Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Shortcuts
WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a question or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects:
Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section
 
Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(5 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(6 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects

FAC for British European Airways Flight 548

The British European Airways Flight 548 article is currently at FAC. Can we please have some input this time round as it was not promoted last time due to a lack of reviewers. Mjroots (talk)

runway designation

According to this artile [1], the main runway is closed for repainting, its runway designation will be changed. How should we accomdate the change? SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This actually happens to all airports on a regular basis as the variation shifts (angular difference between the north magnetic pole, which shifts and the north geographic pole, which doesn't). I would just suggest that the article data be changed to reflect the new numbers. It probably isn't notable enough to add the fact that it changed to the article text unless an accident report or other similar incident referencing the old runway number is a factor. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoax?

Ayaks "a hypersonic aircraft program started in the Soviet Union and currently under development in the Russian Federation". Is this credible? Sources are in Russian, so we need either a Russian speaker or someone with some technical knowledge.--Scott Mac 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it's a complete hoax - this makes a mention of it along with MHD propulsion. See also here. The extent of the article though...lots of speculation at best. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK thanks. It isn't my field, so just flagging it up with people who might be able to review and deal with any issues.--Scott Mac 21:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notice

Turkish Airlines Flight 1754 has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input on Infobox:airline

Please access Template talk:Infobox airline if you know what the "Bases" entry in the infobox is intended to designate. (Maintenance bases? Moon bases as depicted in 2001: A Space Odyssey? An airline's favorite high pH chemicals?) More commentary there. Please respond there, not here - that page isn't too highly trafficked and I was concerned nobody would see my question for weeks if I didn't go begging for help on this page. Thanks. Ch Th Jo (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flightglobal.com

Flightglobal.com has beed tagged for speedy deletion if anybody can help with references as to its significance and importance to the aerospace industry then your help would be appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coanda propeller - reconstruction.jpg

File:Coanda propeller - reconstruction.jpg has been nomiated for deletion. 65.93.14.29 (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blériot 135

Can anyone confirm the registration of the Blériot 135 that crashed near Tonbridge on 2 October 1926 whilst trying to make an emergency landing at Penshurst Airfield. Was it F-AGFA? Mjroots (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No - it wasnt a Bleriot 135 either! - I will put details and ref on related talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Details corrected, article expanded. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VTOL

There is an issue dealing with VTOL, see Talk:VTVL for a merger discussion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd-notice

Nominating template {{SouthAmerica-airport-stub}}. No articles currently use this template, as associated national-level templates already exist. Dawynn (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

template:Rocket specifications-all

{{Rocket specifications-all}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

template:RNoAF Squadron

{{RNoAF Squadron}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rising sun.svg

File:Rising sun.svg has been nominated for deletion. It appears to be the Japanese Airforce roundel. `65.93.14.196 (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Aircraft Component Manufacturers" task force

I added an "Aircraft Component Manufacturers" task force to create articles about companies who manufacture aircraft components.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until there is enough interest to support this task force. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be under the WP:AIR aircraft project, rather than the parent WPAVIATION. However, I'm not sure what the interest level will be for such a Task Force. we don't even have one for the aircraft manufacturers, so that may be the place to start. We actually do have a task force for one type of aircraft component - the Aeroengine Task Force, so perhaps that taks force could be expanded.- BilCat (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centralizing Talk pages in large "List of ..." aviation articles

I have recently learned that there is a supported method in Wikipedia to consolidate the discussion for a group of related article pages that have been divided up by size, typically because the list would be too large for a single article. There are a lot of List articles in the Aviation WikiProject, and it is often difficult to keep up with the Talk page discussions when they randomly appear on different Talk pages, even for the same subject. For example, List of aircraft is divided up into about a dozen articles (List of aircraft (0-A), List of aircraft (N-Q), etc.) and List of World War I flying aces is divided up into ten articles (e.g., List of World War I aces credited with 9 victories, or List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories, etc.).

Currently, each of the many list articles in those examples has its own Talk page, which often makes it a bit difficult to have a cogent Talk page discussion about article improvement since the discussion must necessarily take place on a single Talk page that that may not be monitored by many folks.

The Wikipedia-supported method that could potentially improve on this is to basically to select one page as the central Talk page for a group of articles, and then redirect the several other Talk pages to that central page.

There is an example of how this can be done at Help talk:Cite errors — it uses the {{central}} and {{editnotice central}} to implement the consolidation.

  • 1. I think it would be useful for the Aviation WikiProject to consider this idea, in general. Comments on the idea probably should go here on this Talk page.
  • 2. To start the process off on one particular set of aviation list articles, I have made a proposal that we consolidate the Talk for all dozen or so of the "List of Aircraft ..." Talk pages to the main list page: "Talk:List of aircraft". That discussion is going on at Talk:List of aircraft; please comment there if you support or oppose this initial trial of the conversion to a single talk page for divided "list of" articles.

Would appreciate your thoughts on both halves of the idea, the specific and the general. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the specific 2. Yes. Brilliant idea. Go for it. The articles are effectively one article subdivided for management. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems to be a reasonable idea. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for List of Aircraft - this can only help to get discussion seenby more people.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above consensus, I have attempted to make the various changes that centralise discussion for the dozen or so "List of aircraft (...)" articles. Please feel free to look it over to see how you think this is working. Remember, this is a trial project. If it works well here, others may wish to do the same with other large lists in WikiProject Aviation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resources

Over at WP:SHIPS, they have a resources section, where useful sources of info in researching ship-related articles are housed. Does this WP have something similar, and if not, then should it? Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't, but it would be useful to have! I have a bunch of on-line sources that I could contribute to such a list. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not been around for a while but User:Rlandmann has a number of links on his page that may be usefull. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start. Feel free to expand at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources (shortcut WP:AV/R). Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some from my collection. I think the list is working out well! - Ahunt (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etihad incident

Today, an Etihad Airways flight was escorted into Stansted by the RAF due to an unruly passenger on board. There are rumours of a bomb threat being made. My addition of this incident to the Etihad Airways and London Stansted Airport articles has been reverted. The reverting editor is of the opinion that it is not notable enough to mention. Whilst current reporting indicates that the incident is not notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article, I believe it is sufficiently rare enough to be worth mentioning, due to the RAF escort. Without the latter, then it's just another operational hiccup. Opinions please on the notability or otherwise of the incident. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that an unruly passenger or even a bomb threat alone is not notable under Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but when it results in the RAF sending Typhoons to escort the aircraft to a different airport than its intended destination, the incident becomes more serious. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but they probably wrote it off as training hours anyway. Can we observe how the incident evolves over 24 hrs and see if that was justified or just a knee-jerk reaction? - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to waiting to see what develops. You can bet that Cameron is personally writing out the invoice to Etihad for services rendered though, given the current economic climate! Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is in not on the page? it is a significant incident. It brought the airport to a stop. I know it is not a featured incident in aviation wikiproject, (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that this is not official policy? Maybe we should have a vote on the discussion page? Thomas888b (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(also, I think it should be allowed, because i have used up at least 30-mins of allocated work time doing this) Thomas888b (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy. And, in addition, the fact it "brought the airport to a stop" does not establish notability. This needs to sit for awhile, I think, to see if WP:NOTNEWS applies or not. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rumours on Pprune were correct. It was a bomb threat. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does a bomb threat count as an applicable incident? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas888b (talk • contribs) 18:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb threats aren't that rare. What is rare (in the UK at least) is the reaction in this case, it's not everyday that the RAF escorts an airliner into an airport. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think escorting airliners is that rare I am sure it happened before in the last few months. And Stansted is the nominated UK airfield for all such incidents so it is not rare for these incidents to be at Stansted as they are normally planned that way. MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from Mjroots' Point. Maybe this one should be included as it got such high media coverage?Thomas888b (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why we have WP:NOTNEWS. If the media coverage dies off as it likely will, it's not notable. If it continues, then we can add it. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with WP:NOTNEWS and not include it, this incident will be forgotten by Friday. - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block (aircraft)

