Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

How do we stand regarding this issue? For exemple, do we accept a work of a Palestinian historian to source Israeli historical events, or basicaly any work of someone who can potentialy have a conflict of interess regarding the issue debating? FkpCascais (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself this: Would you challenge the work of an Israeli historian as a source for Palestinian events?

Author nationality is not a consideration, and sources do not have to be neutral to be considered reliable. Now, it may be that what they say should be phrased as being an opinion, and not accepted as unattributed fact, but that is a different matter. Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I supose that in any case of exceptional claims WP:REDFLAG is used, so I supose any radical views that an author of one side does regarding the other they would have to be further suported by another neutral authors. Regarding your first question, and if radical views are expressed, well, yes, I would be extremely cautious and I´ll try to find more sources to confirm that, possibly from non-involved authors. Maybe I´m wrong, but are there any policies on this? FkpCascais (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a policy on this... please see: WP:Neutral point of view (which discusses the need for Wikipedia editors to maintain a neutral point of view and present both sides of a debate. Especially when we suspect that the sources may not be neutral.) Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew that one, but the problem is when you have an user saying the claim is not exceptional, and refuses to even consider suspicious "his" source (which has this nationality conflict of interes problem, and is exceptional on many claims). I´ll try to post the exact source in question here later.

It is always best to give a specific article, assertion and source as set forth at the top of this page. It is very hard to answer these questions in the abstract. See the "Roman emperors" section above for some detailed discussion of historical sources, including reference to this and other policies. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All histories published in the scholarly mode are inherently reliable by Wikipedia standards. However, every history has a distinctive POV and historiographical attitude. The way to correctly WEIGHT multiple (inherently and necessarily) POV scholarly histories is to seek "Review Articles" and historiography sections, where historians themselves weight and evaluate the credibility of published histories. The American Historical Association journal provides many single work book reviews by historians judging their value, and provides at least one Review Article of historiography in a field each issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author in question is Jozo Tomasevich (born Jozo Tomašević in Croatia, Yugoslavia). He wrote a book about the Chetniks in "Tomasevich, Jozo, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: The Chetniks. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975". The problem here is that he wrote his book while being within communist Yugoslavia (known for not having freedom of speach on political issues such as these) and adding that being an ethnic Croat does make him a personal conflict of interess to correctly analise a Serbian monarchic movement that fought both, Croatia and other Axis powers, and Tito Partisans. The note is that Tito Partisans won, and as the monarchist Chetniks were their major interimn rivals, obviously that Tito found someone like Tomasevic that would probably not have any simpathy at all towards them (possibly even a deeper negative feeling) to rewrite about the WWI events. The fact that Chetniks were Serbian movement in nature make a Croat almost authomatically to dislike them, and the fact that he wrote it within SFR Yugoslavia of Tito made it to be encouraged to nazify them totally, since both fought against eachother, having the Partisans won at the end. Tito Yugoslavia made an open policy of deniying all resistance afforts to the Chetniks, and all articles we have here on WP were basically writen to totaly nazify the movement using mostly Tomasevich as source. Even Tomasevich fails to exagerate too much, but anyway fails to present them in a fair perspective (evidence, denies them all resistance efforts as dictated by the regime at that time, and ignores them the high condecorations for resistance efforts given by France and US, also ignoring the post-mortum US Congress trial that relised Mihailovic, Chetnik leader, of all charges of treason and collaboration he was acused at a Tito organised trial just after the war). This issue is currently under mediation, and one side has basically been using Tomasevich to write all negative about the movement, with the advantage of the author having emigrated later to the US and having receved some good per-review I would dare to say that mostly and probably because of the political interess in that period of avoiding confrontation with Tito Yugoslavia, and avoiding waiking up a possible Serbian monarchic movement in that period (1970´s and 1980s). I would really apreciate any comments on this, and I thank in advance any minut of any of you spared for this. FkpCascais (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book is published by Stanford, a reputable university press with a reputation for peer review, so it qualifies as a reliable source under our rules. It is hard to win an argument here that a book from a university press is so error-ridden or biased that it should not be used at all. The better practice is to find your own equally reliable sources for a countervailing assertion or insight ("According to some historians...However, others say..."). See 1660 destruction of Safed for an article where we had to work out similar issues (some sources say the Jewish population of the town was completely wiped out by Arabs, others say they were caught in a crossfire between Druze and Ottoman fighters and left temporarily, so we report all views). Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One participant had already proposed that aproach, but the user massively using Tomasevic has oposed that by insisting on the type of argument of "why citing him when he is right". Yesterday I speared time and read one of the books and I concluded that the other user (just as I already suspected) has been selectively citing parts of the book, ignoring the context and the rest written. The general tone of the book is a bit tendentious, but acomplishes in its pretention of trying to be fair and is far from being as biased as what the user citing him made it look like, because he missinterpreted, exagerated meanings and selectevily used only parts. Now, me and other participants have been preparing other sources as well, so your proposed solution of simplifiying by "X said this... and Y said that..." seems to be the best approach for controversial articles. It also facilitates the aplication of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:V. Many thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a photo that was downloaded from flickr. The photo shows people standing in a posed group in normal street clothing. The flickr page claims it is a netball team in Malawi, but the person who uploaded the photo to flickr is not the Wikipedia editor who uploaded it to Commons. Is flickr a reliable source for the fact that this is not some other group of people? This situation will come up many times in the future. Racepacket (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, flickr is not a reliable source. Is the picture being used to illustrate or verify? For some reason, Wikipedia has adopted lower standards for the reliability of illustrations. See Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature: "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken" Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original flikr photographer describes it as the netball team and the commons upload reflects the original information. So as a reliable source to what the photographer thought he took then I dont see a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know who the original photographer is or whether they misdescribed a photo. Most photos are subject to verification. Somebody will recognize a political figure or a geographical feature. I think that a group of people standing together raises special concerns. I could take a random photo and claim it is the winning group of the 2007 hog calling contest and there is no way for anyone to verify my claim. How do we know whether there was a 2007 hog calling contest or a Malawi netball team? Racepacket (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus(talk) 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't, but we wouldn't know it with a Commons editor misdescribing it either. One needs to apply a measure of common sense, in many cases pictures are working fine as illustration and you can be relatively certain that the description is correct.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it count as WP:SPS since, you know, anyone can upload whatever they want to and claim that it is what they they think it is? Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate response was "no", but as noted the standard is "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". The publisher is contactable on flickr, the date, time, and place of the photon is given, so it's theoretically verifiable, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt his description. The publisher of a photo would be an RS for the content of the photo. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that flickr is not a reliable source, but a self-published one, and hence reliably only to the extent that individual contributors are. However, reliable sources are not required for illustrations, so the question is moot. