Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Hi, I wish to know that whether Tadeusz Sulimirski & Rahul Sankrityayan meet the criteria of being recognized as WP:RS? Please give a conclusive answer! Articles for both of them are @ Wikipedia for scrutiny! — 117.212.46.55 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is relative to what the sources are going to be used for. So please define the proposed use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I would like to use Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), as a reliable source on a number of articles related to history, and Rahul Sankrityayan as a reliable source only for history of India — after confirming from here, to avoid WP:Edit War. The use would be limited to articles related to history (practical use of WP:Balance is likely to be involved) — 117.200.50.151 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), "The evidence of both the ancient authors and the archaeological remains point to a massive migration of Sacian (Sakas)/Massagetan ("great" Jat) tribes from the Syr Daria Delta (Central Asia) by the middle of the second century B.C. Some of the Syr Darian tribes; they also invaded North India." I would be using the author's conclusion on articles related to history, as I am sure that he met WP:BIO & WP:Prof, but discussing it to avoid the possibility of WP:Edit War! — 117.200.50.151 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a very quick first look the first person seems to be a regular academic working in the field you want to talk about. I am wondering if there is any controversy about his theories which explains your concern? The second person at least according to his WP article is a travel writer?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's a 'YES for Tadeusz Sulimirski.

But, I request for a conclusive reply for Rahul Sankrityayan! I am not able to conclude your answer that whether he fits the criteria for WP:RS on articles related to history of India! 117.200.50.151 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though, the article @ Wikipedia clearly states that Rahul Sankrityayan has served as Professor of Indology in 1937-38 & 1947-48 @ University of Leningrad, but still I want to get the approval from here; so please give me a conclusive answer! — 117.200.59.19 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This forum is not like a court and can not give conclusive final answers, especially if only one person replies to you. It is a place to discuss what is best for WP. Anyway, you have not yet explained any real examples of edits that would use this source. Until now my questions are aimed at trying to get more information from you in order to help more forum participants comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you query whether there is any controversy regarding Sulimirski's theories. Well, in the context of the Indo-Aryan migration theory, there most certainly is controversy and Sulimirski is firmly set in one camp. Worse, it is in the context of this theory that the IP appears to wish to use Sulimirski.

My take is that he can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers. It might have been helpful if the IP had made a note of this thread on related article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, in case you haven't read the above mentioned comments carefully, please note that I have quoted — "(practical use of WP:Balance is likely to be involved)"! — 117.200.50.104 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, that's exactly what your conclusion is — Tadeusz Sulimirski's research can well be used as a reference, but people should welcome WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity. — 117.200.50.104 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had read them carefully, thanks. He is reliable for his opinion, and no more. My point was in relation to a comment by Andrew L, querying whether Sulimirski's opinion is controversial. It helps to be as explicit as possible regarding the background when forming queries here. As it seems that you are aware of the balance issue, I look forward to seeing your proposals for display of the alternative theories at Talk:Jat people etc. All entirely in the spirit of the policy to which you refer, of course. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, my intention to make that edit request to an article's talk page was definitely to provide the admins or reviewers a factual information, for the coverage of history of the Massagetaean invasion in India — I have actively participated in the discussion & now I would like to leave things upto the sincerity of the admins or reviewers working on that article, after a fair conclusion by Qwyrxian.

Sitush, I have been very explicit — even mentioned the book's name & even mentioned the quote from the book, that I have suggested @ edit request! But fella, can you be more specifically explicit about concerns over the reliability of Tadeusz Sulimirski?

Sitush, till there is a world wide consensus over the Origin-Antiquity-Migration of Aryans,Scythians, etc. — it's fair to proceed by blend of WP:NPOV & WP:Balance?

The scope of the use of Tadeusz Sulimirski's books is not limited limited to a single ethnic group, but the coverage has been much wider — if the admins or reviewers of the articles pages are aware of WP:POV & WP:Balance & WP:OWN & the fact that @ Wikipedia people should attempt to avoid rendering judgement themselves, and for the most part defer to the judgement of reliable sources. Respecting this platform, I would like to make a general note to people that while making edits on hot topics like Origin-Antiquity-Migration of Aryans or Scythians or Massagetae etc. — please always be prepared to welcome WP:Balance, and not enforce any source as a compelling source, even after getting approval from here. Thanks! — 117.207.56.161 (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there is some controversy. This does not mean we can not or should not mention an author. Could I ask editors above or anyone familiar with the debate to please give comments about if/how the authors are cited by the historical profession.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, Sitush's quoted above, "My (Sitush's) take is that he (Tadeusz Sulimirski) can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers." — that's clearly a request for the use of WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity, nothing more than that. And, that's fair enough!

As far as, Sitush's concern over the Indo-Aryan migration theory is — Tadeusz Sulimirski's views are shared world wide & are widely accepted. Tadeusz Sulimirski research far outweighs any other claims — he maintains that there is certainly & most definitely have been inward migrations towards India. Still, I don't mind using WP:Balance, as this is still a debated issue — but the show must go on; with a blend of WP:NPOV + WP:Balance!

Guess, we need more participants here to nail the consensus over Tadeusz Sulimirski - welcome! — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this debate now limited to the use of Tadeusz Sulimirski — as a compelling source or to welcome the use of WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity? My take is that no source can be treated as a compelling source as far as Wikipedia is concerned — so can we conclude with a YES over Tadeusz Sulimirski research & look forward to Happy Editing  ! — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment on this. From my investigatons, these two authors research is a little dated and has been surpased by more up to date research. Therefore the case maybe that they may fall into the case of WP:Reliable. Saying that, I am convinced that the Jatt and many other Punjabi people such as Rajput's, Kamboj's, Tarkhans etc are of Scythian origin. Thanks SH 09:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that 117.207.62.240 asked a number of people he considers authoritative to make some sort of determination. Do you mind if I call you James instead of a number?(I'm watching "Lost" right now). James, you have received replies in this discussion that you persistently ignore. You appear to be seeking what WP does not give, encyclopedia-wide approval of an author. Presumably, if I read between the lines correctly, you would then cite this approval against any editors questioning the reliability of the author in any article. WP does not do that, generally speaking. WP is like the Ottoman Empire. All authority is handed over to the administrators. There are so many of these that the company cannot possibly police them all. If one becomes notoriously unpopular or violates the policies in a more publicised way, the Sultan chops off his or her head; that is, his priviledges are revoked and he is blocked, sometimes forever. Meanwhile he has nearly unlimited power to decide what can go in the article. That is what is wrong with WP. It is not the people's encyclopedia and is not democratic unless by chance an editor or article escapes attention. That's right. Whether any of the policies you cite are implemented wholly, partially, or not at all is a matter of arbitrary decision by supposedly independent administrators (they are not). This totalitarianism is handled at the article level, not at the policy level. I can give you a further few hints. Articles of the east are dominated by the views of the German administrators. Articles that involve Britain are firmly in the control of the British administrators. Articles on the Balkans ... shall I go on? You aren't politically naive, I hope, James. As you were told above, what anyone will be allowed to say depends on the particular context. To you I would say, you expect too much from WP. What you are discovering here is your limitations on it. Don't believe everything you read, James. I'm going now. Why don't you get a login so I do not have to call you James? So, no need to yank my chain again. I'm very busy right now. Ciao.Branigan 16:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I received the following request from an anonymous person on my Talk Page: "Requesting your comments (conclusive, if possible) @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tadeusz_Sulimirski_.26_Rahul_Sankrityayan — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)." My answer to this request is as follows: I had never heard of either of these two men until I received this request. For this reason I am not in a position to comment. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sikh, for the conclusive comments — WP:RS.

I too have observed that, Botteville. [Inserted later to cease any doubt: Botteville, please note that, I have been very explicit — properly mentioned Tadeusz Sulimirski's book name & even mentioned the quote from the book & firmly stated that I would be using Tadeusz Sulimirski's conslusion in that very quote. Botteville, as far as Rahul Sankrityayan is concerned, I have firmly quoted that the use would only specifically limited to articles written on history of India. — 117.212.44.121 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Ok! John Hill, articles for both of them are @ Wikipedia for scrutiny anyways, in case you get some free time, please go through'em!

Tadeusz Sulimirski's firmly set in the camp that maintains — there are certainly & most definitely have been inward migrations towards India, that's a widely accepted view & far outweighs proposed Indigenous claims! I guess, I can safely say that the consensus has headed in favor of — Tadeusz Sulimirski as a source on Wikipedia! Comments from Wikipedians — welcome! — 117.207.59.62 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SH concludes as YES to — Rahul Sankrityayan, as a source on articles specifically related to Indian history (ONLY — as asked). Comments from Wikipedians — welcome! — 117.207.59.62 (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks otherwise on reliability of Rahul Sankrityayan as a source on articles specifically related to Indian history — please comment! — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus (so far): it's a 'YES for both — Tadeusz Sulimirski (Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), on articles specifically related to history) & Rahul Sankrityayan (article specifically related to history of India, only). — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It is a lot of shouting and touting by a couple of IPs. Aside from anything else, you have misread what Sikh History said: SH is well aware of how Wikipedia works and their response both acknowledges the datedness of the author and also the element that is SH's personal opinion. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The response has clearly been more in favor of the use as a reference, then why it's not a YES Sitush? Have you changed your mind over Tadeusz Sulimirski (as you have commented only over him as follows — "My (Sitush's) take is that he (Tadeusz Sulimirski) can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers.").

People can see that SH's personal opinion is WP:Reliable, if in case you haven't fully read his statement & saw only what you wanted to saw & concluding only what you are saying without any concrete stuff (that's WP:NPOV, one you're fully aware of theoratically), & he said a little dated (not even little dated or over dated or outdated, lol!). SH even further goes on to write some text in favor of the quote from the book (what more people expect a participant to do!).

I respect your rights here, but why don't you firmly declare any or both of them as unreliable with some rock solid stuff (that only you've discovered out of some where & rather than any of the guyz above), so that people can have a healthy debate with you, but if you're not even going to do that, then what's the point? Let it be a YES, or be bold to ask people to stop using Tadeusz Sulimirski as a ref on Wikipedia's articles related to history (subject's mentioned) & not to use Rahul Sankrityayan as ref on Indian history subject, fair enough fella, b'coz you're the only arguing, even after your request has been considered & it's been declared that even after getting a consensus-wise YES, the sources would not be used as a compelling source, to respect the authors of the pages as follows — WP:NPOV & WP:Balance, again firmly saying this, so please cooperate as dare to take a stand on the either side! — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, if one has a quick look over all of your comments, they appear somewhat "self-contradictory". You put comments & disappear from the discussion section for a while. It's not in good spirit to avoid following up discussions. Seems, it was not a good idea to keep visiting the cyber-cafe, to see if you've followed up, for the 5 last days!

