Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I have a dispute with another editor about the extent that web-published video can constitute strict publication. I'm too tired to type one more sentence of summary or bickering, so I thought perhaps I could start a thread discussion the topic in the abstract. What conditions do you believe need to be in place to consider a networked video (e.g. YouTube) to be a good, reliable, verifiable source of information? Squish7 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not very specific. I'm no expert but I think never, that doesn't mean you cant use it at all but usually no. It depends on who originally published it and under what license. Weekly Republican Address has 140 youtube videos for example. If the original source is good enough to use but the copyrights are in question it is best to provide only a reference in text without a link:

<ref>person(s), "the title of the production", who published it, the date it was published.</ref>

In stead of, for example:

<ref>Mr G., "Under Pressure", Do Try This at Home, Season 2, Episode 1, 2014</ref>

You could look at other articles how sources are used. Here is a search for "youtube.com".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=youtube.com&fulltext=1

84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP address above is completely incorrect. It's actually very simple about when you can use Youtube. If the video is hosted on the channel of an official news organizations, like the official Fox News or CNN Youtube channel, then the video are both reliable and don't violate copyright. Silverseren^C 04:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think he was asking for cases where it is obvious. I thought the question was where the line is. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not clicked on all of them at the Republican article but so far a couple are perfect examples of when YouTube can be used. Example: this is a primary source (so use it with care) but it should be OK. The YouTube channel is verified as being official with the link to it from here (lower right). There are some concerns overall (not enough secondary sources, refs are not formatted correctly) but those are a whole other issue. More info can be seen at an essay I started: Wikipedia:Video links.Cptnono Follow-up:Didn't realize we were looking at it as an "abstract". There are too many variables to give an answer here which is why YouTube videos should be judged on a case by case basis.(talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is only acceptable when it is the YouTube channel of something that otherwise conforms to WP:RS, like Fox News, and then under the requirements for other broadcast media. It's never acceptable if it's a self-published source (see WP:SPS) unless it's about itself: say, Pat Condell's YouTube Commentaries become popular enough to be relevant to Wikipedia, etc. For example, I could make ten YouTube videos on why space aliens are real and how they put on suits of skin to become our leaders and usher in the New World Order; those videos could then be used to artificially lend more WP:WEIGHT to an extremely fringe cause. From that example, it should be clear why such sources are never acceptable. JohnChrysostom (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really have to pick Faux News as your example? To be a reliable source, there must be a reputation for fact checking, not just a large audience. There are in fact some reliable publishers with redistribution via YouTube channels, but Jon Stewart has made a living for years out of spotting the errors on Faux. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if the video is of a BLP subject giving information about themselves that is used to support material in their article? As long as it's unambiguously clear that it is indeed the subject in question, then wouldn't it be permissable to use for some info, like an artist discussing the techniques and materials they use, for example? Nightscream (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I use the best materials in the world and possess the best technique. I name my techniques differently to what art historians and art theorists name techniques." cf: The tree shaping case. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm not following. Can you clarify? Nightscream (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals are often the worst source regarding themselves, they are habitually self serving, they are the perfect example of a PRIMARY and an involved source. They have no distance from themselves, and make outrageous claims on a regular basis that experts do not. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I make a point not to rely on self-published or primary sources precisely when the material in question is indeed potentially controversial or self-serving, like the awards that an artist has one. But when it's something completely innocuous or neutral in that respect, like where the person was born or grew up, what materials they use, that's not really self-serving, is it? Where else would information on what type of paper or which pencil leads an artist uses be found, if not from their own mouth? Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding geography and self-identification: British Isles dispute; Eastern European disputes; regarding techniques and methods in fine arts: Tree Shaping dispute. Ethnicity and at least one art technique have so stewed the editing process with their controversial nature that arbitration has been effected. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the "Tree Shaping dispute" is, and it would help if you would tell me or link me. In any event, the types of pencils, markers, inks or papers that Adam Hughes uses is not controversial or disputed, a point that I thought I had made clearly enough in my last message above. That is why I question if there's anything wrong with relying on a YouTube video of a notable artist explaining the materials he chooses to work with. In what way is this controversial or disputed? How does one dispute the materials a notable flat-out says he uses? What source could possibly be used to contest what materials he uses when working in his own home? Nightscream (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I am having problems with two users, Athenean and Alexikoua, who keep repeatedly deleting every citation i make from Encyclopedia Britannica, I want to ask if Encyclopedia Britannica can be accepted as a source in Wikipedia or not. I have seen that scores of articles use at a source, so we have to establish if this source should be allowed in Wikipedia. (Edvin (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

See for example Talk:Albania#Encyclopedia Britannica is regarded as a trusted source by Wikipedia community. There are several articles involved in a consensus building exercise including Albania, History of Albania, London Conference of 1912-1913 in which many sorts of sources are being offered up for examination including, primary sources--contemporary news paper accounts, secondary sources and tertiary sources. In this case EB stands for http://www.britannica.com rather than Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source for what? As is made clear at the top of this page, we need more information. What is it being used as a source for? I'd also suggest you read WP:PSTS - the Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source, and we quite explicitly state that "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others". There is no yes-or-no answer to your question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EB is, at best, a tertiary source per many past discussions here. In addition, the online version solicits revisions from readers, which has also been established at RS/N. And since "RS" has nothing to do with "truth", EB is pretty much ruled out as a source - you probably should look at the sources the EB cites instead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Appending: The OP seems to also be posting related complaints at AN/I concurrently. Collect (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Cheers article from EB as "Further reading" source rather than reference. If you want, you can still add EB articles into "Further reading" section; don't forget, be bold! Cheers, George Ho (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"EB is pretty much ruled out as a source" What?! That's the craziest thing I've read on Wikipedia all day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was EB ruled out as a source? I've never ever heard that, especially when we cross-post public domain content from old versions of it. Silverseren^C 07:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple discussions on RSN and elsewhere - if a fact needs a cite, the EB is where you look to find a cite, but as a tertiary source it is deficient for most WP purposes. And since the online EB solicits revisions, it is even less an RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) By the way, the 1911 edition was used to "populate" Wikipedia at the start, and is now generally regarded as having been a mistake. It was only "public domain" at the start because of the odd US copyright laws of the time, and most uses on WP are being removed over time. See Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica, and the fact that there is a specific template for such articles Collect (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean discussions like this, where you're the only person saying it is an unreliable source? I think you're really the only one or one of very few here that thinks Britannica isn't a reliable source. As Andy pointed out above, it does depend on what you're using it for, but that's true for any source. As a whole, the Britannica is reliable, it's just not as good as a secondary source, since it is a conglomeration of secondary sources, but tertiary sources are still perfectly reliable, especially for general, big picture information. Silverseren^C 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you have missed a number of discussions on this - including opinionf from Jimbo, Gwen Gale and a number of others about it as a source. [1] Meaning, once editors begin to dig at all into a topic, encyclopedias are out, gone, toast, the end. Stay away from 'em, other than as a means to find out what to look for and where, but even that can be way dodgy, owing to the wanton systemic bias of most any tertiary reference. [2] etc. also show remarkable unanimity that non-specialized encyclopedias are tertiary sources at best. [3] ditto. Sorry - I am far from the only person with this view. [4] shows a view on a GA page. [5] ditto. [6] ditto. [7] ditto. [8] and another. [9] and another. But you could only find s single discussion? I find literally hundreds of them. Cheers - EB was, and remains, "tertiary". And it is specialized tertiary sources which are usable. Not "general ones. Collect (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that Jimbo and Gwen Gale have opinions, but personal opinions aren't policy. Our policy states that reliable sources are those who have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Clearly, Encyclopedia Britanica has such a reputation. I mean, are you honestly trying to say that EB isn't a reputable encyclopedia? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And well over two dozen other editors and admins ... and so far "tertiary sources" remain "tertiary sources." And remember "reputable" != "reliable source" per WP:RS so that cavil fails. The fact is that Wikipedia requires stronger sourcing than tertiary encyclopedia articles are. And that should end the issue utterly. Collect (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on who wrote the EB article. If it is written by an acknowledged expert, then it becomes an article by a secondary source and is then better than a secondary source written by a layman.

Collect, I think you are making a mistake in assuming that all secondary sources are of the same type of quality. For example I have recently been involved in a discussion over the year in which a man was allegedly knighted by Queen Elizabeth I. We have found a secondary source that uses primary sources that does not list the man as one who received a knighthood in that year (but the source may not have surveyed all the primary sources). However, it seems that for this fact many modern day secondary sources rely on Victorian secondary sources, which rely on an 18th century source that cites a 17th century source. We have not yet found a secondary source that cites a primary source. But clearly when (or if) such a secondary source is found, it will be "better" than all the sources that cite older secondary sources. A secondary source that does not cite primary sources, but relies on other secondary sources is no better or worse than a general encyclopaedia as a source, and many many books support facts with citations to other previously published secondary sources. An good example of this is the propagation in may English language books published from the 1960s until the late 1990s of the incorrect figure of 130,000 killed in the bombing raids on Dresden in February 1945. German historians had provided the correct figures back in the 1970s, but these were ignored in many books and articles in favour of David Irving incorrect figures published in his book The Destruction of Dresden. It took a decade after he was discredited in court before the correct figures became generally accepted (and were stated as a fact without hedging in the Wikipedia article).

BTW where is the alleged fact that Wikipedia requires stronger sourcing than tertiary encyclopaedia articles to be found in the verifiability or WP:PSTS policies? -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Nothing wrong with citing tertiary sources in general, but if there are better sources, they should be preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Another pointless argument about abstract 'reliability'. As far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, there is no such thing. Since the OP has declined to tell us what the Encyclopaedia is being cited for, I suggest that we close this 'debate', and all do something more useful instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, it isn't an RS issue at all, it's a copyright issue. Brittanica is very much an RS. The 1911 edition was used appropriately to populate our early articles about botany, for example. But if we absorb lots of content from a tertiary source that we're basically in competition with, that can cause problems. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a problem? -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised we're even questioning EB's use as a source. If EB is ruled out, then we ought to erase millions of other far more dubious sources which are gaily quoted on Wikipedia but have no verifiable standing - e.g. random websites, newspapers and magazines which may just be one person's uninformed (and possibly biased) opinion. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has certial rules about "tertiary sources." It has nothing whatsoever to do with "truth" but to do with the desired nature of Wikipedia's sourcing. And opinions are citable only as opinions in any case, and most "random websites" are utterly unacceptable, so that sort of argument holds no water. And if something can be found in a tertiary source, it should reasonably be findale in an acceptable secondary source, just as we also rule out most primary sources on the basis that important information should be findale in a secondary source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basic policy about tertiary sources is 'Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other.'

So yes one should avoid using them for particular facts but they can be used to help with the summary and overall structure and with assessing weight. And primary sources can very often be more reliable than secondary sources, just we must not trawl through primary sources for new things but only use stuff which has been mentioned in secondary sources. Basically primary sources give no notability but may be more accurate and have some weight. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there is nothing in WP:PSTS against using tertiary sources, there are strong restrictions on the way that primary sources can be used, and unpublished primary sources may not be used. -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not always clear cut whether something is a secondary or tertiary source. For example is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as secondary or tertiary source? -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use tertiary sources for particular facts as well. I think the current policy formulations are often somewhat misunderstood. Imho it is a mistake or misunderstanding to take taking that policy all too literally. The notion that tertiary are per se "inferior" is rather misleading. First of of all there is often no clear cut distinction between secondary and tertiary and more importantly the quality (and domain) of a source is much more important than a formal distinction between secondary and tertiary. Meaning a high quality tertiary source (say an academic special subject encyclopedia or a standard textbook) is often better and more reliable source than some mediocre secondary source. Another thing to keep in mind, is how WP articles are actually written. The (ideal) situation, that a domain expert with an overview of all relevant secondary (and primary) sources compiles them into an article, is simply not a workable scenario for the bulk of our articles/content. Instead many WP articles are written by non experts with only a limited or even no overview of the relevant secondary sources. Such authors usually compile the knowledge of (academic) textbooks and (academic) encyclopedias into WP, which are usually at least partially tertiary sources. From that perspective you might even argue that the bulk of our reliable sources is tertiary to begin with.

As far as the original problem (editors deleting any EB references (or any tertiary reference) is concerned, I'd even consider that vandalism, that is, people removing EB references without replacing it by another (superior, secondary) source. Now there can be individual cases where you can consider an EB reference as insufficient or inappropriate, but that needs to be judged on case by case basis. Also the very recent (user based) content additions of the EB need to be viewed with a greater scrutiny. But then again I find it hard to image a scenario where no reference is better than an EB reference.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me the whole 'philosophy' behind the RS guidelines is to maximise the accuracy of relaying information. A good secondary sources should rely on primary sources, so are one step away from the facts. Tertiary sources rely on secondary sources and therefore are two steps away, so you get an escalation of the chinese whisper effect. That doesn't make tertiary sources unreliable, just less reliable than a secondary source by its very nature; also a good tertiary source like EB is better than a poor secondary source like the Daily Mail (where we've actually had instances of them making up stories (I don't recall similar discussions about EB). So in general, if something is good enough for EB it probably should be good enough for Wikipedia, but the aim should always be to seek out sources that put us closest to the facts. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes there is potential "whisper effect". However high quality (scholarly) tertiary sources are usually written by experts that looked at all or most relevant primary and secondary sources, which means (ideally) there's no whisper effect at all in such a scneario. Also instead of seeing it from the whisper effect perspective, you can also see it as an error removing filter perspective, meaning good tertiary sources add an additional level of expert scrutiny and are without possible errors and mistakes still contained in original primary and secondary sources. As far as "closest" to the facts is concerned, you could argue that's an argument for primary rather than for secondary sources. But the problem there is, that the perceptions of facts might differ and that for an encyclopedia the simple stating of facts is not enough either (knowledge versus information). Encyclopedia needs to contextualize, connect and explain facts and also consider different perceptions, incomplete information/"missing facts and such. That's exactly where the secondary and tertiary sources come in.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. "

I agree with User:AndyTheGrump. There is no "abstract 'reliability' without exact context. Since the OP has declined to tell us what the Encyclopaedia is being cited for, I suggest that we close this 'debate', ..." without any conclusion due to lack of the context and the fact there is no abstract general reliability.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the context as in insert at the top of this section. -- PBS (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I can't see the context you added. Does it contain any of below information requested for this page:

• The article in which it is being used. For example article name
• The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example

  text

  . Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
• Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

I am not following this discussion so if there is a context with above mentioned information please talkback me on my talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the second paragraph in this section that starts "See for example Talk:Albania#Encyclopedia Britannica is regarded as a trusted source by Wikipedia community ..." -- PBS (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable for proposed uses. EB is an unsigned tertiary aimed at the general public. There have been fundamental criticisms of its fact checking, analysis and thoroughness. EB is not a reliable source for most academic topics, as its purpose is pedagogical and not scholarly. The proposed uses relate to the history of Albania, an academic topic. EB is not reliable for this. See WP:HISTRS for appropriate tertiary sources to use in history articles (signed tertiaries published by academic historians or equivalent peers, in the scholarly press, or equivalent press as reviewed, that are aimed at other scholarly practitioners.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every article in EB is identified with an author, who is often a recognised expert. -- 202.124.75.249 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frog (amphibian) identifies a "primary contributor" which is different to "signing;" Australian Cattledog has no named contributor. I'm sorry 202.… but you're not correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at EB1911 on Wikisource while not all articles are signed many are for example the third EB article is signed see: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagesen, Andrew" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. -- PBS (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...its purpose is pedagogical and not scholarly.

So what? Exactly the same criticism can be leveled, and with even greater justice, against every single university-level textbook, and we routinely accept such sources as being reliable.

I suspect that you have confused "best possible source" with "meets minimum standards for being a reliable source".

The actual qualities that define a reliable source are not whether it's "scholarly" or "secondary". They are

1. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
3. It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
4. It is a third-party or independent source.
5. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

EB easily qualifies on every single point.

Now—you could certainly find better sources. But the existence of a better source doesn't mean that EB becomes unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary and Undergraduate tertiary textbooks do not possess a "professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something," fit to the claim. Historical claims emerge from a disciplinary process—this is very distinct from pedagogical purposes. What other fields are willing to accept in relation to undergraduate texts is another matter, but generalist encyclopaedia and undergraduate texts, in the area of history, routinely and overwhelmingly mischaracterise the findings of scholarship, the methodology of interpretation, and the scholarly debate. EB is not reliable for history. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook publishers most certainly do have "a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something." How exactly do you think that McGraw-Hill decided whether to publish American History: A Survey? By asking some volunteers what they should do? Or do you think that they hired some professional editors to make that decision?