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that this photograph is useful for the purpose for which it is being used (to illustrate articles about Netball and Netball in Africa). As Insider mentions above, the standard is that "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate". The women in this photo aren't dressed in netball uniforms, nor are they playing netball or standing on or near a netball court. All that connects them to netball is the original photo caption that claims they are a netball team. Suppose, on the other hand, that we were editing the article about American football for the Wikipedia edition in some African language. If we had a photo of the Green Bay Packers standing in an auditorium, not wearing their football uniforms but wearing business suits, and some of them holding their young children, would we consider that a useful photograph to illustrate American football even if we could be sure that the players really were the Green Bay Packers? I hope not, because such a photo wouldn't "look like what it was meant to illustrate," namely, a football team. By contrast, a picture of Adam Sandler and his fictional teammates playing football in the movie The Waterboy might actually be a better choice to illustrate the article, because at least it would look like it had to do with American football, even though it didn't depict a real team playing a real game. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I think that that is cogent, Metropolitan90. We do allow more leeway for illustrations. We would allow, for instance, a editor to upload an original-work drawing of (his conception of) a netball team. But I would say that if an illustration is challenged then its incumbent on the person providing the illustration to show that it's an accurately representative picture. One way this could be done would be to provide links to unfree images on other sites. If the person defending the image can point to images on sites X, Y, and Z and say "See? These other netball teams pose in this way, it is a common way for netball teams to present themselves" or something, then fine. Absent that, remove the picture. (And it is up to the person providing or defending the picture to come up with verifying information). Herostratus (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me it is a question of credibility. When I upload a photo to Wikipedia, I know it is supposed to be serious and earnest. However, when someone uploads a photo with caption to flickr, it can be tonge in cheek or a practical joke intended for a limited audience. How does Wikipedia know that the flickr caption was written in good faith? Racepacket (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but is there really a big difference to an IP or some new user uploading something to Commons. Considering that WP is constantly plagued by joksters (being interested in anything but serious work) I'd expect Commons to be affected by that to some degree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket, given your recent and acrimonious history with the uploader of this image, I think you are probably the least suitable person possible to be raising this issue. It could be interpreted as bad-faith hounding. I also note that you failed to notify the editor in question of this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with Kmhkmh; your argument is FUD and NIH rolled into one. User contributed content from any project (inc. our own) needs to be carefully considered. In the case of this netball image, the bona fides of the Flickr uploader is only a few clicks away, if you had bothered to look. And this is intentional harassment to boot. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing the general problem which I noted "will come up many times in the future." I have no antimosity toward anyone, but rather want to get guidance on the correct answer from a consensus of disinterested editors. The uploader to commons is aware of this discussion. However, in this photo we have several different issues. 1) The authenticity of the photo, for which the standards are low and have clearly been met. 2) The copyright license, for which we trust flickr and take on face value. 3) The relevance of the photo to a particular article where the above discussion about "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate" is on point. Finally, 4) the sourcing of the photo caption in a particular article, which is governed by WP:RS. If a photo is reprinted in a reliable source with a caption, or is discussed in a reliable source, then we can clearly say that our Wikipedia caption is sourced. But if a photo of a group of people standing in street clothes is captioned "1982 Oakton High School Pep Band" can our only source be the file name or flickr title? Racepacket (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the caption asserts something then it is open to challenge. "All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not quite the standard for illustrations as pointed out above, only for images used as sources for facts. Illustrations can be removed as simply wrong or inappropriate or misleading or any number of reasons like that but not just because they aren't backed up by a reliable source, if they look okay and aren't shown to be wrong they're okay. A caption that says 'The Lilongwe netball team' is perfectly okay if there's no indication it may be wrong, it does not need a reliable source saying it is right. For images used for verification a reliable source is needed but they would normally need text pointing out whatever it is anyway in the source as otherwise it would normally be original research, e,g, saying Nixon had brown eyes citing an image from a reliable source would be original research. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a caption that is not challenged stands. But once challenged, it needs a reliable source. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was that in relation to 'A Malawian netball team' or 'Nixon has brown eyes'? Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to whichever of them, or any other caption, makes an assertion which is challenged. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, Hyperdoctor, you are right. However, anyone who challenges any statement in Wikipedia -- be it a portion of article text or a caption -- without a plausible reason, either explicit or implied, will find their time at Wikipedia unpleasant & short. Common sense always overrules any policy. In the case of the photo from Flickr, no one has presented one beyond some hand-waving. I'm not convinced there is an implied rationale for challenging its reliability; what harm is there if this photo is wrong? That is, in the final analysis, why any assertion should be challenged. If someone thinks this is not the best image to illustrate the article, there is always the recourse of finding a better image & replacing this one with it. But to argue that it should be removed because of the reliable source policy serves no better purpose than to be an annoyance, & at worse is being disruptive. -- llywrch (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely -- challenging for no reason is disruption. I gave a general answer to a general question. If there is a detailed challenge, then it can be discussed in detail. I'm not aware that this image has been challenged, and if it has, I take no position on it. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that [if images] "aren't shown to be wrong they're okay" is the standard, exactly. That's a pretty broad standard. It's pretty hard to prove a negative like that. If I upload a drawing and say that it's a picture of a planet in the Fomalhaut system, would you have to prove that it isn't in order to remove it it? How could you prove that? As to to picture in question: it doesn't look like a netball team. They're not playing netball, which if they were would provide reasonable veracity. On the other hand, the article says "The Malawi word for netball is Nchembre mbaye, where Nchembre means "mother". This name links the sport to women and those who are responsible for taking care of their families." So I don't know. Maybe this is a common pose for netball teams in Malawi or something. Herostratus (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far a solution, if the image has been challenged -- and it has, as I am challenging it now -- and people really want to defend the image, perhaps an RfC or something is in order on the question Is it almost certainly true that this is a picture of a netball team? (If you want to use a lower standard, the question could be Is it probably true (i.e., greater than 50% probability) that this is a picture of a netball team?, which in my opinion is too low a standard and would lead us to potentially feature a lot of incorrect images.) I would say No it is not "almost certainly" a picture of a netball team, but Yes it is probably is a picture of a netball team (after all, why would the original Flikr uploader have lied about that)? Herostratus (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this policy applies to illustrations. Policy describes accepted practice in Wikipedia and it is accepted practice that reliable source is not the standard for illustrations. Dmcq (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following bit from WP:Images may apply: "For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil sculpture of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate". This implies that if the photo does not look like what it says then it should have extra support for the statement that it is a representation of what the caption says. Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, your challenge so far boils down to "The missionary in question could have lied in his description of the image." Which would be more FUD as part of this harassment by Racepacket. The photographer has uploaded over 4,500 images to flickr. That provides a large contribution set from which to assess whether or not there is any basis for deciding that this image could be inappropriately described.