Anyone authoritative who would like to nail things here, please conclude over the realiabilty of — Tadeusz Sulimirski's book, The Sarmatians (1970) and Rahul Sankrityayan (specifically only for history of India). — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News reports are abound showing that the film will be called Star Trek into Darkness. However, as they all seem to be repeating what was reported on what is in essence a fan blog, can they be considered reliable sources? Discussion here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say TrekMovie is reliable enough for us to say in the article: "Well-known fan blog TrekMovie claims the title of the film will be Star Trek Into Darkness." I would not, however, say the source was reliable enough for us to warrant an actual page move (particularly as the article has repeatedly been involved in "page move wars"). Better to wait for an official confirmation from the studio for that (which is probably imminent). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good fan blog is still a fan blog. I'm sure Paramount is capable of announcing the titles of its movies; even if the fan blog is correct at the current time it still amounts to speculation since Paramount could alter to the title at any point up to announcing it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just like Revenge of the Jedi was changed into Return of the Jedi!   — Jasonasosa 06:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the source is more than just a fan blog. That is somehow downplaying the source to make it seem less reliable. Its considered a reliable news source. The site has been used countless times before on other articles, and it's downright not neutral to form this thread by calling it simply a fan blog. Precedent says that the source is reliable based on its use in other articles. JOJ ^Hutton 21:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It really is just a fan blog. It has previously bandied around the word "confirmed" and then found to be wrong. There's no fact-checking or accountability. It's just a blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

References (added 15th Sept.):

• 1.^ Richard Tylman. Born - 1546 in United-Kingdom. Died - 1584. Genealogy Place - The Ultimate Genealogy Search Engine 2009.[11]
• 3.^ Richard Tylman of Faversham. The will of Thomas Cobb. Rootsweb genealogy.[12]
• 6.^ a b Richard Tylman (1546 - 1584) 2012 Ancestry.com. Source: Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812, London, England.[13]
• 7.^ Richard Tylman and Ellen. 2012 Ancestry.com. [14]
• 8.^ a b Thomas Cobb's daughter, who married one Richard Tylman of Faversham. Cobbes Eleventh Generation. 2012 Ancestry.com.[15]
• 9.^ William Tylman, VII (1562–1613/1614). Ancestry Archive 2012.[16]
• 10.^ Richard Tylman (1569–1614). Ancestry.com 2012. [17]
• 11.^ Richard Tylman born 1569; Tylman family. Ancestry Archive, 2003 .[18]

Are the following genealogy databases reliable sources: Genealogy Place, Rootsweb, Ancestry.com, Ancestry Archive? TFD (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ancestry.com, it seems to have been reviewed in an academic work at least once ([19]) and I see it being used as a source in a number of other works (ex. [20], [21]). I think it is reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need links to the wikipedia page where the question arises and to the database pages that would be cited. Andrew Dalby 15:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the article are at the top of this discussion thread and it links out to various online databases. TFD (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right of course, and I intended to delete my comment. Andrew Dalby 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• These are public databases. According to the policy, such sources are considered self-published if the content was "user-generated", except materials "originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users". Hence, if there is moderation/verification of data by database staff, the content qualifies as RS. As a practical matter, the content of biological databases (for example) is widely used in scientific research, and it can be used here. Speaking about Richard Tylman, it seems that using genealogy databases involves cross-verification of data, i.e. the different records in genealogy trees must be mutually consistent. That makes data significantly more reliable. As a side note, reliability of data in certain databases, such as Protein Data Bank, originates from credentials of individual users because authorship of every record was clearly defined. Therefore, certain user-generated databases are RS, and the policy should be corrected. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• User-generated sites on genealogical trees would not be RS. The others, such as ancestry.com, probably are. The main issue is ensuring the person referred to in the source is indeed the subject of the citation. If this can be established beyond reasonable doubt, I think the site can be used if there is no other source with the information. All of the above sites are useful for researching people, even if they cannot be used as sources. So I would say we should just include both links (call it convenience link if you want to). For state records, there is no link to include, and rootsweb is pretty much the only choice. Churn and change (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Ancestory.com is on the edge of being WP:RS. But as you said there is the identification issue: a big ticket item. In many mailing lists, the whole issue of "name and identity establishment" is a serious issue, and there are specific algorithms for that. I am not sure how well a Wikiuser can handle those when using that system. History2007 (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on what aspect of Ancestry.Com is being used as a source. Is it it the innumerable & often unreferenced family trees that often co-mingle different people's information from different generations?...Then no. Is it is any unreferenced content without reliable source/s to back it up?...Then no. If it is an authored piece, written by a recognized geneaology expert that comes complete with cited references?...Then maybe.

For instance, in the case of the Tylman article, Ref#3 [22] has one line about 'The will of Thomas Cobb indicates he had a daughter, given nameunknown, who married one Richard Tylman of Faversham' but this section of rootsweb/Ancestry.Com is edited by a "M. Cobb" and provides few sources for the asserted facts. Ref#6, however, is an apparent link to published historical records...I say "apparent" simply because it is behind a subscription-only firewall. Ref#8 [23] repeats verbatim much of the same information as Ref#3. Without footnotes or inline citations, I personally find much of the information posted on Ancestry.Com, while well-meaning and possibly also well-sourced, to not be all that useful as stand-alone research though it can indeed be a useful jumping-off point for further research. Shearonink (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Payment requirements do not effect RS, however, these sites are really tertiary sources, aggregating information from other places and do not own any of the documents but simply host them on their site for personal research purposes. The site itself does not appear to have editorial oversite or Fact checking and would fail for those reasons. Reliability of the author may be something that could be proven I suppose and even an article being hosted could be varified...I suppose.... in theory, but using these sites would be questionable without the needed oversite.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary sources are those which aggregate and summarize secondary and primary sources; examples are obituaries and encyclopedias (WP:TERTIARY). Ancestry.com seems more a collection of primary sources (US Census records, immigration records etc) with search features. They have some sites where the search is just of these records, and other sites where the search includes user-generated content. The records themselves have been scanned and converted to ASCII/PDF text with OCR software. That introduces errors especially with old census records with close writing. The scanned image of the original source itself should be usable as a primary source, assuming it is not a search that includes user-generated content, wherever primary sources are acceptable. Churn and change (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves as "Seems to be" isn't enough clarity for use. The same is true of Google books, but we can't assume an error was made beforehand. We assume the documentation is accurate. The problem I see is that the documents are not from these sites, they arenot even hosting them in many cases but supply the search. When the documents are on the servers of these sites they are still not the actual primary source and we only use ONE source and I don't think it would be ancestry.com but the US census etc. So why use these sites as the reference? Again, eve if not user generated there seem to be some problems that cannot be justified for exclusive use when, even if the documents were found with these sites, they are not the actual source.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These sites host some of the documents and link to others. For US census records, the sites host an OCR-version of the scanned records (so you see the OCR interpretation of the handwritten stuff), and link to the original scanned version. The original scanned version with the US govt. archives is in the census writer's handwriting, and often both that and the ancestry.com version together help one decode what is written than either alone. No, the issue is not the same as Google books—Google books weren't handwritten to begin with. For state records, often theirs is the only scanned copy available. The state government (at least in California) has the birth/death/marriage state-level records in paper form, and one has to go through a few hoops to access them. The secretary of state's official website, in fact, mentions rootsweb.com as the place to go for the online version. Churn and change (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The genealogy links used in the article aren't reliable sources. They're just teasers of random information to get people to sign up. We can't even be sure what exactly what they represent. For example this one, "Born on 1569 to Nycholas Tylman and Jane Benson. He passed away on 1614". We can't tell if it is derived from a primary source, we can't tell if it is derived from a secondary source, we can't even tell if it's derived from some random crappy family tree. For example, this 'ref' [24] actually shows that the info comes from an FTW file that someone uploaded to the website - someones family tree, named "Tillman Gedcom.FTW". So no, these refs aren't reliable. If you don't know exactly where your information is coming from, don't add it into Wikipedia.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed many times here. Ancestry.com is a big website with many types of source.