As you can see, this is a redlink. However, we have numerous articles on airplanes referring to them by "block" numbers. For example:

  • F-16 Fighting Falcon variants:
    ...this update will allow use of the Raytheon AIM-9X on Block 40/42/50/52 aircraft"
  • Lockheed EC-130H Compass Call:
    The EC-130H fleet is composed of a mix of Block 30 and state-of-the-art Block 35 aircraft"
  • Next Objective (B-29):
    Next Objective was built at the Glenn L. Martin Aircraft Plant at Omaha, Nebraska, as a Block 35 aircraft. It was one of 10 modified as a Silverplate and re-designated "Block 36"
  • 363d Air Expeditionary Wing:
    The 363d TFW flew F-16A/B Block 10 aircraft until 1984 then converted to Block 15s; F-16C/D Block 25s in autumn 1985 and Block 42s in late 1991.

What does it mean to say that an aircraft has a block number of this kind? Is this something worth having an article on (or do we have one that I have missed)? Cheers! bd2412 T 16:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think we have an article on Blocks, the Blocks are just different build standards and are normally not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the 'block number' is merely a subtype of the subtype, and I don't think we have an article on the subtype letters (I hope not, anyway!), no, it's not something that should have an article. It might well be worth redirecting to 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system#Block number and adding that section to that article, though. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of articles mentioning block numbers, it seems there is enough information to support at least that. bd2412 T 16:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section to 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system#Block number as suggested by Bushranger to explain block numbers, although they have been used since the 1940s. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hyphens and dashes

concerning hyphens, there is an RFC on the issue at WT:Manual of Style. As a blowup concerning a large number of aviation categories happened over this issue, you may be interested. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Route notability

Since this doesn't quite fall under the umbrella of any specific subproject, I thought I'd ask here. I've got two notability questions with regards to two articles I just stumbled upon.

First: what is the notability policy with regards to a specific flight route/path? Specifically I am referring to Singapore Airlines Flight 21. (No, it's not an accident, incident, or otherwise; it's just the longest non-stop flight in the world at present.) Frankly, why this route has its own article baffles me. I mean, if SQ21 gets an article, shouldn't the first regularly scheduled passenger transatlantic flight route get its own article? Transpacific? Transcontinental?

Second: Singapore Airlines Flight 380. The inaugural flight of the Airbus A380. Does this pass notability specs? (I will refrain from grandstanding like I did in the previous paragraph.)

Thanks. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the second item (Flight 380) - having read through it and then read it skipping what I would classify as trivia, you've got nothing of any note. What is important about this first commercial flight is already in the A380 article. PROD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think either flight is notable for a stand-alone article, some others had a different opinion in 2008 on the A380 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Flight 380 MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right-o then. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Flight 380 (2nd nomination). I'm generally good with this whole being bold thing, but I've had people go loony-tunes on me before for PROD-ing an article that had previously survived AFD(s).-- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 13:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that Flight 21 should have an article, but Flight 380 has got to go. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now read Flight, it was not clear until the end that its the longest flight in terms of time taken, (Flight 22 is the return route and 15 minutes quicker) when it was introduced nor why. Then when I go to look up some context I find the useful info and the missing info from the article is already present in non-stop flight#longest flights. Another AfD? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Military Designations/Mark numbers

Now, just to start this off, there is a bit of confusion as to when the RAF began to change its military designations as evidenced in the recent hubbub over the English Electric Lightning and Folland Gnat articles. I recall that the topic has been brought up before and the "standard" of Mk.1 and Mk 1 is now co-existing in a melange of formats in many articles, without a clear indication of when to use one or the other designation. The RAF now (since ?) is using a simplified system that eliminates the "dot." The "FG.1" has become the "FG 1" or "FG1" across the board, including back-dating some illustrious types such as the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane and Avro Lancaster in all their current literature. I have an extensive collection (my wife isn't reading this, is she?) of Aeroplane, Air Pictorial, Flypast, RAF Flying Review, and numerous other Brit magazines. Many of these were perfect barometers of the time and mirrored the current terminology. In and about 1968, the articles seemed to be diverting from using the "dot" and by the early 1980s, the "dot" was no longer to be found in RAF designations. I mark the change as 1983 in Air International and there was no diversion from that point on. This background is just to set the theme for the fun and frivolity that will surely ensue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment:1927 KLM Fokker F.VIII crash

May I ask that the 1927 KLM Fokker F.VIII crash article is re-assessed please. I disagree that it it stub class. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I assessed it C-class, and left a note on the talk page. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luscombe

The Luscombe Aircraft article states that the company went out of business in 1950. However, Flight International, 12 March 1983 has an article on the Luscombe Rattler, a canard ground-attack aircraft produced by Lucombe Aircraft at Lympne. Are these two separate companies? Is so it looks like we need at least two new articles creating. Suggest British company article is housed at Luscombe Aircraft (UK) and a hatnote added to the other article. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to my internet research, the Luscombe Corporation declared bankruptcy in 1949, but "[l]ow-volume production continued through 1959 in Fort Collins, CO after the type certificate was purchased from the bankruptcy proceedings." Their last model, the 11E, is still in production by the Luscombe Aircraft Corporation (link not working ATM, but of no relation to the original company.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After bankruptcy in 1949, the assets to the American Luscombe were prurchased by Temco Aircraft, who continued production until 1955, when it sold the rights to the Silvare Aircraft Company, who produced the Luscombe 8F from 1958-61. Silvare was purchased by Luscombe Aicraft Corporation of Altus, Oklahoma in 1961, starting production of the Luscombe 11E in 2004. The Britsh Luscombe appears to have been founded in 1971 to built ultralights/microlights. Its last entry in Jane's appears to have been in the 1987-88 edition, which suggests roughly when the company folded.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The British Luscombe Aircraft Limited as far as I can tell had no connection with the American company apart from the founder Patrick "Pat" Luscombe having the same surname. With other uk and usa companies with the same name the form Luscombe Aircraft Limited has been used rather than a dab like (UK). MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, it would seem that maybe we do need an article on the British company and its aircraft. The Rattler was intended to be a military version of a civil design, which may have changed name at some point, being known at Valiant/Vitality. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Centennial Aviation Club

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are encouraged to voice their views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centennial Aviation Club. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user has PRODded two articles

A new anonymous user, 220.253.138.4 (talk · contribs), has PRODded two articles, 2007 Phoenix news helicopter collision and Heerodden helicopter accident as non-notable accidents. I personally would say they do comply with guidelines, but I wanted to get other opinions before removing the tags for AfD. Thanks, wackywace 13:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read them, both do comply with WP:AIRCRASH, the latter because it involved fatalities and hull loss in a non-light aircraft and the former because it involved changes in procedures as a result of the accident. I would say go ahead and remove the PROD tags and point to WP:AIRCRASH in your edit summary. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. wackywace 14:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally late to the party, but I agree with Ahunt. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 14:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's never too late to agree! ;) - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI -- I've invited 220.253.138.4 (talk · contribs) to discuss his/her ideas here. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 14:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea. It is rather unusual when the first two edits by a new IP are to nominate two articles for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost 99% certain it's a case of "forgot to log in." --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can count on the fact that this person has edited before, either with an account or as another IP. Most people's first Wikipedia edits are to fix a spelling or grammar mistake, not to nominate two articles for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, unless he/she spent a lot of time beforehand reading about how to PROD articles. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class Review for Hughes Airwest Flight 706

If anyone has a moment or two, please consider stopping by Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review#Hughes Airwest Flight 706 and leaving a comment or six. I'm hoping to get the article up to FA eventually, but in the interim A-class is a nice stepping-stone. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under construction

I am currently constructing the article Airbus A340, and I dearly request assistance from those interested. I'll try to add the information; the other jobs such as copy-editing and the addition of sources are needed. Anyone with questions please ask me directly on my talk page. Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 09:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template nominated for deletion

{{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1927}} has been nominated for deletion. Discussion here. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration, anyone?

