Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122

Archive 115

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

South Asia Terrorism Portal

Is SATP a RS source to be used in articles it is run by Kanwar Pal Singh Gill former Punjab police credited for bringing the Punjab insurgency but Kanwar Pal Singh Gill himself was accused of human rights violations.SATP Website is an useful resource with a lot of information . Punjabterp (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It has its biases, BUT i would ask what srt of information is it used for? If its to call out a group as terrorist then no, butif its to cite attacks then yes.Lihaas (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No source is reliable for everything, be more specific. You want to ask something like, Is "source A" a good source for the sentence "Fact B."? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Kanwar Pal Singh Gill is himself a former Punjab police chief and accused of human rights violations can it be used in Punjab articles .Terrorism-related incidents are complied on Source: Compiled from English language media sources. as per[1][2] how RS is this .Punjabterp (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked over the site, but you still haven't said what claim you'd like to use the site to support, if you can phrase your question in the manner of "Is this article (insert web link here) RS for the claim that (insert sentence or phrase here)?" I could probably give you a yes/no answer. If you want my overall assesment on this site, I think it would be RS for non-controversial things, but as soon as any editor questions anything, it's no longer non-controversial, so that doesn't get you too far. It does list it's sources, but not in any way that makes it easy to follow what is backing up what. It also lists the board members which look to have some expertise in the area, so that's a plus. They claim to be independent with just only goal of reporting on terrorism related issues. The problem is that it's a controversial label in itself, so without a question in the form I've listed above (twice now), the best I can say is that this site is probably RS for most things, but I can't tell you it definitely is RS for something, unless you tell me what that something is first. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

SATP is definitely reliable. It racks up over 250 google news hits in the past 5 years [3], 1500 mentions in google books [4], and over 450 google scholar hits [5]. Its well known, has strong expertise in its field, and is consistently cited by academicians and reliable news sources.Pectore^talk 01:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

SATP is biased as an anti terror site as it blames all incidents in South Asia on Militant groups particularly during the Punjab insurgency K.P.S.Gill himself was accused of human rights violations as the Punjab police chief,Human Rights Watch Amnesty International here are list of militant groups in South Asia and all incidents of violence are blamed to them particularly biased in Sri Lanka and Punjab were major human violations took place took place.Punjabterp (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Potentially misleading use of independantschools.com ( Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire )

Amazingly for such an unimportant article a debate still rages on the talk: page, mostly about appropriate use of sources to establish notability. I'm trying to raise one spesific point here, however I feel that the article could benefit from wider scrutiny from editors with an interest in ensuring good use of sources.

The section which currently concerns me reads:

"Since 2008, Woodleigh has been ranked in the top 20 independent coeducational schools in England in the Independent School Directory (IndependentSchools.com),[6] which ranks independent and preparatory schools in the United Kingdom based on ratings from users of their website."

This section has been subject to a number of edits, most recently a revert[7], which purportedly was to undo a POV edit, however I believe it introduces an inappropriate use of independantschools.com.

This website does indeed rank Woodleigh at number 12 in it's category, however as has been observed in the talk page [8] independant schools is not a reliable source for school ranking information. The ranking is based on user generated content[9]. According to the site's disclaimer:

"independentschools.com does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of these reviews and opinions, and does not perform an independent investigation to verify their truth or accuracy."[10]

