Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Wide consensus in self-published sources

There are numerous self-published sources online that discuss flash drives (including mp4 players) with hacked fake capacity [1]. Various software exists for checking and correcting this. I have one such mp4 player and I could put an article in my wiki summarizing all this evidence. I'm a little unclear as to whether any of these would meet Wikipedia criteria as reliable or notable sources or "original research". According to WP:V "Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." While I've not been able to find a third-party published source for this information;

• there are an overwhelming number of self-published sources,
• many of these sources are in (apparently) open and disinterested forums where scrutiny is published also,
• it's not very difficult to test the drive once you are aware that the problem may exist, so these claims are not particularly extraordinary, controversial, or vulnerable to bias or mistake.

According to WP:V "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources." Would the inverse be true; that when there is wide consensus in disinterested self-published sources, that a third-party publication is not necessary? Under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources it states that "When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published." but I don't see any guideline as to how a self-published source may be used "appropriately" unless the author has previously been published by a third-party. Lumenos (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because if anyone disputes, telling them to "go read this forum" isn't acceptable. --Crossmr (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well for what it is worth, the seller accepted it. They refunded my money without requiring I return the player. I don't see how we could expect a third-party published source to make the case any better than it was made, but you would have to see the evidence yourself. Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It also speaks to the notability of the issue. If reliable tech sources aren't picking it up, it isn't really considered that big of a deal so why are we creating content on it? --Crossmr (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a good chance there is some source you would consider "reliable" among the thousands of search results, I just don't have all night to figure out which would have an acceptable publisher. This seems a rather indirect way of going about it. I mean, how do we know who the reliable publishers are if we aren't supposed to evaluate their claims? Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As for notability, if all that means is that third-party published sources refer to it, than what is your point? Are you saying it is not likely to be valuable to the readers of Wikipedia? The particular model of mp4 player that I bought, is selling at nearly one per second on Ebay. They are less expensive than nearly any mp3 player I could find on bargain hunting forums or Ebay, plus they have rechargeable batteries, charger, they play video, record voice, support folders, etc. It makes a big difference if the capacity is 4GB (as was claimed) or about 512MB (like mine actually was). Having this information allowed me to make the player stable and get a complete refund. Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about these products, but it appears that the claims are that the products don't have as much capacity as they are supposed to or that they don't function properly. Those are controversial claims, in the sense that if someone made false claims along those lines, the manufacturer would be justified in suing the claimant. Therefore, we should only include such statements if we can find reliable sources that have made such claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I worded the section so that it is not making the claim, simply stating that many have made the claim. Would Wikipedia be liable? Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles using Universal Cyclopædia & Atlas as source

I've created Universal Cyclopædia & Atlas as several articles (WhatLinksHere) are using Appleton's Universal Cyclopædia & Atlas of 1902 as source due to it being in public domain. Some of these articles have no other reference, and as Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography apparently contained dozens of hoaxes, I wonder what I have stumbled upon? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

quite apart from hoax article, personally, I think using a 1902 encyclopedia as a source for anything other than what was thought important in 1902 is something to be done very cautiously, and with full knowledge of what may have become known about the subject since. And if one knows the later sources, why not use them in the first place? It takes expert knowledge of the general subject to assert that the 1902 is accurate, and that there is nothing better than the 1902. If you know that much, why not publish it some place in the RW? DGG (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube

Resolved

 – Cite the original source of the claim. If the only source is youtube, then maybe the claim isn't that important. Protonk (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in a few disputes at Talk:Political positions of John McCain about YouTube. Editors have been saying that YouTube is not a reliable source for information about what is in the video. For example, the first dispute was a video of McCain responding to "would you support nuclear waste going through Pheonix?" with, "no, I would not." This is shown in the video and that is what another editor and I were fighting to include. Can we establish in a policy somewhere that YouTube is a reliable source for the content of the video? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that yes, youtube is reliable for what is in the content of a questioned video. Of course, if the video is from a no name production, there are issues of whether it's been doctored and such. In addition, there is the rule against engaging in original research, which remains. Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research. Ngchen (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how quoting someone is original research. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't original research as long as one treats it appropriately as a primary source, which is to say that it's used only for objective, descriptive, and uncontroversial claims. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The problems with You Tube are many. I will address the two biggest ones: First, there is no way to verify that videos appearing on You Tube have not been altered from the original. Second, You Tube, as a website, has serious issues with copywrite violations... and, by linking to You Tube, Wikipedia becomes party to any copywrite violations. There are other issues, but these are the primary reasons why You Tube is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And I will add another danger: using this kind of primary source material places Wikipedia editors in the position of determining what is and is not important material in the video: if no reliable secondary source such as a newspaper, magazine or TV/radio news show has noted McCain's response to the nuclear waste question, then why is it notable or interesting enough to be included the article? Editors making decisions of this kind is Original Research. --Slp1 (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed for verification, they are not a measure of importance. There are some popular ideas and even facts that papers attempting to be objective simply will not echo or even report. The John Edwards scandal for example. Anyway, in the example I mentioned, it had been taken up by the Obama campaign as an attack on McCain and McCain never denied the video's accuracy. Thus we considered that verification. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't videos really hard to fake convincingly? In the example I have in mind he talks very smoothly and continuously. Unless I'm mistaken, you would hear breaks or changes in tone if someone was putting together words that he didn't actually say consecutively. In addition, his words are echoed in a number of democratic websites. I don't doubt they might cherry pick McCain quotes to make him look the worst, but out-right fabrications? They would be risking a lawsuit. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are "popular ideas and even facts that papers attempting to be objective simply will not echo or even report" then how "popular" are they? Who has determined that they are popular? You? Using primary material such as this is fraught with the danger of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and point of view pushing. Find some mainstream media sources that have noted this incident you will be fine, and avoid all the youtube and the primary sourcing problems. Also note that the Wikipedia article on John Edwards actually did not include much, if any, information about the Edwards scandal until the saga entered mainstream, secondary sources.--Slp1 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1220 Google hits determines it's popular. It's not original research, and reciting what he says is not POV pushing. Just because the MSM censors this information doesn't mean we need to. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked here whether Youtube was reliable source, and have been told by experienced and uninvolved editors that it is not. Yet you continue to argue the case, and in addition claim censorship (always a red flag) based a mere 1220 googlehits without, apparently, one reliable source among them. Wikipedia is not the place to fight the system, though there are other websites where this is certainly appropriate and acceptable. And yes, "reciting what he says" can certainly be POV pushing if no reliable source has found it notable or interesting in any way. But I confess that I have led this thread off the topic for this Reliable Sources noticeboard. The main point is that no, the Youtube video is not a reliable source. Sorry. --Slp1 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I see editors on both sides. There is no consensus here. I do enjoy people attempting to end an argument by claimining consensus despite the lack thereof. If you read what I said, we found a reliable source for both quotes. Those opposing inclusion on the John McCain page had to shift their argument to one of WP:WEIGHT rather than of WP:RS. Note that even "reliable sources" censor information as was the case in the recent John Edwards scandal. Reliable sources are not a measure of importance. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are not a measure of importance" in the real world perhaps, but they are the basis to the verifiability policy here on Wikipedia, as most other editors in this thread appear to see. As I said, this page is for discussing the reliability of sources: if you have found reliable, non youtube sources, good on you, but issues, such as the undue weight issue should be sorted out elsewhere. --Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping I could establish consensus that watching someone do something was enough to say they had done it. I see that there is no consensus, in either direction. Looks like insertion of YouTube material will have to be considered on case-by-case basis. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm telling you, the consensus is going to be that youtube is largely not going to be considered a reliable source, especially on such a contentious issue and such a notable subject. Youtube is the WP:SPS example. there is no compelling reason to add this to an article on a national politician. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CRYSTAL. I don't see how SRS applies. WP:OR says that primary sources can be used for easily verifiable information. The compelling reason is that his official statements have been intentionally vague. You would list a judge's decisions on either side of an issue to get an idea whether they leaned right or left. It is the same with a political figure who takes an ambiguous stand. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• My guess is no. One, videos are EASY to fake convincingly. Two, the premise (that McCain had some obvious reversal on Yucca Mtn.) needs to be asserted by a reliable source. Three, we should be very careful about using youtube as record of events, even when that record appears plain and the event is uncontroversial. Protonk (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We found a reliable source showing the video and mentioning the other quote. One of the two quotes on the draft was deleted per WP:UNDUE. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The other issue Azure isn't mentioning here is one of context. Watching the YouTube video he has repeatedly inserted into the McCain position page, one doesn't know the question being asked. It just starts with McCain answering a question by saying, in part, that he 'might consider' a draft in a certain situation. We don't know what question was asked of him, though. If the questioner asked, "would you support a draft if every country in the world simultaneously engaged the US in a ground war?" then the answer he gave would be interpreted differently than if it was "do you support a draft for troops in Iraq?" We just don't know. This is why we need other reliable sources to have covered the question to be sure that the video isn't taken out of context. Oren0 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oren0 is also leaving out that the section already mentions he would only start a draft in WWIII. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"We found a reliable source showing the video" - I must take exception to this. The only source other than YouTube that you've presented for this was ThinkProgress.org, a partisan blog. Also worth noting is that this is a WP:BLP page, meaning our standards for inclusion must be even stronger. Oren0 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we must only include it if there was irrefutable pro...er, I mean...only if a MSM source mentions it! ~Sarcasm. What about MSNBC? Is that not reliable? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about proof. Like I told you before, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MSNBC (and by MSNBC I mean Keith Olbermann, whose entire show is commentary and is therefore no different than an op-ed IMO) was only used as a source for the other quote which is a separate conversation entirely. Oren0 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Showing a video of McCain talking is opinion? I commend you on another lie, bravo sir. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Refocus

Ok. Can we get, under this new heading, each video that Azure wants to have reviewed as a reliable source? And as a general, sweeping statement, if something is on MSNBC, then cite MSNBC. Unless they link to the youtube video (possible but odd), then there is no reason for us to link to it. So let's get the links below this heading and just go through them one by one. When this started I thought we were talking about Yucca Mtn stuff, now is is draft stuff, etc. I just want to know what we are talking about here. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's kinda confusing because there are two different draft quotes that are being fought over simultaneously. Below are both, with ref tags removed:

1. In September of 2007, while speaking about issuing a draft, McCain said, "One, it's the best military we've ever had, it just isn't big enough. Two, there's never been a draft that I've ever heard of since World War II that was fair. What we've done is we find rich people find a way out, and lower income people are the ones that serve. I might consider it, I don't think it's necessary, but I might consider it if you could design a draft where everybody equally would serve. But it just doesn't happen. And the other thing is that, because you know from here in Brauman, it takes intensive training with the equipment and the technical skills that now our people are required to engage in, that it makes it not conducive to a short term. Now they enlist for 4 years. We used to draft people almost for 2 years or even 18 months so it's much more difficult."McCain: I 'Might Consider' Military Draft
2. At a town hall meeting on August 20 2008, an audience member said "Senator McCain I truly hope you get the opportunity to chase Bin Laden right to the gates of hell and push him in as you stated on your forum. I do have a question though. Disable veterans, especially in this state have horrible conditions, their medical is substandard. They drive four hours one way to Albuquerque for a simple doctors appointment which is often canceled. Our VA hospital is dirty it is understaffed, it is running on maximum overload. The prescription medicines are ten years behind standard medical care we have seven hundred claims stacked up at the VA office in Albuquerque some of them are ten and seven years old waiting to be processed in the mean time these people are homeless. My son is an officer in the Air Force, and I am a vet and I was raised in a military family. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have illegal aliens having a Medicaid card that can access specialist top physicians, the best of medical and our vets can’t even get to a doctor. These are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don’t reenact the draft I don’t think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell." McCain responded with "Ma’am let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said and thank you and I am grateful for your support of all of our veterans.""Feeling Feeling the Draft". Countdown with Keith Olbermann. 2008-08-14. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

Azure's revision can be found here. Have at it. Oren0 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well first, as an editorial matter, we aren't Project Votesmart. I don't think we need direct and largely unabridged quotes on each issue area. We could probably make due with a list of coverage of each area sized in proportion to its relative import. But that is for another day. Protonk (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• As for the sources. Again, WP:SPS is fairly clear here. There are a dozen reasons why video from the candidate on youtube shouldn't be used unless is from the candidate himself (in other words, his youtube channel) and relates only to noncontroversial details about the candidate himself. In the case of someone like McCain or Obama, that simply isn't necessary. Now that the Olympics are over, they are the two most watched people in america. A multi-billion dollar news industry watches both of them (to varying results) and we can't, in good faith, say that there is some detail about either man that can only be derived from watching a primary source on an unreliable site. The second source is a little more reliable, but the commentators above are correct. Olbermann is basically the liberal version of Billo. Stuff from his show should be treated as opinion, rather than fact and I'm honestly not sure what kind of fact we are looking to convey here. We should not be relying on offhand remarks and interpretations of responses to audience questions in order to present out readers with an encyclopedic view of his policy positions. In my opinion, both of these mentions should be scrapped and the page should be started from scratch using the candidate's web page, reliable lists of his policies and scant full quotes attesting to policy without some additional support. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Laugh at "using the candidates web page." I'm sure that will be very balanced. The only reason I've seen against YouTube as a reliable source is that it could possibly have been tampered with, but no examples of this ever having been done convincingly have been given. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• We aren't using it in order to make a judgement. We are using it to make sure that it is actually a policy plank. And youtube itself can be tampered with but it is far more important to note that anyone can add anything to youtube, so all the "tampering" can occur before uploading. Further, the WP:RS gateway that is imposed is done so in order to limit the ability of single, unsupported individuals to impact the encyclopedic outlook on something. There are (like I said above), a dozen reasons why youtube isn't a reliable source. I may never convince you of that fact, but that isn't strictly necessary. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Give one example of this happening ever, convincingly. We are debating right now whether or not YouTube is a reliable source so don't try to say that the "RS gateway" blocks out YouTube when there is clearly no consensus for this. You keep saying there are a dozen reasons but I only see one, with no evidence. You're right, I don't think you will convince me, so I will continue to add these quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd really rather you didn't. IT doesn't help anyone to do so. Just step away for a while and work on another article, rather than continue to insert disputed content. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• That it is disputed is not enough reason to remove it. Is anyone actually disputing the accuracy of the videos? It is true, I wish the question was in the "I might consider it" video, but the context of McCain's position on the draft is mentioned in the previous paragraph. We leave it to the reader to decide the implications of this message rather than decide for them that it is not important enough. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• We report, you decide is the motto of a different organization, not wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, let's decide for the reader. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you're suggesting we can perform synthesis by excluding something. Oren0 (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, fair enough. I don't know what policy exactly that would violate besides WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. It seems to me it's basically the same thing as synthesis, deciding something and then excluding based off of that decision. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is intent. Your intent is to show that McCain is for the draft by including those two sections. This is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH Arzel (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. No claims are made in the article, we simply quote him. We've been over the requirements for a violation of WP:SYNTH before. C must be specifically mentioned in the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable secondary sources have already used this question/answer while specifically speaking to McCain's position on the draft. Additionally, most anything on youtube can be traced back to and sourced to the originating show (Countdown, Verdict, etc). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• "YouTube Yes" and "YouTube No" are both overly simplistic. We have to exercise some intelligence about the specific clip in question. If it's posted by somebody completely unknown who says, "Here's a film of one of John McCain's houses, and you can see the three gardeners working out front," then it's worthless, because it might easily be faked (someone else's house). If it's McCain himself saying something, though, it's in a different category. The presumption should be that it's valid unless a good-faith dispute is raised (that the guy on screen is an actor portraying McCain, or that the clip was edited to substitute a different question than the one he actually answered "Yes" to, or the like). Of course, this applies even if it isn't YouTube. A month ago, CBS broadcast a distorted interview with McCain, in which the network edited out one of his statements that made him look bad (when he claimed that the surge had caused the Anbar Awakening, which actually preceded the surge). In a case like that, it's reasonable for an editor to cite CBS or link to the clip, but once the deception is pointed out, the doctored clip can't be linked to blindly as if it were established fact just because it's on CBS. Also, if a clip on YouTube seems to show McCain endorsing the annexation of Canada or something, it's on a different footing from a clip that shows him opposing trucking nuclear waste through his home state. Rule of reason, people.

In the specific case of that nuclear waste clip, I did some research at the time. My recollection (not 100% sure and too lazy to re-check) is that McCain was being interviewed by a Nevada-based news show, that the tape of the full interview was available on the show's website, but that you had to pay for it. In a circumstance like that, where the full interview is available, it's reasonable to assume that the McCain campaign would be on top of the situation. Specifically, if the excerpt were doctored, they would have obtained the full tape and pointed out the deception. This inference is especially strong if the YouTube excerpt is being widely commented on (even if only on blogs). On the other hand, if a YouTube clip has received no such attention, then this inference isn't available, which cuts against citing the clip. JamesMLane t c 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I found a source for a quote in an article from a major U.S. newspaper. But the article, as it stands, uses You Tube as a reference. The quotes ares identical. Given that You Tube is not a reliable source, when I finally learn how to do footnotes, what should I do? Regards Johndoeemail (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But you are using the newspaper as a reference, not You Tube. What they choose to use is up to them, and not ours to judge per WP:NPOV. Ty 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think he's asking a more pedestrian question. Here's my answer: {{Citation}} offers a number of different parameters. Just cite the quote from the newspaper. given the choice between a youtube cite and a newspapwer cite, go with the newspaper almost every time. Protonk (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Official distributor posting on forum

Official German distributor of the GP2X console Michael Mrozek, who uses the forum name "EvilDragon" (this is confirmed by a number of articles and video interviews, eg. [2] [3]) recently gave the total number of GP2X units sold worldwide as 60,000, but did so in a forum post here. The info currently in the "GP2X" article about number of units sold is from October 2006, and is quite outdated. Would it be possible to add this information to the article? Esn (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how the source is cited. From this you could say "A distributor has claimed that 60,000 units have been sold worldwide" but if you want to make a stronger claim, you'll need to find out what his source was. --Slashme (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it can probably be added, but the forum post must be treated as a self published source. Careful reading of EvilDragon's post at gp32x.com makes it seem like he got the number from the gamepark CEO, "that guy from the picture" right above his post, lending it a bit more credibility than if EvilDragon just pulled the number out of his hat. Also, a more direct reference to EvilDragon being the german GP2X distributor can be found on gp2x.de. I think including the number in the article complies with WP:SELFPUB. A further 10 000 units sold does not seem contentious or unduly self-serving. I'd recommend briefly characterize the source of the number in the article text similar to Slashme's suggestion above. I would also leave the older sales numbers from more reliable sources in the article rather than replace them with this updated number. Siawase (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've edited the page in a manner I hope was in keeping with your suggestions. Since gp2x.de would be considered another self-published source, though, and verifying the verifiability of a self-published source with another self-published source is likely problematic, I've decided to use the third-party German article to source the fact that EvilDragon is Michael Mrozek. Esn (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I also added the source here. A bit odd - having to source the verifiability of the source. Esn (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me, even a bit more detailed than I would have been. Since the credibility of EvilDragon on this particular matter stems directly from his affiliation with the gp2x mother company, I don't think there's a need for outside confirmation, since gp2x.de is confirmed as an officical distributor on gp2x.com. But that's really just a minor concern. Siawase (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Metal: A Headbanger's Journey

Resolved

A quick question: Is the documentary film "Metal: A Headbanger's Journey" considered a reliable source, can what it says be cited? Prophaniti (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the reviews, it appears to be a legitimate documentary and so should be eligible to be used as a source. Note, however, that statements in the film by the narrator and the interviewees may be matters of opinion or interpretation and should be treated as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When attributing material from the film, I'd suggest taking approaches such as "According to the documentary film Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, ..." or "In an interview in the documentary film Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, X said..." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Metropolitan90 and ChrisO. It turns out the specific occasion in question was invalid anyway, as it was a user interpreting the film rather than just directly quoting it. But nevertheless, it's something I've been curious about for a while, so much clarity is appreciated. Prophaniti (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

USS Nevada (BB-36)

Is reference #27 reliable? It's going through an A-class review, and their are questions about it...thanks! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help me?? ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that only one published book out there uses it (MaritimeQuest.com) as a source, and that's for photos, not information [4] [5], so I'd say that it's a little shaky as a reliable source for ship information. Perhaps you might email that site's owner and ask where he/she obtained the information that you're using in that article. Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you...I'll work on it. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of information (FOI) reports - not published, can they be used?

