Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 114

Archive 110

←

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

→

Archive 120

'Inspire', magazine allegedly published by al-Quaeda in the Arab Peninsula

Thomas Joscelyn, who has bylines in The San Francisco Examiner and is also styled "Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense Democracies" and "Senior Editor, The Long War Journal", is named as the author of material about Inspire (magazine) on the website longwarjournal.com. His opinions and analysis there are variously cited in the Wikipedia Inspire article (e.g.: "According to Thomas Joscelyn, the chief purpose of Inspire is to spread AQAP's propaganda to the West.")

Thomas Hegghammer, senior research fellow at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, author of Jihad in Saudi Arabia (Cambridge 2010), al-Qaida in its own words (Harvard 2008) and The Meccan Rebellion (Amal 2011), and contributor of op-eds to e.g. The Guardian and the NYT, has an article about Inspire on the website jihadica.com, which is also numerously cited.

In light of Joscelyn and Hegghammer's credentials, are their articles in longwarjournal.com and jihadica.com reliable sources? Writegeist (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Joscelyn has been mentioned in the NYT as knowledgeable on the topic, and Hegghammer has been cited by the NYT as "But one noted scholar of jihadism, Thomas Hegghammer of the Norwegian Research and Defense Establishment, cautioned against drawing ... " as well as writing for the NYT himself. Yep - both (and especially Hegghammer) are noted in the field, and the later quite notably so. Hegghammer is mentioned in a great many books on the topic, and Joscelyn is cited in several books on the topic as expert. Cheers - they both meet WP standards. Collect (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think you may have misunderstood the question. There was no doubt about Joscelyn and Hegghammer being notable (as I tried to make clear by referring to their credentials). I was not asking for confirmation of that. My concern was with the two blogs. TJ and/or TH in, say, The Guardian would clearly be RS for commentary within their specialist fields - I was not sure whether the same applied in the case of their publication by these two particular blogs. I now think the blogs are acceptable, so no additional input is needed unless someone has a counter-argument. Writegeist (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Blogs associated with experts are usable within their fields of expertise. I had thought that was clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. We have WP:SPS which allows us to be lenient with "experts," but we also have WP:REDFLAG, which states that exceptional claims must have multiple reliable sources backing them and that a source which makes an exceptional claim found in no other sources is therefore to be questioned. The article relies heavily on Hegghammer's and Joscelyn's writings, but if they weren't published in a reliable source, we can't source them for all kinds of REDFLAG claims based on their famous names alone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

External Link Approval

Hello all,

I've come in contact with a source that I believe would be a tremendous addition to Wikipedia pages dedicated to countries. The project is called "International Futures" from the Pardee Center for International Futures at the University of Denver. International Futures is a long-term forecasting and global trend analysis project that has gained credibility and international notoriety in the policy community. It is the world's largest integrated and endogenous model for global forecasting, and publications from International Futures can be found without much effort.

I've posted a few external links to country pages, but it has been brought to my attention that I should start a conversation on this message board to seek consensus. I think that it's a tool that has a great deal of utility, and the forecasts add something new and interesting to country discussions. I believe it's a valuable addition, and I'd like to see these forecasts on more country pages. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

The web based version of the model can be found at http://www.ifs.du.edu/ifs/Ifs.aspx (Shredder2012 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

Do you have any independent reliable sources that confirm what you are saying about the site? (That it "has gained credibility and international notoriety in the policy community") Siawase (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Their work has been sourced in some very credible projects that I've come across.

United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Reports - here's the latest http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/papers/HDRP_2011_08.pdf

The African Futures Project with the Institute for Security Studies - http://www.ifs.du.edu/assets/documents/Africa%20Futures%202050%20ISS%20Pardee%20IFs.pdf

The UN's Global Environmental Outlook - http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4.asp

The US Institute for Peace - http://www.usip.org/publications/vulnerability-intrastate-conflict

The US National Intelligence Council, Global Scenarios 2025 - http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_global_scenarios.html

And their work is hosted by Google's Public Data Explorer (Although I've been told that this data is not as current as their website) http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=n4ff2muj8bh2a_

I apologize for being so vague in my first message. I appreciate that you wouldn't take my word for it! It's difficult to find independent sources that verify their work, but I think that some of their clients and projects may speak to the quality of their work. I've been in touch with International Futures to get a list of some of this recent work, so if there's any other questions regarding their work I can contact them easily. Thanks again, and I look forward to hearing from you! (Shredder2012 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

• While I could not see any red flags concerning reliability I will have to interject that you are asking for input specifically concerning an "external link" at a reliable source noticeboard. The appropriate place for these discussions (external links) would be on the External links/Noticeboard. However, since you asked and there appears to be possible reliable source application, and so I don't have to chase this around, I will add my two cents.

I have only briefly looked at the futures model and I can not see any actual benefit, in response to your tremendous addition to Wikipedia pages dedicated to countries comment, it would have as to to being indiscriminately place on a multitude of articles.

• Unless there is some serious reason against use the actual best location to determine acceptance of use is on the individual article talk pages. If you do not find some particular opposition for use on Wikipedia and you feel there is relevance, inquiring there (talk pages) will likely give resolution and avoid deletions.

I did not look at your use in articles, however! if consensus is for use (or just as importantly not specifically against), I would advise to do so sparingly and use the link for the model concerning the country the article is about and not the main page link. For relevance actual use would probably be best when there is a section concerning something regarding the future in an article. Many articles already have somewhat of a problem with the number of external links (external link clutter) so even if the site is reliable, and there is relevance, you might still find opposition on some articles if you do just "indiscriminately" place the link. With no opposition as to reliability as a source, and where there is relevance for use, the link might be able to be used in an article as a source, or possibly used in a "See also" section.

If you start to inundate Wikipedia with the links you will more likely than not find opposition as I for one would be against it. If there is opposition, especially link deletion, as to relevance (or other reasons) in a particular article it would be best to leave it out unless you are active in contributions to the article and wish to pursue inclusion.

It might be a cool site with some neat forecasts for the future but these are "forecasts" of what "might" happen if no catastrophic events take place. In the real world such things as major earthquakes (among other things), overnight changes in the government, economic plunge, and other examples, would render, in my opinion, the "Scenario Analysis" section might be considered just a cool tool for trivia fun. Since the world (markets, future allocation of resources and many other examples) do depend on such future analysis, I can also see (my opinion at this point providing some negative reasoning I overlooked is not brought up) where the site could have encyclopedic relevance when used properly in particular articles. Otr500 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Contactmusic.com on marital breakup

Should http://www.contactmusic.com/news/vanilla-ice-and-wife-split_1232480 be considered a reliable source for a breakup of Vanilla Ice and his wife? Someone claiming to represent Vanilla Ice says at Talk:Vanilla Ice#Factual Errors that there is no breakup. —teb728 t c 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Contactmusic, from what I have seen, rarely has exclusives, but rather reports on stories that have appeared in other media sources. From reading this article, it says "She tells the National Enquirer", so it appears this story originates with the National Enquirer which is a rather notorious tabloid. Not a source I would use in a BLP, especially for something contentious like this that has been contested. Siawase (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Falklands

Is this http://www.everyculture.com/Cr-Ga/Falkland-Islands.html RS for the claim that there is evidacnce of Indian settlement on the falklands as it does not seem to me to be anything other then 'just some website'.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Likely a major copyvio from somewhere - the exact same language (the part I used was "The terrain is mainly hilly to mountainous grassland. Shrubs abound, but there are no native trees") is found on two other sites. (try it on Google if you wish) Source is likely Ember's "Countries and their Cultures, Vol 1". Not RS as a result. Collect (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

thepeerage.com

I am wondering if thepeerage.com is ok to use as a source for basic biographical data i.e. birthdates, marriage dates etc. It looks SPS, but it seems to be pretty well sourced by reliable sources. I have tried to search for some of the sources it uses online, but to no avail. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'd think not. Apart from other issues, it cites Wikipedia, and e-mails from private individuals, as sources: [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is an acceptable source, but not strictly WP:RS, as some of its sources are not. Where its source is Burke or Complete peerage, it is quoting a WP:RS, and so is itself one. If it is quoting WP, we have a circular argument. If it is quoting provate information it is rather too close to WP:OR for comfort, unless the informant states precisely where his information came from. Thepeerage.com is a massive comilation, and is very frequently cited as a source in WP, but if it conflcts with a better source, the better one is to be preferred. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If it quotes a reliable source such as Burke, we should use that. Of course we should actually read the source, not just copy the reference across! Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a self-published site written by someone who does not appear to be a published expert on the topic. It does not qualify as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't a reliable source in our terms. Andrew Dalby 09:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As per Will Beback, as a self-published web site not by an established expert it is not a reliable source. Let me add, though, that the citation of a "reliable source such as Burke" is not a good metric. The Burke works are of variable reliability, depending on the edition and the time period being covered. Unlike Complete Peerage, these are not presented in a scholarly fashion, lacking footnotes or bibliographical information, and in earlier times served as little more than a credulous vehicle for the vanity of the families whose pedigrees were being presented. Experts in the field only use Burke's publications with extreme caution and only for material nearly contemporary with the publication date. The routine unqualified citation of Burke's volumes for earlier times tends to speak against the reliability of a web site, not for it. OR is not a concern. Sources are allowed to do OR, and reliable sources should do OR. It is just Wikipedia editors who are not to. The failure to cite precise source details speaks not to the propriety of the OR, but again to its reliability. Agricolae (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to search right now, but I think we've had this discussion before. And agreed it isn't a reliable source, which is the case. We shouldn't be using it. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Lundy. Note: this template simply adds an external link to thepeerage.com.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugg boots and the Peoria Journal Star

Hi! There have been various claims that this should be brought here for discussion, and that makes a lot of sense. So:

The article in question is Davis, Jim (December 26, 20011) "Ugg kicking it in the U.S.", Peoria Journal Star [2]. The author is a freelance writer who is a partner in a Chicago law firm. There are two claims from the article that are in dispute:

• "By 2010, all of the Australian manufacturers combined added up to only 5.9 percent of Deckers sales for Ugg boots alone."
• "In the case of Uggs, even some Australian manufacturers have been found guilty of making counterfeits."

The arguments in support of the source's reliability are primarily that the newspaper would do fact checking, and would be more careful for a freelancer. Arguing against it, the article is written in a tone that suggests that it may be advertorial, there is no additional support in other publications for the claim that Australian manufacturers have been found guilty of counterfeiting, sales figures for Australian manufacturers (which is largely a cottage industry) would be unavailable (and again, no additional support in other publications), and Deckers, whom the article is about, are known to use Chicago law firms to protect their IP online, although there are no substantiated claims that Deckers ever used the author's particular law firm.

Anyway, this has been kicking around for a while, and although consensus is currently against using it, the idea of bringing it here for neutral evaluation seems fair enough. The discussion is at Talk:Ugg boots#Another new source - hopefully I summarised the main points ok. - Bilby (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

While a newspaper does qualify as a reliable secondary sources, the listed statements make strong unsupported claims. If no other sources can be found that mention the same facts, while not quite a WP:REDFLAG, the statements seem more opinion than actual verifiable facts. Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to quote them as an opinion piece ( Jim Davis wrote...) like in WP:NEWSBLOG--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess that would be a way forward. :) My only concern there is that it would seem to be providing authority to Jim Davies, in the sense that it would read like we're reporting Jim Davis' opinion on the basis that it carries some weight. I'm happier attributing claims to an individual, I think, when that individual has recognised expertise. But I guess that's also a matter of how you read the attribution. - 06:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you say Jim Davis "is a freelance writer who is a partner in a Chicago law firm," I will assume good faith. Thanks for doing the research and confirming that for us Bilby. There appears to be only one person named Jim Davis fitting that description (a partner at the McAndrew firm;[3] Deckers is a client of a rival Chicago firm), and he specializes in patent and trademark law, which means that he has recognized expertise and his opinion does carry some weight. No conflict of interest, recognized expertise, what's not to like? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is that Davies is not an expert in sales of ugg boats in Australia, an given the lack of other sources, I can't see why we should regard him as having any specialised expertise on the matter. In regard to the second claim, accusing Australian manufacturers of being guilty of counterfeiting is a very strong claim, and I think warrants a very reliable source. I don't see a freelance writer with a possible COI in a small paper as being sufficiently reliable, without at least some other support to the claim. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You've already established that there is no COI, since Davis is apparently a partner at McAndrew Held & Malloy, not the firm employed by Deckers. Mainstream fact-checked news organizations often cite their sources, but not in all cases and there isn't any mention of such a requirement in WP:NEWSORG. We already know about the Vaysman case, involving a manufacturer in Melbourne, Australia who was ordered by an Australian court to stop counterfeiting UGG brand boots, and that's been confirmed by several reliable sources published in Australia.[4][5][6] Davis is in a position to monitor legal and trade publications that may not have an online presence and are not susceptible to Google searches by Wikipedia editors; and in my opinion, this is most likely where he got the disputed information. We have obtained a neutral opinion from Luke Warmwater101, a previously uninvolved editor. Unless there's a reversal of this opinion by previously uninvolved editors, let's accept it and move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The source says "manufacturers", and you've shown one person who sold counterfeit boots (not even clearly a manufacturer). Simply, I don't believe that a puff piece by a lawyer in a small newspaper is enough of a reliable source to accuse multiple Australian manufacturers of counterfeiting, or to trust data that hasn't been published anywhere else and is unlikely to be available even to experts in the field. So far, the only person to believe it is sufficiently reliable to express as facts is you. This does suggest that you are in the minority.

