degrees in English and comparative literature and a doctorate in sociology from SUNY-Stony Brook. He is currently writing a book about the production of heteronormativity in children's literature". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Okay but what makes it notable enough to include in articles? If the article has several other sources to back the claim than yes it should be mentioned, but does it really hold enough value to carry a whole section on sexuality? JDDJS (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
As long as the articles are properly sourced to this article in this journal, I don't see any reason to exclude the author's ideas. As the Terrace says, this is a standard academic journal. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The Dennis article reportedly appeared in the Journal of Popular Film & Television published by Routledge[7]. The editors are Michael Marsden, a dean and vice president at St. Norbert College.[8], and Gary Edgerton, chair of Communication at Old Dominion College.[9] Their peer review process is discussed at the journal's page, for whatever that's worth. I don't think this is an issue of being unreliable, so much as an issue of undue weight and possibly inaccurate interpretation of the sources.--Cúchullain t/c 22:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
A quick Google search suggests that Jeffery P. Dennis is "Assistant Professor of sociology at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton" (here), so it is probably academic enough. As to whether this article needs referencing in cartoon wiki pages, that is another issue, though I'd say that Dennis's views are probably minority ones, and therefore of dubious relevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay so the source is reliable but it's still not relevant. Can we decide that here? Or do we have to more this conversation elsewhere? JDDJS (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

He may be at Lakeland College in Sheboygan, Wisconsin now. He's the author of We Boys Together: Teenagers in Love Before Girl-craziness and Queering Teen Culture: All-American Boys And Same-Sex Desire in Film And Television, both from reputable publishers; so he's interested in this field of academic study, and his opinions should not be dismissed out of hand. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The reference may be valid, but peer reviewed or not, this is still one man's opinion. Does his opinion deserve mentioning in all of these articles? If he wrote a paper about the possible homosexuality of JFK, would his paper deserve an entire section on that wiki page too? Why not just create a wiki page on JP Dennis and state is opinions and paper(s) there? Judgeking (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above editor. In an article that already contains talk about sexuality, his opinions should be included, but when nobody else has questioned their sexuality and he's the only one, it doesn't belong in the article. For example, a character like Spongebob who has been considered homosexual by other writers, Denis's opinions should be included but not in someone's like Scooby-Doo where he's the only one. JDDJS (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In the words of Jimbo

If you have an article about the moon which treats equally the idea that the moon is made of rocks, and the idea that the moon is made of cheese, you don't have neutrality, you have extreme POV pushing for a radical minority view! How, in practice, to sort out a proper sense of proportion and balance is always going to be tricky and involve thoughtful consultation and dialog, of course. There is no magic formula. But a recognition that some views are widely held and grounded in a reasonable analysis of evidence, and that some views are extreme fringe views and not based in evidence, is pretty important to achieving neutrality.

——Jimbo Wales, 18 May 2008

JDDJS (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the ultimate aspect here is WP:UNDUE. In the Pinky and the Brain article, Dennis' viewpoint is the only one provided about the sexuality of the characters - without any other comparison or sources, its undue to include that. But on the case of Spongebob, where Dennis is one voice among several, it seems reasonably ok - as long as we accept it otherwise as a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Its all just trumped up, ridiculous fancruft that needs to go, with the possible exception of Velma Dinkley. Apparently there was a deleted Velma lesbian kiss scene in Scooby-Doo (film).[10] Even that probably isn't notable. Evan1975 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That source about the Velma kiss is untrue. Why would they have that in the movie? It just makes no sense. JDDJS (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The Scooby-Doo film in question wasn't a cartoon (though presumably Scooby himself was). As for whether the kiss was 'true' or not, the source cited won't meet WP:RS (I assume), so it is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I found a TV Guide interview where one of the actresses confirms the kiss was filmed but got cut.[11] Seems that should be WP:RS. Siawase (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Still not notable, and not a cartoon kiss anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
More notable than some non-notable kook with a fancy degree spouting slash fanfiction, since it was actually filmed for the movie. Are we going to put every fan interpretation on here, like Shaggy being a pothead with the munchies, Scooby Snacks are pot, etc? Let's not forget that in the newest Scooby-Doo cartoons all the characters are firmly established as heterosexual. Evan1975 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues with undue weight is an editorial issue, and beyond the scope of what this noticeboard is for. It looks like the sources themselves are reliable. How they should be used at articles, and if they should be at all, is a decision to be made at the articles in question.--Cúchullain t/c 23:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Clearly this is a RS, and the author's views with attribution are appropriate to include in an article per that policy. The other issues are beyond the scope of this board. Fladrif (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. This looks like a question of WP:DUE weighting, not reliable sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the Dennis reliable source should be weighed at each article where it may have a bearing, with WP:UNDUE as the guiding factor. There is no blanket answer to be applied to all articles. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Vinod Mishra

I am bringing here for review another article I pulled from the main page because of sourcing issues. The problem I have with this article is that it is sourced largely to a biography of the subject on the website of the Communist Party of India. The subject was a member of that Party. The biography describes the subject as "dearest General Secretary". I have been engaged in a long debate with the article's author at my talk page about the extent to which this is problematic. As that discussion has not reached any fruitful conclusions, I am bringing it here for wider input. Suffice to say that, in my view, this sourcing is not acceptable. The source is used for primarily "factual" statements in the article, but that does not make the use of the source any more acceptable. Once we consider a source to be not independent of the subject, and indeed explicitly biased towards the subject, it shouldn't be used as the source for significant portions of the article. Any views? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(being the author of the article in question): The problem here is that Mkativerata has, until now, not actually questioned any part of the material in the article. Are there any statements that are dubious? Any extraordinary or controversial claims? I do recognize that partisan sources can be problematic and should be dealt with cautiously. There are several claims in the reference that I found dubious or at least extremly difficult to verify (such as descriptions about the character of the subject). Such claims were not included in the article. The passage on 'Political legacy', which if solely based on the obituary in question could have been problematic, has three separate references (out of which, one is highly polemtic against the subject).
I think the question here boils down to the following: Would a stubby article without partisan references be superior than a larger article with partisan references, even though there is no controversy on supposed POV issues at all? --Soman (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
OK I will rise to the bait and answer the question. I question every single statement in the article that is sourced to the Communist Party biography. Every single claim - whether factual or otherwise - is tainted by the unreliability and bias of the source. And yes, a stubby non-partisan article is better than an 80kb article that is reliant primarily on partisan sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that is not a particularily constructive approach. It puts an overly rigid reading of policy ahead of the value of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. And why would you assume that a communist publication would lie about, say, the date of birth of an individual? The truth is that there can exist no completly non-partisan reference, in any description of human life lies some sort of bias of selection. When reading potential references, we have to make judgements. In this case I used an obituary from a magazine published by the party that the article subject. At no point did I encounter contradictions between the obituary and other sources (the obituary is more detailed than other sources in some parts). The description of the experience of armed struggle in 1970s is largely the same as in academic research on this period (such as Mohanty, Banerjee, Damas, etc.), in fact the obituary explicitly mentions red terror (which I put in ' ' in the article). So, in short, the obituary did by no means try to obscure the potentially most controversial episode of the Naxal movement. Thus I valued it credible enough to use for factual claims. --Soman (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In a specific context, for a specific limited purpose, a particular article published by Western Journalism Center

For this specific publisher, and in general, is an item published by a source which may otherwise not be considered reliable considered to be a reliable item for citation in support of an assertion that the publisher in question has published material which is contained in that cited item? If that's too convoluted a question, an article has an assertion "Some people say ..." which is tagged {{who}}, and I'd like to cite an item published by Western Journalism Center to satisfy the tag. I had done so, but the cite was removed and the tag reinserted with editorial explanations that Western Journalism Center is not a reliable source for the article topic. The specific case at issue is discussed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the link to the specific item? Ravensfire (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The assertion with the {{who}} tag I'm trying to satisfy is, "Some people claim that the certification of live birth produced by Obama does not prove that he is a natural born citizen because, they claim, foreign-born children could acquire Hawaiian certification of live birth (COLB), so that Obama's possession of such a certificate does not prove that he was born in Hawaii."
This is the (now reverted) edit where I tried to satisfy the tag.
This is the Western Journalism Center article I cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You're asking if you can cite an unreliable primary source to present it's opinion masqueraded as weasel words? No, that's bootstrapping. 24.177.121.39 (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This type of argument can be acceptable if the cited "some people" are notable. It is for example not good enough to say that your uncle Joe says it, no matter what level of proof you have about his opinion. So this is a question about WP:NOTE I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I presume that the Western Journalism Center is notable in the topic context of the article in question. A report published by WorldNetDaily also would satisfy the {{who}} here, having made the claim there while mentioning the prior WJC claim. It's complicated to cite the specific WSN source, though, and citing WND invites even more strident howls of protest than citing WJC.
No, 24.177.121.39, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about citing a source to support satisfaction of a {{who}} tag in an article which said that some unidentified people made particular claims. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Rephrasing it doesn't change the fact that it's 'exactly' what you're asking. Right now, the sentence is WP:WEASEL and should be cut. If you use WND or WJC to cite it, it becomes WP:OR by virtue of WP:PRIMARY, and still should be struck. WP:NOTE doesn't play into it, as "some people" aren't notable, only specific people are. 24.177.121.39 (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Obviously the term "original research" actually has a meaning outside Wikipedia and does not just mean "not sourced from reliable sources as per Wikipedia policy". Can we avoid destroying the English language and try not to over-lawyerize?
  • Original research, even on Wikipedia, would imply something you have no independent source for at all, but came up with yourself.
  • Coming back to this case, it does not appear that 24.177.121.39 has any doubts that Wtmitchell made up the idea that "some people think..."?
  • Some sources are unreliable for pretty much everything EXCEPT their own opinion. In this case all you want is a source for "some people's opinion". So given the arguments as presented so far I do not yet see what the problem is.
  • My first question would be whether there is any case at all being made that the sources being mentioned are not reliable for the opinions of "someone" presumably someone writing on them? (I doubt it?)
  • Finally, probably the most relevant question is whether the sources with the opinions are notable enough to be worth mentioning. Please note that a website or publication CAN be notable without being reliable about most things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
A reliable source for an assertion that "some people claim X" meets WP:SOURCES and asserts that "some people claim X" or "these people Y and Z claim X". WND and the WJC are not reliable for such assertions-- specifically, they fail with regard to the criterion that reliable sources exhibit "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." As such, they cannot be used to justify an assertion that "some people claim X". You are correct that they do, facially, justify an assertion that "the author of WND/WJC claim X", but they function as a primary source for such a claim-- it probably fails WP:NOTE, and it's definitely OR unless a secondary source comes along and says "the author of WND/WJC claim X." Being expressed on the internet does not necessarily render an opinion appropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia-- the standards here are slightly higher than they are on wnd.com. (Also, regarding your plea to avoid destroying the English language- I suggest you begin by not verbing the noun "lawyer.") kthnxbai. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Without digressing to discuss questions outside the purview of this project page, I'll restate: In general, and specifically in the case of Western Journalism Center, is a specific document considered a reliable primary source to support the assertion that the publisher of the document has published the contents of that document? If so, is this still so if the publisher of the document is not considered a RS for the topic of the article where the citation would appear? Note, I'm asking here because another editor asserted in an article talk page discussion that this is the proper venue for raising the question (see here).
I think that the question has been answered above in the affirmative by Andrew Lancaster, with the caveat that due weight considerations growing out of the notability of the publisher apply. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
And it's been answered in the negative by yours truly, which is an opinion in keeping with the precedent regarding the use of WND/WJC as a source. Whether or not a specific document is a reliable primary source to support the assertion that the publisher of the document published a document isn't relevant, because using a primary source to support such an assertion is OR. Please keep in mind that you and "Andrew Lancaster" do not a consensus make, and you do not get to dictate the terms under which this discussion will be conducted. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
184.59.23.225, I have asked some questions and explained how you could explain this above. What you appear to be insisting on is the principle that sources which do not have a sufficient reputation for fact checking to be an RS can also never be used as a source for their own opinion. I think you'll find that this exemption is made quite frequently, in other words it is normally accepted that even quite poor sources can be OK as sources for their own opinion. Can you explain why you think this case is special?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster, you're missing the point. Of course anyone can be a source for their own opinion; it's almost a truism. But you're not asking about whether WND and WJC are reliable sources for their own opinions, you're asking if they are "OK sources" for their own opinion. The answer is still "no", because sourcing an opinion to the person holding that opinion is OR, and a secondary source is still be required to establish notability.
That said, this isn't about the reliability of the sources in question anymore; it appears that you agree that they're prima facia unreliable, in that you acknowledge that they "do not have a sufficient reputation for fact checking." As such, this line of discussion is no longer appropriate for WP:RSN and approaches WP:TEDIOUSness. If you have a specific revision in mind, I suggest that you propose it on the discussion page for the article you would be altering. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I've not agreed with anything. I am trying to understand your argument, and I still don't. It is very unusual on Wikipedia to say that any source is bad enough NOT to be a source for its own opinions. I have also never seen anyone here ever argue that such sourcing of opinions is "OR". At the moment your argument looks increasingly odd, and you appear to be trying to talk over everyone. That won't be sustainable I'm afraid. Please make a clear argument in terms of RS policy: are you saying that for some special reason this source is not even reliable for its own opinion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is about a fringe opinion being promoted by unreliable sources. If they were reliable, it wouldn't be a fringe opinion, now would it? At times it is going to be necessary to point to one of these unreliable sources and reiterate whatever is being said. Doing so isn't OR, it's making use of a primary source by pointing to the originator rather than some secondary source who does so. Since primary sources are acceptable, WJC and WND can be referenced as examples that "someone said this...". If there's a problem with doing it, it is in extrapolating the one reference to a general group of "some people". I think that comes back to the notability issue, doesn't it? If the source is sufficiently notable, it can be presumed to speak for a group rather than just itself. It's the notability, not the reliability that should be questioned. Do we really need to reference the primary (unreliable) source of the opinion, plus a secondary source to prove that the primary is notable? JethroElfman (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes there appears to be a confusion between reliability and notability. Fringe opinions can and should be reported on Wikipedia if they are notable. This noticeboard is not however about deciding on notability, but on reliability. It is possible for a source to be a fringe source and basically an unreliable source, and still OK for use to report the opinions of that fringe source, if the fringe opinion of that unreliable source, let's say a famous crackpot organization, happens to be notable. Your proverbial mad uncle Joe might be a fringe theorist, and reliable about his own fringe opinions, but we can't use him unless he happens to be very well known for his fringe opinions. Hope that makes sense!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

National emblem

Please advise if the Government of Quebec's “Quebec portal” listing Quebec's national flag and emblems is a reliable source for each of the items listed as national emblems on that page, in particular the 'official tree'. If so, I would use this source as a reference to include the yellow birch on the National emblem page, in the Trees section, as it was before this edit. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a Quebecois government website, so you won't get a more reliable source for this topic. I don't think the IP is disuputing the reliability of the source though. He removed it because it's a list of national symbols and the argument is that "Quebec is not an independent and recognized nation". Nightw 08:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. As it is considered a reliable source I'll add it back. It isn't for editors to decide what is a national emblem. If something is verified by reliable sources as a national emblem, it should be on the article. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Is a scholarly review article a Secondary Source?

WP:SECONDARY writes "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." I am planning on writing a review article to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It will be a survey and review of the research to date, including analysis of treatment, epidemiology and other aspects. The primary sources used are all published in other peer-reviewed scholarly journals. When/if my article is published will it qualify as a secondary source? Lastly, and least importantly, assuming this article is published and seen to be a valid secondary source, can it be used on-wiki? Thank you. Basket of Puppies 06:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Review Article in a scholarly peer reviewed journal: secondary. For editors without a research background in academia, please note that review articles are very very different to "book reviews".
Peer-reviewed journal: contributes to scholarly HQRS, but is your review article itself going to be peer reviewed in full prior to publication?
Its use on wiki depends on its usefulness to wiki, standards are that you should inform the talk pages of articles that your article may be useful to other editors, rather than inserting it directly. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Basket said that it will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so assuming that means a normal bona-fide journal, it should meet the criteria for a reliable secondary source. It must have required a great deal of work, congratulations for getting it published. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable, if it's published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. How to use it at articles it at articles is something to be determined at those articles. You can always check back when it is published, or hit up other relevant noticeboards like Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for more input on how to handle it.--Cúchullain t/c 13:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The article will be peer-reviewed by the editorial committee of the journal, yes. I am mostly interested to know if it qualifies as a bonafide secondary source as it is reviewing the primary sources but won't be published in a textbook. It appears the answer is yes. :) Thanks! P.S. It won't be out for a while, tho the article is largely done. Basket of Puppies 18:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Normally, peer-review is done by independent scientist selected by the editorial committee of the journal, not by the editors themselves (although they will screen out obvious crap). If you told us a the journal, we could tell you more. However, it's rather unusual to talk about an article before it has been submitted for review, and usually not wise to do so before it has been formally accepted. After that, it is fine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Is this source from the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) reliable for statements about Racism in Israel? It lacks any information about who wrote it, so I believe it to be self published by the JVL itself. It is currently cited for the following statements:

  • "The Israeli government and many groups within Israel have undertaken efforts to combat discrimination. Israel has one of the broadest anti-discrimination laws of any country, which prohibits discrimination by both government and nongovernment entities on the basis of race, religion, and political beliefs"
  • "According to the State Department, Israel's anti-discrimination law 'prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, or sexual orientation. The law also prohibits discrimination by both government and nongovernment entities on the basis of race, religion, political beliefs, and age.'"