These are documents available under the UK's freedom of information act. They are obtained by application and are not published documents. Can they be used? See Wandsworth Parks Police where a scanned copy of one (presumably) on a web site is being used as a key source. Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If they're not published then they certainly don't meet the criterion of WP:V that sources must be reliable third-party published sources. A scanned FOI document on a personal website would seem to be an especially untrustworthy source, as we have no way of judging the veracity of such a source. Note, though, that an FOI document published on a newspaper's website - something I've seen the Guardian do, for instance - would not be subject to the same concerns, as the newspaper would be undertaking the act of publication and we would be relying on its reputation for accuracy to judge the document's veracity. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They would be the same as any other offline source. Just because they're not "published" doesn't mean they're not available. Anyone can request a copy of the document just as they could go to the library to request a copy of any offline source used in an article.--Crossmr (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Under the terms of the FOIA any document released on the basis of a request could be either published, essentially complete and endorsed by the sponsor, or ephemeral. The implication of each is very different.

I don't see any issue with a source which isn't available online, although I share ChrisOs concern about a scanned version privately hosted.

The guidance in most public sector entities is that the declaration of a record should happen at the point when the document is published, although the provisions of the act don't just restrict release to formal records.

ALR (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Publication" has to mean more than just "availability", though. At the very least it implies that the material in question has been through a proper editorial process and has been made available to a general audience. In the case of government documents, in my experience at least they're very often works distributed to a very limited private audience and very often authorised solely by their author - i.e. with no subsequent editorial oversight. They are, obviously, not meant for a general audience (otherwise you wouldn't need to resort to an FOI request in the first place). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A scan of a document in the public domain could be uploaded to the commons so that all readers have ready access to it. Regardless of where the document is located, it is a primary source and needs to be handled with great care. No article should be based on a primary source. Primary sources are better used to illustrate or provide details for material that is mostly derived from secondary sources. If no secondary sources exist then the issue shouldn't be included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not necessarily primary sources. Often they are reports or reviews.II | (t - c) 23:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Careful wit hterms like public domain, even if released uder FOI, UK governmetn doucmetns are likely still to be under Crown Copyright, so will not be eligible for Commons. David Underdown (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why I drew the distinction between completed documents declared as records and the material which goes towards that. A record could quite easily have been through an extensive review and comment process. As an example something from security policy division in Cabinet Office relating to the vetting process will have been reviewed and commented on by a good dozen or more other departments and have been through three or four rounds of approval before it's released. The working drafts or comments couldn't constitute policy as they're still subject to the process, but once they're declared then that becomes some form of statement; policy, direction, regulation etc. As an example take the procurement strategy for a new desktop infrastructure for DWP. Probably not releasable until after the procurement has been completed, but certainly available after the contract has been awarded, due to EU procurement legislation. That would be reviewed internally, by Treasury, OGC, probably the stakeholders that DWP deals with and any Local Authorities it may impact on.

As an alternative, take an economic appraisal of a developing country within DfID, probably an analytical piece drawing on a range of sources and reviewed by FCO, MoD and DBERR.

Esentially we can't dismiss something just because it's been obtained through the FOI process. Most records will at some stage find their way into the National Archive and at that stage would be considered acceptable.

ALR (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My take is that release doesn't constitute publication. Someone else, to whom it was released, is the publisher, whether The Guardian or Wikinews. For one thing, we need to know what constitutes due weight. We 'fairly represent all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.' Then there's original research. Someone can't just assemble a selection of foia documents from the Air Force and present them as citations for our article about ufos. Someone else needs to assemble the sources, articulate a thesis, and publish a book. Then that book is our source. There's nothing special about FOIA either, as far as I can see. The same reasoning disallows a letter of reply from my congressman, or photocopied land records from the courthouse. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? If the air force has released some information about studies it did into UFO sightings via FOI, aren't they just adding facts to an article? Original research only comes in to play if they're trying to make a case for a particular point of view thats one thing, but if all they are adding is "the air force did study x on y date and yielded z results according to their released FOI documents" that isn't original research.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've confused the issue by dragging in WP:OR. Let me leave that aside. Mailing me something if I ask for it, isn't publication. If it's not published we can't cite it. If The Times has published a collection of primary source documents (FOIA responses, correspondence, whatever), we can cite that, but it's a primary source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're over simplifying it to make it sound bad. I'm not mailing you something. The government is. The origin of the document wouldn't seriously be in question nor would its veracity. Waiting for it to be mailed would be no different than waiting for the inter-library system to provide a book that isn't currently in the building. Unless there is some genuine concern that the FOI might provide different documents or in someway alter different copies of the document I can't see this as being any different than any other primary source which can be used on wikipedia. You're being overly picky about the word "published". The distribution of the document is controlled by a central entity that you can sure would be scrutinized and called to task if it was found to be sending out different copies of the same requested document.--Crossmr (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The origin and veracity of the document certainly would be in question, as would its completeness. No, published means published. This scrutinizing and comparing is what makes a reliable source. We summarize those reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd infer from your previous comments that you're talking about the US FOI regime, although I think there are parallels. In the UK, relevant to the question asked, many of the documents released under the act will have been published by the document owner. as ever we need to be clear about the question being asked, and we can't just block rejet all material released under the act.

Release to the requester isn't publication, it's release of either a record or ephemera. Personally I'd question the use of ephemera but would not discount the use of a record if appropriate.

ALR (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As the person who received the response, I'd just like to point out that I didn't scan it in but that it was emailed to me - small point I know and I doubt it makes any difference either way :p ninety:one 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ALR, thanks, could you explain what a record is in this context? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In this context a record is an item which has been declared into the FOIA compliant records management system. Examples of compliant systems include Documentum and Meridio. Items are declared when they've essentially been completed and published, or have reached some sort of conclusion in the case of an email exchange. Once an item has been declared as a record it is stored in a frozen version and held in accordance with the retention policy and at some point then handed over to the National Archive.

The record is something which will, at some stage, become open source and available to enquirers at the NA. So we're really discussing a lifecycle point.

In the case of the example I used above the procurement strategy would be declared at the point where it reaches Version 1 and is endorsed by the programme board as the basis for a procurement exercise. A subsequent revision would be declared when it reached V2, although the procurement manager may also choose to declare any email exchanges related to the transition from V1 to V2. the email exchange need not be declared, unless local departmental policy requires it. I'd consider the V1 and V2 of the strategy to be usable in an article, but the email exchange probably not usable as it would require some synthesis to make it meaningful whereas the strategy can stand on it's own.

I know there is some ongoing debate around the email issue, declaring versions of web pages used as fixed copies and the retention of chat sessions under the provisions of the Act, but they haven't really reached a conclusion.

Does that make it a little clearer? To be honest implementing FOIA has been a rather lucrative nightmare.

ALR (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to do some reading when I get the chance. Maybe we have to take this case by case. I got into this from the Aspartame section above, and that may have colored my approach. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just glanced at the Aspartame discussion and what I see is the conflation of two issues, which are reflected in this discussion as well; can a released document be used as a source and can a privately hosted rendering of that document be considered as a fair representation. Personally I find the WP drift towards discouting offline sources a bit disturbing, as well as the fallacy of consensus decision making we then compound the flaws of the approach with the fallacy that all required sources will be online. the balance is also drifting far too much towards a contributor categorically proving the source says what it says rather than providing a pointer and anticipating another editor can play a part in the validation process themselves. That said, I do share the distrust of privately hosted renderings.

Notwithstanding all of that discussion, the article in question does appear to be excessively reliant on ephemera, the text is confused, lacks focus. As a result I would suggest that the source is being misused and in this instance is open to interpretation around how it should be exploited.

ALR (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Published means published well let's see what wikipedia's own entry on publishing has to say Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view. Last I checked FOI produces and disseminates (on request) literature or information and its made available for the public to view. There is no conflict between what FOI does and what publish "means"--Crossmr (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Press releases

When a magazine reprints a company press release, does it become reliable? If it's verbatim there seems at least a reasonable chance that it has not gone through a rigorous fact-check. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. A verbatim re-printing of a press release is more a sign that the magazine is probably not reliable than it is a sign that the press release is an independent reporting of facts. What, specifically are you referring to? Protonk (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to evaluate the reliability of this

• "Jennifer MacLean accepts 38 Studios VP post". Wireless News (England). 2008-03-21.

where a Google found this, for example, evidently the article referred to, but also this which is clearly the press release the article is based on. In terms of the fact being asserted, it's arguable the press release is more authoritative, after all the company should know whom it has appointed! It's paradoxical that the more copies of the press release appear, the more obvious it is that it is being blindly copied, and the less valuable the sources become. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You can really cite it from wherever you like. WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. However, this is one case where I think that guideline is wrong. If we cite it as a newspaper article we give the unknowing impression that we are attempting to mask the purpose of the content. this obviously doesn't apply to you, since you came here looking for an answer to this question. But, the impression remains. In this case it is probably still best to cite this as a press release, see {{Cite press release}} for a method to do so. In that case, it falls under the WP:SPS portion of WP:V--it may be used to establish non-controversial facts about the subject but not establish notability or make claims about other subjects. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is reliable in its original form as a primary source for a simple fact - the appointment. Read the release. When it boasts "pioneering entertainment company dedicated to delivering a broad spectrum" it's obviously not reliable. When it lists her expected responsibilities and projects it's mostly WP:CRYSTAL and corporate newspeak. But the very fact of appointment is set reliably. Corporations have their own BLP rules so I'm sure it has been doublechecked and agreed with McLean before publishing. NVO (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the fact of the appointment is sourced reliably. I would prefer to see the magazine cited rather than the press release. Trade magazines do often publish press releases verbatim. They may check by phone call to the company or they trust the company because they know it well; in either case the magazine takes responsibility for what it publishes. We had an exchange a few months back about the trade press. Trade publications are usually reliable for the facts about their own industry. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Korean War

User Nierva has repeatedly inserted a paragraph relating to alleged war crimes committed by UN forces in Korea. The issue is, it's being sourced to the KCNA, a highly biased news/propaganda outlet for the North Korean government. Note that the source refers to Americans as "ogres", the US as a "criminal state", the South Korean government as "flunkeyist traitors", and Kim Il Sung as "the great leader".

I am requesting a review of the source to determine whether it can, and in what capacity, be used in the article. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The story summarizes a report from the DPRK Foreign Ministry on mass killings of DPRK GIs during the Korean War. That the story is published on KCNA is not as relevant as the fact that the report is from the DPRK Foreign Ministry. It's worth noting that KCNA is cited in many articles about Korea.

The KCNA is one of the most reliable sources with regard to the situation in Korea. Whether or not the KCNA is biased is irrelevant. The BBC and CNN are quite biased, yet they are cited in many articles. That the citation has been clearly attributed to a party conforms to Wikipedia policies. Unless the view from the other side is given consideration under a section titled "crimes against POWs", it qualifies as propaganda. Nierva (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the source can be used, though not the way Niera is using it in this edit. It appears to be a reliable source for North Korean propaganda and not much else, and a long as it is clearly identified as such, it could be used to illustrate the position of the North Korean government. Whether that position is relevant to the article, and how much WP:WEIGHT to give it, is question I'll pass on. But assuming it is relevant, I think you could incorporate it. Something along the lines of: "The Korean Central News Agency—the state controlled news agency of North Korean, which is frequently antagonistic to the US—claims that the United States and its allies killed at least 33,600 POWs of the Korean People's Army. Tens of thousands more were allegedly wounded or crippled. KCNA says that on May 27, 1952 at least 800 POWs were killed by flame throwers at the 77th camp on Koje Island for rejecting "voluntary repatriation" …" Yilloslime (t) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Astrology-online.com

Resolved

 – Source replaced and original source is probably not reliable. Protonk (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am having a persistent issue with a guy that keeps inserting material sourced to Astrology-online.com in the Aquarius (astrology) article. This website doesn't seem to fulfill Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources, it obviously duplicates much of the copyrighted material from Elore.com (much reworded but still obvious), and the few claims it does introduce are often deeply contradicting, which flies in the face for any argument for scholarliness.

I have given him many warnings about it, yet he continues, often outright falsifying sources (I have that Oken book). I don't know what to do about him, if anything. I was thinking of removing all references to that website in the article, but I want to make sure I am on the right here and do it correctly.

Please check it out. Thanks, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If your analysis of it is correct (which I'm not doubting), then the source should be removed. If the other editor is linked with the site, then you might want to post on WP:COIN. Ty 06:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have replaced that source with a more reliable, mainstream one by a well-known author. I think it should be OK now. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku

Resolved

 – Seems open and shut. Answer is: generally no. Protonk (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we considering Kotaku a reliable source? I kind of view them as any other random group blog online, and I'm not really sure if the community has decided that they check their stories enough or not.--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a hard one. We consider Gawker a source (I think). I would consider Kotaku as kind of a less serious Gamasutra. It's a group blog and we have pretty harsh guidelines for group blogs, so I would be cautious sourcing it, but I don't see the problem if the material isn't contentious. Let's say (for an example), that you have a notable game, but that one particular facet of the game hasn't seen too much third party attention. You can't really go on about that part at length on just primary sources (or you shouldn't) per WP:OR and WP:NPOV, but if Kotaku spends a few paragraphs on it, you can probably just cite that and move on. I can't imagine people would be cool with Kotaku being the main source for an article or in the case where the claims made would be controversial, but it seems to be a specialist blog with a limited set of contributors. Dunno. Take it case by case. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did some digging and found their ToS where they state their content is provided 'as is' which to me sounds like they're not standing behind their content as a news paper would, so I'm going to have to say that I don't really think it can be used as a reliable source of anything. If a facet of a game hasn't received coverage, that isn't an excuse to use less reliable sources its a reason not to devote any coverage to that facet, its obviously not really that interesting to the general public.--Crossmr (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair position to take. There are certainly better game blogs out there. I hope I was some help, sorry about the long delay (in wikipedia time). Protonk (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

royal sulu

Hi there. I want to know whether the two links below can be considered reliable source per WP:RS. The link can be found in the articles about Sabah and Sabah dispute.

• http://www.epilipinas.com/SabahClaim.htm
• http://www.royalsulu.com/transfer.html

ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[6] epilipinas, no, they're avowing all responsibility for the content on the site. The second one is clearly a primary source and can only be used in the context that a primary source can be used. Articles directly about the subject. In this case an article on the Royal Sulu and his family.--Crossmr (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks crossmr. So i guess the second one would not be RS for the articles regarding Sabah and Sabah dispute, no? ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 11:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, only in articles about the royal family.--Crossmr (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I'm having a bit of a problem in an article. Currently, I'm trying to get Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, up to GA status, at least. Currently, there is a source being used to cite the Development section, a fansite called "thelostworlds.net".

I am perfectly aware fansites are not valid sources. However, audio files available at the fansite, taken from the game engine, indicate the content is genuine content from the game that was removed. Furthermore, while various other sites note the same material, to the best of my knowledge there is no "official" site that covers these materials. Thus, I'd like to know if any of these websites count as reliable sources, so that I can perhaps cite one of them instead of thelostworlds. These are the other sites I've found that provide the information being cited.

- thelostworlds
- Moby Games
- The Gaming Intelligence Agency

Would any of these three sites be reliable sources? Or, if not, is there some sort of acception or appeal that can be made, since as mentioned, no official sources covers the materials? In other words, if I can't cite one of these three, the sections would go unsourced. The Clawed One (talk)

If I am to understand you, you are asking if you can cite thelostworlds to establish that there was content on the master disc but not playable (sort of like the actual ending to KOTOR II was on the disc but not playable)?

Why is the third site linked to as a mirror?

I think moby games' trivia bits are user generated, so no for that one. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the third site is, honestly. Moby Games, check. And yes, that's the situation, there was a lot of content cut from the game that isn't covered by official sources. The Clawed One (talk)

Hmmmm. I'll get back to you on the 'game media bit in a minute or so. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Take a look at Hot Coffee minigame controversy for some idea on how you might cite a claim about this. They cite the original modder on his website (arguably a pretty reasonable decision) for the claim that the 'hack' was a one bit change in an easily accessible file. That's sort of analogous here. Try rewording the sentence to something like "Ben Lincoln asserts that blah" or "ben lincoln discovered blah about game sound files". It's a start. I'm inlined to say that all three probably aren't reliable, but I'm sure there is a middle ground. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if that works for future editors. Thanks.

No..you'd need to establish the person asserting that is reliable and notable. Otherwise why are we referencing their opinion. Fansites are not reliable. They're self-published/hosted and don't have editorial oversight, control, guarantee, etc. If the only place you can cite it is a fan site, it doesn't belong in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's accurate. I guess I'm assuming that the issue itself (the game having content that was kept out of the release version) is covered in a reliable source and the fan site is used for fleshing out details. I haven't looked at the wikipedia article in question, so I don't know. Protonk (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No because we're still using the fansite as a reliable source. We only cover the information contained in the reliable sources. A reliable source covering some aspect isn't a license to go and use a bunch of unreliable sources to add more info about that aspect. The reliable source both provides a back for the information AND establishes what information is notable enough to cover in the encyclopedia. We might describe something in a little more detail (the reliable source says a car is in the game) we might describe that the car is black and has 4 wheels and is shaped like a 2007 mustang, with a white stripe down the middle (using the game as a primary source) but that's it. A fansite can only be used as a primary source in an article about the fansite.--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So what do I do then? The fansite is a vital source that can't be replaced by another. If there was a reliable source to use I'd use it, but there isn't. So what do I do? Also, the site isn't a collection of the guy's opinions and whatnot. - there are areas like that, but they're clearly marked as such on the site and are not being sourced. What the site is a collection of deleted materials from the game series as a whole, hosted by Ben Lincoln. The content that is being sourced is directly from the game itself, and is just being showcased by the site. The Clawed One (talk)

Then you write the article without that aspect and cover only what is in the actual reliable sources. Just because you want to include certain information that isn't covered in a reliable source doesn't mean you get to ignore policy to put the information in. Just because we all like video games, internet memes and trends and various other pursuits doesn't mean we get give them a pass on policies and guidelines that other articles have to adhere to. We might link that site in the external links, where people can go read more. But we can't put any information in the article based on it. We only have Ben Lincoln's word that this material was deleted in the game and that he's left it intact and not altered it. He's not a reliable source so we can't just take his word for it. --Crossmr (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with a petition

It has recently come to my attention here, that there are manylinks being used on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism which are not from reliable sources. However, they cannot be removed, because the people who added such information believe that they are reliable.

The two main ones in question are these:

• |title=CA112 Many scientists find problems with evolution.

From talk origins, which is posts chat room conversations and other such things. Plus, it does not cite sources, use evidence, or anything at all close to being academic.

• The Leader's Guide

Others, on the page, have seemingly equal problems:

• Barbara Forrest’s Letter to Simon Blackburn Barbara Forrest and Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses William A. Dembski

From the designinference website, not an academic source but is a blog as it clearly states on its main page.

• Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goal

Not an academic source, basically a POV website.

• How to be Anti-Darwinian.

Another talk origins site.

Can we get a ruling on these? This deals with over 100 BLP pages and is used to justify remarks on those pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion on TalkOrigins in the noticeboard archives, which concluded with the assessment that there's no way in hell we will ever let you say it's unreliable, you creationist troll, you. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the "you" doesn't actually refer to me, does it? But is a rhetorical you? If so, okay. I honestly would like a ruling on the above, as most don't seem to be reliable sources but instead from individual people with views on a matter that may or may not be notable. I would like some larger community response. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Color sources

Keraunos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) likes to cite BF2S Colour Guide for color names and RGB coordinates and such. There's a very long list there, so it keeps him busy, and keeps PaleAqua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and sometimes myself) busy removing them as unreliable sources. It seems to be a gamer's forums site. Any reason to allow it? Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A forum post is not a reliable source. Yilloslime (t) 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the colors displayed on the BF2S Colour Guide closely match the colors in 1930 book A Dictionary of Color by Maerz and Paul when the colors in this book are viewed illuminated by a full spectrum fluorescent lamp--I rigorously conducted a color matching comparison of all the colors on the BF2S Colour Guide with the colors of the same name in the book A Dictionary of Color. A Dictionary of Color was the world standard for color matching before the introduction of computers. Therefore, there is no reason not to use this list as a color source and to regard it as a reliable source. Keraunos (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Doing that matching sounds a lot like original research. Also there are a lot of variables when comparing printed color samples and RGB numbers. For example note that the list at the forum does not specify an RGB space. It appears the list was most from the X11 colors etc. For those the original sources should be used. I'm also worried that we may have a cyclic source problem in that it is possible that some of the numbers in the list came from wikipedia articles. I know I have seen that in the past when tracing through some other similar sources. PaleAqua (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Keraunos, if you can get the results of your rigorous comparison published in a reliable source, we can use it. Otherwise, it's just your OR to back up why you like this forum posting as a source. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I've done some digging. The source of the BF2S color list strongly appears to be Wikipedia itself! Check List of colors from the time of the post. While I'm not sure of the exact date used, this one is pretty close and predates the forum posting. Notice the "*" by the Hex triplets match up with the comments "(There are others, but I chose this one Mkay)". Not only is this an unreliable source, it appears to be cyclic. PaleAqua (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. Looks like this diff by Keraunos, adding rose (color) in late Sept. 2006 (consistent with the forum posting 1 yr and 11 months ago) is the last color change that made it into the list. Keraunos of course wasn't using it as a source at that time, and made lots more subsequent unsourced changes that do not show up in the BF2S list. But now he's got rose sourced to that list that copied him. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are about 86 pages] that cite "BF2S color guide", including many in non-English wikipedia. Is there any good way to pass the word about the need to remove these bogus citations? Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a rollback of Keraunos's last few dozen additions that undid PaleAqua's removals, now that it's clear. There are still lots more. Dicklyon (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018

This is perhaps RfC material, but I thought I'd ask for input here. There is currently a dispute over the content of Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018 which is, at bottom, an argument over the reliability of the various sources and the weight, if any, which each should be given.