Will you also be challenging File:Ivorian woman.jpg, as it is not "almost certainly" a picture of an Ivorian woman—her nationality and ethnicity are not provable unless we contact the flickr uploader and seek verification. What about File:Soweto township.jpg, uploaded by Matt-80 who we know so little about? Do you agree that flickr contributors khym54 and babasteve are more reliable than our own Matt-80? Challenging any of these images based on only a theoretical problem means they are all theoretically unsuitable for use on English Wikipedia.

It isn't important to me whether or not this image stays or goes, as there are better things to lose sleep about. However the unsubstantiated accusations that the flickr contributor khym54, whose real identity is linked to the image, is lying need to stop, and threads like this one mean that the unresolved matter between LauraHale and Racepacket isn't going to go away and community or arbcom sanctions will be necessary.

If you are quite seriously concerned about the provenance/metadata of this specific image, and are challenging it specifically (rather than theoretical hand-waving about a well known problem with user contributed images), we'll need to take it seriously and AGF that it isn't intended to be part of the harassment. However, I'd appreciate it if you could provide a more clear assertion that you believe the image is problematic, and more detailed rationale for that assertion. Thankfully the photographer is identified by their real name, so it should be possible to obtain further verification in order to address any concerns you may have.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if "The photographer has uploaded over 4,500 images to flickr" and they are all accurately described (or there's no reason to believe they're not), that's very different. I did not know this piece of information. It's useful information, and if what you say is true, then I'd be inclined to accept the photo. Herostratus (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should not apply the full standards of reliable sources to pictures. If there was *any* indication in the picture to indicate these were netball players, I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think generally we should trust photographers to not stage fake photos. So, I'll trust this photo is exactly what it appears to be. It appears to be a bunch of a women standing around, wearing clothes, that are incompatible with playing sports like netball. It might be useful in illustrating what some women in the area wear. The photo really has nothing to do with netball. Netballers are not some unique special looking people. The reader viewing the photo will not be better informed of what a netballer looks like. Perhaps there are some sports where the players have a very unique look (like Sumo wrestlers or jockies), and a photo of some players would help illustrate this. Even then, that would apply to the elites (it would be stupid if I did Sumo wrestling, and then photographed myself later in plain clothes, and said that was what Canadian Sumo wrestlers looked like). --Rob (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, this is about illustrating not verifying. If, for example, the picture were used to support a statement about the racial composition on the team then it would fail under the full force of WP:V -- a policy we have to prevent ad hoc and personalised debates about individual contributors.