In regard to Davis, it has never been shown that he doesn't work for Deckers, who employ at least one Chicago lawfirm, and who are particularly active in IT-related cases. The tone of the piece is so glowing about the company I'd be inclined to assume that he did have a COI, but we haven't shown that, either.

As an aside, as mentioned before, WP:NEWSORG doesn't guarantee that specific articles should be taken as reliable, but instead judged on a case-by-case basis.- Bilby (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We have an opinion from a neutral third party and I don't care to watch everyone repeat all these arguments. WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies. No COI has been proven. Unless you can prove that Deckers is a client of the McAndrew firm, rather than a rival firm, you have only suspicion, innuendo and guilt by association based on geography. If that principle (or lack of principles) is applied across the board, no editor from Australia should be allowed to participate in the editing of this article. Unless there are more opinions from previously uninvolved editors who can be trusted to be neutral in this dispute, it's time to accept Luke's decision and move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The writer in the news article makes a number of claims about sales figures, salary figures and employment numbers. Davis makes so many specific claims that the entirety are called into question. Where does he get his facts? We cannot determine, he says nothing about his sources. The implication is that he was fed figures by Ugg boots promoters, because the tone of the piece is "puff" promotion. As an information technology guy working in a law firm (not a partner in it!), Davis appears to have no expertise in the topic. I cannot recommend using any portion of the newspaper puff piece as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bilby seems to have discovered evidence that Mr. Davis is an attorney in patents and trademarks, and a partner at the McAndrew law firm. I'm inclined to believe him. His area of (non-exclusive) practice appears to be IT related technology, according to his bio. But that doesn't disqualify him as an expert in patent and trademark law. If you have something negative about Deckers to add to the article from some other source, let's discuss it. (Personally, I believe the only negative material has always been described with tender, loving attention to detail in the section about the Uggs-N-Rugs case.) But is there anything negative about the company that hasn't already been described at tiresome length, and can be added? And if not, how is the accurate representation of positive facts by Davis fairly described as a "puff promotion"? The Journal Star is a mainstream, fact-checked news organization. The two of you appear to have an issue with the way Davis wrote his article. That doesn't undercut the reliability of the facts he presents. All these objections are addressed by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

P&W, I cannot believe you are still editing Ugg boots. I cannot believe you have not been RfC'd and been given a lengthy topic ban. Dang.

Bilby's research appears to me to be a case of mistaken identity. IP specialist and Law Partner James L. Davis Jr went to U of I College of Law, not ISU. The partner of a law firm is rarely, if ever, inclined to write for a backwater newspaper, not with their time worth tons of money per hour but the news item paying peanuts. IF the partner in a law firm writes an article, he is never credited with just his high school in Peoria and his university without mentioning the law firm partnership. I beliieve that our Mr. Jim Davis is a right-wing political hack who is definitely NOT a partner at a Chicago law firm but rather a mere IT guy. I credit him with Daily Caller pieces such as this: "It's ironic that Obama is getting credit for bin Laden's death". The Daily Caller Davis is "a freelance writer and IT specialist working for a major Chicago law firm. He has been observing corrupt Chicago politicians (from a safe distance in the suburbs) for nearly half a century." "The suburbs" mentioned in this DC bio corresponds neatly with the PJ Star bio which says Davis lives in Glendale Heights, a suburb of ChiTown. There's a world of difference between an IP specialist partner and an IT specialist employee. The IT guy, who often sits around doing very little at more than one company I know, definitely can find the time to write articles for online opinion sites and for small newspapers. But IT guys are not experts in Ugg boots sales figures! Not a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a brief aside - I didn't identify Davis. That was made by another editor on the ugg boots talk page. If it is incorrect, then that just continues the mystery as to who it is, and reinforces that we have no idea as to whether or not he has any special expertise on the subject. - Bilby (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Binks: Thanks for your lovely observations and best wishes to you as well. Perhaps it was Wayne who identified Davis as the law partner at McAndrew. Here in America, attorneys might attend ISU at the undergraduate level and U of I for law school. I will add that I've done a little checking of my own by calling the Greer Burns & Crain law firm, the only firm in Chicago known to have Deckers among its clients. There's nobody named Jim Davis working there. Call 312-360-0080 and see for yourself. Any COI accusations against Davis are lies, motivated by bias. Regardless of that, I keep stressing that it's a mainstream, fact-checked news organization and although it's very clear that the two of you and your many Australian friends really, really do not like it, it's a reliable source and the only neutral, previously uninvolved editor who has bothered to comment agrees. If the fact checkers at the Peoria Journal Star were satisfied that the sales figures and counterfeiting accusations by Davis were reliable, then Wikipedia is also satisfied that they are reliable. The fact that Davis did not cite his own sources is unfortunate, but does not negate WP:NEWSORG. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, I honestly think it's long past time for the article to head to arbitration. We've got Phoenix & Winslow, a persistent Deckers-line editor here who has SPA "ugg boots" accounts on half a dozen or more foreign language Wikipedias who seems intent on erasing one kind of meaning from Wikipedia (in all languages), is quite happy to ignore consensus for his own edits but will cling to the letter guidelines things like WP:NEWSORG introduce ridiculously dubious sources - I think everyone agrees that it is dubious, whether it qualifies as WP:NEWSORG or not - and who, while he will never acknowledge repeated defeats as he shops around the forums for people to agree with him, quite happily accepts one neutral editor whose post seems to contain strong reservations and tends toward neutrality as validation of his views. There's no arguing with someone who clearly is involved on half a dozen different language versions of Wikipedia for reasons other than informing people about every facet of reality. Like the entry on "Scientology", while the huge company intent on extreme search engine optimization stands to gain from a particular view being presented, there's no hope for the entry on ugg boots as a generic concept.Mandurahmike (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The fine folks at ArbCom will kick it back downstairs because the problem's gravitational center can be identified as Phoenix and Winslow. They will say that arbitration is not needed, just the lesser correction of reining in P&W. It's high time for an RfC. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Arts & Opinion; book review

May the arts/culture/politics magazine Arts & Opinion be used as an RS--for the specific purpose of mentioning a book review that is contained in the magazine?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Ith has an editorial board and contributing authors, articles are not written by the editors, and it publishes on a regular schedule. I don't see anything in the couple articles that I browsed that make me nervous. I'd say go for it. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Its editorial people don't appear notable, they do write quite a lot of the articles, and the list of major past contributors includes (the first one I checked) a "reprint by permission" of an article that Noam Chomsky had actually published elsewhere. I'd gladly be persuaded that Arts & Opinion is independent and reliable, but I'm not persuaded at first glance.

Tell us what Wikipedia article this is about, and which book review. Andrew Dalby 12:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Arts and Opinion's submission guidelines, they also solicit submissions of reviews rather than writing them in-house. Not very professional. This is because Epeefleche wants to use it to attest the notability of Onward Muslim Soldiers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• The wp article is about the book, which is the subject of the book review. The sentence in question in the wp article is "A 2008 review of the book in Arts & Opinion by Bassam Michael Madany describes the book as a "much needed guide to understanding the true nature of Islam, and its attitude to the rest of the world". The AfD by Ros on the article has already closed, as a "keep".

--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

...a non-admin close which looks like it's about to be reopened for being improper. In any case, it's irrelevant; the publication's editorial policy is questionable and in particular its process for running reviews from whoever feels like submitting them disqualifies it as a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• More responses here would be appreciated, as Epeefleche and another user are persisting in restoring the material even though there is no consensus that it is cited to a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I see that the review is by Bassam Michael Madany who "was the Arabic Broadcast minister of Back-to-God Hour, the radio ministry of the Christian Reformed Church, from 1958-1994. He is the author of The Bible and Islam: A Basic Guide to Sharing God’s Word with a Muslim". Here is his book for interest which appears to be about bringing "the Gospel to Muslims" and spreading "the liberating Word of God". I don't see why his review would be considered significant or the source reliable. It falls more into the "questionable" and "promotional in nature" areas of WP:RS I would have thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• The instructions for submissions here state "PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE NON-PROFIT. WE DO NOT REMUNERATE." That sounds kind of like "we print whatever we can get people to send us for free" to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Sarek. Are you suggesting that only publications that pay for opinion pieces submitted to them are RSs? I also note that sources may be considered reliable for statements as to the opinion of the author, while not for statements asserted as fact (e.g., with op eds and book reviews). If a book review opinion statement is not authoritative, as here, we attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. The publication itself does appear to have a full dozen-person staff. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

External Link

Hello, I have a conflict of interest in placing an external link on a Wikipage because I am the webmaster for the website. The subject Wikipage is dementia I write articles and give advise on behalf of dementia care workers and associates on the subject of dementia. Many of the articles are written by dementia care workers and then put onto the site by myself. We have very good knowledge of dementia with hands on experience from people who have worked with sufferers of dementia and other related disease for many years. I believe that we can add great value to Wiki with the website that we want to provide the link to. The domain name is www.dementia.co.uk I believe that we can provide information on the subject of dementia as good as any other website that has been given an external link on the dementia page. I have raised the issue on the dementia talk page but have been asked to raise the subject here. Thankyou for reading John cordingly (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks more like a case for Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard which deals specifically with links. Siawase (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks John cordingly (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Hindawi a RS publisher for this content?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not reliable for proposed use, per WP:MEDRS

• I am closing this as the discussion is moving towards the exclusion of RS/N editors, and the discussion is avoiding answering of the RS/N question, due to a general discussion occurring. As a long standing RS/N editor I have recently closed a number of disruptive discussions of a similar kind.
• Editors are reminded that if they wish to see outside opinions from RS/N editors, then they should not continue conversations from other forums on RS/N
• User Granateple is reminded that contributing too much to a discussion damages the quality of that discussion
• Editors reminded that RS/N is for discussing specific issues of reliability, not general discussions of reliability
• Editors reminded to follow RS/N procedure as listed at the top of the page—this includes the discussion being focused primarily on the specific instance for reliability, not a general discussion of reliability
• Editors are strongly reminded of WP:IDHT and the disruptive nature of multiple contributions in an IDHT mode
• Hindawi published journals have a presumption against them, due to their academic publishing model, but specific requests for RS/N investigation are required before a journal, article, use on an encyclopaedia article, and fact can be ruled out
• Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism ISSN 2090-0732 has as presumption against its reliability for medical articles
• Anderson and Taylor (2011) "The Metabolic Syndrome and Mind-Body Therapies: A Systematic Review" in Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism (2090-0732) is not reliable for claiming that Transcendental Meditation has "demonstrated blood pressure-lowering effects similar to primary antihypertensive medications" as:
  1. The publisher is not a fit place to make medical claims relating to blood pressure (as opposed to nursing), for the reasons outlined in discussion: "(ii) by a commercial publisher that is on a watchlist for possible predatory vanity publication by virtue of producing a large number of journals without an adequate editorial staff to undertake the review that it claims to be doing, and it noted for spam solicitation of content; (iv) that is not listed on MEDLINE; (v) is not listed on ICMJE; (vi) is not listed on CSE; and (vii) concerns an article outside the scope of the publication"
  2. The publication is not reliable to make the claim that Transcendental Meditation has "demonstrated blood pressure-lowering effects similar to primary antihypertensive medications" as the review is a review of "A systematic review was conducted to critically evaluate the data from clinical trials examining the efficacy of mind-body therapies as supportive care modalities for management of the metabolic syndrome.", the claim arises from only one study (Paul-Labrador), and thus is a republication of a single study result and not a reviewed finding. Republication of a primary source's claim does not make that primary source secondary.
  3. For valid potential claims arising from this article, within the scope of its claims, see the conclusion, "In light of the important role … this paper highlights the need for such trials of mind-body therapies with regard to the management of the metabolic syndrome, given the relative absence of such studies in the literature, as well as the mechanisms of action involved in mind-body therapies." These valid nursing medical claims contained in an appropriately published review article are a long way from the extraordinary claim derived from the Paul-Labrador study, that has not been appropriately medically reviewed alongside sufficient similar studies to make any such claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I've moved a general comment from here to dealing with a specific source and publisher, Hindawi: Is this a reliable source for this content?:

A 2011 independent systematic review reports the same findings and says that randomized controlled trials on TM have "demonstrated blood pressure-lowering effects similar to primary antihypertensive medications". This review said that research on TM "supports the potential clinical effectiveness of mind-body practices in improving indices of the metabolic syndrome".