One editor wishes to base the article largely on writings by Rafał Jaworski in a 16-page supplement to the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita published in 2006. Jaworski's work is about 8 pages of text. The paragraph beginning "It is possible that Vladimir decided that neither Svyatopolk nor Yaroslav ..." shows this well. The current version places Jaworski's theory first and seeks to present the the alternative as outdated ("...in their older works..."). This work is not translated into English and is, as near as makes no difference, unobtainable. It contains none of the apparatus - notes, bibliography - which would normally be found in a serious work of history.

Another editor wishes to base the article on English-language works. These include Janet Martin's, Medieval Russia 980–1584 (Cambridge University Press, 1995, Cambridge Medieval Textbooks series) and Simon Franklin & Jonathan Shepard's The Emergence of Rus 750–1200 (Longman, 1996, Longman History of Russia series, general editor Harold Shukman). Franklin, Martin & Shepard were all chosen to contribute to the Cambridge History of Russia, volume 1, covering 1015–1125, 1246–1462 (2 chapters), and c.900–1015 respectively. Cambridge UP and Longman are respectable academic publishers. These works are widely cited, are commonly found in large libraries, and are available for purchase on the internet.

I own the two English-language works in question and largely for that reason I am supportive of the second school of thought. Rather than being irrational anti-Polish prejudice, this seems to me to be in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. But I would say that, wouldn't I? Any thoughts? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hell, the academic gurus still argue if there were Varangians in Kiev or not :)) Isn't it obvious that any explanation of these events is simply one author's hypothesis and nothing more? everyone is entitled to his version of the past. I'm afraid that an even combination of all major theories is not possible within one text. Looks like a deadlock. NVO (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about the substantive issues and therefore am approaching this strictly from a sourcing direction. Let's set aside the language issue, as well as the availability. First, the English-language history books. These are without any shadow of doubt reliable, especially as they all agree. This viewpoint must be summarised in the encyclopedia. Then the Jaworski article. In its favour is the fact it is more recent (although the other texts are also quite up-to-date). Against it is the fact that it was a supplement to a newspaper, not a book from an academic press, although from its WP article the newspaper seems to be a highly reputable one. Therefore the deciding factor is who Jaworski is. If an academic historian, then this is also an acceptable source and should be summarised alongside the other view. If just a journalist then his opinion is not worth including. If something in between (e.g. if he would be best described as "cultural commentator" or similar), then you have a close call, but I would say include, place second and attribute. HTH. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If they all agree (if!) than their reliability is at question. Any reconstruction of those events is just that, reconstruction of uncertain. There is some mainstream agreement on the main course of events, but the underlying smaller events like 1018 succession always have different explanations in secondary work. Tertiary books are more conservative. NVO (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Historians agreeing upon facts does not throw doubt on the reliability of their books. The English-language books listed by the OP are bona fide historical works, as can be seen from their titles. I have since looked at the article talk page and it seems that discussion about the status of the Jaworski source is ongoing. I hope you can come to a consensus there. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You should know better: I don't have these books at hand; but from the titles is seems that these are tertiary sources (I can hardly imagine a secondary - i.e. scientific - account to appear in Textbooks series). Textbooks must be conservative to be safe. Open the peer-reviewed journal or a university conference pdf, you'll see a zoo of conflicting opinions. NVO (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus view is that university textbooks are excellent sources for this encyclopedia. If there are conflicting academic opinions about this issue, fine. Simply present both views without commenting on which one is correct. It seems that there is a traditional view which some emerging scholarship is challenging. This is quite a common situation and should be easy to present so long as fellow editors can discuss it nicely. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It seems to me that a serious textbook dealing with Kievan Rus wouldn't be worthy of the name if it didn't mention that there were multiple theories on offer, even if only to knock them down. Having gotten a translation of a substantial part of Jaworski's main article, it's depressingly apparent that this is not a case of "emerging consensus". Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

DataTreasury

We would like to know... Is The Politico a reliable source? Is this The Politico article a reliable enough source for this edit [7] that includes negative allegations about living people? Other reliable sources for the information have been looked for, but nothing found. Thanks in advance for your help. --Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about The Politico, but I did a search on Factiva and found this:

"Financial industry allies have seized upon Ballard's political activities and his hiring of high-priced Washington lobbyists John D. Raffaelli and Ben Barnes as evidence of his hardball tactics. They also point to the 1991 conviction of DataTreasury's CEO DeLucia for his role in the robbery of an armored car" (US Sen Sessions Retracts Support For His Patent Reform Measure, By Patrick Yoest Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES,10 April 2008 - Dow Jones International News)

I don't know about the reliability of Dow Jones International News either though, but it is something. --Commander Keane (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, either, but Dow Jones & Company owns it. Protonk (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Daily Mirror

Resolved

How much and how far to trust a newspaper like the Daily Mirror for accuracy and reliability? Should it be used as an only source in highly disputed articles? My instinct is to say "no" since it is clearly distinguished as a tabloid. According to its wiki article, there seem to be a fair number of problems associated with it. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mirror is certainly a mass-market tabloid, but one with a fairly distinguished history (no Page Three girls!) and the second-highest circulation of any UK national daily. It does serious reporting; it has foreign correspondents who cover major overseas stories such as the US elections. In the specific case of the article which you're disputing, it was written by David Leigh, a Mirror correspondent with a very high reputation - he was formerly its news editor and very recently won a prestigious award for breaking the John Darwin disappearance case, one of the biggest UK media stories of 2007. At the time of the report which you're disputing, he was the newspaper's Jerusalem correspondent. The Mirror itself clearly meets the four criteria of WP:V#Reliable sources: a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's not to say that it doesn't get things wrong - every newspaper does - but it's certainly one of the better UK tabloids. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In what I remember of previous discussions with you Chris, you have been against singling out reporters as having a "good" or "poor" reputation. You have required that we accept the publication's reputation only. The four criteria of WP:Reliability cannot include reliability -- that is defining a term by itself, not. Are you sure that the David Leigh bio-ed in wiki -- David Leigh and here is the same David Leigh writing in the Mirror in 2000? Neither articles even mentions the Mirror. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two David Leighs - the one you linked works for the Guardian, the other whom I'm describing used to work for the Mirror but now works for Splash News in the US. You're right that we don't rely on the reputation of individual writers but of publications, but the point I was making (which I thought was obvious - maybe not) was that the Mirror does serious reporting, not just gossip columns. Some tabloids - the Daily Express comes to mind - certainly do rely on gossip and recycled news agency reports, but the Mirror isn't one of them, as the John Darwin case showed recently. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer made quite a scoop recently with catching an American presidential candidate with his pants down . None of the mainstream newspapers followed up on the rumours. But one scoop/investigative report does not reliability make. Just as one gaffe does not take it away... My understanding is that the very concept of 'tabloid' actually means 'not reliable' -- Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's nonsense. "Tabloid" simply refers to the format. Even The Times is a tabloid these days. The format of the newspaper has no bearing on how reliable it is. There are certainly some tabloids which have a very bad reputation - the National Enquirer is a case in point - but the Mirror is not one of those. It's a very long-established newspaper which has played a central role in British media and political affairs for over 100 years. It was the biggest-selling British newspaper for decades. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking "size" or "circulation" for reliability. To the extent the two are related, it is usually an inverse correlation - sensationalist, unreliable tabloids will have the larger circulation numbers, while high-brow, respectable and reliable papers will have smaller ones. This is nowhere clearer than in the case of the UK, where the largest paper is the News of the World - a rag focused on celebrity gossip and titillating sex scandals, which should not be used anywhere in Wikipedia (followed closely by the The Sun, a paper whoe biggest claim to fame is pictures of topless women on page 3), while a quality paper like The Times, considered by many to be the UK's newspaper of record, has a circulation 5 times smaller. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the former editor of Daily Mirror who admitted he printed false allegations against Arthur Scargill in 1990? [8] . That's a real baddie. Add the 2004 hoax photos [9], the suit by Leicester City F.C.[10] as well as the recent libel against Kate Garraway and I really think the criteria for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" mite be a bit compromised. The tabloid concept (as in supermarket tabloid -- not size) is discussed here with ref to the Daily Mirror -- [11]. Doesn't sound like a good rep to me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust the Express or Mail any more than the Mirror. The mirror is not a sensational gossip-filled newspaper. Ignore libel suits, libel laws are vastly different in the UK. So a football club decided to start legal action? Why do you add that rather than the outcome (not mentioned on the football club's site). What newspapers don't get lawsuits? Show that it gets more than other newspapers and you might have a point, just mention a couple (and yes, it had a problem editor, he's gone now), and it means nothing. --Doug Weller (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, which "newspaper like the Daily Mirror" did you have in mind? It would be better to bring it up here when there is a case at hand, rather than speculatively. There is no overwhelming reason not to use the Mirror as a reliable source, as opposed to any other paper. The errors by it mentioned above caused a stir for the very reason it was not expected of their normal conduct. Ty 07:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want specifics, Tundrabuggy is objecting to the citation of an article of 21 January 2001 by the Mirror's Jerusalem correspondent, David Leigh, in Muhammad al-Durrah. The report is of value because it's a on-the-spot piece of reportage by an accredited foreign correspondent for a major national daily newspaper. However, it takes a position that contradicts a conspiracy theory that Tundrabuggy apparently supports. This is essentially a WP:IDONTLIKEIT affair at root. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense, ChrisO. Please stop with the constant name-calling and personal attacks. I brought this up at this site because of what I read about the Daily Mirror in wiki, (ie that it is a supermarket tabloid), what I have read on the 'net in regard to the Arthur Scargill allegations. A decent newspaper does not knowingly print false material that harms other peoples' reputation. Nor would an article of 21 Jan 2001 be an on-the-spot account of anything, as the Al-Durrah incident occurred in 2000. Finally, your assertion that David Leigh was "on-the-spot" has yet to be backed up with any references. Tundrabuggy (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the attempt to discredit the Mirror was somewhat contrived. I don't see a problem with using it as a source. There is always the possibility of the format "David Leigh of the Daily Mirror reported xxx", depending on how the rest of the article is written. Ty 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My object is not to discredit the Mirror but to ask uninvolved editors their thinking on it. ChrisO is deeply involved in the article in question and has a stake in the Mirror being reliable. I am much more interested in the opinions of the uninvolved here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of or connection with these editorial disputes, nor the editors for that matter. There is no valid reason why The Mirror can't be used. Re. "A decent newspaper does not knowingly print false material that harms other peoples' reputation." You'd be surprised! Ty 12:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not anything like a US 'Supermarket tabloid', eg the National Enquirer or Weekly World News. It is populist, I'd say. Doug Weller (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no more stake in the Mirror being reliable than in any other source in that article being reliable. The Mirror report wasn't even the subject of any dispute before you started this nonsense about it being a "supermarket tabloid" (an American term for which there's no British equivalent). There's no "name calling" - I'm simply pointing out that the report contradicts a POV which you've promoted, a conflict of interest on your part which you didn't mention.

As for the other points you raised: the article is bylined "DAVID LEIGH FOREIGN EDITOR AT BUREIJ CAMP GAZA" (hence, on-the-spot) and it's an interview (claimed to be the first) with Muhammad al-Durrah's father after he returned home from hospital, three months after the incident of 30 September 2000. You really shouldn't make such definitive pronouncements without first making sure that what you're saying is accurate. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are the one making definitive pronouncements, ChrisO. I am just asking you to back them up with a source. But as you have stated previously, it makes no difference who the author is, as long the source is reliable. I am more than willing to accept the word of people who appear to know but don't have an axe to grind. That is not you however, in regards to this issue. With respect. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror is a perfectly respectable newspaper, which is wholly unrelated to to the concept of "supermarket tabloid". The only UK newspaper that fits that category is The Daily Sport. The Mirror is probably the most reliable of mainstream popular UK newspapers. Paul B (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Our own article on the Daily Sport, which you've linked to, says it is "in the same segment of the tabloid market as The Sun, The Daily Mirror and the Daily Star". Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not evidence, especially ones that have POV tags at the top! However it merely says that it is aiming at the same market. Paul B (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest we use the Wikipedia article as evidence or as a source in the article - but the WP article (written by an editor just like you) is just as valid as Paul B's opinion, no? So are you saying the wikipedia article is wrong? I'd actually like to see some independent 3rd party evaluations of these papers, from releiable sources, rather than the persoanl opinion of WP editors. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Past tense. Did, that was just nonsense, see [12]. Doug Weller (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This same source describes the Daily Mirror as a "sensationalist, left-wing, down-market paper". Not exactly a ringing endorsement for WP:RS purposes. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes that same source [13] puts it in the category of "redtop," which it defines as: "The mass-market end of the British press, with little hard news but plenty of celebrity gossip, sensational crime reporting and loads of sport and entertainment coverage." Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It described it as being those things in 1939. However, it is very mildly left wing, supportive of the Labour Party. Paul B (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

um, not. It was described as right-wing until 1939 when it changed ownership which "led to a complete revamp of the paper as a sensationalist, left-wing, down-market paper," the implication being that it still is ...those things. [14]. It is also said to be the "only national newspaper to support Labour consistently since 1945." [15]Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

un no. It has developed dramatically over the years. It won the newspaper of the year award in the National Press Awards in 2006. As I said, it supports the Labour Party. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

? Not according to an apparently sourced wiki article which lists the Guardian as winning the 2006 award. Do correct it if it is wrong. I did find the section regarding the controversy surrounding it to be illuminating.

ten editors of major newspapers released a joint statement announcing their boycott because of the "decline in conduct and prestige". The statement read, "The editors of The Guardian, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph, The Independent, the Independent on Sunday, the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, the Daily Mail, and the Mail on Sunday believe the organisation of these awards brings little credit to the industry or to the newspapers who win them".

There does seem to be a lot of misinformation floating around about the Daily Mirror, that much is certain! Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What the site refers to as the "National Heavyweights" includes the Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph and The Times. Midmarket (which are described as "pretensions to hard news coverage") include Daily Express, Daily Mail, Metro, and Morning Star. The Daily Mirror falls in the redtop category, "little hard news but plenty of ...gossip, sensational crime reporting"....etc. Maybe not as bad as the Daily Sport referred to as "unapologetically trashy," Perhaps the Mirror is apologetically trashy? - but a reliable source for international news? I don't think so Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, there's a spectrum of reliability here. The Daily Sport is certainly off the far end - I don't think anyone sensible would cite it as a reliable source. The Express newspapers don't do much original news reporting any more due to cost-cutting, and rely mainly on news agencies. Metro is largely in the same boat as it's a free-sheet. The Sun, Mirror and Mail do a substantial amount of original reporting, including foreign reporting with dedicated foreign correspondents in key capitals like Washington, Brussels, Jerusalem and Moscow. In the case of the article you're attempting to dispute, it was written by the Mirror's Jerusalem correspondent. That's not to say that the tabloids don't also publish sensationalist stories - obviously they do, but they also do a fair amount of serious original reporting as well. They may be tabloids but they also want to be seen as newspapers, not just entertaining but informing as well. Bear in mind also that they're subject to comparatively punitive libel laws, so they necessarily have to be a lot more responsible about their reporting than, say, the National Enquirer. As others have said, there is really no good reason not to use the Mirror as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just at their website and it sure looks like garbage to me. Do you have any evidence regarding these "dedicated foreign correspondents" and their "substantial amount of original reporting"? I don't see anything anywhere even vaguely resembling serious news or evidence of foreign reporting. And if they are "redtops" (ie equivalent to supermarket tabloids in US) that provide the Brits with "gossip,[and] sensational crime reporting," why are we to think that they will provide anything different because they are "reporting" from Washington, Brussels or Jerusalem? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give it up, Tundrabuggy. This endless tendentiousness is getting incredibly tiresome. You don't like the Mirror article because it contradicts the conspiracy theory that you and Canadian Monkey have been pushing for some months now. You came here for a second opinion about the Mirror. You've received advice from multiple uninvolved editors, but you're still looking for an out. What makes it particularly exasperating is the fact that you plainly do not know a damn thing about the UK media, as shown by your ignorant claims that the UK tabloids are like the US supermarket tabloids. Just leave it, please. You been advised; now please accept that advice in good faith and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How you seem love that word tendentious, Chris... I have heard you use it so often, one might almost think you have a special sense of affiliation with it. You are certainly welcome to move on, since you find the discussion so tiresome. Despite the protestations that the Daily Mirror is as "reliable" as any other "popular" paper, (or as you would have it -- that it has "a fairly distinguished history," "does serious reporting," "has foreign correspondents" in places such as Washington, Moscow and Jerusalem, and has won distinquished awards) all the facts seem to point in another direction entirely. It is trashy, has lawsuits against it, has admitted to carrying out a campaign of lies against someone, has printed hoax pictures, has an acknowledged political bias, and generally looks like the trashy rag it is. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO. You came here for independent feedback. You got it. It wasn't what you wanted, so you're ignoring it, insisting on your own rhetorical and highly selective condemnation of the Mirror. The plain fact is that nothing you have said in order to try to undermine the paper shows that its standard serious news reporting should not be considered reliable. By the logic you use, the BBC should be discounted as a serious source, as it also broadcasts gossip and comedy, has been sued for libel, and has been exposed for fake content. Ty 03:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you have been warned, more than once, about labeling editors as "conspiracy theorists", or describing their actions as "pushing a conspiracy theory". Please stop it. TB has brought forth a legitimate question. We know your opinion of the DM, since you were the one who inserted this questionable source into the article to begin with. You and Paul B may feel the DM is a good source, but as TB wrote, the evidence suggests otherwise- 3rd party sources describe it alternatively as "sensationalist" or "down market" , and its content as "little hard news but plenty of ...gossip, sensational crime reporting"." This is not a ringing endorsement for WP:RS purposes. Are there any 3rd party sources that describe the DM in the same flattering terms that you and Paul B do? If so, just produce them, and we'll move on.

Ty, it is incorrect to state that "nothing [TB] said in order to try to undermine the paper shows that its standard serious news reporting should not be considered reliable" - TB quoted from a 3rd party source which describes the DM as "sensationalist" and its content as "gossip", "sensationalist crime reporting". That reads like pretty strong condemnation. Are there any 3rd party sources (not Wikipedia editors) thta say otherwise? Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You and TB have been promoting, for months, an account of this particular incident that posits a vast eight-year conspiracy involving dozens or hundreds of individuals in a devilishly sophisticated multinational plot. What am I to call that if not a conspiracy theory? It's been characterised as a conspiracy theory by the Jerusalem Post and other sources, too, so it's not exactly a novel position on my part. The fact that this particular source we're discussing strongly contradicts your own POV is, I suggest, a significant factor in your opposition to its use. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd that you are the only one currently actually banned from either the article or the talk page. You neglected to mention that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely wrong - I'm not banned from anything anywhere. Could you try actually checking your claims before making them? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is only one consideration as far as wiki is concerned which is policy, namely in this case Wikipedia:Verifiability, which at WP:SOURCES defines acceptable sources: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers." The Daily Mirror is undoubtedly a mainstream paper. It is therefore acceptable as a source. If you don't agree, then change the policy. "The Daily Mirror is one of the world's most famous newspaper brands and Europe's fourth largest-selling title."[16] Your citing of a blog as a source to invalidate a source is ironic, to say the least. It is taken seriously by CNN[17]. See Al Jazeera bombing memo. Hardly lightweight. Your use of "sensationalist" confuses style with substance. Just for the record, "The Daily Mirror, also a red-top tabloid, tends to have more left-wing opinions but can also be critical of New Labour."[18] You might note the Mirror is referred to as a "news provider" along with The Times and others (p.46).[19] Ty 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In one sense I can agree with TBs concerns about the Mirror, but this discussion probably highlights where the verifiability policy is pretty badly flawed. I'd agree that the approach to dealing with that should be through amending the policy, but the weight of opinion in the denizens of that is quite focussed on a purely academic environment, and then tries to make academic approaches extensible to other media. Source analysis in the real world is a very different beast.