I'm not questioning the validity of either statement, just whether the source is reliable enough to cite for them. Thanks. ← George talk 07:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This would appear to be a WP:SPS of the American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. The JVL is characterized as an encyclopedia, which would make it Tertiary Source. I would not think that this could be used as a source for the referenced statements. I would think that other sources could be found to support the statements. Fladrif (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I know we have discussed the JVL before (check the archives)... as I remember, the consensus was that the JVL should be seen as a source repository, not a source in itself. Some of the material hosted on the JVL is very reliable (written by, and credited to acknowledge experts)... other material is less so (written by anonymous authors, or perhaps by the editors of the website). In the specific case you raise, It does seem to fit the latter situation. I agree that it should probably be considered SPS. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Monocle magazine

Is Monocle (2007 magazine) a reliable source? I'm at the bookstore looking at it, and it has an interesting 32-page "national survey" on Lebanon that I was thinking to use in the Lebanon article, things like top musicians, foods, the economy, tourism, etc. I'm on my phone, so can't offer much detail, just looking for general guidance. Thanks! 166.205.10.154 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at their about page and coverage in other sources[12][13] it certainly looks well within WP:RS and probably a high quality source for things like culture and tourism. I'm not sure it's the best possible source on more "hard facts" matters like economy, but it should still be WP:RS for those things too. However, looking at this [14] it might be worth some caution in using it to lend WP:WEIGHT or WP:NOTABILITY to specific brands or products. Siawase (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. (The IP address was me on my cell phone.) The Lebanon article's Culture and Tourism sections are particularly weak and underdeveloped, so that's what this would be most useful for (for instance, deciding which popular musicians to mention in the music section). The 32-page spread was sponsored by BankMed, one of the larger banks in Lebanon, but the information doesn't seem in any way related to the bank itself. To be honest, parts of it read more like a tourist guide, trying to highlight the positive aspects of the country I would say (albeit accurately). But it's mostly about cultural topics - top musicians, interesting architects and architecture, famous clothing designers, top tourist destinations - not the more controversial aspects of the country, like the wars, politics, and religion (which have plenty of sources already). I think I'll try to pick up a copy the next time I'm at a bookstore and use it for the arts & cultural elements of the article. Cheers. ← George talk 10:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, I definitely wouldn't highlight any specific brands or products (especially not those associated with the sponsorship). It did look quite a bit like the Taiwan, Lille, and Singapore spreads in the link you provided (albeit it significantly longer & more in depth). ← George talk 10:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
That was pretty much the impression I got. It can be difficult to find good culture/tourism type info and this magazine sounds like an unusually high quality source for that. That it has a positive "spin" shouldn't really be an issue as culture sections usually cover the best of the culture (while the article as a whole is NPOV and includes coverage of less positive aspects.) And as long as they are transparent and clear on who sponsored what, it should be easy enough to avoiding transferring any promotional bias to the article. Siawase (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Family website and geneology sites

Should a reproduced bogus family tree [15] taken from a family's website be considered a reliable source? What about teaser information taken from House of Names[16]? The article using these citations is Springer Hoax. Thoughts? Erikeltic (Talk) 03:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

JMO but the first one is self-published and out-of-the-question non-RS and the second one looks like commercial junkology and even more out-of-the-question. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Were these really being used?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I just looked at a couple of instances at Special:LinkSearch/*.thecolefamily.com and houseofnames.com and the links seem inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I am going to fix the wiki and remove these sources. Erikeltic (Talk) 13:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:John S. Pistole

I feel I'm stuck in a circular argument. Can somebody uninvolved stop over to this talk page and explain why this is not an acceptable source to introduce this content to the article. Grsz 11 23:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's satire. I don't think anyone is going to push this again. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Revival from the archive → The subject is Lecturer at the Özyeğin University

Revival from the archive (User:Barnabypage's four days old comment, and my post from today are on the bottom.)

The article: Arnold Reisman

The text and its source in question:

This text, which was not originally formed and inserted by me, was removed (hidden in the revision history) by a fellow editor which I did not contest, because of the other-primary concerns I had in mind.

All I did with the above text - prior to removal - was, to correct the name of the university, wikify it and source the claim, that the subject lectured at the Özyeğin University in Istanbul. Actually I used one of three links I found on the Internet, from the same university, showing that he did indeed lecture at said school, during the 2008-2009 academic year. Other two, quite-similar sources are:

→ Seminars and Conferences → Development of Modern Arts in Turkey

  • My question is this: Are these sources reliable?

→ The editor, in hidden section, says this: → "not clear what this says"

  • My opinion is this: It is very clear. Subject says he lectured at the Özyeğin University and the source verifies it:

→ In recent years he has lectured at Özyeğin University in Istanbul, Turkey. Reisman Lecturer at the Özyeğin University

I did not question the fellow editor's removal of the text, instead, I decided to come here and make my case.

I would like to hear your insightful thoughts about this matter, whether my edit, (the source I found and inserted,) was correct. Thank you. Fusion Is the Future 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

An organisation such as a university is usually considered a reliable source for facts concerning itself, which would include a report of somebody lecturing there. So, unless there is some reason to believe the university is lying, yes, it's reliable.
However, I wonder if the source of the issue here arises from the terms "lecture" and "lecturer". As far as I can see (and I am using Google Translate because I don't speak a word of Turkish), Reisman gave one or more lectures at the university, but he was not on staff there, which "lecturer" can imply. Perhaps the text should stress that he was a "visiting lecturer" or "guest lecturer".
BTW Reisman's own biography is here: http://www.nullisecundus-survivorliteratureandlectureservices.com/prof-arnold-reisman-bio.php Barnabypage (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you and very good point. The text could go such as:
  • He was visiting lecturer in the 2008-2009 academic year at the Özyeğin University in Istanbul, Turkey. (Then my reference.)
Does it sound usable to you?
By the way, I think I'm going to invite the respective editor who removed my reference along with the text which was there at the time I arrived. Her rationale could help resolve this matter I addressed here.
I am also aware of the link you provided. This was how I found the subject's e-mail address which I needed to clarify some specific issues, in terms of his university record from UCLA, AAAS fellowship, and more which all would be very handy for writing a biography of the subject. Thanks again for your insightful thought.Fusion Is the Future 12:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The text you suggest sounds fine to me. Barnabypage (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I need help

Thank you Barnabypage. After your assessment of the source, I made the edit with an exact wording as you suggested, but the fellow editor User:Slimvirgin deleted my edit again, second time.

→ Seminars and Conferences the source which was deleted last time.

→Reisman Lecturer at the Özyeğin University this source was deleted too (First time.)

→ Development of Modern Arts in Turkey similar third source.

I am speechless. She is not responsive. → Her deleting rationale was this:

  • no more primary sources; please find secondary sources, per talkI can't believe this is happening. Please see my edit and hers. Diff

→ The rationale for her first delete was this:

  • "not clear what this says"

And now she says it's a primary source. I am very uncomfortable with her reverts.

Subject says he was a (visiting) lecturer at that very university in Istanbul and the university verifies it. So simple as that. I have even two more links from that very school which I provided to the Noticeboard. (The above links.)

My opinion is, that these are not primary sources. I do not believe her rationale. user User:Barnabypage also said, that it was a reliable source and it's my opinion too. After his suggestion I came up with a slightly different wording which I used with the mentioned reference and he said "it's fine with me."

→ He was visiting lecturer in the 2008-2009 academic year at the Özyeğin University in Istanbul, Turkey. and the reference which was deleted by User:SlimVirgin]]:Seminars and Conferences

What she's doing is not right. I put A kind reminder note on her talk page with a link to this Notice board which we discussed the relibility of the source. She does not communicate at all.

I need your insightful help, whether my sources are primary or secondary. Thank you.Fusion Is the Future 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of a university website listing its faculty to show that someone actually is on staff is a permissible use of a source, even if characterized as primary. Primary sources are not excluded as sources, but must be carefully used per WP:Primary. This is clearly a legitimate use of a primary source, and the deletion is improper and in violation of policy. Fladrif (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is not straightforward. Reisman is an unknown former academic at the Case Western Reserve University School of Managment. The only thing that might make him notable is a series of history books he has written, some about the Holocaust. However, it transpires that they are all self-published. It further transpires that he has written an essay on how to use websites, including Wikipedia, to make your work more notable. And several accounts have been liberally spamming his books into various articles. So as things stand, it's hard to know what to trust. We are therefore requesting reliable secondary sources about Reisman—no more primary sources—so we can work out what is solidly sourced. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is extremely straightforward: Is the university a reliable source for whether the subject was a lecturer there or not? Unquestionably it is. Unquestionably, even if characterized as a primary source, it would be permissible and proper under WP:Primary to use the source for that purpose. Arguing about notability of the subject is a matter for BLPN or AFD. Arguing about whether the subject or someone on his behalf is spamming articles is for another board. Fladrif (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
"Unquestionably it is." *cough* Depends entirely on the administrative culture of the university. I can think of top 200 universities whose declaration of who is and isn't (or was or wasn't) an employee I wouldn't trust. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between being an employed by a university and being asked to give a guest lecture. It sounds as if the subject falls into the latter category. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

@SV

Ever since you arrived, you started to make me feel uncomfortable. You were and still are disruptive and you deleted my reference twice which two other editors said it was okay Here and here. You disrespected them as you disrespected me. Not to mention you reverted (smartly undid) the latest editing of Fladrif (talk).Diff It was the same reference which you deleted before. This is ownership.

You were/are never impartial and you were/are surely opinionated. Just your above response to Fladrif (talk) proves that. You said this:

  • "Reisman is an unknown former academic at the Case Western Reserve University School of Management."

This is an opinionated statement. Not only that, now you try to divert the discussion to Notability. This PhD passed already two AfDs and I have no doubt, he will pass the third one.

This subject's books and articles published, can be found everywhere around the world. From Library of Congress to the national libraries of France, Germany, England, Australia, Sweden, you name it. He is everywhere. Giving conferences, lecturing. I studied this subject. It is a month now. I provided all of those secondary sources which I found on the Internet with Google search, (can be found in the subject's talk page,) I asked you several times to discuss them, (15 secondary references I posted,) with me. You, each and every time, rejected. Then you started to push me to be uncivil with you. You even tried to get personal with me. (Everthing's on the subject's talk page.)

You are an admin for god sake. You should know better. You should put your ego, your emotions aside. And you should never demonstrate an obsessive ownership. Consensus is the way to go.

The editor Fladrif (talk), just arrived yesterday, saw exactly the same thing and he said, in the article's talk page, this:

  • "Saw this kerfluffle at RSN, so stopped in. What is going on here? This article has passed two AFD's, so arguing that without better sources it should be deleted is simply tendatious at this point. It appears that there are secondary sources on the subject. Use them. Neglecting to do so is starting to look like obstinance. Get on it! Deleting proper use of Primary Sources is starting to look like bullying. → Focus

Yes, he saw exactly what I saw.

As I said. You are talking AT me, not talking with me. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia and its Five Pillars Rule. Your conduct is unacceptable. I warned you at your talk page. Also at the subjects talk page. You disregarded.

In your edit summary you say this: no more primary sources

You can not make a decision alone, since other editors involved. Community decides. And now you try to divert attention to something else which is, at this point, irrelevant.

Wikipedia is made by Wikipedians. You have to seek consensus. You have to listen what others say to you.

From now on, if you continue to be opinionated and fail to demonstrate your impartiality, I will then kindly ask you to recuse yourself. We all are educated good-faith intellectuals who try to improve Wikipedia, and we are definitely not born yesterday. Please come to your senses and do the right thing, to improve the articles here on Wikipedia.

if anybody have an interest to know what's going on, then, please go and read all my postings and responds to them, and most importantly, my outcry for just and fair treatment of the subject, at the subject's talk page.

Thank you. Fusion Is the Future 18:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The contested primary source should stay. I know that primary sources do not count toward notability, and editors should be strongly enouraged to find secondary sources, but deleting the primary sources is not the way to do it. I might also throw out that having those primary sources may assist other editors in their search for potential secondary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have brought a matter related to this discussion to AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tru TV show advertisement

For Michael Welner Reference for several entries is an online ad for a show that the BLP subject appeared in. One of the entries is: "For his 2008 television program highlighting the Depravity Scale research, "Inside the Criminal Mind", Welner interviewed serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin. In this interview, Franklin admitted to shootings for which he had not acknowledged responsibility in over 28 years of custody [70]." That is reference #70 Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

TruTV is an entertainment, not a news division, of Time Warner. It is not a Reliable Source. There is no indication that this promotional profile is subject to the kind of editorial review that a news organization, academic press or other independent publisher would undertake. Fladrif (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I tried but am not able to keep this source from being used, what now? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • How is an interview taped and thus documented for it's entirety not a reliable source? Also, this 'editor' continuosly removes other material from an interview with the subject of the BLP, not from this interview with Joseph Paul Franklin that details his casework - work that this 'editor' wants sources for but then deletes the sources provided. Empirical9 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)— Empirical9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The source is not a taped interview. What makes you claim that it is? Quotes from the subject are a minute fraction of the very lengthy article. It is a puff piece profile to promote a TV show at an entertainment network. There is no indication that there is any editorial oversight of the content at the linked website. This is not a reliable source and should not be used as source for a BLP. What issues you, a SPA, have with another editor, is irrelevant here. Fladrif (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I realize the issue here - possibly a miscommunication. The URL is to an article that references an interview between the subject of the BLP and Joseph Paul Franklin; however, the link/URL that leads back to this articles may be inappropriate for this particular portion of the BLP. On the other hand, the content should be cited using the source whence it came. A citation that references the interview itself should suffice without the link to the page. Conversely, using the TruTV article as a source for content in the BLP that refers to the article, is not erroneous. There is no indication to the absence of editorial oversight. Most if not all of the articles on this site are composes in similar fashion. Are those opposed to the use of TruTV asserting that all of the articles on this site are puff pieces with no editorial oversight. This is your opinion, which I respect, but there is no evidence for it. I would like to continue to include the article for TruTv in the single place that references its content. I look forward to your reply.Stewaj7 (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)— Stewaj7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
truTV, back then, was CourtTV, which was very much a news station, and their programs as well as their Crime Library project met RS. What I see however is a very nice 8-page article about Welner, but there is almost nothing about Franklin in the article. There is a teaser written in italics at the top of the page about the broadcast of the interview, but it doesn't back up the quoted text, it only says that an interview took place. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Jacobite publications and organisations

In the context of Alternate successions of the English crown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), are modern-day Jacobite sources, such as The Jacobite Heritage (of Noel S. McFerran) and the The Royal Stewart Society reliable sources? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

According to his website, Noel S. McFerran is at best an amateur historian (his academic qualifications are in Classical Studies, Library Science and Theology) ... I would consider his Jacobite Heritage website to be nothing more than a personal fan website. The Royal Stewart Society is a reliable source for what that society says (ie statements based on their material should be attributed). Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am following this discussion on the article. As I stated there, Noel McFerren's site is similar to Wikipedia in that it's more a collection of documents, articles, images etc. He also cites dozens of books, magazine articles, periodicals etc. While it is a "fan website", everything comes from others' writings. In addition, many "amateurs" have become regarded as experts. For one, two men who worked as bicycle repairmen being more "Experts" than anyone with a degree in aeronautics. The User:Hrafn has made numerous "citation needed" tags on the article in question, including demanding a citation that when a man died childless, his claim would then pass to his younger brother. I asked him on the discussion page how he would improve the article, and was twice met with the response to "get a clue". The article hes stated was "pointless blather", and he derided the Royal Stuart Society. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(i) Where what is being cited has been previously published by a WP:RS, the article should be cited to that source, and McFerren's site be used as WP:CITE#Convenience links. (ii) Currently, the only citation is to that website's mainpage & to McFerren himself. (iii) I'm fairly sure none of the statements I tagged were as simple as "when a man died childless, his claim would then pass to his younger brother" (which would not need a footnote or digression in the first place). (iv) I suggested merging the line of descent and line of succession tables, so that the reader is able to understand how the latter flows from the former (instead of being presented with a number of 'Houses' and Reigning monarchs not mentioned in the line of descent). I was derided for this suggestion.(v) I simply called the Royal Stuart Society "self-appointed", as I had not, and still have not, been given any evidence that they were appointed by any (competent) external authority. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Read near the bottom. http://www.utoronto.com/stmikes/kelly/contact/mcferran.html 41.133.47.252 (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And why should I believe what he says about himself on his own university hoempage? Particularly when he makes the ludicrously exaggerated claim that 'Jacobitism' (using his definition of it, which isn't substantiated by the OED) is a "political movement to restore the Stuarts and their heirs to the thrones of England and Scotland" -- when we have no evidence that any such substantive political movement exists (and no evidence whatsoever that its adherents are even, in the majority, British citizens). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I've noted some back and forth about this source which the IP wishes to yuse and is pretty clearly not a reliable source by any stretch. As for McFerran, I agree we can ignore what he says about himself, and I can find nothing using Google Scholar or Google Books mentioning him in relationship to his Jacobite work, so I'd argue that there's no reason given so far to suggest he is a reliable source. Popularity of his website isn't part of our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source on an FA class page

I want to challenge as unreliable a source on an FA class page.  Is there anything I should know before I provide pointers to the documentation?  Thanks, RB  66.217.117.117 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that I think the page should not be at FA level.  RB  66.217.117.117 (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I am uncertain as whether an unregistered user such as yourself can begin a discussion at WP:FAR, which is the process by which featured articles are delisted, but you can try. However, first I would exhaust all possibilities at the article talk page and also I'd talk with the principal editors. FAR is a last resort, not a first. We are talking about the FA sentence spacing, am I correct?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes.  RB  66.217.117.117 (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


This posting questions the reliability of a source


1. A full citation of the source in question.

Rhodes, John S. (13 April 1999). "One Versus Two Spaces After a Period". Webword.com. http://www.webword.com/reports/period.html. Retrieved 21 March 2010.