Additionally, I don't think you're understanding the issue around reliable sources in general. The source needs to be able to support the claim being made. There are no sources that are always unreliable. If EB is being cited in support of a historical claim like "Geroge III was a king" or "There was a plague in London back in the 14th century", then it's entirely suitable and reliable. If you're trying to support a complicated claim, then you need a source that's up to supporting the weight of the complicated claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To fit the claim. Pedagogy is not historiography. If you are citing EB for George III was a king, you aren't following a variety of article writing policies, and further, in the area of medieval history, EB is useless at representing the historiography of kings, particularly pseudo-mythic kings. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, since both Wikipedia and EB are encyclopaediae, it would be hardly correct to write the former based on the latter. In my real life I never saw that scientists used EB as a source for their research articles/reviews. I cannot tell for sure about history/liberal arts, I am not a specialist there, however, I have a feeling that they do not use EB either. I think EB, being a tertiary source, should be avoided when possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent point. I've never seen EB used as a source for serious books on archaeology or history. I've always thought it an unsuitable source for articles. A minor point is that EB of course has no NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, EB is a tertiary source that summarizes serious books on archaeology or history. Sure Wikipedia and EB are encyclopaediae, but they are not comparable, the former is written by amateurs who imagine themselves to be encyclopedists and the latter is written by professional encyclopedists who are often experts in their respective fields. EB is a reliable source for an overview of a topic, but obviously specific books on archaeology or history are preferable for detail when available. --Nug (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the humanities field there are a few citations to EB, for instance Peter Kropotkin wrote Anarchism in the EB, at the time when he was a premier theoretician. It was a signed article of original research, which merely happened to be printed in the EB. Outside of that, no. Also, and I've said this forever: dog doesn't eat dog. We do not write an authoritative generalist tertiary source, by recycling other generalist tertiary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wikipedia does "eat dog" (and often decayed dogs), and so do others eg: the ODNB. Part of the problem here is one of methodology. Fifelfoo you seem to think that if it is not written as a summary by an editor of Wikipedia citing secondary sources it is tainted. But others think of Wikipedia as a repository of general knowledge and if that can be acquired by legally copying text from other sources, providing those sources are properly attributed (see WP:PLAGARISM) then that is acceptable. As we have tens of thousands of articles with text copied from PD sources and plenty of others that summarise and cite tertiary sources, this is a self evident popular view among Wikipedia editors (we have whole projects dedicated to such ports (eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography). In the long term this text can be augmented and/or replaced with new text that comes from summarising more modern secondary sources, but it the short term it gets information into Wikipdia that is then available to a much wider audience. Not only does it get useful text into articles it also creates articles with a structure that will be familiar to people who have read similar works, and even if the text is gradually improved with summaries of new sources, the structure tends to remain in place. Let me give you an example that I have written this week. I wanted some information on the Battle of Veillane on which Wikipedia did not have an article, so I looked up what was available publicly on the net and three days ago wrote a sub. That stub cites five sources four of which are tertiary sources. I do not think that Wikipedia would be improved by not creating or removing stubs such as this because they cite tertiary sources, instead Wikipedia will be improved when someone, who knows more about the battle than I, edits my contribution mercilessly by summarising secondary sources. -- PBS (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page of the band 'Penumbra' on wikipedia, says that the band is active from 1996 till present. But I did some reasearch on some different information sources, and I came to the conclusion that the band has split-up in 2009, cause the only sourses that say Penumbra is still active, are wikipedia and sites based on wikipedia. Metalarchive says they've split-up, and their last.fm biography stops at 2009. Their Myspace has a comment about them being split-up. So I think it's pretty clear Penumbra isn't active anymore. I edited the wikipedia page saying "1996 - present" to "1996-2009". I would appreciate it when this edit gets confirmed, except if anyone thinks the band is still active, I don't know them personnaly, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'm like 90% sure they've split-up in 2009.

Hi. Please sign your posts in the future with brackets and four tildes ~.

Your edits won't stand in the article if they are not sourced to a WP:RS. I'd suggest you check out WP:Five Pillars to start with. This Notice board helps readers determine whether sources are in fact reliable and can actually be used to support content in articles. So you might look for reliable sources to support your contention that the band is no longer active. (olive (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The book The Making of Modern Israel by Leslie Stein has been cited in 1948 Palestinian exodus, and other hot-button pages, in support of contentious and novel assessments of the historical narrative. I have never before heard of the book or the author, and am struggling to ascertain its reliability. Although there are nearly 70,000 Google hits for the title, almost all are Amazon or other bookshop sites. Looking closely, I have found one critical review on Tikkun, and one, possibly supportive, behind a pay-wall at Social Science Research Network. I have found precisely 0 reviews at Google News archives. Although Stein is described on the Amazon website as a "Senior Research Fellow at Macquarie University", he is neither a historian nor a Middle East expert; his field of studies appears to be development, and in particular the Japanese economy. Given this, and in the apparent absence of any serious peer reviews of the book, can it be regarded as a reliable source for contentious statements? RolandR (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some stuff I found in a 2 minute search. Not sure how you only came up with Tikkun.

• polity [10] quotes blurbs from various reviews in some reliable sources.
• Israel Studies Review [11] (can't read the actual review, but someone took the trouble to review the book)
• The Australian Jewish News [12]

Then I stopped looking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As TDA notes, Google gives different results, depending not only on geography, but also on previous searches. I had seen the first site you quote, but blurbs are certainly no evidence of anything. I too can't actually read the ISR review. It's significant that the review in Australian Jewish News (which I had not found in my Google search) states "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"; this does not inspire me with confidence in the book's reliability. RolandR (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found these links: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Sometimes Google doesn't give us the best results first time around and different countries may have different issues searching for sources. Stein appears to be mentioned in a few notable places. Of course, that does not make Stein reliable in general. However, there is a tier system of reliability in my opinion and, in this case, Stein certainly meets the threshold for inclusion as representing a prominent view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He should not be treated as an authoritative source on what actually happened, but his views are worthy of inclusion with the typical considerations we give partisan sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How did you came to the conclusion that he is a partisan source?--Shrike (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from reviews: "Stein’s work is in many ways a partisan account of the early years of Israel’s existence"[19]; "While Stein takes pains to declare himself a dispassionate historian, he is clearly making an argument"[20]; "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"[21]; "He remains cocooned in his avowedly unashamed sympathy for 'Israel's general plight'."[22]; "Stein is a proud Zionist and never questions the murderous rampage of Zionist fighters against the British before Israel's birth"[23]. Thewre is barely a mention which does not note the author's bias, and the author himself states that he is "unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight". This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not. RolandR (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should placate the editor who opened this discussion

• The book is from a well-known publisher Polity that publishes scholarly texts[24].

• It is subject to a vetting process and peer review which makes it compliant with WP:RS. It is readily available and verifiable per WP:V.
• The author has published a number of scholarly texts[25]
• The book has been listed as a “good read” on the Barnes & Noble website[26]
• And here is the publisher’s Synopsis and exhaustive list of peer review and accolades (cut and pasted):
  • "Israel moves forward. Palestine stands still. Israel builds its future. Palestine guards its past. Stein's work provides a good introduction to this sad saga for the perplexed and the uninitiated." History Today "This volume could very well last as required reading about Israeli history for the next decade to come." Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies "Stein takes us on a fascinating tour, highlighting major and lesser events in the history of young Israel." Democracy and Security "Balanced, well researched and will substantially extend the knowledge of any student of Israeli history." Birmingham Jewish Recorder "Leslie Stein explains in this eloquent, highly readable and well-researched study how the Israeli state overcame the threat to its existence and emerged as the most feared military power in the Middle East ... Stein's account of the events leading up to the 1967 war is one of the most masterly and lucid to appear in years ... There is little doubt that his study will be viewed as an indispensible authority on one of the most intractable conflicts of our time." Tribune "This book can serve as a refresher course for more knowledgable readers and a sound introduction for novices." Hadassah Magazine "There is little left uncovered in this up-to-date and meticulously researched book. Anybody wanting a quick and easily understandable account of Israel's formative years would do well to read this refreshing, informative and concise telling." Canadian Jewish News "He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad." H-Soz-u-Kult "Any reader of this book, however familiar he or she is with the history of this crucial period, is bound to learn something." Jerusalem Post "The deeper into the twenty-first century we get the less we know about the twentieth. This ignorance has so distorted even educated people's grasp of the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian and other Arab neighbours that public discussion of it routinely descends into half-bias, half drivel. Leslie Stein's elegant and learned book is, first of all, truthful, a rare enough quality in this research area. Beyond that, it is well written and argumentative in the sense that his topic requires. The years 1948-1967 constitute the crucible of discord. Without a clear understand of these two decades, which this volume so amply provides, the citizen is in the desert with only mirages to (mis)lead him or her." Martin Peretz, Editor-In-Chief of The New Republic "With great verve and a robust appreciation for the Zionist achievement, Leslie Stein accurately captures the drama, excitement and danger of the fledgling Jewish state's first two decades, thus putting its current tribulations in perspective. Daniel Pipes, Director of The Middle East Forum (Pennsylvania) and Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University "The Making of Modern Israel is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of one of history's most extraordinary and inspiring stories. Leslie Stein is to be commended for authoring what is certain to become an indispensible resource for scholars, decision-makers, and students." Michael Oren, Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem and author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East "Continuing his masterful previous history of Israel before statehood, Leslie Stein tells the complicated story of the state's first nineteen years in this highly readable, admirably concise and eminently fair-minded account. Threading his way deftly through controversial minefields with sure footing, Stein manages to convey the best up-to-date scholarship with unusual clarity. This book is strongly recommended for the general reader and as an excellent introductory text for the classroom." Alan Dowty, Emeritus Professor of University of Notre Dame and author of Israel/Palestine "Anyone who wants to find the way through the internal politics and external wars that accompanied Israel in its early and formative years can rely on Professor Stein. He gives it straight. This ought to become a standard work on the emergence of Israel to the place it holds on the international scene." David Pryce-Jones, former senior editor of National Review, former literary editor of the Financial Times and of the Spectator and author of The Closed Circle--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The contentious information is :

Some historians have argued that if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the region of its Jewish population.^[1] They point toward the ever-increasing vitriolic rhetoric espoused by various Arab leaders and commanders in connection with their plans for the Jews of Palestine.^[1]

As mentionned here above, this is a wp:rs source.
But more, this is not totally speculative. It is true that the wording could be neutralized : the sentence : if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs is pejorative. But the information that some historians argue (this part is important !) that Arab [and some of their leaders] wanted to exterminate the Jews is true. Benny Morris in his last book 1948, Efraim Karsh in Palestine Betrayed, Zvi Elpeleg in his biography of the Mufti, Klaus-Michael Mallmann in Nazi Palestine argue this. To be perfectly NPoV, the arguments they use to justify this and the arguments given by others against this should be introduced too. Eg, Yoav Gelber wrote that it is speculative (and not scientific) to try to give the aims of the Arabs given we don't have access to Arab sources of the period ; Benny Morris support the idea that Islam is antisemite ; Karsh choses some quotes (and forget others) such as the fake Azzam one, ... 87.66.170.243 (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the author, Leslie Stein is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Macquarie University. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reviews above says concerning Stein's book that "Stein estimates that the victorious Israelis expelled half of the 800,000 Palestinians displaced." This doesn't dovetail very well with the text that's being proposed based on this book. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Dailycare : on the contrary. It proves this guy is very neutral.

• about half of the Palestinian refugees of '48 were expelled (particularly during operations Nachshon, Dani, Hiram and Yoav). Morry writes this in his book 1948 and this explains why several historians compare or claim Israelis performed an ethnic cleansing.
• but Morris also claims (and several others given here above) that, would the Arabs have won, they would have done the same.

If Leslie Stein reports both these points of view, it is good for his reliability.

(It seems it is a tertiary source).

@RolandR : "This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not."

He seems to look a little bit like Morris. He is one-sided as a person but reliable and more neutral in his profession. I underline I don't know this author but he seems worth reading even if disappointment could come after this reading. A good review by Daniel Pipes is of course a very bad point.

@all : another review : "On the whole, it is not easy to judge Stein’s “The Making of Modern Israel”. He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad. The strong points of the book are to be found when he describes domestic developments and political decision makings. Yet the book is troublesome in the sense, that he is at times overtly Zionistic and thus in his judgments often very one sided and apologetic. Consequently he rejects findings of the so called New Historians like Avi Shlaim or Ilan Pappe right out of hand, with the partial exception of Benny Morris. But even the latter’s works are hardly incorporated when reaching critical conclusions. Thus the weakest point of the book is the almost total declining or ignoring of most of the findings of the New Historians."

91.180.49.186 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Stein says that the Israelis expelled half of the refugees directly, then does Stein really say that it was really the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the area? I think that's a key question. If Stein says both things, then it would be easy to agree with the reviews of Stein that say he's very partisan. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stein doesn't really try to hide his partisan orientation. But I just want to call attention here to what he writes in his preface:

"Based mainly on secondary sources, this book is grounded in a wide study of the received literature, both in Hebrew and English. Hopefully its strength lies in a judicious synthesis of the published material yielding the reader a reliable and novel account of Israel's fateful and turbulent infancy. Although unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight, I have not stinted in reporting the country's blemishes and occasional misdeeds."

Hmm. "Fateful"? "Occasional misdeeds"? So Stein has no training or academic credentials in history, right? And he's not done historical research himself to produce this book, i.e. his comments indicate he hasn't interviewed people who actually took part in the events he narrates, nor has he read, investigated, or compared primary source documents, either. What he did do was read the results of actual historical research and find a publisher for what he thinks is a "judicious synthesis" of what he read. So if any of us did exactly the same thing to produce our own "judicious synthesis" that was "unabashedly sympathetic" to the side we each prefer, how would that be different? And he's "unashamedly sympathetic" to the plight of Israel, but makes no mention of sympathy for the plight of Palestinians? Maybe that's because the conditions they live under are so much better than those Israelis live under? Unashamedly sympathetic, indeed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:HISTRS, Stein's absence of historical training, Stein's poor reviews (Shofar 29.1 2010 says, "for students and sophisticated lay readers. ... revisit in overly lavish detail the few topics which will be familiar to many or most readers, while neglecting topics which are prominent in Israeli culture and society but are somewhat less known outside of Israel." "On some topics, Stein's discussions might have benefited from reference to literary texts or recent scholarship." Don't use, it doesn't represent the standards of historical scholarship. Especially per IP91's review. Why not try Benny Morris One State, Two States Yale University Press ISBN 978 0300122817? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. How does one economist become "some historians"? Even if Stein is a reliable source, this opinion should be reported as "According to Leslie Stein..." or "According to one economist...". Zero^talk 10:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree. Nothing wrong with using a source like this in most cases, even if Fifelfood is right to point out that it is not perfect. But for this subject obvious caution is necessary and it needs to be kept quite firmly in mind that the source is not ideal, especially if other editors are raising objections. For partisan (or arguably partisan) bits, attribution can at least be used, but other sources might be better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various artist's sales are based on confirmations by either VH1 or MTV, so I was wondering if BET, short for Black Entertainment Television, is regarded reliable as well? Thanks for your replies. Malcolmo (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Black Entertainment Television, "90 million homes ... launched 1980... mainstream rap and R&B music videos" can generally be considered similarly reliable for artist's sales. --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't view BET as similarly reliable, especially for sales figures. For example, BET claims here that R. Kelly has sold 150 million records, in fact, R. Kelly's available certified sales from those music markets covering 90% of the global sales are only 50 million, which translates into some 70 million in actual sales. The 150 million claim is clearly an inflated figure for R. Kelly and that alone suggests that BET doesn't use enough resources to get their information correct. Therefore, it cannot be considered as reliable as MTV or VH1 for example, neither of which has a history of publishing such outrageously inflated sales figures.--Harout72 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a verifiable published source. I can't seem to download that compressed file from that other link you're pointing to, so I don't know what it is supposed to be. Can you summarize what it says and who it's published by? --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The figure within must be verifiable, and the 150 million as claimed by BET, doesn't agree with R. Kelly's available certified sales. The file that I've put together and uploaded are the certified sales of R. Kelly which I've retrieved from the certification-databases of the certifying bodies such as RIAA, BPI, Bundesverband Musikindustrie etc.. I just tried to view it, and it seems to work for me.--Harout72 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yes, the doc downloads for me now too. You've searched a number of databases for sales of multiple individual albums, added the numbers together, written the results in a Word doc, and uploaded it to a file sharing site. I'm afraid that is pretty clear Wikipedia:original research. It is not a routine, obvious, and correct calculation that anyone could be expected to trivially perform. Do we know that the databases are in each case correct? Do we know that you copied the numbers correctly? (There aren't one or two figures to add up, there are lots.) Do we know that you got all the albums? Did you miss any? Did you confuse any with any others? (In several cases, your own doc says you had to look it up under another performer's name... are you sure you got the right one each time and every time? Can we be sure you did?) I'm afraid that doc is not close to being a Wikipedia:reliable source. It may be the truth (or even The Truth!) or it may not; since it's not a trivial judgment, we go with with the reliable sources; in this case, that's Black Entertainment Television. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The databases are of those associations which issue certifications in each market, yes they are correct. These are routine and trivial calculations at the List of best-selling music artists where Malcolmo intends to use BET as a source. Nothing is copied from the databases, the certification-awards are converted into figures by following the corresponding award-levels provided directly on the sites of the certifying bodies, criteria for RIAA, criteria for BPI, Bundesverband Musikindustie, the sources are listed on the uploaded doc.. Every Platinum/Gold/Silver award is converted, nothing is missed. And no, it's not an original research as the certifying bodies do provide the levels for certification-awards. All one has to do is follow the release date and apply the levels provided on the same sites. The document is not provided on here to pass as a reliable sources, the sources the certifications are taken from are reliable. WP:RS states: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context; and BET in our case is not reliable. --Harout72 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you're pretty clearly matching the results of your own research against that conducted by a national cable TV channel. If some other reliable source came up with a different number for R. Kelly's sales, we could cite them. Until then, though, BET seems to be what we have. --GRuban (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time Mazazine claims 50 million records for R. Kelly which immediately agrees with his available certified sales. There should never be such a gap between artists' certified sales and their actual sales as it is with BET's claim.--Harout72 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better, except it's from 2007, so can't be compared to the 2012 BET article. Kelly just might have sold a few records in the last 5 years. In fact, if he had sold 50 million by 2007, I'm even more wary of your figures from that Word doc that say he had still only sold 50 million by 2012.--GRuban (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Times' article can't be compared to BET's, not because it's from 2007, but because BET is rather lousy when it comes to getting its facts right. R. Kelly's sales have been quite poor since 2007 (see R. Kelly discography), so a few millions on the top of the 50 million wouldn't make BET a better source and it most definitely doesn't make his available certified sales which I've put together on one sheet questionable. As I explained above, the Certified Sales are often less than the Actual Sales, because not all albums/singles/videos reach the required levels to be certified. Artists like R. Kelly whose popularity is mainly concentrated on the U.S. market, could not have sold 150 million records that easily. That figure is only possible when artists experience widespread popularity all over the world. BET could perhaps be an OKAY source when supporting statements about music events, but sales figures do take a lot of research and require careful calculations which I doubt BET has the right staff for.--Harout72 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we need a third (or rather fourth) opinion. Anyone? --GRuban (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very skeptical of sourcing anything to basic cable infotainment channels, as opposed to legitimate news organizations. I am skeptical of their level of editorial control, reliability or reputation for fact checking, beyond doing just barely enough to avoid successful libel suits. I would not source things to E!, MTV, Spike, TruTV, BET...etc. That does not appear to be a universally-held view here, however. Fladrif (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's so unreliable about this source. I reckon Harout72 just thinks he's right about everything and refuses to listen to other peoples opinions. --Jamcad01 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the science magazine Current Science is being disputed at Cold Fusion (Talk:Cold_fusion#Current_Science) for not being a RS.