Publications are not inherently reliable, the discussion about the Mirror cf others being a reasonable example of that. Personally I wouldn't trust it to tell me the date without some form of corroboration. Individual items of product within newspaper have differing levels of reliability and should be assessed on a case by case basis. As with any publication it has items of content that would be considered reasonably accurate, as well as a lot of noise.

Still, changing the policy to actually assess sources rather than rubber stamp based on the name on the front page probably isn't a viable option. One just has to find ways around the inadequacies of policy. For that purpose this discussion has probably run its course.

ALR (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right, Tyrenius. I'm frankly amazed that anyone would try to exclude one of the UK's leading daily newspapers. It's like arguing that the New York Daily News or New York Daily Post should be excluded because they're mass-market tabloids. I live in the UK and I've been professionally involved with the media for a decade now, so I know very well, both personally and professionally, what kind of newspaper the Mirror is. As for the "conspiracy theorists" side of things, the fact is that Canadian Monkey and Tundrabuggy have been pushing a conspiracy theory about Muhammad al-Durrah for several months now. The Daily Mirror article just happens to strongly contradict that conspiracy theory. The longer this goes on, the more I'm getting the impression that this is simply a case of trying to find some reason - any reason - to exclude a source that contradicts the POV being promoted by the two of them.

Re ALR's comments: you make a fair point - there are certainly some sections of the Mirror, such as the gossip columns, which I definitely wouldn't wish to cite as a source (though then again they would probably count as opinion pieces per WP:RS#News organizations which would impose restrictions on how we could use them in any case). However, what we're talking about here is a serious piece of on-the-spot news reporting by the Mirror's Jerusalem correspondent - mainstream journalism, in other words. There is absolutely no reason other than partisan POV or, let's face it, ignorance about the source, to exclude a mainstream source such as that. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In the general case it would help if there was some form of corroboration. In terms of coming up with an analysis piece I would generally only use a newspaper source as an indicator that more work needs to be done. The broad category that the paper fits into would guide how much effort I'd put into finding corroboration, although it also usually indicates how easy it might be to find that corroboration. The heavyweights are generally reasonably easy to corroborate, but equally I'd put more effort into a snippet from there than a tabloid.

My biggest concern about corroboration in this environment is provenance, given the way stories migrate around the press it's very easy to end up in a circular reporting and self reinforcing situation.

ALR (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, there's no problem with provenance - it's not a second-hand piece, an opinion piece or a recasting of agency reports. It's an original, first-hand, on-the-spot report from the Mirror's Jerusalem correspondent, who interviewed the principal surviving eyewitness of a controversial shooting incident. It's of particular importance because, as far as I've been able to determine, it was the first interview with this eyewitness to have been carried out after he was released from hospital following the shooting. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The provenance issue would be around any corroboration of the piece, either seeing it derived from the article or based on further interviews with the same human source. In my line any use of it would have to be fairly heavily caveated. Of course in this specific case none of that is particularly important, the issue merely highlights the inadequacy of policy.

ALR (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. There are indeed multiple further interviews with the same human source, following his release from hospital; this is simply the earliest that I'm aware of. As Ty has already said, the source clearly meets all the requirements of WP:V. What "caveating" do you think is necessary? As for the policy, there's a good reason why we take the approach that you describe as "rubber-stamping". WP:V and WP:RS focus on the process by which sources are published - i.e. that they have undergone proper editorial review, that they are independent of the subject, etc. If a factual report - as opposed to an opinion piece - is published by a mainstream newspaper or book publisher, we rely on the publication process to assure the quality of what the author has written. We don't base our quality assessments on our views of the reliability of individual authors. Experience has shown that there are too many problems with that approach - in particular, it opens the door to partisans trying to blacklist individual writers because they feel that they are "biased" against their POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Essentially what I'm getting at is that Tundrabuggy is asking the wrong question. The unthinking approach adopted on the basis of a majority view by a self selecting group of editors who control the policy pages will always rubber stamp a piece based on the label on the publication, rather than an analysis of the content being quoted. That essentially prevents an editor undertaking the process which a real analyst would undertake; does the product exhibit the characteristics which indicate a level of confidence in the facts being presented? Frankly I'm not suggesting that there should be rubber stamping based on the author label any more than the publisher label.

In this instance the story is based on a single human source, human sources probably being the least reliable indicator of what happened at a particular event. Merely because it was published in other titles doesn't make it anything other than single source, hence in need of corroboration from other sources. I am conscious that journalists are reliant on human sources much more than other analysis professionals, and are also bound by the editorial policy of the titles they write for.

Notwithstanding all of that, given the use that the article is being put to, it should be fairly easy to articulate the origins of the statements and the effort above to dismiss the Mirror as a source are pretty pointless. Having asked the question Tundrabuggy is left in the situation where it's really unimportant what the answer is, the source can be used in some way. The snag from the position he's trying to support is the same discipline should be applied to the theory that it's being used to contradict. If it is as flaky as you suggest upthread then the process of doing that should indicate the levels of reliability around the theory.

I guess my key point is that the policy as it's written at the moment is a tool which can be used or abused in a whole host of ways. It certainly doesn't support a rigorous approach to analysis in its current form. It is therefore up to editors to make the best of what they have available to them.

ALR (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a fair characterization though. We talk about sources because the policy is concerned with sources (rather than individual works from the source) for good reason. In cases where we cannot make clear declarations about the reliability of the source, the suggestions should be that editors review the work itself and determine if it is acceptable. In the case where the reliability is questionable, that becomes a bad suggestion, as it is possible to write a pretty convincing story that is almost completely full of bullshit. We don't make work by work determinations often for that reason. Even more important, a work by work determination on a heavily POV issue is likely to be viewed along POV lines. If paper X produces a story that pisses off one group and makes another group very happy, it is MUCH harder to get them to agree that story is reliable than to get people to agree that the source is generally reliable. And that discussion produces a much more meaningful consensus. None of this is meant to prevent editors from using their brains. If we say that a broadsheet is reliable and someone writes an article based on the personal adds or the horoscope, we aren't bound by silly rules from saying that shouldn't be on here. Protonk (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're using source in different ways. I do profoundly disagree with the position that the publication is a source, the source for the purposes of a Wikipedia article should be the individual article within the publication. As you reasonably illustrate, taking the position that a publication at the gross level is reliable undermines the purpose of the policy.

At the more analytical level the author of the source will have one or more of his/ her own sources which have contributed to the story, the reliability of those sources is up for debate and the resulting story will be nuanced by many things.

I think the suggestion that the policy as it stands prevents WP articles being full of bullshit is itself extremely idealistic. It doesn't take long to find articles here which fulfill the letter of the verifiability policy, yet are patent fiction. There are other articles which are reasonably accurate, but inadequately sourced. Both of these require editors to use a bit of common dog, although what I see around is far more of that with respect to the latter.

Progress in Wikipedia happens despite the policies, not really as a result of them, and verifiability is probably the worst.

ALR (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a misunderstanding that comes from the fact that the word "source" is used rather casually to refer to three things:

1. The publication which undertook the financial and editorial responsibility for the piece.
2. The author of the piece.
3. The original, existential, font of knowledge for the piece. An informant, a primary document, etc.

All three are important in judging the validity of a piece. However, the latter two don't provide us with a good metric with which works can be judged. Whether or not a particular author is to be trusted is an important question, but how do you propose we write a consistent, concise policy to help the community do that? the same problem applies with the documents and informants that the author used to write the piece. How do we write a guideline for editors to judge the character of a piece? In this case we have a blanket guideline that offloads those two difficult judgments on to a third party. We HOPE that the editors of a reputable source of news (or journal, or publisher) would vet both the authors and the facts underlying the piece before publishing it. Where it is established that "sources" (in the first sense) have that record, we offer the benefit of the doubt to pieces published by them. where it is clear they do not (works for hire, vanity presses, tabloid papers), we do not. In between there is room for judgment on particular items published by that source. Since that discussion (as you see here) can be long, heated and inconclusive, we try to write guidelines that limit the number of times we have to engage in it. I think that WP:RS does a fair job of that. It does have room for improvement, especially in the sense of offering guidance to editors who face difficult questions like this, but it is overall fairly effective. Protonk (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't describe either of the first two as the source in the context of using a product to support a statement used in a wikipedia article. My use of source is around the latter, although any source used by an editor in WP would have a number of sources used by the author, be they human or through technical means. As I recall the Mirror was one of the papers which was guilty of using illegal voice intercept methods.

I'd prefer to give editors access to the tools needed to assess sources, and qualify the use of those sources in the assessment they write here. When that was suggested 18 months to two years ago the preferred direction was towards a more doctrinal approach, taking any responsibility away from editors and essentially labelling at too high a level to be truly useful. At the time I recommended actually sourcing the sourcing guideline, my recommendation was from a postgrad business research handbook that I use when I'm training analysts. What I would tend to train them to do is evaluate a source in part on the track record, but also based on the degree of corroboration or confirmation of what is said. The former essentially what the policy says at present, the latter is where an editor is able to add some value and use their own intellect. That's essentially what a journalist will do in the first place and then drives the use of language to express the degree of confidence placed on the conclusions based on the source, or sources, used by the analyst.

I'll acknowledge that the majority of editors probably don't have the skills to really assess a source and then express their degree of confidence in their conclusions, so the rules have to accommodate a lower level of skill than some of us might be used to in a professional context.

ALR (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of skills. It is a matter of the project goals. Anonymous editing (either through IP's or through pseudonymous usernames) is a fundamental tenet of the project. In order to ensure that contributions made by those anon editors can be legitimate, we have to offload (at least at a doctrinal level) the research and editorial control. I could be a theoretical physicist. I could be a film critic. I could be a Fortune 500 CEO. I could be a 12 year old. There is no way for the project to know (see Essjay controversy) and no reason we should pretend like it matters. As such, we have policies like WP:OR and WP:V that ensure that we are not a secondary source, that we are not selecting content on a wide basis by individually considering the primary constituents.

This also is only a matter for accepting sources. This doesn't mean that we demand credulity when it comes to the claims those sources make. IF the New york times publishes some hokum about a legal subject, we should not use that claim in an article. However, we may have to assert that the article has been shown to be false or that the particular claim has been rejected by another source. I think it works pretty well, myself. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ALR, I do appreciate what you are getting at here and it is thought-provoking. I am convinced that one of the keys to solving some of the problems with the more contentious areas in wiki might be clarifying verifiability policy in those areas. I imagine the policy works well enough in the middle areas, but doesn't hold up in extremis. I am not trying to support or contradict any theory, just trying to determine what constitutes a "reliable source" on wiki. Why would the following not apply to the DM? "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Not extremist, but "promotional" in regard to a POV (Labour)and acknowledged to rely heavily on rumours ("gossip")? This discussion has led to my listening to all the comments, fact-checking the opinions and finally coming to the conclusion that for me, despite its popularity and "mainstream" nature, it would not qualify as a reliable source. I would never use it as the sole source for contentious material. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no, that argument again shows a total lack of knowledge of the UK press. British newspapers are traditionally partisan, unlike most of the US press. The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail are traditionally pro-Conservative, the Guardian and the Daily Mirror are traditionally pro-Labour and the Independent is somewhere in-between. That doesn't mean that they are in any way "promotional" when it comes to news reporting on issues other than domestic politics (and "promotional" isn't the right way to put it, either; "biased" is closer to the mark). Their editorial outlook may be influenced by their political allegiences, just like Fox News in the US has an assertively conservative bias to its reporting, but this doesn't in any way mean that any of them are unreliable sources. As for "relying on rumours", while the Mirror may - like all newspapers - report gossip, that does not mean that all of its coverage is gossip. As I've pointed out, the story you're disputing is a serious, mainstream piece of journalism by an accredited foreign correspondent, and as Ty has pointed out the Mirror is a leading mainstream newspaper which fully meets our standards. You're not approaching this in good faith - you're simply trying to find a reason to reject it, even when your arguments don't hold water. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mirror, for all it's faults, is no more or less reliable than any other news publication in the UK. They all have a political agenda driven by their ownership, some have better editorial oversight than others and that oversight does vary depending on what the theme of the story is. My point is not that the Mirror is better or worse, but that assessing sources at that level is inadequate. Those wishing to exploit the policies need to think more about how to do that, and ask appropriate questions. as observed by ChrisO, this discussion is getting nowhere and might as well be killed.

ALR (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

{unindent}That's your choice. This means that you probably would never use a newspaper as a reliable source, because almost all of them support political candidates during elections (POV according to you), and have gossip columns. Where did you get "acknowledged to rely heavily on rumours" from? Doug Weller (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From here, I'm guessing... (Added) Tundrabuggy has at last explained what specifically he's disputing - a single line which I was able to corroborate from two other sources within about 30 seconds (see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Al-Durrah was "pronounced dead"). I suggest that we consider this discussion closed, since there doesn't appear to be anything further that can usefully be said. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse closure. Previously uninvolved editors consider that this source meets wikipedia requirements per WP:V, which is all that is required. This source should be used from a NPOV like all sources and per UNDUE. Ty 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's resolved as far as I'm concerned. & btw, ChrisO, my question was specifically to the Daily Mirror, not to any particular point. I am more than ever convinced it is an unreliable rag, but it is clear there is no consenus for that here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirsten Storms Engagement

Someone left me a talk comment because I'm in a edit war with AltCrash. They left that user the same comment and they simply deleted it and went back to editing it with false information.

The user, AltCrash keeps editing the page to say that Kirsten Storms is engaged to Elias Reidy. Even tho Kirsten herself has said she is not engaged. The reason for this is because a friend of Stacey Winter, who is married to Ronnie Winter posted it on the Red Jumpsuit board. (http://theredjumpsuit.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=discussion&action=display&thread=2691) that he proposed for her birthday. But, Kirsten herself said that she is not engaged in a article that came out in late June (http://i31.tinypic.com/263gdg8.png) I know, that it could be said that she doesn't want fans to know, but in the thread, the friend says that she is sure that they don't mind fans knowing. So it is false. A spokesperson for GH even stated in a Daytime Emmy Article, which happened in mid June, that the rumors are simply rumors. SpoiledTink (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• What is your question? Protonk (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Which source is more reliable? SpoiledTink (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neither is reliable. One is a scan of an article in some unknown magazine, the other is a forum posting. If we knew which magazine that was, we could just cite the magazine and it might be reliable (depending on what it was). Protonk (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The image has a date and web address showing it to be ABC Soaps in Depth magazine, July 14, 2008. Not exactly The New Yorker, but it's certainly better than a friend-of-a-friend forum posting, which is completely inadmissable as a source per WP:SPS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Air Combat Group RAAF

Kopp, Carlo. "RAAF strike force merge". Retrieved June 15, 2008.

I was wondering whether this link is reliable for the article it is being used in (linked above). CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 22:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am renewing this as it was removed with no comments and archived. CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It was archived automatically. Sorry that no one got to you. WP:SPS covers sources like this pretty neatly. If the author of the work is a figure in the industry who is otherwise reliable, then we can accept that the work produced there would be reliable in his specific discipline. the author appears to be published in the field but he is clearly not a leader in the field. Furthermore, although he is very accomplished within the field of aviation, he doesn't appear to be professionally involved with the F-111. Tl;dr is yes, but keep an eye out for something better. Protonk (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Court Documents - are they reliable sources or not?

On the Tucker Max article, the court documents involved in a legal escapade were added to the article by an editor. Another editor removed the documents, claiming that they were first party sources and thus not valid sources. I couldn't find any information about the validity of court documents on the Reliable Sources page, so I'm asking here. Here are direct links to the six court documents cited. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. McJeff (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Insofar as the court clerk and the lawyers for either party don't do official fact checking, they are not reliable sources. Furthermore, requests for relief are fundamentally rhetorical documents--they are written to convince the reader of a proposition. there are limits to the extent this can be taken, but the short takeaway is that a reading of that document for a neutral, factual encyclopedia would require a level of editorial discretion we don't practice. We may consider them as primary documents for a subject, but WP:BLP would severely limit how we use those sources. Basically, no. I can think of a very small set of possible situations where it would be acceptable to use those documents, but most cases it would be inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

the article has been cleaned up a bit, although the court case PDFs are still being used as sources. would you mind taking a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Max#Legal_troubles and letting us know if the sources are still being used inappropriately? they look ok to me now, but they are still primary sources. (diff: [[26]]) thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the right way to cover this story. If it is a notable case, it will have been reported in the mainstream newspapers. Cite the newspaper articles, not the court documents directly. If it isn't in any newspaper, then it probably isn't a notable case. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the case has been discussed in mainstream newspapers. See this New York Times article, for example, which is already cited in the article. However, the point of the case is that someone claimed that someone else invaded her privacy by publishing certain comments about her on the Internet. Therefore, we should proceed very cautiously with regard to WP:BLP and the Tucker Max article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fansites and official transcripts

I'm bringing this to RS as its likely to get far more attention and generate a wider consensus. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Fansites. There is a stalled discussion on the use of fansites to host official transcripts. The logic seems to be that even though the fansite is an unreliable source, if we want to cite a transcript of something and there is no official source, a fansite is a perfectly acceptable source. Personally I feel if the site is unreliable we can't trust them to host reliable things (whatever that is, exactly how do we prove to the reader that we consider what the fansite is hosting is reliable). I think this is a bit of an extension of the youtube debate above (but not about a particular issue as that one seems to be). As a community do we feel unreliable sources can host reliable things?--Crossmr (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is a transcript in this context? --Commander Keane (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to an issue he has with this policy of the Video game project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Fansites

Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Fansites--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I included that in my original post. I made no attempt to hide it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well seemingly anything, there is a section on the main project page that indicates what they mean by this: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Fansites which includes the text A notable exception to this rule exists. When a fansite is publishing third party information that is reliable, but is not available elsewhere, or only in video or audio format, it may be cited. For example, a transcript of the text of a cut scene may only be available on a fansite. In this case, cite the video game (see below), and include a link like "Transcript" to the fansite containing the transcript. Do not cite the fansite itself as source. They're trying to say Don't cite the fansite but including the link like that is as good as saying that content hosted on the fansite is reliable. Otherwise, why are we linking to it? I bring this up because I ran into a situation on a now deleted article where for months a fansite was trying to push a name of a character into the wikipedia article where the only basis for inclusion was transcripts hosted on their site which gave the character a name. The creator never used the name of the character in the flash comic. If we're sourcing something primary like something in a video game that's fine, but putting up transcripts on unreliable sources doesn't seem like a good idea to me.--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK if by transcripts we are just talking about quotes from games, it seems to me the only time you can use a transcript is when it is quoted in a reliable source. The entire WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Fansites section looks wrong to me, I can understand using a fansite that quotes a magazine as a stepping stone, by linking to the fansite until someone can access the magazine but that is the only legitimate use of a fansite (and it is tenuous at best). If you don't rely on reliable sources for quotes of games, then what is to stop you placing 5000 words of quotes into the article - reliable sources help control the content of Wikipedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not entirely sure we'd want to link that fansite quote in the article (as you say very tenuous). It might be brought up on the talk page to indicate that such content exists in a magazine at which point someone could access it and verify it for use in the article. We have no requirement nor want to have unreliable sites copy text out of offline sources for other articles, so I don't see why video games have such a special need.--Crossmr (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• As written, the problem doesn't seem open and shut. We can't force wikipedians to not use fansites in their research, so we can't actually mandate that game information come from the game rather than from a web-available transcript. So, on face, we would want people to cite where they got it, if only to weed out what is cited from an unreliable source. As for the 'policy' question, this is thorny as well. If the fansite made the transcript, then it isn't reliable, period. But if the fansite is merely a host for an "official" transcript, then this is harder to judge. People may upload fakes, altered transcripts, or otherwise give us pause in believing the "official" bit. But the nature of the web blurs the lines. On balance I am going to say that we shouldn't be citing fansite hosted transcripts, but that if an editor is doing so right now, we shouldn't tell them "stop, just cite the game", because they may just write down a citation for the game and continue reading off the transcript. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  if only to weed out what is cited from an unreliable source, since fansites are not reliable if one is cited that means we should remove the information?--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  Not precisely. Well, I mean yes, but preferably the material would be verified against the original game and the cite changed. I raised that issue primarily because a project guideline forbidding fansite transcript citations might just have the effect of causing people to read off the transcript and cite the game. Maybe you guys can write up an inline tag for that sort of articles placing it in a category of "articles awaiting transcript verification" or something. That way you can say "Fansite transcripts aren't reliable, but if that is what you are reading, cite that and place X tag on it. someone will verify it against the game and fix the cite." But that's just a thought. Protonk (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  I think there is a tag for "verify source" or something like that. Perhaps that tag combined with a talk page entry would suffice to indicate it was taken from there and someone should verify it in-game.--Crossmr (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, you have some pretty clever folks over at the VG project. I'm sure someone can whip up a local "verify transcript" template that is specific to your needs so that you can manage a much smaller category than Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification, which is rather large. You could even ask someone to gin up an external link parser that checks where the most popular fansites are links from VG articles and apply the tag yourself. Just spitballing here. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Vampires Will Nver Hurt You