2. A link to the source in question.

http://www.webword.com/reports/period.html


3. The article in which it is being used.

Sentence spacing


4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.

47 Soon after the turn of the century, the majority of style guides indicated that only one word space was proper between sentences.[47]

52 The majority of style guides prescribe the use of a single space after terminal punctuation in final written works and publications.[52]

85 Most style guides indicate that single sentence spacing is proper for final or published work today,[85]

101 There are other studies that could be relevant to sentence spacing,[101] such as the familiarity of typographic conventions on readability.

106 A widespread observation is that increased sentence spacing creates "rivers"[104] or "holes"[105] within text, making it visually unattractive, distracting, and difficult to locate the end of sentences.[106]


5. Links to relevant talk page discussion.

webword.com does not satisfy WP:SPS, WP:SOURCES, and WP:RS

and

Does webword.com qualify as an "External Link"?


RB  66.217.117.134 (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

IP, if you begin a line with a space, you get one of those ugly boxes. That takes some getting used to on WP, since when I write on a word processing program, that's how I make a tab. Can you clean it up a bit? Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
There, that should dull it down.  It seems appropriate to repeat here something that I said on the talk page about an online poll, "(coi: I voted once for "Two spaces, looks better to me")."  RB  66.217.117.113 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of University website to back a statement not in the source

In the article Minoan civilization an editor continually adds a statement saying "The exclusively worship of goddesses lead major scholars to define the social structure and form of power as based on matriarchy " The source, [17], may not even be a RS, but it definitely says nothing about matriarchy, power or social structure, only matriarchal religion. See Lorynote's and my edit summaries at [18] where she replaces it after I reverted her (twice now, so I'll stop). I note this editor is also using a source in two articles, eg [[19] which is evidently self-published, see [20] (ie it's published by the Taoist Recovery Center which is run by the author).

Have you tried asking the editor to stop adding this material until they've found a source that backs it up? If the source doesn't support the statement it's not even an RS issue, it's just plain incorrect to cite it. Barnabypage (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the edit summary, the editor insists that even if it says religion it must be what the editor says it means. The editor is reading my edit summaries, so posting on a talk page would be redundant even if I didn't have reason to believe it would be pointless. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict glitch accidentally deleted this edit) Source is dubious (bit New-Agey) but does in no way support her contention, so I've reverted it again on that basis alone. It looks like dear old Gimbutas rides again. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I have also asked her to use talkpage, and warned again after her second revert of me. If she reverts me again, she will have violated 3RR. Her contention is that a matriarchal religion also means a female ruled society. Her sources are all extremely slight, web based - I don't believe she has actually read a serious book on the subject, or she would know that the two are not correlated. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Source is of dubious reliability, and in any event doesn't support the material she attributes to it. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Working paper

Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energy Technologies, Ruhr Economic Papers is being used in the Renewable energy in Germany article. I thought it looked ok, but then noticed the disclaimer that "The working papers published in the Series constitute work in progress circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comments." Johnfos (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say it should not be used unless strongly caveated and attributed. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This can depend upon the field. In some fields working papers are cited and part of what is discussed in the mainstream as at least one known position amongst those in the know, and it is the mainstream we want to present. You might want to check if the paper is being widely cited as a source already within the relevant field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a pretty serious contribution to energy economics. It may be that it is published in this format in order to make an English-speaking audience aware of the German case. It lays out a point of view, that the German subsidies to renewable energies have been misdirected, which is within the mainstream, but the contrary view would be mainstream too. So it should really be balanced. The long-term solution is to find papers by the same authors in peer-reviewed journals. The stats the paper brings together are referenced to German-language official sources, so could be got from those sources instead (but also say that they are referenced here). Itsmejudith (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar here. When it comes to papers, peer review is generally what separates the wheat from the chaff. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It may be an RS, but it isn't a HQRS. Treat as a popular press work, not an academic work. Seek HQRS by same authors / research unit / etc. Check citations in published working paper especially. May have real HQRS "forthcoming" but, we don't cite potential research reports, we cite actual ones. [Unless of course the working paper was peer reviewed in full prior to publication]. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Peer review is preferable, but as mentioned above, how data collection and reporting works in practice differs between fields. The wording of the two posts above seems incorrect to me because it implies that Wikipedia only uses peer reviewed sources for a subject like this, which is obviously not true. Itsmejudith points to the importance of "official sources" when it comes to subjects like this one for example, and I'd say that concerning energy even articles in good newspapers can be useful. It depends on the subject. I do not think we are talking about biography of living people or legal or medical advice here, so I would think government websites and other non peer reviewed sources can potentially be considered.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree with Andrew Lancaster's additions. Some fields do PR working papers though (I was pointing out there, that some working papers are in that category of highest quality reliable sources). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Obscure book

Regarding a citation that an editor is trying to use on the Springer Hoax wiki, I cannot verify that the edition of the book another editor claims actually exists. Thus far all search results come back with an earlier copy that does exist, but does not support the citations given. If the edition's existence cannot even be verified and the only known copies in existence do not support the citations given, should we "take the editor's word for it" and allow the citation from a completely unknown addition when we can verify the earlier copy contains no such materials? I think not because the source is not verifiable, but I would appreciate some input. FWIW, this is the same article in which this same editor used family genealogy sites (see above). Thank you. Erikeltic (Talk) 01:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The "obscure book" is a report by the Delaware Federal Writers' Project, used to cite basic information about a relevant court case in Delaware. Prior to Erikeltic's posting, ze responded to my post on the article's talk page which links to an online copy of the specific edition in question. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It links to an online edition that was written 10 years before the book you're citing. In addition, that edition does not support your citations (period). There is no mention of Adam & Eve or Charlemagne anywhere in your citation. No where does it suggest The alleged estate was said to include 1,900 acres of land, 228 acres of which ran though the center of Wilmington, worth up to $150,000,000. Other claims included $100,000,000 deposited in a Stockholm bank. None of this can be verified with the edition readily available to us, which you now claim is the same edition as the one you cited. Erikeltic (Talk) 02:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"As i said above, "By hitting Google with "Delaware, a guide to the first State" Springer the first hit is to a copy of that edition. Here it is.""
First I would definitely say that the source is reliable. That said, perhaps SummerPhD needs to cite different pages for different claims, because the pages mention in the citation only support part of what you were using it for. Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but nowhere does Summer's source have anything about "fraudulent and/or erroneous Springer genealogies going back to Adam and Eve via Emperor Charlemagne". I would hope she can either find a reliable source for this or remove it. Erikeltic (Talk) 02:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't cite that source for that fact. Erikeltic has now tagged that cn. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Not now, but you did earlier. [21] Erikeltic (Talk) 14:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

List of photovoltaic power stations

It's dawned on me that the main source we've been using in this article seems to be a self-published website -- PVresources.com -- and so doesn't appear to qualify as reliable, per WP:RS. Comments welcome. Johnfos (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a SPS, and does not qualify as a reliable source. Fladrif (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
SPS can be RS when the author is a recognized expert on the subject, and that may be the case here. A quick Google Books search shows Pvresources' reports are cited fairly often, and a quick Google web search shows that the main author is active on the IEC TC82 standards committee on photovoltaics. I would take a look at this before passing judgement on this as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Search results rather than paper?

We've got a question at WP:ELN#ELNO_.239 that's properly an RSN or possibly DUE question, but since it's already in its second or third location, I hate to move it again. Could a couple of you please go over there to comment?

The issue is whether a link to search results from a (respectable, independent) database is a good source for supporting a statement that a given academic journal published a given paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mibeis HaGenozim - Treasures From The Chabad Library

Is Mibeis HaGenozim - Treasures From The Chabad Library by Shalom Dovber Levine, published by the Kehot Publication Society, reliable for the claim that Yitzchok Hutner had a deep respect for Menachem Mendel Schneerson, asked him for his explanations on Jewish subjects, and requested his blessings? I think Levine runs the Library Of Agudas Chassidei Chabad, Kehot Publication Society is the publishing arm of the Chabad movement (which was led for decades by Schneerson), and Mibeis HaGenozim appears to be a coffee-table book. Other sources (e.g. Goldberg, Hillel. Between Berlin and Slobodka: Jewish transition figures from Eastern Europe, Ktav Publishing House, 1989) state that Hutner was a fierce critic of the Chabad movement and its cult of personality around Schneerson. Goldberg's bio can be found here. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be that Hutner respected Schneerson personally but not the cult around him. On the other hand, Chabad has form for claiming that all sorts of people relied on the Rebbe for advice and counsel. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Any other views on this? Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say it doesn't quite pass the smell taste because of the closeness of the publisher and the topic, and the contentiousness of the claim. But it could possibly be used with attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with "could possibly be used with attribution". Blueboar (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can a youtube video be used as a source?

Can it? For example if an identifiable person in subject is stating something, then his / her statement can be used in his / her article on wiki? Userpd (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the video a reproduction of something that appeared on TV? Is it a college lecture or some other expert speaking on a particular subject matter? Is the information available anywhere else? For me it would not be an issue because "it's on Youtube" but would depend on exactly what is on Youtube and its source. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Also remember that interpretation of material like this is not as straightforward as the interpretation of actual printed text. For all we know, the video could have been doctored by the use of Final Cut Pro or other software; the "identifiable person" could actually be an impersonator or imitator; etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
No it's not reproduction of TV, it's exclusive in its form, an interview of a skit show. But contains a viable information about the subject to whom the article is dedicated. I fail to see why shouldn't this information be included and as an checkout be put the youtube link where the person had said stated it by himself / herself. Of course if printed version other than YT was available then it would be preferred over, but here we talk about youtube links. Also, other than inteview, let's say a monologue of a person, self-recording on youtube, can his words / statements be used in his wiki entry and the yt link as a reference? Userpd (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Youtube does not faithfully retransmit video material, it does not exercise editorial control. Other publishers may host content on Youtube, but, in almost all circumstance, Youtube should not be used as a source for retransmissions of previously broadcast works, or for original transmissions of video work. Only when the institution which originally broadcast the work republishes it on Youtube, and only when that institution in itself is a reliable publisher, should works on youtube be linked to, and the reference should contain the original broadcaster as publisher, with full original video citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I am plugging my on essay: WP:VIDEOLINK
There are multiple issues with YouTube videos. Would you mind providing specific information?Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Treat Youtube as a video-photocopier. It isn't a publisher. You wouldn't take random photocopies off a guy in the street with an underfed dog and treat the photocopies as RS, especially when he's demonstrated he feeds pages, especially the bibliography and publication information to his dog.
  • In all other respects apply normal RS and V policies as to video. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In a general sense, only Youtube videos that are hosted on accounts that, for all intents and purposes, appear to be official accounts for that news service (or whomever you're talking about) are allowed. Thus, music videos hosted on Youtube on the official channel of the publisher should be okay, as would news reports hosted on the official channels of those news broadcasters. However, videos of news reports hosted on random users on Youtube are not allowed, as they could have been tampered with and we have no way to know or verify their reliability. So, really, take Youtube videos with a grain of salt. SilverserenC 18:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the meaning of the book of Revelation

The edit in question is this section:

John's declaration established a triunism (or trinity[1], or typology) of three distinct and compartmentalized iterations of Daniel's prophecies--one pertaining to ancient Jewish history, one pertaining to the intermediate history of Christianity, and one pertaining to the End of the Age.

The sources are:

Are these WP:RS substantiating this edit? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert on this, but: there is a huge amount of scholarship on the New Testament in general and the Book of Revelation in particular published in reputable books and journals by people holding professorships at well-known universities.
Why would a couple of apparently sectarian websites even be considered? --Hegvald (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so I'm not alone in this. The editor in question deleted my referenced material from a work published by the Cambridge University Press as "sectarian", which I thought was odd considering the source was secular.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I would point out that "triunism" isn't listed in either the OED or MW. 'Triune' is both the noun and the adjective (according to both dictionaries), and means "three in one", not "three distinct and compartmentalized". I would suspect that the whole claim is more than a little idiosyncratic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It's highly idiosyncratic. The first link is a site which is advertising his book. This whole "triunism" interpretation is his own.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
These do not look like Reliable Sources. The first, as pointed out above, is a SPS touting a book. And, as near as I can tell from the link, it is touting a "triunist" methodology of exegesis. The second is a transcript of a sermon being reproduced at a SPS website. I am at a loss to understand how the text in question is supported by this source. Are the authors recognized experts whose work on the subject has been previously published in independent scholarly or other reliable sources? Unless that can be shown to be the case, these sources cannot be used at all; if, on the other hand, that can be established, then these sources can only be used with proper attribution to the source and author. Fladrif (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, the link to the weebly.com site as a hotlink in the text for the word "triune", not even as a source or a reference, is completly improper and looks suspiciously like a WP:SPAM link which should be immediately removed. Fladrif (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Man, Taiwan boi, you're just so scared to death that a new school of prophetic interpretation is emerging to challenge (erroneous) Christian traditions (which weren't all that great to begin with) that you have to seek out every means available to suppress it.

Here are a few examples of "triunism" occuring in every day conversational postings on the internet: (search "triunism" on the page)

http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewWrongentry.php?idThread=45230&idForum=3&lp=ende&lang=en

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=13&topic_id=15725&viewmode=thread&order=0

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/us_threatened_by_an_enemy_within/

As I pointed out to you elsewhere, Lanier began interpreting prophecy along triune lines--including future, present, and past contexts--long before I came along.

"Kinship of God and man, etc., Volume 1" by John Jabez Lanier, pp 135-146, "Trinitarian Idealism." Note "syllabus II: What the Word of God means" in which Lanier catagorizes triune interpretations.

(The problem with Fairbairn's and Lanier's proposals was that they never brought it back home again, and tied their theories back into the real world, but that is not a position I've included in any Wikipedia edit.)

This is all about ego, fear, and oppression with you, and has been since you started in with me.

God forbid the power to supress non-traditional concepts should be taken away from the traditionalists.