The line in question:

• In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat.Current Science Article

This is obviously a reliably published science magazine with an editorial board. Perfect RS for the line. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It has a full editorial board and has been in print since 1932. It seems reliable enough for that statement. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an existing source to verify the statement. Current Science is a low grade low impact journal without peer review. There is no sign of quality control, the paper in question was accepted the very next day on being submitted; recieved 9th February 2008, accepted 10th February 2008. Current science is not a magazine, it claims to be a journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a borderline case. A couple of points to consider: (i) The paper is what the journal calls a "general paper" (i.e., broad discussion "of interest to readers outside the field"[27] rather than a research article or scientific correspondence. (ii) The journal's abysmal 0.78 impact factor speaks to its reputation in the relevant academic community. (iii) The fact that the paper was received on a Saturday (9 Feb 2008) and then accepted on Sunday (10 Feb 2008) is quite odd. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A peer reviewed journal is a good source to verify this statement.

(i) the line for which it is used as verification is not "a new concept or cutting-edge research", but only a (secondary source) remark about previously claimed results by a researcher in the field. A "general paper" in a peer reviewed journal is a good as a "journalistic piece" in a science magazine.

(ii) Impact factors a greatly overrated. The closest thing I could find in the policies is "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." I do not think that an impact factor can be directly translated to the reputability of a journal. Please also consider that this is a Indian journal, it is wrong to misinterpret "reputable journal" as "high impact factor journal", as it would push a "only big western/USA science journals count" notion. Furthermore, for the line that is verified this whole discussion about impact factor is irrelevant.

(iii) Well, we don't know what happened between the author of the article and the editor of the journal. Maybe for "general papers" a weekend is deemed enough time to review. To me the article reads like it could have been published in a science magazine as well. I don't know how long science magazines normally would take to proof read an article before publication. Be aware that your interpretation of this being "quite odd" is only one possible interpretation.

I do not think that, for this verification use, it is a borderline case. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science magazines usaully have their own writers; it is NOT a science magazine, they don't even self-identify as a science magazine. There is no other possible interpretation of a review process that takes one day, it is most certainly out of the normal by any definition. It is only reliable for the opinion of the author, that is all. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also deleted another reviewed paper from Current Science [28]. That paper was received 17 March 2006; revised accepted 18 August 2006. It is clear that Current Science has a normal peer reviewed process. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not clear. Please provide some sort of evidence to back it up thanks. Someone on an editorial board looking at a paper is not peer review. They have poor editorial control if any paper is accepted after one day, one day just isn't enough time to do the fact checking necessary. There is also zero evidence that they engage in peer review. edit: What I would posit that occurs is a standard spelling and grammatical check but nothing more by the looks of it. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal and therefore research and review papers of general significance that are written clearly and well organized will be given preference. All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision or rejection of the paper. It may be noted that papers once rejected cannot be resubmitted. Illustrations and other materials to be reproduced from other publications must be properly credited; it is the authors’ responsibility to obtain permission for reproduc- tion of figures, tables, etc. from published sources (copies of letters of permission should be sent to the editor)." [29] What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ?

Are you willfully ignorant? I specifically explained to you that someone on an editorial board looking at a paper is not peer review. Notice how the blurb you pasted does not mention peer review at all in any shape or form, ergo it does not have a normal peer review process. It is impossible for the process of submission, editorial review, finding a peer, the peer review and then a reply to the editor, subsequent corrections etc to take one day. Also at no point does it mention that the apparent "detailed review" will be conducted by a peer. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "The others will be sent for detailed review." is it that you can't understand ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• good source : Very relevant to that time frame. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness I copy my last comment from Talk:Cold_fusion#Current_Science here:

"Current Science" is listed on Science Citation Index as one of "over 3,700 of the world's leading scientific and technical journals across 100 disciplines.". You cherry picked one article to come to your conclusion "...some low grade non-peer reviewed journal". Current Science is one of 3769 scientific journals indexed in Science citation index, thus the journal is not "low grade". On the contrary, it is evidence of the journal's reliability.

The dean of the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries [30] put "Current Science" on a list of "peer-reviewed open access journals".

I consulted WP:SCIRS, it reads: "This page does not address reliability in context of the social sciences, biographical detail, social or political impact or controversy, or related non-scientific issues, even when these are presented in the context of a natural science article.".

WP:SCIRS nevertheless had some interesting infos: "Journal articles come in many types, including: original research, reviews, expert summaries, news, editorials, advocacy pieces, speculation, book reviews, correspondence, biographies, and eulogies." According to Current Science they indeed have a long list of different article categories. Not all of those article categories go through peer review. The article in question is in the "General Article" category. Looking at several other "General Articles" it seems they have a much shorter review (1-2 weeks) in comparison to "Research Articles" where the review takes up several months.

So from this we can conclude that: 1) current science is on of 3769 leading scientific journals. 2) the "Research Articles" undergo peer review that takes up to several months 3) the "General Articles" mostly undergo a review that normally takes 1-2 weeks.

Maybe an uninvolved editor can comment on whether this is sufficient evidence that "Current Science" is a RS for the line as described at the start of this thread. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness I will restate the argument against it: The only evidence it engages in peer review is some random list POVbrigand came across (which is an unverifiable list, the individual may have accidentally though it was peer reviewed, their own website doesn't say they engage in peer review). One of the articles in question was reviewed by the editorial board for only one day before being accepted, this suggests it is not a rigorous journal with good editorial control. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also enlighten us why you didn't care to comment on the fact that Science Citation Index includes "Current Science" as one of over 3,700 of the world's leading scientific and technical journals across 100 disciplines. Why do you think your OR is better that the editors of the Science Citation Index ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Current Science before, and I can say its reliability is questionable. The review process is completely opaque, and I have seem them publish utter crap in the past. The review process should never take one day. An serious journal would take time to find experts in the specific subfield, ask them for their comments, and then the editors would review those comments. That never takes a day. Three weeks from submission to acceptance is considered lightning speed for review in a top journal. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The article with the 1 day review is a "general article" category instead of a "research article". The articles that are published as "research articles" seem to have several months timeframe between "received" and "accepted" date. See for instance this paper received 17 March 2006; revised accepted 18 August 2006. That paper was also part of the deletion by IRWolfie. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust anything scientific paper, whether it's research or "general", that passed review in 24 hours. Just because the journal peer-reviews some of what it publishes, not everything therein has to be considered reliable. We're free as editors to decide through consensus that a particular article in a particular publication should not be used, when there is good reason (like clear evidence it was never actually reviewed). Someguy1221 (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at this (DOI: 10.1126/science.1218074) "Seeing the Superfluid Transition of a Gas" article from Science magazine. It never went to peer review. Can I now conclude that "Science Magazine is a low grade journal without peer review. There is no sign of quality control, the paper in question was never peer reviewed. Science Magazine claims to be a journal, but clearly the name is Science Magazine" - Such reasoning would be quite absurd, wouldn't it ? Unfortunately it is exactly the way that IRWolfie came to his conclusion. I might concede on the "1 day reviewed" article, but the general dismissal of "Current Science" by 1 uninformed editor is just not acceptable. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you're discussing such a contentious area as Cold Fusion, you should not be bringing in sources of questionable reliability. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I got that correctly. What is questionable RS, a) the "1 day reviewed" article or b) "Current Science" in total ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The journal and particularly this section are suspect because of their poor and inconsistent reviewing standards. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a confirmation from "Current Science" that they have indeed peer review. Papers maybe sent out to two or more referees or considered by members of the editorial board or Associate Editors. Furthermore I have another confirmation from a notable Professor who has published several papers in the journal that the paper is fully peer reviewed.

The sentiment portrayed by some editors here in this talk against "Current Science", based on overestimation of one's own capabilities on judging a poorly understood artifact and possibly a general ignorance of a science community outside of Europe/USA, is pathetic. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The question of the reliability of the journal is secondary - even if the journal is reliable that doesn't mean the paper has to or should be included. What you should ask yourselves is what has been the impact of the article - has anyone commented on it or criticized it? Is it referred to in review articles or textbooks? Respectable peer reviewed journals often publish articles that make questionable conclusions that are ignored by other scholars. If the scholarly community ignore a particular paper then so should wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a valid way of evaluating whether a paper should be in the article or not. I fully accept your way of reasoning in general. In the case of this paper the line to be verified is merely about a bit of history on cold fusion, that Oriani had reported excess heat. In this particular case the mention of that fact in an article in a respected science journal should be enough for verification.

However, what I cannot accept and what I believe any WP editor should not accept is the reasoning that some other editors here apply, that based on a poorly understood artifact a whole respected journal can be dismissed "Current Science is a low grade low impact journal without peer review.". --POVbrigand (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this sentence, "In November 2009 Comedy Central released the DVD of the show Gabriel Iglesias: I'm Not Fat... I'm Fluffy.", is a link to Amazon.com here on the BLP Gabriel Iglesias, considered advertising?

At first I didn't see there were some article related DVD information. A problem is that I did note that there were at least 30 instances of prices, a link to "shop all departments", a couple of "add to cart" links, and an "add to cart with free shipping" link.

It appears to me it is an advertising page with the sole purpose of providing information on how to buy the DVD mentioned in the article. In fact one of the two video links at the top of the page actually states, Own the DVD today.

The link was added back with only the somewhat strange "cite" in the edit summary, so I deleted it again with an edit summary including "see talk" and explained my reasoning on the talk page. The editor re-added the link and left talk comments that included, "The fact that the website is a vendor does not mean that therefore, WP:NOTADVERTISING is being violated. WP:NOTADVERTISING is only violated when the sole purpose of a given publication is advertisement. If the date of release of that video is thought to require a cite (and this itself is questionable, since the credits of any media, which include year of creation, can be used as that media's source), and Amazon provides the year of release, then Amazon is a reliable source for that information."

In my opinion the fact that a link to Amazon being allowed or not being allowed, because the site is a vendor, has nothing to do with the fact that the reference link, to the site in question, is used to support a very short and trivial promotional sentence about a DVD being released. The fact that there is some information concerning the DVD is compromised because this information is underneath a large amount of sales information. Comedy Central is being stated as the subject that released the DVD so there should be a more reliable link concerning the DVD. Otr500 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTADVERTISING is entirely about the contents of our own articles, not about the contents of our sources. You may certainly cite an advertisement as a reliable source, under the same sorts of circumstances that you would cite a business's own website, press release, or other marketing materials. All advertisements and other marketing materials are considered self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then there is no policy against using a link to advertise products as long as we can point to some information we can claim as relevant? Otr500 (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's our RS policy of course, and Amazon gets its information from other sources and is not necessarily the most reliable source - and it doesn't always get it right. There's also been a problem in the past (but not in this link) with people trying to add affiliate links. I don't like Amazon links but I did a search and people seem to think that for DVDs they are one of the only possible sources. If this were a book I'd say definitely not, there are other sources. Much to my reluctance I'd say that if you can't find a better source it should remain. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Tuzi runs the website www.machine-history.com, and he has added to various articles a number of references to his website. After he put one in an article I was watching I took it out because I could not get a sense of who was in charge of the website and what kind of reliability it had. (This was before I knew it was Tuzi's own.) The reference I removed was this one, said by Tuzi to be a scan of an old article in Scientific American, June 8, 1901, page 357. However, the webpage is not a true scan, it is HTML text. Ideally, we would assume that it was perfectly transcribed word-for-word from the old article, but perhaps not.

Tuzi admitted to me on my talk page that he is not an acknowledged expert in every subject that is represented on his website; rather, he is an auto mechanic. Regarding his level of expertise, I see him as an enthusiast in many things technical, like myself.

Some of his webpages host very old publications; these are free of copyright issues because of age. However, other pages such as this one host copyrighted materials, in this instance images that have an obvious copyright tag and a 2004 date.

So, the Big Question: can we accept any of the old public domain materials hosted by machine-history as references? Some examples:

• Elias Howe: Scientific American 1896 (HTML text, scanned images)
• Letord Let.7: Scientific American 1918 (HTML text, scanned images, two thumbnails of scanned pages of original)
• Refrigeration: Scientific American 1881 (HTML text, scanned image)
• Unconventional wind turbines: Wind Turbine Blade Tip Power System (HTML text, modern images, YouTube video clip)
• Vortex tube: Vortex Tube Operation (HTML text, video clips, colored diagrams, a scanned image from the 1940s)
• James W. Queen & Company: Scientific American January 5, 1901 (HTML text, scanned images)
• Photographophone: Scientific American 1901 (HTML text, scanned images)
• Crank (mechanism): 1918 Reo Owner's Manual (HTML text, scanned images)
• Direct methanol fuel cell: Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC) (HTML text, modern diagram, modern photograph)

Of course we cannot take the pages that have copyrighted information. Can we accept the pages that are taken from pre-1923 publications? Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would discourage the citations to Scientific American articles on machine-history.com, even for articles in the public domain. First of all, those links would be convenience links at best. Since the articles have apparently been retyped to put them into HTML, one would have to check the original article in the magazine to be sure that they were correct. Second, Scientific American is a well-known magazine held by many libraries, and thus editors should be able to cite the original articles without that much difficulty. Third, if machine-history.com regularly violates other copyrights, then that's not the kind of site Wikipedia ought to link to, notwithstanding that in this case we would only be linking to public domain materials. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit that I don't have personal knowledge of whether the site does violate copyrights. So if it doesn't violate copyrights, please disregard the third reason above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a forum to defend my position that machinehistory.com is a reliable source.