The 50th anniversary of Sabena Flight 548 is this coming Tuesday. Anyone up to collaborate to bring the article up to at least GA class by then? (It's currently a Start-class.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Notice

Alsek Air Service and 40-Mile Air have been nominated for deletion. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 08:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central American Airways Flight 731

Central American Airways Flight 731 has been nominated for deletion. wackywace 16:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA

This is to inform members of this project that an editor who has participated in this project extensively has been nominated for adminship. You may voice your opinions on this nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing problems creeping into aviation articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources was created on January 22, 2011 and lists Joe Baugher's personal, self-published hobby site [2] as a reliable source. Please see WP:SPS (and review the other sources listed on that page). Our policy states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Accurate sourcing would use the sources listed by Baugher, not his personal hobby site. This was well examined at FAR several years ago (at least Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II/archive1 and others I can't recall), at which time all articles sourced to Baugher were corrected, yet we now have numerous stub- and start-class articles citing this hobby site, and even a couple of GAs (which should be reviewed and resourced to the reliable sources listed by Baugher). Consulting a hobby site is not good practice-- even less so when the actual sources could and should be consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't list J Baugher as a reliable source - I can see how it might be implied but at the top of the resources page it only says "useful resources for researching aviation related articles". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you can fix that page, as it being used to source many articles now. If he lists his sources, those should be consulted and used here so that we don't inadvertently propogate errors from his hobby site. Several of the "regular" editors here are misconstruing that page, and we now have at least two GAs (Douglas XCG-17 and Grumman XSBF) sourced to a hobby site. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The good article guide says it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons as baugher is being used for factually information outside of the caveats it appears to pass GA. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC
My rebuttal follows: This is an "old" argument as to whether Joe Baugher is an acknowledged expert or merely a "hobbyist." His bio on the internet/wikipedia reads: "Joseph F. Baugher (born 1941) is a retired physicist, software engineer, and textbook author, who has also written a series of articles on aviation. He graduated from Gettysburg College in 1963 and studied physics under Philip J. Bray at Brown University, receiving a Ph.D. in 1968.
After fellowships at the University of Sheffield and the University of Chicago, he became a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1971. Turned down for tenure, he went to work at the Teletype Corporation in 1979 doing research and development related to custom semiconductor chip manufacture. After several years, Teletype's activities gradually shut down (1985-1986), as its parent company AT&T divested various of its operations. Baugher then switched to computer programming for the Naperville division of Bell Laboratories (having developed a taste for computer work), and worked on phone switches for several years, retiring in 2001. As of 2003[update], he teaches part-time at the Illinois Institute of Art, and continues to write.
Baugher's American Military Aircraft website provides detail from the initial design phases to the final fate of the built aircraft, covering practically all the US fighter and bomber models, and several foreigner types as well.
Publications:
  • Baugher, Joseph F. On Civilized Stars. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985. ISBN 0-13-634411-9.
  • Baugher, Joseph F. The Space-Age Solar System. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1987. ISBN 0-471-85034-9.
  • Joe Baugher's Home Page, [3]. Retrieved: 5 March 2010."
For the contentious issue of identifying Taiwan's F-5 derivatives, his article also cites:
  • Lake, Jon and Robert Hewson. "Northrop F-5." World Airpower Journal, Vol. 25, 1996.
  • Shaw, Robbie. F-5: Warplane for the World. St. Paul, MN: Motorbooks, 1990.
  • Shaw, Robert. "Taiwan: The Dawn of Modernisation." Air International, February 1996.
  • Scutts, Jerry. Northrop F-5/F-20. London: Ian Allan Ltd, 1986.
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The issue appears to be what constitutes an expert. Is it someone who consults other sources, provides a scholarly and academic approach, and has a background in post-secondary work/research/teaching? We have numerous examples of authors who have now concentrated on digital or electronic publishing that have the same or lesser credentials and are accepted as experte. In the publishing, academic and filmmaking spheres, consultants are regularly screened for not their publishing resumes but their background and knowledge of the subject. In the Canadian Aviation Historical Society, there are countless instances of aficionados who are accepted for their contributions to the mandate of preserving a historical record. Many of these are individuals who have demonstrated an authoritative and precise record and account-keeping. Most are not the traditional "academic historian" but as long as they bring the knowledge and background to the subject, they fill an important niche. Most of the authors I know, started as "fans", and then were accepted as subject experts, no differently than Joe Baugher, who publishes for more than himself. I have yet to find glaring errors in his research. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
If you haven't found errors, I suggest you haven't looked closely enough. Regardless, WP:SPS is quite clear, and his third-party publications are not in the field of aviation, where he is not a published expert. We are free to consult the sources he lists, but we can't propogate errors from his hobby site by using it to source Wikipedia articles. Milborne, are you honestly suggesting that the GA criterion allow us to source articles to non-reliable sources? If that were true, it would be quite astounding-- fortunately, I'm sure it's not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please qualify your statement that Baugher propagates errors by providing refs. FWiW, I can't identify errors and I do check his work on occasion. Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of us should or needs to check non-reliable sources to check for errors; that's why we have WP:SPS and WP:V policy that stop us from using self-published hobby sites. Can you explain why we would source articles to a hobby site when that site allegedly lists the reliable sources it uses? It seems to be mere laziness, corrected with a trip to the library to consult real sources. At any rate, could one of you please correct that page, as the poor sourcing is propogating throughout Aviation articles, and several regular editors here appear to believe the page reflects a list of reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask for this to be discussed on the talk page of the resources page. However, as it's here now we may as well continue - it can be copied over later.