Could somebody confirm if my suspicions are correct: Should we continue to use this source to show the rank of this school? If so, how can we cite this in a less misleading way? --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this article has been the subject of an attack by schools' article 'deletionists'. This should be born in mind. isfutile:P (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "deletionists" comment is supposed to tell me about a source. Has there been any controversy about using this source before (ie, has there been cases where the info was deliberately skewed, or wrong?). Are there other sources available that do the same kind of ranking? (It seems to me there was a question about a govt report in England that ranked schools that came through here not too long ago...). My initial review of the site leads me to believe that as long as you attribute it as a user-input site, it seems relevant, they do have at least a nominal editorial policy, and it doesn't appear misleading to me. With that caveat, I would say it's ok, but I don't think I would use it for any claims that are controversial. I would find a more rigourous source for specific things that are contested. I certainly wouldn't use it to say "School X is ranked 10th" if you have a govt report that ranks it 100th, for example. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The school, like many independent (i.e. private) preparatory schools, does not participate in UK government league tables for primary schools, and their pupils are too young (13 and under) for the school to appear on GCSE or A-Levels league tables. The souce used appears to me not to support their ranking as being in the "top 20" "since 2008". At best it can state "In 2012". You can see the "reviews" on which the ranking from independentschools.com is based here. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "since 2008" is not supported by the link provided (it's possible the way back machine has older rankings, I didn't check). I see the reviews you're referring to, the other schools I looked at had similar reviews. I would be more concerned about vandalism to their ranking based on negative reviews, I would suggest all the positives will mostly cancel each other out, and those kinds of reviews are expected on a user-input content type of ranking, which is why I said it should be attributed. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The current text has been changed to Woodleigh is ranked 12th out of 1,010 independent coeducational schools in England by the Independent School Directory.[17] - which I feel is slightly worse than the original text since since it does not tell the reader that the The Independent School Directory is based entirely on user opinion. Other school rankings are based on objective data (e.g. exam performance, inspection results), this ranking by comparison is little more than an opinion poll. I still think it seems like cherry-picking to use this odd and non-notable source in the Academic standards section, especially because this directory can tell us nothing objective about Woodleigh's academic standards! --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not an RS and should be removed on sight, I notice IP address users are trying to hide this discussion from view on the article - I guess members of the school or the marketing team are trying to force this shite into the article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I share this concern. I would have reverted the IP's revets on sight howevever I know this anon user would simply revert it back. The same user appears to have removed the RS tags claiming that the matter has been resolved - it's obviously still something we are debating. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are we allowing clearly COI ip addresses to control that article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is not a reliable source as, like Wikipedia, it is user-generated. The material should not be in the article if this is the best source for it. --John (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with John. The source is worthless in every respect. Some it it is outright advertising--and even for outright advertising it's usually more of a panegyric--and in a stereotyped format at that-- than the schools would dare do on their own web pages--totally shameless. The reader-generated evaluations are suspicious even as reader-generated evaluations go--almost all of them for every school in the entire country are extremely favorable (there are just enough critical ones, for the lowest ranked schools only, to give a slight indication of impartiality). Not only are 99% of the responses overall favorable, they are extraordinarily favorable in a stereotyped fashion. Each school has always been the only good school someone has ever attended, the one that changed their life or their child's life, the ideal preparation for whatever extremely prestigious further education the student has had. Bad enough. But for this particular school it is even worse: almost all other schools, even the most famous, have 3 to 6 evaluations; this school has 11. It's the proverbial trout in the milk that shows it has been watered. And the table of rankings is based upon the very smallest inconsequential calculated differences in the lat decimal place; even were the data honest, the rankings would be meaningless. I know of no US schools information site anywhere near as bad as this one. Wherever it has been used for whatever purpose in Wikipedia it should be removed, and it should probably go on the blocked link list. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well we are a bit stuck then as people are edit-warring (why I don't know) to keep this worthless source in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• We don't even need to have this discussion - the reliable sources guideline quite clearly states that user-generated content is largely unacceptable, save in cases where they come from an established expert on the topic. Since that isn't the case here, this source not appropriate. If people are edit-warring to keep it in, I second DGG's suggestion to add it to the blacklist; I can't envisage any situation where this link would be useful on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion - how would we move to do that? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLACKLIST. I would hold off for the time being, though; the discussion on the article talk page is still evolving, and it may be that once consensus is clearly established there the issue will resolve itself. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

David Koresh

OTRS ticket 2012050510006926 raises concerns about a sentence in the David Koresh article.

• Sentence: "and it has been alleged that he was once gang raped by older boys when he was 8."
• Dispute: the sentence is not well verified in a reliable source
• Given source: Wilson, Colin (2000), The Devil's Party, London: Virgin Books, ISBN 1-85227-843-9
• Book reviews of the source: Contemporary Review (via HighBeam, to which you should have an account), Utopian Studies (via HighBeam as well).