• There are user-uploaded family trees which are not moderated or edited by anyone. For the normals reasons, such sources are not normally an RS for anything.
• There are scanned books and nespapers, which can be helpful, but of course those scanned books are the sources, and in such cases ancestry.com can be mentioned as the URL or convenience link.
• There are copies or indexes of primary records such as births, baptisms, censuses, etc. Using primary sources is something to be careful about and such cases might require very specific discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The California Secretary of State Office officially mentions and links to "Rootsweb" from its "birth, death and marriage records" site. Unusually for a bureaucracy there are no caveats in the statement: "In addition, the genealogy website RootsWeb has recently made the statewide index to deaths, 1940 to 1997, available online." I think for such records we should be able to take "Rootsweb" as a primary source. Churn and change (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To see the issue, please check the original US census record (from article George M. Stratton) here: [25] Then go to the ancestry.com OCR page: [26]. You can see why having both is much better than either alone. The handwritten version is hard to read unless one has an idea of what the writing roughly is. The OCR version provides this. The OCR version has an error (the street name isn't Buevenne, it is actually Benvenue, as the pull down menu here: [27] makes clear). Note that this isn't really WP:SYNTH, once both records are looked at together, there is no interpretation or analysis or synthesis required; the handwriting automatically becomes clear. If one has decided the primary source is acceptable for whatever reason (maybe just basic facts are being introduced), then, yes these sites should be added as a second link (call it convenience link if you want). In cases such as state records, well, if the decision is to include the primary record, then sites such as rootsweb are the only source around; the state government itself says so. And, yes, I am talking of the pure primary source sections of the sites. Churn and change (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I added the references above. None of the links show historical documents. TFD (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy databases (except for certain aspects such as the scanned newspapers to be found in ancestry.com for example) are clearly primary sources, with all the dangers that these hold. The original research and synthesis come not from the data itself, but from deciding that this is the same "George M. Stratton" or "Richard Tylman" that the bio is about. Unfortunately these errors are very, very easy to make, as I know from having used the ancestry myself, which is precisely why editorially oversight (in the form of a published reliable source) is necessary. This long, but very excellent post on another page, explains much better than I could why the use of such sources are for the most part inappropriate, except perhaps as confirmation of facts made by reliable published sources. I urge everybody to read it; amongst other things the editor explains in detail how the census records, birth/death records are frequently highly unreliable sources of who was where, when, how old they were etc, and expert knowledge beyond simply verifying the handwriting is required. As a result, it seems clear that such primary documents are rarely appropriate sources for use in WP. Slp1 (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of George M. Stratton, his name matches; the names of his daughters and son match; the place matches; and his age, wife's age and ages of daughters match. The only thing picked up his son's approximate age, and that also matches the age found in other part-reliable secondary sources. The primary source in that case augments a secondary source which is a local newspaper, which, while nonobjectionable per policy, is still not that great a source. I agree census records, just like all primary sources, should be used with caution, and probably not for more than name and age and maybe address circa that year. But to get back to the original question, I don't think the genealogical records are acceptable for the Richard Tylman article, either to argue for keeping the article or for deleting it. There is a lengthy discussion on the article's AfD. Churn and change (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chances are that you are right about George M. Stratton, but the problem is that you may be wrong. In the course of my researches I've several times been led down completely false alleys based on names, ages/names of children etc. But to augment a reliable secondary source, it is probably okay; though as a caveat I haven't looked to see the quality of these in this case. However, I don't agree with parts of the rest of your post. As EEng pointed out in their post, and as I (and other reliable sources can confirm) not even a name or age are intrinsically reliable from these records. Neighbours sometimes gave the information to the census takers, and time and again people lie about things, including their age, to make themselves younger or older for one reason or another. And that's always assuming one can be 100% that the right individual has been identified. So, yes, I agree that these genealogical records are not reliable sources for Richard Tylman, either for notability or for content. A professional historian, knowledgeable about the period and their records, and writing in a reliable source, is needed to disentangle this information. --Slp1 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[The discussion on George M. Stratton I think we should transfer to that article's talk page; since the primary source is supporting a secondary source, there aren't generic policy/guideline issues to discuss.] I see two objections you are pointing out: that the census taker may have made a mistake and that people might have given wrong information. The second is the same issue as WP:SELFSOURCE which we do allow under specific circumstances (I agree it does lead to low-quality articles, nevertheless it's allowed, assuming a set of conditions holds). The first is an issue that doesn't go away with secondary or tertiary sources either. Mistakes are always possible. Secondary sources which correct primary-source mistakes probably make some of their own. I think the right way to look at it is as accumulating a mass of evidence with this as one piece. If all pieces agree, we can be surer there was no mistake. Yes, I understand that in a census record (a primary source) there is no vetting, cross-checking, peer review or editorial oversight at all, and so mistakes are more likely. But the idea behind using a primary source to back up a secondary source is to account for mistakes in either. My original posting was that when a census record is used as a primary source this way, it makes sense to link to both ancestry.com's OCR version and the original version from the US archives department website. That helps the reader and future editors. Churn and change (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually multiple issues with using these kinds of primary sources and I mentioned only two as examples, to show why and how these records may be inaccurate and can be misrepresented. That's why a reliable secondary source with fact-checking is needed: a historian or scholar who is able to analyze the document, interpret the data, draw conclusions about whether the right individual has been identified, whether there are inconsistencies or inaccuracies and how to resolve them etc. This is precisely the kind of original research and synthesis that we do not allow WP editors to do. Yes, secondary sources may make mistakes too, but the chances and implications are several degrees lower than allowing WP editors to do this. That's why secondary sources have long been by far the preferred sources on WP, and original research of this sort is forbidden. --Slp1 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that (in fact, I dislike the WP:SELFSOURCE exception; even the most credible people are fallible when it comes to their own bios, at times based on their old memories; and that is without considering lying). I also agree the links above are not acceptable. The only additional point I have to make, since the original question was more general and did not have the links, is that, once a well-thought-out decision is made to include a census record as a primary source supplementing other sources, it is a good idea to include both the original archive and ancestry.com's OCR version. That holds for other primary records such as California death records too. From your postings, I assume you are neutral on that. Churn and change (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how the genealogy search engines are built, they are also commonly used in Wikipedia for a variety of reasons including the cross-verification of data already present somewhere else. Please remember, the period in question is the Elizabethan England of the Tudor Dynasty... nobody can benefit from tampering with these records online for some abstract benefit of theirs. In this particular instance, different search engines were used expressly to confirm the bits and pieces of information about Richard Tylman (Tillman) including his family history and business dealings already mentioned in reliable third party sources, such as the PDF theses on the Faversham economic history by Paul Wilkinson, PhD, as well as the 1774 history of the town by Edward Jacob made available by the University of Wisconsin. I have no idea why the AfD nominator (who started this thread hoping to win his controversial argument elsewhere) chose to withhold the info about other references from the opening statement (above) as if the genealogy websites were the only references used in the creation of this article... The opposite is true. Generally speaking... with the rapid development of massive online databases created by libraries for free – thanks to advancements in digital technology mostly – it seems to me that an increasingly disproportionate amount of info already available to us, is actually being picked up by historians for their own academic benefit. However, I see no reason why we would want to limit the Wikipedia's ability to make use of what’s out there including the records of “Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812, London, England” digitized at Ancestry.com. After all, our mandate is the collection of encyclopedic data in a continuous manner over a period of time, not some ultimate truth confirmed by the highest third-party authority out there. Poeticbent talk 19:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this noticeboard is to evaluate individual sources, not all sources used in an article. The genealogical website sources used in this article are all postings by amateurs. Your first source for example gives details of Richard Tylman's birth, marriage, family and death.[28] Whether or not the Richard Tylman you found at ancestry.com is the same person as the Richard Tillman in an article is better covered at NORN. TFD (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can this blog be used, only to cite the location of the filming for the music video? It is not being used to present the blogger's point of view or etc. but merely to name the location which was Brooklyn. Till 07:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, tendentious editor keeps re-inserting questionable material, re-arguing settled points. Resolved to delete questionable material by consensus on Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, re-appears on Sandra Fluke, and even though WP:BLP, WP:RS are identical (and portable), demands re-do. Consensus also exists on that page for removal, but editor refuses to comply. Need outside and uninvolved comment from editors with expertise on WP:RS.

Controversy over WP:SELFSOURCE and probably untrue WP:BLP material being added to [Article]Sandra Fluke article. [Source]Original material was at the “meet the PILS scholars” page on Georgetown Law’s website, that posts information that students submit and update about themselves. Checked for length and copyediting, by press office, not for accuracy. The current page is [Source, original][[29]], but since Fluke is no longer a student there, no longer up. The text can be found. It is directly quoted (one version; as most self-source pages do, it changed gradually) at [Source, current][[30]] as follows

“Sandra Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative,” her Public Interest Law Scholars (PILS) profile explains. “While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Sandra was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.”

. Problem is, that several websites copy and paste this information, and this is being sourced as confirming it. For instance (and confirming original source)

Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence

is suspect.

[Incorrect name, which labels source and re-postings]First, the "Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence" is not what the group is called. If you search "Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence" you will get the puff blurb Fluke wrote for the publicity department when she entered Georgetown, and re-posts of the blurb Fluke wrote, mostly in personal tweets or far-left or far-right personal blogs. Nothing but Fluke, no references to the work the Taskforce does. If you search for "Manhattan Borough President's Domestic Violence Taskforce" or "Manhattan Borough President" "Domestic Violence Taskforce" you will find the Taskforce, its publications, news, updates, members, but (almost) no mention of Fluke (one or two attack blogs "corrected" the blurb). This obviously speaks to the lack of fact-checking on the press/alumni office blurb (which we already knew) that it did not get the name right, but also directs readers to the correct research sources. [Primary sources indicate untrue]If you look up the MBP DVTF, it has 50 members, and they don't change that much year to year. If you have a connection that interfaces with the NYPL databases, member rosters are published; a search of the ones overlapping Fluke's first job out of college do NOT include Fluke on any roster. If you can't access the public records, then pull up any of the dozen or so publications of the MBP DVTF; most are released as pdfs. Again, each has a page somewhere thanking everyone who contributed to this or that project, from members to the person who got the coffee; again, no publication from that time mentions Fluke in any way; a virtual impossiblity for someone who actually WAS a member. A number of Sanctuary for Families executives, even down to mid-level (Fluke never became any kind of key employee there, as discussed) directors WERE members, but not Fluke.

While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for…

is also problematic, and only sourced to the same press office self-submitted blurb, though re-posted with the rest. If she says she was involved, fine, there were lots of opportunities that involved signing petitions, but "Co-founded"? [Primary sources indicate untrue]Problem is, this was actually founded by NY State Sen George Winner, from Upstate. No mention of Fluke in any reports on this or the foundational paperwork. Multiple newspaper references to the work of the Coalition, all mention Winner and other significant promoters and participants, none mention Fluke.

Sanctuary for Families is a HUGE charity in New York, and Fluke was hired to an entry-level job (her only job) straight out of college, and she left after a few years to enter Law school. They list all their key employees, and she was never one of them, going back to 2004 (the last time one left). Sanctuary, the organization, WAS involved, as were a few of their senior executives, in both, just not Fluke. The exaggeration of “co-founded” and being a “member” may just be the kind of resume inflation one would expect of a recent graduate with little experience; she might have helped someone who helped someone and conflated her involvement (not the worst thing for an inexperienced recent graduate to do), but there is no WP:RS that any of it is true, and much in primary sources that indicate that it is not. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's TLDR. Can you please post a one paragraph summary of what the issue is? (focused only on the questions around the reliability of sources being used/proposed for use in the article, and not all the other stuff). Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Simple explanation] Simple. Source is a self-submitted student profile website of the press office of Georgetown Law School. Might be considered reliable for Law School (aka internal) information, if uncontroversial, but is being used as WP:RS for prior accomplishments, and those accomplishments contradict the primary sources, are therefore unlikely or extreme exaggeration. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgetown University student profile is only cited once in the article, to support what seems like an uncontroversial statement that "While at Georgetown University Law Center, she worked on issues that involved domestic violence and human trafficking". All the other references are to what appear to be reliable secondary sources. I'd suggest discussing this on the article's talk page in the first instance. Your POV editing ([31], [32]) of the article is of concern. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the case carefully. As stated, the original profile no longer is online, and can't be used. As stated, the re-postings on websites aren't really secondary reliable sources, and as stated, just cut and paste from the student profile, whether they properly cite or not. The discussion on Talk is voluminous. Your unrelated-to-this-discussion comments are both wrong and inappropriate; please consider removing them, and if you do, feel free to remove this response.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Problem of WP:SELFSOURCE being reposted]The Georgetown University student profile is dead, and cannot be used any more for anything (should really be deleted, not a source for anything now). It has been the sole source for the above information. All references being used to support inclusion of the two suspect charges now are website postings that cut and paste the original Georgetown University student profile [[33]](changed since orig posting to say "served"), [[34]]. [[35]], whereas this [[36]] and the other dead link do not support two controversial claims, though it is used to cite them (it DOES have a link, now dead, to the no longer available GT profile page)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Other link being used to support the questionable assertions is dead, but should be [[37]], and has no reference to the questionable assertions, though reader comments quote a related Wikipedia article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some bold edits to Acupuncture that were reverted because the statements made "need a source that strictly complies with WP:MEDRS" (see Talk:Acupuncture#"Myofascial meridians"). I contend that:

• Medical Acupuncture is a reliable peer-reviewed medical journal. It's editorial policy is here.
• The article "Myofascial Meridians as Anatomical Evidence of Acupuncture Channels" by Peter T. Dorsher, (2009). is an analysis, comparison, and synthesis of other sources and therefore should be considered to be a secondary source. It contains no direct scientific observation.
• The textbook Anatomy Trains by Thomas W. Myers (2008), used as source in above article, is published by Elsevier Health Sciences, a leading pubisher in medical an anatomical textbooks, should be considered a reliable source.
• Dorsher (2009) meets the requirements as per WP:Medrs to allow its conclusions (such as "The strong correspondence of the distributions of the acupuncture and myofascial meridians provides an independent, anatomic line of evidence that acupuncture Principal Meridians likely exist in the myofascial layer of the human body") can be used as evidence of a physical correlate of acupuncture meridians.

I would also contend that similar statements derived from these sources could be used in Meridian (Chinese medicine) and in other articles related to this topic. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't turn up in Pubmed, which makes me wonder about the journal.