• Article: [7]

• Article discussing Hindawi:

[8]

• Discussion from medical librarians

[9]

• Hindawi: current impact factor...2.35

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Open_Access_Journals_and_related_issues as this involves a specific issue with WP:MEDRS. Attempting to "move" the discussion here looks like forum shopping. Fladrif (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a suggestion to move that discussion here. As well I am asking for input specifically on one source rather than a more general discussion about open access Thanks.(olive (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

That source and a number of others is already under discussion, and your move comes after the initial comments at Project Medicine were unfavorable to your advocacy of those sources. The comment you refer to was that the issues created by "open access" journals are not confined to medicine alone, but the issue at hand is whether the particular open access journals being cited as sources meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS Fladrif (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It was my suggestion to move it here, as it was not a medicine specific question. Forum shopping doesn't enter into it. The question raised there was too general for that venue. To reformulate: "Are pay-to-publish open access journals intrinsically unreliable sources like vanity press books?" This is a question that to my mind is worthy of some guidance in wp:RS. Further, I think that guidance should be nuanced, and should also solicit input from wp:WikiProject Academic Journals. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict

Fladrif. I am, as I said, referring to a specific source rather than a general discussion and this is the proper NB for that as was pointed out by an uninvolved editor in the discussion you are referring to. Further, I am not interested in your assumptions about my motives. If editors here feel this discussion is of no use they don't have to comment. I note that your post not only did not refer to a single source but attempted to trash all of the sources in one article which as far as I can tell isn't the way get neutral comments or to deal with content and sources in a specific way. I very clearly pointed editors here to the more general discussion.(added link later, apology). I also posted on the TMR article talk page to notify editors working on this of my post. Did you do the same? (olive (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

I find your arguments convincing, User:olive. And Fladrif: There is no shame in admitting you are on thin ice regarding Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Granateple (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful in trying to generalize a discussion of a publisher with all the journals that they publish. For example, Elsevier is generally reliable as a publisher, but it publishes journals that would not be generally considered reliable for general medical information (such as Homeopathy). If there is specific questions about specific journals, they should be discussed separately. I think a general discussion about pay-for-publishing is an important discussion, but any discussion about the underlying specifics should probably be discussed separately so that we don't muddle the discussion. Yobol (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes. I agree. This post is in reference to a specific source rather than being a general discussion.(olive (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

Good point, Yobol Granateple (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yobol is spot-on with that observation. Each journal should be considered on its own practices, publishing houses are rarely in a position to trump the editorial decisions on a month-by-month basis even if they do have some sway over the selection of editors-in-chief. Indeed we would not want them to have that kind of control. One strong indicator for biomedical journals is whether or not they appear on the list of Journals Following the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. The Uniform Requirements is a set of best practices collaboratively crafted over many years by the ICMJE. Neither the Journal of Nutrion and Metabolism nor Homeopathy are on that list. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Further, the Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism which is the particular Hindawi publication in question, not indexed for MEDLINE [10] and the particular article at issue "The Metabolic Syndrome and mind-body therapies: A systemic review" [11] would seem to be either outside or at most on the periphery of the scope of the publication, raising a red flag per WP:MEDSCI, and has been cited exactly once.[12] Fladrif (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

”Nutrition and Metabolism” (academic journal): Not currently indexed for MEDLINE, but all of their articles are listed on PubMed.

ICMJE lists “Acupuncture in Medicine” and “Pharmacognosy” (herbs), but not Nature medicine, Cell, or Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Sometimes we eat (Nutrition) and something happens (Metabolism). Granateple (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS there are multiple ways of judging RS sources so while an indicator might be inclusive it cannot be exclusive as long a there are multiple ways of identifying reliable sources.

"The Metabolic Syndrome and mind-body therapies: A systemic review" is on the periphery of "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism"? I don't see that reasoning.(olive (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

MEDLINE indexing is a very low bar to clear for sourcing on medical articles. That the title has the word "metabolic" in relation to the syndrome doesn't make clearly related. The journal website says their content is "focused on the integration of nutrition, exercise physiology, clinical investigations, and molecular and cellular biochemistry of metabolism"; outcomes research on "mind-body" techniques seems somewhat outside that limited scope, as it doesn't have anything to do with nutrition or biochemistry/metabolism. These issues, plus the pay-to-publish problems, seems to make this a less than ideal source. Yobol (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Stress can cause high blood pressure. Some people find meditation relaxing. What’s the big deal?? Granateple (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the topic in general, this is a place to discuss whether the source is reliable. Please refrain from further distracting the discussion with off topic discussion. Yobol (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's try not to confuse Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism ISSN 2090-0732 with Nutrition and Metabolism (London) ISSN 1743-7075 or Nutrition and Metabolism ISSN 0029-6678. That said, being open access leads to full-text carriage of the former pub in PubMedCentral, which diminishes the rationale for PubMed indexing. Lack of PubMed indexing in such cases should not reflect discredit on the journal, rather the reverse.

Clearly I should have been more explicit. We were not discussing long-established journals (such as Cell, Nature, etc.) which are so prominent that they are widely known to most readers. We are discussing new-minted, relatively low-circulation journals known to few. Indeed, the ICMJE list could reasonably be put alongside the list of Member's Journals of the Council of Science Editors as being presumptively credible journals. That list does include Cell, Nature, and Journal of Clinical Oncology. The [World Association of Medical Editors resource list] also has some useful linkages. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification regarding the different nutrition journals, much to digest!

Everything we do affect our biochemistry and metabolism: walking, a discussion on Wikipedia, meditation, having sex, thinking, sport activites etc. This is called catabolism. “Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism” is published by the respected Hindawi Publishing Corporation. The Editorial Bord is unfortunately full of peoples connected to universites around the world.

The question whether this particular review belong to this particluar journal or not, that’s a side track. It could have been published in another journal, if it got through the peer – review process, but I find it unlikely that the topic (a bit uncommon) fits that many journals.

Since we unfortunately have to pay to get published in academic journals these days, that’s also a side track, as I perceive it. Granateple (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has to pay to have their work published in quality journals, they merely have to pass the peer review and editorial process in place to select those articles worthy of publication. The incentive for journals like Nature to publish only reliable articles lies in their need to maintain their reputation. In contrast, Hindawi and its stable of pay-to-print publications have no reputation for the quality of their articles, being hardly ever cited in other mainstream publications. They actually have an incentive to publish anything of whatever quality since they are paid for that. The journals simply do not display the reputation for fact-finding and accuracy that is required for a Wikipedia WP:reliable source, let alone the high quality expected of any source making a medical claim per WP:MEDRS. They have no place in this encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the meaning of "pay to publish" in this context? It's entirely normal for reputable journals to assess page charges. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RexxS: I find your opinions interesting, but also one-sided. Perhaps not for you, but many people have to pay to get published these days. This also has to do with the gradual change from traditional journals towards open access – journals. And I think it is fair to assume that Hindawi must think about its reputation, and that the peer – review folks have some self-respect. But the business aspect also holds true: publications becomes ever more numerous and specialized. And when the first sentence in WP:RS read “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”, then I think you are a bit too harsh when you say that Hindawi and their journals (have a look at them and the content) have no place in this encyclopedia. We accept news sources and medical information resources. As a matter of fact, I find your opinions not very convincing and also unscientific. Granateple (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that RexxS's information seems incomplete. Especially in the sciences, many highly-respected journals make page charges, so in effect the author (or the author's research funding) pays for publication. It's always been the case, ever since the 15th century, that notable authors sometimes pay to get notable work published. Andrew Dalby 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Granateple, I find your badgering of everyone who comments at this threat troublesome. A question was brought here for outside opinion and you need to let other folks offer that opinion without you intervening on every comment you don't agree with. We heard you the first six times, and you have nothing new to offer other than repeating the same mantra about the reliability of Hindawi and their journals. The truth is that although some respectable journals may make charges, not all of them do, and that is a world of difference from a unknown publisher such as Hindawi actually having a business model that relies on accepting payment-for-publication in the same way as a vanity press does for books. Hindawi journals have no reputation and are almost uncited among the mainstream. Those are the key issues: their business model is merely the reason why they have no reputation. They have no place in any serious article or in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm criticising myself (see above) as well as others: too many criteria are being thrown into the pot here if the real issue is one sentence from one paper in one journal.

The way to see whether that paper is worth citing is whether other reliable publications elsewhere have cited it. If none have, the authors' view may still be well worth citing if their other work is regularly cited elsewhere. If these are borderline issues, we may still think it's worth citing their view with an in-text attribution to their names. If the paper and the authors are never cited elsewhere, we should forget them and look for a different source. Andrew Dalby 19:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

”The impact factor, often abbreviated IF, is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to articles published in science and social science journals. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones.” (source: Wikipedia)

We obviously have different kinds of mantras.

Clinical and Developmental Immunology, impact factor 2.263. Mediators of Inflammation, impact factor 2.059. PPAR Research, impact factor 2.727. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, impact factor 2.964. Journal of Nanomaterials, impact factor 1.675. Comparative and Functional Genomics, impact factor 1.361. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, impact factor 2.468. Advances in High Energy Physics, impact factor 1.846.

The impact factor for these journals are not of the highest, but at the same time not too bad. To say that this research doesn’t belong in Wikipedia, that I find peculiar. Granateple (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be emphasized that the Impact Factors for open access journals are almost certainly inflated because they are open access (indeed the main selling point of these open access journals is that they will inflate the coverage). That these journals only have mediocre Impact Factors despite being open access says much. Agree with RexxS that we should be using better sources. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion and as such editors may discuss, oddly enough. So far there is a lot of information here from everyone and the environment is pleasant. I hope we can continue that way. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

From what I've seen so far, the main problem with Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism is common to any new journal. It is new. This means it hasn't developed a readership and its articles (whether good or bad) are not seen much by experts who might otherwise spot their strengths and weaknesses. It is quite normal for new publications to take five years before even an impact factor is assessed. Open Access journals grow a bit quicker than paid-subscriptions, but it still isn't instantaneous. We have wp:NODEADLINE. We can wait a few years to see if citations appear in the existing journals. Otherwise, the experts' silence will have spoken. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have informed WikiProject Academic Journals about our discussion. Perhaps they will give us their opinion? Granateple (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a list of "predatory" journals here, which mentions Hindawi on a secondary "watchlist" of journals that are not as predatory but still somewhat questionable, and a lot of discussion about Hindawi specifically in the comments. (Note that I don't consider the posterous link to be a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, but I still think the previous discussion of the same issue there could be useful for informing our discussions here). My own impression of the Hindawi discussion from that source is that they do publish some (many?) reliable journals but that it might not be appropriate to give a blanket assumption of reliability to all of their journals. I have no opinion on the specific journals concerned in this question, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, David. This is an interesting piece of information and it might indicate a problem. However, what do you make of this article [13], and this discussion [14] (pasted from above).(olive (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

Thank you, David Eppstein.

olive: I think you should be allowed to use your review about relaxation/meditation and high blood pressure in the Transcendental Meditation article. The clinical findings are straightforward and would have amused the violinist Albert Einstein. Perhaps the journal is not reliable enough to be used as reference in the “Hypertension” article, but for the TM article I think it is okay. If it belong somewhere, it must be there. Now I withdraw from this discussion, and I wish you good luck. Granateple (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you input Granataple: I guess the best thing to do would be to wait a bit more time until posts stop coming in, but I'm not attached to this source.There are many good secondary sources that can be used. I just want to make sure that if we decide to not use this source it is for the right reasons and that those reasons are neutral. There has been a lot of good input here and that's great .(olive (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

olive: I think you should not use your review about relaxation/meditation and high blood pressure in the Transcendental Meditation article. It is not published in a journal that meets our standard of reputation for fact-finding and accuracy. If it's not reliable enough to be used as reference in the “Hypertension” article, then it's not reliable enough for the TM article either. The reasons for not using it are founded in WP:V WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, rather than in Granateple's belief that if they repeat something often enough, somebody might believe it. It really is beyond a joke that the editor engaged in the earlier discussion, lobbying for the inclusion of that source, and has now posted 9 times in this request for outside views on the reliability of a source. How is anyone supposed to draw any conclusions with this sort of interference? --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that comment doesn't make sense to me. The reason we're at this NB is to get input on whether the review does in fact meet our standards. The allegation was that because it was open access or pay to publish it could not be reliable but there are multiple comments here that indicate that may not be the case. Fladrif suggests this is a vanity press and that doesn't seem to be the case,either. I've also linked to an article and to a discussion that indicate the journal may be well regarded. So in my mind right now we have a draw. I'd like ton see what David Epsteinn has to say and then see what any other editors have to add. At that point I feel I and the other editors on the article can make an informed decision. I'm not attached one way or the other and I 'm not in a rush to push this with out good information which I feel we are getting. Thanks for your opinion and comments.(olive (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

A draw? I have given a number of reasons and other uninvolved editors have offered additional reasons why this is not a reliable source aside from it being pay-for-play, and I have read not a single reasoned argument by any editor as to why this journal and this article would be considered a reliable source. If I may summarize, yet again, the comments that have been made here: this is (i)an obscure, low-impact, relatively new journal (ii) by a commercial publisher that is on a watchlist for possible predatory vanity publication by virtue of producing a large number of journals without an adequate editorial staff to undertake the review that it claims to be doing, and it noted for spam solicitation of content; ((iii) which charges authors for publication; (iv) that is not listed on MEDLINE; (v) is not listed on ICMJE; (vi) is not listed on CSE; and (vii) concerns an article outside the scope of the publication,raising a red flag under WP:MEDSCI. While there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether an open-access journal that charges authors publication fees is an automatic disqualifier as a RS, there is not a single uninvolved editor who contends that this journal and this article would qualify as a source for an article on medical research per WP:MEDRS. The single uninvolved editor who originally stated that the publisher is respectable and could be used has now conceded that this source should not be used in a medical research article. Neither of the articles you linked to concern this particular journal. I would say the matter is settled conclusively that this source is not a RS and not compliant with WP:MEDRS. Fladrif (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arabs in Turkey

A number of users insist on including a reference putting the number of Arabs in Turkey at more that 8 million, 10 folds more than US and Turkish estimates. Is this source reliable enough to be included?