The reviews are not glowing and the author has a history of writing in some pretty fringe/paranormal areas. What do you think? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiLinks to author: Colin Wilson and publisher: Virgin Books. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Utopian Studies review's snippet is sufficient for me, "This is a set of case studies which provide recent and past examples of false messiahs, organized in twelve chapters without documentation or bibliography." Without scholarly apparatus (ie: citation), how is anyone meant to take statements about the world seriously. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the exact quote from the book that is being used as the source for that edit? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not say he was gang raped when he was eight years old. I can't be bothered to write it all out but here is what the one line does say "(he was once even raped by older boys)" Darkness Shines (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that the author of Alien Dawn & From Atlantis to the Spinx would not be all that reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a POV shot. If you look even here on Wikipedia, you can see he has well over 130 books published, and seems to be an accepted expert in philosophy, of which I think religion could be seen as included. I notice you didn't mention his best selling book on existentialism. I could go on, but I think "I can't be bothered to write it all out". -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

He appears to have no relevant qualifications and from his article it appears to be more mysticism than philosophy. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, according to our article, he's written several books on the subject of mysticism, and googling "Colin Wilson mysticism" brings up several interesting answers including a reference to "the renowned British mystic Colin Wilson". Now I'm not really willing to give a definite opinion without seeing a little more than a single, possibly out of context, sentence, but I'm not so sure we should write him off so quickly either. Did you discover something else about him? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

necrometrics.com?

Resolved

Is necrometrics.com a reliable source?

(Used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29&diff=491363520&oldid=491341689 ) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Been here before, no it is not. It is self published by a librarian. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would you use that site when he provides a link to his source in the same line? [11] looks like a reseach paper (download at the bottom of the article) that is linked to Brown and Boston universities. I didn't read the paper, but I suspect it's going to pass an RS question much easier than necrometrics would. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The cite has been changed[12] to cite the Brown University Eisenhower Study Group, which looks like a reliable source. (Good work, Stumink!) I think we can close this. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Screenslam.com

Resolved

I've tried looking it up, it's owned by Zap Entertainment in LA but google doesn't really help. Don't know if anyone has any better way to check if it is a reliable outlet? This source is being used at Prometheus with this edit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks RS to me, was there something about either the edit or the site that makes you think it's either untrustworthy, or controversial? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just that I couldn't really find any info about it, especially considering it says it's run by a 22 year old company, Zap Entertainment, about which I couldn't find anything either. A party planning site came up before a reference to the correct Zap did. It looked OK, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

there's a bunch of "starting place" info on the "about us" page, at the bottom of your source page, googling some things there helped. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks Despayre, it'll help as I've seen other things on there myself that I wanted to use but was reluctant to. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Youtube again

Can clips from news outlets (say CNN or Reuters for example) hosted on youtube be used as RS? I don't have a particular article in mind, but I see this sort of thing every once in a while. I would assume describing what the video shows is not allowed, but how about quoting what the anchor or reporter says? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please indicate the publisher. If CNN has an official YouTube account (or accounts, etc.) and publishes in YouTube format a CNN video, then yes, this video is as reliable as the original CNN video _would be_. For example, CNN op-eds which are merely available in YouTube format, having been published by a CNN account, would be as reliable as other op-eds (ie: not particularly, and for limited things only). For content ostensibly from a reliable news or media outlet, but actually published or mirrored by random users: no, this content is not reliable as random users have no reputation for publishing content intact, in full, invariant. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo. If it was uploaded directly by CNN, then yes. OTherwise, no. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 07:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we can cut this Gordian knot by distinguishing between Youtube as merely the "carrier" and the uploader as the actual publisher. A library is not the publisher of the books on its shelves. A supermarket is not the manufacturer of the detergent they sell. A cable television service is not responsible for the content of the channels it delivers to your home. So in the question posed by the OP, the publisher is CNN or Reuters, Youtube is merely the "library" where you can find it. Roger (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I followed what you're saying there, if I were to upload CNN video to youtube, it would not be RS. If CNN uploaded the exact same video, it would be RS. Is that what you're saying too? In both cases Youtube is the "carrier/library", however in one case it's RS and in the other it is not. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct, because we have no way of detecting if you have "edited" the the clip to distort what CNN originally reported. Roger (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. And even if I have uploaded dozens of videos from CNN in the past, and they've never been altered, that does not change anything. I would never be RS for CNN videos (well, unless I worked for CNN and that was my job when I uploaded them ). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Following that logic, how do we know the "official" CNN channel on youtube is really run by CNN and not someone pretending to be them? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