Ike Eickman (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've googled Triunism as suggested. In fact - sites that use the word in relation to this topic that come up first are your website, Wikipedia articles you have been editing and discussion forums where the word is used by someone called "Ike". I didjn't go beyond the first two pages. Fainites barleyscribs 21:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Longevity claims

I've cleared out a number of cases with dubious sources. What do we think about Trend Azerbaijan as a source for the fact that someone was claimed to have lived to 130 (not the fact that she did)? The specific article. There are a lot more cases sourced to various media around the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Trend News Agency appears to be a bona-fide news source. It is one of the news sites monitored by the BBC and its reports frequently cited by it. I would think that it is a RS for this person claiming to be 130.Fladrif (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm looking at the rest of the sources bit by bit but won't enquire about ones of that kind of standing. 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebook as a source

[22] Is Facebook permissible as a source to provide how many people are fans of something? Grsz 11 19:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Forums, blogs and wikis aren't reliable sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It has been discussed before and there might actually be some leeway (not sure). However, the lines you are presenting are not only a probable sourcing issue but an original research issue. The article is not an essay for editors to present their thoughts. If the comparison being made is not laid out in RS then it isn't really worthy or appropriate to mention.Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Facebook does not have any editorial control over how many fans a page has; such numbers can be gamed electronically. Facebook loses out as a reliable source for the number of sports fans a team has, especially when placed up against a wider study by Sport+Markt, one which takes into account all fans, not just ones that are online and aware of Facebook. Facebook cannot ever tell us how many fans a sports team has in total. I would remove that bit in the article, until a paragraph is introduced saying how Facebook is important to one or both of the teams. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Facebook is perfectly reliable as a primary source for how many fans something has in a facebook sense. But it is such a stupid measure of support for something that it would rarely have any place in a WP article. As is said above, it is not an accurate measure of support, so it is improper to imply any consequence from the primary data. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Facebook is not a reliable source for anything... except (perhaps) a statement as to what appeared on a specific facebook page on a given date (and I don't really see a situation in which such a statement would be relevant or appropriate). Blueboar (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I can think of an instance where saying what was posted on a facebook page would prove to be a reliable source: Some celeb posts on their facebook page that they've gotten engaged, become pregnant, etc. as their first announcement of such. Other than that, it's not really a good source for anything, especially how many fans something has, because it's not taken from a wide demographic. Most facebook users are in the 15-25 age range, which isn't a wide sample. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I basically agree with that position but we do seem to allow self published content of the type included in a "official" personal site from the subject of an article about him or herself in a limited manner as set out in WP:SELFPUB and as Blueboar says, occasionally I have seen it and not removed it when it links to search results refering to coverage of an internet viral event or person... like this... The news gained prominence following sustained pressure on social networking sites Twitter 1 and Facebook 2 - Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course, that assumes we can verify that the person posting to the social network page actually is the person we think it is. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, Twitter has some kind of seal-thing it places on the profiles of "official" accounts. The thing can only be placed on the profile by twitter itself, and only after twitter has verified that the account does, indeed, belong to who it claims to belong to. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Facebook is a reliable source if you want to post "FC Barcelona Facebook page indicates 7,213,782 People Like This as of 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC) and Real Madrid C.F. Facebook page indicates 6,111,074 People Like This as of 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)." However, by itself, that satement would only be relevant on Wikipedia's Facebook article (primary sources are permitted if used carefully) and would be kept out of Wikipedia's Facebook article because its significance to the Facebook topic is very low. If you use Facebook as the source for that statement on the El Clásico page, then you run into trouble with Original Research, particularly Synthesis of published material that advances a position. In sum, remove this sentence and in your edit summary post "Removed sentence per WP:SYNTHESIS." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I would have no objection to something like "On July 14, 2011, The Potheads announced on their Facebook page that they would be touring Europe." However, as their web site would not doubt pick up the tour information in due course, I would not keep the ref there long.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Facebook as a source for a deceased person's date of birth? For example, if a woman's Facebook lists her daughter's birthdate and the day she died in a blog and no other reliable source can be located to confirm a DOB, could that count as a reliable source? And before anyone asks how we know for sure that the Facebook is actually hers (in this one example) I would point out the videos in which she directs people to her FB, Myspace, and website. Erikeltic (Talk) 14:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I have difficulty believing that Facebook would actually be the only source for that information... birth and death dates can usually be reliably sourced to newspaper obituaries. And if it is true that no other source thinks the daughter's date of birth and death is worth mentioning, I have to wonder whether the information is worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What about MyDeathSpace.com -- could that be considered a reliable source? The problem we are having setting a specific DOB for Michelle Thomas is that some secondary sources report the year as 1968, while others report the year as 1969. The date given here[23] is consistent with the age given in People[24], Jet magazine[25], the NY Times[26], and her mother's Myspace and Facebook accounts. Even IMDB.com, which has been identified as non-reliable lists a different year than Allmovie.com. All available sources give the same day and month; it is just the year that is different. One editor in particular will cite the opposite source to cancel out the first source given. I attempted to compromise and list both years (as seen at Audrey Tautou) but that was turned down. At what point can multiple reliable sources be used in an "or" situation for a date of birth? At what point, in the absence of matching secondary sources, should we use a primary source (such as a social security death index or birth certificate) to confirm a date of birth? Erikeltic (Talk) 17:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't agree with using MySpace, MyDeathSpace, Twitter, Linkd, or any similar sites. Seems to me that the compromise solution of including and sourcing both dates is the only way to go, assuming that the sources giving each date are reliable secondary sources. —J04n(talk page) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

FaceBook should not be used for any material like this, including the statement "FC Barcelona Facebook page indicates 7,213,782 People Like This as of 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)", which is original research based on primary sources. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the research would be? Maybe I am missing something about the example, but isn't this just a case of reporting raw primary materials without analysis or explanation added? That seems allowed under WP:PRIMARY?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • On a related note, is it reliable to use the official Facebook page of a company as a source for information? From what I am taking, the information posted on their Facebook page is similar to information they would give out on their website. Dough4872 02:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Twitter, Rolling Stone magazine and The Guardian

We could use some uninvolved editors to help settle a content dispute at Michael (album). Last week, Michael Jackson's brother, Randy tweeted his doubts regarding the authenticity of some of the songs on Michael's upcoming posthumous album. The Tweets were picked up and reported by secondary reliable sources including Rolling Stone magazine[27] and The Guardian.[28] More secondary sources can be found here.[29] Originally, the dispute was about citing Twitter alone. But there are still objections even though secondary reliable sources have been provided. The link to the current discussion is here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't weigh in on the earlier discussion above, but this question goes to the heart of what I was thinking about writing. I have serious doubts about using someone's social media site as a source, but when a reliable secondary source then reports a story about what someone posted on their twitter or facebook or whatever account, that's a different story. Rolling Stone and The Guardian are clearly reliable sources, and can certainly be used to support a statement like "RS A and B reported that X tweeted ...." Fladrif (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
That's basically what I posted at the discussion. the RS of Rolling Stone or the Guardian now can be used to support the fact (and only this fact) that "X said Y in a twitter message", but cannot be used to source "Y" without any other clarification. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, this is a verified Twitter account.[30] According to Twitter's FAQ on verification, the blue and white check mark indicates that the account has been verified.[31] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that twitter is a self published source and can be used in a minimal way to add details about the living subject only, minimal being the optimum word. Like if there is no available DOB and the subject says on his twitter, I am having a great day today is my 32nd birthday. Verified is the best but there are also a few celebs that have not bothered to verify, as it so is clearly them, a bit like the queen of england never carries any money because no one ever asks her for any. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't bothered to go to the article in question, but I agree with Masem. If Rolling Stone and The Guardian have published stories saying Randy Jackson tweeted that he doubted the authenticity of parts of the album, that's what we can say in the article, using the Rolling Stone and The Guardian articles as sources. But those articles don't allow us to bootstrap the Twitter account itself as somehow being a RS. And it certainly doesn't allow us to conclude whether or not the album is or isn't authentic. Whether it is or isn't a verified account doesn't affect my reading of the RS policy or guidelines on that. Let's assume it's authentic, but it is unquestionably a SPS and a primary source. A SPS cannot be used for claims about third parties or claims about events not directly related to the source per WP:SELFPUB. Fladrif (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
By itself, the verified Twitter account is an SPS, and can't be used for claims about third parties. It's debatable whether immediate family is really a third party, but let's set that aside for now. The claims have been repeated in published secondary sources, so they may be important enough to include in the article. Now, being cited that way doesn't bootstrap the Twitter feed into a published secondary source, but it is a primary source that the news article relied on, and it may be appropriate for us to include a supplemental link so that our readers can see the original for themselves. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Money multiplier

It is my contention that the idea that the reserve ratio puts a cap on the amount of money that can be created from a given monetary base is simply a convenient "story" used for teaching purposes, much like the concept of "electron shells" is a convenient way of teaching students about chemical bonds. The "professional" chemists know that there are no such thing as electron shells. I have made this challenge (and have had support) on the fractional reserve banking discussion page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#This_article_indicates_that_much_of_the_FRB_article_is_wrong I have suggested that the reference given for the statement "The most common mechanism used to measure this increase in the money supply is typically called the money multiplier. It calculates the maximum amount of money that an initial deposit can be expanded to with a given reserve ratio." is not sufficient quality because it is "teaching material" rather than a refereed paper. Reissgo (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Dismiss This notice is vague on sources and doesn't really seem appropriate here. If it is to be discussed here, then, Reissgo has been asserting that the thoroughly-sourced (and generally accepted/largely uncontroversial) material is incorrect. To my understanding of policy, such Everything The Experts Have Taught You Is Wrong sort of claim requires exceptional sources, which Reissgo has been unable to provide. BigK HeX (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I would in fact go further with respect to the quality of reference required to support the quote. There have been a great many peer reviewed papers refuting the claim made in the quote. If it is the case that I'm wrong and the money multiplier story as indeed taken seriously by central bankers, then it is virtually certain that there will exist peer reviewed papers or internal academic central bank papers along the lines of "the critics of the money multiplier story are wrong and here's why". So a very old reference that makes no mention of critics of the idea would IMHO not be a reliable source. Reissgo (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The difference between "electron shells" and Reissgo's attempted analogy is that chemistry teachers TELL you that it's a teaching aid that is not literal; Reissgo's sourcing doesn't seem to indicate this is done with fractional reserve. BigK HeX (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • what gives you the right to stick the word "dismiss" in bold with a bullet point next to your comment making it look all official? I have come to this forum to get an independent opinion on the dispute between us. Please don't try to make it look as if the result has already been determined in your favor. Reissgo (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to hat the above back-and-forth, but will refrain. The source in question is a teaching aid published by McGraw Hill. Notwithstanding that MH is a respected academic publisher, I would not use this source. Nothing in the RS guidelines leads me to think that this could be used as a source on Wikipedia. There are certainly textbooks and other publications that make the identical statement. Those should be used in preference to that. If there are reliable sources which state that this formulation is wrong, there is no problem in including that information as well and those sources. I have not seen a specific question about those sources so I am not in a position to give an opinion on any particular such source. Fladrif (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

With regard "If there are reliable sources which state that this formulation is wrong, there is no problem in including that information as well and those sources. I have not seen a specific question about those sources", here is an example: http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/eej/Archive/Volume18/V18N3P305_314.pdf - would you consider this reliable? It appears to have originally come from the Eastern Economic Journal, 1992, vol. 18, issue 3, pages 305-314 Reissgo (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The Eastern Economic Journal is certainly a reliable source. In the context of the article, it should be used with attribution to the journal and the author as his views on the subject. Glancing at it, it seems like it would also be a perfectly good source for the formulation that is ill-sourced by the M-H teaching aid as well. Fladrif (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"If there are reliable sources which state that this formulation is wrong, there is no problem in including that information as well"
I'd say there certainly is a problem. Reissgo has already received advisement from numerous editors on the article talk page that his material seems undue based on the sources provided so far. His use of isolated non-notable works to dispute assertions almost universally written about throughout academic sources has been characterized as WP:UNDUE so far, and may be unacceptably sketchy. There is plenty of academic discussion on fractional reserve banking, so there could well be acceptable sourcing for the assertion Reissgo is attempting, but many editors don't think that the evidence provided so far indicates the viewpoint is significant at the moment. As I've noted above, other venues are likely more appropriate for this discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That is a question of WP:Weight that is outside the scope of this noticeboard. The article in the Eastern Economic Journal is certainly a reliable source. The author is a widely-published professor at Penn State. Whether those are mainstream or fringe views and how to treat them in the article other than "Professor X in Article Y in Journal Z disagrees" is outside my and this board's ken. Fladrif (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

St. Bernard (dog)

There's a slow-burning issue at this page that hasn't erupted into a full edit war, but has been going on and off for a while now. The largest verified dog in history was an English mastiff named Zorba, however there is a claim about a Swiss St. Bernard named Benedictine floating around. In the article, this claim is sourced to this website, which appears to be a tertiary source. Furthermore, one user has claimed that the dog's full name was Benedictine Daily Double, which sounds prima facie preposterous for a dog's name in Switzerland. Another user and I were unable to find anything that definitively supported this claim, so in late October I/we decided to let the claim sit in the St. Bernard article for a while and see if someone came up with a reliable source. In that time, someone inserted a source for this claim from a website called [www.brainyhistory.com] (specifically [32]), which is problematic on two fronts. First of all, this website takes submissions from random people, and does not appear to have a fact-checking process (if there is one, they don't have it up on their website). Furthermore, this only appears to have popped up on the website AFTER we pointed out that a Swiss dog is highly unlikely to have a name like Benedictine Daily Double, which has led me and this other user to believe that the submission originated from the article, not the other way around. I suppose I'm asking about two sources here; how reliable should the varietykennel.com website be deemed, and is brainyhistory.com a reliable source at all? I will notify the other two editors involved of this discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And something else I forgot to mention; the brainyhistory.com site says that "Benedictine Daily Double" reached this height and weight and lived to be 14. As our article on St. Bernards says, "a few may live beyond 10 years, but this is highly unusual", it leads me to believe that this is not a particularly reliable source. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The varietykennel.com website is not a reliable source... it is the personal/business website of a kennel owner in India, who happens to be a fan of the breed. As for the brainyhistory.com website, I think you have a good case for saying that the source took its information on "Benedictine Daily Double" from Wikipedia, and thus should not be considered reliable for that information. In short... I would simply remove the mention of Benedictine entirely, as being unverifiable. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Neither source meets the requirements of WP:RS. The first is a WP:SPS, the second has user-submitted content and no significant editorial oversight. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That's what I've thought all along, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to have people who know more about this look at it. Thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Brief Chronicles

Is Brief Chronicles a reliable source for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford?

The online journal claims to be peer-reviewed, and I suppose that’s true since it promotes the theory that Oxford was the true author of Shakespeare’s works and its editorial board is made up of Oxfordians.

NinaGreen (talk · contribs), a relatively new editor who is very knowledgeable about the life of Oxford, has been editing the article and making what I consider to be some very valuable contributions. However, she believes that Brief Chronicles is WP:RS because of the educational qualifications of its editorial board, it is included in the Modern Language Association and World Shakespeare Bibliography databases, and a number of the articles in the journal come up on a Google Scholar search.

She uses the journal for this edit, which is very technical:

Although he had reached the age of majority and had married, Oxford was still not in possession of his inheritance. After suing his livery,[41] Oxford was licenced to enter on his lands on 30 May 1572.[42] However this privilege came at a price. The fines assessed against Oxford in the Court of Wards included £2000 for his wardship and marriage, £1257 18s 3/4d for his livery, and £48 19s 9-1/4d for mean rates, a total of £3306 17s 10d. To guarantee payment, Oxford entered into bonds to the Court of Wards totalling £11,000. Oxford's own bonds to the Court of Wards were in turn guaranteed by bonds to the Court of Wards in the amount of £5000 apiece entered into by two guarantors, John, Lord Darcy of Chiche, and Sir William Waldegrave. In return for these guarantees, Oxford entered into two statutes of £6000 apiece to Darcy and Waldegrave.[43]

In her explanation on the talk page, she says that "The only published source for this information is my article in Brief Chronicles, which I've cited" and "If other editors want this paragraph removed, I'll take it out. The problem will be what to replace it with." Here is a link to that article (PDF): [33]

My response was to inform her that it was a fringe source and that WP:PARITY applied, which states "Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable." I also said that if no other source exists for the statement, then it shouldn’t be in the article.

Earlier this year another WP:RS/N discussion about the journal occurred, with no clear consensus about its use in the Shakespeare authorship question article, although the current page does not use it as a source. Nina contends that since no clear determination was made that Brief Chronicles could not be cited, it should therefore be acceptable as a source for this article.

Since then a long discussion has followed, as can be seen on the talk page in this section and this one. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Based solely on the Brief Chronicles Wikipedia article, and the information above, I'm inclined to think that the source might qualify per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship The questions I have would be is this a "reputable peer reviewed source"? Does the particular article in question show up in other scholarly citations in citation indexes? I can see that this is a journal dedicated to publishing works on Shakespeare authorship questions and that it does not distingush between "amateurs" and "experts", so I am questioning whether it meets the sixth bullet point about promoting a POV, whether there is any actual peer review, or whether the scope of peer review encompasses the wider academic community. I guess I don't have enough information to actually answer these questions. Fladrif (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that citations and reviews can be helpful to judge this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
What I don't see, when I use Google Scholar [34] are any of the articles in this journal being cited in any other scholarly papers. (To be perfectly accurate, I see one article - not the one at issue here - cited once in one journal on psychology, not literature.) I realize that it is a brand-new journal and that there is a lag involved, but I'm inclined to think that this failure is fatal to the reliability of this source at this time. If other scholars are not citing this journal as a source, neither should Wikipedia. If and when they start, maybe Wikipedia can follow suit. Fladrif (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Another thing that makes the journal look fringe is that it isn't distributed by one of the main academic journal publishers like Sage, Taylor & Francis, Oxford, Brill etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to draw attention to the fact that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is a biographical article, involving a strong element of history (apart from literary criticism). Both the Modern Language Association and World Shakespeare Bibliography are databases concerned with language and literature, not history. Nina Green's article in Brief Chronicles presents an interpretation of historical facts and hypotheses radically different from mainstream scholarly publications on both Oxford and Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester (exemplified, for example, by entries in the ODNB, but also any other works like biographies or articles). Its thesis argues for another murder on the supposed list of murders committed by Robert Dudley, which is a staple theme with at least some Oxfordians (e.g. Paul Streitz: Oxford. Son of Elizabeth I, where Robert Dudley murders King Edward VI of England, or Paul Altrocchi: Malice Aforethought: the Killing of a Unique Genius, where the same argument is made as in this article). So far, books and articles of this kind seem to have been ignored by the historical community. On pp. 64–65 a supposed parallel between Hamlet and Edward de Vere's life is suggested, which answers the question whether this journal/article promotes an Oxfordian POV. A the talkpage I've had this discussion with Nina Green about her article (I've capitulated before absurdity by now). Buchraeumer (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "Does the particular article in question show up in other scholarly citations in citation indexes?" is not an adequate measure of humanities relevance, the citation indicies and citation habits of the humanities preclude citation index density and impact factors being useful measures. Let us move on: is Oxfordianism a FRINGE theory, or a non-mainstream position? If it is truely FRINGE, then the journal is a clear FRINGE work and shouldn't be used. If it is merely a non-mainstream position within the academic community, then cite and attribute. "In her [year] [work], [real name] in the Oxfordian journal claims that…" The paragraph cited doesn't appear to be particularly subject to an Oxfordian bias though. This, actually, is an example of where Wikipedia has great difficulty in handling the variety of academic views; nPOV doesn't apply, we ought to represent all POVs in balance with their scholarly or in the case of popular articles impact on RS literature: classify, characterise, attribute. Humanities RS are not a "verifiable truth" but rather a series of "verifiable POVs with differences in literary impact." Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
All such theories that someone else wrote Shakespeare are considered fringe theories by the mainstream academic community. The source in question is used to cite a fact, not an opinion, so it would be a bit awkward to say
Although he had reached the age of majority and had married, Oxford was still not in possession of his inheritance. After suing his livery,[41] Oxford was licenced to enter on his lands on 30 May 1572.[42] However this privilege came at a price. In her 2009 "The Fall of the House of Oxford", Nina Green in the Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles claims that the fines assessed against Oxford in the Court of Wards included £2000 for his wardship and marriage, £1257 18s 3/4d for his livery, and £48 19s 9-1/4d for mean rates, a total of £3306 17s 10d. To guarantee payment, Oxford entered into bonds to the Court of Wards totalling £11,000. Oxford's own bonds to the Court of Wards were in turn guaranteed by bonds to the Court of Wards in the amount of £5000 apiece entered into by two guarantors, John, Lord Darcy of Chiche, and Sir William Waldegrave. In return for these guarantees, Oxford entered into two statutes of £6000 apiece to Darcy and Waldegrave.[43]
In fact I've never seen such a construction in any Wikipedia article where such a caveat is used to cite a fringe journal for a fact in a mainstream article. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand the distinction being made. The source is not being used to support a statement about Shakespearean authorship; it is being proposed for more mundane matters. But I don't think that matters. I don't think this publication clears the minimum bar to be a reliable source for even these mundane matters. Fladrif (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice columns in general, Dan Savage in particular

Three interrelated questions. For questions of disputed fact,

  1. How reliable are advice columns in general?
  2. How reliable is Dan Savage in general?
  3. How reliable is Dan Savage's Savage Love advice column in particular?