I am machinehistory.com or machine-history.com. There are no other editors. When I started the site several years ago (2007) I dreamed of a content management site that users could join users knowledge of mechanical things. There were too many scammers, viagras etc, having to add software to stop it and monitoring, so I closed it to other editors. I decided to continue alone and occasionally add to the public site at Wikipedia.org. Wikipeida is where the resources and quality and monitoring were more than anyone along could do.

I am in possession of many thousands of periodicals mostly from the early 1800's to 1970's. My inventory ranges from Abel's Photographic Weekly (196 issues March 1925 to Jan 1934)to Zion's Herald (562 issues May 1869 to July 1918).

I understand Binksternet could have concern over 'unreliable sources' here at machinehistory.com .......... but I want to defend my side.

• Violates other copyrights: I have never had a complaint on copyright, ever. Binksternet may be correct citing images on a informative article this one. I suggest are many violations at other sites. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law. Over 300 words in a quote, thumbnails, for profit, educational. Consider http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html If there is some over the top violation ( which is by the way is totally somewhere else on the machine site)I would consider changing it. Anyway do not condemn the whole site. Please, depending on how tight you call it, I believe most sites violate 'Scribes' letter of the law. Now, congradulations, I believe /small> 09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoverfish, apart from the Azar Kayvan and Upasni Maharaj articles, can you please point out where I added "references to the very books said to be by devotees of Meher Baba", since you say that I added references to them in "several" articles, and I have no recollection of adding any others. In any case, I'm not sure what your point is. I've never said that Kalchuri or anyone else shouldn't be used in these articles, merely that I can't see why Shepherd is being singled out, since he's at least as reliable as many of the other sources, and probably more reliable (as DGG pointed out in 2010). A couple of the articles you mention are instructive in this regard. In Azar Kayvan, I corrected another editor who supplied the muddled quote from Kalchuri. In the footnote, I drew attention to the error in Kalchuri, which is contradicted by the more reliable quote from The Glow (as well as other evidence from Kalchuri himself). When Shepherd refers to this episode, he appears to use The Glow, since he doesn't perpetuate Kalchuri's mistake. In the Upasni Maharaj article (footnote 1), I pointed out that Shepherd contests the reliability of Narasimha's biography of the subject, based on a diary entry by Kishan Singh in September 1954 (published in The Glow). According to Singh, Meher Baba said of Narasimha's work: "Half of it is good and half of it absolute nonsense". Shepherd points out that neither Rigopoulos (The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi) nor Warren (Unraveling the Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism) show any acquaintance with the Kishan Singh diary in their accounts of Upasni. In these cases, I have only referred to the devotees' books in order to draw attention to their unreliability! All of this information could be useful to researchers in the future. Simon Kidd (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Editor Tuzi runs the website www.machine-history.com, and he has added to various articles a number of references to his website. After he put one in an article I was watching [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustave_WhiteheadWikipedia is one of the cleanest sites out there.

Defense of first 3 examples given above..........

• Elias Howe I did not add a link here. Only a scanned image from the September 10, 1846 Scientific American article. Maybe a sentence of info. Why protest this?
• Letord Let.7 I started the article, added info from the periodical,image and link. There are now no references on this article. Information with no reference does not seem right to me.
• Refrigeration I added info on 'other methods' and a reference to machine-history.com and Scientific American to back up the text.
• "those links would be convenience links at best." The same material can be found nearly as easily elsewhere from a more reliable source. Where can you find the article at [33] elsewhere? Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Wikipedia makes it so even the common person without making an appointment with the National Archives can learn and do and not have to pay a fee.
• webpage is not a true scan, it is HTML text: Who wants and can use only a scanned picture of text? With text, search engines can find pertinent information. I scanned the periodical article then used OmniPage Pro 14 an (OCR) Optical character recognition
• I have some other sites: that I may have added text to some of Wikipedia articles. Please rate them and tell me if they disqualify. electric vehicle conversion journal install journal About my father, cold war Naval Photo-recon pilot (many Navy photo's see the video of him If you go the the USS Intrepid in New York and see the display of the arresting system the center of the 5 cables is missing. Dad broke that cable and I have that photo he later took)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzi (talk • contribs)

• Unreliable: The webpage has no about, no names are listed, they fail to meet basic librarianship and archival standards, there is no evidence that they transmit primary source material intact, invariant and correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not refactor my comments by movement or deletion as you did here. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I will not move your comment again. I did so because you and I added at the same time and I formatted incorretly as my defense being a new subject. Anyhow please reply again after reading my defense. If the consensuses is Unreliable then I will take my ball and go home and play, with my feelings hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzi (talk • contribs)
  • I read your defence, and inquired into the objects under inquiry, before writing my opinion. You may wish you compare your website to the National Archives Australia, or the Noel Butlin Archives in Canberra, or the archival collections of the National Library Australia, or the Australian War Memorial. Your collection does not meet the standards, including the institutional standards, of trustworthyness in the transmission of such materials. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfooare you kidding me? "compare your website to the National Archives Australia, or the Noel Butlin Archives in Canberra, or the archival collections of the National Library Australia, or the Australian War Memorial". Really, that is now your standard. Give me a break.

• • • Intact, invariant, complete, correct. Your websites transmission of sources cannot be seen to be reliable, and is not reliable. Your site don't have ascession numbers, identified staff, an about-us page, a commitment to intact, invariant, complete and correct transmission. Wikipedia has sourcing standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, I totally disagree, but three Wikipedia people who probably are much more scholarly than I have each left no doubt, none that these sites I defended above, are reliable sources. I will type my last comment here.

People; I would have handled it different. If I was a leader or 'Scribe' at Wikipedia... well what about encouragement, helpful, friendly? Tuzi

• As far as encouragement goes: it is possible to produce a home archive site. You need to demonstrate conformance with archival standards; recognition by other archives and archivists; and, recognition by the users of archives. Sadly, though, PRIMARY sources are generally rejected for historical articles, as they require non-trivial interpretation. You may find more success in uploading images of machines to commons (with full attribution, and demonstration of public domain status). The material you're talking about is unlikely to ever be accepted as a source for articles, but may provide Public Domain illustrations for articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know if the following websites are reliable:

• http://latinrapper.com
• http://corrientelatina.com
• http://nochelatina.com

I have been editing Wikipedia articles for over a year now and I still don't know how to tell if a website is reliable or not. Thanks very much, Gariseiro (talk)

• Reliability means that the source (ie, the website) can support specific claims on wikipedia. You may like to read WP:IRS that covers how to identify reliable sources. Websites about music generally need to meet or exceed the standards for the credible music press of newspapers and magazines. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Dennis Ritchie#Random quotes and sources regarding the use of blogs as sources. Your thoughts would be useful. Msnicki (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, there is a discussion where another contributor has asserted that publications, with paid editors, editorial policies, editorial oversight, shouldn't be used because they are "blogs". One of those publication dates back to 1878 and has been a daily publication since 1889. This has been pointed out to the contributor who repeatedly removed material I contributed. Only two of the seven refernces this contributor excised on the grounds they were "blogs" were online-only publications.

Further, I suggested that the reason we don't consider "blogs" to be reliable sources is that what most people call "blogs" are written to some sole individual, who has no special recognized expertise, who may have done zero research, or may have plagiarized a newspaper article. I suggest that online publications, with an editorial policy, paid editors, editorial standards and editorial control, with the fact-checking that implies, can be just as reliable as print-only publications. In the 21st Century a limited number of online-only publications are more reliable than print journalists -- Scotusblog being an example.

In this comment I went through all the references the other contributor justified excising on the grounds they were blogs. Leaving out all but the two ExtremeTech and Newswise which are online-only publications -- they both have editorial standards, paid editors, so they are not the kind of "blogs" we should dismiss out of hand.

Finally, when someone who is already recognized as an expert in WP:RS writes an online publication that some people call a "blog", the pre-existing recognition that they are an expert makes their online writings reliable, even if their is no external editorial control. As a special case, some individuals who weren't originally notable have their online publications cited by other WP:RS sufficiently that they too join the ranks of the WP:RS. Wonkette would be an example.

Blindly dismissing sources as "blogs", just because they are online-only publications, when they have editorial standards comparable to print publications is unwise. It is unwise even when those online publications include "blog" in their name. Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 110%. There are blogs and then there are blogs. This ain't no blog; it's an online column by a reliable, respected publisher respected for a century + of careful editorial oversight. This is a reliable source, and whomever is deleting it has no conception of the difference between a blog and a blog. Fladrif (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan has misrepresented my position. I agree that there are blogs and then there are blogs. I myself earlier cited Rob Pike's blog. My objections to the blogs in question are that they are run-of-the-mill and of little value compared to the many, far higher-quality sources available and that the quotes didn't even match up to the statements they were supposed to support. For more, please see the referenced talk page so you get both sides. Msnicki (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that I misrepresented Ms Nicki's position. I remain concerned over Ms Nicki's characterization of non-blogs as blogs. Geo Swan (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My userid is Msnicki. I am anonymous. I do not disclose my real name, identity or gender. I request that you not speculate. Msnicki (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Based upon the request of another editor, I would like to know if this reference link is acceptable to confirm the actress in question's date of birth. Given that these records are based on those of the Social Security Administration, while they are not 100% accurate due to either human error (I have a sadly deceased personal acquaintance whose date of birth was January 17, 1935, but appears on SSDI as January 18, 1935) or false dates provided, it appears to be a reliable source, certainly reliable enough to use in the absence of any source. Thanks for your advice. Quis separabit? 19:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the "another editor" (sounds vaguely naughty). I was noting my concern for its use in this particular article as a review of previous discussions on this board revealed a hesitance to fully accept the reliability of many of the online genealogical databases, and it contradicts the New York Times obituary that I had included as a reference. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Ponyo's concerns but beg to point out that the Associated Press (AP) merely (and I don't know how) provided an estimated age due to a lack of info. Shawlee was not particularly famous and apparently had no close family or children to provide any date of birth so it was not pursued. However she died in 1987, and we all agree the world has changed a tad since then. In this instance there is no competing year of birth from any reliable or semi-reliable source, only an age estimation from the AP from a quarter century ago.

Just to add my two cents (or five cents, whatever the going rate is these days), it is a tad concerning that information gleaned from such sources as the U.S. Social Security Administration (Social Security Death Index), census records (ancestry.com), Burke's Peerage (thepeerage.org) and the General Registry Office of England and Wales (findmypast.co.uk) are apparently seen by other Wikipedia editors and my peers, whom I respect, as generally semi-unreliable sources. There are some editors who rely on Caskets on Parade/Book of the Dead (http://daggy.name/cop/bkofdead/index.htm), which is replete with errors. I believe, as a rule of thumb, then, that unless a competing date/year of birth is proferred from an equally or more reliable source that information gleaned from these sources be allowed to stand until/unless a valid challenge is raised,and then each case be handled on an individual basis. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you have commented above about findmypast.co.uk and I will put in a reply up there. The case isn't quite the same (I think).

In general, I'd say, it is useful to be able to cite intermediate sources that mirror or reflect solid reliable sources that are otherwise inaccessible online. I think, if we are confident that the mirroring is reliably done, we should be prepared to use such citations. As we do, for example, with Google Books and archive.org. Of course it's much less attractive, and less useful to our readers, if these intermediate sites set up a paywall. In such a case, they are not in fact increasing the general availability of the information. So, without banning paysites, we should prefer sites that are free and contain reliable information. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree. I don't like having to spend my own money buying credits, etc. Findmypast.co.uk is £6 for like 50 credits or something (I don't remember exactly) and Intelius is $1.95 per individual search (it's cheaper if you buy a package, but I choose not to since I don't use it that often), but it is what it is. Sometimes curiosity or the need to confirm something leads me to have to pay. Isn't that what information is coming to anyway, like the New York Times's digitization? Yours, Quis separabit? 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm ... I know what you mean; but we don't quite know whether it's going that way or not. The jury's out. There is also vastly more free information on the Web than there was, say, three years ago. Since we as Wikipedians are providing free information, our best friends are other good sites that provide free information :) Andrew Dalby 09:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, so the California Death index at Rootsweb [34] gives the same date but 1927 as a YOB. Perhaps a footnote would work in the article? – Connormah (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is www.familytreelegends.com even close to being a reliable source for this date of birth? It claims she was born on 5 Mar 1926, and died in May 1987. The problem with that is the Associated Press article of March 31, 1987 saying she died March 22. So are we planning to ignore the fact they have her death date completely wrong and assume they have her birth date correct? 86.183.59.192 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If a newspaper article is a blatant copyvio of a primary source (i.e., a verbatim copy of a primary source), can one claim that the newspaper article is a reliable third party source for the information?

Some context:

1. User:TopGun added several references to back a claim in the article Rashid Minhas.
2. I showed that the original source of the info is a COI/POV source (the subject's employer/Pakistan Airforce), and the other references either copied from it verbatim sans any attribution, or are from the non-RS Pakdef.info site (See here for the consensus on Pakdef.info's non-RS nature).
3. TopGun now claims that, since he considers one of the venues of the plagiarized content to be a notable news source, therefore the information has been "published" by a reputable reliable source, and hence can be used directly without qualifiers.

My question is: when a news article demonstrably plagiarizes from a primary source (and has no content other than the copy-pasted text), does it become (a) a third party source for the information, and (b) a reliable source for the information?

More details of the context can be found here. --Ragib (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A copyvio is not "cured" by saying "someone else committed it". If it is a copyvio, it is a copyvio. If we know it is a copyvio, then it is still a copyvio. Collect (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an issue of a copyright violation, and to call it plagiarism is to misconstrue what is really going on. Having glanced at the RSN Archive linked above, I see more heat than light. I see this situation as comparable to the instances, which we see all the time here, of a press release simply being printed by a news organization verbatim, without it being identified as a press release. The best practice in such instances is for us to treat the publication of something by a legitimate news organization as a RS but, where we know it is a press release, attribute it even if the news organization does not. Fladrif (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the work is a verbatim copy of a primary source, treat the work as primary (and note in the citation, what the source copied is). Republication of a primary source does not change its primary nature. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-publication of a press release is not necessarily a copyright violation. People issue them for the express purpose of getting them published, after all.

What changes when the periodical re-published the press release (perhaps verbatim, perhaps with minimal tweaking) is not the primary-secondary-tertiary nature of the source—it's still a primary source, and you may still WP:USEPRIMARY sources in limited ways—but the addition of editorial oversight and subjecting the content to the same (perhaps minimal) fact-checking that the publication normally employs. That means that it is technically a legitimately published news story (and still a primary source).