They would close it down to protect thier brand image? But you do have a valid point, wew would have to verify it is CNN and not Colins News Network.Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Without question they would shut it down, fast. Create the CNN (Collin News Network) channel on Youtube, throw up the CNN logo, then start your stopwatch to see how fast you get a cease and desist slapped on you. Also, the CNN channel has been in existence since 2006, and has over 20,000 subscribers with 5.3 millions views, I think it's safe to reasonably assume someone would have caught this by now if it wasn't really CNN. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

One time over at Reddit someone linked to Ron Paul speech on YouTube, then someone pointed out that someone in the background "jumped" partway through. Turns out someone had edited out a section and carefully matched the position of Paul on the screen so it was almost invisible. Editing of YouTube videos actually happens, and if the faker was more sophisticated, you would not be able to tell.

In theory, libraries have the same issue. A sophisticated forger could alter a reference book in a library near a Wikipedia editor, cite the false info, and the editor would confirm that the false info was in the book he checked. This is of course a lot harder than faking a YouTube video, and he couldn't get all the copies in all the libraries, but in theory it could be done. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Youtube have an "identity verification" procedure to remove accounts that fraudulently claim to represent companies or well known people? I trawled through Youtube's Help and FAQ pages but found nothing relevant. Roger (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like they do:

http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=126272

http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=151655

Checking does not appear to be automatic, but rather is based upon the person or company being impersonated using the YouTube Help & Safety Tool to request review for removal. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugo Bardi's blog as "mainstream science"?

Ugo Bardi is the founder of ASPO Italia.

The members of this association try to systematically substantiate their thoughts by using the so-called peak oil theory as they know WHEN the so-called "peak oil" will happen. Unfortunately, they are not able to give a precise date, a year for example, for WHEN this so-called "peak oil" will happen. But because they affirm that the so-called "peak oil" will happen soon, then they use this "information" to push for renewable energies.

Being the founder of an association who pushes for a theory (ie the peak oil theory) which is strongly debated in the scientific community (see here: Predicting the timing of peak oil and here: Peak_oil_theory#Criticisms), can Ugo Bardi's blog be used to represent "mainstream science"?

From the page on Wikipedia on ASPO:

But ASPO has its share of critics. The current debate revolves around energy policy, and whether to shift funding to increasing fuel efficiency, and alternative energy sources like solar and nuclear power. Campbell's critics, like Michael C. Lynch, argue that his research data is sloppy. They point to the date of the coming peak, which was initially projected to occur by the year 1997, but the date was pushed back to 2000, then 2010, moved up to 2006 (in 2004) and later (2005) back to 2010. Campbell explains this with the fact that he has got better data from industry and more reliable estimates. However, Campbell and his supporters insist that when the peak occurs is not as important as the realization that the peak is coming.