Since there appears to be no serious challenge to the picture, and this is not the place to discuss changes to image policy, and no specific sources are in question, perhaps we can close the discussion now? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The caption should be verifiable and sourced (which it is not), and I find the arguments advanced by Rob to be far more convincing than the responses offered by the image proponents. We need to guard against editors finding obscure pictures on flickr and then insisting on their inclusion in articles just to show off how they can find a really obscure photo. Do we need a group photo in street clothes of the Jamaican bobsled team or should we use a photo taken at the Winter Olympics? The talk page says, "The point of the picture is to illustrate who plays netball in Malawi. It is not intended to illustrate a game of netball being played in Malawi." If the text of the article does not describe or characterize the demographics of who plays netball in Malawi, how can we justify including a photo in the article on such a rationale? Finally, should the picture's caption have a footnote? Racepacket (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being diverting into some campaign to change the guideline on images or do you just want to deal with this image? You are of course entitled to try and change the images guidelines if you think it does not reflect consensus. Otherwise you can simply say as an illustration it does not directly illustrate the topic but is trying to say something more and so is not a plain illustration but required verifiability of what's being said extra. Dmcq (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a number of people have raised serious concerns here regarding the use of the image and an unreferenced caption that appears in a particular article. I agree with Rob. Based on this discussion, Rob took it upon himself to remove the image from that article. Rob ran into an editor with WP:OWNnership issues, and she and her friend reverted the removal incorrectly claiming that the consensus here was that the picture and caption should stay. Although Rob did not violate 3RR, the friend blocked him in violation of WP:INVOLVED. Racepacket (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a content dispute which is not relevant to this forum, I think the question on reliability of the original photographers caption has been answered. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal animosities aside, how can you tell from the picture they are netball team? It seems a poor illustration to begin with, not being self-evident. So it requires a citation to make that claim in the article (even just in the caption). Is the flickr photographer who took/posted it a WP:RS? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so [1]. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source? I have seen only 2 articles from this site and both are filled with misquotes and misrepresentation of information despite appearing to be referenced. I followed the references back until I found the original source and it didn't say what was actually quoted, in fact 1 person is referenced despite in fact being against the very position attributed to them and I can find no information about anyone citing articles from this publication. Daffydavid (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My preliminary thoughts are that it appears to be a peer-reviewed journal from an established publisher of scientific and medical journals, so would expect it to be reliable. I do note however that it publishes papers that discuss controversial topics such as shaken baby syndrome, so further views are needed. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have doubts about this Journal is actually related to shaken baby syndrome and an article that is being referenced on the Wikipepia article about SBS. The problem is not a misquote by the Wikipedia author but rather the quoted reference "Mraz" is a hatchet job at best. To illustrate -- Mraz states 903,000 children were victims of SBS. Unfortunately for her if you follow her references back until you find the original author you find out the number refers to the number of children abused, neglected and killed by ALL causes. There are more examples but this is why it seems it is not in fact peer reviewed. Even to the casual bystander 903,000 seems like an outrageous number of children to be killed and thus should have been caught as an error or misrepresentation.Daffydavid (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an official journal of the International Association of Forensic Nurses http://www.iafn.org/ The journal or so it says is seeking reviewers http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1556-3693 so clearly has some sort of peer review process. So it appears to be a reliable source, not agreeing with the content or the assumptions is not the same as being unreliable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This journal doesn't seem to have an impact factor listed anyplace, which isn't a good sign. Generally we look at whether a source is reliable for particular information. It certainly doesn't seem like it would be reliable as a source for deaths caused by shaken baby syndrome, given that the author has misrepresented a source. I would think that if there are exceptional claims such as this, they may need to be corroborated by another source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to this being a pay site I have been unable to review any other articles, but counter to what MilborneOne suggests I am not taking exception to to content or assumptions, but rather erroneous citations. Almost every reference to Miehl http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515880_2 made by Mraz http://www.slideshare.net/mmvera/the-physical-manifestations-of-shaken-baby-syndrome-journal-of-forensic-nursing has additional information or erroneous information. Sure errors occur, but to add info and then cite an author who didn't write this info is wrong. For the reviewers to not catch erroneous citations of an article available on their own site would seem to indicate that the review process is lacking. Does anyone have any advice on how to verify further if most sites are pay sites? Daffydavid (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that this particular article isn't a reliable source. I don't understand your question about pay sites. TimidGuy (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been expanding Nobody's Perfect article, but there are some claims that some sources I initially provided are unreliable, however they provide some key informations (physical release date, impact date, videoclip review), so I'd like to know if these [2][3][4][5] are reliable, thanks in advance. Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These specialized areas are a bit of a challenge. I generally look to Wiki Projects for guidance. Maybe try the Talk page of the music project.[6] AAA Music appears to have an editorial team.[[7] Stereoboard seems to be selective regarding who they hire to write reviews, which is a good sign.[8] The Music Fix has a content editor.[9]. It's not self-evident that these sites are unreliable. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science in medieval Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Opinions requested regarding the reliability of Sandra Harding's Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies: Indiana University Press, 1998