As to the first question, how confident may we be that advice columnists don't just make up (or heavily edit) their letters? Advice columns are basically entertainment, not serious scholarship or journalism (right?). I suppose it depends on the reputation of the venue - Dear Prudie in Slate and so forth presumably has editors ensuring that she has proof that her letters are real, right?

As to the second question Dan Savage. I realize a person's reliability may vary with circumstance, such as rigor of editorial oversight on a given project, but trying to get an overall sense. Based on his Wikipedia article and the article on his column (Savage Love), he doesn't look reliable at all. Points against him being:

  • No formal training or work whatsoever in his field (sexology) that I can see (undergraduate work mostly in theater, no grad work or work as a therapist, researcher, etc.)
  • He's a political/cultural activist with a definite strong agenda. (Not saying it's a bad agenda, just that he is a polemicist as well as an entertainer.) (I wonder how many of our accepted scholarly and journalistic sources are responsible for material like "Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there's nothing left but the rope"? Not to cherry-pick that one quote, be he does seem more a man on a mission than a dispassionate observer or scholar.)
  • His article describes him as a journalist, but it also says the he joined a political campaign in order to infect the candidate and his staff with disease, and purposely contaminated items to this end. Or maybe he was kidding when he said this. Either way, strange ethics for a journalist, and it does have to make you wonder about the guy's character.

As to Savage's advice column in particular:

  • It's published by The Onion's A.V. Club and (I think) also syndicated in some free giveaway tabloids. The A.V. club is described in its article lead as an "entertainment newspaper and website", so it's not a scholarly or serious journalistic undertaking, I wouldn't think.
  • According to Dan Savage, "Savage typed up a sample column" to get the initial job. He must have made up the reader inquiries, and it does make you wonder if that's the only time he's done that. It further says "[H]e began the column with the express purpose of providing mocking advice to heterosexuals" so again, that doesn't inspire confidence that his main purpose is to provide advice to real individuals with real questions.
  • The Savage Love article (which states that he "uses the column as a forum for his strong opinions") is mainly a list of words that Savage has made up. Since he's being cited in articles mainly for word definitions, this also doesn't inspire confidence.

On the other hand, he has publisher four books and contributed to another. But (except for one that's a collection of his columns), they are all memoirs.

All in all, I have zero confidence that Savage doesn't just make up his letters, writes whatever he thinks will advance his agenda, and has zero editorial oversight. My guess is that for statements of facts his advice column is probably a little less reliable than (say) Rush Limbaugh's radio show. If Limbaugh's show is considered a reliable source for matters of fact (I hope not, but I don't know), than Savage Love might be OK, but if not, not. But maybe I'm missing something.

(N.B. Savage Love is used as a source in more than one article (I think) but the particular refs in question are this and this in the article Snowballing (sexual practice). I'm not contending that snowballing isn't a real term (it is), only interested in vetting those refs (and getting a sense of how this board feels about Savage in general).) Thanking you all in advance for your time and consideration, Herostratus (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a fan of Dan Savage but he is recognized as a decent sized voice in the topic of sexuality and is used in a handful of articles here on Wikipedia. He is a published author who also has a column (Savage Love) is syndicated. He has also won some awards and been invited to host them (not the Emmy's of course) [35][36][37]. The Stranger (newspaper) is an alternative paper but it has wide circulation and a professional structure that meets the requirements of WP:RELIABLE. Is snowballing only done in pornography and not in real life? It does happen outside of porn sometimes and think this column (along with others) supports that.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Some kind ords form te New York Times, Newseek, and the Village Voice[38]
It also looks like his writing has appeared in The New York Times Magazine, the op-ed pages of The New York Times, Rolling Stone, and other publications. He has also contributed numerous pieces to This American Life on NPR. And, according to the publisher (Penguin Books) He is very popular.Cptnono (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of the comparison between Dan Savage and Michael Savage:

  • Both are named "Savage".
  • Like Dan Savage, Michael Savage does not have formal education in his field (politics). Michael Savage does have a Ph.D, though (although not in politics), while Dan Savage has a high school diploma.
  • Like Dan Savage, Michal Savage is a polemicist. Michael Savage is extremely polemical, but Dan Savage is pretty damn polemical too.
  • Like Dan Savage, Michael Savage has published several books. However, Michael Savage has published a lot more books, and several have been NYT bestsellers, which none of Dan Savage's have been, I don't think.
  • Dan Savage has an advice column that is fairly widely distributed. Michael Savage has a radio show that is fairly widely distributed. (Michael Savage also had a TV show on a major network (MSNBC), which Dan Savage hasn't.)
  • Dan Savage has won an obscure award. Michael Savage has won an obscure award.[url=http://newsblaze.com/story/20070328082543nnnn.np/newsblaze/NEWSWIRE/NewsBlaze-Wire.html]
  • Dan Savage's writings have appeared in major publications. Michael Savage has had his own show on a major network (MSNBC).
  • Dan Savage and Michael Savage are both minor celebrities with Wikipedia article. They are probably roughly comparable in fame.
  • Dan Savage makes up whatever he wants and is about as reliable a source for facts as Poppin' Fresh, the Pillsbury Doughboy. Michael Savage makes up whatever he wants and is about as reliable a source for facts as Charlie the Tuna.

There are some differences - Dan Savage is funny, and Michael Savage isn't; Dan Savage is annoying, but Michale Savage is infuriating. In all fairness and honesty, they seem pretty comparable to me. If we can use one Savage as a reliable source on matters of fact then we can use the other Savage, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if we can use Michael Savage or not. You will have to open up a separate discussion for that.Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Back to the original question, though; like so much on this board, the answer depends on just what Savage is being used to back up. He's certainly reliable to back up what a widely syndicated alternative sex advice column wrote on a certain date. He's not reliable to back up most facts in Precambrian history or subatomic physics. There's a wide range in between. For the Snowballing article, it seems he's being used appropriately, to back up that there is such an alternative sexual practice; as a widely syndicated sexual advice columnist, it seems he is reliable for that factoid. For other questions, you'll have to ask given the other specific facts he's being cited to back up. --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Parties and Elections in Europe

Re: National conservatism

Is the website ""Parties and Elections in Europe, a website run by Wolfram Nordsieck a reliable source? If it is a reliable source for election results, is it also a reliable source for descriptions of party ideologies? The website is used extensively as a source for articles.

TFD (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear to have any POV from its author, and also appears to have a correct calendar of elections etc. Would direct party sources be better? Likely so, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the best way to improve fact-based articles. And this is decidely an issue better suited to the article talk page than to RSN at this point, from looking at that article's talk page and recent AfD nomination. Collect (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This source appears to be cited in 83 articles.[39] TFD (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be self-published, but it is cited in the scholarly literature quite a lot [40]. I would accept it at least for election results and candidates. I'd be more careful about secondary information like classifications of parties and definitions of political directions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears to be a WP:SPS, run by a lawyer (not a political scientist, historian of modern European history, etc.) - i.e. a non-expert. It's a very well-done website, which is no doubt why other sources cite it, but other sources don't have our sourcing requirements, and we're often more strict than them. I see no indication it meets WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I contend, and I think it is quite widely accepted on WP, that citations are an obvious indication of "reputation for fact checking" which is a critical requirement for WP:RS. Furthermore the spirit and wording of all our policies looked at together seem to me to make it clear that the opinion of obvious experts citing a source must be considered much more important for our judgements about the reliability of any source than the opinions of Wikipedians who are judging based on their own research into things like qualifications. Such research into the personal background of sources is effectively OR as far as I can see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How to source folk song lyrics

I'm trying to figure out how to source the words to some folk songs, and, to be clear, I'm only interested in finding a source for the words, not to establish notability or connect the song or the subject of the song to any other topic. Would either of these: [41] [42] be considered a reliable source for that narrow purpose? And if not, can anyone point me to a reliable online source for song lyrics? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Iffy... Neither website gives any indication of having an editorial policy... ie we don't know who runs the website, compiles the lyrics and checks them for accuracy. Something else to consider... many folk songs have multiple versions of the lyrics... the same song (or a line within a song) may be adapted and changed to suit different moments in history. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, iffy indeed. But we're also on a line close to movie/tv plots, and it seems a less than contentious issue, so the question is, how can we source song lyrics? O Fenian brought up the copyright issue, so hibeam is probably right out, but I'm still curious in general how we should treat this issue. Am I correct in assuming that if there's no copyright issues, and we put the lyrics up on wikisource, could we link to that? Or if we can determine that a site is associated with the artist, and the lyrics are up there, it should be ok to link to that, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, would this work for the songs attributed to Christy Moore? The web site appears to be official, and for his writing and performances there should be no copyright issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why limit yourself to online sources? Most large libraries would probably have lots of sources for you. Dlabtot (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not, been using google books and news to try to dig out book titles, I've been combing lexis-nexis, muse, jstor and my local library's catalog trying to locate sources. Have one book on order, and to be honest, I'm surprised there's not more out there. But on the other hand, folks songs are by their nature communicated somewhat differently than other music, and it's hard to imagine one folk singer suing another over copyright, although I'm sure it's happened. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Walker Arnold

Can Thomas Walker Arnold be considered a reliable source? He seems quite dated to me (100+years). Many perceptions have changed since then. I am asking because I know of at least one instance when a lot of material from this author was added to an article. Athenean (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In many cases there would be sources that are reliable and much more recent. It all depends what he's being used as a source for. Can you provide a link? Andrew Dalby 12:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. It is used here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_Muslims&action=historysubmit&diff=396732203&oldid=393480215. Not sure about it, especially the block quotes. Athenean (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The source seems reliable to me, and that perceptions have changed do not necessarily mean that this source is less accurate. I see that there may be a problem in that the section relies too heavily on the one source, but that's a different issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Progressive creationism ate my hamster

IS this [Genesis, Evolution and Natural Selection] RS, it seems SPS. Iut being used to suppor this passage, “Both theistic and progressive creationists accept the evolution over millions of years. Contrary to theistic creationists however, progressive creationists reject natural selection because they consider it scientifically non-proven. They often see speciation as independent adult creations out of dust according to Genesis, at least for man. Another variant accepts the view that all species came out of former ones (common descent) through kind of divine "in vitro fertilisation" in a female of a former species thus solving the problem of adult creation.” In the Progressive creationism article.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC) It also appears to be a work in progess and not the finished articel [[43]], so it may be that what is writen here could change. I think this fails RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally fails WP:RS, except as evidence of what the people who run that website believe. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Its what I thought, but the user pusing it will not accept (up till now) that it fails RS, I'll direct him here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe at Conservapedia it is, but then again they think dinosaurs are 6000 years old. I don't see anyone arguing over whether or not to include Xenu in the creation of the universe here... so I suppose it's really a question of how many followers does Xenu have vs. the god of Genesis. IMHO science and reason should always trump any belief in the supernatural. Until "the creator" (your god, his god, their god, he, she, or its god) publishes his/her/its own firsthand account of the universe in an unambiguous/ non-goat herder kind of way and/or appears on Meet the Press, I say we stick to science and leave the fairytales where they belong. Oh, and even if that book ever is written and even if he/she/it does appear on Meet the Press, I think we should make sure any source materials can be WP:verified. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
These opinions on whether certain beliefs are correct do not help to advance the discussion here, which is on whether this source is reliable on the question of who believes what. Kenilworth Terrace (talk)
My opinion was on whether or not the source was reliable. I was just being honest in my lighthearted response. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So, for the record, what was that opinion as to reliability? It rather got lost in your need to be "honest". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that it was not. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm here for a different section but felt the need to chime in. Because you were discussing the theological issues which relate to the article, it could give the perception of bias regarding the reliability of the source due to your own theological beliefs (as signaled by the use of "IMHO"). You want to avoid that as carefully as possible, even if it makes your writing seem less "light-hearted" as a result, because it only invites ad hominem opposition. To answer Kenilworth Terrace's question, the website is very clearly self-published if you look around the index page. Anyone can pay to have a book published, but unless the user in question can provide citation for substantial and reputable third-party coverage, then the site is definitely not an acceptable source. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
So much depends on exactly what the source is being used to support. For a statement as to the religious beliefs of the authors, the source is reliable. It might be reliable for a statement as to the beliefs of a specific group of people. It would not be reliable for a statement as to scientific fact, or to "counter" a statement of scientific fact. And at this point, I point you to WP:NPOV, and to WP:FRINGE (both being relevant policies in all this). Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
He's being used as the voice of modern progressive creationism, in spite of the fact that he appears to have no particular following in that crowd. We have however found a reliable secondary source to replace and/or contradict this one, so it's been eliminated (at least for now). And I would like to point out that, on the basis of voluminous research (currently buried in a peat bog for security reasons), I can inform you that progressive creationists eat gerbils, not hamsters. So there. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

mobygames.com

I suspect this is not a reliable source: it claims to "let the public contribute to each entry in the database". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, for the same reasons that we ourselves are not a reliable source, nor do we claim to be. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
With lack of systematic fact checking being the obvious thing missing. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Politician, not a historian, cited for history?

In the article Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines), the following paragraph appears:

Former Senator Francisco Tatad, who opposes the bill, said that the roots of population control can be traced to what he believed are the ideas and works of the following: the doctrine of Thomas Malthus (+1834), who said that population growth always outstrips food production, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood (1942), who promoted birth control of the unfit, Adolf Hitler (+1945) and the extermination of the Jews, Hugh Moore who in 1954 wrote a pamphlet The Population Bomb, which influenced top businessmen and United States policy, leading to the support of population control activities starting 1961 as part of the US Foreign Assistance Act. In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich used the same title, The Population Bomb, for his own book; Tatad mentions that Julian Simon countered it and won in the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager, in which Simon and Ehrlich placed a bet on whether the price of certain metals would rise or fall, and with his book on population, The Ultimate Resource.

The citation for this paragraph is: Francisco Tatad (2008-09-14). "Procreative Rights and Reproductive Wrongs". Scribd.

This is a self-published source by Tatad, who has no academic subject matter expertise in reproductive health. He is a prominent supporter of opposition to the bill, but is that enough to make him an authority on the history of reproductive health? Discussion was started Talk:Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines)|here]], but the parties involved are not reaching consensus. Some help would be appreciated. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember where I heard this, but "a compromise is a solution that no one is happy with". That in mind, consider this consensus:
The politician in question could be cited as a source on his own statements and/or beliefs; or if and only if he holds some sort of representative position within a political party he could be cited as demonstrating that party's opinion. There are situations where self-published sources are acceptable, and citing him on his own opinions is one of those. However, it would be unacceptable to cite him as a source for the topic in general without some sort of caveat, but the block quote you provided does include such a caveat so it's fine.
In the example you gave above, the article clearly states that it is Tatad's own opinion, and it states his position on the issue. The article is not stating that population control has its roots in actions of these historical figures, only that Tatad believes it does. Looks fine to me, as long as it can be verified that he actually said it. I strongly suggest that some citation be given to his position, or as a last resort, tag it as:

"...Francisco Tatad, who opposes the bill[citation needed],..."