• [15]

Compare with [16] and [17].--Rafy talk 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously the Turkish source you cite talks about Turkification (see the Kurdish part). The population of Hatay province alone is 1.4 Million of which two-thirds were Arab according to your "US source". Another article puts the number of Arabs (only native speakers) at 365,340 and Kurds at 2,219,502 as of 1984. If we use the numbers from Turkey which show 15.7% of the population is Kurdish, with the same proportions (given that Arabs and Kurds live together in the same areas) from 1984 we will get 2.6% as the Arabic native speaker proportion (equivalent to 1,905,216 people). Again, this only considers native speakers knowing that many Arabs have lost their language during successive Turkification campaigns. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard should only be concerned with the claims found at http://www.turkiyearaplari.org. Other issues can be discussed at the talk page of the article.--Rafy talk 21:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Deutsche Presse-Agentur at Monsters and Critics

While Monsters and Critics itself, to my knowledge, isn't an RS, this news story about Qian Zhijun is credited to the Deutsche Presse-Agentur. So, is it alright if I use this link right away, or should I try to find an alternate URL or a print source with the same information? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I see the same story hosted on rawstory.com WhisperToMe (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing for a claim of prophecy

1. Is a claim of prophecy (whether or not given in Wikipedia's voice) an extraordinary claim, and thus subject to WP:REDFLAG?
2. Is the claimant's own writings, published by the publishing company he founded, an adequate source for the claim?

• The article is Calvary Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (History section)
• The claim is:

While Chuck Smith was still a member of a denominational church, he claimed that a prophecy came to him in which the Lord said to him that He was changing his name. His new name would mean "Shepherd" because the Lord was going to make him the shepherd of many flocks and the church would not be large enough to hold all of the people who would be flocking to hear the Word of God.

• The source is: Smith, Chuck & Tal Brooke (2003) Harvest. pp. 23. ISBN 0936728426, The Word For the Today Publishers, www.twft.com

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think REDFLAG is the issue; Wikipedia has hundreds of pages related to religion in which we somehow manage to cover exceptional claims in a neutral way. I was going to respond that the question was why we considered some guy's self-published stuff important enough to include in an article, but then I double-checked and some guy is the founder of the article subject, so it should be fine. Ideally the article would be based primarily or entirely on coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources so as to ensure due weight, but it's not inadmissible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• The article does not state that a prophecy occurred. The article states that someone said he had received a prophecy. This is hardly extraordinary, but rather happens quite commonly in certain religious circles. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Trying to take the two questions in a straight way.

• 1. Of course not. It would be REDFLAG if WP treated the prophecy as true, and reliable sources did not.
• 2. A prophet's own words would be good enough for the words of the prophet, for example if the prophet had a blog. But there are sometimes questions about whether interviews, blogs etc are really those belonging to the person whose opinion is being cited. As long as that is not an issue, no problem.

...but obviously this begs the question. Notability is much more likely to be an issue. And notability for a prophecy involves not only the prophet but also people who believe him or her.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be noted that the initiating editor has withdrawn the point on the original talk page. Perhaps this thread is ready to be closed? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Original paper"

I removed this reference:

Daniel Dady (2010). Harmonic and Subharmonic Distortions in Musical Interpretations (PDF). Daniel Dady.

from the article on Subharmonic, and wrote on the talkpage: "I have removed the references to an "original paper" by this photographer. Unpublished original research cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as a WP:Reliable source." The ref has been restored to the article by an IP editor. Time to ask for some input from others, see if anyone agrees or disagrees. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a self-published source. The author is not "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" See WP:SPS. A quick search of Google, Google Books and Goodle Scholar shows no books or papers produced by him on this or any other subject matter published other than on his own website. Thus, it is not a reliable source, and your removal of it was entirely correct.Fladrif (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to the same place as the author of the paper. Definitely doesn't meet the sniff test. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Methamphetamine#Synthesis

Could someone please review the sourcing in Methamphetamine#Synthesis? That section has been drastically expanded several times larger over the past week, apparently in response to concerns about WP:NOTHOWTO on the talk page, where the editor who has done this expansion explicitly rejects peer reviewed sources. Is it kosher to include this kind of chemical synthesis detail based on news reports and law enforcement press releases for a substance known to be an extremely dangerous scorge in part because synthesis is frequently attempted by inexperienced drug addicts? Seriously, getting this wrong kills addicts and innocent bystanders alike. Shouldn't our normal peer reviewed standard apply to keep potentially dangerous information out of the most obvious place that desperate addicts will look? 71.33.165.131 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Our policy is unambiguous: NOT CENSORED. That something is dangerous or illegal, does not mean it cannot or should not be described. Our job is to provide information: controlling the misuse of it is the responsibility of whatever society considers to be the appropriate authorities. If something is so dangerous or secret there are no available sources, or that it is illegal to publish the material in the United States, that's another matter. Otherwise, the only exception, where we would avoid using published material because of the danger, is when it provides undue coverage about a private individual, according to WP:BLP. This cannot be generalized to social problems. Of course the article must primarily use peer-reviewed sources in discussing the synthesis, but for information about the prevalent current illegal methods, any openly published RS is appropriate. The current material does not seem in the sort of detail that would violate NOTHOWTO. HOWTO would be describing the amounts, times and temperatures, and similar practical detail--as in any recipe. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

New York International Independent Film and Video Festival

Is this a "major" film festival such that winning an award at it makes a film notable per WP:NFILM #3? I argue that it is not; not only does the guideline name awards like an "Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes...major festivals such as Venice or Berlin" as the standard, of which this festival falls far short, NYIIFVF is particularly questionable because it's generally acknowledged as a scam. Multiple independent sources describe exorbitant entry fees, acceptance of submissions based on what filmmakers can pay rather than on quality of the film, large number of categories such that nearly every entry (again, entries are not accepted based on quality) wins an "award," and in general a festival that caters to people who can't get their films screened at any reputable festival. In short, I argue that NYIIFVF would probably not fulfill the criteria of a "major" award anyway, but the fact that you are essentially buying an award rules it out completely. The other user argues that it is "major" because it has its own distribution company and magazine and, according to its promotional material, has screened films of notable people, and also that it is notable and therefore reliable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confrontation at Concordia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Do you have any reliable sources to verify what you're mentioning? Why I ask is because I see sites like the New York Mayor's office which list this festival. That is enough to qualify on our NFILM benchmark, which is just supposed to be a secondary qualifying benchmark. Academy awards et al are mentioned in the guidelines just to clarify that they should not even be questioned. Wifione ^Message 16:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Among others, IndieWire (the independent film industry magazine), the Village Voice (I can get it in LexisNexis - it's from November 1997 and called "Fest and Loose"), and the Las Vegas Mercury. Can you clarify what you mean by "secondary qualifying benchmark"? I ask because users at this discussion are responding to my pointing out that it lacks reliable sources by saying that it won an award so it doesn't need to have reliable sources - which is questionable to begin with, since, as I said, this is not a "major" festival like those described in the guideline and also is essentially a pay-for-your-award service. It's "an expensive talent showcase, where artists are asked to pay for the opportunity to show their work." We don't accept Xlibris, Lulu, and other print-on-demand books as sources, and this looks like a similar deal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • None of the sources you mention confirms that the festival allows its awards to be bought. It may not be the best festival, but is it the worst? Do correct me if I've missed something in the citations. A 'secondary qualifying benchmark' means that if a film has won a film award, there would be in general other, multiple, reliable sources for the film. So, having won an award is simply a saving grace during an AfD. But in repeat AfDs, if there have been no other reliable sources added still, then there's quite some weight to the argument to delete the article. Wifione ^Message 19:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear that it was a figure of speech. If entries are accepted solely on the basis of what the entrant can pay (per sources), and if "awards" are almost guaranteed to any entry because of the large number of awards available relative to the number of entries (also per sources), that's pretty close to putting down money for an award; I don't think the award can literally be bought. I don't think the festival would have to be "the worst" in order to disqualify it as a major award - just as the perfect is the enemy of the good, so too is the worst the enemy of the bad, I suppose. Again, take a printed source as a comparison: Edwin Mellen Press isn't as bad as Xlibris or Lulu, which are literal print-on-demand services, but its reputation in the relevant circles is as a vanity press with no editing/fact- or quality-checking where people take their books if they can't get them published with a real publisher. Re: award as sole source for notability, I wish some of the commenters at the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confrontation at Concordia) thought the way you do! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I understand what you're mentioning. Unfortunately, till the time you provide references that confirm awards can be bought, this festival should qualify on our awards guidelines as we've deliberately not set any standard on this issue. Re: the secondary benchmark, the footnote in the guideline by the side of the awards sub-point already contains what I mentioned. You could perhaps ask them to see the footnote and question why there are no other multiple reviews of the movie despite it having won an award... Do you think that would help? Wifione ^Message 22:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I've already provided references that amply demonstrate that this is not a reputable festival, and the guideline as it currently exists doesn't indicate that it would do even if it weren't pay-to-play. This is not Cannes or Venice... as for the folks at the AfD, some haven't even responded to my comments about the festival so I don't know what good it would do. I'm not one to vote at an AfD and then abandon it to the four winds but everyone's different. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out which one of the sources you cite say you "buying an award", or something close to it? I don't see it. Jeff Song (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This piece in Digital Producer (second page) is the most direct about it, but source after source states it's pay-to-play, that it's not a real festival, and that most of the films are rubbish ([18], Village Voice, [19], [20], [21]) and the founder is explicit about the fact that they don't care about the quality of the films. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to all the other negative comments about the NYIIFVF that have come up in this discussion, I note that the festival is specifically singled out by the Internet Movie Database as a festival for which screenings do not qualify a film for listing in the database. [22] It is not even close to being a "major" festival within the meaning of WP:NFILM #3. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll disagree. Your link provides evidence only to the extent that films are accepted for screening in the NYIIFVF film festival on a mass basis. This does not provide evidence that awards can be bought. Till the time there's a clear, valid, reliable link that proves that awards can be bought, NYIIFVF qualifies easily on the standard we've included in NFILMS. The standard was not meant to restrict awards to major film festivals. The standard is a saving standard; in other words, in case a movie has won an award at a film festival, there is a good probability that reliable sources would exist that have reviewed/covered the movie. We're not talking about screening of films (and those are a dime a dozen in NYIIFVF); it's about getting the award. Wifione ^Message 05:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• An alternative - on the talk page of NFILMS, provide reference to this discussion, list out all the sources and request that NYIIFVF be explicitly excluded from the awards notability criteria. Let's go by consensus there. Do you think this suggestion works for you? Wifione ^Message 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm referring specifically to the quote in Digital Producer which says "I mean surely the prizes can't be bought (throw in that buzzer one more time) WRONG! I started to watch a film and literally had to leave, it was so bad and -- you guessed it -- it won an award." But yes, bringing it to a more specific place could be a good idea, although the films wikiproject might be better than NFILMS as being more watched. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That quoted bit is perfectly clear to the reader who is expected to understand sarcasm. Combined with the other negative sources, I would have to say that the festival cannot be used to help Wikipedia recognize a film as notable enough for an article about it. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

City Pages?

I'm reviewing a DYK nom and wanted to double-check if a City Pages obit is a reliable source. (The hook fact relies on it) The citation's here: http://blogs.citypages.com/gimmenoise/2005/10/tetes_noires_founder_polly_ale.php. Thanks! - Khazar (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

City Pages publisher is now The Village Voice. Maybe that's what you are asking about? -SusanLesch (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I wasn't familiar with the website and should have poked around on there more before asking. If they've won Minnesota journalism awards they're clearly a good enough resource. -- Khazar (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Khazar. Also I fact-checked this with the Minneapolis Star Tribune music critic. We're good to go. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh. The guy from the Star Tribune thinks "outsiders" think Minneapolis is the same thing as the Twin Cities. Frankly I think he couldn't be more wrong. (If I for example wrote that Garrison Keillor is from Minneapolis, I am confident it would be removed, or moved to the Saint Paul article, in under an hour.) Pardon me while I argue with him. But since City Pages is a good source I won't follow up here. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Call of Duty Wiki

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Call_of_Duty_Wiki

Is this a reliable source for gaming or Call of Duty related subjects, particularly about stuff in-game?

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, wikis and other user-generated content are never reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything that is in game could be cited by the content of the game itself (ie quotes etc)--70.24.204.79 (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Machine-history.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defense of site

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Elias Howe I did not add a link here. Only a scanned image from the September 10, 1846 Scientific American article. Maybe a sentence of info. Why protest this?
• Letord Let.7 I started the article, added info from the periodical,image and link. There are now no references on this article. Information with no reference does not seem right to me.
• Refrigeration I added info on 'other methods' and a reference to machine-history.com and Scientific American to back up the text.
• "those links would be convenience links at best." The same material can be found nearly as easily elsewhere from a more reliable source. Where can you find the article at [23] elsewhere? Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Wikipedia makes it so even the common person without making an appointment with the National Archives can learn and do and not have to pay a fee.
• webpage is not a true scan, it is HTML text: Who wants and can use only a scanned picture of text? With text, search engines can find pertinent information. I scanned the periodical article then used OmniPage Pro 14 an (OCR) Optical character recognition
• I have some other sites: that I may have added text to some of Wikipedia articles. Please rate them and tell me if they disqualify. electric vehicle conversion journal install journal About my father, cold war Naval Photo-recon pilot (many Navy photo's see the video of him If you go the the USS Intrepid in New York and see the display of the arresting system the center of the 5 cables is missing. Dad broke that cable and I have that photo he later took)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzi (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

Health Science Journal (f/k/a ICUs and Nursing Web Journal)

In the Wikipedia article Transcendental Meditation research, an article published in the Health Science Journal[24] is cited twice as a source. Health Science Journal, formerly known as ICUs and Nursing Web Journal is a 5-year old, online-only from Greece the Technological Educational Institute of Athens. In stark contrast to most scholarly journals, it sells advertising. [25]. It carries a rather striking disclaimer as to the reliability of the information contained in the articles it publishes:

The information at this website is provided with the understanding that the publisher, authors, editorial board members and experts are not rendering nursing, medical or professional services. Nursing is a rapidly changing science, so efforts are being made to provide update information that is professionally correct through the review of the recent bibliography and the use of approved quantitative and qualitative research methods. However, there may be mistakes both typographical and in content, and subsequent findings may invalidate what is posted on this journal. The material provided should be used only as a general guide and not the ultimate source of information and should not be used to make personal or professional decisions. The authors, editorial board members, experts and the publisher shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information presented in this journal.