The primary problem here isn't whether this is a "reliable source", but whether this is giving WP:DUE weight to this one author's view. So either you can take this to WP:NPOVN, or you might find it useful to think of it this way: if you got together every single published author who had written even the smallest statement on this subject, from the most pro-anatomy author of the world through the most virulently anti-anatomy authors, and you lined them up, in order, from most to least, where would Dorsher fall in the line? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument here is about whether Dorsher's article constitutes a primary or a secondary source - and clearly, it's primary. It's not a comparison and synthesis of other sources, but a study ("The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the distributions of the anatomically based myofascial meridians are similar to those of the acupuncture Principal Meridians.") His method consisted in comparing acupuncture meridians with Myers' "myofascial meridians" by using some special kind of software ("With Adobe Photoshop Elements software (Adobe Systems Inc, San Jose, CA), the distributions of corresponding acupuncture meridians were applied to the same human figure outlines used in Myers’ text to allow direct side-by-side comparisons of the acupuncture and myofascial meridians"). The result of his study is that "In 8 (89%) of 9 comparisons, there was substantial overlap in the distributions of the ... myofascial meridians with those of the acupuncture Principal Meridian distributions..."

Since this is a primary source, it's not suitable for being used as evidence for the far-reaching statement that science found a physical correlate of acupuncture meridians. We have secondary sources in the article already, but they all state the opposite. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bump - I am looking for verification that the sources named above can be considered to be reliable. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider "Medical Acupuncture" to be a reliable source. It is published for and by physicians who practice acupuncture, and is peer reviewed. We should discuss how it can or cannot be used on the article talk page, but such articles can be used as sources as long as the editor does not attempt to make a definitive medical or scientific claim.Herbxue (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely sounds like a primary source to me (it's an original experiment), and primary sources should not be used to de-bunk secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. At the most, you could say that one guy with Photoshop software (Photoshop? Really? And the cheap, US$60 consumer-grade version at that?) said that these things overlap. And even then, I'm not convinced that mentioning one guy's opinion is WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of the article, but the question for this board is "is the source reliable?", not "how good is this source?". I have long complained about an article by Matuk, used heavily as a source in the acupuncture and TCM articles, written by an illustrator that has opinions about TCM's relationship with anatomy. That one is considered "secondary" because she looks at western anatomical illustrations and she looks at Chinese meridian illustrations, but ultimately she states her own opinions, which have become statements in the article. If that is an acceptable secondary source, surely someone doing the same thing (comparing pictures and making observations about them) is also an acceptable source. Can it be used to justify a claim that meridians have an anatomical basis? No, of course not. But can it be mentioned or incorporated into the article in some way? Yes.Herbxue (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When some national hero is awarded a Medal of Honor, an official citation is made describing the heroic acts of the hero. Maybe he/she risked his/her life to kill many enemies, or to save some friends, whatever. The question is, are the facts described on those citations reliable to be used, say, in a biography? Or do we risk in turning it into an hagiography?

The curious can read a lot of such citations in the Home Of Heroes website. --damiens.rf 18:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen inflated prose on medal citations, sometimes politically motivated. No such citation should be automatically considered a reliable source. It should instead by attributed: "His/her medal citation reads..." Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. While the citation may be quoted, with inline citation, you need a third party source. TFD (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

listing of books that can be read.Moxy (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the citations are reliable, so long as they are attributed WP:INTEXT as being what the citation says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by other editors above, the citations must be placed in context when used. However, it's worth noting that modern-day nominations for the Medal of Honor go through an in-depth fact checking process to determine whether the recipient qualified for the medal and the nature of the events, and the citation is very carefully written (the same kind of process applies to the Victoria Cross). As such, it's reasonable to assume that the citations for recent medals are accurate accounts of the individual's actions unless there is evidence that they are not (journalists and historians tend to closely examine the events around the award of high level military honours, and highlight any discrepancies or ommissions). Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the facts in a citation, such as date of birth, positions held, and so on, should not need attribution, unless they are controversial. The opinions and adjectives there will need attribution. Churn and change (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi peeps, a question for you. Is Biography.com (a part of the A&E network) a reliable source for BLPs? Is this article on Elizabeth Warren[38] OK to use as a source in the Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia article? FurrySings (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not signed by its author - which may be a problem, but A&E written material is a full step above using their programmes as sources - where some have been found to have inaccuracies. Likely good enough for non-contentious claims to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is www.thepeerage.com considered a reliable source? It is researched by someone who does so as a hobby - Darryl Lundy. It has no peer review of its content. It is essentially this person's home-based website. However, it is used extensively by editors making contributions on European royalty. However, on the several occasions when I have checked its attributions for historical occurrence, it is in direct contrast to viable, peer-reviewed histories. That would most likely be because the website, www.thepeerage.com, is run by one person who is not an expert on the topic nor does he even profess to have any education in the subject that he researches. Why is it included as a secondary source for so many articles? Shouldn't it be removed as a source for these articles? Does anyone agree with this? Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lundy does cite his sources which are reliable such as Cokayne's "The Complete Peerage", etc. By rendering virtually every single online source unreliable, there will be no further contributions on European royalty articles. Very few people will go out and spend 50 dollars on a book just to add a citation and even fewer will drive to a public library looking up information which is already freely available on the 'Net. I would suggest that editors citing Lundy's website add the source which he himself used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good idea: editors shouldn't cite references they haven't seen (except for where an editor in good standing can personally vouch for the reference, and even then it's not ideal). Based on what's at http://www.thepeerage.com/info.htm, this isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia's as it's author cheerfully admits to cobbling together information from various books and databases as a hobby and making educated guesses in instances where his sources were contradictory. That said, if reliable sources reference this database it's probably usable. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"thepeerage.com" appears to be used in quite a few reliable sources per GoogleScholar - thus unless a claim is contentius, I consider it an RS - one of the very few cases where an SPS reaches that level. Collect (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a close look at those hits. It seems to me that most them are genealogy websites, random webpages, and things published by a mysterious 'eM Publications'. I searched GoogleBooks for that publisher and found they are selling Wikipedia articles. See also Wikipedia:Republishers#eM_Publications. I don't see how the 'thepeerage' is a 'reliable source', it's just a personal website that happens to cite it's sources. That doesn't mean we should remove it wholesale from articles - it's better than nothing.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Elsevier one is not a Wikipedia article - it appears the source is widely used as RS on Wikipedia articles, especially for royal genealogies. As long as the claim is not contentious, I would accept it as a source. Collect (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least one of the papers (from Google scholar) which cites thepeerage.com also cites Wikipedia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2008.07.026 So either the paper is suspect or what they are citing is so tangential to their main focus, they probably don't care. Churn and change (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Hypotheses the journal that that article was published in, is explicitly not peer reviewed and isn't competent in the field of biographical history or genealogy. I wouldn't trust that article for anything. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is deviating from the topic, but their webpage at Elsevier says they have internal and external review. Their editorial board listed here has some well-known names. Not saying you are wrong (the journal does say they take what other publications won't or don't), but there is the question of what criteria to use to reject the journal. Do you want to bring this up as a separate section? Churn and change (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given nobody's suggesting using that source, I think we can rest on our laurels of extensive past discussions unless someone has another use case. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"thepeerage.com" is, however, used in a large number of Wikipedia articles. [39] seems to show that it is widely accepted for non-cententious genealogical claims, to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But people have been tagging it. See Ancestry charts of the current British Royal Family and Christopher Chancellor. In other cases it has been removed, or is in "External links." This is in just the first page of results. I sampled randomly and still found it in external links or tagged. See Sir Edward Crosbie. I think it is widely used and widely disputed. Churn and change (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any complaints that Lundy is often seriously wrong, but the correct answer is to both wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (thepeerage) and also indicate the RS(s) cited there in support of the cited assertion, as shown here. If someone seriously doubts that Lundy got it right, they can always check Burke's (or whichever authority Lundy cited). This should be sufficient for articles other than BLPs. For current live people, better sources should be sought. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the editors at a specific article reach that consensus, then that's that. But if there is a dispute and it is brought here, the answer has to be to use the authoritative secondary source Lundy cites. A no-peer-review, no-editorial-check, nonexpert, self-published site isn't a reliable source. Whether a source is an RS doesn't depend, in theory, on whether it is available and accessible, but I can see the practical objections to these expensive books. This particular book you mention is available widely in libraries, so not using it doesn't seem ok from any perspective. Churn and change (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP is perpetually a work-in-progress. Rather than see editors leaving assertions uncited, it is constructive to capture where they came from and work towards eventually checking the original publication as the article matures. This is a practical intermediate step, and certainly better than trusting an unsupported assertion that Lundy's not reliable. I wouldn't accept him at FAR, but to rule him out for stub- or start-class articles is just selfdefeating. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name is a red flag, but I note that the site is curated. I don't know that we have any policies governing curated wiki sites.

If it is not an acceptable reference, I see a number of articles, such as Ehrlichia canis, Micrococcus, Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus and others, which need editing.

The issue arose because an article in the DYK queue Nostoc commune, uses it as a reference, and it is being challenged.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The site is not curated; some specific pages are. "Microbial biorealm" and "Viral biorealm" are encyclopedias and hence tertiary sources. "Microbial mythology" is a secondary source, experts evaluating and interpreting primary sources, with editorial oversight. But I think reliability isn't a yes/no thing. There are degrees to it. For a DYK review, I guess the curated pages should be good enough. For an FA article, probably not. Churn and change (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have curated pages that qualify as sources with editorial oversight. But I have another concern. A quick comparison of mentioned Ehrlichia canis here and on MicrobeWiki shows that someone tried to closely paraphrase MicrobeWiki, frequently without knowing the subject and transformed correct phrases (from Microbewiki) to nonsense. For example, the phrase "The cell walls of E. canis is unrecognizable because of typical receptors like Toll-like receptors 2 and 4. (MicrobeWiki)" in Ehrlichia canis is wrong and does not make any sense. One would make a much better job simply by copy-paste phrases from MicrobeWiki, but I am not sure about their copyright status (see here, the materials "from other sources" on their site are images).My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Churn and change - Thanks for the feedback, and the correction. Yes, I should have said some pages are curated, not the entire site.