I do not contest the importance of renewable energies, I contest the use of the blog of the founder of ASPO Italia as source to represent "mainstream science". --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You haven't even shown the reference or what text of Professor Ugo Bardi is in contention. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please provide the edit that you are questioning, along with the link from the blog that is being used as the source. The blog is neither blanket-reliable, nor blanket-unreliable, without having a specific context to work with. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie is being coy, because he knows what the problem article is: Energy Catalyzer, a LNER device/scam from Italy. The ongoing saga of this article is that most of the people who are actually riding herd on this thing from a critical (that is, not credulous) perspective are people within the alternative-energy/energy-futurism world, presumably because scams like this one are a threat to them, and because the thing is so obviously bogus that it hasn't risen to the notice of science writers in the larger world outside of a few unwary mass-media people who should have known better. Bardi is one of several people who have been watching the device, and the objections he raises are perfectly valid scientifically. There are several stubborn people who refuse to concede that this thing is a fraud, and they pick away at the various sources. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Professor Bardi's article is fully in accord with mainstream science, and with common sense. The E-Cat is a dubious contraption of no scientific credibility whasoever, subject to no verification whatsoever, being promoted by a dubious 'entrepreneur' with a long and murky history of 'enterprises' that do nothing but releive 'investors' of their money and (on at least one occasion) resulting in a multimillion-euro cleanup, funded at the taxpayers expense. Sadly, right from the start, promtors of 'LENR as proper science' have attempted to use the article as a coatrack to push their pet projects, despite a complete lack of evidence of any connection with LENR, science, or anything but old-fashioned snake-oil showmanship. Now, as the device/scheme/scam fades into history (not even leaving a trace of steam, having produced little of even that), the last few stalwart defenders of LENR would rather perpetuate the myth that there was 'science' behind this, and would rather leave readers with the impresssion that there might have been. There wasn't, and per WP:FRINGE policy, we have a duty to our readers to make this clear. Given the dubious sources used to justify the article in the first place, that we cite a blog [13] from a Professor of Science at the University of Florence to tell our readers what mainstream science has to say regarding Rossi's device is entirely acceptable. What isn't acceptable is the endless soapboxing, dubious 'original research' veering into conspiracy theories, and other tendentious waffle that has gone on at Talk:Energy Catalyzer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump made a lot of baseless claims. The community has already decided that an article on the Energy Catalyzer is fit to be on Wikipedia. So, here there is a different problem to decide. A blog, ie Ugo Bardi's blog, is used to represent "mainstream science". The problem is this: can someone (like Ugo Bardi - founder of ASPO Italia), who pushes for a theory (the so-called "peak oil theory") which is considered strongly debated in the scientific community, be used to represent "mainstream science"? As I have already written to AndyTheGrump, it is not enough that "his POV is exactly that of mainstream science" (as AndyTheGrump stated), we need "mainstream science" to be quoted via a mainstream scientist for this POV. A scientist, who pushes for a theory (the so-called peak oil theory) which is considered to be highly controversial in the scientific community (to say at least), cannnot be considered a "mainstream scientist" and therefore cannot be used to represent "mainstream science". (Moreover the quotation comes from his blog!)--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What 'baseless claims'? Your original objection to using Bardi was because he "cannot be considered as a reliable source of information and cannot be considerend NPOV, because of his direct involvement in the energy field". But what is this 'involvement'? And what has NPOV got to do with it anyway? You are essentially claiming that a science professor at a reputable Italian university is giving a misleading account of the E-Cat affair in order to promote a contentious theory - that oil supplies are liable to run out sooner than the oil companies claim. But how does reporting that the E-Cat is hokum help promote this theory? It doesn't, except in the deluded mind of a conspiracy-theory-pushing promoter of magic-teapot-driven utopias. Please take your POV-pushing 'original research' (which hardly qualifies as 'research' at all) elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't a blog for such nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Despayre, here is the last diff [14] of the disputed edit and the blog [15] that the quote is taken from. In the WP-article's section "Reactions to the claims" several quotes are already used to paint a NPOV picture of the Ecat. The current prominent placement of the quote in the LEAD is not in line with NPOV and therefore my proposal was to stick it with the other "Reactions to the claims". Later in the discussion it was highlighted that Bardi is the founder of the Italian branch of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, thus it is likely that the views of this association are reflected in Bardi's article, making the use in the LEAD even more problematic.

So, what shall we do with this quote ? Delete it altogether, shift it to the other quotes in the dedicated section or leave it in the LEAD which caused this dispute.