It is not listed or indexed on MEDLINE, PUBMED, ICMJE or JSE. One would need a microscope to see its impact factor.[26] The purpose and focus of the publication is nursing, but more specifically, ICU and critical care nursing. [27]

The specific article being used as a source is Varvogli, L and Darviri, C, "Stress Management Techniques: evidence-based procedures that relieve stress", Health Science Journal Vol 5, Issue 2 (2011) p74( [28] The article summarizes ten stress-management techniques, one of which is Transcendental Mediation, with a description of the History/Origins, the Method/Pathophysiology, and claimed Results/Benefits, with extensive footnotes to various primary and secondary sources for each technique. The ten methods were selected because they are taught in the authors' programs or used in their own research. (p 81)It concludes that all ten techniques "are effective treatment methods for reducing stress and anxiety....improve the quality of life for patients and in many cases contribute in the reduction of disease symptoms" It further concludes:

However, the literature shows that there is a need for more extensive randomized control trials of the aforementioned stress reduction techniques in order to establish their usefulness in the prevention and management of disease. There is also a need to include more biological measures in order to quantify symptom reduction and investigate the pathophysiological mechanisms connecting stress, disease and health. (Ibid)

The purpose for which the source is being used in the Wikipedia Article is in stark contrast to the conclusions of the paper itself that more extensive randomized control trials are needed and that there is a need for more biological measures to quantify results and investigate the mechanisms involved. The editors using this source are instead cherry picking from the narrative description i the TM section, then using that to bootstrap primary source studies that the authors are simply reporting on rather than analyzing or comparing to other studies:

Reviews in 2010 and 2011 reported a 2009 study by MUM and American University researchers on 298 college students that found decreased blood pressure in the TM group that was associated with a reduction in stress and hostility, and an increase in coping.

According to research reviews, a retrospective, non-randomized study that examined the health care utilization records for over 2,800 subjects in Quebec found that the 1,400 subjects in the TM group needed less health care after learning TM, whereas the control group’s need increased. These preliminary findings "suggest the potential for decreased usage and costs among patients using TM."

___

I have raised this issue at the talkpage for the article with input only from the two involved editors advocating use of the source.[29] I do not think that this journal has acquired a reputation and acceptance which would qualify it as a source under WP:MEDRS The sale of advertising and the prominent disclaimer raise a red flag for me. The scope of the article would appear to be outside, or on the periphery of the focus of the publication raising a concern under WP:MEDSCI. The use to which the source is being put, to bootstrap primary sources being reported on but not analyzed by the authors, where the authors conclude that there is a need for more careful randomized control trials, is an improper use of the source.

The closed discussion above regarding Nutrution and Metabolism[30] would appear to be instructive, though there are distinct issues involved.

Assessment and comment by uninvolved editors would be appreciated.

Sorry for the length of this request.

Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My objections to this source mirrors the objections I had to the other source in the other thread above; namely, not MEDLINE listed and publication of material outside the area of usual content of the journal (in this case nursing). Probably should be finding a better source. Yobol (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Any other uninvolved editors care to weigh in pro or con? Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nasim Yousaf

Nasim Yousaf is a grandson of Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi. He has made his living as an exporter of textiles but has also written numerous books and articles about both his grandfather and his uncle. There are a series of websites dedicated to the former and on which Yousaf seems to be the sole contributor - basically, hagiographic sites + promotion for their publications. Most of the publications have been through AMZ Publications - eg: this, and the publisher's website suggests that their primary output is in fact works related to import/export rather than biography/history/political science etc. Yousaf apparently lives in the US now & I would not be at all surprised if AMZ is operated by him.

Yousaf's books and related websites are being used as the major source at Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi, despite my attempts to remove them as being, imo, unreliable, COI, SPS. Am I correct regarding reliability issues? I need some sort of consensus that can be pointed to if in fact I am (and if I am not then, well, lesson learned!). - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that we have an article on AMZ Publications, created by User:Beautycare, who also created Nasim Yousaf. Their sole author appears to be Yousaf, per GBooks (is there a way to search WorldCat by publisher?) - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

Yes JanetteDoe (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't verifiably self-publication, perhaps; let's just say there's no evidence that the publisher adds any reliability to these books. We would need, at least, evidence that they are cited in reliable scholarship before we could treat them as reliable. Andrew Dalby 16:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked whether he was cited by others and could find nothing that was of note. Is there no register of companies in New York? I'd put money on him being a director of AMZ. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The New York State Division of Corporations does not seem to list this business. The publisher's website doesn't seem to list any more specific physical address than "New York", and the contact email is a yahoo account. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am more and more sure that this entire thing is a massive case of puffery. Two related articles are at AfD - here and here - and as I dissect others it is becoming clear that there really is not much substance to the various claims etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Korean inventions and innovations and Hwacha

I would like some input on editing that has taken place on these articles based on two references that User:Koryosaram has used to make a very bold statement that the Hwacha was the "worlds first multiple rocket launcher". I have looked at valid references online and while the Hwacha is mentioned as being a multiple rocket launcher of Korean invention there is no reference to it being the "worlds first". I do not believe that the two references which are in Korean are reliable enough to be used to call an invention the "worlds first" especially when books on the subject make no mention of this. The two references in question are [[31]] and [[32]]

There is a debate on the subject here [Korean_Nationalism_Knows_No_Bounds]. User:Koryosaram seems to have a Korean POV from the edit history I looked at and I want to be sure that Wikipedia is not being used to re-write history. Any help or input will be appreciated. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A flat statement of fact as the "world's first" anything is an extraordinary claim and per WP:REDFLAG requires multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject, i.e. the agreement of historians and scholars around the world, regardless of nationality. What do non Korean military historians, university texts, etc. say about the Hwacha? It may well be the worlds first multiple rocket launcher, but we need more than a couple of Korean websites as sources for that statement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• LuckyLouie, your answer was what I believe to be the right answer in this type of situation, I just wanted to get some outside opinions. I do not usually edit articles related to Korea but ran into this by way of research on an article I plan to write on a related Japanese subject. I have no POV on the subject either way, I just do not want to see history written or rewritten without proper proof.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Chiswick w4.com

I'm not sure what this is. Can somebody look into it. It is meant to be the local website of Chiswick in the UK. I want to know if this particular article [33] can be used a source. They announced in the article that an actor had been casting into a TV series. Would this count as a reliable source to use for casting information?Rain the 1 22:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean that it's the "local website of Chiswick in the UK". As near as I can tell, this is a website of w4.com, which is a PR firm. I can't tell if the "article" you've linked to is from a legitimate news source that is being forwarded by the site, or if it's a thinly-disguised press release, presumably for the school. Either way, I'd be inclined to say that this is not a RS. Fladrif (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should of phrased it something along the lines of a website covering information about Chiswick. The information turned out to be 100% correct - so it is a unfortunate that it doesn't meet RS.Rain the 1 00:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily unfortunate. I mean, if you have verified that it was in fact correct using other reliable sources then this one is merely irrelevant. Plenty of unreliable sources nonetheless contain correct statements, even when they are self-published or the UK gutter press etc! - Sitush (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Findmypast.co.uk

Moneysuch8 (talk · contribs) is replacing book sources with links to the index of this site. Actual details are hidden behind a paywall. Any opinions on how good a source this is? --John (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Commercial genealogical site != generally accepted as a "reliable source." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Such sites usually have their information sorted by subscribers, effectively turning it into a user-generated source. Even if they are sorted by professionals, it's kinda WP:OR to say "this record is indeed about the person this article is about." Howard Eliott Payne, though not the most popular name ever, is not uncommon eough that we can conclude its the same individual, especially when it contradicts prior sources (unless more sources are found showing the first sources were wrong). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - nonsense. Users CAN NOT edit birth records for England and Wales. What are you talking about?!!?!? You're complete making that up - if you can log in, every record even has a scan from the birth register. Also, in regard to the original post - I replaced one book source as no editors are able to view that. Even if findmypast was all hidden behind a paywall, which you are incorrectly claiming, that doesn't make it any less useful than an autobiography of an artist very few libraries for example would ever have.

Moneysuch8 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)}

And in regard to Howard Eliott Payne, it certainly is an uncommon enough name to use the service. There are few Howard Payne's born in England since 1970, and there is only one recorded for Liverpool whcih also has the middle name Elliot. An article from a website which likely sourced the information from Wikipedia itself isn't reliable.

Moneysuch8 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't nonsense. Libraries have books which users can check for free. Books are generally better sources as they go through a fact-checking process. --John (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the claim that anyone can edit the England and Wales birth records on findmypast.co.uk. That is complete nonsense. Re your comment - official records are "generally better sources" than any book. Moneysuch8 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Moneysuch8, do not twist my words. I said "sorted," not "edited." Reread my original post in this thread.

Also, Google books keeps scans of most books. The insistance on using findmypast is starting to seem promotional... Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Findmypast is partly behind a paywall. You can search for free, but if you want to see the primary records, you have to pay ([34]). It's not clear how much editorial oversight the owners of the site have over the data. I'm curious why Moneysuch is so interested in adding links to this particular service to so many articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Isee Ian Thomson is now stalking my edits. Creepy. And is repeatedly claiming that he has some consensus to revert my edits, despite the only response to this question prior to him giving it any attention was in support of using findmypast as a source. Claims that I am affliated are verging on delusional. It's clearly a reliable source, and I don't believe it's right that you are stalking my edits with no conensus backing you up. You've even reverted the edit to Kunal Nayyar, despite the fact there is only one Kunal Nayyar born in the UK at any point. And is also citing this discussion to back himself up that you can't use the site as a reference which is totaly incorrect.

Moneysuch8 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking aren't appropriate in this forum. So, why are you focused exclusively on this website?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it's a great source for referencing birth details? And reverting every edit by someone, and using this discussions to pretend they have a consensus that you can't use findmypast as a reference is stalking. Is it acceptable for someone to revert all my edits, citing this discussion and claiming it is against using the reference - when that isn't correct and the first person to respond to it was in favour of it? Please answer me that.

Moneysuch8 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you find any support for the source in this discussion except you? Can you find any dismissal of the points raised against the site, except your attempt to avoid the issues of WP:OR and user-generated sources? Again, you do not have proof that you have the records for the individuals in the articles. I'm simply removing instances of that source, and could only be considered stalking if adding a source to a site that profits from people visiting is all you are here for. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• (cross-posted to User talk:Moneysuch8)I'm going to step in here (as an uninvolved admin) and put down my foot. Findmypast.co.uk is behind a paywall; they require registration and payment for every single record they find which matches the searcher's criteria. I can assume good faith up to a point, but the combative attitude exhibited by Moneysuch8 exhausts it. There is more than a whiff of promotion going on here, and it's going to stop until there is a consensus that it is an acceptable source. Moneysuch8, if you add another link to findmypast.co.uk before there is a consensus that it meets our sourcing guidelines, you will find yourself blocked. Horologium (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems a good idea, Horologium.

Although there's no rule against linking to pay sites (if we know them to be reliable), it's much more helpful to Wikipedia readers to reference free sites (if we know them to be reliable) and books (which can be found in libraries). It's a very bad thing to remove other references and link instead to a pay site. Andrew Dalby 09:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• As an aside to the reliability of this site - I have access to it and it records 'date registered' for a birth not 'date born'. As with Noel Redding born on 25 December (Christmas Day) is unlikley to registered until the next year. Registration and birth date are not the same things. It also records the place the birth was registered. This not always the place of birth particularly with those born in large cities which have a registration office covering several districts--Egghead06 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an important point. Moneysuch8 has been changing birth dates and places on the basis of this not-quite-relevant information. They may all need to be reverted. Andrew Dalby 12:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's taken care of. I was using his contribs page to find additions of the site. While it's used elsewhere, the additions I could find did not appear to be replacing older information but were the first source used for some information. While it would be better that another source be found, I didn't have time for that, nor the resources. Do we have a tag for "need better source," and some bot that could slap all instances of findmypast? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Would seem this site is again being used as a reliable source following changes to Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell - this time by an anon ip user!.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Mitch Mitchell, the information inserted disagrees with his Telegraph obituary (which says he was born in Ealing, not Greenwich). So I've edited, inserted what the Telegraph says, and cited it. We don't really know, I guess. Obituarists can make mistakes. But the Telegraph says born, not registered, so it is our normally-reliable source offering precisely the information we want, while findmypast is not. Andrew Dalby 15:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree: obviously the General Registry Office (GRO) of England and Wales is a very reliable source. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its name has occurred in this discussion before, so I don't know whom you're disagreeing with! If the information on findmypast is copied from there (is that what you're saying?) then of course it's reliable, if we're sure the copying is correct. But my point remains: this isn't the information we want. Our text and infoboxes aim to say at what date and where someone was born, not at what date and where the birth was registered. The two things normally happen on different dates, and often in different towns. Andrew Dalby 10:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The information on findmypast is a digitisation of the information supplied in the GRO Index for births prior to 1984, information since 1984 is a direct copy of the information supplied by the GRO. But as noted above it only records the quarter (prior to 1984), month (since 1984), of registration and the registration district of the event. Keith D (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we've got to be weary of using primary sources this way. Just because you can find someone's name on a site that lists dates of birth doesn't mean it's actually the guy the article is about. When editors start delving into primary sources, without the guidance of a good secondary source, original mistakes start to creep into articles. I've seen this happen numerous times. Honest mistakes. It's not OK to assume that so-n-so has a 'rare' name and equate a birth/death record to him. We got to have some dicipline - if we can't find so-n-so's birthdate in solid sources, so be it. Also, I don't think it's a good idea to remove a solid free source and replace it with a commercial/paywall one for no reason - it's almost slimy.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ansumane Mane