We have had a problem in the past with editors saying, "Oh, but I magically know that they didn't fact-check this paragraph in this newspaper story, so we can't use that material", and that's Not Okay. If the newspaper editor approved the story, then you have to assume that it meets their (possibly low) standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a confusion here. There was NO press release. The news site essentially lifted content verbatim off the Pakistan Army/Air Force's website without any attribution. --Ragib (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An organization might issue the same text in several forms, for example, as a press release and on its web site. The fact that a newspaper article is virtually the same as an organization's web site does not prove, by itself, the newspaper didn't get the information from a press release. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No confusion. I didn't say this was a matter of reprinting a press release; I said that this was comparable to reprinting a press release. I think that, in this context, the issues and analysis at RSN should be pretty much the same as with reprinting a press release. Fladrif (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to include content from Fatal Distraction: The War On Drugs In The Age Of Islamic Terror by Arnold S. Trebach, an author who has also published through Yale and according to an Amazon blurb was considered for a Nobel Prize as a result of his work on drug policy. I'm frankly having difficulty with the article on Virgil Miller Newton, with good faith efforts to find and include reliable sources rapidly reverted for BLP concerns, and no attempts made to help in securing acceptable sources [35]. Suggestions welcome. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source can be used for his opinion, attribute it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimited Publishing LLC is a small press, but not a vanity press, so this is not a SPS. The author is widely published elsewhere, including articles in scholarly journals that have been extensively cited by other scholars.[36] Agree with Darkness Shines, the source can be used for the author's opinions on the subject, with appropriate attribution. Fladrif (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it was used as a claim of fact. Ascribe the opinion to the person at most. Collect (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC) And the publisher states: Worldwide royalty book publisher using print-on-demand and e-Book publishing technologies to slash costs. Collect (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it may be admitted as opinion--that is to say, the record of settlements in two cases, according to Trebach--would Collect be so good as to restore said content in a fashion that finds consensus? Since Wikipedia is based on civility, this would constitute a nice balance with respect to the previous deletions, and would evidence an interest in both neutrality and good faith. Cheers, 99.12.241.215 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A royalty book publisher isn't a vanity press. Most reputable publishers are royalty publishers. It says that authors are never charged: Writers pay no fees. Neither readers nor writers are charged inflated prices for books.[37] I agree that the statements should be attributed, in particular, now that I look at the text at issue, the author is, among other things, characterizing two lawsuit settlements as the largest of their kind, which is a claim that is extraordinary, and should be supported by impeccable sourcing. But, with attribution, I think this source is OK. Fladrif (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. No mention of him ever being in 'contention" for a "Nobel Prize" in any reliable source. 2. He is noted basically as an advocate for legalization of drugs. 3. He is not noted as an expert on rehabilitation centers except to the extent that he favours legalization of drug use. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Given his positions as chief of the Administration of Justice Section, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1960-63, Chief Consultant on Administration of Justice, White House Conference on Civil Rights, 1965-66, and member of the Maryland State Advisory Committee to the Commission on Civil Rights, the characterization of Mr. Trebach as noted basically as an advocate for legalization of drugs is spurious--this is an expert on civil rights and justice. I submit that Collect's interest does not relate solely to BLP concerns, otherwise he would have been far more circumspect in the above. Please disabuse me of the notion that political bias is at play here, and restore content, as I've suggested above. Cheers, 99.12.241.215 (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS says, "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". Note that the book includes material from the author's 1993 book Legalize It?, published by the American University Press, part of Georgetown University Press. It wiould seem to meet the criteria for rs. TFD (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author has a J.D. and a Ph.D. (the later from Princeton), has been a professor at American University for 25 years, and has published extensively on drug policies around the globe. His books on the very topic have been published by Yale UP, AUP, and Macmillan. You will be hard-pressed to find anybody more qualified to comment on this issue. And the book in question is not even self-published to begin with. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Just checking: his PhD is in a relevant discipline, and his period of academic labour was in a relevant field?) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He writes that his dissertation "dealt with injustices in the administration of criminal justice." The Ph.D. was apparently in Politics. At American, he was "a professor in the Center for the Administration of Justice." Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I erred in looking at the publisher of Print on Demand books as being self-published - the author is still primarily an exponent of drug legalization, which may be relevant to how he regards drug rehab and detox programs. Mea culpa. Collect (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you erred, but there is a real relationship. With the spreading of the business model of Unlimited Publishing LLC, there will be fewer true self-publishers in the future, but it won't get any easier for us to determine reliablity -- the books come from the same pool. Andrew Dalby 10:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the Nobel nomination: Nominations are worthless. All you need to get nominated is one (1) university professor, anywhere in the world, to send one letter to the Nobel committee. Right now, from the US, getting nominated will cost you one piece of paper, one envelope, and a $1.05 international first-class stamp.

They won't release the list of actual nominees for half a century, so another marketing approach is to just tell lies: anybody can say that he was nominated, and nobody can disprove it for at least another 49 years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can MLM Watchdog www.mlmwatchdog.com be considered a reliable source? I am attempting to update the article on Patrick Flanagan in reference to a lawsuit, and since (for some reason that completely evades my common sense) a FORM 8-K on the SEC web site apparently cannot be used as a primary source (despite it consisting of only two short paragraphs, written in easy-to-understand English), I am looking for alternatives. Thanks. Peter raines (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking it would not be a good source. It's a blog and thus WP:SPS. Where in the blog is the reference to the lawsuit? Maybe it is sourced to something else. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it is clearly a blog, with no editorial oversight to allow it to be used as a reliable source.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, as one of the editors concerned with BLP issues on this article, if it can't be sourced to major news media, I'm dubious about it being in a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely site maintained by the Montague family, I'm dubious though that it is a reliable source - used in several articles (sometimes just as an EL) [38] but I can't find anything in Google books, for instance, that makes me feel that it should be used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is a lovely site, but basically a SPS. No indication that the author/webmaster is an established expert previously published by a reliable, third party publisher in the relevant field. Doesn't fall within the exeception for non-expert SPS writing solely about himself, as it principally is being used as a source for information about third parties. Not a RS for Wikipedia, but a very nice site nonetheless. Fladrif (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text is quoted in Adam Mickiewicz as a prove that he was "Polish-Lithuanian". See: Google Books. The text says "Polish-Lithuanian poet" and discusses what Mickiewicz writes about Poland and Poles, it dooesn't discuss his roots or Lithuanian language competences. The text doesn't define the meaning od "Polish-Lithuanian":

• ethnically or legally Polish and Lithuanian (modern)
• born in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, formerly in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't "prove" anything of course. I don't suppose you could prove the validity of such a term. As something to cite, among other citations, during a discussion of whether Mickiewicz is to be called "Polish-Lithuanian" or not, this is very good, I think: highly relevant article, academic author specialising in the subject (this is the author), academic publisher. Andrew Dalby 13:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about "Polish-Lithuanian". It's about something different. There are many texts discussing the subject, eg. [39], [40],[41], [42], [43], why to use Wagner? Because a search "Polish-Lithuanian" lists it? Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources to choose, and how many, is for discussion on the article talk page, I suggest. This is the reliable sources noticeboard; you asked about the reliability of one article. Andrew Dalby 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Neuroquantology a reliable source? The journal appears to be a quite low rated journal and I suspect it is fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing these results to these I'd have to agree. It has all the hallmarks of a walled garden. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...RS for a presidential campaign article cite? E.g. this edit, which cites the Tampa Bay News, which itself cites Yahoo News as its source. Writegeist (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same anon IP user has added more: [44] Writegeist (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC) And I have removed the IP's cites to the Ron Paul campaign website and Twitter. Writegeist (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it should be removed as undue weight, with the reliability of the source being secondary. Someone stepped on someone else's foot? Not worth space in an article on a presidential campaign, unless it can be shown as part of a pattern, or the candidate himself doing it, or something like that. --GRuban (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a reliable source but the issue here is with undue weight. It seems like too minor of an incident to include in that article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to indicate that Yahoo News as such is a reliable source. News aggregators by definition do not exercise editorial judgement, but rather shovel the garbage onto the conveyor belt. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Orangemike, that's also my understanding - no editorial judgement/oversight. Also agree that, as GRuban and AQFK point out, WP:UNDUE most likely applies in this instance, regardless of source. Writegeist (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this webpage an rs for this edit? Nightscream (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your second link above is mis-pasted, but I think I see which edit you mean. What a subject says about himself and his family origins on his own webpage or blog is potentially usable. To the extent that this is about family history rather than himself we simply can't know how historically reliable it is, but it's still very good material about his view of himself. I guess I would accept the material into the text but also add the source in the text, e.g. "According to Haberlin's family history site, ..."

Seems as though he is maybe editing the page himself? I don't (yet) see any POV or COI problem, though. Andrew Dalby 09:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that that blog is Haberlin's own blog? Nightscream (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understood it to be his own family history site. Was I mistaken? Andrew Dalby 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hmm, maybe it isn't his. I don't know now. And yet our user User:Ihaberlin is happily citing it ... there must be some connection ... I suggest a friendly approach to Ihaberlin, are you Brian Haberlin, is that your site, did you write that page? Because, if he did write it, that's OK. Any further question would be more for the BLP board than for us, but it is reliable material on his view of himself. Andrew Dalby 14:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's his blog, yeah. I sent a question to that blog's webmaster, but haven't gotten a response yet. I'll try asking Ihaberlin himself. However, asking Ihaberlin if he is Brian Haberlin wouldn't be acceptable in itself, wouldn't it, since it would have to be verified some way. Right? Nightscream (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nightscream, I'm hoping some other denizen of this page will look in here. I'm more familiar with people who have been dead 2000 years, I'm not the best adviser on BLPs and their special problems :) Andrew Dalby 09:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IHaberlin says he's a relative of Brian Haberlin's and that the site is run by his family. Is the word of a WP editor sufficient for this? Doesn't taking at face value the word of a WP editor present the same problems that relying on a Facebook or MySpace page does (namely, that it's difficult to verify that the page in question is indeed that of the subject in question, and not a fan posing as the subject)? Nightscream (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of WP editors, we assume good faith, and in the case of new WP editors we don't bite them. With Facebook and MySpace it's a free-for-all :)

You won't mind me saying that you seem to be on a different side of the conversation here than you are elsewhere on this page, where you write "when it's something completely innocuous or neutral ... like where the person was born or grew up ... that's not really self-serving, is it"? I'd be right alongside you in that other discussion above. And I'm just pointing this out because you and I both know what a difficult path we tread when dealing with BLPs which the subject (or a friend or relative, or just possibly an enemy) may come along and edit. In this Haberlin case, my feeling is, what's being added to our page is sourced, apparently a source that's close to the subject, and is not apparently controversial or POV. The worst that could happen is that Brian Haberlin would turn up under a different name and say, "no, that's not what I believe about my family". Then it becomes "controversial", and we immediately remove it unless a reliable-and-independent source is found. Until then, it looks OK to me. Andrew Dalby 13:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking at face value the assertion of a WP newbie that he is the subject of an article or a relative of his, without some sort of verification process, seems to be a lot more than just "good faith". It seems more like blind faith, and a very precarious precedent.

Sources have to be reliable regardless of the material. A video of the notable flat-out stating "Here are the types of pencils and paper I use..." is indeed reliable, since you can see that it's the notable subject in question. A WP username account, which can be created by anyone, is not. If the information regarding Adam Hughes were controversial, disputed, or presented a danger of being self-promotional or self-aggrandizing, such as which awards he's won, then the issue would be that we'd have to apply caution in relying on the YouTube video because it was a primary rather than secondary source, and not because it wasn't a reliable one. Primary or secondary distance of a source to the subject is an issue of WP:NOR, and not WP:IRS. Thus, there is no contradiction between my questions here and my position above in the YouTube discussion. Nightscream (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I expect I read carelessly. Andrew Dalby 12:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S'Okay. I think discussions like this in which we clarify such nuances are valuable, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to explain myself. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: See, I wasn't expecting this to happen, but now we have someone chiming in on that article's talk page saying that some of the information provided here about his ancestry and parentage is incorrect. So what do we do? Nightscream (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go. You were right all along. The source has now become controversial, and this is a BLP, so information taken from that source should now be removed from the text. I take it that means all of the "Early life" section (except perhaps his birth in 1962 in Hawaii: do we have any other source for that? [added later -- I can't see that we have any]). If User:Ihaberlin wants to dispute the question, the discussion should start right there on that talk page ... Andrew Dalby 21:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is "There is no evidence that acupuncture points, meridans or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine exist." (sic) According to WP policy, such claims can only be justified with secondary sources. The claim is made in the intro in Emotional Freedom Technique. As such, it isn't just uncompromising, it also implies that any therapies suggesting acupuncture points and meridians as a mechanism are ineffective.

After someone else's edit was insta-reverted, I softened the claim to "There is little evidence that acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine exist." This was also insta-reverted.

To my mind, the original statements [45] were designed to be popular for the book's audience rather than a accurate scientific summary of research.

There are two notable reasons to doubt the uncompromising nature of both the claim and the original statements. Firstly, a Cochrane review concluded that a particular acupuncture technique is as effective as medication for nausea. [46]

Separately, a meta-analysis stated that electrical impedance studies are "suggestive" of a physical basis for acupuncture points and meridians. [47] Mindjuicer (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're falling into a logical error when you state "...implies that any therapies suggesting acupuncture points and meridians as a mechanism are ineffective." That's not true. In theory a method can be effective, even when the explanation is nonsensical. Medical history is replete with many such cases. In this case the explanation is pseudoscientific since there is no proof of the anatomical existence of acupuncture points or meridians. If efficacy is ever proven for acupuncture, the explanation must be something else. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all popular science books are secondary sources, including Trick or Treatment, and they are permitted for general statements like this.

You might like to read some of the explanations about how to identify secondary sources, such as WP:Party and person or WP:USINGPRIMARY. Being a pop sci book does not make the source primary, just like being a serious peer-reviewed journal article does not make the paper secondary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implication means 'what is likely to be inferred'. And lack of proof is not proof of lack. Efficacy for one technique in acupuncture was concluded in a Cochrane review. Do you know what that means?

Also there's quite a lot of difference between pseudoscience and protoscience. The former is claiming scientific validation where there is none. Every validated and accepted science today started off as protoscience. Mindjuicer (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, Edzard Ernst is as close as you'll ever find to "the" authoritative expert on this topic. Lots of secondary sources are written by hacks and are consequently unreliable. This isn't such a case. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this claim is badly expressed. Obviously acupuncture points exist. They are points on the body. "Meridians" in a certain sense also exist, as lines drawn through the body. However, the concept of "meridian" in medicine belongs to an earlier period of science, or pre-science, or proto-science. This seems to be an appropriate source; we just need to summarise it carefully. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He actually states it as plainly as it can be stated. You just need to understand what he means by "exist". The "idea" and "belief" definitely exists, but there is no evidence of their existence in the human body. They are not histological realities. Medical science is silent about their supposed existence (the only (pseudo)"medical" textbooks that mention them are alternative medicine texts which blend fact and fantasy). Claiming that they exist doesn't make them actually exist. They are metaphysical figments of the imagination. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first post, I linked a secondary sources which concluded that research was "suggestive" that they do exist and are measurably by science. Furthermore, I linked an Cochrane review that proves as strongly as anything else in medical science has been proven that at least some parts of acupuncture work very well.

All this thread is doing is reinforcing my belief that, no matter what WP policy or science says, ludditism wins. Mindjuicer (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. When their existence is conclusively proven, then our articles will reflect that fact.

2. As to whether acupuncture works, that's still an open question. Sticking needles into people occasionally seems to help for some conditions, but it's not consistent, and it matters not where one sticks the needles, and that is indicative that the theory behind acupuncture is irrelevant. Keep in mind that acupuncture is more than sticking needles into people, it's got a whole package of ancient beliefs associated with the supposed existence of acupuncture points and meridians, and that sticking needles manipulates these areas. None of that is proven. It would be cool if there were a simple and consistent way to deal with pain by needling, but it hasn't been discovered yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read the Cochrane review as it contradicts most of what you wrote. If you don't know what a Cochrane review is, you should probably look that up too. Mindjuicer (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He proudly proclaims himself a "true skeptic", has joined CSICOP and seems to be on a crusade. Personally, I prefer sources who are a little less attached to proving one side or the other. Mindjuicer (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source based purely on primary sources or does it include the author's own opinions? I am talking about the latter. Clearly, some sources will be secondary in parts and primary in other parts. Mindjuicer (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have strong personal beliefs about this subject. Under Wikipedia's policies, an editor's disagreement with a source's point of view is irrelevant. So your dislike of the source because one of the authors is a self-proclaimed "true skeptic", or because it disagrees with your own beliefs and experiences, is irrelevant.

The purpose of RSN is to determine whether the named source is adequate for the statement being made, not to figure out what WP:The Truth is about acupuncture. This source appears to be adequate for the statement being made. Additionally, it appears that many other reliable sources make very similar claims about the lack of evidence for any physical basis behind such points, including sources that are very much "pro-acupuncture", like ISBN 9780195383461 (p. 101), so the source is not only reliable for this statement, but the statement itself is very likely WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets put it this way. Just in 2011, review papers on accupuncture that he authored or coauthored were published in: J Pain PMID 21093382, Int J Cardiol PMID 21093944, Clin Rheumatal PMID 21331532, J Dent PMID 21354460, Chin J Integr Med PMID 21359919, Int J Cardiol PMID 21421272, J Acupunct Meridian Stud PMID 21440874, Eur J Gen Pract PMID 21463162, Chin J Integr Med PMID 21509667, Am J Chin Med PMID 21598411, and Maturitas PMID 21782365. In each case, the subject matter was appropriate to the journal. In 2010 the lengthy list included NEJM, CMAJ, Lancet Oncol, and J Neurol Sci. Each of these journals' editors saw fit to publish these reviews. Why should we consider him less printworthy than they did? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you a secondary source which contradicts the claim. Mindjuicer (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, because those were peer-reviewed and judged by a reliable third party to be scientifically worthy of print. This is also known as 'science'. Mindjuicer (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you quoted your source very selectively. In context, it reads "The studies were generally poor in quality and limited by small sample size and multiple confounders. Based on this review, the evidence does not conclusively support the claim that acupuncture points or meridians are electrically distinguishable. However, the preliminary findings are suggestive and offer future directions for research based on in-depth interpretation of the data." (emphasis mine). In other words, "there is nothing yet, but let's keep looking". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also read that source, and I had the same impression of it as Stephan: zero conclusive evidence for the physical existence of any points or meridians at this time.