Pages 28-29 and 35 are used in support of the following paragraph

The civilization of ancient Greece was centered on the eastern Mediterranean and northern Africa, and did not interact with most of Europe.[1] When Greek learning was later discovered and claimed by European science during the Renaissance, it was not the ancient Greek knowledge, but rather the result of centuries of refinements and advances based upon that knowledge by scientists from Islamic civilization.[2][3]

Thanks -Aquib (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This diff gives the context and Talk page discussion. (Aquib, always a good idea to tell us what page and assertion you are discussing, see the info at the top of the noticeboard). Indiana University Press is a respected, peer-reviewed academic publisher. I don't find the assertion that Renaissance scholars acquired Greek learning largely (but not exclusively) through an Arab lens to be controversial; I found it recently in Johann Huizinga and Barbara Tuchman (when I have a chance I will come up with some more refs, and post them on the article Talk page). Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The source is clearly a reliable one: a book by an established scholar, Sandra Harding, published by a university press is about as good as it gets. However, having looked at the chapter, and the pages given, I am concerned that the source is not being used appropriately. In the chapter, Harding is explicitly doing a survey of different strands of historical thought and perspective on "science" and its origins. Picking out one view as "correct" from this survey is not appropriate; in addition, the second sentence is a very strong one that I do not see reflected in the original. --Slp1 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your time, and your helpful input. Regards -Aquib (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious if this is a reliable source, and also if it's apporpriate to Wikipedia for the characters it mentions in articles about them. http://www.cracked.com/article_17400_the-8-shittiest-transformer-disguises.html Mathewignash (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just reading Cracked for the last hour before I saw this question. My inclination is to say that it probably shouldn't be cited in articles (though it's usually pretty accurate as far as I know), since it's more focused on humor than anything else. Some of their articles actually link to outside sources that frequently do meet WP:RS standards, so you can find some good sources that way. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be cited as the "reception" to a fictional character though, not for cold hard facts. Mathewignash (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's done by a paid writing staff, who quote their own sources, surely the tone is irrelevant if the information is used in context? Consider that Robert Christgau's reviews are used frequently and are considered reliable, and they also work on a very wry and humorous level. GRAPPLE X 02:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you're using it for. If it's for statements of fact, I would not use this source. Like all other sources it comes down to 1) what is the editorial oversight, and 2) absent that, what are the veracity markers of the author? The first is by far the most important. I assume that Cracked does not employ fact-checkers and probably no one much checks Luke McKinney's work at all before it gets published. So who is Luke McKinney? I don't know -- do you? If Luke McKinney says "Omega Supreme transforms into a giant rocket", how much more reliable is that then citing "my little brother says that Omega Supreme transforms into a giant rocket" or whatever? Somewhat, and these are trivial facts, but... I still wouldn't use it. In fact neither McKinney nor your little brother are likely to be wrong about that -- but they might be.

If it's for a statement like "Some analysts have posited such-and-such" (I don't like these kinds of statements myself and prefer we stick to just the facts as much as possible, but assuming that's the use you have in mind), the question is: does Luke McKinney qualify as "some analysts"? Yes, in my opinion, since Cracked is a fairly well-known publication and simply by virtue of being published in it McKinney is raised a bit above some random blogger. It would depend on the subject. I wouldn't cite McKinney as "some analysts" for an article on the policies of the International Monetary Fund, but Transformers? He's obviously studied the subject, and you're not going to get analysis of this subject from The Economist, so OK. Herostratus (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is seeking to add this information into the article Salome:

"According to "Letter of Herod To Pilate the Governor", Herod's daughter was playing in the pool with ice on the surface until it broke under and decapitated her. With Herod's wife holding holding her daughters head.

In the passage Herod to Pontius Pilate the Governor of Jerusalem, Peace:

"I am in great anxiety. I write these things to you, that when you have heard them you may be grieved for me. For as my daughter Herodias, who is dear to me, was playing upon a pool of water that had ice upon it, it broke under her and all her body went down, and her head was cut off and remained on the surface of the ice. And behold, her mother is holding her head upon her knees in her lap, and my whole house is in great sorrow."

First as an Ip with this edit [10], then when they created an account with these edits [11](which I reverted with this edit summary "material from self published site that may be real or not, no names, publisher or other info given") and [12], which they cite to ^{[1] [2]} these two sources. As the 2 websites they used dont seem to have any editorial, publisher, names etc. I question their use as a reliable sources, and the book I do not have access to, so can not check. Does anyone have access to the book and what are the opinions on the websites? I want to know before I either remove the info or rewrite it so it is comprehensible. Thoughts? and thanks in advance. Heiro 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden would seem to be an appropriate source for a quotation from an apocryphal text, but better editions are available. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Islamic schools and branches article's lead there is a sentence sayingThere is a hadith which states "differences of opinion in my community are a blessing". Is this line really necessary to be in introductory section?

Again the source hadith is not very authentic.