Anyone have any thoughts on what is going on at this article? An editor has repeatedly removed two published sources for a YOB on the plain assumption that they "copy from Wikipedia". I'm sick and tired of this and an not going to edit war again, and this time, seek comment. – Connormah (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The person died in 2000, his supposed birth year was introduced in Wikipedia in 2005, and the only "reliable sources" you can find for this date are from after 2005. So you have two possibilities: 1) the Wikipedia editor had a reliable source in 2005 which has now disappeared, 2) there was no such source, and the newer sources simply copied the date from Wikipedia. I do not believe I have to proof that 2) is true, nor even that it is more likely than 1). The mere reasonable possibility of 2) is enough not to accept the post-Wikipedia sources. And it is in fact highly suspicious that no source should exist from during the person's lifetime or from the time of his death, yet years later sources just happen to appear after a date appeared in Wikipedia. I don't have to mention how all the most "reliable" sources have been caught many times copying errors from Wikipedia, so in general it should not be admissible to source any previously added information using a source dating from after it was already in Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You forget the third option, the authors wrote and found out. Your WP:OR has no place on wiki, the sources are perfectly reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrote what? Mewulwe (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrote to find out his DOB. What the hell did you think I meant. You may also wish to stop accusing BLP's of plagiarism. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrote whom? I didn't (and still don't) know what you meant, that's why I'm asking. And what BLPs? Where did I accuse a biography of plagiarism, and how is that even possible? You are not making much sense, and your tone is uncalled for. Mewulwe (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How about wrote to his family? Or the the registrar for births and deaths? You are accusing the authors of the sources you keep edit warring out of the article of plagiarism, so stop it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Any chance we can get some legitimate outside comment here? – Connormah (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

George C. Kohn and John Middleton are both published historians, authors of multiple books cited repeatedly in our articles; Thomson Gale and Facts on File are both reputable reference publishers. The fact that they confirm a fact that used to be in Wikipedia without a citation does not make them unreliable or the fact wrong. --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Beside the point. No one disputes the sources are RS by the usual standards. But even the most reliable source is not to be blindly copied without using common sense. How can you know the fact is not wrong? We know RS have copied errors from Wikipedia before, and it is suspicious that the only sources for that date are from after it appeared in Wikipedia. As I said, I don't think I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they copied the fact from Wikipedia; you would have to prove that they didn't, and you can't. If you disagree, tell me your estimation of the probability they copied from Wikipedia - surely it can't be zero - and then tell me your threshold of probability above which you would no longer use the source - is it only if it's 60% likely they copied from Wikipedia, or 90% or what? Mewulwe (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

On the main issue Mewulwe is right. Those two sources are what we would call "tertiary", and those two publishers have published bad books as well as good ones. We certainly shouldn't trust those books on a fact like this -- only slightly relevant to their ostensible subjects -- without knowing how the authors researched it. Very likely they did copy Wikipedia, though obviously we can hardly know it now.

The question is, what should we do? Perhaps there never will be a reliable source. I think what I would do is (a) to leave our question mark in the text and infobox, and (b) to add in a footnote the fact that these two books give a firm date and that they cite no source. Andrew Dalby 16:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think they're wrong? Wikipedia didn't invent the unreliable source, you know, if they had written the exact same thing they could equally likelily have gotten it from another unreliable source; why does it make such a big difference when we added the information to our article? In general, we don't ignore respected historians just because we wrote something first. If they had written a date that disagreed with what we had in our article, would we be having this discussion? If there were a specific reason to think they were wrong, that would be one thing, but I can't see treating anyone who happens to agree with us with greater suspicion just on that principle. --GRuban (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it equally likely? Do you know of another unreliable source that had the same date in 2005? And do you really think they would equally likely copy from, say, some random person's private website as from Wikipedia? If their date disagreed, we would not have the discussion because they couldn't have copied it from Wikipedia then and there would be no specific reason to doubt it. Mewulwe (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I say Mewulwe is right "on the main issue". You're right when you say "they could equally likelily have gotten it from another unreliable source"; you're right, it doesn't matter which. These books are tertiary sources (which in general we deprecate), they do not say where they got this information, and we have no reason to suppose that they are reliable for this information. Andrew Dalby 11:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything in that chapter is sourced to the following.

"Brooks, George. Landlords and Strangers: Ecology, Society, and Trade in Western Africa, 1000–1630. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993. Chabal, Patrick. Amilcar Cabral: Revolutionary Leadership and People’s War. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Forrest, Joshua. Lineages of State Fragility: Rural Civil Society in Guinea-Bissau. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2003. Koudawo, Fafali, and Peter K. Mendy, eds. Pluralisme Politique en Guine´e-Bissau: une transition en cours. Bissau, Guine´-Bissau: Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisa, 1996. Lobban, Richard A., and Peter K. Mendy. Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, 3rd edition. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, 1994. Lopes, Carlos. From Liberation Struggle to Independent Statehood. London: Zed Books, 1987. Mendy, Peter K. ‘‘Portugal’s Civilizing Mission in Colonial Guinea-Bissau: Rhetoric and Reality.’’ The International Journal of African Historical Studies36, no. 1 (2003):35–58. Pe´lissier, Rene´. Naissance de la Guine´: Portugais et Africains en Senegambie, 1841–1936. Orgeval, France: Pe´lissier, 1989. Rodney, Walter. A History of the Upper Guinea Coast 1545 to 1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970.Rudebeck, Lars. Guinea-Bissau: A Study of Political Mobilization. Uppsala, Sweden: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, 1974. Rudebeck, Lars. On Democracy’s Sustainability: Transition in Guinea-Bissau. Gothenburg, Sweden: SidaStudies, 2001."

It would appear to me they have done their homework. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So which of these was the source on Mané's date of birth? Andrew Dalby 14:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Do you honestly expect me to track down and search through those sources? My point was the book in question was obviously well researched. There is absolutely no reason to assume the authors used wiki as a source, given wiki is not mentioned in that chapters Bibliography. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You have to look beyond the issue "Did they use wikipedia"? Please re-read what I have written and you'll see I haven't based my opinion on that -- because, of course, I don't know. On this board we're asked whether particular sources are reliable for citation on particular pages for particular items of information. I think Mewulwe is quite right to doubt whether these sources are reliable on Mané's date of birth, and that's why I suggest citing them in the footnote but not using them to insert a firm date in our text or infobox. That's it from me on this: hope I've been able to help. Andrew Dalby 15:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than track down and go through all the sources, why not just contact the author and ask him which source he used and work from there, rather than just speculate? I can give that a try and see how it works out... Canadian Paul 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Very good idea. Andrew Dalby 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do contact the authors, good for you, but as a rule, expecting us to personally contact the authors of all our sources is ridiculous. I yet haven't heard any reason for doubting two respected historians other than "they might have gotten it from us", without any evidence for. The "respected historians" part would seem to be a strong piece of evidence against. Without it, the argument seems to be that no work published since the launch of Wikipedia can ever be trusted again. I reject that wholeheartedly. --GRuban (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is simply that Wikipedia had the date first, and no previous source can be found, and there's plenty of precedent of otherwise reliable sources having copied from Wikipedia. Indeed no secondary source should be trusted for information that was in Wikipedia before. I can imagine you reject that because it makes sourcing harder in many cases, but it is better than risking circular "certification" of falsehoods. Mewulwe (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest contacting authors as a standard procedure but, since there seemed to be no consensus, I thought that it might help. Per the evidence below, however, I think I can skip that in this case and we can maybe agree to just leave it as c. 1939 cited to the New York Times article? Canadian Paul 17:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Right, as of November 24, 2000 he was 61. [35] Without knowing for sure which month he was born in it is reasonable to presume he was born 1939/1940. As we have two sources saying 1940 we can go with those. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If he was 61 in 2000, 1940 is right out; it would be 1938 or 1939. Mewulwe (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you figure that? 2000-61 = 1939. If he was born at the end of the year then 1940 is perfectly plausible. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If he was born in 1940, he would only have turned 61 in 2001. If he was 61 in November 2000, he was born between November 1938 and November 1939. Mewulwe (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. To be 61 on 24 November 2000 he'd have to have been born between 25 November 1938 and 24 November 1939. 1940 doesn't work. Andrew Dalby 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information"

I have a quick question.

If information from a website is used as a reference on wikipedia, but that website says that they cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information on their website, can I still use it as a reference on wikipedia? Satinmaster (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)— Satinmaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See a few sections above. TenOfAllTrades puts it well:

This sort of standard disclaimer is common and entirely unremarkable. For example, the New York Times offers, in part, the following disclaimer:

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY CONTAIN INACCURACIES AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY FACTS, ADVICE, OPINIONS, VIEWS, STATEMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION DISPLAYED ON OR DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE WEB SITE.

(In all, it runs to four paragraphs of ALL CAPS SCREAMING LEGALESE explaining why we can't hold them responsible for errors or omissions.) You'll find similar terms on the web sites of many of our generally-considered-reliable sources.

--GRuban (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But tell us which site, which page and what information. Andrew Dalby 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The website is accredibase.com and they claim to have a "group of experts" writing the reports. But list no experts. At least the NY Times does list the names of their experts.Satinmaster (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC))— Satinmaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks. I think people who know US education, which I don't, need to comment on this. What information were you hoping to cite from it? Andrew Dalby 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that the article in question is EUCLID (university), the source is accredibase [36], and that there is a lovely edit-war going on there. Accredibase is a UK-based commercial online directory of diploma mills created and maintained by Verifile.[37]. Before I get to the issue of whether or not this is a reliable source, a quick scan of its terms and conditions [38] would indicate to me that use of the database is confined to personal or internal use by the subscribers only. In light of that, I would not use it as a source on Wikipedia regardless of how reliable it may or may not be. Fladrif (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Commercial site. Looks like it is a good site, but WP:RS deprecates ones which require payment. Thus, alas, not usable IMO. The disclaimer is not part of this reasoning, however. Collect (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Satinmaster is an s.p.a. determined to discredit Accredibase (or anybody else who questions EUCLID) at any cost; he/she has taken this matter to as many venues as possible, in hopes of getting a favorable (i.e., pro-EUCLID) response. According to our education specialists such as Orlady, this is a reliable source; and while the use of paid information sites is not optimal, it is not a reason for denying us the use of a reliable source. See also Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Accuracy of information on a website and the further links provided there by Dougweller. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly a shock. There is almost always someone closely tied to the institution where there are disputes over unaccredited colleges and universities. Orlady is highly knowledgeable about that general subject matter, and I have great respect for her opinions on such matters. I would think, however, that in this instance there are alternative sources which clearly do meet the requirements of WP:RS, are not paywalled, and do not have restrictions on how subscribers may use their information. These sources [39] [40][41][42] would appear to cover the disputed subject matter adequately, and they clearly qualify as reliable sources. Fladrif (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We have to separate two issues or types of information here before we make judgement.

1. Information published by Accredibase to its paid members. This information is protected by user name and password and therefore not open to the general public. Such information simply cannot be referenced on Wikipedia. It will simply not be available for view to the general public reading the Wikipedia pages.

2. Information which Accredibase publishes to the public on their website. This information is not for fee and provided as a service to the public.

The argument over the inclusion of Accredibase information on the Wikipedia page for Euclid (university) concerns an Accredibase publication which was made public on their website. See here: http://www.accredibase.com/index.php?section=871&page=6001

More that that, this publication includes original documents which Euclid themselves provided to Accredibase. The Accredibase report on the status of Euclid was written as a consequence of Euclid approaching Accredibase and based on factual documents they themselves provided.

It is interesting that now Euclid via the editor Satinmaster are trying to discredit Accredibase in any way they can. We should not give them hand in doing so.