Also, it's not just a matter of finding one single secondary source that supports a claim like this; we have to present the typical mainstream view as being the typical mainstream view. The typical mainstream view appears to be that there's no physical basis for acupuncture points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word being 'conclusive'. But ToT doesn't make this claim. It makes an analytic matter-of-fact claim that no evidence whatseover exists. It is wrong and I have proven so in the first post. Mindjuicer (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I spy WP policy. :)

The original claim is outright wrong -- see reply above. I changed it to "There is little evidence that acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine exist" (emphasised change). If there's an analytic ie matter-of-fact claim, WP policy is that it must be justified by a secondary source.

A secondary source is defined in terms of the publication ie the classification is applied to the whole publication. But just as an editorial in Nature is not as reliably accurate as their third-party peer-reviewed articles, this moreso applies to a popular science/skepticism book, especially if the author shows bias, uses unscientific language and makes claims disputed by secondary sources.

I don't remember which guide this 'mainstream opinion of scientists' is in. But I doubt it's actual policy. I state again, the source of the claim is not a secondary source -- and as such policy states the claim should be matter-of-factly made in WP articles. Mindjuicer (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Trick or Treatment is a secondary source. You, on the other hand, are not any kind of reliable source. It consequently does not matter if you, or any other Wikipedia editor, can prove the source to be "outright wrong".
   (An analytic claim is one that takes information and analyzes it to produce a conclusion; it is not merely a claim that states facts. "I am wearing a red shirt today" is a matter-of-fact claim. It is not an analytic claim.)
2. The policy (not guideline) in question is WP:NPOV. Specifically, you'll want to spend some time with the WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI sections, both of which directly address the need to present the mainstream views as being the mainstream views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSCI is talking about pseudoscience whereas I'm talking about a peer-reviewed secondary source. Even if we were to apply it generally, here's what it says: "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community." ie pseudoscience should not obfusticate mainstream so my claim fits completely with that. WP:GEVAL doesn't seem to have any bearing on the matter. So to summarise, the initial claim is perjorative especially in its context. It makes an analytic claim based on a biased source (which is neither peer-reviewed nor published by a reliable publisher) and is contradicted by a secondary source. This is against the spirit of WP policy if not the actual wording. Mindjuicer (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. GEVAL says that "plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized". For example, the claim that there's something "suggestive" about acupuncture points is "plausible but currently unaccepted" in what GEVAL describes as "commonly accepted mainstream scholarship".
2. The publisher of Trick or Treatment is Random House (under their Bantam Press imprint). Random House is the largest general-interest trade book publisher in the world, and certainly does count as "a reliable publisher".
3. Your personal belief that the source is biased does not matter. Really: go look at WP:V and WP:RS. You will not find a single sentence in those pages that say "If you decide that the source is biased, then of course it's not reliable and you can reject it with impunity." Not. One. Single. Sentence.
4. Wikipedia doesn't care whether you believe that the claim is pejorative. We care whether the claim faithfully represents the contents of the reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Your selective quote from GEVAL is highly distortive. The full quote is "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."

For the 3rd time, I am not trying to legitimise any theory. I am trying to reduce the legitimacy of the analytic claim that no evidence whatsoever exists.

2) Random House is of low reliability compared to a medical textbook publisher, not to mention actual scientific journals. It would be a reaonable assumption that they care more about selling books than scientific validity.

3) I have already explained why the source is biased. Contend it from a factual basis rather than merely arguing any assertion about a source is inherently invalid.

4) Of course Wikipedia cares whether claims are perjorative. And I've already explained why it's not a reliable secondary source -- and none of those points have been countered.

Do I have to list all these arguments again for you to stop claiming my talk page assertions are OR???

Mindjuicer (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mindjuicer, you're beating a dead horse. We include pejorative claims and biased opinions here all the time, as long as they're from RS, and in this case a very noted expert on the subject of alternative medicine and acupuncture. Do you even know who Ernst is? No, don't answer that, since it makes no difference. The source is perfectly good, but is on a different playing field than scientific research. It's a very noted opinion (in a book, hence it's ridiculous to expect it to be peer-reviewed), that happens to be based on extensive knowledge (much more than any of us possess) of the literature. Please stop your campaign. You're not going to succeed. Start your own website, edit SourceWatch, do something else. Just stop disrupting Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have proven the claim wrong.

I have explained clearly why the source breaches the spirit of WP policy.

I have shown that WP guidelines are subsumed by bias even on RS/N.

FYI, I have succeeded with everything I set out to do. Mindjuicer (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, even if you feel you have proven them "wrong". You further stand alone in your belief that you have shown that there is a breach of policy -- in "spirit" or in fact. If you feel that any policies are "biased" (against whom or what you do not say), you are welcome to work to correct the biases in those policies. Until then, the policies are our policies. If you've succeeded, your work here is done. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this site reliable? It has no indicia of reliability, not even an About to explain what it is, who manages it, etc. The domain's registrant is listed as "not disclosed" ([48]). An IP has twice added an Ancestry section to the Joseph Fiennes article (this version). I have twice removed it because, regardless of the reliability of the source, it's an absurd section to have in the article. But it would be helpful to have confirmation that the source is also unreliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable for Joseph Fiennes ancestry; not reliable for any ancestry claim I can imagine. No editorial board, responsibility, policy. No evidence of fact checking. User sourced database. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UTSA published a story about a prison program founded by Prem Rawat being run at the local prison [49] and Univision Channel 41, the largest Spanish speaking network in the US, followed up with a news segment about the program which included Prem Rawat speaking.[50] The clip with English translation can be found here.[51] I would like to include a section from the UTSA article in the Prem Rawat article but some editors say that these are not proper sources.[52] Advice please.Momento (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTSA didn't publish a story, they released a press release. It's signed by "Christi Fish Associate Director of Media Relations". In the video clip, it shows Rawat speaking in the background on a tv; the inmates are watching some of Rawat's old speeches, there is no indication that Rawat made any content for this program. Those speeches are from a DVD series (Words of Peace, made from speeches given in 2004-5) that has been running on the Univision channel for years, they was not made for this rehabilitation program. Also, these sources were only part of the issue, notability may also be a problem, as we were discussing (but that may not be an issue they can help us with here). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors please note that Maelefique (above) is not a respondent to this request, he is a highly involved protagonist in the discussion, come here to display his arguments. I have asked him to remove the above, but in the meantime, please follow the links and decide for yourselves. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a reliable source for the quote that is being discussed in the article's Talk page. Of course, that doesn't mean the source should be used or the quote should be included, merely that the source seems reliable if the material meets other criteria for inclusion. ElKevbo (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maelefique, I've looked at the proposed text at Talk:Prem Rawat#Suggested_additon_to_the_article, but not at the source. Based on the press release, is there any information in that proposed paragraph that you think is factually inaccurate, not included in the source, etc.? You complain here, for example, that the speeches shown are from a DVD, but I don't see anything in the proposed text that says anything even remotely like Rawat made that material for this program. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal has been pared down by the latest discussions on the talk page, so this may be moot, but yes, I have strong doubts that the university has accurate numbers for penal systems in 10 different countries, esp. if some of those countries are considered 3rd world (where the TPRF operates a lot of the time), where most governments fudge every number they can for their own benefit. And yes, the editor above started off by saying the program had Prem Rawat talking to these inmates. As you say, no he didn't, (Although he has, now, visited the prison once and given a speech to the general populace, at least that's my understanding). The original proposal contains the phrases "Rawat founded the Peace Education Program to help prison inmates"..."The program focuses on a series of modules with short video clips that address themes", I think that leads to the direct impression that he created that content for them, which is false. Oh, and before I forget, full disclosure, I'm a "highly involved protagonist", which I *believe* might be Australian for "someone that doesn't have the same opinion, and would just like the right question answered".-- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal doesn't matter to me. So it sounds like you believe that the published primary source is wrong, e.g., about how many inmates they personally worked with, and that therefore the information should be excluded on the grounds that... um, a Wikipedia editor says his intuition says that the source might not be entirely accurate? I don't believe I've seen that listed as a reason to completely reject a published source before, although it's probably a good reason to use WP:INTEXT attribution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the paraphrasing, but no. :) I think the secondary source is repeating what they were told from the primary source without analysis, since they are stating the same numbers, and they are not specific, they are generalized numbers (the primary source has 2 video clips about this, one states 700, the other states 1000). I further think that using the primary source without an independent secondary source may be problematic, especially so since this is a WP:BLP article which requires "particular care" regarding verifiability etc.. It may be relevant to know that the reliability of the primary source (the subject of the article) has been inconsistent with numbers in the past (but not with his foundation specifically that I'm aware of). Is it your opinion that this University press release constitutes independent verification of these numbers? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I thought the question raised on this noticeboard focused on the quote in the news article by the UTSA faculty member.

I think it's reasonable to question whether a news article should be relied on for very specific but little known statistics and facts. A middle ground between "use it!" and "don't use it!" would be to use it but clearly attribute it. If there are substantial reasons for questioning the information in this news article, I don't think it's a bad idea to omit the information until it's corroborated given the fact that it's unlikely in the extreme that the public relations office of the university verified the information. But we should have some sort of solid reasoning and evidence if we're going to withhold or contradict a source that is generally reliable. 00:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, I haven't seen any secondary sources being proposed. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS: most news stories are primary sources. Secondary does not mean second-hand.

I'm not seeing any particular cause for concern about this. "They said they'd worked with 1000 inmates" simply isn't contentious BLP matter. You are allowed to WP:USEPRIMARY sources, so long as you are very careful not to exceed their contents. You are allowed to use non-independent sources WP:ABOUTSELF, even in BLPs. There is no policy-based requirement to provide independent sources for a claim that is as small as "They said they'd worked with 1000 inmates". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider a recidivism rate that claims to be providing a result of less than 1% of the national average to be an exceptional claim? By our own article on recidivism we could have expected as many as 600 of those 1000 to have been re-arrested, not 3 or 4 (and thank-you for your discussion on this topic, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just clear in my understanding and thorough in my points of contention). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we are all invited here, OK. No one is providing any attendance figures for the overseas jail programs, and it would be nice to stop suggesting that someone might be: we are told only that the programs exist. Is there any serious doubt about that? The primary source for the Dominquez Prison recidivism rate is the Dominguez Prison itself, as expressed by their Chief of Inmate Programs, Capt Lorenzo Carter. The UTSA Dept of Criminology got that information from them and so they become a secondary source. Univision News got the information also, and ran a news segment on the success of the program, so they are another secondary source. Rumiton (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which source cites Carter? I don't see that in the UTSA press release or the Univision piece.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources cited Carter's employer, the Dominguez Prison. Carter was representing the prison when he spoke, not speaking as a private individual. Rumiton (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Question: Does Wiki consider [[53]], the blog page dedicated to everything connected to early (1950s and 1960s) Hanna-Barbera a relible source. Radiohist (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally blogs are not reliable sources, and I see nothing special about this particular blog in terms of its reliability, fact-checking, etc. However, there are exceptions depending on the context. What would it be used for?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that blog is not reliable source. That is an anonymous blog. Anyway the link to the page posted by OP does not work. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[54].Could be used to add, source info or facts that are not available on wiki articles that are connected in some way or another to Hanna-Barbera (Maurice Gosfield's, Bea Benaderet's, or George O'Hanlon's page)

No. It is a non-notable anonymous blog. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made edits in the article Kshatriya with a book written by RK Singh. Here is the link of the book [55] .

But User:Sitush reverted my edits saying that my reference is not a credible source. Please check the matter.

This book is not reliable for history. Its main subject is tourism policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a weak secondary source to me. However, the author says this is a "version" of the clan taxonomy. In the absence of a clarifying source, I'd suggest including this qualifier or softening the claim. Mindjuicer (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is published by Gyan. That is the point which I was making to the originator of this thread and which they have for some reason chosen not to mention. Nor did they let me know that they had raised the issue here, or point out that at least one other person working in the India-related sphere of en-WP has passed comment on it. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see Med hypotheses as pretty much inherently unreliable, and shouldn't really be cited except to not perhaps in a BLP's biography list. A short discussion in RSN occurred here, but just in case, I might as well confirm it. Specifically, should the journal be used as a footnote in this case? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editorially that journal doesn't (or at least didn't at the time of that paper) have peer review, so clearly is not a reliable source for medical claims. I note in that case there is already a reference; why is there a push to add additional references when it already has one? Yobol (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yobol. MEDRS sources need to be conclusive and good quality. Hypotheses don't qualify. Otherwise the journal is a good source for an article about itself...;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while Med Hyp is an impossibly lousy source for medical claims, it might be acceptable for the particular sentence that it's supposedly supporting, which is not a medical claim. The sentence says "Although the DSM-5 may move away from this categorical approach in some limited areas, some argue that a fully dimensional, spectrum or complaint-oriented approach would better reflect the evidence" (emphasis added).

You could even use a plain old newspaper article for a statement like this, because it's just a claim of who said what, not a claim that these "some arguers" are correct. ("Argue", by the way, needs to be replaced by WP:SAY.) There's not really a more authoritative source for the claim that "somebody says X" than an actual, published document in which somebody is saying X. (I assume here, without looking at the source, that the Med Hyp article really does say that this approach would [in the opinion of the author] better reflect the evidence.) It would be a primary source for such a statement, but you can WP:USEPRIMARY sources. The only remaining questions there would be whether the statement is WP:DUE (probably) and the particular source is necessary (possibly not, and we want to avoid WP:Citation overkill). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually think this is mostly a medical claim - it is discussing the proper classification/diagnosis of various paraphilias. I would think how to properly diagnose a patient would fall under the general aegis of a medical claim. Yobol (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually a statement of how to diagnose a person. It's just a statement that experts have different opinions on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case we would be citing Med Hypotheses for a statement about what experts in the field think, something I don't think they have a great track record for (AIDS denialism, etc). Yobol (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion of "why bother" when it's both dubious and redundant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yobol, you'd presumably be citing this paper for proof that one expert(?) thinks this (that is, the author of the Med Hyp paper itself), not that experts in general think this.

I am certainly sympathetic with WLU's "Why bother?": it seems needless and even silly. Furthermore, citing Med Hyp is a way to convince knowledgeable readers that the claim is supported primarily by crackpots, which presumably is not BitterGrey's purpose. But I think the source technically meets the minimum standard for being a reliable source for the fairly weak claim being made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well then I see your point. As even self published sources have an expert exception, Med Hypotheses would have such as well. As Med Hypotheses is little better than a SPS, if this source were to be used, it should probably in text attributed (a point which seems moot as this seems redundant to other, better, sources). Yobol (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe BG also mentioned that the point was made in one of the author's books which again makes me come back to "why bother" with this source when there are better ones to make the same point? I'm kinda surprised there's no general consensus in the RSN archives that Med hypotheses is little more than a blog posting, separate from the more general point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is more than a blog posting. In a blog, you write it, and you publish it, with zero oversight by anyone else. At Med Hyp, the author writes the article and submits it; the independent, paid, professional editor decides whether or not to publish it. In terms of its editorial structure and therefore its reliability, Med Hyp is very similar to a magazine that publishes political opinions or the op-ed page of a newspaper. That means that it's perfectly adequate for supporting a statement that John Smith held ____ opinion, but it is not adequate for supporting a statement that Smith's opinion is the truth about ____ (or even that Smith's "facts" are even remotely accurate, just like you wouldn't blindly trust the so-called "facts" that you hear on certain talk radio shows). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I thought about putting in a resource request, but this is likely to a. get a faster and wider response and b. to better address the issues in question.) An IP address has been adding content to Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, Harvey Karman, and Jane Collective sourced to mostly-local papers that I can't access online because they are from too long ago. As I am already aware, being offline doesn't make a source unreliable; however, this user (if it is, as I assume, a logged-out IP of the article creator) has a history of citing content to sources that either do not support it or possibly do not exist, so I would really appreciate if someone would check if these sources a. exist and b. if possible, support the content cited to them.

"Nab 7 in abortion raid." Chicago Daily News, May 4, 1972

"Abortion Clinic Closed After Woman's Death," New York Newsday, October 1, 1988

"1st West Coast Abortion Conference Tomorrow," The Van Nuys News, March 30, 1973

CDC abortion surveillance 1972 CDC was collecting abortion data at the time, so this is particularly a "does it support what it's cited for" request.

"Walk-in Abortion Clinic Successful," Mansfield (OH) News Journal, November 3, 1970

"Seminar Will Center on Population Control," Albuquerque Journal, February 7, 1971

"Birth control, abortion bridged by new technique," The Los Angeles Times in The Anniston (AL) Star, July 19, 1972 Not sure what the user is referring to with the LA Times, because it's not in the 1972 LA Times archives that I can access.