Joe Baugher has been raised at WP:RSN, where there was not overwhelming consensus that the source is not reliable. Baugher has also been independently called an expert on military aviation by the author of a book on the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and if there are no apparent errors, then how can his site be considered non-reliable? Baugher like Goebel may represent an expert who chooses to use non-print media as a means of sharing information. Simply bracketing all personal sites as unauthoritative does not allow for the one or two examples that do not fit the typical self-aggrandizing, non-cited and un-academic work. If the authors use sources, others have the opportunity to discover variances and make the judgement as to reliability. I can do a thorough review of the topics that the aforementioned author has written, but other than not using the classic footnote style, there is an abundance of sources for each section of a major topic. When the subject of using Baugher as a reference was first broached, I found that cross-checking the information in an earlier review of the website, no errors were evident. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
At the risk of repeating myself, please reference WP:SPS policy in these discussions. Where is he published in the relevant field? No errors evident, and all of the other verbiage here is a distraction, and does not address the fact that aviation editors are now using a self-published personal hobby site, instead of going to a library so that our articles will conform to our sourcing policies. Has anyone fixed the page, which leaves the impression all of those sites are reliable sources, rather than a means of locating real reliable sources, as in, at a library? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)...and WP:SPS does not state "under no circumstances whatsoever shall a self-published source be used as a reference". Suppose I wish to reference the construction number of a particular aircraft involved in and accident. I consult Joe Baugher's website and get the info, I consult the reference given and find its from the book Foo's complete compendium of United States Air Force aircraft during WWII, which I don't have. Do I give Baugher as the source (I've seen this, and it can be verifed that what I put is what it says), or do I reference to the book (which I haven't seen, cannot verify myself and may be in error itself, hoping that no-one else has the book and bothers to check)? Mjroots (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What it clearly says is that "one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." I suspect that the desire to rack up Wikicup points is preventing some editors from making that trip to the library to use real sources, readily available. That may be fine for DYK, but should not be fine for a GA, and will never be fine for an FA. You can use Baugher as a place to find a list of real sources, which you should then consult and cite; those seeking adminship and working at DYK will hopefully understand correct sourcing. Are you all suggesting it would somehow benefit Wikipedia if other areas of the Project used such sloppy sourcing, that ignores SPS policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, if I extend your logic, I can now start citing myself in my topic area, as the highest expert in the field also recognized me. But that would be sloppy sourcing, wouldn't it, particularly when "real" sources already say everything I say, published in third-party publications, by experts in the relevant field. I suspect this is fast becoming a waste of time in the pursuit of Wikicup points. I believe I've made my points, and am relieved that such sourcing would not be acceptable at least at the FA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well that you cannot cite yourself, per WP:COI. As I've shown in my first post, Baugher is called an expert in military aviation by the authof of a book on a specific military aircraft. That author is also (as far as is known) independent of Wikipedia. Thus Baugher's credentials would appear to be established. Mjroots (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, me too. So someone else can cite me, as a personal hobbyhorse enthusiast, and a non-expert in the field, because experts recommend me. So how stupid is that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As noted on the RfA, Baugher's "self-published" Internet site is described as a reliable souce by aviation historians, by multiple pubished authors in both aviation history and transportation history. It is not a "self-published personal hobby site", it is a site, made and run by an aviation historian who is an acknowledged and recognised expert on aviation history, that publishes his work. Or is it somehow Wikipedia policy to discrminate against those who publish their works in digital media as opposed to on dead trees? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how do those folks' opinions relate to our WP:SPS policy? It's not about dead trees or websites-- he is not an aviation expert, he's an engineer in another field. Read his bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To belabour the point, beat a dead horse and hit my head with a hammer, the contention that an author who has taken care to cite all the sources used in creating a body of work, is not considered an expert, flies in the face of conventional wisdom. With the acceptance of most experienced editors that Baugher does not fit the traditional mould as an aviation historian, and is not quoted or cited for FA and GA articles, yet can provide useful information for other articles, that seems to be the pattern that is now arising. Full disclosure here, I may have, at one time, used Baugher as an authority, but someone challenged that (no names now, but may still be riding that "hobby horse") and I, along with others agreed with the conventional MOS guidelines and used other sources. However, and big however, here, Baugher still represents a credible source and cannot be discounted on the basis of unresolved claims of not being reliable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
He is cited in at least two GAs (which should not have passed, IMO), and conventional wisdom is not what applies here: Wikipedia's sourcing policies do. And until you've personally checked every statement in his hobby site, you don't know if it's accurate-- that's why we have policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. I live 50 miles from the nearest city library. 2. If it's Wikipedia policy to discriminate against a source that is explictly stated as being reliable, is cited by extensively, is directly quoted, and reccomended for use by students by historians in the field simply because it is published digitally instead of being on a dead tree on a library shelf, then Wikipedia truly is broken. He is described as an aviation expert and as an aviation historian, using those exact terms, by multiple published and established aviation historians. Are we arguing somehow that a Wikipedia policy is somehow superior to the opinions and published statements of multiple established, published historians? Or maybe, perhaps, that if multiple published and established experts agree on something, perhaps their knowledge should be used to modify or adapt the policy - or even to WP:IAR, which I seem to recall was stated by Jimbo Himself to be the #1 rule on Wikipedia? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, your response does not address WP:SPS-- where is he published in the relevant field? And if you want to include every hobby site by a non-expert as a reliable source, where does this stop? And are you intending to address your other uses of non-reliable sources in other artices? I thought we had overcome this problem on the Aviation WikiProject years ago, but now I'm concerned that we have not, and sloppy sourcing is re-emerging as a trend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To deal with the issue of not being published, the self-publishing or vanity publishing concerns are real and cannot be dismissed easily. Baugher does publish for a wide audience and is considered an acknowledged expert in a specific field. He has also been published in a related field that of space science but has chosen, in a quasi-retirement, to continue his research in a subject in which he has a personal interest. He does publish but in a non-traditional, publicly accessible electronic medium. A case can be made that he is also an exception to the "I think, I write" phenomenom of cyber-journalism. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I've explicitly referenced WP:SPS several times. When somebody is called an expert by multiple other, established, experts, and their work is published, verbatim, by those experts then why should we continue claiming that he is not an expert? To put it quite bluntly, if WP:SPS does not accept the above scenario as establishing somebody as an expert in a field, then WP:SPS is wrong and should be amended. As for other sources, I did indeed address your concerns about the FMA IAe Pulqui II article in my response: at the time, almost a full year ago, I had less understanding of the RS policy than I do now, and not all of the sites which you raised concerns about I even used or put into that article. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, SPS covers it just fine: if it's reliable, someone else will have published it. Those sources can be found in a library, so there's no reason to use a personal hobby site which is not subject to expert review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating the personal hobby site canard, does not have the same sway with others who have used the site as a credible, reliable and authoritative source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can buy books mail order, I know that I have spent well over £200 on aero engine books purely to expand wiki articles in the last couple of years, it depends on how far you want to take your wiki editing, I have spent the same or more on petrol by travelling to take photographs for articles that previously had none. To put Joe Baugher's site into perspective, if I put all the info from my engine books onto my own website (and declared my sources) would it be accepted as a reliable source for Wikipedia? I suspect the answer would not start with a 'Y'. Sad perhaps, but true. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nimbus, the answer would begin with a "N" until such time as other, independent sources started noticing your website, and acknowledging you as an expert. That is the difference here. Mjroots (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Baugher is undoubtedly a self-published source, his site long ago ceased to be merely a "hobby" site. If he is accepted as an expert by reliable published soures, then that appears to settle the issue. Btw, the bandying about of terms such as "lazy" and "stupid" is straying a bit into WP:PA territory, and needs to be curtailed. - BilCat (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misread: for me to refer to myself as a reliable source as "stupid" is not an attack on anyone but myself. Perhaps someone can template me for insulting myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I missed that you were calling yourself lazy too. :) - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not (I don't think); when I find a reference on the web to a reliable source, I go get it, or I don't write the article by citing it to a personal website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you didn't, hence the other part of my admonishment stands. One major reason Baugher is used is because he has been considered reliable by those editors, not simply because editors are "lazy". I actually agreed with you before this discussion started, but the evidence is to the contrary. It might be time to drop the stick, here at least, or file an RFC to gain a broader-ranging consensus from WP as a whole. - BilCat (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Bite my tongue...) I have to agree with Bilbious as I only entered into the fray as an almost disinterested party. I rarely use Baugher as a source, but have never considered him unreliable and thought that a blanket rejection of his work was too restrictive and did not consider the excellent research that he had done in establishing sources to substantiate his work. FWiW, categorizing others as lazy or uncaring is not a good argument as I recognize many of the editors as being the absolute opposite of these traits. Bzuk (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm always amused when the speed of the internet causes people to declare a discussion over when it's barely begun, and has been going less than a day, with relatively few editors weighing in. I suggest giving it a week or so, since a core policy is under fire here. And accessibility of souces on the web is not a core policy: insisting that sources be available on the net is laziness, and that's not aimed at any one editor, but against what is being advocated here, which will weaken other areas of the Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments continue below. Bzuk (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I could point out that the spaceflight articles similarly use a self-published source, Encyclopedia Astronautica. I would consider this source "reliable" by any reasonable English usage of the word - NASA points people to it for information, for example. It is widely used as a source across hundreds of Wikipedia spaceflight articles, because members of WP:SPACEFLIGHT believe this is a reliable source. But it would seem this source doesn't, strictly speaking, satisfy WP:SPS. To me this indicates that perhaps WP:SPS should be amended, as The Bushranger suggested. Mlm42 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on our article, and what's at www.astronautix.com , I can't find any reason to think it would be reliable, but there's not much there to go on. I've never seen it used in audited content, as far as I can recall-- are you aware of any GAs or FAs that use it (I wouldn't be surprised if it shows up at DYK). I can't think of any good reason to amend policy to allow sites like this, when so many quality sources are available, but perhaps you have more info on that source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just do a Google books search for "Encyclopedia Astronautica", and you get tons of books (which Wikipedia considers "reliable sources"), which are using his website as a source! Do we expect these books to have done further research to verify the information they got from his website? Hardly. Mlm42 (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing to GAs or FAs is circular reasoning.. currently the WP:SPS policy would prohibit the use of it as a source. Mlm42 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I misunderstood you be saying it was used, when I agree it should not be, per SPS (at least based on what limited info is available on the site, which tells us nothing that I can find about its author). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments continue below. Bzuk (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Joe Baugher pages from External Links sections