Without quotations, it sounds like the article is interpreting his opinion, which would be considered original research. It would be better in this case to quote him directly - if this cannot be done, then it is not verifiable. A third-party source would be better, of course, so make a good-faith effort to find coverage of his statement. If his opinion is not notable enough to receive significant coverage, then maybe the article should not give so much WP:WEIGHT to his opinion. Just a thought.
In summary, the politician is an acceptable source regarding his own opinion, as in your example. However, he should be quoted directly instead of interpreted. If it is not possible to quote his exact words, then the entire section is not verifiable and should be removed.96.228.129.69 (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The question of whether it is right to cite someone as a source for their own opinions is generally not really an RSN question. The more relevant policies are WP:POV and WP:NOTE. How notable are a minor politician's ideas about the connection between Malthus, Hitler etc and a reproductive bill? That's really not a question for this board. If there is some debate about how to source this person's opinions and be sure we've done so in a verifiable way based on reliable sources for that opinion then what is that debate?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I addressed that a little but I wasn't concise enough, sorry about that. It's OK to quote him directly, or limited paraphrasing. The quote above contains multiple historical figures that are found in different pages on the referenced book. The block quote is more of an essay about the source book, rather than a direct citation to the book itself, and could be considered unreliable original research. It needs to be broken up into direct quotations made by the author, each cited to the source, so that the article is not doing any extensive amount of interpretation.
I was just pointing out that even if it is considered reliable with the caveats above, that has no bearing for or against the source's neutrality and notability which is a question for another page. After reading that article's talk page, I was worried that the opposing side of the debate might misconstrue our conclusion of reliability as a blanket endorsement of "yes, keep the text because the source is reliable" despite possible violation of WP:NPOV. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. We aren't saying keep the text, we are saying his opinion, if it's significant for this article, can be kept. Addressing other issues, I'd say it should be limited to his opinion, not to his arguments in favor of his opinion. Dougweller (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?

I made an edit with minor wording:

Revision as of 14:43, 25 October 2010

It said: "...was lecturer at the Picmet, Portland International Conference On Management Of Engineering And Technology" with this reference:

  • Reisman Lecturer at Picmet 2003 Picmet.org, Sessions p.88 TB-10.2 [R] Transfer of Technologies: A Meta Taxonomy, Arnold Reisman; Sabanci University, Turkey. Retrieved 2010-10-25.

Later, wording was changed to this, by editor User:SlimVirgin with reference remaining:

"...and in 2003 he spoke at the Portland International Conference On Management Of Engineering And Technology."

But today, almost a month later, another editor User:Drmies removed this text, along with the reference I inserted. Drmies' edit summary, (rationale,) was this:

→ "he spoke at a conference? wow. rm entirely trivial fact (it's from a sixty-page program) that belongs on a resume"


I would like to know, whether this text with the reference which I inserted a month ago was/is legitimate:

  • "...and in 2003 he spoke at the Portland International Conference On Management Of Engineering And Technology."

Ref.→Reisman Lecturer at Picmet 2003 Picmet.org, Sessions p.88 TB-10.2 [R] Transfer of Technologies: A Meta Taxonomy, Arnold Reisman; Sabanci University, Turkey. Retrieved 2010-10-25.

Thanks. Fusion Is the Future 15:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The dispute over that text and source is clearly regarding notability, not reliability of sources. This is the wrong forum to discuss that issue. Fladrif (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict with Fladrif, who is much more concise than I am.] Fusion, using so many bullets and so many short paragraphs works well on PowerPoint but not here: your lengthy comments are difficult to follow.

If your question is about the source, it seems pretty clear that the reference you provided for Reisman having spoken at the conference should be taken at face value--there is no need to distrust the source. But your real question is about whether including the factoid of his having spoken at a conference is notable and should be included. I have a clear opinion on that, which I explained in the edit summary you cited above. It was clear enough for another editor, who reverted your undoing of my edit, and I have just now explained myself at length on Talk:Arnold Reisman, where such discussion belongs.

This is not a matter for the Reliable Sources noticeboard, plain and simple. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If we want to be really pedantic we could argue that the conference programme doesn't prove he spoke, only that the conference organisers said he was scheduled to speak, but unless there's some credible reason to doubt that it actually happened the source is okay. You could always obviate that doubt anyway by rewording it as "in 2003 he was invited to speak at...". Barnabypage (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Correct, Barnaby. However, such reworking kind of deflates the importance of invited speakers. I mean, in that case, I've been invited to speak at maybe twenty conferences...including one where I lectured, in a highly invited manner, to a select and handpicked audience (of five, including the other two presenters and the session chair). Drmies (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Drmies - BTDTGTTS ;) - I don't disagree that the factoid is probably too trivial to be worth mentioning - merely suggesting to Fusion a way to avoid any potential distractions over the status of the source and focus instead on what everybody seems to agree is the key issue, significance. Barnabypage (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you got a shirt? All I got was a badge--and a line on my resume of course. (And I know what you meant, but this was too good to let go--my paper was revolutionary, of course.) Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes

Mao's Great Famine [44] [45] is a book which has been suggested as a source for this article. One editor has stated, however, that the book is too recent, and that the book's author was paid by the Kuomintang. The query, therefore, is this book WP:RS for claims about the Chinese deaths at issue? Collect (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Recentism is not a reason for rejection. As for being a paid advocate, has the user produced any evidacen for this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a really high-quality source. Apparently, Dikotter supports the higher end estimates of the death toll associated with the Great Leap Forward, but that's pretty easy to clarify and certainly is no reason to excise it as a source. jps (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The specifics of his opinions and who might benefit from them are not an issue. Ordinarily, there would be no question about reliability since it was published by a reputable and independent publisher. If the editor in question can produce third-party coverage of a majority or significant (not fringe) minority opinion that the work was biased, then we could talk about removal, but otherwise the book meets reliability criteria and should stay in. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Eplates

This site contains a large amount of information about the horribly difficult to reference articles in Category:Bus routes in London. Since it's run by one person with no editorial oversight, it would usually be considered unreliable under WP:SELFPUB. However, on this page it cites a large number of apparently reliable sources used to build the site. This suggests a sort of tertiary source, with all the ambiguity that that particular policy subsection brings. So would we consider it reliable or not? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if he wrote a 200-page paper on the London bus routes with hundreds of reliable sources, if he never published it or had any editorial oversight, then it is self-published. This is not automatic disqualification, but it should be used sparingly, only for non-contentious points, and only when no alternative can be found. The question I have to ask is this: if a point needs to be made and eplates.info is the only source that can be found, why is the point important?
I skimmed through some of the articles in that category and saw a lot of sentences describing an incident that occurred on some bus route, usually supported by journalistic coverage. For points like that you wouldn't need a self-published source, unless the incident was non-notable and shouldn't be included. I know your question is not about notability, but bear in mind that to meet the notability criteria, then it must have some coverage from a reliable third-party (not self-published) source.
Let's say for example the eplates.info author makes the claim that "Route 9 is the most dangerous bus route in London" and you want to include that in a Wikipedia article. Is that claim directly supported by any of his sources? If the answer is yes, cite that source and not eplates. If the answer is no, don't include it. If instead he says "Route 9 is a bus route" then obviously it is a general fact and does not require citation. If there is some point that you just have to include in the article but can't be attributed to any source with an editorial process, first ask yourself if it really is important, then you can use eplates cautiously but remember that it is subject to challenge and removal at any time. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree entirely. A good summary of how this should be handled. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
A reasonably good summary, with the caveat of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. If the source says "Route 9 is the most dangerous bus route in London" and attributes it to a reliable source, then you must have read that source yourself to use it. You can't attribute it to the source based on the say-so of http://www.eplates.info/ Jayjg (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

There is an AfD discussion going on on the article Communist terrorism, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (3rd nomination). The claim made in favor of deletion is that no sources have been found to establish the existence of this concept in academia. This follows an extensive discussion and hunt for sources at Talk:Communist terrorism. A number of new sources have now been presented in the AfD discussion. Help is need in evaluating if the sources are reliable and can be used to establish the existence of this topic. New sources are naturally also asked for. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the sources in question and their context within the article, as outlined at the top of this page. Also try to avoid announcing an AfD discussion on this page - I'm not implying that you were seeking support on the delete debate, but it could appear that way...you want to avoid that perception lest it result in backlash. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Especially since a multitide of reliable sources have been deleted in a wholesale excision from the article, making this particular post a tad outre. Collect (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Are news sources within Google News always reliable?

Resolved

Just wanted to know that if Google News includes a news source in its search, shall we consider it reliable too.? Xavier449 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you mean are news stories on google RS then (if they are for example from AP) yes. If you mean is the search RS I would have to say no (for example doing a search for Thatcher + evil might bering up a lot of hits but would not be RS for her being evil).Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
No. In fact, I would guess that most are not reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, most are reliable enough, but it depends on the nature of the assertion being sourced, and the particular source. Xavier449, can you be more specific? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what criteria Google use to include a source in their News searches, but I doubt they are the same as our reliability criteria. If Google takes you to a specific source, then that source needs to be evaluated individually. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually I am reviewing a GA. The users claim there that IndiaGlitz is reliable, because it has been used as a source in Google News. No "About Us" page, who runs it, nothing. Xavier449 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Google news is just a news search engine. It does not differentiate between the silly and the sensible. So not a google news search hit is no more an establisher of RS then a google search hit would be.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree... the simple fact that something appears on Google has nothing to do with whether the source is reliable or not. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There is (unless they've changed it recently) human intervention in deciding which sources (NB not which individual articles) Google News will search, so it does exclude the "silly" to an extent. However it also does include a number of press-release distribution services, so you definitely cannot assume a Google News-indexed page is a reliable source for all purposes. Barnabypage (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Reliability is a question that is decided on a case-by-case basis by consensus guided by the criteria spelled out in WP:Identifying reliable sources. Whether or not something shows up in search engine results is completely irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I think this has been resolved. Xavier449 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources must be available free online?

In an AfD discussion, I provided numerous sources – some online, some references to academic journals etc. – to demonstrate the topic's notability. One of those arguing for deletion has objected to these citations, partly on the basis that "the supplied links [...] cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase." I was not aware of any rule that published books and so on are inadmissable in such cases, and would appreciate some guidance on the matter (either here or on the page itself). Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 20:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is none. However, if it is online but not free (registration or pay or subscription), it is appropriate to so note in the citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, thanks: this largely confirms what I thought was the case. I wonder why LibStar, who is fairly experienced, thought otherwise... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This is the relevant policy: WP:PAYWALL. In such cases maybe it's a good idea to quote the relevant material so that otehr editors can at least check your interpretation. My personal view is that sources should be accessible for free somewhere, even if that's just limited to libraries. If it's impossible to access something without paying (such as IMDB pro for instance) then in practice it makes verifiability unlikely. There shouldn't be any problems with books because most of them are accessible somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It has to be accessible, by someone, somewhere, at sometime, at whatever cost. When presenting quotes from the text supporting your position, remember copyright law and the problems of excessive quoting. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Scientific articles are generally available via research libraries. Online availability, wether for free or for a fee, is a bonus. Also consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Concur. Scientific articles are frequently in pay-for-subscription journals that one can access through an institution or public library, so they still meet WP:IRS. Generally if it is available online under subscription, there is also a print version that could be cited. Even journals that have switched to online-only tend to publish a bound print version a year later for libraries. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of thenewamerican.com

Hi. In reverting an editor wanting to alter the consensus-based, well-sourced lede of the John Birch Society, I've found that he's been updating references that are to the New American, referred to here at RSN only recently as the propaganda arm of the John Birch Society. And so I've seen for how many articles this site has been used as a reference. Here are the user contributions: Special:Contributions/Vitacore. He hasn't been putting all of them in himself - at least some have been used inadvertently by other editors. I don't want to go through and remove them, as I've just been in a minor (2RR) revert war with this particular editor. What do other people think? thenewamerican isn't RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The New American is published by the JBS. It is, of course, not a RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Publications of advocacy groups may meet RS, but are generally cited with attribution. For instance, the ACLU, NRA, SPLC, ADL, and EFF are often cited for their points of view on subjects where their views are notable. I don't see any reason why an established organization like the John Birch Society couldn't be cited in that fashion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
heh. I really wouldn't compare the ACLU with JBS in terms of notability! I think I didn't state my request clearly: I think these uses of newamerican are not justified in terms of "the JBS" said, they are used as if it was mainstream media, like an ordinary newspaper - not as the opinion of the JBS. But as I have been reverting this user, I was reluctant to start chasing round and removing the material from articles myself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't use it like a mainstream newspaper, but I could see using it on topics like the anticommunist movement or places where a "hard" right-wing or producerist opinion would be warranted. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
But see Recreate 68 - about a leftwing coalition, where it is being used to cite statements about what the group has said. Somehow I don't see it a reliable source, and it does look as though some of these links may be there more to push the organisation/publication than for any other reason. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be a case of REFIMPROVE. I still think The New American is permissible, but some of the figures could be cited to the Denver Post.[46] Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sturmkreig article about the "Russian-Holocaust"

This article (http://sturmkreig.wikkii.com/wiki/Russian-Holocaust) on Sturmkreig has information that would be useful for Rape during the occupation of Germany. It is well cited, uses reliable sources, (also used on our article) and is frequently monitored by Sysops, which increases the reliability of the content and reduces the vandalism risk. There should not be any reason why the information there is not reliable.

--Нэмка Алэкс 21:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be an open wiki and hence unreliable. In addtion, the main page http://sturmkreig.wikkii.com/wiki/Main_Page states that "Sturmkreig was created as a place to tell the story of the Sturmkreig Sub-Empire, a fictional network of planets created as part of the fictional history for the 403rd Army Group, and the Tiger Legion." How could a wiki devoted to a work of fiction possibly be a RS for real life? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Editing is restricted to registered users, and the German History (nonfiction) pages are well monitored, especially this one. As for the fiction on the site, Sturmkreig was originally created as a place for information about a futuristic Germanic civilization. Later it was decided to expand into non fiction German history, which is categorized completely separately.
--User:Anonymiss Madchen User talk:Anonymiss Madchen 01:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree. While you are correct that it appears to be "monitored", most internet forums have some form of moderation and restrict posting to registered users - this does not make them reliable. In fact this encyclopedia is not a reliable source, nor does it claim to be, but anonymous editing is not the only reason behind this. In the Sturmkreig Wiki, as with Wikipedia, there is no guarantee that anything you see has been subjected to editorial process before the reader sees it. There may be a system of monitoring of the encyclopedia, just like there is here, but there is no reasonable guarantee of fact-checking before publication which is the hallmark of a reliable source.
Let's say registered user "CAPTAINCAPSLOCK" makes a post about the Widget Empire that is completely made-up from the user's own imagination. At some point later, administrator "revertor-5" is monitoring the pages, notices the edit without proper citation, and reverts it. What if you happen to cite that information before it was reviewed by the administrator? The result is that you would be basing Wikipedia content on a user's imagination. Any information published through that source is not subject to an editorial fact-checking process before it is made public, and so the source is not a reliable source for either fictional or real life articles.
If there are reliable sources on the Sturmkreig wiki, as you pointed out, then why not use those sources for the article? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The website has a permanent link feature for the pages. Here's the permanent link to the current version of the page: http://sturmkreig.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=Russian-Holocaust&oldid=560. If a permanent link was used, and the cited information was checked first, would that be a reliable source since it wouldn't be subject to change?
--User:Anonymiss Madchen User talk:Anonymiss Madchen 02:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The bibliography for the page linked is incomplete, and of little use in finding the sources cited - no page numbers, publisher etc, it cannot be WP:RS. I'd say that if the relevant citations from Beevor and Bessel can be found, use them directly. Why go through a questionable website? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
If I could use the website, I'd be able to use brief quotes from it, which could be useful in addition to the books.
--Anonymiss Madchen Talk 03:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but you cannot do this, for exactly the same reason you can't cite Wikipedia itself as a source. There is insufficient information provided on the page cited to determine it's validity, even ignoring the fact that it is a tertiary source. It cannot be used as a reliable source in itself. Find the books. If they say what the page cited says, cite the books, with the relevant details (page numbers etc). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Not reliable. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Obviously not reliable. "Untermenchen"? What editorial review did that pass? Einstein is "the inventor of the Atomic Bomb"? Holocaust is mostly copied from (and attributed to) our article Holocaust). "Autism is a disorder that affects most of the Germanic population. [...] Because of Autism, Germans have been able to achieve many historic, scientific, philosophical, and artistic accomplishments"? Sorry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
A wiki, much like any other. Clearly fails WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Even less reliable than a normal wiki. Here is the main page description of that wiki: Sturmkreig was created as a place to tell the story of the Sturmkreig Sub-Empire, a fictional network of planets created as part of the fictional history for the 403rd Army Group, and the Tiger Legion. The wiki is also for other aspects of the Sturmkreig sub-empire. It's a wiki for a fictional world, not the real world. --Habap (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Extremist book used as a source

Rape during the occupation of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during World War II. J Robert Lilly. ISBN 978-0-230-50647-3 p.12

This book was passed off as a source at Wikipedia, to claim that Americans raped 11,000 German women during WWII. Based on the facts contained in Germany 1945, Taken by Force is claiming that the Americans were worse than the French. Also according to Germany 1945, this is completely inaccurate. This seems to be another implication that America is was not much better than the Nazis.