"U.S. Exports Abortion Technique," UPI in The Kingsport (TN) Times, February 10, 1972

"Bengali women to get abortions," UPI in the The (Elyria, Ohio) Chronicle Telegram; February 10, 1972

"Man Convicted of Abortions on 15 Women," The Daily Courier (Connellsville, Pennsylvania), November 17, 1973

I hope someone can help out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the first two: [57][58]. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Any luck with others? If the sources cannot be determined to exist, I will remove information cited to them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. http://www.nelsonriddlemusic.com/nr_bio_ex.htm
2. http://www.ericrecords.com/orchestral_2.html
3. 1962 Grammy Nominations.
4. http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php
5. http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/W/htmlW/watersethel/watersethel.htm
6. http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Emmy_Awards/1962 Emmy Awards: 1962.
7. http://landscaping.about.com/b/2010/03/02/wolf-tree.htm Beaulieu, David. "Wolf Tree," About.com, Tuesday, March 2, 2010.
8. http://www.ohio66.com/angels/default.asp "The Strengthening Angels" – Ohio66.com.
9. http://tophatblue.livejournal.com/12971.html Route 66: "Fly Away Home (Part 1)" – LiveJournal.com.
10. http://tophatblue.livejournal.com/13646.html Route 66: "Fly Away Home (Part 2)" – LiveJournal.com.
11. http://tophatblue.livejournal.com/14348.html Route 66: "Sleep on Four Pillows" – LiveJournal.com.
12. http://www.infinity-entertainmentgroup.com/catalog.cfm?grp=6
13. http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Route-66-Shout-Factory-Acquires-Rights/16184

Do these above source meet policies and guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends:

"Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?"

"No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual."

You need to consider how the sources are used, not just the characteristics of the sources themselves. There are some (LiveJournal blogs, About.com pages) that are probably not going to meet our standards for reliability, and there are others (Emmys.org, Museum.tv) that probably will, but you're going to have to consider each one individually, carefully and in direct relationship to the exact statement that it is supposed to support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passage #1 ("Theme song" section): --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Riddle was commissioned to write the instrumental theme when CBS decided to have a new song, rather than pay royalties for the Bobby Troup song "(Get Your Kicks on) Route 66". Riddle's theme, however, offers an unmistakable homage to the latter's piano solo (as originally recorded by Nat King Cole) throughout the number. Riddle's Route 66 instrumental was one of the first television themes<ref>[http://www.nelsonriddlemusic.com/nr_bio_ex.htm Nelson Riddle Bio].</ref> to make Billboard Magazine's Top 30,<ref>http://www.ericrecords.com/orchestral_2.html</ref> following Henry Mancini's "Mr. Lucky Theme" in 1960. The song earned two Grammy nominations in 1962.<ref>[http://www.nelsonriddlemusic.com/nr_tv_rt66.htm 1962 Grammy Nominations].</ref>

Do genealogical articles (such as Romney family and Pratt family requires sources for the genealogical claims? Or is WP:PRESERVE paramount over WP:RS? The articles at this point are heavily unsourced genealogical OR and SYNTH as far as I can tell, and past practice has been that Wikipedia does not use commercial "genealogical sites" for sources. Ought this be changed? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start by suggesting that they need sources to establish notability. Everyone has ancestors (lots of them), but so what? If there isn't a source for the genealogy without resorting to WP:OR, we shouldn't have an article in the first place. And with regard to commercial "genealogical sites", given their propensity to scatter disclaimers over their 'data', I'd be inclined to treat them with scepticism until evidence to the contrary is proffered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posit that the "family" is notable - do claims made in the "genealogy" need genuine WP:RS sources, or is the existence of the family sufficient to obviate the use of sources for genealogical claims? Thanks. Collect (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think not. Genealogies are basically OR performed by various family members, which explains why different family members can come to different conclusions in their own genealogical research. If they ever stuck their heads together and did more serious and expert research, they might discover who is making errors and come up with a definitive, single, version. If such a version were conclusively endorsed by known historical experts in such matters, IOW third party sources, we might be able to accept such a version, but otherwise its basically OR which we can't endorse. We just need to be cautious and depend on third party sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course these articles need citations -- why would they be any different to the rest of the enyclopaedia? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Whereas the Romney family article, mentioned by the OP, is, as of now, reasonably well-sourced in its content, that pertaining to the Kennnedy-Shrivers contains en toto a mere half-dozen citations for its entire, exhaustive listings. Rather than WP's merely appending {{fact}} tags, per wp:PRESERVE, to so many of the names listed, would we be perhaps better off were we to jettis this article's pedigree table and many of the entries included in its various lists and start from scratch? What do other editors think?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonably sourced? About half at most - with a huge amont dependent on OR at best. The Pratt one? Virtually all unsourced per WP:RS. Huge leaps of genealogical research based on flimsy material - kuje Mitt Romney saying his or great-great-grandfather was Parley P. Pratt "maybe" and similar strong genealogical sourcing. The policy requires that the unsourced stuff be simply removed - that much is clear. Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The policies require that unsourceABLE material be removed, not that unsourcED material be removed. If it is possible to provide a reliable source for the information, then you are not required to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, WP:V states that "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." (my emphasis) Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And WP:BLP has rather more strict words (not just "may be removed") - recalling that many of those in the "genealogy" are not yet dead. This is not a matter of simply saying "someone may be able to find a source" since the only source proffered in much of this is not WP:RS by a mile <g>. Collect (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Or not: BLP only applies to living people (I'll bet that Parley Pratt has been dead for a number of decades) and it only applies to contentious claims. And even then, BLP does not prohibit you from supplying a reliable source yourself. "The only source proffered in the article" is not the same thing as "the only source that's ever been published in the entire world". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevertheless, Collect would be perfectly justified in removing the unsourced material. Anyone who wanted to restore it would face the WP:BURDEN of finding sources to verify it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there is no need for articles on notable families to carry the whole genealogy. They should concentrate on the notable family members, and if possible should be a narrative rather than a family tree. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, many (most?) notable individuals have only non-notable ancestors. Thus including a genealogy at all should only be done for the few that really do qualify. Roger (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The removal of notable wives' names (eg Ann Romney|Ann]], Lenore) names I thought was simple institutional wp:BIAS. But now that the name of principals have been removed, there appears to be an actual bigotry at play. But, pushing that impression aside and resuming an assumption of good faith, I offer the questions: The lede, as sourced, at Pratt family defines it as descended from P.P.Pratt, so what would justify removal of him from ensuing list? And the lede at Romney family (US) defines it as notable primary due to G.Romney, so what would justify removal of him from that article's list?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The P.P. Pratt listing was contributed in the Pratt family article's very first edit in 2005, by User:Dr U and was there for five years, until its recent deletion. Yet in the article's current references #s 2 and 3 (Reuters use of info from Mormon studies scholar Brooks and the article by historian Bowman) are quotes referencing notable familial descents from, specifically, Parley Pratt.
• (And, as for the Romney family article, George Romney, Mitt, or both are mentioned in, for example, just about each one of the article's current first dozen references, so I don't follow the reasoning behind deleting their respective entries in the Romney family article's list, either.)
• WP is a tertiary source and can but rely on the available sources. So, the bottom line is, since the "Romney family" article's sources amply demonstrate that George's mom, Anna's, (paternal) grandfather was P.P. Pratt, this relationship between the two families is what the Romney family article should continue to reflect. Sure, per user:Collect's argument (taking it at face value--which may or may not be a fool's errand)...it's absolutely within the realm of possibility--no matter how infinitely small--that George was misinformed/lied about this genealogy. Indeed, if a source is found that calls this relationship into question, then the text can and perhaps should be edited to shade in this doubt arising from the sourcing: eg, via "according to George" or some such formulation. Otherwise, WP should simply state the relationship, per the article's existing, ample sourcing on the point.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This diff is an open-and-shut case of improper removal of sourced content, when user:Collect deleted two citiations to a Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson Associated Press story when deleting the article's summaries about George Romney and Mitt Romney.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.....Btw a google search of news sources turn up dozens of hits for "parley," "pratt," "romney." Here's ten I picked out at random:

1. (from 2 days ago) Nat'l Review
2. (from 2 days ago) George Mason Univ
3. AP
4. CNN
5. FOX
6. LA Times
7. Time
8. Boston Globe
9. NPR
10. SLC Tribune

Google Books produces 810 hits. Google Scholar even produces 180.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS does not mean that every article with "pratt" and "romney" in it is a source for specific genealogical claims. Nor does it mean that claims not found in a source suddenly become usabe in any article at all. I fear that is the problem here -- but Wikipedia != Ancestry.com. Collect (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad statements not hewing to the facts at hand may convince the ill-informed but Wikipedians as a whole will be more convinced by interpretations of logic and events supportable by actual fact.

1. Wrt the erroneous claim that Collect did not remove sourced material: Note the fact that, e/g: (A.) There is a Pratt family article because George Romney's mother belongs to a family that is notable in its own right; yet, despite the score of sources that establish this connection, Collect insist that the two families have no connection. (B.) There is a score of sources that George and Mitt are in the Romney article, some providing individual vitae--yet Collect removed both entries in that article's list, along with the additional AP source, providing an accouting of the Romney clan's genealogy, which source had been appended to both.
2. Wrt the erroneous claim (wishful thinking?) that Wikipedia does not provide notable genealogical information: Note the fact that, e/g, the following categories are among those included below the article on Wikipedia about the Dunham-Obama-Robinsons (a combined article under the rubric of "Family of Barack Obama" because neither the Dunhams nor the Robinson families are notable independently from their relationship to the current US president):

   -Obama family
   -African American genealogy
   -African-American families
   -Families
   -American families
   -Genealogies of individuals
   -Family trees
   -First Families of the United States

   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not a reason to violate Wikipedia policies. You are using such sources as "jared-pratt-family.org" which are blatantly not "reliable sources" for a genealogy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, a url need not even be provided. But I provide two for each citation. Double. Twice as many as just one. An infinite amount more than the number..."required."

The material in question was pubished in the late 19th century by the Improvement Era magazine and the Deseret News newspaper. The Association merely hosta a transcription of the same. Thus one can access the originals, via the citations, or one can review transcriptions of the same. (Btw, the Pratt Association was founded in the late 19th century by mathematician and scientist Orson Pratt. The associaion's historian, Matt Grow, co-authored (with preeminent Mormon studies scholar Terryl Givens) the biography of Parley Pratt that was published by Oxford Univ. Press in 2011. An entity is considered a reliable source about itself. In this case, the entity only hosts a transcription. The orig- .. -inals are accessible via the citation, along with the transcriptions. How can you delete photographs of 19th-century newspaper articles and an official Improvement Era webpage that hosts a copy of the magazine's old article--merely because the Pratt Association also provides a copy of this information? Is the Pratt Association some kind of tar baby for you that forever mars anything it touches? Things that were valid sources suddenly become invalid merely because the Association also hosts a transcript? --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When user Collect engaged in the pointy prank of the removal of entries for Mitt, George, Lenore, Ann, et al, from the Romney family article's list, he simultaneously deleted a citation that was attached to both of the entries for Mitt and George referencing an AP story that had been hosted on the Fox News website. The AP story goes as follows:

Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's grandfather, was not a polygamist. He married Anna Amelia Pratt, the daughter of polygamists and the granddaughter of Parley P. Pratt, the apostle with 12 wives. Their marriage took place Feb. 20, 1895, in Dublan, Mexico.

Gaskell Romney had moved to Mexico with his parents in 1884 amid the proliferation of U.S. laws prohibiting "unlawful cohabitation." Anna Pratt was born in Utah but had emigrated to Mexico and lived in one of nine colonies established by the church over the border.

Gaskell Romney and Anna Pratt had seven children, including George Wilcken Romney, the former Michigan governor. He lived with his parents in Mexico until 1912, when the family returned to the United States.

George Romney married Lenore LaFount, who does not appear to have polygamy in her family tree. The couple, now deceased, had four children, including Mitt Romney.

If Collect has a source calling into doubt that Helaman-Pratt-daughter Anna begat George R., he should bring it to the fore (and we'll inform celebrated genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts, who henceforth can asterisk the same!).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPA and note that the material I removed was unsourced or improperly sourced for the full claims as made in your genealogy article. Please finally read and understand WP:RS and the fact that a source must back up the entire claim being made. The edit you cite as being improper removed a link you created for the "Pratt family" - which was unsourced. It removed Miles Alonzo Romney which was unsourced. It removed Thomas Cottham Romeny also unsourced. It removed Vernon Romnay which was sourced to "politicalgraveyard.com" which is a site run by a single person and is not RS. And so on. Most did not even have an attempt at citing a source. Curiously enough, Wikipedia likes to have claims being sourced. This is not a "pointy" obsession of mine, it is not a "prank" - it is the rules. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does a family article that had been on Wikipedia for 6 1/2 years belong to me (who has hardly touched the material at "Romney family")? I am pointing out to the community that you had removed, for whatever your rationale and motivations, notable, sourced data from the article on shaky grounds.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to impute ownership only that this is the article at issue. Moreover, the fact that an unsourced or insufficiently sourced article existed for any period of time does not change what Wikipedia policies state. Lastly, WP:RS is not "shaky grounds." Collect (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Op-Ed[59] by a schoolteacher suitable for statements of fact. Specifically this section on Saudi Arabia [60] Darkness Shines (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Editorial, one person's experiences, no particular reason that person is representative, etc. --GRuban (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same opinion. Before even asking of an op-ed is reliable, the evidence is anecdotal. The alleged assailants are limited to the children in her classroom, and beyond their own victims, the only others referred to are one acquaintance of the writer and two coworkers. Even if we took everything in there as fact, it would be original research of us to imply general trends based on mere anecdotes. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is, instead of attributing the statement as opinion (to which I would have agreed to), Darkness Shines is blanking the section. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx2)And this schoolteachers opinion is notable because? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this author's opinion deserve to appear in the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance, given that it has been published by a reliable third party. I'm in full support of rephrasing to attribution, but that option was never discussed on the article talk page where DS asked to blank the section. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, the opinion of a single writer, based on anecdotal evidence, establishes due weight? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) That would be a discussion for the article talk page (since here we are proving its reliability only), 2) I think that section can be expanded above that for that to have the weight it has at the moment. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the facts ("Some Saudis have behaved badly") are probably more or less accurate; it would actually be astonishing if racism were entirely absent among 100% of the 27 million people in that country. But this certainly isn't the best source for a claim like that, and it's certainly not an adequate source for indicating that it's a significant enough problem to deserve being mentioned. After all, you could presumably write that sentence about every single country on the face of the planet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Think about what statement of fact it could be used to back up. "One schoolteacher writes that some of his students admitted to behaving badly, and implies that means all Saudi Arabians hate all foreign workers." Not relevant. Also, re-reading that editorial makes me doubt its strict veracity, since this sentence seems pretty extraordinary: "Some said that their favorite pastime was to catch cats, kill them and skin them." I find it hard to believe that would be the sort of thing students would casually admit to their teacher. Should we now put it in an article to back a statement that Saudi Arabians mutilate animals? Surely not. I strongly suspect some poetic license was taken. --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• While I have your attention, would some of you comment on this [61] edit. Is reverting in unsourced, POV OR against the rules here or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Will add back after backing up with more sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted in another Op-Ed as a source for statements of fact [62] 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have so far made zero (or previous no consensus) attempts on talk page to discuss the content you are editwarring to remove. You need to discuss the content if it is op-ed, or how it needs to be phrased or kept. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun, I'm afraid Darkness Shines has it right here. In general, editorials can not be used for statements of fact. If the editorial is by a notable person, you could use it to give that notable person's opinion, but you would have to consider seriously whether that person's opinion would be relevant for our article. If it were the opinion of a major government or religious figure, perhaps, but not for minor writers, schoolteachers, etc. We're talking about countries of hundreds of millions of people, it's not surprising that we could find one minor writer or schoolteacher to hold almost any opinion, from the world being flat to the United Nations being controlled by aliens. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll obviously add that back with publications signed by experts or the publishers.. but don't think editwarring was the right way to go. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come you are on 3RR? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've crossed that. Don't sermon me on that. I guess this topic is resolved. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am on 2r actually. The topic is far from resolved. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the first source on Cary Sherman, which is primary, i'm not quite sure about the other four. At the very least, they seem to be very specialized, small sources that seem to have been picked in order to have specific, potentially negative, information in the article. Silverseren^C 05:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looks like User:Cusop Dingle took care of it. Silverseren^C 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I CSD A7'ed this article. It was protested on my talk page, and I gave it a closer look. The article itself makes no claim to notability that I can see. The issue, however, is the three sources on the article. They are in a foreign language. This makes it hard for me to judge whether or not they qualify as RS. At least 2 of the three look likely to be in depth articles on the subject. If they are RS, then he may very well be notable for the coverage alone. From the WP article, the subject is from Ukraine, so the language is likely whatever the common language is of that country (Ukrainian or Russian). I'll also ask for assistance on a Ukrainian Wiki-project... - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian. They are about the subject. The reason for notability isn't straightforward, it's basically that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army has been accused of being involved in Jewish massacres, so the fact that a Jew served in it seems of interest. See Ukrainian Insurgent Army#UPA and Jews. In any case, they are non-trivial articles about the subject, probably meeting WP:N, and certainly not speedy-able. --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are in Ukrainian; Russian has no letter "і". First 2 sources are national newspapers (first source is a part of the Ukrayinska Pravda-group) and most def. RS; 3th source is the Ukrainian Youth Association, not sure if "Youth Associations" are ever RS.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. So we have at least 2 RS on him, and a round-about reasoning as to why he is actually otherwise notable. But at a minimum, these together IMHO do make it ineligible for CSD. If someone wants to start an AFD debate, notability could be hashed out there once and for all. I know that I will not be bothering with that at this point. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I could find out from Google translate, that the person was provided with a wheel chair by a group. Is there any other grounds for being notable?? I guess the person does not meets the criteria of notability. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the notability is questionable, feel absolutely free to start an AFD discussion. I'm only declaring that he's not A7-eligable, which is a much lower threshold. At the moment we have two reliable sources, which is enough that they may by themselves show that he meets the general notability criteria, whether or not we may think that he meets any other reason for notability. He's of enough interest to papers there to get multiple in-depth articles.