I had brought the following up at SandyGeorgia's talk page without realizing there was already a discussion here; for completeness I'm copying it here:

I know you've been concerned in the past about aircraft articles which use Joe Baugher's pages as citation sources, and I understand that doing this violates policy and is frowned upon, since his is clearly a self-published site. However, I noticed you recently removed links to his pages from the External Links section of several aircraft articles. I don't understand why. To my knowledge, Wikipedia's policy restriction against self-published sites only applies to sources, not External Links. And for many types of aircraft, Baugher is the best or one of the best sources of information available on the web; the only better sources are in print. Removing him from the External Links section cuts readers off from easy access to a potentially useful source of further information. Certainly his pages are more useful and more reliable as information sources on their subjects than many other External Links are.
--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems here (and a discussion at the Aviation WikiProject); first, many Aviation editors are seeing that link in many places and believing it to be a reliable source. We now have at least two GAs sourced to it, and several regular aviation editors attempting to defend a self-published hobby site as a reliable source. Second, I don't know of any reason to include it as an External link; external links are to provide information beyond what can be included in an article from reliable sources, and I know of no reason to include Baugher. It's confusing editors, who think he's reliable and are sourcing articles to him, which adds nothing to the articles. Why should we be promoting one hobby website via external links? I'm unconvinved by the frequent assertions that he's such a high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the above. It's not a hobby site and has been clearly and explicitly stated to be reliable by published historians. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you've already made this assertion, and I've referred you to WP:SPS-- have you found the requisite publication in the relevant field? They are usually in libraries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But does it state its sources? Don't we accept self-published sources if they cite their sources? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion continues: please read WP:SPS, the policy page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Baugher has a page of over 4,200 references for US military aircraft serials. Mjroots (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good: use them. That's why we have sourcing policies and prefer real sources to self-published hobby sites by non-experts. That the sources are available makes it all the more inexcusable that this is going on at the GA level, much less DYK, where I'm not surprised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, we may not have the source to verify the info from, whereas we can all access Baugher's website and verify the info there. Mjroots (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See above, maybe concentrate on the earlier topic as this seems to be a sub-topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Translation: laziness is acceptable and personal self-published hobby sites are preferred to real research from real sources, which are available from experts published in the relevant field. Please consider what you've just written, and where that trend leads if extended to other areas, and then consider why the Aviation Project is the only one I'm aware of that argues to further this trend. This doesn't bode well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to seeming belief, not everybody has access to libraries, and not everyone can acquire works through the libraries we have. There's books I requested via interlibrary loan over a year ago that I have not received. Also, your continued claiming that Baugher's site is a "hobby site" when it has been established, by reliable sources that it is not, is distressing.- The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should all continue the discourse in the earlier topic as some of the same concerns are being addressed over and over. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Second, I don't know of any reason to include it as an External link; external links are to provide information beyond what can be included in an article from reliable sources, and I know of no reason to include Baugher." That rationale may make sense for an article which is already complete. What about an article which still needs a lot of content? Sure, providing external links may mislead careless editors into using them as cited sources, but there are already policies in place to handle that. Trying to head the issue off by pruning the links ends up hurting those readers who may benefit from access to information not already in the article, and it also hurts conscientious editors who might use those links to get access to information or further sources to work on the article. As for, "Why should we be promoting one hobby website via external links?", well, when I have done so it was because I found better, more complete information on it than I could on any other website, so I figured I'd point other readers or would-be editors toward it as a starting point for future work.
Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument would imply to me that almost all External Links should be removed, regardless of how much information was currently in the article. It seems to me that would hurt readers for the sake of policy purity. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all the external links are to a dead link anyway, so it may be a moot point. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Not all Bill, I fixed one yesterday. I do believe that link is valid. I compared it to the article and noticed a couple of things, it says where the airframes came from (Davis-Monthan), crew names are given for all the incidents and there is mention of the previous altitude record holder (Ye-66A/MiG-21). There is more useful information there then but to use it we would have to cite the sources listed at the bottom of JB's page, I have them but whether I want to add these facts to the article is a judgement call and could be construed as just copying the facts straight from the book and JB's website (or both). Milb! noted the change of JB's URL some time ago I think for those who cared to update the links, I spotted this one through a dead link tag though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll offer a counterexample of what I consider to be a useful, self-published website by a recognized, published expert in the relevant field.

is a blog by Roger Freeman, MD, clinical head of the Neuropsychiatry Clinic, British Columbia's Children's Hospital, professional advisory board member of the Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada, and former member of the Tourette Syndrome Association Medical Advisory Board. Dr. Freeman has over 180 journal-published articles on PubMed.

Does anyone see the difference in this man's qualifications relative to Joe Baugher, for example? (Only as an external link-- I would never think of using this as a source, which is another big difference, even if WP:MEDRS didn't require higher quality sourcing for medical articles, and even if WP:SPS would allow it, I just wouldn't do this. YMMV.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a resolution

Have we now come to a juncture where we can make some resolution to the impasse? Many editors have now been able to add comments. I am now listing some attributes of the Baugher website:

  • Provides verifiable sources for his research;
  • Has been acknowledged as credible by other sources;
  • Has detailed, structured and professionally written accounts;
  • Information is dated and updated to reflect new findings;
  • Although posted on a personal website, the material is publicly accessible and is non-commercial. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think so-- not only do I see no need to use him as an external link (although I won't oppose on that), but the main opposition is and remains, the source violates WP:SPS. He is not published in the relevant field as our sourcing policies require. And we have no indication of what other credible experts do *not* consider him reliable, just because some editors have located some that do. Using self-published hobby sites from authors who are not experts in their fields is not a slippery slope we should be going down-- certainly not at the GA level. I also don't think we should be ignoring core Wikipedia policies because involved editors find it more convenient to use this website, in contradiction to our sourcing policies, when real sources are available. Another broader concern is that the entire Resources page, created on January 22 and evidencing limited knowledge of Wikipedia's sourcing policies, needs to be reviewed and addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your turn, you make a list of what you think are the main characteristics of his site and forget the absolutely ludicrous, "he is not published" canard. FWiW , it has not been a practice to use the site for GA and FA articles, but to throw the "baby out with the bathwater" is also not advocated. Bzuk (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sorry, but my list is quite simple and short, and is based on our core policy. The site does not meet SPS. Long counterlists based on individually cited opinion irrelevant to our policies won't change that, and won't improve Aviation articles (I thought we had overcome this years ago, dismayed this Project is going backwards again). And accessibility of sources is not key to our policies, as far as I recall (I could be wrong); often, best sources are not web accessible. So, I think your fifth point isn't entirely relevant, and your third and fourth points can't be proven. But we have policy to cover this anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What statements do you consider opinion? that there are sources? others consider the site credible? is professionally written? is dated and updated? is accessible and non-commercial? Enlighten me? FWiW (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It is your asssertion that Baugher "has detailed accounts" that are "updated to reflect new findings": that may or may not be true, I don't think we know for sure, and that is why SPS cautions against use of such sources when other sources are available. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate us on your "hobby horse" comment earlier on the page, as I'm beginning to wonder about the investment in this one particular site (at the expense of ignoring other likely problems on the page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Perhaps the solution is to open a debate regarding WP:SPS, then, and see if there is consensus to modify it to include works by those that are considered by the consensus of experts to be by experts and reliable? As with the increasing use of epublishing and what-not, traditional printed sources are going to gradually become less and less common in the not-too-distant future. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I also have a "water on a duck's back" maxim regarding Wikiwacky comments, but I do take offense if you are broadly referring to all of us as sending the project backward, hardly! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have those of you arguing to weaken WP:SPS considered the effect that will have throughout the Project? Is this Baugher site really a "hill worth dying on"? I'm wondering why, when so many other sources are available. For example, why would I quote Roger Freeman, who meets SPS, when published sources are available? Do you really want that occurring throughout the Project? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one of you could advance the discussion by entertaining me with an analysis of the differences I posted above between, for example, a recognized top expert publishing in his own field (Roger Freeman) compared to a self-published website from Joe Baugher, outside of his field of expertise? In the case of Roger Freeman, I don't have to go dig up google quotes to substantiate that he would meet SPS if I chose to use him as a source (which I would not at any rate). This is precisely what SPS addresses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bushranger, the debate should be about WP:SPS, not this specific case. Mlm42 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's agreeing with Bushranger, because I've had to struggle to bring this back to the relevant phrase (in the relevant field) at SPS. I do agree with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the SPS tries to define what it means to be an "expert on the topic". I think we are disagreeing on this definition. For example it appears Joe Baugher is, in fact, and expert on the topic. Yet SPS excludes him. In my example about spaceflight, Mark Wade is an expert, but SPS excludes him. Mlm42 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone devotes his spare time to research and acquiring knowledge on a particular subject, he can no longer be considered outside his field of expertise, that person has become an expert. To clarify: all the Baugher articles are dated and updated with dates of the updates given; IMHO, the writing is of a professional nature in respect to use of terminology, syntax and style; all reference sources are listed as "footnotes (non-standard)"; the site is publicly accessible, linked to many other sites and is non-commercial. Bzuk (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your judgment that it is professionally written, and did not question that, but even you have indicated you can't check the entire website for accuracy; that is what I question. Publicly accessible is not relevant to our sourcing policies. And once again, could you bring the discussion back to the specific wording in our policy, SPS-- the rest is tangential. Regardless of individual editors who may believe him to be an expert, that is not what our SPS policy requires. It requires that he be published in the relevant field. But I'm repeating myself again :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That "in his own field" argument has to be addressed as well. An avocation or field of study is just as relevant as a life's work or a vocation. FWiW, every article that I have checked (and there are thousands of them which indicates a dedication and resolve that I cannot fathom, mais, c'est la vie) has been bereft of major problems in writing or research. (I am a professional writer and editor so I can spot the "skunk in the hen house".) Bzuk (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
See my query above: is Baugher so important to you that you're willing to weaken SPS and see other articles in other areas suffer when we open the door to anyone who wants to self-publish in any area, because someone else lauded their website, even if they are writing outside of their area of expertise as a hobby? Have you considered how wide that floodgate will become? And followup, since other sources are available, what is it about Baugher that makes him worthy of weakening a core policy that protects our articles in other areas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone agrees they are experts in the field, why exclude them just because they haven't published in the third-party source? It doesn't seem right. Mlm42 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "everyone"? We have a few editors here arguing in favor of Baugher, and I know of many others who disagree (myself included). We have selective quotes, but no way of knowing what all experts think. I suspect my emphasis and concern on this is different, as I've seen the effect across a broader range of topic areas at FAC, and I don't think opening those flood gates to individual opinions as to whether someone is an "expert" will benefit the entire project-- that is why we have the "expert published in his own relevant field" wording at SPS. It avoids exactly these personalized discussions about whether someone is an expert, where everyone has an opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not "everyone" literally. I don't have a precise wording ready, but it seems in this case there is consensus among "experts" that he's an expert in the field. WP:SPS excludes such cases. Mlm42 (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SPS also tells us to use them carefully, as other sources are likely to have published them, which is something we have in this case, rendering the entire discussion over who is and is not an expert somewhat unproductive. I think our policy does the job of helping avoid these kinds of issues, and it was working quite well in the Aviation Project from at least 2008 until the creation of a dubious list on January 22, 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) We are already in the future, the Flight online archive goes back to 1910 or further, only difference is that it has been scanned by someone with the foresight for make it available for all to read. I use a 1946 gas turbine book (perfect condition) so my latest books should still be readable in 2050 or so (granted, probably not by me!). The Joe Baugher conundrum is beyond this project now, it should be taken up at WT:RS for a final and binding answer perhaps if editors feel the need to flog it. I just use the books he lists directly to save any grief. Taking the point that internet sources may well eventually take over we need to look at the way forward. Looking at the two Featured articles that I nominated though the citation mixture seems to be about 80% book and 20% web sourced (although some of that last percentage is Flight scans, so it's strictly a published magazine source), so were not quite in the 'all internet age' just yet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Again, revisiting the original reasoning behind the WP:BRD premise, we may have identified some aspects of SPS that needs to be explored. Nothing about Baugher is unusual except that he is an author of some repute, has made it a "labour of love" (Canadianisms spoken here) to have created an immense directory of aviation and other articles and in so doing, has become an expert in a specialized field and has chosen a unique means of publishing. An exception to a rule does not break the rule, just bends it a bit. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Until it grows, and grows, and grows, and every area of the Wiki is arguing over who is an "expert". Is there any chance of you addressing my query above about Roger Freeman, as an example, and explaining why you would find it preferable for me to cite a blog from an author who meets SPS, when journal-published sources are available in a library, and have been peer-reviewed? I don't see how going to the wider community to try to change a core policy will be helpful if y'all won't answer that basic question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The floodgates argument is just another aspect of the same argument, there are numerous self-published sites that have been offered and rejected. I recently eviscerated an edit from an obvious fanboy site. If a blog is written by an expert is it any less credible than a print version of that same blog. We have a doctor providing a blog in our local newspaper as his column; the rules are changing as we speak... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
OK, so let's suppose the in the relevant field wording is removed. Do you not envision, as I do, this same discussion playing out across multiple Projects and articles? If that clause is removed, by what method do we limit the use of self-published sources? What would prevent me from citing Roger Freeman's blog, and having someone who dislikes Roger Freeman attack the article's credibility because I didn't use peer-reviewed journal articles? (Actually, that's not a very good example, because in the medical realm, we are fortunate to have a guideline that requires the best sourcing, but it's a hypothetical question any way.) I'd like to see you all move beyond Baugher here and understand the effect across the entire Project of allowing self-published sources according to opinions over whether someone is an expert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we need to make sure they are an expert in the relevant field. It's the "third-party publication" bit that's the problem. Mlm42 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment WP:SPS doesn't say exactly what an expert is anyway. So we're already avoiding the question. It just says that if someone is an "established expert" on the topic, then we can only include their self-published sources only if they have a third-party publication on that topic. But it doesn't say such a publication is sufficient to be an expert in the field. So the question is already there.. we've just avoided it with the "third-party publication" bit, which is a rough approximation to the concept of being an "expert". Mlm42 (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is proposing changing the rules of the game, just recognizing that there are other ways of being accepted as an expert. In advocating for this one individual website does not lead to wholesale changes in the criteria for reliable sources. Is Baugher an expert, yes, he is. Is he the best source? probably not. Should we use him for GA/FA articles, let's say no. Should he be excluded entirely when other editors resort to his site when they have no other credible sources at hand, perhaps. This isn't undermining Wikipedia, it's acknowledging that reference sources can be diverse and ever-expanding. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you agree he shouldn't be used at the GA level, we can close up and go home now :) That's really all I'm asking, and that the Resources page be rewritten to reflect how those sources should actually be used. The implication now is that they are reliable across the board, so we're seeing them used perhaps inappropriately. I won't argue if Baugher is used on a stub, but it is now being used on GAs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, @Mlm) But, but ... yes it does! By requiring they be published in the relevant field (and bolded there). It's a strange thing about Wikipedia perhaps, but what else would work in its place and not be subjective? If the argument here is to delete that portion, how do we avoid opening the floodgates? What is it replaced with? People googling for opinions about that editor, when critical opinion is less likely to be published for a variety of reasons, best not discussed here? For example, Roger Freeman is quite the plain talker and straight shooter, and he's probably got lots of enemies (using my example from above), so we rely on the fact that he is a published expert in his field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I read it: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. It says "an established expert .. whose work ..". It doesn't say what an established expert is.. Mlm42 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the 'resources' page mentioned here, I created a resource page for the aero engines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Reference sources and made sure that nothing there was questionable. If someone can link to the page in question I will have a look at it and report back, (nay, even remove any dodgy ones!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it feels like this discussion has been going on for eons, but it's the very first link at the top of the section I started only about six hours ago :) Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources. I'm going to go away and rest for a while ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy, I've looked at them and the lead line does not say that they are all reliable sources unlike the engine source page I created, it should say that some (or most) of them are not. Confusingly, at the bottom it says that links in this section are not reliable sources (implying that the links in the upper sections are). With the project's agreement I will fix it to make it much clearer. Without it I won't. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My initial concern was raised by statements on an RFA to the effect that it was "endorsed" (or something) by the Aviation Project, which caused me to go looking for a source guideline here, and that was all I found, so fixin' is needed :) Aviation editors are believing all are reliable, rather than some being places for locating reliable sources, and the distinction at the bottom is most confusing. The page was only created on January 22, so I'm still curious how Baugher was "endorsed" for GAs prior to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we don't have the MicMac mind trick here, this is not resolved yet. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This is the same debate we had last year over navweps.com for WP:Ships. Like Baugher the site is sourced, updated constantly, etc., but the primary author is not a 3rd-party-published expert even though several authors who have been published have used material from his site. Which means that outsiders do regard him as a reputable expert even though that doesn't seem to make any difference to WP:SPS. Which, to my mind, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I see no reason why editors who have no access to expensive, rare, or in another language, books should be kept from using a web source which does use those sources.