My opinion is that the source (the BLOG) can be seen as reliable for the views of Bardi, but although Bardi is a member of the scientific community, he is not an expert in this field. And blogs are only allowed as source if they come from an established expert in the field. It is argued that Bardi represents mainstream science, but he seems to be part of an association that holds views which are not fully embraced by mainstream science.

At least it should be made clear to the WP-reader that Ugo Bardi is attached to this Peak Oil association and it should not be given undue weight (by prominent placement in the LEAD) above the other opinions.

Maybe the NPOV noticeboard would be the better place for this topic. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"...it was highlighted that Bardi is the founder of the Italian branch of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, thus it is likely that the views of this association are reflected in Bardi's article, making the use in the LEAD even more problematic". Utter garbage. Despite repeated requests, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that Bardi's support for a minority view on an unrelated issue gives any reason whatsoever to presume 'bias' on his part. Either provide such sources, withdraw the claim, or prepare explain why this repeated violation of WP:BLP to support your fringe-pushing behaviour should be tolerated. Professor Bardi is a respected academic, and doesn't deserve to have his name dragged through the mud in the interests of promoting bogus 'cold fusion' devices. If I see no response to this within a reasonable time, I will raise this at AN/I. You have been soapboxing on Wikipedia talk pages for far too long. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have mentioned several times that I think Bardi raises valid points in his blog, but that the use of this quote in the lead is not in line with NPOV. And other editors have raised the point that Bardi is linked to an association which makes the use of the quote in the lead even more troublesome. I have made suggestions how to solve this dispute. You and IRWolfie urged that this dispute be brought to RS/N. And now my argumentation here is taken as a reason to start an AN/I case. How reasonable is that ?

See Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements - We are allowed to discuss how biased a statement is in order to maintain NPOV. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The only 'bias' here is yours. You make entirely unverifiable claims that Bardi's opinions on an unrelated issue make his comments 'troublesome', and refuse to either justify the claims or retract them - this is a breach of WP:BLP policy (which as you well know is also applicable to talk pages), and then spout on about 'NPOV' while simultaneously promoting fringe 'science' and the 'invention' of an individual with a long and murky history of wild claims regarding cheap energy sources and the like which result in nothing but losses for investors, and in the Petroldragon case, a bill of over forty million euros for a clearup - to be paid for by Italian taxpayers. So yes, your behaviour as a POV-pushing SPA is a legitimate topic for AN/I. In the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109#POVbrigand discussion, I suggested that I thought your behavioural problems (regarding the E-Cat article at least) weren't sufficiently bad to justify a topic ban. Clearly, with hindsight, I was mistaken - you completely refuse to accept Wikipedia policy regarding fringe topics, and misuse 'NPOV' arguments to trash legitimate criticism of such topics, while engaging in endless WP:OR and crystal-ball gazing to justify the most flimsy of sources. You are a net liability to Wikipedia coverage of such subjects, and are unfit to continue as a contributor while you continue to behave in such a manner. Casting unjustified aspersions on the motivations of respected academics in order to promote you pet theories is not only contrary to Wikipedia policy, it is unacceptable behaviour in any civilised discourse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about use of promotional sources (Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire again)

Apologies in advance to RS/N editors who have already grown tired of this school in North Yorkshire. I'd like to present another concern for your advice and adjudication. I'm concerned that this section uses a number of promotional sources in a misleading way and that at least one anonymous editor might be manipulating the media in order to construct additional notability for this subject.

"In 2008 the school developed an educational card game to aid the teaching of nutrition. Pupils created cards to help them learn about the properties of food, and with the help of the Headteacher, they developed this into a Top Trumps style game. The Grocer magazine ran an article about the initiative which aimed to raise funding from public and private sources in order to distribute the game free to every school in the country as part of the national "Year of Food and Farming."

First of all, the most obviously misleading item in the current text is that The Grocer published not one article but three online[16][17][18] (and possibly one in the print edition). All three articles seem to be non-neutral in tone and are soliciting funds for this school project. I think this may have been changed to downplay the advertorial nature of these sources which was apparant in the original version of the text[19].