89.241.156.185 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with citing information unavailable to the general public; WP:V is clear on that count and this shouldn't even part of the discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

My initial concern was not that the site was paywalled, but that the TOU might bar use of the information. I see now that the information in question was not part of the proprietary database available to subscribers only. So, that is no longer a concern. Taking a brief look at the comments above and the talk page for these articles, I'm also starting to think that there are two competing agendas at work here, both driven by a COI: On the one hand, there is a pretty obvious effort to burnish the article on Euclid and remove anything critical. On the other hand, it looks to me that we also have some IP editors promoting Accredibase and its proprietary website and services. It's a pretty telling thing when one IP editor calls Accredibase "our website" [43] and another protests not that Satinmaster is trying to whitewash the Euclid article but instead "trying to discredit Accredibase in any way they can".[44], and both IP editors resolve to the same ISP and location. It doesn't incline me to sympathy toward give a hand to either competing agenda. Fladrif (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither the TOU nor the paywall are particularly concerning to me. But you're right in that it does seem that there is something fishy going on. I'm out of my depth, though, so I won't comment further unless I can better sort through things to make sense of them. ElKevbo (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In the past, I've been a bit hesitant to use Accredibase as a source, largely because much of the content they released publicly was self-promotional in nature. However, their work has always seemed solid to me, and I confess to having looked up some of their cited references and used them as sources. In the current situation, the issue is not Accredibase in general, but this report on Euclid University, which is much more thoroughly documented than anything I've previously seen from Accredibase. It seems to me that this report has the attributes of a reliable source. It does not name its human authors, but it's clear what corporate entity stands behind it, and it thoroughly documents its sources and reasoning that went into its conclusions. --Orlady (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I'm a bit perplexed about your statement that "WP:RS deprecates ones which require payment", and your conclusion that we are barred from citing sources held in private collections or databases only accessible to subscribers. As far as I can tell, there's no guidance on the topic anywhere in WP:RS; meanwhile, WP:V explicitly addresses (and endorses) the use of paywalled sources. While we should prefer free or freely-accessible sources to non-free sources when multiple alternatives are available, non-free databases can still be a valid and reliable source. I can't comment on the quality or reliability of this particular source, but the mere fact that they charge for access doesn't render them ineligible for our use. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct - there were discussions at one point on one page or another about using sites which specifically charged to look up information with terms of service barring resuse for any reason (I think D&B was at issue - whether information which their terms of service said could not be retransmitted etc. were a valid cite and whether Wikipedia counted as "retransmission"?) I seem to recall that if the terms said one could not reuse the information under the paywall terms that it could not be used on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone else could phrase this better? Thanks for the comment. Collect (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

See wp:PAYWALL. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• This essay, (Reliable sources/Cost) has been around for years. OTOH, I wouldn't consider closed databases produced for profit to meet a number of other required standards for a reliable source, mainly editorial control, being independent review prior to publication either in the scholarly or "commercially viable" mode. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Euclid under attack?

I think there is an Islamophobic agenda going on against euclid, as several of the more seasoned editors appear to easily swayed to side with anything in critical of euclid, yet immediately rv anything positive. Even an article that appeared in the official journal of the OIC [Organisation of Islamic Cooperation] the second largest IGO after the UN, was discounted as an "unreliable" source of info. But that is my opinion, which I assume I am now entitled to because I have been accused of working for euclid several times and nobody has been warned for it. Even I needed to point out the obvious with the IPs posting bad stuff comind from Bedford in the UK. Accredibase is also from Bedford UK. Maybe just a coincidence? But that is my opinion. Also, Accredibase claims to have a "team of experts" who work for them. But nobody from this "expert team" is listed, which is strange.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Satinmaster (talk • contribs)

Accusing experienced, uinivolved editors who disagree with you on sourcing issues of doing so in furterance of an Islamophobic agenda is unlikely to be persuasive. Fladrif (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

NLP in teaching and education

Can someone independent please comment on the acceptability of this source for the article on Neuro-linguistic programming especially in the context of teaching:

• Carey, J., Churches, R., Hutchinson, G., Jones, J. and Tosey, P. (2009) (foreword by John West-Burnham) Neuro-linguistic programming and learning: teacher case studies on the impact of NLP in education, Reading: CfBT Education Trust.

In their abstract the authors conclude that:

• "All of the case studies demonstrate significant impact in relation to teacher development, with many demonstrating positive impacts on pupil learning outcomes. The paper also contains the first systematic and comprehensive literature review of research evidence into the impact of NLP in education and discusses the content of 111 papers and references including quantitative and qualitative research evidence. The majority of published work was found to be supportive of the use of NLP in schools and education although, as the authors point out, this should only be considered as an interim finding because of the wide range of methods used and variations in the quality of some of the research." (from Abstract p.4) pdf link

This should be considered in the context of the:

• "occasional critical academic commentaries (Marcus and Choi, 1994; Craft, 2001), brief critical comments (Lisle, 2005; Burton, 2007) and at least one negative discussion in the popular press (e.g. Beadle, 2008) on the use of NLP in education." (Carey, Churches, Hutchinson, Jones, and Tosey, 2009 p.9).

• It can also be considered in the context of this conclusion by lecturer in psychology Roderique-Davies (2009) that:

• "after three decades, there is still no credible theoretical basis for NLP, researchers having failed to establish any evidence for its efficacy that is not anecdotal." (cited in the abstract, cited in Carey and others, 2009 as: Roderique-Davies (2009) "Neuro-linguistic programming: cargo cult psychology?", Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 1 Iss: 2, pp.58 - 63 doi:10.1108/17581184200900014.

• The differing conclusions become evident in this statement by Roderique-Davies (2009):

• "The core ideas of NLP from the mid 1970s were mostly discredited in the 1980s. Sharpley (1984) reviewed the research to date concerning NLPs assertion of a PRS and concluded that that there was little evidence for the use of a PRS in NLP, with much data to the contrary."(Roderique-Davies 2009, p.2).

In contrast Carey et al (2009) state that:

• ""the most recent peer-reviewed survey of the literature on NLP eye accessing cues argues that there is substantial grounds for further research and the need to identify appropriate research designs that avoid some of the methodological issues in many of the early studies (Diamantopoulos, Woolley and Spann, 2009)."...In conclusion they state that "the body of early quantitative education-related research in the 1980s generally appears to have failed to take into account that the effectiveness of NLP is likely to be the result of the application of several approaches at once (rather than isolated techniques) together with the context."

--122.x.x.x (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I reformatted the above to improve the ability of RS/N editors to comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Its worth noting that cfbt offer NLP training and one of the authors (at least) is an NLP practitioner. Given the report is self-published by a training providor its not really an independent source and would not stack up per WP:WEIGHT against material in refereed journals. It could be considered promotional. That said there is some useful material in there. To my mind it all depends on what edit you want it to support. --Snowded ^TALK 02:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

CfBT Education Trust is more respectable than simply self-published source but not as reliable as a high impact peer-reviewed journal. The Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education in which Roderique-Davies (2009) published is relatively new and has not developed an impact factor. The argument by Carey et al (2009, see quote above) rests on a critique of early research by Diamantopoulos, Woolley, and Spann (2009) which was presented at a NLP research conference sponsored by University of Surrey. Am I correct in saying that to hold much WP:WEIGHT, a critique such as that by Diamantopoulos, Woolley, and Spann (2009) would need to be published in a peer-reviewed journal rather than a university sponsored research conference dedicated to NLP? I wonder if this could be considered a valid source for a (tiny) minority view as per the WP:WEIGHT. --122.x.x.x (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a WEIGHTing issue. My advice is to obtain copies of everything mentioned in the "literature review" section of that commissioned report, and then obtain all literature review looking stuff mentioned in those. And then comparatively evaluate them. I'd suggest adding a journal quality factor to your WEIGHTing of the multiple reviews. I would suggest that a commissioned report, by an organisation supporting the technique discussed in the report, be weighted poorly for its conclusions. However, there is the obvious, "Academics contest both the validity and efficacy of NLP" and then going into the details of the contestation. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Authorhouse, LuLu self-published items

In Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus#The_History_of_the_subject_matter I see the start of a long self-publishing debate. I am getting tired of checking every single self-publsher, and authors such Cresswell who were previously determined as less than WP:RS. Comments on the use of Authorhouse, Lulu (company), Cresswell, etc. will be appreciated on that talk page. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Added it to my watchlist. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have extensively commented. I'm not aware of theologically specific source advice, but regarding the history and classics content, WP:HISTRS provides expert advice on what to cite to establish historical claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice:Discussion on change in policy at WP:MEDRS

A policy change is under discussion at WP:MEDRS here(olive (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

Machine-history.com

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

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

• Elias Howe I did not add a link here. Only a scanned image from the September 10, 1846 Scientific American article. Maybe a sentence of info. Why protest this?
• Letord Let.7 I started the article, added info from the periodical,image and link. There are now no references on this article. Information with no reference does not seem right to me.
• Refrigeration I added info on 'other methods' and a reference to machine-history.com and Scientific American to back up the text.
• "those links would be convenience links at best." The same material can be found nearly as easily elsewhere from a more reliable source. Where can you find the article at [45] elsewhere? Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Wikipedia makes it so even the common person without making an appointment with the National Archives can learn and do and not have to pay a fee.
• webpage is not a true scan, it is HTML text: Who wants and can use only a scanned picture of text? With text, search engines can find pertinent information. I scanned the periodical article then used OmniPage Pro 14 an (OCR) Optical character recognition
• I have some other sites: that I may have added text to some of Wikipedia articles. Please rate them and tell me if they disqualify. electric vehicle conversion journal install journal About my father, cold war Naval Photo-recon pilot (many Navy photo's see the video of him If you go the the USS Intrepid in New York and see the display of the arresting system the center of the 5 cables is missing. Dad broke that cable and I have that photo he later took)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzi (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

Latin music articles

I want to know if the following websites are reliable:

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

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

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

Unlimited Publishing LLC

I'm attempting to include content from Fatal Distraction: The War On Drugs In The Age Of Islamic Terror by Arnold S. Trebach, an author who has also published through Yale and according to an Amazon blurb was considered for a Nobel Prize as a result of his work on drug policy. I'm frankly having difficulty with the article on Virgil Miller Newton, with good faith efforts to find and include reliable sources rapidly reverted for BLP concerns, and no attempts made to help in securing acceptable sources [46]. Suggestions welcome. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Unlimited Publishing LLC is a small press, but not a vanity press, so this is not a SPS. The author is widely published elsewhere, including articles in scholarly journals that have been extensively cited by other scholars.[47] Agree with Darkness Shines, the source can be used for the author's opinions on the subject, with appropriate attribution. Fladrif (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

A royalty book publisher isn't a vanity press. Most reputable publishers are royalty publishers. It says that authors are never charged: Writers pay no fees. Neither readers nor writers are charged inflated prices for books.[48] I agree that the statements should be attributed, in particular, now that I look at the text at issue, the author is, among other things, characterizing two lawsuit settlements as the largest of their kind, which is a claim that is extraordinary, and should be supported by impeccable sourcing. But, with attribution, I think this source is OK. Fladrif (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

WP:SPS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Note that the book includes material from the author's 1993 book Legalize It?, published by the American University Press, part of Georgetown University Press. It wiould seem to meet the criteria for rs. TFD (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

montaguemillennium.com

A lovely site maintained by the Montague family, I'm dubious though that it is a reliable source - used in several articles (sometimes just as an EL) [49] but I can't find anything in Google books, for instance, that makes me feel that it should be used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

MLM Watchdog

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

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

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

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

Neuroquantology

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

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

Is news aggregator Yahoo News...

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

The same anon IP user has added more: [50] Writegeist (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC) And I have removed the IP's cites to the Ron Paul campaign website and Twitter. Writegeist (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Blog sources in Dennis Ritchie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karin Ikas, Gerhard Wagner, Communicating in the Third Space, 2008, p. 182.

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

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

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

The article isn't about "Polish-Lithuanian". It's about something different. There are many texts discussing the subject, eg. [51], [52],[53], [54], [55], why to use Wagner? Because a search "Polish-Lithuanian" lists it? Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Another genealogy site - roglo.eu

Is this site reliable? It has no indicia of reliability, not even an About to explain what it is, who manages it, etc. The domain's registrant is listed as "not disclosed" ([56]). An IP has twice added an Ancestry section to the Joseph Fiennes article (this version). I have twice removed it because, regardless of the reliability of the source, it's an absurd section to have in the article. But it would be helpful to have confirmation that the source is also unreliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

A Reliable Source

Fast Question: Does Wiki consider [[57]], the blog page dedicated to everything connected to early (1950s and 1960s) Hanna-Barbera a relible source. Radiohist (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Medical Hypotheses

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

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

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

Off-topic for this noticeboard
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The option of citing the book that the article summarizes: "Madness explained: Psychosis and human nature" instead seems to have been omitted. Actually, the push was to avoid WLU's removal of sources (without discussion) merely to camouflage the addition of a source in opposition to discussion[59]. WLU had expressed a determination to add his source BEFORE having read it: "I'll read and integrate it". (The camouflage worked - I didn't notice that WLU had added his source to multiple locations in the article. He also added a new paragraph dedicated to it's author, whom WLU has a long history of promoting.) Given that the text Bental was cited to support was critical of the DSM5, removing its citations would also have the effect of promoting WLU's preferred source. WLU chose not to address concerns that the author of his preferred source was also on the journal's editorial board, at least partially defeating the purpose of peer review. Notably, WLU only got involved immediately after I commented. BitterGrey (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC) This is not a place for discussing the content dispute, but to discuss the reliability of sources. The source presented is not reliable for use for medical claims. If you want to discuss other aspects of the dispute that is not related to reliability of sources, you will need to take it to a more appropriate venue. Yobol (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Route 66 (TV series)

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

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

It depends:

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

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

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

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

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

Continous reversion by a user who claims that all the references posted by me are not credible

I made edits in the article Kshatriya with a book written by RK Singh. Here is the link of the book [60] .