As a fan of My Chemical Romance, I have purchased several of their singles online. I did not, however, see any evidence that two songs, "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" and "Our Lady of Sorrows" were ever singles. As of September 2, 2008, both had been listed as such. I made sure to point this out on their respective talk pages, and corrected many instances of the songs being referred to as "singles." I also suggested that both articles be merged with the main article.--Friginator

• It's a good thing you pointed out the lack of sources. "Our Lady of Sorrows" could be a single, but there is no proof that it ever was. I am going to ask Orfen if he can find a source that lists "Our Lady of Sorrows" as a single, since he created the page. If he can't I think the page should be redirected. However, "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" is most defiantly a single however since there is a music video. – Zntrip 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Vampires Will Never Hurt You" was never a single, as far as I can tell. I have found no evidence that it was, therefore making it an unverified claim. I will continue to edit it as such, unless of course you can find a reliable source to the contrary. I do not want an edit war, of course, but strongly believe in making statements proven to be true. If a statement cannot be confirmed as true, I will not hesitate to remove it. --Friginator 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes a "single." "Vampires Will Nver Hurt You" does indeed have a music video, but I can find no record whatsoever that it or "Our Lady of Sorrows" were ever actually released as singles. I could be wrong, obviously, but see no reason to classify either song as a single without evidence (other than the music video, of course). --Friginator 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• See single (music), a music video = a single. Either way, I have seen physical CD singles of "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" sold on eBay. – Zntrip 02:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article mentioned above says little to nothing about music videos. You must be thinking of another article. I have not seen any copies of "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" on eBay, but it is definitely possible that very few were produced, as the song was early on in My Chemical Romance's career. --Friginator 03:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I had originally created this article because Wikipedia had for a long time had it listed as a single. For creating false information, I apologize. I had created this article a long time ago and after your comment was brought to my attention I felt I would be bold and just redirect it to the album. (copied from Talk:Our Lady of Sorrows (song))  Orfen  ^T • _C 03:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orfen.--Friginator 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• As another comment, a music video doesn't automatically make a single. I have seen the copy of "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" in places on the internet before but I can't find them right now off the top of my head. I will be busy the next few days but I will be sure to look further for a source when I have the time if you both are not able to find one.  Orfen  ^T • _C 03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: it's been (almost exactly!) 2 weeks, and I still haven't found one shred of proof concerning the [supposed] single version of Vampires Will Never Hurt You on ebay or anywhere else. Though Zntrip still says he has seen it, I was bold and redirected it to the main article. After some thought, I have decided to keep it there due to the music video, which itself could warrant a separate page.--Friginator

Another Update: Zntrip did indeed find an image of the supposed single. However, no source was given, and I am skeptical about it even being genuine. --Friginator

Good job on finding an image, but it doesn't look official. It might be a promo, but I doubt it's official. The band logo is different, the Eyeball records logo is different, the band pictures are just screenshots from the music video, there's no copyright, the artwork has little to nothing to do with the song, and you gave no source. Frankly, though I respect your dedication to this article, I also doubt anywhere you got this is a credible source in the first place. If this was simply a promotional givaway, then why is it in a jewel cd case, and not a cardboard slipcase? I may be wrong about this, but I don't think this is real. I have decided to stop redirecting this page, however, because the music video itself might warrant a separate article anyway. --Friginator 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank your for your opinion Friginator, however I find your argument lacking substance. “Doesn't look official” and different logos do not mean that the CD is not legitimate. The fact is that Eyeball Records and My Chemical Romance may have had different logos, as they were relatively obscure. Like Phantoms, Forever is another obscure piece of the band’s discography, yet you do not deny its existence. I believe there is substantial evidence that it is real and therefore I am reverting your recent edits. – Zntrip 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Doesn't look real" was just my opinion, I didn't mean to imply it was a reliable fact. You mention substantial evidence is needed, but still you have no evidence other than a poor-quality photo with no source. I'm sorry, but I will keep changing things back until there is reason to pass this off as true. The reason I haven't brought up "Like Phantoms, Forever" is because I have never done any digging on it, and I KNOW it is very rare. Also, even if the supposed "single" WAS offered as a promotional item, it STILL doesn't count. The template even states, DO NOT ADD NEW SINGLES UNLESS CONFIRMED BY THE LABEL OR THE BAND. If you know a reliable source, by all means please give it. Otherwise I will continue to remove your unsourced information on something that may not even exist in the first place. --Friginator 04:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Whether you are skeptic or not is really not relevant. The photographs I found on eBay (the URL is no longer valid) are substantial evidence. I do in fact think that it is a promotional single, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are many promotional singles that have their own articles such “Aneurysm” by Nirvana or “Macy's Day Parade” by Green Day. – Zntrip 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced images from an invalid page are not "Substantial Evidence." Ebay is far from a reliable source, especially if the URL is no longer valid. Ebay sells thousands of bootleg CDs daily. Even promotional items need sources, and there is no evidence that this is official in the first place. If it's unsourced, I will remove it. --Friginator 00:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m still unconvinced. Would you agree to differ this discussion to the reliable sources noticeboard for a final decision? – Zntrip 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

...And here we are.--Friginator

Nightingale Research Foundation

There's an ongoing discussion about if the following book is a reliable source regarding chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS):

Nightingale Research Foundation; Goldstein, Jay E.; Byron M. Hyde (1992). The Clinical and scientific basis of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Ogdensburg, N.Y: Nightingale Research Foundation. ISBN 0-9695662-0-4.

It's is apparently a self-published source, but the primary editor, Byron Hyde, has published regards CFS. Here is his biography from the publisher of the book (Nightingale Research Foundation). I believe the problem is that the position that there is a difference between CFS and myalgic encephalomyelitis is a minority position. I don't have the details but I figured a posting here would hopefully deal with the complaints on the various talk pages. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The publication, which I have read from beginning to end, contains the proceedings of the first international ME conference, some 75 full-size and richly sourced articles in total. The difference between ME and CFS is not discussed in this publication at all; CFS didn't get into fashion until a couple of years later; the book does however contain the article in which CFS was introduced.

The book was published by the Nightingale Research Foundation, not by the editor. The foundation has since carried on ME research as one of the few research institutes to do so. This book is with distance the single most quoted work on ME, and is known by the nickname 'Bible of ME'. It gives a complete overview of all knowledge about the disease at the time in some 750 pages A4, with over a hundred contributors and historical pictures of them all. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the correct reference is: Byron M. Hyde (ed.) (1992), "The Clinical and Scientific Basis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome", The Nightingale Research Foundation, Ottawa, Canada with editorial and conceptual advice from Levine P and Goldstein J., ISBN 0-9695662-0-4 Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nightingale Researching Foundation published the book. Byron Hyde founded the foundation and runs it. Byron Hyde is the editor of the book. So Byron Hyde is editor and publisher. Authoritative works are usually published by a not vanity press. You don't usually have to set up your own press to publish something when it has quality. That's why Wikipedia has a thing about self pub. This is a self publication spreading a medical fringe view. RetroS1mone talk 02:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The foundation already existed years before the publication of this book. It helped organize the conference, and was asked by the attending experts to publish the proceedings. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WLU that there is a problem with this work. As has been demonstrated on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome, most researchers regard ME as a form of CFS. The whole subject is dominated by intense debate that has gone sour on quite a few occasions (not just on Wikipedia). This book represents a small fringe of researchers who insist that ME is distinct from CFS. It has no standing in the academic literature on the subject, to the point that a recent literature review that quoted from it extensively (PMID 1693596) was inaccessible on the journal website for months, reportedly because it was receiving additional editorial scrutiny. It is unfortunate that Guido has been unable to find a more representative source for his perspective. JFW | T@lk 05:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The 100+ contributors to the book are all highly credited experts in the field, including Acheson, Bell, Buchwald, Goldstein, Hickie, Holmes, Komaroff, Levine, Lloyd, Peterson, Ramsay, Richardson and Suhadolnik, all of which you have no problem refering to outside this book. These contributors wrote the articles as well as the conclusions on behalf of what is now the IACFS/ME, not Hyde. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still a self published book. Expert contributors will have stuff in fact checked and reliable sources. Find those sources, use those sources not the non rs self pub. RetroS1mone talk 12:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the researchers I mentioned are no experts? That is interesting. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The book is also 18 years old. If it is the most recent source that represents the ideas advanced in the book, that suggests that there is very little mainstream interest in it's contents and therefore it would be undue weight to place much emphasis or text on it. If the ideas promulgated by the book were not developed in the past 18 years, this suggests that mainstream interest died shortly after it's publication. If interest persisted, the book is useful as a historical text but the more current references should be used to expand the relevant pages. Indeed, as suggested on the CFS talk page, recent publications (2008) by researchers suggests that ME and CFS are considered interchangeable, with an overall preference for CFS (though always with the mention of ME and a notation that it is an alternative name for CFS). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles still refer to the real Bible, which is even a bit older. Let's discuss only reliability here, shall we? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Only about what the Bible says, certainly not for, say the origins of the earth, animals and humans. That's a logical fallacy because it implies that the Bible is used for verification of scientific information. The Bible is not, it is used for historical and cultural information and even then, if it is contradicted by archeology the archeology wins (Jericho#Walls_of_Jericho for example). On the other hand, The Clinical and scientific basis... is being used to verify scientific information, so the age, publisher and general acceptance is very relevant. You have failed to address the ultimate question here - how accepted is the book by the scholarly majority? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, we have a new main issue now that the old one didn't fly. The book is still sold and cited, if that is what you mean. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) What exactly is being used from the book? This is only an SPS problem if Byron Hyde is also the author of the material being used. It may be a poor quality source, and there seem to be many other reasons to be cautious in using it, but being an editor while also being the publisher of the work of others is not an SPS issue. To those who think this is an SPS issue I would caution against stretching SPS so far as to equate editorial oversight of any kind with actual authorship.PelleSmith (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nothing written by Hyde himself in this book is used anywhere in Wikipedia, except for one reference to his historical chapter to mention that the history of ME/CFS dates back to the 17th century, copying his source. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that it's a reliable source of course. It simply means its not an SPS issue. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't sales and citations, it is if the contents have been eclipsed by later literature and if the conclusions have been rejected by subsequent scholars and the community at large. That use seems fine, but it would seem to be undue weight to use the book to justify, say, that ME and CFS are different conditions. That's one example, but in all cases the context of the citation should be examined to see if an unambiguously reliable source can be substituted. On the Origin of Species is still sold and cited but no-one bases their work on it directly or uses it's contents to discuss the transmission of genetic traits - they use post-modern synthesis works on chromosomes, genes, etc. OtOoS is a classic, but it has been eclipsed - you'd only use it to say "Since the time of Darwin^[1]..." or something similar. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not used for that at all. The book is referenced to nowadays mainly because it contains the definition of ME, an extensive historical overview (not just Hyde's chapter, but 5 chapters in total), and information on the epidemics; also, some research is not outdated yet. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be at least two definitions of ME (Ramsay 1988 and Dowsett et al 1990), though the latter seems to share a considerable overlap with CFS. Does anyone use Hyde's definition to do research? If they do, in recent studies that are published in MEDRS, that'd be a boost for it's reliability. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyde (ed.), 1992 includes your second reference:

• Dowsett EG, Ramsay AM, McCartney RA, Bell EJ (1990), "Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) -- A Persistent Enteroviral Infection?", Postgraduate Medical Journal, 66:526-530

as chapter 28. This does, however, not contain the definition of ME, but an overview of complaints. The definition can be found in chapter 4:

• Ramsay AM, Dowsett EG, "Myalgic Encephalomyelitis -- Then and Now: An Epidemiological Introduction"

and has not been published elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes Dowsett 1990 reliable but does not make Hyde any more so. Were it to be published in Hyde first, then in the PMJ, it would argue for Hyde being more reliable. Where is the elsewhere? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me here. Not a clue as to your reasoning. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Dowsett piece specifically has been published in a peer reviewed journal this means it is clearly reliable by our standards. I'm not sure the order of publication actually matters here, though I think WLU is willing to assume that if chapters of Hyde's book end up passing peer review in notable publications then that reflects well on Hyde's own editorial discretion in compiling the book (WLU feel free to tell me if I've not understood that correctly). While that may be the case, in the end as WLU states at first, the fact that one entry is peer reviewed elsewhere has no bearing on any other entries in Hyde's book which have not been peer reviewed.PelleSmith (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Dowsett was published before the Hyde chapter, PelleSmith is correct, my argument doesn't really apply and I tried to indicate that in my earlier post. The only weight my argument would have had would have been "since the book passed a peer review to land in a journal, that suggests the peer reviewers were convinced of its merit, therefore it has some acceptance by the majority." WP:UNDUE is the appropriate policy here - we don't emphasize minority positions beyond their approximate acceptance by the mainstream. That is what I was getting at Guido. In other words, PS understood and elaborated on my reasoning exactly. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pelle and WLU, if an article that got peer reviewed got in Hyde's book to, then it is acceptable but why would you cite Hyde's book not the peer reviewed article in hte reliable source. Guido tried to say I question the authors' expertness, I do not. I just said experts will say the same things in peer reviewed sources and those are acceptable. In a book from a "press" like this from a foundation like this the fact checking is not acceptable may be by WP standard. We can't know w/o original research, that is why Wikipedia goes for sources that are not from a one-book press. Think about a hypathetical example like if a psychosomatic conspiracy doctor started a foundation called "CFS is Depression" and a press called "CFS Depression Press" and published one book where he edits just articles from his friends that think CFS is totally psychological. If the stuff is not peer reviewed it is not reliable, and the weird selfpub by a one book press and a agenda foundation is also not reliable. What would Guido say about a book like that i wonder. RetroS1mone talk 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make things up, you have not even seen the book. Everything in the book is peer-reviewed by Hyde, Goldstein and Levine to begin with. Quite a few articles in it have been published in a journal, and where we refer to those I believe we are in fact refering to the journal.

I fully trust WLU to keep an eye out for WP:UNDUE, so can we please go forward now that you have been found wrong? It would be nice if you returned the references that you removed yourself. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're done here - Hyde is for the most part a source of very tenuous reliability, and can only be used for uncontroversial information that is not contradicted by other sources. Whenever possible it should be replaced with sources that are newer and more reliable. It is not an adequate source for a page saying ME and CFS are different things, and at best can be used to illustrate a minority point that some researchers consider the two different. But given WP:UNDUE, this should clearly be portrayed as the opinion of a minority and given a proportionately small amount of text.

My opinion is it should only be used in subsidiary articles on the controversies of CFS, perhaps the history. And quite clearly most editors believe Guido is wrong. I'm not sure what is gained trying to portray it as any other way considering how clear it is in the above prose.

Does anyone besides guido think we're not done? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 10:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not refered to Hyde to prove that ME and CFS are different, thanks. For that, I refered to the WHO, the CDC, the IACFS/ME, the name change workgroup and Jason. Now, since the reliability issue has been settled, I will not respond here anymore. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reliability issue is not settled well except if you go with consensus, one editor says its non rs, three editors say the reliablity has problems and you should use representetive sources, one editor rejects everyone elses opinion. Like WLU said this source at best is tenuous. Like PelleSmith said stuff in here that got published in a more reliable source can be accepted but it doesn't mean the book is reliable. Like JFD said this is not a representetive source. Peer review doesn't mean edited by the publisher, founder of press, founder of organization, back to selfpub. Theres thousands and thousands of peer review sources for CFS and some of the stuff in this book is in peer review sources. Theres only three reasons to use it, you want to promote it, you don't know the peer reiview literature or your trying on making a point with it against wp:undue. I am hoping Guido doesn't pretend this means they can use this source like its the bible again. RetroS1mone talk 11:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I just want to make something clear regarding a comment Guido made. This is book is not peer reviewed in any sense meaningful to sourcing standards. People getting editing credit for a work do not function as "peer reviewers" because they are by no means impartial. Please do not make such claims because it destroys the meaning of "peer review". Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't agree with you there. Critical comments on the articles are even included in the book, so your premise that editors can't be impartial is clearly incorrect. Peer review for conference bundles can be just as strict as for journals; I've been on both sides of the equation in either case. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never even seen this book but I stand by what I wrote. You are mistaking editorial oversight of various kinds for peer review. Peer review generally functions anonymously, as our entry here (linked above) aptly puts it - "to help foster unvarnished criticism, and to discourage cronyism in funding and publication decisions." I have never heard of the attributed editor of a collection of essays equated with a peer reviewer, or the process by which this editor collects and reviews the essays as a "peer review". These editors are not impartial because their position vis-a-vis the publication is in diametric opposition to that of an anonymous critic. They have a very public stake in a book publication which attributes to them editorship. You are of course free to provide evidence to the contrary but I do not agree even remotely. If the book was "peer reviewed" then it was not by the attributed editors and if that is the case I see no proof of it. Please note that my concern is not with this book and its specific contents but with the standards by which we are willing to use the term "peer review" to support a claim of reliability.PelleSmith (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but at the same time peer review for journals was not always anonymous, and even anonymous reviewers often have an interest in seeing the publication appear - or not. Personally, I think that anonymous peer review is a mistake. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You think that anonymity should not be part of peer review? Good to know your opinion, but its pretty immaterial here. I'm sure you know, that the differences between the type of editorial oversight given to this book and any type of "peer review" (anonymous or not) are still enormous. Peer reviewers do not take credit for the work they review in any setting, unless again there is something I don't know and you'd like to convince me with some evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure why this is continuing. All I ask is for there to be some care in using phrases like "peer review" which have a very specific meaning in terms of sourcing standards - a meaning which cannot be maintained when it is not adhered to. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The book should be used with extreme caution, and replaced whenever possible. It's not peer reviewed, but it may have some, very careful use, as delineated in WP:SPS and should only be used when it's not contradicted by other sources. Any reliability it gets is from Hyde's name and reputation, but this does not give it the same prestige of an actual peer-reviewed work. Anyone want to throw a resolved template at the top? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Some publications that refer to this work are:

• DiPino RK, Kane RL (1996), "Neurocognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome", Neuropsychology Review, Issue Volume 6, Number 1 / March, 1996, Pages 47-60
• Marshall EP, Williams M, Hooper M (2001), "What is ME? What is CFS? Information for clinicians and lawyers", England
• WAMES (2004), "ME & CFS: A Report for the Welsh Assembly Government", Welsh Association of ME & CFS Support (WAMES), February 2004
• Kennedy G (2004), "The Specificity of the CDC-1994 criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome: comparison of health status in three groups of patients who fulfill the criteria", Annals of Epidemiology, Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 95-100
• Hooper M (2007), "Myalgic encephalomyelitis: a review with emphasis on key findings in biomedical research", Journal of Clinical Pathology 2007;60:466-471

Apparently, these authors and the journals consider the book reliable. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally irelevant to Wikipedia's reliable source policy, and these are not all rs any way. And please stop making personal attacks on me like saying I didn't see the book. RetroS1mone talk 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with Jon & Kate Plus 8

There was a previous case where outside people are trying to unbalance the article Jon & Kate Plus 8... (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive437#Jon_.26_Kate_Plus_8. Now, the SPA's are back (see: [27] for the contributions of the SPA in question. They want to add a controversy section to the article (these SPA's have a anti-Kate Gosselin POV), and have added a press release of a former child star, Paul Petersen, through the foundation A Minor Consideration, who claims that the Gosselins are putting their children at risk by continuing to film the show. This seems to me to be not a WP:Reliable Source, they don't have any RS covering the statement (its a primary source).. Since this seems to be an ongoing issue with an organized group of SPA's on this article, could I get a view on the "controversy" section and the statement of the foundation? (if it keeps up, this might be a good candidate for BLP) SirFozzie (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources being used for Early British Kingdoms articles

In this case, specifically Glastening‎ but also others. Three sources concern me - none of them are, I think, RS. 'The History Files' - [28] - I can't see any sign of its being a reliable site. David Nash Ford's 'Early British Kingdoms' [29]- David's a nice chap but the site is his own personal website. And finally Britannia.com, a website run by an American about Britain [30] This article and a few others rely heavily or virtually exclusively on these three sites and need some work. Doug Weller (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Far too many others, in fact. I agree entirely with Doug Weller's remarks above. On these sites sources are not normally given, fact, legend and imaginative reconstructions are hopelessly intermixed and presented uncritically: these are not reliable sources. There are others in the same category but they are mainly a problem with articles on Celtic mythology and early literature. I'm not even very happy with having them as external links as they are so misleading and likely to result in yet further contributions based on what is found there. So how do we go about establishing a firm policy on this? Should we have a page listing these dubious sites and summarising our policy so we can place a convenient link to it when reverting bad references? Should the list include unacceptable printed sources as well (as primary sources in the articles[s])? Do we need a template, for instance? Good to see this being discussed, anyway. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this considered a reliable source?