Astonishingly and seemingly out of the blue we have another article [20] by Rob Brown, published in the same journal on the 27th April. What could it all mean? Has this project suddenly sprung back into life after five years of dormancy?

Reading through the talk-page for the article I came across this oddity:

I called Rob Brown, the Features editor today because I was concerned about the accuracy of the comments above. I've had no contact with him or the Grocer previously. My concern was that the comments above are merely bare assertion and assumptions, phrases in an authoritative manner which might confuse other editors and appear, erroneously, to be fact. The Grocer confirmed those concerns. By all means, contact them to confirm. I don't know why you think this is "original research" - I'm not seeking to add the details of this call to the article. However, I do think that an accurate and reliable appraisal of the information is important and should be made openly and transparently available to this talk page - to try and ensure that no-oone is confused or misled by some of the previous inaccurate assumptions. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell we have an interested IP editor who is manipulating the media to add promotional articles about this project with an intent to prove notability (the article was subject to an AFD at the time). Furthermore, none of these sources are neutral - The Grocer was (and still is) engaged in some kind of promtional campaign in partnership with the school.

But when you step back from this whole thing it seems even more bizarre: A school developed an educational tool in 2007. The Grocer magazine helped them raise some funds. The grocer is not a reliable source for either education or nutrition and the venture was never a commercial succsess in the grocery business. Why are we even including this anecdote in the article? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There definitely seems to have been 1 print edition, it's referred to in your second link above as being on p.38 of the 2 June issue. There was 1 online article, followed up by praise (a note) from the school, and a follow-up article based on the eventual success. That seems reasonable, as weird as I found the Grocer to be involved when I read your question, after reading the articles, I can see the connection for the school and the magazine. They talk about the fund-raising aspect, but I didn't read the article to be soliciting funds, nor to be overly promotional. Positively biased perhaps, as any article may be when trying to help someone doing a good deed.

Is the name Rob Brown relevant for some reason? I missed the connection. It seems to have become newsworthy again, based on what the Rob Brown article states, because of a change in advertising laws that stopped its progress initially. The phonecall is definitely WP:OR and is therefore not usable in any way, other than to give you personally a direction to go in searching for sources you can use, it could never be used, for or against, in the article. Further, you don't even know that an anonymous IP actually phoned. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, it's irrelevant anyway, definitely out based on policy. Where is your proof that the Grocer is engaged in a promotional campaign? I did not see that from the source articles you cited. I think you may want to take a deep breath. I get that you have problems with this article, but using emotive terms like "Obviously", "Astonishingly", "Seemingly out of the blue", and "even more bizarre" does not really strengthen your case here. If I was to play devil's advocate for a moment, if it was "obvious" you wouldn't need to be here. I'm not "astonished" by this. It's not "out of the blue", as the article states, it's because of a sudden change in advertising law. There's no indication that I see that the Grocer is in a promotional campaign/partnership with the school. It *does* seem a little bizarre at first glance, but after reading everything, I don't find it bizarre at all. The only oddity here is that edit from the anon IP that claims to have called them. I find that a little weird. I don't think the Grocer needs to be a reliable source for nutrition at all here, although it does have strong ties to the grocery industry, so it may actually have those credentials too. It seems that the card game's success is undetermined at this point, although it has a possibility of succeeding still. So! Where does that leave us? I do not think that The Grocer is RS for the claim that "The Grocer magazine ran an article about the initiative which aimed to raise funding from public and private sources", I don't find that article to be of a fund-raising nature, it only talks about what they've done, and while it does give a contact number, it doesn't say, "if you'd like to donate, call this number" or anything like that. If you remove that phrase, or want to say that the school created this game that got a lot of interest, or something like that, then I think The Grocer is RS for that claim. However, the print article may be more direct in its fund-raising suggestions, but you didn't provide me with that source, so I can't really comment on that. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual question is whether they did in fact eventually distribute it nationally. If they did, and there is a reference to that effect, it's quite significant and should be in the article. If they did not, but only hoped to do it's irrelevant and shouldn't be in the article regardless of sources. If there is no evidence whether or not they did, it's similarly irrelevant. School projects that go nowehere are too trivial to mention. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's probably very relevant, but that would be for the Weight noticeboard, not the RS board . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@DGG, the April 27th article explains why the product was never distributed: "England was in talks with Tesco about distributing the game to as many as 25,000 schools when, in December 2007, the government launched an inquiry into brands’ influence in schools and the project was stopped." --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@Despayre, thanks for your comments. I do agree that in describing the story I have overstated my suspicions. It's not obvious at all what is going on here. The significance of Rob Brown was that he was the features editor at The Grocer that the IP spoke to on April 27th. On the very same day Rob Brown published another article about this project after a five year gap in coverage. My concern is not about undue weight - it's about manipulation of the media by involved editors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that an editorial comment by Adam Leyland accompanied the Rob Brown piece in The Grocer [21], so two articles were published on 28 April. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of something depends on the situation. In this case, where the question of whether it was actually considered seriously by the government is relevant, I would not include it on the basis of a local newspaper. If a major national paper had covered it, I would possibly think it was actually important enough to be included. Local newspapers are not known for being carefully discriminating about local institutions. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Is The Grocer a local paper? It looks like a national magazine covering the food/retail industry to me. Is it even located near the school? The only registered address I can see is in Sussex, not Yorkshire. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