--r005k13 Talk That is Russian for Russian. 21:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This book, published by Palgrave, is written by an academic sociologist and qualifies as a reliable source without the slightest difficulty. Wikipedia ought to draw much more heavily on peer-reviewed scholarship of this sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Let me add that I don't find the number implausible. The current rate of rape in the US is 0.3/1000. Exclude people to young, too old, and too female to contribute significantly to that rate, it's about 2/1000 for military age men. And that's in peacetime. The US had several million troops in Germany, so 11000 rapes is not outrageously more than the current peacetime rate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The figure sounds entirely plausible, and in no way could be seen as implying that American troops were "not much better than the Nazis". If you've got a reliable source that indicates the figure is incorrect, let us have it.
(And what the heck is a 'liberal extremist' anyway?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Since reality has a well-known liberal bias, basically every academic who works in a field where reality does not agree with the perceptions of non-liberals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not in anyway think that it would make the US equivalent to the Nazis, however, there are people who are not considerate when pointing out US crimes, and they do not seem to be aware of the remaining differences between the US and the Nazis.
The problem with this source is that Germany 1945 gives detailed descriptions of British, US, and French occupations. According to the book, the French committed more crimes than the Americans, and the Americans committed few crimes and the only way that the Americans were "bad" occupiers was through being heavy handed administratively, although this was justified because of the situation.
--anonymissmadechen Talk That is Russian for Russian. 01:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure what you are saying. Is Germany 1945 another book on the subject? If it is, can you give us some more details so we can find it. Unless you can actually show us somewhere in Wikipedia where the book is being used to compare the US actions in WW2 with the Nazis, I'm not quite sure what you expect us to do anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we should mention here that we have an article on the book in question Taken by Force (book). Also, for the record, a book by a sociologist that has done the heavy work of going through court records and testimonies and what have you, in a narrow topic such as rape where he is an expert, is far more reliable on the specific topic of rape than an author who tries to make a broad overview of as much as possible of an occupation.
Also, I do not want to blur the topic, but if the French allegedly were so much worse than the Americans, then why did they allow the Red-Cross to send food to their prisoners so many months before the Americans rescinded their prohibition to Red-Cross food?[47]
For amusement you could read also this[48], it indicates that in some respects the Americans were deliberately "bad" occupiers. And here there is another interesting analysis[49]--Stor stark7 Speak 02:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we not get into petty arguments about who was worse than who? I don't think any of the participants in WW2 came out of it entirely smelling of roses, but that isn't what we are trying to deal with here, which is the reliability or otherwise of a cited source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Both Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during World War II and Germany 1945 (by which I presume this book is meant) are reliable sources. If they say different things then the relevant article(s) should cover both views. If the arguments in either book have been criticizsd in other reliable sources then these views should also be covered in the relevant article(s). Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They may both well be reliable sources, but if one is a general depiction of Germany at the relevant period, and another is a study of the particular topic in question, are they equally 'reliable sources' for the particular topic? I don't see any easy answer here. As Nick-D says, we really need to see reviews etc. I think it's worth mentioning that any statistics need careful comparison: are they from the same period, and using the same criteria? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Both sources are generally reliable; whether they are being used properly is a different question. Jayjg (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The first book was published by Macmillan, the second by Sterling I believe (owned by Barnes & Noble). Both are reputable publishers with a known history of fact-checking and careful editorial process. As this is the key measure of a reliable source, both sources should be considered reliable. Whatever we personally think about the figures is irrelevant. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Both books are written by experts, both are published by reasonable publishers, and, as far as I can make out, both books don't even disagree. As pointed out above, the number of rapes reported by Lilly is not extraordinary. According to the OP, Germany 1945 only talks about generic "crimes", which presumably in post-war Europe would be dominated by theft, not rape. Lilly covers invasion and occupation, Bessel (at least according to to OP's description) only occupation. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose, since I was the one that significantly expanded the Taken By Force article, I should put in a word here. While I certainly believe that Taken By Force is a reliable source, considering the incredibly extensive amount of reports and figures that the author had to go through to ensure that the numbers were practically irrefutable, I also believe that Germany 1945 is a reliable source. However, I would take the same stance that Stephan Schulz points out just above this comment, that the two books are not necessarily considering the same fact and figures in their numbers. Taken by Force does consider rapes during occupation, especially in England and a good amount in France, but it also considers rapes done during invasion to an incredible degree. Especially when we're talking about Germany, a majority of the rapes were committed during and by the invasion forces, not the occupying forces. Because Bessel does not consider rapes from invasion forces in Germany 1945, I do not believe the two authors' numbers are necessarily mutually exclusive. Bessel could be correct for his numbers in terms of occupying forces and Lilly could be correct for his figures that includes and adds in the invasion forces. I personally don't see the problem here. SilverserenC 21:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This source mentions Lilly's methodology on page 218.[50] Lilly assumed only 5% of all rapes were reported, while other analysts assume significantly larger percentage was reported. Edward321 (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If you had provided an academic book-review that challenged Lillys methodology then that would have been interesting. As is I don't see the motive for bringing in that book-footnote, nor any real value in it. I also think you are slightly misreading that particular footnote. Where is says "other analysts estimate that approximately 50% of actual rapes are reported" there is no indication given that the author is referring to the WWII military rapes Lilly analysed, and neither is a cite given for the number. This is hardly surprising since most estimates of the current peace-time underreporting of rape is 40%-60% percent, hence this modern peace-time figure is the one being referred to in the footnote. The 5% figure instead comes from "Sexual Offences. A Report of the Cambridge Department of Criminal Science". Preface by L. Radzinowicz, LL.D. 1957. Note also the text a bit further down in the footnote you linked to re. the situation of military rapes that Lilly looked at. "it was the commanding officer - not the victim - that brought charges, a situation that would make unreported rapes more likely." Personally I would also hazard to guess that language barriers (English - French - German), and the fact of being considered an enemy with which even speaking to children was prohibited, might have further contributed to underreporting. Either case, if there was any doubt against Lillys methodology it would doubtless have turned up in a review by now.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
To put the period into context, both regarding number of rapes, and the under-reporting of them, this is a quote from Peter Schrijvers book "The GI War against Japan", p.212 " Exactly how many Okinawan women were raped by American troops will never be known, as the victims were either too ashamed – or too frightened – to report the crime. The estimate of one Okinawan historian for the entire three-month period of the campaign exceeds 10,000."--Stor stark7 Speak 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A recent 2009 study

A recent 2009 study was deleted from Chiropractic#Treatment techniques. See Talk:Chiropractic#New Section: Causes of Adverse Effects from Chiropractic Techniques for the discussion.

This specific proposal is to restore the text. "A 2009 study to assess the prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries sustained by chiropractic students receiving and/or administering manipulation while attending a chiropractic college found the prevalence of injuries sustained was 31%, 44% of which was exacerbations of preexisting injuries. Injuries from receiving manipulation were most prevalent in the neck/shoulder at 65%, while hand/wrist injuries were most common when administering manipulations at 45%. Diversified, Gonstead, and upper cervical manipulations methods were considered to be the most related to injuries.[2]"[51]

See WP:VERIFYRELIABILITY: "Where a topic is subject to academic research – whether it be hard science, social science or the humanities – Wikipedia articles should include the current status of research." QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a decent study, but it's a primary source, so I think it's use should be avoided. Are there no secondary sources treating this issue? One would assume there are. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There are no other sources treating this issue. According to what in V policy this source should be avoided. This is the best source available.
The WP:VERIFYRELIABILITY shortcut was deleted: "Where a topic is subject to academic research – whether it be hard science, social science or the humanities – Wikipedia articles should include the current status of research." was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
We can't include every primary source that relates to chiropractic, and I feel that this one fails WP:UNDUE. Let's abide by the consensus at the article to stick to review articles/secondary sources, and wait and see if a secondary source mentions this topic. DigitalC (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not exactly the 'current status of scientific research', QG. It's one study which is barely relevant to the section. The section is Treatment Techniques, but the article is about the risk of injury faced by chiropractic students at a chiropractic college (who are worked on by other students). Moreover, it's not only a primary study but a primary study which relies on self-reported surveys. It's pretty close to the bottom of the study barrel. You've also been somewhat inconsistent in your tolerance of primary sources at this article. Why are primary studies which are less critical of Chiropractic excluded or minimized, but this primary study deserves its own paragraph? Last, where sources are in dispute, it's customary to leave notice either at the article talk page or the talk pages of involved editors, so they can weigh in. I think you know this already, but please do so. Ocaasi (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I share DigitalC's and Ocaasi's concerns and POV on this one. We'd need secondary sources that address this issue specifically. This all borders on OR using a primary source. That doesn't mean there isn't an issue or a subject, but it needs to be dealt with in a better manner. Until secondary sources do that, we're left with the option of simply not mentioning it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There's still the concern about too much weight given to a single research study. This is a very general article. All content aside, and all personal opinions about the content aside, is this study really so important that it must be included in the encyclopedia despite no third-party coverage? This isn't a reliability question, it's one of notability and shouldn't be decided here. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh, a shortcut created six weeks ago by QuackGuru, to point to a sentence (not currently present in the policy) that he's been trying to edit-war into WP:V for about as long. I don't think that is really the best expression of the community's consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and FWIW, a quick search undercovers a number of books that could serve as reliable sources on the general issue, although they may not say what a particular editor might wish them to say. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is IdleBrain a good source for Telugu movies

Can IdleBrain be considered reliable for Telugu movie review, news etc...A reliable news source [52] says its a very successful site. Additionally, it has been named as the Best Telugu Film website [53]. It has also been praised here Thanks, Xavier449 (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This does not look like a reliable source. It is basically a SPS - a film fan website that started as a hobby and is now making some money. The cited articles don't say that it is a reliable source, they say it is popular. Big difference. Fladrif (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

RELIABLE SOURCE Effectiveness of alcoholics anonymous page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous

This source is in question, it is unpublished, with unnamed authors, questionable math, and certainly pov Arthur S; Tom E., Glenn C (11 October 2008). Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Recovery Outcome Rates: Contemporary Myth and Misinterpretation. Archived from the original on 2009-12-19. http://www.webcitation.org/5mA3r6hSn. Retrieved 2009-12-19. the pdf link attached here. http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf


Basically what they are trying to do is make results that look really bad and make them not so bad. When you get a group of people for example: a trait lets say IQ. There is a gamut of people from dumb to smart. On a normal curve the smart people would be on the right side of the graph. What they are trying to do is only include the people on the right side and say look at what geniuses we are. The normalization factor is used wrongly to bring the total population up to 100 so you can count retention. You can't do this, that 100% of the population is already included in the graph so you cannot multiply anythiing to come up with a retention rate. Jayseer (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No. What you are doing is trying to argue that a graph which clearly shows attrition of 26% (from 19% to 5%) and pretend it shows attrition of 95%. A question, where is 100% on the graph? Mr Miles (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a classic example of lies, damned lies, and statistics. The site cvannot be considered a RS. - Nick Thorne talk 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Harry Hodgkinson's “Scanderbeg: From Ottoman Captive to Albanian Hero”, in Skanderbeg article

Is book “Scanderbeg: From Ottoman Captive to Albanian Hero” whose main author is Harry Hodgkinson with coauthors: Bejtullah D. Destani, Westrow Cooper and David Abulafia, published by The Centre for Albanian Studies in 1999 reliable source?

Please take in consideration that:

  • Professor James Pettifer, British academic, who has specialised in Balkan affairs, educated in Oxford, professor in the Institute of Balkan Studies, a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs...... etc.... wrote here that Harry Hodgkinson “left school at the age of 16” and that “throughout his life he took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions” being "intelligence officer".
  • Bejtullah D. Dostani is founder and owner of The Centre for Albanian Studies
  • "goals of the CAS are to publish books, pamphlets and to also organise conferences and seminars relating to Albania, Kosova and Albanian speaking world"
  • Bejtullah D. Destani (founder and owner of The Centre for Albanian Studies) is in this letter written by Noel Malcolm described as man who "pay for the basic costs (editorial work, layout, and printing) of each book. Far from gaining financially himself, he is constantly spending his own money on these projects;"
  • Here is link to site with biography of Westrow Cooper, another coeditor of Harry Hodgkison's Skanderbeg. He is " freelance writer and designer."


  1. A full citation of the source in question: Hodgkinson, Harry (1999), Scanderbeg: From Ottoman Captive to Albanian Hero, Centre for Albanian Studies, ISBN 9781873928134
  2. A link to the source in question.: snippet view, since not available online
  3. The article in which it is being used.: Skanderbeg
  4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.: Please find list below.
  5. Links to relevant talk page discussion.: Scanderbeg discussion page with diff here

Please find below list of statements referenced with this source:

  1. Skanderbeg is derived from the combination of Iskender (a Turkish word derived from Alexander) and the Turkish appellative Bey (for Lord or Prince).
  2. Coat of arms
    Coat of arms of the Kastrioti family<ref name=Hodgkinson2005>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=xix}}</ref>
  3. Gjergj Arianit Komneni, who was a distant relation of the Byzantine Komnenos dynasty through one of his great-grandmothers)<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240">{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=240}}</ref>
  4. Skanderbeg...... had absolute control over the men from his own dominions, and had to convince the other princes to follow his policies and tactics.<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240"/>
  5. About 8,000 Turks were killed and 2,000 were captured.<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240"/>
  6. At the same time, he besieged the towns of Durazzo (modern Durrës) and Lezhë which were then under Venetian rule.<ref name=Hodgkinson1999p85>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|1999|p=85}}</ref>
  7. In late summer 1448, due to a lack of potable water,[B] the Albanian garrison eventually surrendered the castle with the condition of safe passage through the Ottoman besieging forces, a condition which was accepted and respected by Sultan Murad II.<ref name=Hodgkinson1999p102>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|1999|p=102}}</ref>
  8. Although his loss of men was minimal, Skanderbeg lost the castle of Svetigrad, which was an important stronghold that controlled the fields of Macedonia to the east.<ref name=Hodgkinson1999p102/>
  9. The Second Siege of Krujë was eventually broken, resulting in the death of Ballaban Pasha by an Albanian arquebusier<ref name="Hodgkinson2005p240"/><ref name=Noli2009p35/>
  10. Skanderbeg is considered today a commanding figure not only in the national consciousness of Albania but also of 15th-century European history.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pix>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=ix}}</ref>
  11. According to archival documents, there is no doubt that Skanderbeg had already achieved a reputation as a hero in his own time.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=xii}}</ref>
  12. The failure of most European nations, with the exception of Naples, to give him support, along with the failure of Pope Pius II's plans to organize a promised crusade against the Turks meant that none of Skanderbeg's victories permanently hindered the Ottomans from invading the Western Balkans.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii/>
  13. When in 1481 Sultan Mehmet II captured Otranto, he massacred the male population, thus proving what Skanderbeg had been warning about.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii/>
  14. Skanderbeg's main legacy was the inspiration he gave to all of those who saw in him a symbol of the struggle of Christendom against the Ottoman Empire.<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxiii>{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|2005|p=xiii}}</ref>
  15. With much of the Balkans under Ottoman rule and with the Turks at the gates of Vienna in 1683, nothing could have captivated readers in the West more than an action-packed tale of heroic Christian resistance to the "Moslem hordes".<ref name=Hodgkinson2005pxii/>

This is first time that I approached to WP:RS noticeboard. Therefore, besides checking reliability of this source please feel free to comment on any mistake I made in this comment on the WP:RS noticeboard. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for presenting this information clearly! I know this might be a frustrating answer, but I think your concerns above are concerning WP:POV and not WP:RS. Concerning WP:RS this noticeboard can often (not always) give clear advice. But concerning "point of view" and "neutrality" Wikipedians generally have to find ways to work together. I say this because to me this source looks fine for use on Wikipedia. Source reliability is not affected by a source having a point of view. All sources may have a point of view. I note there are three authors by the way. I've read works by David Abulafia before which were about other parts of the Mediterranean. Having said that, when a source is thought to have a very strong point of view it is sometimes appropriate to present its information carefully IF it is being used to say something controversial. For example instead of "Skanderbeg had superhuman powers" you could adjust it to "according to some commentators, Skanderbeg had superhuman powers" (exaggerating for the sake of clarity). Looking through your bullet points however, most do not seem terribly controversial. If you are just asking "on principle" that a source do not be used because it is has a pro-Skanderbeg point of view, I do not think the community will agree with you. A more acceptable approach, if your aim is balance, is to go get more good sources and give the article whatever you think it is missing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have some concern that one of the authors of the book also is the founder of the institute that published it. That raises the question of WP:SPS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster, I am not "just asking "on principle" that a source do not be used because it has pro-Skanderbeg point of view". I was not trying to resolve disputes on numerous POV issues in the article by making it more balanced with disqualifying source with certain POV using opinions from this noticeboard. My main and only simple aim was to get some opinion about reliability of the source. That is what this noticeboard is for.
Regardless of my concerns and aims about POV of the article, regardless my bullet points and lack (?) of their controversy, I think that we should focus on policies of wikipedia. I believe that this source is not reliable and that using this source is violating three wikipedia policies connected with reliability of the source (WP:RS, WP:SPS and even WP:NPOV). According to WP:RS only those sources that are "published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" may be considered reliable. According to WP:SPS " self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.". Publisher violated NPOV by self-publishing works, and Hodgkinson's authoritativeness and neutrality were disputed by very credible expert in his obituary.
I believe that violation of fundamental principles and policies of wikipedia by excessive (15 statements) using of sources that are not reliable should not be tolerated, even if Scanderbeg article was not nominated for GA.
If I am wrong, I will not be frustrated, but happy that I learned something new. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz said he could see reason to raise the issue of SPS, but no one here has yet gone beyond raising the issue. Having founded an institute that publishes something you wrote is a lead to check, but not yet conclusive. Are you saying the institute is just a vehicle for self-publication like a "vanity press"? What I understood from your first posts was that the institute is an entity with its own existence and activities. Your original concern indeed, seemed to be that you thought it showed a very strong point of view.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The book is a posthumous publication (HH died 1994, the earliest edition I can find is 1999). This suggests to me that the other authors listed may have played a significant part in assembling the book. I've found that although my local University library has a range of books on Scanderbeg dating back to 1664 it doesn't have a copy of HH's book- maybe the price tag of 40 GBP for a 240-page paperback put them off! The first page, available as a preview on Amazon, is written in purple prose not indicative of a serious historical work. I wouldn't consider it as an RS. Ning-ning (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't find Hodgkinson conclusions or citations, as fringe or controversial. Practically you can find the same things on other sources related to Scanderbeg. Take the case of Noli (XXth century main biographer in English literature of Scanderbeg). Noli was himself a priest but just take a look at citations of his work. I don't remember any scholar dealing with the topic claiming "Hey this Noli was a priest, therefore his work is not RS" ..on the contrary, his work on Scanderbeg is highly considered among historians. Returning to Hodgkinson, his work on Scanderbeg has been cited also.