In here I really disagree that the hadith is authentic and I even not asked for source there. I found that the description source, (i.e. the order of who descried the hadith) is not a very strong one and this hadith may be considered as a weak or non-auhtentic hadith to many Islamic scholars. So, my suggestion is to remove this disputable hadith. Only finding a hadith do not make it authentic, there are method of classifying hadith in regard to authenticity. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find some sources:

• this
• this

But if nobody responds on this thread, or you find the above insufficient, I permit you to delete the sentence from the lead as you please. Pass a Method talk 09:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not that, there is no reference. My point is, the hadith is not Hassan; see Hadith_terminology. Even I've encountered this hadith previously, but often found it to be regarded weak.

Even I'll not oppose keeping this hadith in somewhere less significant part of the article. But, I think it shall not be in lead. That's it. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 09:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an editor with very little knowledge of Islam, but who has been involved with other articles on history in general, and the history of religion, I have concerns about the source given for the hadith, www.livingislam.org. The "about" link from the top page goes to a description of philosophy, but tells us nothing about the editors and publishers of the site, or its policy on peer review or fact checking. Without this information, it falls under our rules on self published sources, which say that self-published self-proclaimed experts can only be used as Wikipedia sources if they have previously been published by independent, relaible third party sources in the same field. A discussion above on "Roman Emperors" gives more useful information on the standards to be used in historical articles, as does WP:Reliable source examples. I would therefore be in favor of removing this statement from the article unless it can be better sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am opting for temporary removal (as 2 editors: I and Jonathanwallace are in favor of removal), until some more opinions come, or this thread gets archived. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 10:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I took a brief look at the other two sources given above. One is a snippet view of a student publication (which does not automatically make it not reliable, American law reviews which are respectable sources are edited by students) which says that some think the hadith is false. Snippet views are suspect as sources because sometimes the full text is quite different than what the snippet indicates. The other book is a publication by the Islamic Supreme Council of America, about page here. Presented in excerpt view, it indeed mentions the hadith in a footnote, without further analysis or discussion of its antecedents. I therefore think use of the hadith in the lede, which was peripheral to the main issues discussed in the first place, really raises more questions than it answers, and that it was best to take it out. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken out --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 11:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Pass a Method talk 14:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working with a Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (BPOE) historian, Norm Donovan. We are trying to capture the history of local Elks lodges' creation date, mergers, disbanding, etc. This fraternity spans over 130 years of american history and the official records are spotty. Therefor we feel that Wikipedia is a great archive for this information as well as a way to reach out to others who may be able to fill in the content about their local lodge. We also feel this could be a great starting point for each local Elks lodge to spur their local history page. We believe there is little controversy or opinion on this page.

I am concerned as to how to cite the source of our original collection. The wiki page in question is Elks lodges. Here are our current sources posted online.

http://www.tommyjones.org/salisburyelks/elkshistory/miscdocuments/lodgeNameNumber/030208.NUM.doc

http://elkshistory.org/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhung357 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 April 2011

Please read the information that has been posted to your talk page. No original research prevents the creation of articles based on primary sources. You would be best advised to publish the histories first, e.g., in Elks Magazine, and then use that as a source for Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to post a source for every entry? I am working on adding several sources for the older historic lodges. The page has also been moved to my User Page until I get further review. Tomhung357/Elks_lodges Tomhung357 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider going to http://www.wikia.com/Wikia and starting your own Elkapedia. That way you could compile unpublished research, oral histories, and other things that might not pass muster on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Atari HQ (also called Atari Gaming Headquarter) high-quality enough to be considered a reliable source?
It's a gaming website that has been recognized with awards by USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, and several others. The staff seems to be quite small, but it consists of Les Caron (more or less unknown, but the founder of the website), Keita Iida (a published video game commentator who has been cited here at WP several times in several articles), and Marty Goldberg (another published video game commentator writing for Retro Gamer magazine, and former site director/editor of GameSpy/IGN's ClassicGaming.Com). The website has been cited by several other video game websites that are considered reliable (e.g. kotaku citation, 1up citation, gamespy citation, etc.) and it is also cited by numerous WP articles. From my brief review of it, the information appears to be factually accurate and well-written. But there have been some questions regarding its reliability recently. I've invited the relevant parties to review the discussion I'm starting here, but I am most interested in outside (3rd party) views. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A few more reliable sources that have cited or otherwise given notice to Atari HQ include: Wired magazine and a number of books including Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive History of the World's Most Colorful Company, Design and Use of Serious Games, and Phoenix The Rise and Fall of Videogames. -Thibbs (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wiki Project WP:VG/RS. Atari HQ isn't considered a reliable source, based on past discussions. If you feel strongly that it's RS, then maybe discuss it there. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:VG/RS I see that there has been no past discussion on Atari HQ. Because I'm interested in using it as a source, I've started a discussion on it. It seems kind of bitterly ironic that I'm told in the very discussion concerning its usability that it is unusable because it hasn't been discussed. By all means I'm inviting discussion on it. I simultaneously posted a note at WT:VG/RS pointing to this query. I was hoping that many editors could come together to discuss this so that some sort of consensus could be achieved. Let's not just give up before the discussion has occurred. I'm nearly certain that WikiProject Video Games follows Wikipedia's rules for determining reliability (WP:RS) so all editors should be capable of giving their opinion. -Thibbs (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for covering all the bases. There's no indication of editorial oversight that I can find, but your evidence supporting use is strong. What are the objections to using it? TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:John Smith's has attempted to use a Book written by an author with zero academic credentials, as a source, despite the fact that the book claims war crimes are the result of a "generational sin pattern", and that christianity is the one true religion and everything else is essentially lies.

the only thing about him when i googled him that stated his credentials were- Esther C. Stanley is a published author. A published credit of Esther C. Stanley is Abundance of Rain.