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

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

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

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

Op-Ed used for statements of fact

Is this Op-Ed[61] by a schoolteacher suitable for statements of fact. Specifically this section on Saudi Arabia [62] Darkness Shines (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• While I have your attention, would some of you comment on this [63] edit. Is reverting in unsourced, POV OR against the rules here or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

You just reverted in another Op-Ed as a source for statements of fact [64] 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources on Cary Sherman

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

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

Mandyk Khasman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dinosaursandman.com

At Ica stones an editor keeps inserting this self-published source. He's been told in edit summaries, on his talk page, and I believe on the article talk page that it doesn't meet our criteria, but he still keeps adding it. Are those of us who think it doesn't meet our criteria wrong? It's [65] - note that it's a rebuttal to a Fortean Times article & I'm guessing they wouldn't publish it, but that's not the point. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

University of Texas at San Antonio and Univision Channel 41 "News of the Day"

The UTSA published a story about a prison program founded by Prem Rawat being run at the local prison [66] and Univision Channel 41, the largest Spanish speaking network in the US, followed up with a news segment about the program which included Prem Rawat speaking.[67] The clip with English translation can be found here.[68] I would like to include a section from the UTSA article in the Prem Rawat article but some editors say that these are not proper sources.[69] Advice please.Momento (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

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

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

SouthCoastToday.com

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

Musicradar.com

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

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

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

Pratt family

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

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

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

Current Science

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

The line in question:

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

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

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

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

This is a borderline case. A couple of points to consider: (i) The paper is what the journal calls a "general paper" (i.e., broad discussion "of interest to readers outside the field"[70] rather than a research article or scientific correspondence. (ii) The journal's abysmal 0.78 impact factor speaks to its reputation in the relevant academic community. (iii) The fact that the paper was received on a Saturday (9 Feb 2008) and then accepted on Sunday (10 Feb 2008) is quite odd. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You also deleted another reviewed paper from Current Science [71]. That paper was received 17 March 2006; revised accepted 18 August 2006. It is clear that Current Science has a normal peer reviewed process. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

"Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal and therefore research and review papers of general significance that are written clearly and well organized will be given preference. All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision or rejection of the paper. It may be noted that papers once rejected cannot be resubmitted. Illustrations and other materials to be reproduced from other publications must be properly credited; it is the authors’ responsibility to obtain permission for reproduc- tion of figures, tables, etc. from published sources (copies of letters of permission should be sent to the editor)." [72] What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ?

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

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

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

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

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

The dean of the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries [73] put "Current Science" on a list of "peer-reviewed open access journals".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VulgarMedia.com

User:Publicmoney keeps adding the site VulgarMedia.com as a reference to articles about school districts in Texas. The site, hosted on WordPress, does not seem to establish itself in any form as a reliable source, but rather a "blog" presented in a professional, advocating manner. I removed the sources once per WP:ELNO, but PublicMoney protested[74] and added them back in saying that the website was verified and that my "personal opinion" that the site was a blog was incorrect. PublicMoney has made no other edits than to contribute this "source" to articles. Others reviewing this matter would be appreciated. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 17:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the links before I was aware of the discussion here. Concur with nsaum75; this is a simple four month old blog, filled with someone's personal commentary and OR. There is no indication of authorship, editorial control, or expertise. The site is a proxied domain based on wordpress, and the person adding the material likely has a conflict of interest. The rest of the material added with the blog seems neutrally worded and supported by the other reference given, so i did not remove that. I would question why the author chose to use his own lower percentages instead of those given in the source; but the math and wording of the addition are valid. Kuru (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You can see my comments here [75]. Thanks! Teitho (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is World Gazetteer a reliable source

Is World Gazetteer a reliable source [76] it is used as a source in many articles such as List of most populous metropolitan areas in Pakistan, List of metropolitan areas in Asia, List of metropolitan areas in the Americas, Metropolitan areas of Mexico, List of largest cities and second largest cities by country.

However it's reliability has been put in to question a number of times for example here, here and [77]. For a time it was used as the main source in the List of metropolitan areas in Europe article but it was decided to be unreliable and changed mainly because they didn't agree with it's stating that Liverpool/Manchester is one metropolitan area.

If found to not be a reliable source then many articles will need to be altered as it is used as a source in a large number of articles. Eopsid (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't see where it gets any authority from. There's other places like the CIA factbook and countries own ordnance survey sites and books which can be all considered as authorative without using something like this. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bentham Science Publishers

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

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

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

Help finding offline sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the first two: [78][79]. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Portuguese Hawaiian Roots for Bio info on Brian Haberlin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hephaestus Books

Hephaestus Books is a publisher that mass produces books which are little more than collections of Wikipedia articles. Authors have expressed dismay at how these books are misleadingly titled [80][81], and of course we shouldn't be using their books as sources. This has come up before but I couldn't find the relevant discussion or a list of the companies that do this sort of republishing. Gobonobo ^{T C} 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

One discussion is at [82]. Collect (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Collect. It looks as if Hephaestus is just another print on demand company recycling Wikipedia content like VDM Publishing and Books LLC. Is there an equivalent to Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for publishers where we can list republishers? Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks maybe? Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ask there - I suspect that someone there might agree that it is an idea whose time has come. Collect (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Collect, regarding circular references. RS/N isn't the appropriate group to directly maintain such a resource though. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I started Wikipedia: Republishers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Voice Chasers.com?

Does anyone have any knowledge of this site and its reliability? I wanted to use this to source voice actors. It doesn't SEEM user edited but maintained by a group. I have sent a message to ask where they source info from but thought i would ask here in hte interim if anyone has experience with it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a blog, there is no evidence on whether they check their information for accuracy, and they do ask readers to send in updates to the database. Not clear whether these updates are then checked or sourced. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Amazon.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the popular science book "Trick or Treatment" qualify an analytic claim?

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

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

To my mind, the original statements [83] were designed to be popular for the book's audience rather than a accurate scientific summary of research.

There are two notable reasons to doubt the uncompromising nature of both the claim and the original statements. Firstly, a Cochrane review concluded that a particular acupuncture technique is as effective as medication for nausea. [84]

Separately, a meta-analysis stated that electrical impedance studies are "suggestive" of a physical basis for acupuncture points and meridians. [85] Mindjuicer (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aha, I spy WP policy. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have proven the claim wrong.

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

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

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

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

twitter references

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

As one of the operators of XLinkBot, I am watching the feed of XLinkBot - XLinkBot is mentioning to me, that it can't revert an edit because the added external link is used as a reference. In the last 30 minutes, I have seen only three cases where XLinkBot mentions that the link is included as a reference - and all three were twitter.com links. That made me wonder:

• (33): en:user:92.7.85.175 - \btwitter\.com\b (http://twitter.com/#!/BretEastonEllis/status/168505561128775680) is included inside of a reference on Patrick Bateman, please manually check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476430225&oldid=475029925 .
• (43): en:user:72.204.73.48 - \btwitter\.com\b (http://twitter.com/#!/offspring/status/168625201934897152) is included inside of a reference on Noodles (musician), please manually check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476432965&oldid=474487523 .
• (45): en:user:Ali99911 - \btwitter\.com\b (https://twitter.com/#!/ApsaraAwards/status/162405412744855552) is included inside of a reference on Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai, please manually check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476433472&oldid=476432749 .

I have reverted 2 of these, and have removed the twitter ref of the third (as the other references take care of the info).

XLinkBot can however be set to revert on specific sites (rules) to revert references as well (rules defined in User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList). After these three, I was very tempted to add twitter, as most of the references are hardly useful as a primary source (2 of them are re-tweets and I don't even know if there is an original). Any thoughts on this - should we try and inform new and IP users when they use twitter in a reference that it is generally not a suitable reference and point them to WP:RS/WP:V? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe this notice board is for (mis)use of sources in particular articles. I believe any action that applies to all articles should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm .. looking at other sections here, I doubt whether that is the case. WT:RS would be to discuss the (wording of the) guideline, the noticeboard WP:RS/N for discussing references and whether they comply (generally) with said guideline. That does not necessarily have to be 'if this reference suitable for this page', but also general 'do we find this site a reliable site to generally use'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking whether Twitter in general is a reliable source is a bit like asking whether the World Wide Web is a reliable source. However, it seems reasonable to assume that all Twitter posts are self-published and hence reliable only for statements about the posters. However, we would also need to have some kind of reason to believe that the alleged poster is indeed the person or institution they claim to be. So the range of situations in which we could possibly use such posts for anything. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think generally a confirmed twitter account is acceptable as a primary source in the same way an official website is. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but as I say, that is reliable only for a rather restricted set of assertions. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So is any source really, it is only reliable as far the context permits it to be. The bottom line is no source is reliable unless it is deemed to be after the context is considered, so the term "reliable source" is indeed a misnomer before the fact, even something like the New York Times. However, generally we speak of reliable sources in terms of sources that are potentially viable reliable sources, and the New York Times falls under this category, and a confirmed Twitter account also qualifies as a potentially valid primary source, so we really shouldn't have a bot removing Twitter links because it is possible it is being used in the correct manner. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is, the bot would only revert the editor once and leave a post pointing towards the problems .. they can then always re-insert. If that goes right for 99% of the cases it is a small price for all the work that we don't have to do. It keeps Wikipedia better referenced, and reliable and, often, more relevant. Now a lot of that just stays. And this does concern, in many cases, BLPs. This is not on a site where it is more often the opposite. I mean, it is possible to misuse a CNN reference, but there it will be 1-2% misuse (and even less abuse), and 98-99% correct. Here it is maybe 1-2% correct, 10-20% misuse, and 80-90% abuse (note above, one of the tweets is of the type 'question? Answer!' - there is not a single proof that Answer was given by the subject, this could very well be a fabrication, and hence fall in the category abuse and maybe a BLP violation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I know about the problems, and the limits of Twitter. It is at the very best a self published source which is then only suitable for that type of statements. And then, most of those statements that are true and self published etc. fail that they are not encyclopedic anyway. Here comes my favourite Twitter example again: Britney Spears: For 'In 2011, Britney had cake with her father on his birthday', the Twitter feed I saw would have been a perfect reference. It is similar to the YouTube story: there are only few copyright violations on YouTube if you look at the total amount of video's, but of the ones that are of interest to Wikipedia, that fraction is significantly higher (the number of copyright violations on videos which are by no means of interest to Wikipedia in any form is likely close to 0; note that it slowly does get better nowadays).

The question basically is .. how often do you guys (who may have more of a look at references then that I do .. though my gut feeling is not good) actually see statements with Twitter references where you think 'OK, suitable' in comparison to statements that you blindly revert (as I would almost have done for all three of the above, I only checked one to see there were reliable references in the list). My guess is that if I tell XLinkBot to revert Twitter references (reverting IP accounts and non-confirmed editors), that the error rate will be in the order of 1-2%, maybe even less. Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I've said on other occasions, a 'confirmed' twitter account is only marginally more acceptable as a primary source than an unconfirmed account. Aside from those cases where we know their twitter accounts are run by a ghost writer (50 cent, britney spears) there are far more that we don't know - and while that could apply to their "'official' website as well - there is far more room for editorial oversight and error correction by the BLP on a website than there is in a hastily sent out 140 character tweet. It only acts as a primary source for what the twitter account has said not for what the BLP has said.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476822804&oldid=472835819
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476822972&oldid=476214918
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476824287&oldid=476823496
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476824332&oldid=475878902
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476825789&oldid=476824845
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476825933&oldid=476814227

6 more examples, all crappy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Op-Ed used for statements of fact II.

I removed the WP:NEO Pakistanophobia from this article as it appears to not exist. There are no hits for the term on Google books for instance. TopGun restored it and sourced it to two Op-Eds. Are these Op-Eds reliable for this [86]? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Instructions at the top of this page: follow them. In particular a full citation (and possibly also links) of the works in question, and a link to any talk page discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot links to the sources. First Second Talk page Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We also ask for citations. Why? Because I can read in a citation more information than I can in an anonymous link name. Please give the Op-ed author, the op-ed title, the newspaper name, the year, etc... Fifelfoo (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny? You really can't click on a link? Jerral, A. R. (December 06, 2011). "Americas Pakistan phobia". The Nation. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); "Pakistan-phobia... By Dr. Asad". Pak Tribune. 20 December, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) But there you go. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be funny. Your discourtesy and failure to follow the instructions at the top of the page cost each RS/N editor who inquires into your RS/N query time. Check the page: we aren't here to clean up after you, we offer a voluntary service investigating reliability. Part of that is that you step up and meet our needs. In particular we have a large number of RS/N editors who are capable of reading appropriate citations, and appropriate citations mean that they don't need to spend up to 15 minutes (worse case scenario I've personally experienced) hunting through a crappy website or newspaper to determine what the object of inquiry actually is. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not being discourteous, it is as easy to click on a link to the articles in question as to click on a link from a citation. I would not post a link which goes to nowhere for gods sake. But if you feel berating me is easier than looking at the sources go ahead, and we can leave a letter to the editor and an Op-Ed to be used as sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Calm down you two! It's a perfectly reasonable misunderstanding. Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

I apologise for becoming officious with you Darkness Shines; I'm sorry for the irritation and upset that my behaviour caused. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for being cranky, call it a bad hair day. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• AR Jerral's byline claims he is "a retired brigadier and political analyst." Innovative social science research such as the coining of new technical and theoretical terms does not occur in newspaper columns. The emergence of widespread new popular conceptions of politics does not occur in singular Op-ed columns. Jerral's Op-ed is not sufficient for notability; it may be marginally reliable if scholarly accounts exist of this "term". Jerral's claim to be a political analyst does not substantiate any EXPERT argument here: experts publish in peer-reviewed journals. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Dr Asad Khizar Malik's doctorate is not specified in their letter to the editor. The neologism does not appear in text produced by Dr Malik, but in text produced by the newspaper's sub-editors. Newspaper sub-editors are not social scientists publishing in an appropriate forum, nor are they key indicators of the widespread popular use of a new word as a major conception of politics. Further: letters to the editor from persons claiming to possess a doctorate (or forfend: be a medical practitioner of a certain occupation and grade) are not reliable for the existence or content of a social science term nor for the existence or content of a widespread popular conception of politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So that would be a no then? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No for both. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

TVaholic

Here's another one, is it reliable? Sarujo (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No; unedited blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)