P.S. Remember that there are too few biographers of Scanderbeg in English language in XXth century, and none of the so called "great historians of XXth century" has dealt with Scanderbeg alone. When they do have to mention Scanderbeg war the mostly refer to Noli (his first biography on Scanderbeg was in 1921 and the last revision in 1960') and others. On the other side we have many Albanian scholars (Frasheri, Bicoku etc) who have written Scanderbeg biographies even after 1990 and 2000, but unfortunately they are in Albanian so practically unknown on English speakers (Apart professional historians who do know their works) Aigest (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Academic historical texts in Albanian can be used; translations can be arranged so that we can see if they are reflected accurately. Another possibility is to use more general historical works, even if what they say about Skanderbeg is a bit limited. For history articles we should use the work of mainstream academic historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Although I do find some Hodkingson conclusions very controversial, this is not noticeboard that deals with content of the source, but relevance of the source itself. If somebody self-published work of person who died 5 years before, and who was not scholar because he ran away from school when he was 16 and later was intelligence officer famous for his anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions then, (I believe and would appreciate other users comments), using such text as source on wikipedia violates WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:NPOV, although “there are too few biographers of Scanderbeg in English language in XXth century”. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
[Edit conflict with Antidiskriminator:] This is an odd publication. British libraries don't seem to have got it, in spite of copyright laws. Library of Congress has a copy, and credits the author, the two editors, and David Abulafia who wrote the introduction. I can't look inside (Amazon won't let me, for some reason).
The author, I gather from above, is said to have been a Balkan expert but not a scholar. Well, to write a reliable book on 15th century history you would have to be a historical scholar or very good at pasting; being a modern Balkan expert doesn't cut it. You would also have to be alive: not only did Hodgkinson die in 1994, the other books he wrote were published in 1952 and 1955 (and were strongly political).
Scholarship might be added by the two editors or by Abulafia. So far as we can tell from the LoC catalogue, Abulafia didn't touch the text; what the introduction amounts to, we don't know. Was it even newly written for this book? We don't know. Bejtullah Destani (as indicated above) is the Centre for Albanian Studies, which has a friendly link with the publisher of the reprint, I. B. Tauris. Westrow Cooper is a "copywriter" (so I gather from googling him): at a guess (but this could be quite wrong) he took an unpublishable manuscript or set of notes left by Hodgkinson and made it publishable.
Anyone with better knowledge of the book's history might correct me at many points. Without such knowledge, I wouldn't risk treating this book as a reliable source on Scanderbeg. Andrew Dalby 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I had not realized that David Abulafia only did the intro, which is what some are asserting above, so the facts arrayed now make the source sound less authoritative. Nevertheless, if he wrote the intro then, given that we all agree this is about WP:RS and not about WP:POV, it is not for us to judge why he put his stamp of approval on the book but it sounds like something that would normally be considered a good sign here. A couple of arguments I find unconvincing above:-

  • "one of the authors of the book also is the founder of the institute that published it. That raises the question of WP:SPS." Raises a question, but does not answer it. I think that without further information there is no reason to equate the institute with the author as an SPS vehicle.
  • "to write a reliable book on 15th century history you would have to be a historical scholar or very good at pasting; being a modern Balkan expert doesn't cut it". That would be an example of Wikipedians deciding what makes a good author, not the field. We do not get to judge like this generally. It is sometimes argued that we are allowed to be judgemental about things like qualifications when there are WP:REDFLAG conclusions being drawn but the things being sourced do not look like red flags to me.

I would think it relevant to check whether this book is being cited or reviewed by historians. But for now I see no reason to delete materials cited by it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, thank you for your comments, but I am not sure if you find this source reliable or not since you agree that there is question about WP:SPS and propose to investigate if this work is cited and reviewed by historians, but still would not "delete materials cited by it". This is first time I wrote on this noticeboard and I may be inexperienced user that does not understand this noticeboard completely, and therefore I apologize if I will make mistake with below comment.
I think that we should focus and write opinion about reliability of this source based on informations about this source:
  1. coedited by Bejtullah Dostani
  2. published by Bejtullah Dostani
  3. in publishing company founded and solely owned by Bejtullah Dostani
  4. which name is The Centre for Albanian Studies, which main aim is “to publish books, pamphlets and to also organise conferences and seminars relating to Albania, Kosova and Albanian speaking world” (click here if it still does not ring the bell)
  5. with costs connected with editing, printing and publishing paid by Bejtullah Dostani
  6. man (Harry Hodgkinson) who was presented as main author of the book about 15th century history ran away from school when he was 16, died 5 years before this book is published, has never wrote a book on history in his life, was "intelligence officer", published 2 books on politics 42 and 39 years before he died and was described (by professor James Pettifer, British academic, who has specialised in Balkan affairs, educated in Oxford, professor in the Institute of Balkan Studies, a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, etc.) that “throughout his life he took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions”
In WP:IRS it is clearly written that reliable source has three related meanings:
  1. piece of work itself
  2. creator of the work
  3. publisher of the work
"All three can affect reliability" Is this work reliable source for Skanderbeg article in the way requested by WP:RS policy? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, no I did not say I see it as a self published source. I indicated that I thought it might be a question worth raising, but I also indicated that it did not seem like one from what you've said so far. Indeed in your new post you are trying to judge the author yourself, and to remind you once more, that is not how we generally work on Wikipedia. What is your argument for saying the Institute which published this book is like a vanity press?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No Andrew Lancaster, you did not say that "it might be a question worth raising". You said: “Raises a question, but does not answer it.” Please forget about me, my judgement of the author, my concerns about POV of the article, my reasons for aproaching to this noticeboard, me probably being frustrated with your answers, me "just asking "on principle" that a source do not be used because it is has a pro-Skanderbeg point of view", my aims about POV of the article, my bullet points and lack (?) of their controversy, my ..... anything. Please, (for the third time) focus on policies of wikipedia and write opinion about reliability of this source in context of using in Skanderbeg article. If “that is not how we generally work on Wikipedia” please help me and inform me how we generally work on Wikipedia?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[Commenting on a couple of points raised by Andrew lancaster:] "Vanity press" isn't the right term, I'd say. My impression from Web sources is that the Institute doesn't appear to have any existence independent of Destani: he perhaps uses it as a name under which to publish books he chooses, but surely not for reasons of vanity, more likely to forward his point of view on Albania and its neighbours.
As for Abulafia, the fact that he wrote an introduction (this is what the Library of Congress says, it's not an unsupported assertion) might mean that he put his stamp of approval on the book, but it might not. We would need to read his introduction to know. Andrew Dalby 22:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the best way to check is to see if this work is being cited by more clear reliable sources as if it were a reliable source. I continue to feel some caution about deletions of relatively uncontroversial materials based on the concerns of one editor whose main concern is obviously POV rather than reliability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, citations in other historical work will be the crucial factor in deciding whether this book is reliable or not. Andrew Dalby 09:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Reliability is defined by WP:RS. Besides WP:RS, "reliability is often dependent upon context". Therefore it is requested to provide links to five things (name of source, link to source, article, statements and talk page discussions). Based on this, I have to state that I don't agree with you Andrew Dalby, Andrew Lancaster and Aigest. There are following main reasons:
  1. You were not focused on request of WP:RS and three related meanings of reliability of the source (work, author, publisher). Your opinion that this source could be accepted as reliable if there are "citations in other historical work" because you believe that it contains “relatively uncontroversial materials” does not consider all “three related meanings of reliability of the source” requested by WP:RS
  2. Context. Maybe most important reason for me not agreeing with three of you is that I think you were not focused on second important thing for determining reliability of the source.Context of the article and relevant talk page discussion. Instead, some users considered me and my concerns and context of my question here. I believe that if you take in consideration context of the article and relevant talk page discussions you would notice following things: article has been subject to numerous heated discussions, numerous disputes that are affecting not only certain sentences, but used perspective for writing the article, there are two groups of editors that participated in editing and discussing the article, one group reached consensus that article is "massive POV" and submitted almost hundred sources aimed to balance perspective of the article and make it NPOV and another described by some users as "editors struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article", almost hundred different sources were disqualified by "editors struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article" (many of them written by authoritative scholars for history, published by reliable publishing companies with citation list that would take hundreds of pages to be presented), ... If three of you conclude that this source is reliable, you would make precedent that could intensify conflicts and disputes, because editors from both groups could misuse this precedent in the conflict. One group to continue their “struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article” and another to introduce more sources that do not correspond with reliability defined by WP:RS (based on precedent you could make). I believe that sources that should be used in articles with so much dispute and conflicts should, at least, not have lower limits for reliability than requested by WP:RS
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well no, this discussion would not be setting a precedent because this kind of debate happens all the time, with the Balkans coming up often. The approach I have been describing has developed partly as the least bad solution that actually works in precisely such cases. We separate reliability from neutrality, and then we say that concerning neutrality our aim is to present all points of view, not delete any unless they are both un-notable and un-sourceable. You object to a source which you think is pro-Albanian and anti-Serbian and anti-Bulgarian. The solution we keep finding works best is saying that it is better for you to find pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian sources to get balance, rather than trying to filter and censor. The difficulty in practice then sometimes comes with deciding how exactly to present the various sources, but that is not normally a question for this noticeboard. (But how would a pro Serbian source disagree with a pro-Albanian source concerning a coat of arms for example?) Anyway, it still seems to me that your own concerns are more to do with neutrality and point of view than with reliability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I find your advice: “it is better for you to find pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian sources to get balance” directly opposed to the requirements of WP:RS and WP:NPOV that state “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources” and only “when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance.” I think that your advice “it is better for you to find pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian sources to get balance” is like advice to extinguish fire with gasoline. I understood completely your position but I do not agree with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It does not sound like you do get what I mean. You emphasize the word reputable, but almost every concern you've expressed is about the principle of neutrality - not about reliability (and also not about any concrete neutrality issues). I distinguish that it seems to only be about the principle and not concrete neutrality issues because perhaps my advice does not make sense in the real case, because perhaps there is not real disagreement between pro-Albanian and pro-Serbian sources concerning, for example, a coat of arms? And so perhaps there would be no real point to "balancing" the positions being cited anyway. I am just saying that being a reliable partisan for a particular position does not make you unreliable. That is the way we split up reliability and neutrality here on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I made mistake with emphasizing. I should emphasize reliable (the way how we here on Wikipedia describe it as "three related meanings of reliability of the source" (work, author, publisher).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There are scholars who do use him or recommend him.

  1. The grand Turk: Sultan Mehmet II, conqueror of Constantinople and master of an empire Author John Freely Publisher Penguin, 2009 ISBN 1590202481, 9781590202487 link
  2. Das Sein der Dauer Volume 34 of Miscellanea mediaevalia Authors Andreas Speer, David Wirmer Editors Andreas Speer, David Wirmer Edition illustrated Publisher de Gruyter, 2008 ISBN 311020309X, 9783110203097 link
  3. Archeologia medievale, Volume 30 Publisher All'Insegna del Giglio, 2003 ISBN 8878142255, 9788878142251 link
  4. Civic Christianity in renaissance Italy: the Hospital of Treviso, 1400-1530 Author David Michael D'Andrea Edition illustrated, annotated Publisher University Rochester Press, 2007 ISBN 1580462391, 9781580462396 link
  5. New Turkes: dramatizing Islam and the Ottomans in early modern England Author Matthew Dimmock Edition illustrated Publisher Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005 ISBN 0754650227, 9780754650225 link
  6. Raumstrukturen und Grenzen in Südosteuropa Author Cay Lienau Editor Cay Lienau Publisher Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, ISBN 3925450947, 9783925450945 link
  7. The Rule of Law in Comparative Perspective Author Mortimer Sellers Editors Mortimer Sellers, Tadeusz Tomaszewski Publisher Springer, 2010 ISBN 9048137489, 9789048137480 link
  8. Staatsbürger aus Widerruf: Juden und Muslime als Alteritätspartner im rumänischen und serbischen Nationscode : ethnonationale Staatsbürgerschaftskonzepte 1878-1941 Volume 41 of Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen Volume 41 of Balkanologische Veröffentichungen Osteuropa-Institut der Freien Universität Berlin Author Dietmar Müller Publisher Harrassowitz, 2005 ISBN 3447052481, 9783447052481 link

Aigest (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To me at least these sources seem to make the source reliable in the sense of showing that people who are published in this field treat it as reliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Thanks for doing the legwork, Aigest. Andrew Dalby 11:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I made mistake and failed to include this section of the discussion talk of the article that shows that work of Harry Hodgkinson is used to disqualify work of Karl Hopf. I am not sure if it can affect this discussion, but since it is context that is propositioned to be taken in consideration, I am providing this link.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That issue has been clarified in the same talk page some days latter, but as Lancaster said, you Antid ignore the others' answers and keep insisting in the same questions. Typical [WP:IDHT]] behavior. Aigest (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I do not know how to conclude this discussion, since this is first time I am participating in some discussion here. Till now we had three users that had opinion that above mentioned source is reliable:

  1. Andrew Lancaster
  2. alby
  3. Aigest

and we had other users that did not had opinion that mentioned source is reliable:

  1. Antidiskriminator
  2. Stephan Schulz
  3. Itsmejudith
  4. Ning-ning

What is conclusion of this discussion? Is it too early to make conclusion that no consensus has been made?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you want to try to get people voting, then if I had to choose I'd say keep. So I accept where you've pigeon-holed me. I say this also after noting your latest diffs, which are about a 19th century scholar whose WP article is a stub you started. I also went to the talk page debate you noted as evidence and saw yet more editors noting very similar concerns about your position and apparent lack of policy-based rationale. It is starting to look like you are going to keep asking the same questions, ignoring the answers, until someone gives the answer you want. I fail to see any major RS concern here of a type serious enough to raise concerns about the material being cited.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your input, it is appreciated, and sorry about the conversation turning down unfruitful paths, since this is first time I am participating in some discussion here. Next time I will try to avoid lack of policy-based rationale. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming in on this late, but it seems to me the list provided shows experts in the field consider this to be a reliable source. Abulafia is not a co-author, he wrote the introduction. Cooper and Destani are not co-authors, they are editors. Almost everything listed as being sourced by this work is in no way controversial.Edward321 (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Too much fuss about a man who writes for passtime. Prof. Oliver Schmitt put it in a more lughable way, talking about "british secret agents of 2nd WW (H.Hodgkinson), who did not check any archive." Needless to say that Schmitt didn't count H.H. as a source. (in Oliver J. Schmitt: Der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan, p. 8.).--Exodic2 (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC) — Exodic2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  1. ^ http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=10
  2. ^ Ndetan, H. T.; Rupert, R. L.; Bae, S.; Singh, K. P. (2009). "Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Injuries Sustained by Students While Attending a Chiropractic College". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 32 (2): 140–148. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.12.012. PMID 19243726.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82&oldid=1207690184"