I find it rather humorous that such insistence is made on traditional publishing in the criteria for SPS when I've seen plenty of howler-type errors made by publishers who fail to fact-check many books in the name of saving money. To be fair, however, I suspect that that standard was set for lack of anything better that came to mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to put forth at WT:V

Alright, let's talk about a concrete proposal. SPS currently reads:

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I propose it be amended to:

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, established by one of two ways: the "expert" is cited in multiple reliable third-party publications as an expert in the relevant field, or whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by the same. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so, and higher-quality citations are required for an article to be rated at the highest assessment levels.

I believe this opens the door for (what I believe to be) reliable sources like Baugher or Tony DiGiulian at NavWeaps, ie people who have been cited in reliable books as being "experts", while keeping out everything else. I also hope that the last sentence will be of comfort to Sandy and others; I've actually wanted to add that since WIAFA was altered. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see tomorrow, but I think that this would be the first time a "double standard" in referencing quality is actually admitted to in a major guideline - obviously we all know this in fact what most articles show, unless and until they are taken to GA or FA. Since Sandy's big concern re all this is the quality of DYK referencing, this may not work for her, but let's see. Myself I don't like departing from the idea that all articles are held to the same referencing standards, even though most just don't live up to them (rather like Catholics and sin). It's a slippery slope. I know nothing about Baugher & won't try to assess his quality myself, but in general there is a load of referencing material published on aviation, far more than many fields, & I think there ought to be a pressing need before the existing principle is departed from. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A double standard was already codified in WIAFA's "high-quality" criterion... I don't see this as a slippery slope as much because there really isn't anywhere else to go down to. Baugher and DiGiulian are reliable, I think, but they are certainly the lowest form of RS. For those who want to quickly expand large amounts of articles, those who don't have access to high-quality sources (or yes, the "lazy" ones), I think these are perfect. For those who want to go up the assessment ladder, they aren't acceptable.
In essence, I think Wikipedia editors should be able to use these sources if published authors use and/or recommend them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, heck. I'm too tired to be doing this tonight, but with Ed17's good faith effort to move this forward, and with it fresh in my mind, I don't like to keep y'all waiting, so I'll try to pound out an initial response, likely incoherent and more rambling than my usual. Please do not take any of my commentary as specifically directed at Aviation or Baugher-- it's that potential opening of the floodgates that concerns me.

1. I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that a double standard is codified at WP:WIAFA, where "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" was added after a long and heated discussion. I'm concerned that we not leave the impression that FAs diverge from core policy, when the situation is possibly (in some cases) one where other articles don't reflect policy. But that's neither here nor there for this discussion.

2. A word on attempts to change long-standing core policy. It is really tough! Editors will come out of the woodwork with scenarios we can't even envision here, so pounding something out at the WikiProject level that will address this problem may be a more effective approach. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't try something wrt WP:SPS; just cautioning that it can be really hard to get something through, so it had best be airtight, preferably before you even think of going there.

3. My (similar) experience in the area I most edit (medicine). Many of us (it may be fair to say most of us) who edit medical articles feel that sourcing for them should be held to a higher standard, as with BLPs, because inaccurate medical articles have just as much potential for harm as poorly sourced BLPs. What core changes to sourcing policy have we ever seen on Wikipedia except BLPs? So, we worked very hard for a very long time to develop WP:MEDRS, a guideline, and to gain broad consensus for it. MEDRS took maybe a year to bring it to something resembling its current state, not sure, and even though it enjoys broad consensus and is very well written, we have never been successful at getting that guideline included in a policy page or elevated to the level of BLPs, so just a note of caution to all of you about how difficult it is to get even broad consensus for change added to a policy page.

4. Now, with that as background, turning to this proposal, I suspect that you will have a very hard time getting "higher-quality citations are required for an article to be rated at the highest assessment levels" through WP:V. First, some editors on the Wikipedia go bonkers at the mere mention of article assessment. Second, some will argue that all articles should use the highest quality sourcing available. Third, plenty of people will simply reject that because they won't want to confuse article assessment with core policy; the idea of introducing different levels of sourcing to different levels of articles, I think, will be a very hard sell. Fourth, as someone else already raised somewhere else in these discussions, fixing up an already cited article after the fact is a nightmare. Dealing with poorly sourced medical articles, I hold the opinion that no content (at least in medical articles) is preferable to marginally sourced content, because fixing them after the fact is so hard, and inaccurate medical info has such potential to harm our readers. I've done a lot of that kind of work, and know how hard it is, and I'd rather we not encourage general or new editors to use marginal sources anywhere at any time-- we've got too much of that already! (Again, I'm not referring to Baugher here-- I'm asking you all to think of the bigger picture). This is precisely the problem I have with how the award culture fuels DYK via WikiCup on the route to RFA; poorly sourced articles do not serve us or our readers well, and fixing them later is a lot of work for other editors, so the whole idea of introducing different levels of sourcing per assessment is likely to be a non-starter, and to include other objections I haven't even thought of. Others have already mentioned that we'd rather see new editors learn correct sourcing from the get-go, so our content is verifiable to reliable sources and we don't have to fix 'em up later.