Absolutely NO Phd, degrees, MB, or anything in General history at all, let along chinese history.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books"

Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources

Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovable

Abundance of Rain is NOT a reliable source. A book that says- "We can see in chinese history how broken covenants and violations of god's laws, judgements, and bitter root expectations have sown curses and reaped violence, revenge, and murder" does NOT qualify as a reliable source.

"it was her own sin and generational judgements and bitter root expectations which barred her from experiencing the blessing and love of god"

Mr. Stanley is a christian, and writes from a christian POV. Now, being a christian is not an impediment to reliability, but having no academic credentials and writing from a religious christian POV is. The aim of his book is to glorify christianity and claim all other religions are false. He has no academic credentials whatsover, let alone credentials in China or history.

I might as well quote "lord of the rings" or "harry potter", and claim wizards really exist here on wikipedia.

Now, suppose I give John Smith some leeway, and allow that Esther C. Stanley, despite the fact that his entire book is about how christianity is the one true religion and all non christians are damned to torture and suffering, and claims atrocities are the result of a "generational sin pattern" that he did use some citations, like Forsychth and "The boxer rising" (not neutral by the way, since they were made by the American Bible Society), that did state how many Chinese christians were murdered. However, at the last sentence regarding rape , torture, and mutilation, he provides no source!-[13]

And I have removed the edit that User:John Smith's made.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a reliable source. Xulon Press is a Christian vanity press, the book is about prayer and does not purport to be a well sourced historical work, and the author does not appear to have a historian's credentials or prior publications sufficient to pass our ban on self published sources. This was correctly removed from the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is reseolved, this can be archived now.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website baseball-reference.com is a highly-regarded baseball statistics website, frequently used as the primary reference on WP. However, it has a wiki called the BR Bullpen. Most of its material was copied from WP in 2006, but can and has been updated since. Since it is also a wiki, sourcing can be a problem. Therefore, isn't this a fork and shouldn't it be disqualified as a source or external link (not 100% of the time of course). There is a Template:Bullpen that is concerning (it seems to be used mainly in the baseball portal). Here are the pages that use the Bullpen website: [14]. I was going to add the site to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks but figured I should check here first. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log-off.) --64.85.220.34 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct. Since BR-Bullpen is a wiki that anyone can edit, it's not a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion pointed to here involves sourcing methods rather than source reliability.

Duplicate references in articles are routinely merged by automated and semi-automated procedures (such as AWB). Some editors feel their editing efforts have been adversely impacted, when the citation method has been changed before an article reaches some stage of completion.

I have started a sub-discussion about the practice of routinely merging duplicate references here (Village Pump Proposals).

This is a part of a larger discussion on the same page, about a bot proposal, which is here (Village Pump Proposals).

There is also a side discussion, here (Bot Owners' Noticeboard). I invite discussion at the Village Pump article (rather than here), if article editors are so inclined. Richard Myers (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has contended at Talk:Russophobia that RIA Novosti is a reliable source—without reservation, and suggested that should an editor feel otherwise they bring the issue here. RIA Novosti is the official media outlet of the Russian government. As such, general considerations of reliability aside, I maintain that where RIA Novosti reports on areas of contention between itself and its near-abroad neighbors, it can be held to be reliable only insofar as it reflects the official Russian position, and should regarding all topics in such ares of contention (Baltic states, Waffen SS, Nazis; frozen conflict zone: Transnistria, South Ossetia, et al.,...) be appropriately attributed (i.e., official Russian source, Russian source, etc.) and not be represented to be objectively reliable. At the article, the specific example centers around a Latvian individual who was a member of the Waffen SS Latvian Legion. The position of the Russian government is that the Latvian Legion were SS war criminals convicted at Nuremberg—when, in fact, the Latvian Legion served as Allied guards during the trials. Accordingly, any declaration by RIA Novosti regarding Latvia, the Latvian Legion, and Nazism in this particular case—and regarding other geopolitical/historical areas of conflict—can only be represented as official Russian opinion.

I should mention that in the past, editors favorable to the official Russian position regarding these areas of contention have maintained that RIA Novosti is the Russian equivalent of the British BBC. Nothing could be a further misrepresentation as the BBC is an independent news organization while RIA Novosti (also including their English language TV presence and web site, Russia Today) is most certainly not. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such an approach would be WP:DISCRIMINATION. National media should be treated equally, and RIA Novosti certainly is a reliable source, at least as reliable as other national or corporate media organisations.

The comparison of RIA Novosti with BBC is perfectly valid. BBC is funded by money from the British government; BBC is governed by the BBC Trust where trustees are appointed by British monarch on advice of government ministers. No wonder that BBC promotes national British agenda and points of view. In different terms, BBC is governed by those who own it and who fund it, likewise the American media and many other countries' media. "Independent" media is a myth. When it comes to non-government media, they are owned and funded by corporations and people such as Rupert Murdoch, having their own positions and interests - so, should we always mention those corporations and those people when we report some fact using the sources from the media owned and governed by them?