As for the reason they are interested, see GRuban's explanation above.

I really have no idea how an AFD would end up. But I suspect at this point that it could very well end up as a Keep. But I'm just one opinion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KoopaTroop and I both think that Coasterpedia should be a reliable source. He and I both work there, and know that all information is carefully found and written. Also with several users, the content is constantly being checked. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki wouldn't be used as a source (in-article citations), so this is probably the wrong place to bring this up. KoopaTroop (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is an open wiki then I do not see how it can meet WP:RS. But why use a wiki? There are no shortage of sources for roller coasters[63] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:COI Roger (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis and other user-generated content are never RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Ica stones an editor keeps inserting this self-published source. He's been told in edit summaries, on his talk page, and I believe on the article talk page that it doesn't meet our criteria, but he still keeps adding it. Are those of us who think it doesn't meet our criteria wrong? It's [64] - note that it's a rebuttal to a Fortean Times article & I'm guessing they wouldn't publish it, but that's not the point. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fails all tests of reliable sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Lolwut? It's self-published but not somehow by the Ica Stones for incontroversial claims somehow made by the Ica Stones, so it doesn't belong. The purpose of the source ("Did Man Walk With The Dinosaurs?") is contrary to mainstream science, which is what this site sides with. Also, Rrrr5's edit summary "Part of this site endorses a theory I dislike, therefore we can't cite it" isn't valid on Wikipedia. is a strawman argument that sounds a bit WP:IDHT-ish. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not a reliable source; WP:PARITY exists to prevent sources like this from being used to justify fringe claims. Fails on so many levels. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I first read it as "Dinosaur Sandman". Archosaur Ambien, anyone?--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor inserting it was blocked for 3RR and then came back with a sock to put it back in again, guess he doesn't care if it's a reliable source or not. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I preferred the film version. Equally reliable, and has Racquel Welsh. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do when we have a paper that is presumptively an RS, but we know that the writer of the article in question, appearing in the paper, is not reliable but rather is questionable. For example, would we rely on an article in The New Republic that was written by Stephen Glass?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability calculation has many factors and is unique to each situation. One thing to look for would be corrections or other responses from the editors. Stephen Glass's reporting was carefully reviewed and the editors determined which articles had problems and which didn't. The fact that he made up some facts didn't mean he made up all of them. So even with that example the answer depends on the exact source and the assertion it's being used for. How do we know that this writer is unreliable?   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be nice if we knew whichfacts weren't. Not all problem articles had full corrections made, which means use of such articles is problematic at best, and another source would outweigh it by an order of magnitude. I believe it is dictum that a person once convicted of perjury will not be believed on any issue at all? Collect (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a court of law. And this noticeboard doesn't answer hypothetical questions. Epeefleche, do you have a specific question relating to the use of a particular source as a reference for a particular statement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no useful generalizable answer to this question. The specifics of the case must be examined. What writer, what citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the above, I should come back when I have more specifics. I noticed that we have articles that list, inter alia, journalists who engaged in fraudulent activity. See, for example, Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair and some (though not all) of the other entries at List of hoaxes#Journalistic hoaxes and Journalistic scandal#See also. I was considering that -- if articles by such authors in RSs are not themselves considered RS material -- I would look to see if we have any such refs at the Project. But before I started looking, I thought I would check here as to how such refs would be considered at the end of the day. It seems that some editors would accept a Stephen Glass article as an RS ref in certain circumstances, and others might instead view him as having rebutted the presumption of reliability by his actions. Perhaps the issue is premature for this page, as a couple of editors suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Glass' articles have been corrected or retracted by the New Republic, as have Blair's by the Times. Reliable sources are reliable not because they never print errors, but because they have a system in place to prevent or at least correct errors which do make it into print. We shouldn't be citing retracted work (unless we make clear that it was retracted). And we should strongly question the reliability of sources which fail to retract or correct errors when they're identified. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. One issue (premature for this noticeboard, I understand) is whether or not the work of an author such as Glass or Blair loses the presumption of reliability (even if published in an RS) once he has been revealed to have written articles of this ilk. As to your point that the RSs have retracted or corrected these editors' error-ridden articles, we have the challenge that our online sources may carry the older articles. And don't necessarily indicate that the pieces that contain fabrications have been corrected or retracted by the RSs in question. See, for example, this article in Highbeam Business, which our wp article on Glass suggests (pointing to a questionable RS?) and which a NYT article indicates was one of Glass's fabrication-laden articles. But I understand that some editors consider this discussion premature.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an excellent example of why we need to link the original source, not a copy of it hosted at marijuanalibrary.org or HighBeam. But I think you've identified a real problem, and I didn't mean to dismiss it. The problem isn't unique to Wikipedia - for example, a recent survey of the scientific literature found that retracted papers continued to be cited at an impressive rate, even after their retraction. The bottom line is that we need to be careful with sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no useful generalizable principle to be found by discussing Glass or Blair. Even for evaluating an article by one of those two there is no generalizable principle. What source, what citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is an attribute of the publication not the writer. We expect that these publications will publish retractions for errors or false information. TFD (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is whether the British government (specifically, a footnote in a British parliamentary paper) is a reliable source for the claim that there are three million British expatriates in Hong Kong. The problem is that the source gives no explanation of how it came to this number. It's reasonably easy to see (though of course this is WP:OR) that the only way they can get this number is by including British National (Overseas) status-holders in their estimate. Only a few tens of thousands of Hong Kong people were born in Britain or otherwise have British citizenship. Which leads to two questions:

• 4 million people in Hong Kong's population were born in Hong Kong [65]. Many of them are BN(O)s, but they are well outside of any reasonable definition of "expatriate". It seems difficult to consider as source as "reliable" if it so grossly abuses the word "expatriate" that it would apply it to a man living in his native city. (Of the remaining 3 million of Hong Kong's population, 2.5 million were born in China. You might, in a fit of POV, describe them as "Chinese expatriates", but certainly not "British expatriates".).
• The source in question, the British Parliament, has a clear incentive to present a slanted view of the issue in order to avoid criticism over human rights issues. These people whom they call "British expatriates" do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, precisely due to the vote of that same Parliament in 1981. The United Kingdom has not ratified Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights precisely in order to avoid giving BN(O)s the right of abode in the United Kingdom [66]. The UNHCHR has criticised the British government on precisely this point, describing British nationality law as "reveal[ing] elements of racial discrimination" [67]. Again, in my view this shows that the source, whether deliberately or otherwise, is trying to be misleading, by describing Hong Kong people as "expatriates" of a country (Britain) in which they have no right of freedom of movement.

Please see the background discussion at Talk:Britons in Hong Kong. Thank you 61.18.190.15 (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

we shouldn't be using primary sources here, and we certainly can't use 'webcache.googleusercontent.com' as a source at all. Having said that though, the rest of your arguments are WP:OR. And instead of asking us to trawl through an article talk page, can you please let us know what is being cited for what? Agreeing that "the British Parliament has a clear incentive to present a slanted view" over something is hardly grounds for asserting that anyone else's view is less slanted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My question is very simple. The article contains a statement "There are three million British expatriates in Hong Kong". This is the statement at issue. I do not consider the British Parliament to be a reliable source for this statement, and I would like to know other people's opinions on whether it is a reliable source. The rest of my comments are my reasons why I think the British Parliament not a reliable source for this assertion: because they are not independent of the issue they are presenting. I already admitted that my comments are WP:OR --- but these comments are not in the article anyway, I am just making these comments in a discussion page in the context of trying to evaluate the reliability of a source. The webcache.googleusercontent.com --- it's just Google's auto-generated HTML version of an Excel file published by a Hong Kong government department [68]. Most people don't like downloading XLS files and firing up Microsoft Excel so I gave a web-viewable link for your convenience. It's not cited in the article anyway. 61.18.190.15 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK government is reliable for statements like this. Even if it has an incentive to slant information it is not going to publish outright untruths. Consider also, though, that the UK government did not carry out the actual research, that this is something of a throwaway or aside. What to do next is to search for other sources, probably to present alongside this one, not instead of it. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if it has an incentive to slant information it is not going to publish outright untruths." An "incentive to slant information" means that no, it is not a reliable source. That it will not "publish outright untruths" does not make it reliable. - SudoGhost 02:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I sympathize with the skepticism of a source that doesn't disclose its methodology, we need (good) reliable sources if we're going to contest demographic data provided by the British Parliament. The distrust of one (or more) Wikipedia editors is not sufficient to discard this source. ElKevbo (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The government which actually runs Hong Kong conducts a census every five years. The last one (2006) found a total of 24,000 Britons, less than 1% of the British Parliament's nonsensical figure [69]. The greatest population of Britons ever recorded in Hong Kong was about 160,000 right before the handover. 61.18.190.15 (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit on Austrian hacking incident in My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic#Other arenas cites an Equestria Daily screen shot of now-inaccessible news article page from Kurier's website. I want to replace it with three pages (1, 2, 3) from Austrian public broadcaster, ORF. But since I can't understand German at all, I need your help to expand that sentence a bit.

Also, can any of you check the reliability of the other Equestria Daily pages cited except exclusive interviews, and all the non-English sources cited in the entire My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic article? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article in SouthCoastToday.com a RS for the line "On September 22 of last year, NASA held an LENR forum that included presentations by several scientists including Dan Bushnell - Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center and Dr. Joseph Zawodny." in the article Cold Fusion ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is familysearch.org a :"relaible source" in Romney family"

:::*[[G. Ott Romney]] (December 12, 1892-May 3, 1973) was born in [[Salt Lake City]], the son of George Ernst and Hannah, and died in [[Alexandria, Virginia]]. He was the third head football coach at Brigham Young University, coaching for nine years from 1928-1936. His national positions included Chairman of the National Recreation Policies Committee, National Director of the Recreation Section of the Works Progress Administration or WPA, assignments with the American Alliance of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, and membership on U.S. President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]'s Council on Youth Fitness. During [[World War II]] he served as Chief of Recreation and Club Unit Services to the [[United States Armed Forces]] through the [[Red Cross]]. He married Ruth Harding in 1919, and they are parents of three children - two girls and one boy.<ref name=AF>[http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp "Ancestral File page on George Romney"], Ancestry of G. Ott Romney. Family History Department, The Church of Jesus Latter Day Saints. Retrieved December 5, 2011</ref><ref>[http://www.byucougars.com/staff/athletics/g-ott-romney "G. Ott Romney Staff Bio"], Brigham Young University. Retrieved December 5, 2011</ref>

Also are "staff bios" and the like RS for genealogical claims in the same article? Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither would be reliable sources for the article, because there is no evidence that there is fact-checking of the biographical information. FamilySearch does provide copies of primary sources that would be reliable, for example birth certificates, but they would be of little or no use for the article. TFD (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a citation:

Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, Earls of Kent, Holand, retrieved on 2 May 2010

in Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter.

On further investigation it turns out to be:

• Cawley, Charles (3 June 2011). "Earls of Kent {1352}-1408, Holand". [http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.htm Medieval Lands]. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help); Unknown parameter |publiser= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help) (Contents)

As can be seen by this search Medieval Lands is used as a reference in over 500 Wikipedia articles.

The introduction says:

It must be emphasised that many areas still remain to be checked as the research is still incomplete. When consulting the documents, it should be assumed that any information which does not include references to primary source material falls into this category and should therefore be treated with the appropriate caution.

Also:

The "back-to-basics" approach to primary source material has produced many surprises. It has enabled numerous new discoveries to be made and many challenges to traditionally accepted family relationships to be proposed. By way of example, browse for Æthelberht King of Wessex (ENGLAND, ANGLO-SAXON and DANISH KINGS) and the wives of Péter Orseolo King of Hungary (HUNGARY, KINGS). The approach has also highlighted many cases where little supporting source material has so far been found, despite extensive research, indicating the possibly dubious nature of some supposed connections.

Is Medieval Lands a reliable source? If not then can it be used as a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? -- PBS (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any indication that this website is reliable for history. I can't see who the authors are or any affiliation with a university or reputable research institute. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author appears to be Charles Cawley; the site states that "Charles Cawley is a retired corporate lawyer who now devotes himself full time to historical research".[70] So not a historian or an authority on medieval genealogy. RolandR (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• per WP:HISTRS, nope. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't cite it as a reliable source because (so far as I know) Charles Cawley and his site aren't referenced as scholarly by academic sources. If I'm mistaken there, and they are so referenced, then that would change.

We can certainly cite it under "External links" -- it is an extremely useful site to serious readers because it cites primary sources scrupulously and because it says honestly where the sources have not yet been found. I don't know any site more useful for someone who's beginning to investigate a medieval family connection. If we only have 560 links to it, that's far too few, because many such people would start from Wikipedia and would be helped by a link to Medlands. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not rs, it is hosted by a genealogical website which is run by amateur volunteers. TFD (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then the unanimous consensus from the few who have expressed an opinion here, it is not suitable as a secondary source how about for those facts in the source, where the source cites a reliable source under the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT rule? -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source for this page? Because one user keeps on saying it's unreliable and refuses to listen to other peoples opinions about it. He keeps saying it's not a news service so it's unreliable. This is ridiculous. What makes news services so reliable? --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The site seems to have an editorial board, but the reviews look like user-generated content. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't user generated content. It's all full of expert writers. --Jamcad01 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the "genealogy" which was unsourced or not RS sourced was removed. However, all of the material, including all of the unsourced and non-RS sourced Romney family information is now being inserted via {{Selected Jared Pratt descendants}}

The issue now is - is this "family tree" exempt from WP:RS? I removed it as not being sourced, but it has been re-=added now more than once, and I would like outside views thereon. Collect (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I changed "not" to "now" here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

WP:V: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question." That applies to templates included in articles, and this one in particular. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering whether inscriptions can be used as a source (like in Kavšek Bridge - ref no. 3; added by me) and how to properly format the reference in this case. There seems to be no mention of inscriptions in the main Wikipedia guidelines and in the Manual of Style. There was a story in the Wikipedia Signpost some time ago, but nobody has added a summary to the Wikipedia namespace. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation is reasonable. You need to include more information though (even if obvious from the article), about the location of the bridge. Additionally, you need to indicate the author (even if "corporate" or "institutional") of the inscription if known. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me too. There is a problem like this with things like gravestones, signs in museums, birth certificates and other places which don't fall in the usual categories easily. Just try to be fairly complete. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bentham Science Publishers a reliable source? And is this book in particularly reliable for a fringe theory (specifically aquatic ape hypothesis)? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, no. Bentham Open is sort of a running joke among those in the know about scientific publishing. A e-book published by Bentham is as good as self-published for WP purposes. Claims that articles and books published by Bentham Open should be dismissed as false. If the authors really had anything of scientific value or interest to say, they would have found a reputable publisher. In fact, it can be assumed that the book was rejected by reputable publishers before the authors resorted to e-publishing using Bentham. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That all tailors nicely with its proposed use in supporting the AAH being a non-accepted fringe hypothesis. Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, a bit of background. XLinkBot is set to revert external links (not references) to sites that generally fail our policies and guidelines. It is set extremely soft, as sometimes the generally-bad-websites are actually appropriate, and such editors are asked to re-insert that. XLinkBot does not re-revert upon re-addition.