5. Another point is that, for some content areas, it's entirely possibly that the highest quality sources available are self-published sources, albeit those written by authors who meet the current SPS, so introducing this change may meet resistance on that front.

6. On "the 'expert' is cited in multiple reliable third-party publications as an expert in the relevant field," I'm less troubled, but still doubt it will get by a broader audience at WP:V, because any editor who has been around for a while knows of some scenario or another where someone tried to argue that so-and-so was an "expert" because so-and-so-two said so, and this could lead to all kinds of debates similar to the one we're having here.

So, in summary, while I don't discourage the idea of review at WP:V, I don't hold out hope, and think a much more effective approach will be to solve the problem at the Project level. I'm not sure how that might be best accomplished, but the case we have here is that there are plenty of reliable aviation sources, so why not teach new editors correct sourcing early on, rather than try for a change to a core policy? It seems to me that the gist of this proposal is to encourage new content, while reminding new editors that for an article to progress through assessment levels, better sourcing may be needed. Can that be accomplished by some other means, like reminding them to use lesser quality sources as a means of locating better sources?

I'm sorry if this isn't very coherent, but wanted to provide something while the discussion is active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, and (as with your comments) this is a general thing as opposed to specific, it could be very discouraging to a new editor if they are told "everybody agrees that this source is reliable, but we don't, and if you can't find its sources to use them, tough cookies for you." I know that isn't the intent, but that is exactly how lots of people will take it to mean: that if you can't afford a $200 book (or a $999 one - don't laugh, one of the books I need for a future FL I'm working on is listed as exactly that used at Amazon!), and if your local library can't get it for you via interlibrary loan, you're somehow a lesser editor than those who can achieve either of those - even though the information is right there, and everyone but Wikipedia says it's reliable.
As an aside, what if somebody uses a book to cite an article - and the information in the book came originally from Baugher/NavWeaps/et al.? Are we going to say "sorry, you can't use this book as a source"? Or are we going to say "you can use the book which sourced/quoted X, but you can't use X itself, because the book is reliable and X is not even though the book's source was X"? I think, regardless of where we stand on this issue, we can agree that that would be silly indeed - but it's exactly where things appear to stand at the moment. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Bushranger, I just asked that question at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. It was noted that if a reliable source publishes "work" that came from the website in question, then the wording of WP:SPS is such that this counts as having the authors work being published, and hence makes the website an acceptable source. Mlm42 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I have always understood it, using WP:COMMONSENSE, as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) On your first paragraphs, new (and even experienced) editors put up poorly sourced content all the time; there's nothing new there, but codifying that into policy would be new. Probably 95% of the Project is poorly sourced, but that's not a reason to encourage it in policy. And your "everyone but Wikipedia says it's reliable" is a bit of hyperbole for a general proposal (and maybe even for the Baugher specific example, where not everyone says it's reliable). On your second paragraph, that is not where things currently stand per SPS. Another editor has already pointed out a problem somewhere in these discussions with a Baugher source in another article, so that his site is error free should not be in question. If a reliable source quotes him, that's not really our problem either, the source would meet our verifiability requirements-- until/unless a better source pinpoints an error, in which case, that book would be called into question as a good source. I think if we want to advance this discussion, it is imperative to think beyond Aviation and Baugher, to the bigger picture on Wiki. And I'm not dismissing your concerns about the cost of sources: I used to regularly spend about $500 per year for medical journal articles, but if I can't source articles correctly, I shouldn't be writing them. Now I have friends with access, but nonetheless, that's my view-- in the area I most edit (medicine), I believe no content is preferable to marginal content. Aviation articles might not be causing harm to anyone, so I'm unlikely to scream if Baugher is referencing a stub, but our editors should learn correct sourcing as early as possible. There are many ways on Wikipedia of sharing sources-- have you all tried that? Surely many editors here have many of the most crucial books, and scanning and e-mail are possibilites, at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it's certainly not error free, I agree - then again there's a lot of books that are reliable in some areas and not in others, and I've seen it said, at WP:MILHIST and elsewhere on the project, that in those cases you simply use what's accurate, and discard what isn't. (Stuff about Soviet weaponry published before the fall of the Soviet Union is particulary bad about this - and it got worse for a short time shortly thereafter when the now-Russian companies decided to throw everything they had on the back of a napkin at the West and hope some of it, any of it, would stick!) I think you misunderstood my first paragraph though - it's not saying that there should, or shouldn't, be a policy change, but rather that a new editor might well think Wikipedia is crazy for saying that X, who Y, Z, A, B and C say is an expert, isn't an expert. I know one group of people, veterans and experts in their fields all, that I'm involved with who consistently mock Wikipedia for things exactly like that - WP:PRIMARY got an especially long round of sad head-shaking, with statements, by published military authors, that primary sources should be given preference over secondary ones. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can relate: I faced the problem of massively conflicting reliable sources in Brazilian cruiser Bahia#Loss. If a consistent series of errors is identified in Baugher, then we can declare it as unreliable, just like any other source. However, so far I'm not seeing that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@BushRanger, understood now, thanks for the clarification. We have a similar but different problem in medical articles, where *real* experts in their fields are used to writing from primary sources, and mock us for requiring secondary sources, but we have our policies to protect us from sites even more marginal than some of these MilHist sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I tried to explain to them. I'm not sure if they got it or simply decided to humour me by smiling and nodding... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raised at RSN

Having read all the discussion that has occurred overnight, I've raised the question at WP:RSN#Joe Baugher. The discussion is specifically about Baugher's lists of American military aircraft, No other parts of Baugher's website are under consideration or discussion. I've asked that AVIATION and MILHIST members disclose their membership of the project if they are participating in the discussion. We have "irons in the fire" so to speak. The idea of raising this at RS is to get uninvolved editors to look at the arguments on either side and hopefully establish consensus over the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mjroots. I've posted (with disclaimer) there regarding the Gbooks hits. I should note that, regardless of the outcome of this, I will happily comply either way - if the verdict is "not a RS", then I'll remove the links from the GAs in question, see about finding alternative sources, and also use alternative sources on the other pages from B-class and down as I work on them. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's declared not reliable, then it won't be useable at all and all info will have to be referenced from elsewhere. On the other hand, if it is deemed to be a RS, then it can be used across all classes of article, including FA and FL. I'm uneasy with "reliable enough to use if nothing better available". Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots, the post above isn't completely correct-- reliability of sources is a spectrum, and depends upon the source texted and the article, and even if considered reliable for some text or some kinds of articles, it is never likely to be acceptable at the FA level, which requires high quality sources and a survey of the relevant literature-- if Baugher cites his sources, those are the high quality sources that would be needed in a relevant survey of the literature, and that must be consulted to ascertain accuracy of text cited to a hobby site, that may be acceptable for other purposes at lower levels of assessment. The notion that any given source is simply reliable or not is wrong; reliability is context dependent. For example The New York Times is generally a reliable source, but may not be used to cite medical facts. FYI, I wouldn't have opened a RSN post referencing an ongoing RFA (I usually wait for them to close before referencing them anywhere): YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=414433312

Leave a Reply