@ My very best wishes - yes, the original issue was an editor making a mash of the source, with concerns about plagiarism and misstatements. I don't know the subject matter well enough to contribute, but was interested in the status as an RS.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found what it was about. Bad edits in Ehrlichia canis were made by an IP who did just a few edits. Not everything he did was really wrong; I selected the worst passage. Looking at Nostoc commune, I do not see anything obviously wrong (I am not a microbiologist). So, let's not blame editor who did good work there. Speaking about MicrobeWiki, I am not sure if copy-paste from their site would be a copyright violation, given their copyright conditions (see above). Once again, one can use their curated pages as source, and the quality of their other pages is comparable with similar wikipedia pages or better. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 625 articles using AllCinema.net as a reference.[40] However, based on a Google Translator reading their disclaimer page,[41] they do not appear to provide any gauntnesses on the integrity, accuracy, or safety of the information. The even stated that some of the information is based on hearsay (伝聞情報が含まれることから). As such, this doesn't appear to be a reliable source to cite information from. —Farix (t | c) 01:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times has a disclaimer page, too. The presence of a disclaimer page does not prove that they don't engage in fact-checking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have the ability to add fully tabled episode lists for Top of the Pops to Wikipedia Here's an example from my sandbox. However! I have one problem which makes me uncertain of whether to proceed - verifiability. My source of information was copied 6 years ago from two BBC databases that no longer exist online, even in archive form. These are the BBC Progamme Catalogue and the database that once appeared on the now defunct Top of the Pops website - the site itself still works but clicking on the relevant link produces an error. While there are a few websites that give some information about random episodes and I would reference these appropriately. However, there will be literally hundreds of episodes that will not have a reference. Should I give up hope now, or should I add the lists and see if anyone else can provide sources? Currently, apart from in my sandbox, there is no information on wikipedia for the 2000+ episodes of Top of the Pops ~~Peteb16 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to exist online. If a library has a reference copy of the database, then you can cite that. Videos can be their oan sources for what they include, but there has to be a possibility or someone accessing them, even if it would be difficult

Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One would assume the BBC still holds these records somewhere. The BBC Catalogue must still exist in offline form. As for videos, most of the BBCs early recordings of this show were wiped as the reuse value of the tape itself was presumed to be worth more than what was on it. Most were also broadcast live and never saw the inside of a video recorder. I will go with the former suggestion and cite the BBC Catalogue as a source. Thank you Itsmejudith! ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Source: [42]
• Article: Steeler Nation#Criticism
• Item: "Whitetrash America's" and "Hillbilly"
• Please feel free to read & comment here. Thank you. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cizmar seems marginally competent to make judgements about contemporary american sports sociology. It is an op-ed not a news piece, and should be attributed to Cizmar not his paper. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in huge disagreement with my fellow Croatians about this book.

Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by Philip J. Cohen, Texas A&M University Press, Nov 1, 1996

I do not think that this book shall be ever used as a valid scholar reference. There are several roadblocks which this book does hit

• the author is not historian
• the book title is an accusation
• there are serious doubts who was the book true author
• Neutrality is a sacred Wikipedia credo

Let us start with: http://www.amazon.com/Serbias-Secret-War-Propaganda-History/product-reviews/0890967601/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/176-8108485-2189606?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Cohen's ghost-writer?, April 7, 2012 By John P. Maher (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History (Eugenia & Hugh M. Stewart '26 Series on Eastern Europe) (Paperback)

In today's New World Order we too have "brilliant outsiders" to the field of Balkan studies writing "long awaited" books. One of these is said to have produced a revolutionary account of Serbia's Secret War This is Dr Philip Cohen MD, a dermatologist. He has no credentials in Balkan studies.

"This book," as we are told by the Series Editor, Stjepan (Stipe) Mestrovic, scion of the famed Yugoslav clan, is "the second in a series on Eastern European Studies. The first was by Serbophobe Norman Cigar (no joke). Dr Cohen has, we are to believe, mastered in the brief span of a couple years, the skill of writing a reasonable facsimile of academic historians' prose and has metabolized reams of Balkan chronicles. Already in 1992 our dermatologist served as expert on the Clinton-Gore transition team. What godfather planted him there? Dr Cohen's Balkanological achievements are the more remarkable for his inability to read Serbo-Croatian. To overcome this handicap Dr Cohen "headed," one reviewer tells us, "a team of translators." Tell me, please: How does one go about "heading a team of translators", especially when one is not a translator? The identity of the translators nor is unknown as is the location of the archive in which the translations have been deposited Typographically, too, Cohen book's has over-generous margins and spacing that increase the bulk of the book by about a third over a normally produced book. School kids call it "padding".

There is a laudatory foreword from the pen of David Riesman, not a dermatologist, but Professor Emeritus of the Harvard University Department of Sociology and author of the best-seller, The Lonely Crowd. Like Dr Cohen, Professor Riesman, is unfettered by a preparation in Balkan studies Riesman even, Mestroviæ tells us, skipped sociology, for he "came to Sociology from Law ." Lawyer-sociologist-Balkanologist Riesman writes that Serbia is a country in which " illiterates could rise to leadership and even to the monarchy." That sounds like late medieval Western Europe. Dr Riesman may have had in mind the likes of Milos Obrenovic, but leaves the impression that his illiteracy was the fruit of autochthonous Serb culture, when it was really the necessary consequence of Islamic precept, the Turkish Kanun i Raya -- "Law for the Slaves." Muslim policy towards infidels was--and still is--take Sudan, for example--identical to the English Penal Laws in Ireland, but it seems to have slipped Mr Riesman's mind that 14th century Serbia's Tsar Dusan Silni stood out among contemporary West European monarchs in that Dusan "the Mighty" knew how to read and write. In a wee oversight Dr Riesman has omitted Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, from whom Goethe learnt, unlike Dr Cohen, to read Serbian. To cap it all off, "Serbia's Secret War" is not Cohen's book, but was ghost-written by someone whose native language is non-English, which any competent linguist can immediately see by key words of phrases that no English-speaker could ever have written. Could it possibly been Stjepan Mestrovic?

From: Balkan Holocausts?:Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia by David Bruce Macdonald, Manchester University Press, Apr 19, 2003, p. 138

A similar view was taken by Philip J. Cohen in his controversial pro-Croatian revisionism of Serbian history.

From: Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s by Norman Naimark, Holly Case; Stanford University Press, Feb 19, 2003 p. 222

Two studies that explore important topics, but in which censorial zeal trumps balanced scholarship, are Branimir Anzulovic, Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide ... and Philip J Cohen, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History ...

From: http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/084.shtml

Cohen is a hack, a ringer, a front man. He is a paid “presstitute”, a literary whore for Croatian neo-Ustasha propaganda. It is a case of a medical doctor writing “history” on the side as a hobby.

From: http://balkaninstitut.academia.edu/MiroslavSvircevic/Papers/1620686/Philip_J._Cohen_Serbias_secret_war_Propaganda_and_the_deceit_of_history_Texas_A_and_M_University_Press_1996

Even a cursory reading of Cohen's book, which heavily draws on the Croatian pamphlet of Tomislav Vukovic (alias Ljubica Stefan) and Edo Bojovic Pregled srpskog antisemitizma (An review of Serbian anti-Semitism, Zagreb 1992) reveals quite clearly that it is just another obscure piece of ideological denigration.

--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you are using Carl Savich's right-wing blog serbianna.com as a basis for criticising Cohen... lol. And anonymous "customers" on Amazon? Please... Can we keep this to criticism by academics? In my research I came across a post on the blog of Dr Marko Attila Hoare (a former member of the faculty of history at Cambridge University and the author of 'Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia' published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, which is used widely on WP articles about the Balkans). And he supports Cohen and his book, debunks the 'ghost writer' conspiracy theory and actually states he stayed with Cohen for a couple of days helping him with his manuscript. He notes he is not a professional historian but says that despite this the book is 'very good'. I have linked the blog post here [43]. And the only credible disinterested quote you have noted above is that of MacDonald, and it's a passing mention that the book is controversial. Controversial to whom? The Serbian Institute is unlikely to be able to avoid bias itself, being made up of Serbs. And I'm not Croatian.

Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book is published by a University Press, which more or less makes it citable on Wikipedia. We don't get a neutral point of view by just citing neutral books on political topics; there are few, if any, such. We get NPOV by citing reliable, non-neutral sources, covering all views on the topic separately.