In the case of the issue at Talk:Russophobia, there are two different points of view on Latvian Legion, and it seems that RIA Novosti in this case represents not an "official" Russian point of view, but rather a dominant view among modern Russian historians who cite various war crimes connected with the legion. Latvian state and historians have a different view, unsurprisingly, saying that Latvians were forced to do what they have done etc. Such sources as BBC may take more neutral approach or lean to Latvian position, which is understandable due to the UK and Latvia common membership in EU etc.

Those different points of view might be both represented in the article, of course. But that should be done without discrimination of the sources, such as highlighting that some sources are "Russian or sympathetic" or state-owned and at the same time not saying that other sources are "Latvian or sympathetic" and state-funded. GreyHood ^Talk 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've certainly conjured up many parallels you contend are, by your very invocation, appropriate. However, I remain gobsmacked you would contend that the official media mouthpiece of the Russian government is as reliable—in all aspects of reporting—as independent media, say CNN, and that no mention should be made of such affiliation in areas of known contention where Russia's view of regional and world affairs is objectively demonstrated to be more self-serving than serving facts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't CNN, as a top national channel, also report some official events and official statements by the U.S. Government, the same thing that RIA Novosti does? Does that make it "official media mouthpiece" and unreliable? Why big corporate media serving their specific interests (strongly connected to and forming government agenda) are more "independent" than state-owned media? Independence, indeed may be from something or someone. But one couldn't be independent from anything or anyone. And objectivity and reliability is a different thing from independence. GreyHood ^Talk 22:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)"Independent media" is not a complete myth, though sometimes it should be noted "independent from what." Independence and quality are not absolutes, but we do need to judge the quality and independence from time to time, e.g. on this noticeboard. RIA Novosti's quality and independence is nowhere near the quality and independence of the BBC. I've spent lots of time watching/reading both these sources and I would almost never take RIA Novosti at face value, they do have an agenda - and it is safe to assume that that agenda is very similar to the Russian Government's. Quite often I will take the BBC at face value, at least to the same extent that I'd take the NY Times at face value. Sometimes, if the topic is very close to the interests of the British Government I might look to another source - but I'll say that that is very rare. In short - on specific Russian Government related topics - RIA Novosti is not reliable or unbiased.

I can't leave without an anecdote. Biased government press is nothing new in Russia. Referring to Izvestia (rough translation "News") and Pravda (translation "Truth"), there IS an old saying that Russians still repeat: "There is no news in News and no truth in Truth." Smallbones (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal evaluation of objectivity, personal preferences, anecdotes, etc. are all very good. But there could be different (and opposite) personal opinions and different personal preferences. And those are facts what I've written about how BBC is governed. Here I can't leave without an old English saying who pays the piper calls the tune. (Your anecdote actually is Soviet-era, very old-fashioned. I strongly doubt it is repeated in modern Russia because those two newspaper titles are not among the top media for a long time. But I wonder, why the cited English saying is not as popular as it should be) GreyHood ^Talk 22:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact - I have heard several Russians tell that anecdote within the last decade, and they were referring to state run media in Russia. There is simply a deep seated distrust of state-run media in Russia. Russians do not have a lot of experience with reliable media of any sort. I suspect that anybody who would seriously say that RIA Novosti is as reliable as the BBC doesn't have a lot of experience with reliable media. Smallbones (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact - that dissident anecdote is very old-fashioned and is characteristic mostly to people of certain age and certain political views, not to Russians in the whole. Yes, there is deep seated distrust of state-run media in Russia, but not only Russian media (as well as not only state media), and this is not a reason to discriminate between Russian and non-Russian media. Russians do have a lot of experience with unreliable media of various sorts. Including the media like BBC and CNN - their coverage of 2008 South Ossetia war was a major blow to their reputation in Russia, not to mention many other instances. Saying that BBC is more reliable than RIA Novosti is simply a discrimination, based on myths that still persist in the West but not in Russia. GreyHood ^Talk 12:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RIA Novosti is a 100% reliable source and widely used as such in the academic world and the world press. Like most media organisations, in addition to plain news they publish all kinds of opinions - those which are highly critical of the state and those which are not. The specific piece which caused Vecrumba to launch this thread is [15] - and there is nothing wrong with it. The author is Aleksander Vasilyev, Member of the Board and Executive Director of the Baltic Forum [16], a credible expert. Simply because Vecrumba doesn't like one opinion piece is no grounds for calling the publisher an unreliable source - and Vecrumba has provided zero evidence to support his claim. A look at Vecrumba's block log and his track record also does not give more credibility to his claims. Nanobear (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When posting to this board one should provide a link to the specific edit that the source is used to support. The question whether a source is reliable "without reservation" is rhetorical and unhelpful. TFD (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related inquiry

How are the credentials of Voice of Russia viewed? I wish to use it as a source for some information regarding the current civil war in Libya. I do know that Russian state sources are viewed as being on the sketchy side of things, so I wanted to come here to see if a *NEUTRAL* party could weigh in. That means you guys above me should refrain from commenting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]