Can this be used as a source for Christian rock in the infobox at Thousand Foot Krutch? Landon1980 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Musicmight appears to be the site formerly known as Rockdetector. See here for a discussion of Rockdetector as a reliable source from a few weeks back. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post, AJC, & E&P

It seems that the issue is now the reliability (aka bias) of the two sources, among others in the never ending dispute over sources on Criticism of Bill O'reilly page. I have already argued successfully that blogs (non self-published) can be valid sources (as seen in WP:V), after the recent discussion diverged from a WP:EL claim (which is completely unfounded, as it was a cite, not a External Link), and now is on the reliability of the two sources. While Huffington Post probably has been discussed already (and already discussed on the talk page of the article), I would like it reviewed, in addition to Editor and Publisher, as reliable sources. Huffington Post specifically to end the issue, and Editor and Publisher because I don't know anything about it and it was raised as a issue. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC) edit Sorry for the edit, but can this be added: Atlantic Journal Constitution as the objections seems to have changed (as they always seem) from those two (which were what the section was originally about) to this one and another? I don't know anything about the Atlantic Journal Constitution. And, would you know a link to where Huffington Post was discussed? I don't have the time to find it/don't know where it would be. I'll remember to not use it in the future, except for specific cases (ex. criticism) and to identify it clearly. Thank you.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Huffpo has been discussed before. It's my personal opinion that the site is not really reliable. they run wire service reports, minimal self produced news and lots of opinion pieces. they don't distinguish well between opinion pieces and news pieces and even the news pieces have a political slant. In short, the only way for something to be reliable from huffpo is if the writer is independently well regarded on a subject. So Sam Nunn on non-proliferation, etc. Otherwise, no. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• E&P is a little different. their job is coverage of media and they do it fairly well. they have been accused of bias from the left and the right, which means they are doing an ok job in my book. I don't know how they treat their online postings (for some reason I can't get to a link), but material that appears in the print journal is reliable. They may have a left leaning bias, but someone would need to confirm that with a source before applying that qualifier to fact or opinion cited to them. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• The underlying source for this item appears to be this blog item from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is the main newspaper in a large city, so presumably the newspaper is a reliable source and its blogs are more reliable than the average blog. But I am concerned that just throwing items into Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator) may violate WP:NPOV. Consider that Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is already more than four times as long as Criticism of Osama bin Laden. Perhaps the O'Reilly article may be getting out of hand. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I don't consider it at all odd that criticism of papa bear is 4X as long as criticism of Bin Laden. Bin Laden is a murdering terrorist with a long history of extremism. Very little of what we would file under "criticism" would apply to him. Criticism of him would be something like "he responded poorly to the russian invasion of afghanistan, wasting troops and ammunition" (true, although he was a really local figure and it was just a few battles). We wouldn't really seek to put "oh yeah, he's responsible for the deaths of thousands" in a "criticism section". :)

• As for NPOV, that's a hard question. Part of it is evaluating the source. The next part is evaluating the placement of the source in the article. I'm not sure how to make suggestions on that one, it is always a thorny question. Protonk (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we have a guideline for who gets an article in Category:Criticisms of living persons articles, and what should be included in such an article? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • These articles are usually spinoff articles when a criticism section gets too long although criticism sections are considered bad and the recommendation is to weave critical material into relevant parts of the article. A "criticims of..." article could be looked at as a criticism section and perhaps dealt with in that context. MrMurph101 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• You know the longer WP drags its feet about this kind of crap the bigger the problem is going to be, and this is a good example. Blogs should NEVER be used as a primary source for contencious issues, and reliable sources repeating a blog (aka BLOGWASHING) should not be used. If something is notable, especially regarding a WP:WELLKNOWN then there will be several MSM reports regarding the issue. This section in the BOR article is backed up almost entirely by Blog sources based on the logic that Blogs may sometimes be used. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am on the record as not liking blogs as citations, period. I know that SOME blogs are now associated with Journals and newspapers, but these are still pretty much opinion pieces written by an individual. Wikipedia has a bizzilion rules, policies, guidlines and two bizzilion exceptions to those rules, policies and guidelines. The amount of wiki lawyering going on in this project is pretty disgusting, imho. I would argue that there should be a pretty dam good reason for including a blog, one, and two, there had better be dam good consensus for doing so. The reason WHY a blog is used as a citation should be clearly laid out and explained for all to see, whuch has not been the case so far. I have now asked 5 times on the talk page for why it is so important to add this citation with no answer, just Wikilawyer and blather. If 10 editors, say "Tom, you are a jackass, and this citation belongs in the article", then I will put the saddle on and ride off into the sunset. Again, the overwheming ownous should be on WHY this is being added, especially when it relates to criticism of indivduals or contensious material. Cheers, --Tom 14:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not answering that question. There are more than 1 questions on the page. I was refuting the claim that blogs can't be used outright. I never touched (or officially addressed) the notability, as certain editors just wouldn't get that blogs can be used according to wikipedia policy. That is why I created the outdent on the talk page!!!! Please leave this discussion to the reliability of the source, NOT about the discussion on that talk page. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this article has been how to manage what I call "bloat" which adds recentism that no one may care about in the near future. There has been some consensus that inclusion should at least show there is media coverage of the issue beyond what a specific individual or organization bring up. For example, we do not bring up everything that Media Matters or Keith Olbermann have to say but note that they are major critics. A reader can be directed to MM's website if they want to get more specifics. Where I'm at right now is that the article should undergo a peer review and see what is a proper way to handle these kind of articles. MrMurph101 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Has there been a "ruling" here? An editor has advised me to "move along" and is edit warring over this. I will not revert again but leave this up to others and see how this progresses. Thank you, --Tom 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that Tom has advanced, that blogs can never be used no matter whether they're from a large news organization or have editorial control, strikes me as unnecessary hostility toward the technology regardless of the merit of the source. Yes, there are unreliable self-published blogs, just as there are unreliable self-published newsletters. That does not apply to blogs from major newspapers or magazines such as the AJG or E&P. For instance, Newsday has their sports beat writers maintain blogs for the teams they cover, and many times an article that would've gotten printed in the newspaper and that was cut only for space reasons (not article quality or anything like it) runs in the blog instead. These are fully reported sports articles with quotes and attribution. If we adopt Tom's rationale, we would be forced to ignore articles like these, even if they enhance the encyclopedia and inform our readers, just because of the technology used to present them to the world. Croctotheface (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Croctotheface, may I clarify. Above, I believe that I stated that I have come around to the "consensus" that not all blogs are equal. It is true that I am not a fan of their inclusion as citations. My point on the talk page is that editors wanting to use a blog as a citation should really spell out to the community WHY the blog is relevant and how it makes the article better, since they are "generally" discouraged. I now that I will be accused of "shopping" for a reason for non inclusion, but from the git go, I have wanted to know WHY is it so important to include this blog as the 3rd citation. All editors have different opinions and reasons for their edits. Anyways, I do agree with your comment about trying to get each editor to state what they are trying to accomplish as you pointed out on the talk page of said article. --Tom 18:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Croc, I think the big problem is when Blogs are used to push a contencious issue that has not recieved main stream attention. This and when a rumor is pushed by a non-reliable source or blog is then picked up by one of these so-called reliable blogs to give reliable weight to the rumor. But the biggest problem is that there is a case by case basis of logic that doesn't match up. Some simple rules are needed to keep things orderly, such as I have suggested earlier. (Note, this is MY suggestion) - "BLOGS may never be used as a primary source of information for contencious issues." This simple addition should solve most problems including weight issues related to Blogs in general. Arzel (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I have stated before that wikipedia policy states that blogs can be used if not self published. See WP:V the cite note next to blogs. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP Reliable Sources supercedes V, and it only says that they MAY be acceptable. Even so there is confusion as to there use hence this discussion. Arzel (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are using selective application of policies, may I quote from the Self-published sources section in WP:BLP:

Main page: WP:SELFPUB

Yes, WP:BLP says: MAIN ARTICLE: SELFPUB. and where is that? WP:V. that essentially means, that WP:BLP references WP:V, which says it can be used. Your argument falls flat there. In addition, the Self Published sources are only to self published sources, and do not apply to non self published sources.

And the reliable sources section which you quoted says below that:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

You seem to have ignored this section. Again. Despite me quoting this exactly on the discussion page. Multiple times. I even said it here at the top. It makes me think you are refusing to get the point (see WP:IDHT). I am only replying since you are continuing to add irrelevant arguments to this page that has nothing to do with the reliability.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I'd like it if all parties already involved in the discussion on CoBOR page not give opinions here, and let it be a 3rd party analysis of the reputability and credibility of the sources, keeping other discussions there. That is what, I think, this noticeboard is about. I was only asking for if the sources were reputable, not specific cases. Thank you. I will refrain from posting on here in the future, and hopefully so will User:Arzel, User:Threeafterthree (Tom), User: Croctotheface (yes, I included supporters of both sides of the argument who have posted here to remain fair). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the request in your note is unreasonable and unfair. Both sides should be allowed to present their opinions, just as you have freely done. Secondly, I think you may be misreading WP:BLP based on taking the above paragraph out of context, with the larger goal of BLP and the purpose of Wikipedia. Yes, these newspaper interactive blogs may be acceptable in some cases. But in reality, you would still need consensus to determine whether the use in the article is acceptable. Since there is no consensus on those sources, I'd suggest you find objectively reliable sources, or just wait until they arise. Remember there is no deadline here. Finally, the overriding theme of BLP is to find sources of the highest order before adding info into articles. I don't think anyone would argue that the AJC and E and P are not reliable sources, but there is legitimate dispute about whether that translates over to their respective blogs. Also, the paragraph you cited does not exist in vacuum-- undue weight, NPOV, consensus will still apply to information even if it comes from a reliable source, or fits the exception you cite. After reviewing the dispute my suggestion would be to remove the blog sources. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Volokh Conspiracy (legal blog)

Resolved

 – Not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Two legal scholars, Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr, have been quoted in the Tucker Max article. While I believe that the aforementioned are indeed notable law scholars, their quotes have been culled from a blog called The Volokh Conspiracy. Even though those quoted are experts in the field, should this blog be considered a reliable source from where to quote them? The blog is not all about law either [[31]], [[32]], so I am thinking it should be treated as any other blog - not a reliable source. Any opinions? Thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The governing policy here is WP:BLP not WP:SPS. The answer is always no. Self published sourced can't be used to source material, good bad or indifferent about a person who isn't the source. While I consider the Volokh Conspiracy a good read and a good source for legal matters, we can't use it in the Tucker Max article. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless the source is a newspaper/editor controlled non self-published blog as defined in WP:V (which WP:BLP references to instead of detailing exactly), then no. If yes, then it also has to pass WP:NPOV/other non RS/V related policies. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote the part of WP:BLP that says these sources are unacceptable? McJeff (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, which says "Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article..." Protonk (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Human Nature Review a Reliable Source?

I am a novice on Wikipedia, so I'd like to canvass opinion on the Human Nature website: http://human-nature.com

Quote: Human Nature Review is a significant source of analysis and commentary for readers at leading universities and research institutes in over one hundred and sixty countries and is one of the most popular sites on the whole world wide web. Esterson (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look great. The "affiliated" site seems to belong to one school of psychoanalysis. It doesn't seem to be part of the academic mainstream. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. But the affiliated website does not have a Human Nature URL: http://www.psychoanalysis-and-therapy.com/

I think it's only "affiliated" because it is the specific interest of one of the editors. The Human Nature website itself has articles and reviews by academics on a wide range of scientific topics: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/contents.html Esterson (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC) This gives a better idea of the contents of the Human Nature Review website: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/browse.html Esterson (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Human Nature Review is definitely not part of regular academic publishing. If you want to use an article posted on it that was written by an academic who also publishes in peer-reviewed outlets, then it's best to treat it as self-published, as if it appeared on his/her blog. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Esterson (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

Resolved

 – No, but use judgment for material you know is wrong that is in an otherwise reliable source. Protonk (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Facebook a valid source for the birthdate of a subject? Tanya Tagaq Gillis has the wrong date and her Facebook page gives the correct date but it's not viewable unless logged in. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ability to view the page isn't relevant, I can think of a whole range of reasons why Facebook isn't compliant with policy. Whether it should or shouldn't be for some items is up for debate, although on balance I don't think there are any good arguments for considering it reliable.

ALR (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This birthdate issue has been annoying me for a while. Her correct birthdate has been added a couple of times but without a source. Both times I removed it because the source given is a relilable one but gives the wrong year. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you'll see from previous discusion that I have serious concerns about the blanket endorsement of newspapers being reliable. I see the point, and personally think you could probably come up with an argument for removing the incorrect date, although you're then left with a blank.

ALR (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, reliable isn't the same thing as correct. If you don't have a reliable source attesting to a different, specific birthdate but you can show other editors reasons why the newspaper birthdate is wrong, then you should just try to convince them on the talk page to have it moved to a birth year or month. We don't need to reference facebook (oh god no), but we shouldn't let a policy stop us from getting an article right. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll probably just take it out. Nobody else is trying to keep it in and there was only one other editor who entered her correct birthday and I took that out as unsourced. The only way that I can "prove" her birthdate is wrong is to use even worse sourcing than Facebook. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The differences between reliable, wikipedia version of reliable and accurate is essentially my point. Regrettably I do see a lot of retention of incorrect data on the basis of meeting the wikipedia criteria. Whilst that is frustrating it's understandable, particularly where there might be some dispute over the accuracy. I've also seen, regularly, an extremely legalistic approach which essentially recognises that data are incorrect but exploits the weaknesses in the guidance set to inject a position on a topic which essentially biases it. Personally I find it a disturbing prostitution of intellectual integrity, but some people are happy with it.

In this instance it doesn't appear to be contentious.

ALR (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

More than one source needed?

Based on what was in an academic paper, I inserted into an article details about what was found on a manslaughter victim's person. Another editor reversed, saying that the information wasn't in other sources. It should probably be mentioned that these others sources are silent on the issue, they don't contradict the first source. Is it necessary or desirable to have multiple sources for material? 130.156.31.33 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• This can depend on the kind of claim that is made. Some claims, which are very contentious, require some pretty solid sourcing. If one source is not impeccable, it is not wrong to request some corroboration. However, this is usually only the case for extraordinary claims. What is the claim in question? Protonk (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim is that the manslaughter victim had money in her hand when police arrived. The victim was a store patron whom a store employee erroneously believed was stealing merchandise. A physical confrontation ensued, with the employee eventually shooting and killing the victim. The shooter was convicted of manslaughter. Police who investigated the incident and viewed the store videotape concluded that the victim was not stealing, and the money in hand was intended to pay for purchases. 130.156.29.230 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

An academic paper is a reliable source and if it isn't contradicted then there probably is no problem with including the information. The incident you describe is not what wuld be called "an extraordinary claim". It would be possible to say something like "according to an academic paper blah blah, but this was not in the initial newspaper reports". But if you do that make sure that it does not read like an attempt to discredit the academic paper. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

I can't decide if this meets the criteria of being a RS. I don't think that it does...but on the off chance that it does, I'm gonna ask about it. Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Black Parade genre

There has always been a debate of the genres used to classify the band My Chemical Romance's music. This debate continued to the album article The Black Parade. The genre emo is disputed. The album is listed as emo in the allmusic review of the album. An article about the emo nature of the album can also be found here. A discussion about the inclusion of emo can be found on Talk:The Black Parade#Genre Changes to "Emo" and on User talk:Friginator#The Black Parade Genre Controversy and I was wondering if these sources are reliable enough to warrent the inclusion of the genre.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Full Discussion:

Needless to say, the genre of the album keeps getting changed to emo, and almost immediately changed back, only to be changed again and so on. My proposal is that it be accepted either way. I don't see any harm either way, and I think there are more important things to do on Wikipedia than cause an endless edit war about something completely arbitrary. There is no official genre for almost any album. It's all open to interpretation. I think we need to list the genre as simply, "Rock," since that is the only status the band has given its work. The problem is that there is no evidence either way, and therefore no reason to state it as encyclopedic fact. Let's just all just say from now on that the album is NOT classified as "emo," due to a complete and utter lack of evidence. However, I do not have any personal opinions either way, I just see this as the only way to minimize the article being changed back and forth. I'm not quite sure how we would go about making a desicion like that, but I'm sure there could be a way.--Friginator 2:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• While I understand your concern the genre for emo is actually sourced and should be included. That is why I keep changing it back. It is sourced through the allmusic review of the album. All of the genres must be sourced. Reliable sources would have to be provided saying this album wasn't emo if that genre was to become disputed. The genres listed currently aren't just genres I or other users feel this album is like. It is sourced by allmusic which is what they say the album sounds like. Genres require sources other than the band to classify for sure what it is. All information needs to be sourced by a reliable source and the genres provided were provided by a professional reviewer.  Orfen  ^T • _C 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Or, to put it succinctly, WP:BURDEN states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". While I feel the subject does qualify as emo music, I'd need to find some article (preferably in a music magazine like Rolling Stone) that specifically called The Black Parade emo. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Orfen: Though I would obviously say that Allmusic.com is a good source of info, I don't see how their interpretations could be seen as an official designation of Genre. In my opinion, the genre should simply be changed to "Rock," because that is the only genre acknowledged by all parties, including the band themselves. Since the band has specifically stated that they are NOT emo, and that neither is this particular album, I would say there is good evidence against the inclusion. I do agree that if Rolling Stone actually classified the album as emo, a good case could be made. If a statement is open to interpretation, it should by not be included in an encyclopedic article. --Friginator 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The band themselves don't count as a reliable source though. We cannot use primary sources for things such as genres. We need to use the opinions of reliable music critics to decide what we include in Wikipedia not the ediotors or the band. Yes, the band's opinion is worth mentioning (although I am not sure if there is something about them denying the term emo specifically for The Black Parade) but they ultimately don't decide on Wikipedia what their album sounds like. Yes, they made it, but it is up to the critics to decide for us what the album is classified as regardless of our opinions. Whether we believe if this album can be classified as emo having sourced information makes for a better article and a better encyclopedia.  Orfen  ^T • _C 05:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the genre change, though, is that "genre" is an opinion, and can't be stated as a fact either way. The album got generally positive reviews from critics, but we don't state that the album was "good" or "bad," because this is not fact. I don't think that the band themselves are any less reliable than allmusic.com. We could always note the critics' interpretations, but we could not verify their opinions as fact. Also, the term "emo" is so specific that it couldn't apply to the entire album. One song ["Mama"] incorporates Russian polka, but this is not the subgenre either. With virtually every Wikipedia article on music, there are debates over genre and subgenre, which is why I think that the entire situation has gotten out of hand, and Wikipedia needs to separate all the opinions from the facts. --Friginator 29:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• The genres source by reliable sources who are considered experts in their field aren't just considered opinion. Those are reliable facts and as such we should list them. If there is a dispute then the dispute should be listed but there needs to be reliable sources showing a dispute. This isn't an encyclopedia that tells the opinion of its users but rather what published experts in the field have listed as their interpretation. Allmusic or any other website hasn't listed the genre of the album as Russian polka. Yes, some mention the fact that "Mama" is a different song for the band and list why but even then I'm not sure if it is specifically labeled as Russian polka. We can't add how we think the album sounds. We have to add how respected publishers feel the album sounds. Yes, there are sometimes a lot of bias in the disputes on talk pages but in the end we are creating an encyclopedia based on the published views of others. We can't let how we think an album sounds or how we feel a band should be labeled come into play when making an article. Excluding the genre emo would be POV since we wouldn't be covering a neutral POV as we have obviously made our own decisions on how we think the album or the band sounds.  Orfen  ^T • _C 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree for the same reasons as before, but more importantly, IGN's review specifically states that this particular album is not emo, whereas Allmusic.com (the given source) only has "emo" listed as one of the many styles. Allmusic classifies the genre, however, as simply "Rock." Again, the opinions of others should not be listed as fact, despite who these others are. Not including a genre is not POV or any type of bias. It would be POV to state that the genre is not "emo", but refusing to choose a side either way is just staying neutral. --Friginator 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• You say to look at your talk page but I have already read this. How can you refuse to choose a side? You can't. Not listing means you are saying it isn't emo. Listing it is saying it is. You can't just not take a side. One needs to be taken based on the reliable sources. IGN actually says "My Chemical Romance is NOT an emo band. At least that's what they want you to believe. Not only have the members of the band said so publicly, but they are going out of their way to back up those words with their music." Also some more sources to add are AOL and FYE. I don't understand how not including it as a genre means it isn't emo. There are also a couple non-music related sources that say the album is emo and part of an emo movement. The band article also lists them as emo. I don't understand why the sources don't point to emo.  Orfen  ^T • _C 01:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I referred you back to my talk page is that I feel there are better ways to discuss this than through edit wars. The IGN quote you mentioned does make a specific case against the "emo" classification for this specific album, even if it doesn't insist upon it. As long as there are reliable sources, and something is open to interpretation, you can't just go around stating it as fact. Encyclopedias are based on stating the facts, not the opinions. "Emo" is an opinion, and if there are conflicting sources then you can't pick sides. No one is suggesting that Wikipedia insist that it is not emo, but until there is some sort of infallible proof that the album is unarguably emo, we can't go around stating what only SOME of the critics interpret. What I don't understand is why you think staying neutral is in itself some kind of bias. How can the album meet criteria for the "emo" genre if those criteria don't exist? There's no specific way to verify arbitrary claims. If something can't be proven, you don't state it to be true on an encyclopedia. Reviews and consensus don't count as proof of something, especially if other reviews and consensus point otherwise. About your new sources: neither actually reviews the album, they both just cite a review from allmusic that you already cited. Plus, neither of them list "emo" as the genre, just one of several styles. Even if you are going to go against the very purpose of having an Encyclopedia, you still would have to come up with ONE reliable source stating that this album IS emo, which you still have not. Coming to conclusions like that because-- "I don't see why the [as of yet ungiven] sources don't point to emo" --violates WP:OR.--Friginator 03:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is based on second party sources. The allmusic source is a second party source. The genre isn't listed in the review but it is listed as a style of the album. Not the band. It is a style for the album. Also it is a covered subject in the UK where it is believed a suicide took place due to the "emo" nature of the album. Located here. Saying that the second party sources do not indicate this album is emo is ignoring the sources completely.  Orfen  ^T • _C 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The suicide article/incident has absolutely nothing to do with this. A suicide report is not an appropriate source for defining a music genre. Anyway, "emo" would be (in your previous examples) from a secondary source, but I don't see how that's relevant either. For example I could find several secondary sources implying "Onions taste bad," but I wouldn't state that insinuation as fact on the "Onion" page. The way onions taste is up to the taster, just like whether music is "emo" or not is up to the listener. It's an opinion, and just because some second party sources have that opinion doesn't make it a fact. That's why we stay neutral. Wikipedia gets all its credibility from the credibility of secondary sources, but it still only states the facts. That's why Dictionaries, Textbooks and Encyclopedias exist. To separate the facts from the opinions so others can learn enough to form their own opinions. --Friginator 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• You still don't understand. Yes, everyone has their own opinion as to what an album sounds like. If in the instance experts believe the album sounds emo then it should be stated. You almost seem like you're suggesting that all genres are based upon personal opinion. Well then why not remove all the genres? Why do you only have problem with the emo genre which is covered in secondary sources. Wikipedia is based upon the things secondary sources write. Allmusic lists the album as emo. Listing it as such isn't POV, not listing it even after a reliable secondary source lists it as such is POV. It is saying "I don't think this album sounds like emo and think it is just someone else's opinion so shouldn't be listed". You say that Wikipedia gets its credibility from the credibility of secondary sources. Allmusic is a credible reliable source. How is the album sounding like emo an opinion while the album sounding like rock is a fact? You are picking out certain genres you feel apply to album and not targeting those. Your argument is that the emo genre is an opinion but then doesn't that make all the genres listed an opinion of allmusic? Your example of onions is different from what is the case here. You are talking more about reviews which if you look there are good and bad reviews for this album which is listed. Genres are decided not by my opinion or yours but by that of reliable secondary sources. Allmusic is a reliable secondary source, their opinion should be listed. If it needs a source then all it takes is a reference to the allmusic review.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If a statement 1. is open to interpretation 2. can't be proven, and 3. is almost unique to every person who states it, it's an opinion. If all genre classifications were as arbitrary as this one, then NOT removing them would be POV, and YES I would want them taken down if a large amount of people disagreed with their validity. But everyone agrees that the album is a "rock" album, and there's no evidence to the contrary, so the genre can be listed as "rock." This is still not to mention whether the sources you gave that supposedly have that opinion (though they don't state it outright) are reliable or not. I also disagree with your choice to cite an editorial about why people commit suicide, as if it knows more about the album than the sites that actually listened to it carefully and reviewed it. The IGN review I mentioned is actually about the album, and actually mentions whether it's emo or not. However, you still forget that my intention is not to have the album classified as "NON-emo." My intention is to not take a side in this big controversy. --Friginator 06:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Black Parade genre. We both obviously have Wikipedia's best interests at heart but have a different view on how to improve it. Perhaps an outside comment can help put this to rest.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. this argument is getting repetetive. --Friginator 05:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