Churn and change (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Churn and change: this book was published by a well-regarded scholarly press, and so meets Wikipedia's requirements of a reliable source. If other reliable sources (including professional reviews published by newspapers, scholarly journals, etc) have criticised the book and/or provide different perspectives of events, this should be taken into account when making use of it. However, hostile Amazon.com customer reviews and comments on various websites obviously do not rule this out as a usable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did we forget to search rs/n's archives? for as I said there: doi: 10.1093/hgs/14.2.300 is an appropriate review in an appropriate scholarly journal. They note he has not historical postgraduate training. I think this paragraph is sufficient, "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased. The tone is set at the outset in the "Series Editors Statement," where Stejpan G. Mestrovic indicates that "respected Western fact-gathering organizations have concluded that the overwhelming majority of atrocities and one hundred percent of the genocide in the current Balkan War [Bosnian Civil War?] were committed by Serbs" (p. xiii). I find, and I think many readers will perceive the same, that the intent of this book is to punish Serbia and the Serbs for their alleged past and current crimes against the non-Serbs of the region. No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs." "Nowhere in Serbia's Secret War is there any discussion either by Mestrovic or Cohen of the intellectual validity of the transference of a past epoch (e.g., World War II) onto the present as this book largely does. Without such a dialogue, however, this book or any other like it, may degenerate into unreasonable conspiratorial history. Historiography, especially that of the modern Balkans, is well populated with studies exemplifying such trends by people who have an axe to grind; these works contribute little to our understanding of complex past events and their impact upon the present. Although it habitually is, history should not be employed as a weapon. Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely. One can see it as part of the current popular-historical and journalistic literature that seeks to demonize and condemn rather than to chronicle and elucidate fairly. It is to be hoped that its shortcomings will stimulate others to try harder and to do better." The criticism levelled that this is pre-Rankean history is so methodologically harsh that I would call it a condemnation. I would say that it is unreliable, and refer readers to WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) eighteen days, seriously? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No 'we' didn't forget to search RSN archives, and we could all do without the dismissive and exasperated tone. The single review you produced (not the consensus of several editors that this noticeboard says can generally be relied upon), which you provided when I brought this book to RSN 18 days ago has been questioned by several editors, including myself. This questioning has been on the basis of the support given to Cohen by a former member of the Cambridge history faculty (Dr Marko Hoare) who has stated the book is 'very good', and who has debunked the conspiracy theories and right-wing Serbian blogs listed above. Now two other regular contributors to RSN have suggested it is OK and taken a different view from yours. We have editors other than yourself expressing a view, and I'm not seeing a consensus here that it isn't reliable. I believe it at least requires more discussion than your dismissive comments above, and I encourage all editors that regularly contribute here to make their views known (and why). Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to elevate Hoare in a blog post above a review in a peer reviewed journal? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians are not expected to do original research when checking credibility of sources either. The explanation of guidelines says WP:Attribution: "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses." Texas A&M is a fairly well-known university; what its press publishes has gone through scholarly vetting and can be cited in WP. As a first cut, we apply the general guidelines and they say a book published by a university press like Texas A&M is admissible as an RS. A higher bar can be applied only if there are so many better sources that including this, and its rebuttals, make the article way too long. Per the guidelines, those sources all have to be scholarly articles or books. Lack of space in the article would be a valid argument for excluding an RS and including only higher-quality RSes; perceived inaccuracy would not be. If you think the stuff is all wrong, you should get references which say so and include that as well. That is how we get to NPOV, not by making right and wrong judgments for ourselves, and using that as a first filter. If including all that makes the article unwieldy, fine, you have a valid argument to make on the article's talk page as an issue specific to that topic. WP:SCHOLARSHIP mentions "well-regarded academic presses" as reliable. Proving Texas A&M's university press is not well-regarded is a high bar. I am not disagreeing with you on the contents of the book or its correctness; here we need to assess issues using general guidelines, not by using subject knowledge to decide correctness. Churn and change (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifelfoo, no I'm not. I'm pointing out that Hoare, who is a topic-specific published academic, takes a different view of the book. Given he is reliably published on the subject, his blog comments are also reliable. That's what the policy says. The motivation for editors trying to get rid of this book from WP is highly suspect if you follow the talk pages on Ante Pavelic and Pavle Djurisic. Unable to find WP:RS that challenge Cohen, editors have resorted to this. It's incredibly transparent. I agree that Texas A&M is reliable unless proved otherwise. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • There are serious objections to the book content and the most notable is the one that the author has no academic credibility in Balkans studies then that it's a commissioned propaganda book. The author (Cohen) was decorated by Croatian late president Tudjman for this 'achievement'. The book 'reviewers' are exclusively Croats, the book borrows too much from the similar books written by Croats. Peacemaker67 simply parrots the phrases like 'the conspiracy theories and right-wing Serbian blogs'. We are here to weigh all objections to the book quality. Some of them too serious to be overseen especially those listed by Serbian scholar Dr. Miroslav Svircevic. As to the Proving Texas A&M's university press is not well-regarded is a high bar.: Who published book makes no contribution to this discussion nor tells us about the book author and his academic achievements. The bar was apparently very low, otherwise the book would be rejected. The publisher is, just as any company, interested primarily in profit. Both me and Peacemaker67 are Croats. My primary intentions are purely academic with no idea of re-writing history of Ustashe. Pavelic and his Ustashe brought only shame, misery, and suffering to Croats. I'm the one who is not fighting Serbs on Wikipedia, and, in Croatia, not voting Pavelic's HOP. A very bad thing is that the most notable authors (WWII, Ustashe and Independent State of Croatia) like Martin Broszat, Mehachem Shelach, Slavko Goldstein, and Bogdan Krizman are replaced by this propagandist and the likes.--Juraj Budak (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already pointed out that I am not a Croat, if you don't stop stating this as a fact in the face of my statements to the contrary, I will ask an admin to intervene. I'm Australian and have no genealogical or ideological links to the Balkans, I have a professional interest as a result of spending 6 months there during the 90's. Juraj, by his own admission, is here to stop what he perceives is 'the rewriting of history' Your list of most notable authors is quite strange, I mainly use Ramet, Tomasevich, Milazzo, Roberts, Hoare, Lemkin, etc in Balkans articles I edit. None of them are rewriting history. Broszat isn't even published in English. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Carrying over the debate here is rather pointless. I agree with Fifelfoo's comments: this book does not appear to be considered reliable by experts in this field, and so it should not be used as a reference for anything other than its author's opinion and/or the book's own contents. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Budak brought an Amazon review, criticism from Serbianna (a Serb nationalist blog), and a review from the Balkan Institute of SANU. Not at all convincing. The peer review brought by Fifelfoo states explicitly that "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...and then goes on to say "....but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs" before concluding that it's a shoddy book. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • But that is cherry picked. If a UP publishes a book, you can be pretty certain there are reliable academics praising it. I looked and found a positive review by Charles Ingrao, history prof. at Purdue University. There is this review slamming Cohen: [44]. The book is in the Pentagon's digital library on 'Confict in the Balkans.' It is in the bibliography of Richard Holbrooke's To End a War; unlikely he included it just to criticize it. Holbrooke wasn't an academic but was clearly an influential figure. In his book The U.S. Media and Yugoslavia, 1991-1995, p.30, James J. Sadkovich, once an associate professor at the American University in Bulgaria([45]), cites figures (not opinions) from the book. In a footnote in Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s some authors (couldn't make out which ones) state the Cohen book has important points but is unbalanced by a missionary zeal. A report by a research team at Purdue, headed by Sabrina Ramet, cites Cohen as an account of "Nedic's government written from a critical perspective." (I think Ingrao influenced the report; nevertheless it is an independent source since Ingrao wasn't part of the team and the citation is a direct one). If anybody needs the behind-paywall articles, please ask either at my talk page or at WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. This is why we have guidelines. Cohen's facts can be included; his opinion should be attributed, since it doesn't seem the mainstream view. If adding the opinion and its rebuttal makes the article unwieldy, it can be dropped if the other cited material is higher quality. But it cannot be ruled out based on our ideas of whether it is right. Churn and change (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A phrase that was deleted from the BP intro said "BP has been criticized for its political influence". In my attempt to justify its reinsertion, I found the following quotation helpful. It's from EPA lawyer Jeanne Pascal, who headed a 12 year investigation to see whether BP should be debarred from operating in the US based on its safety/accidents record. A quotation printed in Daily Beast/Newsweek would help support the phrase, but the reliability of this source has come under question at the talk page. (Thanks in advance.)

But Pascal quickly ran into the oil-company equivalent of “too big to fail”—and knew that her threat was essentially empty. Although this is not widely known, BP has been one of the biggest suppliers of fuel to the Pentagon If she pushed debarment too hard, Pascal was sure the Pentagon would simply invoke a national-security exception that would allow BP to continue to sell it oil. “When a major economic and political giant" tells you it has direct access to the White House, it’s very intimidating,” says Pascal.

SOURCE petrarchan47tc

I assume you are referring to this article? That is an opinion piece. There are a few issues here: First, your statement lacks a subject and would probably get tagged with the {{By whom}} template. If you then add "Jeanne Pascal criticized . . ." there would be the question of why what Jeanne Pascal, a retired senior attorney at EPA, has to say matters for the article. Aren't there weightier opinions, if include opinion you must? Finally, 'The Daily Beast' is not a particularly credible news magazine (not at the level of New York Times, LA Times and established newspapers). The question of an entire publication as an RS is rarely a yes/no one. I would say straight, non-controversial news items can be sourced from the 'The Daily Beast' but definitely not an opinion piece on environmental issues. There are plenty of far-more credible, and even academic and scholarly, sources available on the issue; so there is the question of why include an opinion piece from a less-credible source? Churn and change (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the piece says "from Newsweek" at the top. So the article was published at Newsweek first. The statement I am trying to support is "BP has been criticized for its political influence". Jeanne Pascal is notable by herself based on her 12 year investigation into BP, she was the head of it. I thought perhaps that Newsweek and Pascal's notability would make for RS. This is not the only RS I am using for support, but I thought it important because Pascal is quoted as saying that BP's influence goes directly the White House. This was my basis for claiming her notability. petrarchan47tc 18:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the author Michael Isikoff wrote this piece for Newsweek (it's cross-published at Daily Beast, which is now owned by Newsweek). At the end of the article you can see his credentials. petrarchan47tc 18:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is Newsweek you should cite as your source. Here is the citation (you can add your URL as a WP:Convenience link):

Isikoff, M., & Hirsh, M. (2010). "Slick operator." Newsweek, 155(20):36–38. 5/17/2010.

You still have the other issues of person's notability and this being an opinion piece. You have to discuss those with the editors at the article's talk page. Something gets to be notable based on the credibility of the person saying it, not based on how far-reaching or scandalous the accusation is. But that discussion needs context and is best carried out elsewhere. But to answer your original question, Newsweek is not a publication automatically marked a non-RS. Churn and change (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. petrarchan47tc 20:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the article titled "Slick Operator" was written by respected and credentialed reporters. Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff and Newsweek senior editor Michael Hersh are the writing team. The article is a superb source; reliable in every way. The article's subtitle is "How British oil giant BP used all the political muscle money can buy to fend off regulators and influence investigations into corporate neglect." Isikoff and Hersh criticize BP for political influence. The phrase removed from the article should be restored to it, using Isikoff and Hersh as the source.

As well, the article titled "Furious Growth and Cost Cuts Led To BP Accidents Past and Present" is a reliable source. The article represents a PBS Frontline investigation, coupled with ProPublica, a journal for journalists, published by people who came from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am wanting to get verification that periodicals published by MPA media could be considered to be reliable sources.

MPA Media currently publishes the following online publications:

1. Dynamic Chiropractic
2. Canada
3. Acupuncture Today
4. Massage Today
5. Chiropractic Nutritional Wellness
6. To Your Health

Here is MPA's editorial policy

• Thank you very much! -Stillwaterising (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to be peer-reviewed, but do look to be similar to other business/trade specialty news publications, in this case the business fields being alternative medicine. Such publications tend to be substantially aggregators of press releases, rather than serious academic publications. They might be useful in a very limited way, but it would depend on the statements to be supported. They certainly should not be considered as wp:MEDRS to support medical assertions, but they'd be fine for "John Smith teaches dynamic chiropractic at XYZ University". LeadSongDog come howl! 14:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a duplicate of a post above, and the answer is still the same: the article in questions is not a WP:MEDRS... a13ean (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the RfC regarding racism and homophobia. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/12/tempe_church_labeled_hate_grou.php source
• http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/author.php?author_id=1348 author page
• [Faithful Word Baptist Church] article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithful_Word_Baptist_Church#cite_note-PNT-5 source being used on the article
• [Talk:Faithful Word Baptist Church#removal of unsourced BLP problem] talk page discussion, no consensus about wp:reliability

It is my position that the phoenixnewtimes source is a blog with intemperate language and is nowhere close to wp:reliable.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But if you want a reliable source stating the SPLC has labeled the Faithful Word Baptist Church a hate group here is one: [46]. Churn and change (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a regional newsweekly. You should treat it like any other weekly print publication that advertises the latest concerts, movies, and clubs with 85,000 print copies distributed every week, because that's what it is. Its news blogs (not any "community member" blogs) are probably fact-checked just as much as the local daily newspaper's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix New Times is a weekly. Its blog section is, well, a blog. The blog section is not distributed with the print copy, nor is it subject to the same editorial oversight as the weekly. Churn and change (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has contested that The Hollywood Story by Joel Waldo Finler is not reliable for sourcing theatrical box-office rental. The data is located at pages 356–363 and is available on Google book preview, and the author has souced the figures from the Motion Pictures Alamanac and Variety Magazine. He has given no reason why he considers the source "not reliable" but I see nothing wrong with it. Please note that Google Books gives an incorrect author summary, but it can be seen here he is an accomplished writer on film with a good publication record on the subject. The figures are used in box-office charts such as 1958 in film. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This title was published by the Wallflower Press which today is owned by the University of Columbia Press. That alone makes it an RS by our guideline. The data being sourced is, however, not adjusted for inflation (see page 363). The author presents excellent reasons for the problems with comparisons across years, nevertheless that is what most people expect to see when they look at the numbers. The list as it stands is as good as having some of the numbers in dollars, some in euros, some in pounds, and some in zloties. Converting is not an easy task, even assuming Canada can be approximated out. Which year do you use for conversion? The year the film was released, the years it ran, the years it grossed the most? Another issue is people are used to seeing box-office receipt numbers, not gross rentals; that conversion can't be done without knowing the expenditure half of the accounting sheet. Churn and change (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rental figures are not being used to compare the earnings across multiple years, just to document what they earned at that time, so inflation adjustment is not necessary (for instance, the box-office chart for 2001 in film presents the box-office grosses at their 2001 value). There is currently an RFC over the use of the rentals at Talk:1960_in_film#Request_for_comment_about_replacing_top_ten_films_charts_with_revisionist_rankings. if you would care to comment on the broader issue of rentals vs b.o., but what I specifically need to know in regards to this source, is if the book is reliable in the context it is used at 1958 in film and at 1960 in film in purveying the rental earnings of the top films in any particular year? Betty Logan (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I answered that one. What, specifically, is the objection to its being an RS? If you look at WP:Attribution#Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources you will see: " In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; . . ." Your source is #1 in this list. If you go to WP:SCHOLARSHIP you will see: "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars." The University of Columbia Press is, rather obviously, a well-regarded academic press. The material you are using isn't data that can become outdated, nor is there a question of a neutral point of view. Churn and change (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems with someone who seems to be arguing that the U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks should not be used as citations for biographies of living persons. What is the policy of Wikipedia on using the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks?

I've blocked this editor for using Wikileaks cables to add negative material to articles about living people. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis of primary sources in relation to their political and historical importance and meaning is a job for specialist scholars. Particularly given the provenance of the documentation, expert analysis is required to determine if the documents are in fact the documents they purport to be. While scholars are free to make these judgements based on their expert understandings (and some of the better news magazines or papers likewise), wikipedians while encyclopaedia editors are incapable of doing this, as it would constitute original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A splendid example of why Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources. Collect (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

≤In reference to this discussion at WP:DRN, I believe there are two issues a neutral 3rd party comment could help with.

Firstly, The following source is used to justify a claim made in Argentina's modern sovereignty dispute that the population was expelled:

Angel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3.

The issue I have with the particular claim made, is that the claim is cited to a document referred to as the Akehurst Memorandum, which referrences the historian Goebel. If you refer to the Google books link (I have the original text this is just a convenient way to share it), rather than confirming the claim made by López, it confirms the claim currently cited in the article ie the claim made by López fails verification. See Self-determination#Falkland Islands for the current text.

This isn't disputed, however, I have two editors arguing that checking the claim made by an author against his cited sources is WP:OR and WP:SYN and we should simply use the source attributing the claim to López. The argument is this is needed as a "rebuttal" to claims made in neutral academic sources, Goebel included, to present the Argentine POV. Am I wrong in suggesting we shouldn't use this source to verify that claim, since the source asserts a claim not made by the original author but one that is attributed to that author. Hope that makes sense.

Secondly, the same editors assert that it is a reliable source for the following claim:

The argument here is that the title of the work shows the reasearch is based on British sources egro the statement is supported by reference to the same dicussion in López (the one that fails verification). The attributed source, Goebel, refers only to the garrison. Am I wrong in suggesting that given the source is making a claim not supported by its citation it is unreliable for that particular claim? Thank you in advance. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I've got this right, López does analyze British sources, and does conclude that the population was expelled. It's just that you have also analyzed the same British sources, and concluded that López's conclusion is obviously unwarranted. Do I have that right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an academic publisher. Likely to be an appropriate source. Have you read the whole book? It would seem that it could be a good source, but which statements it could support would be a matter for serious consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors would be justified about their OR and SYNTH objections; we should not critically evaluate sources ourselves via cross-checking against their primary sources. As User:Itsmejudith points out the publisher is reliable, publishing scholarly and academic works. The source is RS. If the author's contentions are not mainstream, they will need attribution, and possibly rebuttal. Churn and change (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get a neutral 3rd party opinion so I will try and restrict myself to responding to questions posed.

In answer to WhatamIdoing. Goebel is not a British source but American, an academic at Yale University.

Reference Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Quote

Emphasis added

ReferenceAngel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3. Retrieved 19 September 2012.

Quote

The statement attributed to Goebel is not made by Goebel. Goebel is well known as a source in the Falkland Islands dispute, so falsely attributing a claim to him is very strange. Anyone familiar with the subject would know that Goebel doesn't make this claim. For reference there was a garrison and a settlement but only the garrison left. So no, I didn't analyse the same British sources and come to a different conclusion, being familiar with the cited source the claim struck me as odd and when I checked I found it did not reflect Goebel.

Goebel is a WP:SECONDARY source, I can if requested give you the two WP:PRIMARY sources, eye witness reports which corroborate both Goebel and the source below. The two reports both Argentine and British corroborate one another as well.

Another neutral source

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Empahsis added

Neutral academic works usually debunk this claim made by Argentina. Hence in answer to Churn, the view is not mainstream but is being used here to criticise the mainstream view. I would be grateful if you could expand as to why you consider this WP:OR and WP:SYN. I'm not doing any research and drawing conclusions, there I would agree with you it is inded WP:OR. However, I really don't see fact checking as WP:OR but I'm quite willing to be re-educated. In my own writing I always try to cross-check facts against multiple sources to ensure I represent the range of opinions in the literature.

In answer to Itsmejudith, yes I have read it a long time ago. Like most POV sources, and it is a POV source, its use requires careful thought and in particular attribution of claims. López is not a neutral academic but a former Argentine ambassador, who was involved in the pursuit of Argentina's sovereignty claim. When it comes to WP:WEIGHT I think it falls down in that the claim isn't verified by the cite and it contradicts mainsteam opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the fact-checking you are doing is OR. On WP edits are not done or reviewed by experts and so we rely on secondary sources with our doing just basic 2+3=5 style fact checking. We depend on publishing houses to do thorough checks (through editorial oversight or peer review). Churn and change (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your second issue: On WP we present all facets, including minority views, but not the fringe views of a tiny minority. How many minority views can be included depends on, in practice, the length of the article. We take highest-quality sources first, write what they talk of, and then go down the ladder to other sources. This particular source is an RS; it is likely not a high-quality one, and maybe it doesn't represent mainstream opinion. In that case, if you really have sufficient higher-quality sources (which would be books and articles in and by even-better academic journals and publishers), you fill the article with those. I took a quick look at the article, this particular section has just two short paras. So, to the question of being a fringe claim. Maybe Argentina's stance is so off-the-chart we can equate it to a fringe-minority view and not mention it. May be so. I searched and hit upon pretty fast the statement you reject: that Britain expelled Argentinians in 1833. The source is Risman, W. M. (1983). "The struggle for the Falklands." The Yale Law Journal, 93, 287. Michael Risman is the Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale University and the page is 306. I am not going to argue Risman is right; the issue is likely highly nuanced with many credible sources having their own POVs. But that source does make any claim the view is fringe (a claim you have not made; I am just covering all possibilities) an exceptional claim needing exceptional evidence. The sources in the article don't seem enough; Mary Cawell together with publisher A. Nelson don't seem much of a source; Harper is a good source but her book is on "Scottish emigration" and touches on Falklands very briefly and in a different context. So, yes, I do think you have to include this view, if not from the RS you mentioned then from the RS I did, and include rebuttals from other sources. If you have trouble accessing the source, send me a message, or ask on the WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request board. Churn and change (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WCM: You aren't a political historian on wikipedia—you're an encyclopaedia editor, stop engaging in original historical research. Per Itsmejudith, the publisher is a scholarly publisher which says it submits manuscripts to external review prior to acceptance. That's a good sign. I'd suggest the only way to not accept this text as being part of the scholarly literature is if reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals (with an appropriate journal coverage area) tear it to pieces. So off to the book reviews: JLAS noted the book existed, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X00011998, but it is their policy to do this with all books received. No review I could find. So the next step is what do other scholars say regarding the work in the literature, do they give it any attention? If many scholars tear it apart when writing on the topic, then that's a sign it probably isn't acceptable (unless other scholars use it with praise in scholarly publications). Treat as a scholarly work unless criticised with vitriol in other scholar's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of source citations is common sense, and is a violation of neither OR nor SYN. How the hell would we ever decide which sources are reliable and which ones are not if personal judgement never came into play? Policy forbids us from including OR in an article, but it does not prevent us from using OR to decide what sources are best to use. And Firefloo, no one is talking about using personal judgements about facts that are clearly in dispute. Rather, WCM is suggesting discarding a source because it is obviously, blatantly, and completely false on a very key point. Just because a publisher is generally reliable doesn't mean that everything they publish is RS. And that said, it appears that Lopez's work is academically insignificant, being cited by all of one person, ever. And who is Lopez, anyway? As far as I can tell, he is Argentinian, and has only written this one book. Aside from that, I can't find any scholarly works, or even a website. Is he a professional historian, or just a random guy who wrote a couple of books? In the forward to the book, he is referred to as "Ambassador Oliveri Lopez", although this book is the only place on the entire internet where Lopez is referred to as such. So who is he? And finally, do any scholars whose reliability is not in dispute echo the claim that Argentinians were expelled from the island? If this really is the case of a single unknown author making an extraordinary claim, then that would qualify as insignificant in my book. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can use OR and SYN as criteria when one wants to add sources. But an edit that removes a source somebody else added, based on a claim of having found an inconsistency against its primary sources, is OR and SYN. What is obvious and blatant to an expert isn't so to lay people. And often these words are just bandied around to stop debate. Churn and change (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a minor scholarly view-point is only represented in one single text, you can dismiss it under WEIGHT and NPOV—regardless of the reliability issues. If a minor scholarly view-point is still of significance, then you can include it, at the very end, and attribute it appropriately, "In the scholarly publication X, the former minister for wallaby reduction issues depicted Y as Z." Neither of these impacts on the sources' reliability for a scholarly claim. There are plenty of scholarly perspectives that we routinely ignore for good and proper encyclopaedic reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are responding to my earlier post. Yes, I agree, though I would use the term 'fringe' rather than 'minor' on what gets excluded. But see my post on why this isn't obviously a fringe viewpoint. I think the appropriate thing is to attribute and add the opposing viewpoint. If you go to the article you will see the subject is Argentina's claim on Falkland, specifically their claim that Argentinians were expelled from Falklands in 1833. Maybe the claim is indeed fringe, but at least one Yale professor thinks not and has published stating so in the Yale Law Journal. The "obvious, blatant, completely false" string of adjectives I discount. Churn and change (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a strand of analysis is minor to one or two academics (or a larger number, say, in Napoleonic war studies), such that it has no impact in the wider literature it is legitimate to not include such minor studies. If another source makes the point better, then purely editorial decisions regarding source quality or source clarity should lead to the dismissal of a source (even if that source is scholarly in nature in terms of reliability). There are plenty of reasons to ignore sources other than on reliability grounds, but, the source indicated in this thread is actually fairly reliable due to possessing an academic publisher of an appropriate kind. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to separate the point a source makes and the source itself. The source may be ill-cited, but the point itself may be repeated in other sources. That makes the point a minority view worthy of inclusion but not the source (which I think is the case here; I am basing that on the fact that I got to another source claiming the same thing in just a few minutes of search; maybe I got lucky, but somehow I don't think so). As to "impact on the wider literature" that seems the definition of 'fringe.' Churn and change (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How, pray tell, do you know this truth: "because it is obviously, blatantly, and completely false on a very key point." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reiterating what was suggested, rather than suggesting it myself (you'll find in my post its an attributed suggestion). The page on which the claim is made is not available when I look through Google books, so I can't hunt down the citation entirely on my own unless I feel like finding a library that has the book (my own does not, unfortunately). Back to the fringe claims, on top of the fact that all of one person cites the Lopez book, I've also been unable to find any scholarly reviews of his book. It seems to be a work that's entirely ignored by the rest of the historical community. In any event, if Goebel really did make this claim in a secondary work, then we should be citing Goebel, and not a book that claims to be echoing him. As to the issue of fringeness, why not just include the Yale Law Journal, attributed, and leave out Lopez? And finally, I answered one of my own questions: Lopez is a "Permanent Representative of Argentina to the Committee of Representatives of the Latin American Integration Association", whatever that means. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a review here behind a very-expensive paywall. There are some scattered citations in Spanish and French (Qubec). I agree—the Yale article is what should be used. I suspect there are more since I came across it pretty fast. As to the author being Argentinian, the other source cited in that article is from a Britisher of Falklands origin, so I guess they want true balance. Somehow I don't quite feel like going in and editing the stuff. Churn and change (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to this work. Peter Beck, an appropriately qualified academic, tears the work in question to shreds, "Lopez approaches the topic from an overtly pro-Argentine perspective… his approach… is unashamedly functional, but his method is novel…relies exclusively on British sources, or rather on British commentators' historico-legal interpretations of crucial episodes affecting sovereignty…" "The reviewer,…was less impressed by the unhistorical manner in which arguments are presented. Basically, the reviewer's publications, like those of other British commentators, have been treated in a functional and selective manner by Lopez, who cites only extracts supportive of the Argentine point of view. No account is taken of the broader position taken by those quoted. From this perspective, the book offers a classic example illustrating the use of quotes taken out of context in order to distort the writer's intended meaning. [A concrete example follows of this error]" "Even worse, 'British' sources are treated in an uncritical, undifferentiated matter, even to the extent of describing Americans, like Jeffrey Myhre, as 'British' (p 9, p 14). No account is take of any commentator's level and sphere of expertise or familiarity with the archival materials which figure so prominently in Lopez's book" "This publication, like its pro-British counterparts…[remind us of] the manner in which history and law have been exploited for contemporary policy purposes. Unfortunately, functional histories promote misunderstanding rather than an informed grasp of the issues at stake…" "readers would learn far more from the writings of the Argentine historian, Carlos Escude', whose research on the islands' title deeds led him to conclude that 'Who is right and who is wrong is not an obvious matter' (Buenos Aires Herald, 27 November 1985). This seems a far more balanced Argentine view than that articulated in Key to Enigma." On the basis of this overtly hostile review, I would say that there are excellent reliability grounds for considering this work to not be reliable for history, due to the vicious criticism of its methodological, theoretical, interpretive and explanatory failures. Also, this review suggests using Escude's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Someguy1221—None of what you have said affects the fact that Lynne Rienner Publishers is a scholarly publisher that sends manuscripts for external review. None of what you have said affects the fact that this particular text has not been dismissed by scholars, yet was published in a scholarly mode. The reliability of the text is adequate, and at the low end of scholarly texts. Your suggestion that the text's claims lie outside of the mainstream views (which you cite from appropriate scholarly sources) affects WEIGHTing, and may be cause to dismiss including a potentially reliably sourced minor scholarly claim for lack of impact. Your suggestion that the text's claims have not been taken up in a field where these claims are regularly evaluated affects WEIGHTing, and may be cause to dismiss including a potentially reliably sourced minor scholarly claim for lack of impact. In the humanities, citation frequencies are very, very, very low. Works are frequently not cited because of the modality of publication. Unlike, for example, the instrumentalist social sciences who attend to qualitative business issues, the humanities are not citation metrics fixated. The standards (such as the the Australian ERA exercise) indicate that humanities fields base their qualitative judgement on esteem factors. The fact that Lynne Rienner Publishers is a small, low esteem publisher may indicate that the source be WEIGHTed out of inclusion, but yet again does not impact on its reliability. Secondary sources, such as a scholarly published work, are capable of processing and evaluating both primary sources and other secondary sources, there is no need to chase "Goebel," on a reliability basis—and regarding WEIGHT and FRINGE I think that you have already made excellent arguments evaluating whether the text should be used on WEIGHT or FRINGE grounds. This is no reason not to cite Lopez (1995) on reliability grounds, but, again, are good reasons to dismiss or remove Lopez (1995) and its claims on WEIGHT grounds. If you believe that there's a significant scholarly narrative covering this terrain, and if you believe another source with superior quality exists that exemplifies this better, then write it out of that source, and merely note this source also exists in the footnote regarding the write up. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Article: 1960 in film
• The source: The Numbers – 1960 index