End Discussion

Continental Freemasonry in North America

Full disclosure: I know very little about freemasonry. That being said, I was recently drawn into a discussion about this by a post at the BLP noticeboard in regards to the now redirected Grand Orient of the United States of America, a relatively new Masonic grouping. Consensus on the article talk page seemed to be emerging that the article should be redirected to Continental Freemasonry, but the original author decided to redirect to a new article called Continental Freemasonry in North America. I object to just about every source in the article as a reliable source. The bulk of the sources are simply links to homepages of various masonic lodges or groupings in North America, such as Le Droit Humain and Grand Orient of the United States. These are certainly fine external links that prove these lodges exist, but, in my opinion, do not constitute reliable, secondary sources. The only sources that do not come from a specific lodges website are masonicinfo.com, an anti-freemasonry website that doesn't seem reliable at all to me, and freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com, a blog maintained by Christopher Hodapp. Are any of these sources actually reliable? AniMate 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

These are not in general reliable secondary sources, except Hodapp's weblog is okay for some things per WP:SPS. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of small corrections. Masonicinfo is very much a pro-freemasonry site, it's just against Continental Freemasonry (most native English speaking Freemasons tend to belong to "Anglo-American" masonry, hence the English wikipedia's systemic bias towards this tendency). I also did not agree to the redirect to Continental Freemasonry, but to the Continental Freemasonry in America article. So Animate jumped the gun on a misunderstanding.

Although King may or may not be a reliable secondary source he surely contributes to notability as he's certainly independent of the source.

JASpencer (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If King is not reliable, then he does not contribute to notability... if he is reliable, then he does... but that also means his views should be represented in the article. You can not split the difference (ie unreliable, but contributing to notability).

This is actually more complicated than it at first appears... masonicinfo.com is highly regarded in the masonic community (frequently referred to and quoted on various masonic blogs and forums), but it is essentially a self-published website reflecting the view of one person. Until this issue came up, the Freemasonry Project has deemed the site to be reliable ... and it has been used as a citation in many of the articles relating to that topic. It will certainly be a headache to root out all of these references and find new ones (it can be done... it will just take a while). Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that simple. Reliability for BLP (especially accusing people of fraud) has to be a higher standard than notability. BLP is about higher standards of proof. JASpencer (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking points memo

Just thought I'd raise the question of whether this is an RS for their non-opinion pieces. They are obviously partisan, but they also do real journalism (professionally) and have won awards for it. They also seem to make a clear distinction between journalism and opinion.

I wouldn't trust any of their conclusions or synthesis, and they would never be a particularly high-quality source, I'm just wondering if they can be referred to on simple matters of fact. This came up at Sarah Palin over this post of theirs - if you read the post, it's well-sourced and the narrative it gives, stripped of the POV, is not actually that unflattering for Palin. It looks to me like journalism, and they do have a professional reputation to uphold. Homunq (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is, somewhere in the RS/N archives, a discussion of which elements of TPM are reliable sources. I don't remember which are and which aren't, but this has been answered before. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in archive 9, but the issue remains a bit contentious on Talk:Sarah Palin.Homunq (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the presentation of facts or the competence of journalism involved there is no escaping the fact that this is an avowedly partisan source (Well, maybe not avowedly, but they are obviously partisan to any reasonable observer). My guess is that you will be unable to find consensus on the use of TPM as a source for reporting of fact (rather than opinion) unless both sides happen to agree on the facts in question. Take your pick as to whether or not those are POV or RS concerns, but people will have them. So, rather than send you to the WP:NPOV/N, I'll just tell you that the answer there will not resolve the situation either. Sorry. :( Protonk (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the only online source I know of for two facts, one of which is mildly pro-Palin and the other of which is mildly anti-Palin. It names its own source for both, which is RS (actually a newspaper Palin once worked at!) but not online or accessible. Betcha can't guess the solution proposed by the pro-Palin crowd :) Homunq (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Free Inquiry magazine for religious/anti-religious topics

Resolved

.

Is Free Inquiry magazine reliable for religious topics? Their interest in promoting atheism could potentially affect their choices in the articles they publish. Specifically is there an issue with this Gregory Paul article used here and here as a reference? It seems to me to be not meet wikipedia's standards for reliable sources as they prescribe, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The article is on history, but Gregory Paul is not a historian, he is a Paleontologist.

Furthermore, the approach he used and bold statements he made in his later, more publicized foray outside of paleontology attracted criticism from more authoritative subjects in the field (see here) as well as within later volumes of the same journal, see here and here. Additionally, Mr. Paul is not a neutral source, he has a history of taking pro-atheist sides in whatever forum available, see here. I don't think someone who makes the effort to step outside his discipline multiple times from history to sociology/statistics just to uniformly arrive at an anti-religious conclusion in order to tout it to highly skeptical crowds can be considered unbiased. opinions? Madridrealy (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC) fixed punctuation Madridrealy (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your description of Paul and the reception of his work is extremely one-sided. First, the quality of his later paper on sociological issue does not necessarily implicate the simple historical discussion of the paper in question. But secondly, the serious papers you cite all acknowledge Paul's work as useful and interesting, if no definitive. Far from "refuting" him, they more refine the work. Criticism is an inherent property of scientific work. Your comment about a "history of taking the pro-atheist side" is a classical false dichotomy. Arguing for evolution and against pseudo-science in not "pro-atheist", but "anti-nonsense". Many Christians are doing exactly the same. Similarly, pointing out failures of religious groups and organizations is not necessarily anti-religion - the pope himself has acknowledged and apologized for the persecution of Gallileo. The journal in question is usually considered reliable but opinionated. However, for statements of fact I'd usually trust them. Interpretative statement, I would usually require explicit attribution. Paul does cite his sources, so it might be possible to avoid this discussion by going to the original source, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz said "But secondly, the serious papers you cite all acknowledge Paul's work as useful and interesting, if no definitive." Yes, but we are looking for more than "useful and interesting" we are looking for someone who sticks to the evidence and doesn't make unsupported statements. The main concern with Mr. Paul was him making further statements than was supported by the evidence or as the Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Mark Caleb Smith, and Thomas Mach paper said , "What one can state with certainty is that one cannot in any way be certain as to the effects of religiosity and secularism upon prosperous democracies at least as based upon the methods and data of Paul’s study." and as far as usefulness the same paper said

"Paul does not provide the reader with a meaningful opportunity to evaluate his findings, for he provides no correlation coefficients. He also fails to determine or report the significance of these correlations, so the reader is left to trust Paul’s judgment that a negative correlation between theism and indicators of societal health has been established."

And as Jenson wrote 'In short, Paul’s analysis generates the “desired results” by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion.' Why should we think he refrained from doing that in his other work? 'And who are you quoting with '"refuting"'?

"Paul does cite his sources, so it might be possible to avoid this discussion by going to the original source, of course." Yes that's is what I guess I will end up trying to verify. The first problem was the secular humanism site that were cited as sources didn't have the in-text citations for some reason. However I just managed to find one that did here. Fortunately the part in question is not either of the parts where he referenced himself 8-|. Unfortunately it is a few paragraphs before it gets to the citation, but I assume it is 24 since that is the next one down: "Klaus Scholder. The Churches and the Third Reich vols. 1 and 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979 [English version 1988])" which is of course out of print at amazon. I personally am slightly suspicious because of accusation from semi unreliable sources of incorrect sourcing before, so if I can I will check on the book especially the assertion that,he "banned freethought organizations" as the wikipedia page puts it. If anyone has any more insights please add them. If not I will put this as resolved when I check back. Madridrealy (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source on topics related to religion, unless used as a primary source of criticism. Here is how the magazine describes its own purpose:

• "The aim of Free Inquiry is to promote and nurture the good life - life guided by reason and science, freed from the dogmas of god and state, inspired by compassion for fellow humans, and driven by the ideals of human freedom, happiness, and understanding. Free Inquiry is dedicated to seeing that one day all members of the human family thrive by embracing basic humanist principles."

It is unabashedly published from a point of view critical of religion and in promotion of humanism. I don't doubt that the actual quality of scholarship is very high in its contributions but that doesn't change the unfortunate fact of its stated purpose. I also highly doubt that anyone needs to use Free Inquiry as a reference for historical facts. Go to the sources used by the articles, published by academic presses or in peer-reviewed journals.PelleSmith (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Pelle. Our article on Nazism should be sourced only to top-quality historical works - there is certainly no shortage of those. And I'm sure a better source can be found for the short mention of Nazi Germany in Discrimination against atheists. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can probably find a better on for the quote, the problem is despite all the available sources I can't find anyone else that refers to him banning freethought organizations, other than pages that refer to his paper (which help lead up to this ending up on this page in the first place). Also he uses the phrase "anti-godless" in quotes but I can't find any books that seem to refer to this with Hitler on google books, just with communists and in the case of 1947 Jewish Spectator, Americans, ("Nor is it in any ,way more uplifting if the attempt is made, as is being made, to flaunt the banner of the Warriors of Christ for the purpose of inducing the Americans to be less exacting creditors and more anti-Godless-minded anti-Russians."). And I can find no mention of the words: Hiter Anti-godless anywhere on google scholar nor JSTOR. I am not even sure which one his source is for the statement that was cited in wikipedia (23 or 24) because most statements seem to have the source ending a paragraph, however, when I checked something I thought was dubious ("He and Heydrich modeled the S.S. after the disciplined and secretive Jesuits; it would not accept atheists as members.") I noticed the source that came after (21) just said "Neopaganism was far more prevalent in the S.S. than in German society as a whole: even according to Party statistics, paganism never claimed more than 5 percent of the general population" which gives no information on banning atheism and even for that statement of neopagans, only a vague source for the statement. Again my concern is him going farther then his evidence.

Also I think it would be better for wikipedia to link to a less pov pushing, more historical oriented paper if possible (preferably by someone who chooses to write about the topic based on historical, scholarly interest, not to push a world-view). The out of context statements and cherry-picking of statements by the paleontologist could give a very biased opinion to someone looking at it. I think this should be mentioned. I can go into more detail if need be.Madridrealy (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is a 1931 reference to a large "Anti-Gottlosenbewegung" here (in German) by a socialist Christian, who describes the "anti-Godless movement" as aimed primarily against the German Communist Party (KPD). It seems that "Gottlosenbewegung" (movement of the godless) was a 19030s German pejorative for communists/socialists, for reasons that would appear obvious – wanting to cause revulsion against these movements in burgeois circles. I don't think religion had really all that much to do with it, it was just a convenient and effective putdown, playing on widely held prejudice. (I'm no expert on 1930s German politics though, so please take it with the proverbial pinch of salt.) Jayen466 17:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I can replace the source for that part with that.Madridrealy (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed according to Hindu Scriptures: False Claims

Hello everyone,

The wiki topic on Mohammed (the prophet) has a sub-topic titled "Views according to Hindu scriptures" (ref:https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Muhammad#Views_according_to_Hindu_Scriptures)

This topic claims that Mohammed has been mentioned in the Rig Vedas, Bhavishya Purana and is also Kalki, one of the avatars of Lord Vishnu!

Most of these "claims" are based on doubtful/spurious sources (the Bhavishya Purana-which saw a lot of editing in the 19th century). To put it simply, this "sub-topic" is very misleading. Do I remove the topic or provide a write-up saying that most of these claims are "not true" (by giving the side by side analysis from other scholars debunking such claims)? freewit (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes we have a relentless sockpuppet who keeps adding this stuff. It's been raised on this noticeboard several times. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RajivLal (2nd). Get rid of it. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Using an article from the Radio Free Europe site as evidence for qualifications of an author

In the article Kaveh Farrokh the author is described as "an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics" on the basis of this article. [33]. I don't think that this is a reliable source for such a statement - which is particularly misleading as the author's PhD is, according to the article, in "the cognitive and linguistic processes of Persian speakers" and he has published on dyslexia and the sociology of languages, whereas the claim in the lead is, I think, meant to give him credence in the field of historical linguistics (as the purpose of the article is to, IMHO, push him as a historian). In any case, I think the source isn't sufficient. I removed it because of that and it was replaced, so I'm here now. Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead link - "Unexpected error happened" --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the link, an 's' got added to the end somehow.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I get the same result. Maybe the article has been removed? If so, it isn't verifiable, so it can't be used in any case. But I think the policy you need to look at, Doug, is under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations, specifically: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." So if you have scholarly sources (such as an author biography published in such a source) that should be preferred over a media report. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having had another look at the article you mention, I think it clearly fails WP:PROF - thus I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Copying Information With Permission

Resolved

 – Not a reliable sources issue. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it within the rules of wikipedia to reproduce information from an external source, without paraphrasing it, is direct permission has been given from the author? In a contribution, I copied a paragraph with the author's permission, and it was deleted because it was copied. Was this deletion justified, or does the permission allow me to reproduce it? Thank you in advance.Tkma (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to ask such a question, please add all the facts so that responding editors know what you are talking about. You've framed this question so that the most likely response would be "yes". You added this to Cameron Diaz on September 29 2007. I removed it 16 December 2007 with the edit summary "removed. uncited OR". It was certainly uncited, and it looked like OR, but I did not remove it because it was copied, because I didn't know it had been. You are misrepresenting what I did. Since July you've been contacting me on my talk page, and finally in the last couple of days you revealed which article you were discussing and said that you had received permission from Monsters and Critics. Looking at the page, the first thing I noticed was a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, so I told you that copyright material was never acceptable and referred to our policy. Looking again later, I noticed that the page shows a credit "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article about Cameron Diaz." Actually it doesn't just use material from Wikipedia, it copies it verbatim. Looking through the different versions of our Cameron Diaz article, it would appear the website is using a version of the article after you added your paragraph. If your paragraph was added to Wikipedia before it was added to the "Monsters and Critics" site, and it is not your own work, you need to be forthcoming about where the text originated from. If you've received permission from the copyright holder, you should identify the copyright holder, produce the permission, and stop speaking in riddles. Maybe the copyright issue is no longer of concern, and if so, this goes back to my original reason for deletion and my original edit summary. It seems to me that you are using this venue to make a point, and that this has come after failing to resolve it with me over the last 2 months. You first disputed this with me on 21 July, you identified the article 2 months later on 18 September and made your first assertion of copyright permission on 19 September. I find it hard to understand why you didn't mention the copyright permission back in July when you first raised this. If that's your main argument, shouldn't it be the first thing you mention, rather than wait until someone else raises it 2 months later, and then say "How do you know that I did not receive permission? I in fact did receive permission." Excellent. Show the original source and the permission. Rossrs (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask Billboard

Hi people, recently I have noticed a trend whereby answers from "Ask Billboard" are used as sources. While Billboard is a great source, this particular section of it makes we a little uneasy. I'll assume that most have heard of it but to sum up, "Ask Billboard" is a section of the website where people post questions and Billboard staff members reply to them. The questions and answers seem freely visible to all readers and generally revolve around sales figures, chart positions, release dates etc. They seem to have an archiving process to keep past discussions. Are my concerns unfounded? — Realist² 14:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Billboard is a reliable source, especially for questions about the music industry, what's the concern? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

Ongoing debate at Talk:Carly Fiorina regarding "reporting" vs. "published". See thread here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The question seems to be the reliability of CNN's blog. As was already said in the thread you link to, policy does allow use of reliable media outlets' blogs so long as the material referred to is official output of the newspaper or broadcaster. This seems to be the case here. Having said that, I share the concerns about recentism and turning this BLP into a running current affairs commentary. It is highly notable that the subject is working at a high level within the McCain/Palin campaign. Details of that are helpful, e.g. when she is invited to speak at a high-profile event. Not everything she says in that capacity is notable though. Of course when interviewed she will "aggressively" defend Sarah Palin's record. This is the run-of-the-mill of campaigning and not notable unless as an event it attracts independent media commentary. If you need to unpick this further, the NPOV noticeboard would be the place to take it. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is "The Epoch Times" a reliable source

Resolved.

In the article for the People's Republic of China, the paper is used as a source for the number of falun gong practitioners. Is the source reliable?

Absolutely not reliable on such topics. While Falun Gong may be persecuted in China this paper has a specific POV to promote and does not abide by the types of quality control we rely on here. From our entry about the newspaper:

• "Dr. Liu Kang, distinguished professor of Chinese Cultural Studies at Duke University and Associate Director of the Chinese Populations and Socioeconomic Studies Center, asserts that the paper does not adhere to basic journalistic standards of professionalism and objectivity, and is 'not viewed as an independent objective news media' by mainland Chinese."