An editor is using the list of box-office grosses to establish a chart order. While I don't dispute that the source is reliable for the financial data itself (it is used to source box-office on many film articles) I challenge its use as a source for the ranks. The source only lists the box-office for a few films from 1960, and omits many successful ones; the source does not chart these grosses either, so I do not think the source is reliable for sourcing the positions in the chart since it does not back up the claim. Further views appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would you prefer? To list them in a random order? The "ranks" given here could be produced easily and without violating any policy simply by converting that table to a sortable table. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ranks cannot be produced easily: you cannot list the top ten films of the year from partial data. For instance, if we were unable to source the box-office figures for Star Wars, it would be incorrect for us to rank Saturday Night fever as the number 1 film of 1977. The chart produces two claims: box-office figures and ranks, but the source only backs up the box-office figures. If the source doesn't rank the films then Wikipedia should not be ranking the films based on the source. The source lists the films and their grosses chronologically by release so there are clearly sensible alternatives to inventing a fictious ranking. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't list grosses chronologically. There is no release date for 7 out of 19 films, and so the source arbitrarily lists them with a release date of January 1. Once could add a footnote stating the rankings are for films in the list only. Incidentally, is there a reason to believe some film was missed? Churn and change (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The historic film charts on the film articles generally rank films by theatrical rental as opposed to box-office gross; the theatrical rental was the standard metric up until the 1980s, and was roughly half the gross. In many cases the actual gross was not known, but in some cases trackers like The Numbers will list the gorss when it is known. The problem in this case is that an editor is replacing the rental chart (where the top 10 is known and sourced) with a box-office chart that is compiled from available data. If you take 1950 as an example—for convenience since I can link to it on Google preview—the top 5 five films of the year charted by theatrical rental (according to Peter Kramer who is a university lecturer in film studies) were Cinderella, King Solomon's Mines, Annie Get Your Gun, Cheaper By the Dozen, and Born Yesterday. However, only the top three films have their grosses listed at the The Numbers 1950 entry. It does not list grosses for Cheaper by the Dozen and Born Yesterday, so it would be a fabrication to compile a list of top ten films and assign ranks, when clearly two of the year's top 5 films are not included; there are many other discrepencies between Kramer and The Numbers where The Numbers does not list the grosses of highly successful films that appear in Kramers' charts, so I think a chart that assigns ranks in this manner is misrepresenting the facts. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kramer's book, as mentioned elsewhere, is published by WallFlower, now part of University of Columbia Press, and hence a high-quality reference. The "Nash Information services" reference is also an RS (it has been cited in books), but I agree with you the Kramer book is a stronger reference. The two sources, however, seem to be talking of two different things, rentals and grosses, so they don't quite contradict. So, on the first question of which to include, well, that is up to the editors of the article and should be discussed there. These days most people read about, and hence understand better, gross figures, so there is an argument for including that. Your point is for the older movies rentals are more reliable, which is also a valid argument. We can't debate that issue here though. On the second issue of including the ranked list, yes, you do have a reasonable argument certain entries are likely missing from the Numbers.com list, and hence no ranking should be done. You should present the argument on the article's talk page and try to convince the other editors. If that fails, I guess you have to go to dispute resolution. Churn and change (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this isn't the place to make decisions about the article's content, just to determine what the sources can and cannot be used for. I would prefer to use gross figures too since they are a more familiar metric, but I believe ultimately you are limited to the form the data is available in. I have actually filed an RFC to try and address the broader scope of the dispute, but an appraisal of how the source can be used will be useful in a discussion, so thanks for your time. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion concerning the use of sources for this BLP on the talk page for the article Rip Esselstyn and it was suggested to post here. I am referring to this rule: WP:BLPSPS

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)" "(from the see below section) -- "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published."

Article: Rip Esselstyn

Source: a. The Engine 2 Diet by Rip Esselstyn. Published by Hachette Book Group USA

http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/authors_Rip-Esselstyn-(1505944)_Bibliography.aspx

b. Esselstyn's official website which contains his biography.

http://engine2diet.com/about/rip-esselstyn/

c. Content:

1. In the background section, the use of the line: "In 2009, he joined Whole Foods Market as a Healthy Eating Partner and is currently on the Board of Directors for The Wellness Foundation, EarthSave’s Meals For Health Program, and the AllergyKids Foundation." Appears in the website biography.

2. The Awards Section. Appears in both the book and the website biography.

I am willing to tweak and rework these points but would like this clarification first.

Thanks. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is not (no longer?) on the boards of either the Wellness Foundation or the AllergyKids Foundation. That makes the whole bio suspect as an RS. For things such as awards, can't you search and cite the awarding organization instead? Not a requirement, but leads to better-quality articles. Churn and change (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough re: website (I'll remove that line) but what about the book? The only citation from the book would be the awards. As for citing from the organizations, the events happened in the 80s, 90s, and 2001 and thus online sources are harder to find though I've seen a few scattered. The RS cited in the article itself refer in general to the fact that he was a pro-triathlete and some say "champion" so I could rewrite to simply include those. Also this topic is referred to in general in the film Forks Over Knives and so I could refer to that.

I posted here more as a clarification for myself as to the use of Official Websites and the book. WP:BLPSPS implies that I can use the book and thus I want this clarified since I've seen a number of BLP articles that make these kind of citations. Thanks for your feedback.-Classicfilms (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hachette is a well-known publisher and so, yes, his book (even though not an autobio) can be sourced for facts. The documentary can be sourced if it refers directly to the subject; otherwise you probably will land in WP:SYNTH. Churn and change (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "legal" to use his official website for information about himself. If you have reason to believe that his official website might be out of date, then you may also use WP:Editorial discretion to omit the outdated information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for the clarification. For now I'll just keep the article as is and restore the book reference only. Thanks WhatamIdoing for the tip about WP:Editorial discretion as I was not familiar with it. At this point, I think the book itself will suffice. If either of you have any other BLP related suggestions let me know. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, sourcing his own book to say he won a major triathlon 7 times is ok? This is using a primary, unreliable reference to source about third parties. This should be sourced by a secondary sources. Bgwhite (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ummm, it isn't that cut-and-dry. Try writing and publishing something like this through Hachette books and you will quickly realize why WP does indeed allow self-sourced (autobiographical) statements in books published via well-known publishers. Granted, relying on autobiographical statements isn't the best way to do this, but is often quicker and better than nothing at all. Churn and change (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]