I'm not sure what the best alternative is and if there isn't one maybe someone can suggest how to use this source, but it should be treated as "reliable" by our standards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Epoch Times is a falun-gong mouthpiece. As such, there is a strong bias in favor of falun-gong and against the PRC government. I would say that it is not reliable for the reasons listed above. Ngchen (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the view of Mainland Chinese, who have never had free and open access to a reliable news source, is pertinent to this discussion. The question is how we view it. I am not sure how Wikipedia interprets its standards, which is why I asked the question here. The newspaper is independently run and seems to have adopted basic journalistic practices. Though, of course, if people have some actual evidence that it isn't reliable (and being critical of the PRC is not enough, IMHO, I'd like to hear it.LedRush (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion does not trump the commentary of a distinguished professor of Chinese culture at Duke University, who asserted independently of his comments about its reception in China that (as paraphrased in our entry) "the paper does not adhere to basic journalistic standards of professionalism and objectivity." Also you will need to back up your view that the mainland Chinese have no concept of reliability in their news media with more than just prejudiced assertions.PelleSmith (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would defer to them in a discussion simply because I have never read the Epoch Times or even heard of it. I have no opinion on its reliability either way, but I suggest that if you want to assert its reliability here that you provide some evidence that ET operates a regular newsroom and has concrete editorial policies. For those who think it is not reliable or is too laden with bias, please provide some more evidence (like the DU prof above) about the fact checking/bias/etc. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting. I went to the Wikipedia article quoted above, and there is a section there called credibility. The only negative statement about the credibility is quoted above. Elsewhere in the section it says:

Arthur Waldron, a leading China scholar and Lauder Professor of International Relations in the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania says he finds The Epoch Times "particularly striking," and believes it is obvious that "its reports are drawn from a network of correspondents inside China, a network that the authorities have not been able to destroy." He recommends those who want to get a sense of what is really going on in China should "pay at least as much attention to The Epoch Times as they do to the People’s Daily."

and:

The paper denies all accusations of bias, stating that "We are not funded by Falun Gong, we don't speak for Falun Gong, and we don't represent Falun Gong."[8]

I just thought that people on this board had some voodoo to figure out reliability, which is why I asked the question here.LedRush (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Epoch Times is used with regard to China and/or Falun Gong issues, it should simply be identified as having a pro-Falun Gong viewpoint. I see no reason to not include it as a reliable source. We don't censor notable viewpoints and news sources simply because an authoritarian government persecutes them. Wikipedia is not Google, after all. And the irony of the statment that the paper is "not viewed as an independent objective news media" by mainland Chinese" should be self-evident. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the "irony" self-evident? On what grounds do you make such an assertion? Also, there is nothing in what Led quotes that speaks to reliability in the least. Arhtur Waldron's comments don't in any way address the issue. What on earth does the fact that he finds the Epoch Times "particularly striking" have to do with reliability? Ngchen is correct. The newspaper is the mouthpiece of Falun Gong. It simply cannot be trusted on issues that are highly politicized in terms of this group ... like membership numbers in China.PelleSmith (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment No one on this board has any special understanding of WP:RS. We are usually just independent of the articles that cause the issues and interested in the application of WP:RS at the margins. Just like any other part of the wiki, this leads to pretty reasonable results. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Commentary about The Epoch Times

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm finding it less than easy to find good additional commentary about this news source. Please feel free to add to this list.PelleSmith (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC) "The same logic can be applied to Chinese diaspora newspapers in London. Taking The Epoch Times as a case study, one can find the content of the Chinese ‘victim’ diaspora paper (they claim to be religious victims of Chinese government) is divide into three categories: propaganda, advertisement and entertainment. All its news is about the deprecation to Chinese government, the ‘persecution’ they endured, the metaphysics involved in their theory and some international news with an intense please to American and British governments." -- Huang, Kuo. "Understanding Diaspora Cultures in the Context of Globalization." Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2005 Annual Meeting Notwithstanding its claims of objectivity, Epoch Times concentrates heavily on negative news of the Chinese government and sympathetic special pages about Falun Gong. Thus Epoch Times represents a major step in the evolution of Falun Gong-related alternative media. Instead of focusing on promoting Li’s or the narrow objectivity of “truth clarification,” this paper can be seen as a more Gramscian public organ, articulating the Falun Gong perspective on a wide range of issues.” – Zhao, Yuezhi. 2003. Falun Gong, Identity and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China”. Contesting Media Power Edited by Nick Couldry and James Curran. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers p. 219 "Falun Gong also have their own media (Li, 2005b), and are heavily involved in the Epoch Times, a free newspaper that is most well known for its polemic Nine commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party, which Li promotes (Li, 2005c)." -- Kavan, Heather. "Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe?" Conference paper, Power and Place, Wellington, July 2008. "The staunch support of the World Journal in North America and the New York-based Epoch Times for Falun Gong activism is but one example of a consistently critical position in relation to the PRC that can be found within the diasporic Chinese media (Zhao 2004)." -- Sun, Wanning. 2005. "Media and the Chinese Diaspora: Community, Consumption, and Transnational Imagination." Journal of Chinese Overseas. 1(1):65-86. "Movement media outlets, like Falun Gong’s Epoch Times organize popular action from afar. Just as American and Mexican labor organizers coordinated strikes and media blitzes against unscrupulous practices in border factories, The Epoch Times sought to orchestrate a mass resignation from the Chinese Communist Party (Thornton, chapter 10). Engineering such events from abroad can produce a boomerang of transnational support and help manufacture dissent, though high-profile activities may also backfire, if scandals or negative press tarnish the reputation of domestic activists and their international backers." -- O'Brien, Kevin J. and Stern, Rachel E. 2007. "Studying Contention in Contemporary China." Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1104748 Following your invitation, I've run a search in Questia (questia.com) on the Epoch Times; the results were as follows: Books The Epoch Times is used as a source in "Dangerous Strait: The U.S.--Taiwan--China Crisis." (Contributors: Nancy Bernkopf Tucker - editor. Publisher: Columbia University Press. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 2005. Page Number: 237.) The reference is attached to the following passage on p. 109: Sixteen cases of personal property loss have exceeded $12 million each, and none of them has been redressed legally, even though the Chinese Communist Party issued a red-lettered decree for proper settlement. Indeed, a lawyer who had represented hundreds of cases was denied reentry to China after he made the issue public.41 Ref. 41 then simply lists one article in the United Daily News, one in the China Times, and one in the Epoch Times. Journal articles The academic paper "Criminal Defamation and the Evolution of the Doctrine of Freedom of Expression in International Law: Comparative Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights," (Journal article by Jo M. Pasqualucci; Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 39, 2006) uses the Epoch Times as one of the sources for the following statement: For some, exercising their freedom of expression can be deadly. Journalists may be murdered for reporting on corruption, human rights abuses, or governmental incompetence. Eleven journalists were assassinated in the Western Hemisphere in 2004 due to their professional activities as social commentators. (235) The footnote reads: (235.) ANNUAL REPORT OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR, supra note 23, ch. II, [paragraph] 7; see Serena Parker, Threats to Press Freedom Remain in Latin America, Say Analysts, THE EPOCH TIMES, Dec. 3, 2004 (discussing the dangers faced by journalists in Latin America) The Epoch Times is used in a similar way as a source in "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? the International Criminal Court as a Weapon of Asymmetric Warfare" (Journal article by W. Chadwick Austin, Antony Barone Kolenc; Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 39, 2006); the footnote reads: (279.) Even when investigations are undertaken, critics of U.S. policy are rarely satisfied. For example, in light of the scandal at Abu Ghraib and the subsequent investigations, Amnesty International called for an "independent and public inquiry into all allegations of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. and coalition troops." Amnesty VOA News, International Calls for Inquiry into Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners, THE EPOCH TIMES, May 4, 2004, http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-5-4/21248.html. Amnesty International claims to have received scores of complaints of ill treatment. Id. The Epoch Times is used as a source in "The Politics of the Dalai Lama's New Initiative for Autonomy" (Journal article by Baogang He, Barry Sautman; Pacific Affairs, Vol. 78, 2005); the footnote reads: (109) Tsering Tashi, "SFT mark Nobel Prize conferment on the Dalai Lama," 12 December 2004, available on the Times of Tibet Web site, , (8 December 2005); Brian Marple, Lori Har-El and Laura Market, "Protestors, Welcomers Converge on Chinese Leader's Arrival in New York," The Epoch Times, 14 September 2005, (8 December 2005). The Epoch Times is used as a source in "Olympic Ideal Demolished: How Forced Evictions in China Related to the 2008 Olympic Games Are Violating International Law" (Journal article by Martha M. Hopkins; Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 29, 2007.). The text cited to it reads Beijing resident Chang Liang recalled his parents' Heavenly Light photo studio, a business run from their home, being forcefully demolished. (188) The photo equipment and tools the family depended on for their livelihood were destroyed in the incident. (189) Additionally, if any compensation is received, the evictor rarely takes into account a business' loss of future income, which further exacerbates the problem. (190). The footnotes read: (188.) Feng Changle, Forced Demolition: The Story of Young Chang Liang's Life, THE EPOCH TIMES, Sep. 1, 2004, available at http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-9-1/23080.html (detailing the numerous tragedies befalling a young Chinese citizen). (189.) Id. The Epoch Times is used as a source in "Smoke, Mirrors, and the Joker in the Pack: On Transitioning to Democracy and the Rule of Law in Post-Soviet Armenia" (Journal article by Karen E. Bravo; Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 29, 2007.) The text cited to it reads The Russian, Ottoman, and Persian Empires are long gone, yet the tensions live on or have found new manifestations among their political descendants. Iran, Persia's modern incarnation, threatens the world's security with nuclear dreams. (335); the footnote reads, (335.) See Western Powers Seek UN Council Pressure on Iran, THE EPOCH TIMES, Mar. 15, 2006, available at http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-3-15/39323.html; Nazila Fathi, Iran is Defiant, Vowing to U.N. It Will Continue Nuclear Efforts, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 25, 2006 at A14. Magazine articles (these are all mentions in The New American) The Epoch Times is mentioned several times in "Terror in Chinatown: President Bush Calls Communist China a "Partner" in the War on Terror, but Some Chinese Americans Are Accusing China of Bringing Its Own Terror Campaign to the USA" (Magazine article by Roger Canfield; The New American, Vol. 22, April 17, 2006); the text reads: Leung's murder "is spreading terror ... [to] warn [those who] ... dare to oppose the CCP," the Epoch Times reported on March 8. "We have now seen the long arm of the Communist regime infiltrate the United States itself.... It is ... a frightening escalation of the Communists' plans to silence and intimidate the overseas Chinese people, in San Francisco, here, and around the world." These accusations seem well founded. In mid-2005, Chen Yonglin, the 1st secretary of the Chinese consulate-general in Sydney, Australia, defected and revealed his network of 1,000 spies and enforcers whose job it was to intimidate people of Chinese descent. And the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution urging the U.S. attorney general to investigate Chinese consular officials in these actions on U.S. soil. ... Pak has a still darker side. "Rose Pak is known to be the spokeswoman of [the] Chinese Communist Party, as well as a special agent for the Chinese Communist Party," according to the Epoch Times. Backing that assertion, the Singtao Daily reported in 2001 that Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin once honored Pak for defeating a resolution by San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly condemning China's persecution of the practitioners of Falun Gong, a Chinese system of exercise and meditation: "President Jiang was very happy ... with the work done by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Rose Pak." Friends of Rose Pak told a Chinese-language reporter, "She came to San Francisco with a clear mission to go into Chinatown." And a Chinese-language reporter has recently discovered that circa 1970, while she was in Australia, Pak made frequent contact with none other than Li Peng, who between 1998 and 2003 ranked second in the Communist Party of China behind Jiang Zemin on the Politburo. ... Within weeks, Allen Leung was brutally murdered. Killing Leung would make sense to the CCP because in Chinatown only a few stalwarts stand in the way of the CCP's goal of being the dominant influence in the community, and Leung was one of the anticommunist stalwarts. Several sources told TNA that Leung was systematically organizing opposition to the CCP just before his death. A Mr. Lin told the Epoch Times, "Allen Leung ... was listed on the CCP's blacklist." Norman Yang, executive president of the Cross Strait Prosperity in Peace Association, told the Epoch Times, "His death ... is a big blow to the anti-CCP ... groups." ... (two further similar mentions of the Epoch Times follow) The Epoch Times is mentioned twice in "Terror in America, Made in China: While U.S. Corporate Elites Export Technology to Communist China's Cyberpolice, the U.S. Government Allows China to Export Brutal Repression to Our Shores" (Magazine article by William F. Jasper; The New American, Vol. 22, March 20, 2006.): At the February 15 subcommittee hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) introduced one of the most recent victims of Communist Chinese brutality on U.S. soil, Dr. Peter Yuan Li, who was seated in the audience. Dr. Li received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Princeton University and for years worked as a scientist for Bell Labs, where he is credited with many inventions. In 2003, Dr. Li began working full time as chief IT specialist for The Epoch Times, a newspaper he had helped found two years earlier. The Epoch Times is associated with the Chinese exercise and meditation sect known as Falun Gong, which since 1999 has been systematically targeted for persecution by the Chinese Communist Party. Tens of thousands of peaceful Falun Gong practitioners have been rounded up and sentenced to prison or forced labor camps. According to Falun Gong press releases, there are more than 2,838 documented cases of Falun Gong practitioners being beaten and tortured to death while in detention. ... This was not a robbery-motivated home invasion; Dr. Li points out that the invaders used military precision and left many valuables that ordinary robbers would have taken. Dr. Li believes he was targeted because he has been in the forefront of helping The Epoch Times develop computer programs that enable Internet users in China to break through the firewalls and filters the communist authorities use to deny them access to the truth. The Epoch Times is mentioned in "Slouching Inspectors, Hidden Dragon" (Magazine article by William F. Jasper; The New American, Vol. 23, August 20, 2007.): I consider myself to be more-than-average vigilant concerning China's designs on our food production, but this was news to me. The first notice I got of China's massive penetration of our vitamin/drug supply was one week prior to the above-cited Seattle Times article, in a May 27 online edition of the Epoch Times, a pro-freedom newspaper started by overseas Chinese associated with the persecuted Falun Gong meditation/exercise group. The article, "A Costly Trade With China," reported: "Currently, almost all of the world's vitamins are manufactured in China.... Last year, the last vitamin C plant in the United States shut down." Could that be right? No more vitamin C is being made in the United States? Most of the world's vitamins are now "Made in China"? I fired off an e-mail to the author of the Epoch Times piece, Heide B. Malhotra. However, even before she responded, I was able to Google confirmation of the disturbing news from multiple government, industry, and media sources. And, of course, as most Americans now know, China is exporting not just vitamins but other food supplies to the United States as well (see cover story). How does it happen that a foreign country--one run by a totalitarian oligarchy that still brands the United States as "Number One Enemy," no less --gains control over a major portion of our nation's food supply, and no one seems to know about it until it's a fait accompli? Why is it that the ubiquitous "Made in China" label that is affixed to everything from cellphones and clothing to toys and pottery is mysteriously absent when it comes to informing consumers about the provenance of products that are going inside their bodies? The Epoch Times is mentioned in "Torture Survivor Tells His Story; Dr. Charles Lee Survived a Three-Year Ordeal in a Communist Chinese Prison. His Story of Physical and Mental Torture Reveals the True Nature of the Communist Regime in Beijing" (Magazine article by Roger Canfield; The New American, Vol. 22, August 21, 2006.): TNA: The Epoch Times has reported that the communists are performing organ removal on live Falun Gong prisoners. What do you think? Lee: I believe it is happening. China has the world's largest supplies of body organs. The CCP has harvested the organs of executed prisoners for many years. I witnessed it as a young doctor. Today you can get a kidney in a matter of days versus a three-year wait in the U.S.A. Practitioners of Falun Gong have been brainwashed, put into mental hospitals, imprisoned, and tortured to death. Why not live organ harvesting? TNA: Would the large numbers of organs available reflect the beliefs of the Chinese people in regard to organ transplants? Lee: Ninety-nine percent of organ removals are forced, not voluntary. Deeply held Chinese traditions favor an intact body alter death. The only exception is family members lovingly donating organs to their own family members. Those are all the references to the Epoch Times that come up in Questia. For comparison, Questia hits for the China Times total 205 matches in books, 56 in journal articles, 9 in magazine articles, and 14 in newspaper articles. Questia hits for the United Daily News total 77 in books, 19 in journal articles, 3 in magazine articles, and 9 in newspaper articles. I had hoped for some more definite statements, but at any rate, that's what is there in Questia. Jayen466 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Mentions of the Epoch Times in google books (perhaps a better place to look ;-) ): [34] Jayen466 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe we should put all of our sources into a collapsible box? I'm not entirely sure what to make of those references especially in light of their dearth. I also ran into references to news stories from The Epoch Times when I was searching for commentary about the paper in various media studies, political science and social science databases - there were not many of them there either. Every comment directly about The Epoch Times seems to highlight their obvious POV in relation to Chinese human rights abuses and anything related to Falun Gong within China. Some of those sources (see above) claim or suggest much stronger affiliations between the religious group and the newspaper than the newspaper officially claims itself -- 1) the Epoch Times is part of "Falun Gong-related alternative media", 2) Falun Gong "are heavily involved in the Epoch Times, 3) the staunch support of the ... Epoch Times for Falun Gong activism, and 4) "Movement media outlets, like Falun Gong’s Epoch Times". Our own entry states in the lead that The Epoch Times was founded by members of Falun Gong and that it is critical of the CCP, the latter of which is also echoed in most of the sources I listed above. Being critical of the communist regime and supportive of Falun Gong related activism doesn't automatically mean they are unreliable. However if we look at the credibility section of our entry in light of these other materials, in evaluating their reliability at best we have sourced statements like this -- "It's hard to vouch for their quality because it's difficult to corroborate, but it's not something to be dismissed as pure propaganda" and at worst sourced statements like this -- "the paper does not adhere to basic journalistic standards of professionalism and objectivity, and is 'not viewed as an independent objective news media' by mainland Chinese." Given their obvious POV and documented slant its hard to understand by what measure we should consider them a reliable source on things related to Falun Gong that are disputed by the Chinese Government. I just don't see it.PelleSmith (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced that The Epoch Times is a reliable source under Wikipedia standards, but I am disheartened that you have repeated an argument that was proven to be misleading above. At best, "The Epoch Times" has been described as follows:

Arthur Waldron, a leading China scholar and Lauder Professor of International Relations in the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania says he finds The Epoch Times "particularly striking," and believes it is obvious that "its reports are drawn from a network of correspondents inside China, a network that the authorities have not been able to destroy." He recommends those who want to get a sense of what is really going on in China should "pay at least as much attention to The Epoch Times as they do to the People’s Daily."

I hope that we can look at the argument on the merits and come up with the best answer.

Also, the dearth of hits is partially because the paper's most popular circulation is in Chinese and the paper is only 8 years old. Of course this doesn't mean it is more reliable (quite the opposite, possibly), but let's discuss this for what it is.LedRush (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just checked out their website, I would find it hard to believe that they aren't closely linked to FLG. This is a bit of OR on my part, but almost every page of theirs has ads for NTDTV and/or Sound of Hope radio, which are well-known FLG outfits. They definitely have an pro-FLG, anti-CPC agenda. That being said, having an agenda does not automatically invalidate a source; however, IIRC there have been some really questionable things related to FLG put out by pro-FLG groups, such as the unsubstantiated organ-harvesting allegations that have never been proven, and indeed might have been debunked. Ngchen (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Political advocacy groups can still be reliable sources. There was a short-lived policy at WP:RS#Political_advocacy_groups that proposed certain caveats for their use, but it was rejected. Remember that "reliable source" is not the same as WP:NPOV. Even if it's directly linked to FLG, it is still a primary source for information about FLG. In that cause, you'd simply quote it as "The Falun Gong-linked newspaper Epoch Times says XYZ" Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Right but the most positive statement about their reliability is in fact that we're not sure at all if they are reliable and the worst is that they do not meet basic journalistic standards for professionalism and objectivity. The fact that they have a known POV simply makes it more problematic to use them on matters related to this POV. That's my basic point. I am not sure why Led keeps on quoting the fluff about the paper being "striking" because while that is a compliment it has nothing to do with their reliability.PelleSmith (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your final point may be correct, but I was just pointing out a flaw in your argument and suggesting that if you were to more fairly present the evidence, your analysis may carry more weight. Again, this is not to say that you're not right, just that I don't think you are presenting the whole story.

Anyway, it looks like we have something close to consensus: The Epoch Times is of dubious reliablity and we should be wary of using it to back up Falun Gong and anti-Chinese Gov't statements. I have removed the citation from the article.LedRush (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)