YouTube as a source

I have been the primary editor of Justine Ezarik for some time and have consistently tried to eliminate use of YouTube as a source. This includes, citing its pageview statistics as a source for popularity. I have recently been involved in a pair of popular viral videos (Kony 2012 and Cat Daddy) and am now wondering if it is Kosher to cite YouTube for number of pageviews and upload date.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It is a "primary source" for what you seem to wish to use it - and the only value of the stats is in the area of what WP fondly calls "original research." If and only if a reliable third party source publishes the data does Wikipedia like to see it used. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. YouTube is fine to cite for number of page views and upload date. Primary sources can be used to make straightforward statements of facts that any educated person will be able to verify. So, yes, it's perfectly fine to cite YouTube for the number of times a video is watched or when it was uploaded. However, any interpretation or analysis requires a secondary source. So, you can't use YouTube to say that a video is popular. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Page view statistics are notoriously an unreliable gauge of popularity as the usage of bots to artificially inflate viewing figures is quite prevalent. I would have thought that adducing this information as a source of popularity is questionable and original research, but I am not that experienced in this issue.Ankh.Morpork 22:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This, exactly. Also that can be biased by fans, etc. who repeatedly watch a video. Furthermore, the trouble when you do that is that you get IP editors that added "As of MMM DD, YYYY the video has X million views", getting updated way too frequently. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ankmorpork's and Masem's comments. Although Quest for Knkowledge's comment may be technically correct, I would argue the material is inherently non-noteworthy, even if we put no spin on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Although it is non-notable by lack of RS, the original Cat Daddy video now has nearly 67 million pageviews. This seems to be an encyclopedic fact to me. I feel that I am doing something wrong not telling the reader about this fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If no other sources have noted this, you are staying true to the sources not mentioning it. this source gives you 21 million views about this time last year, but if the original video got a boost after the latest stuff, but no source comments on this, you're not hurting the reader without its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps write something like, "The video has received millions of views on youtube", without specifying a figure.Ankh.Morpork 23:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We can't say that if sources haven't stated that, plus the vagueness isn't good - it could be 1 million, it could be 100 million. From my experience dealing with memes and viral videos in an encyclopedic manner, if the video truly is notable due to massive viewership, there will be at least one source that likely says something like "the video was watched more than X million times in Y hours". If its not the viewership that makes the video notable but for other reasons, the viewership number doesn't need to be mentioned. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The argument that such material is inherently non-noteworthy is an argument about WP:WEIGHT which isn't really the purpose of this noticeboard. The issue here is verifiability, whether a reader can go to the appropriate YouTube page and verify that the video was uploaded on a particular day and has X number of views without performing any interpretation or analysis. The answer to that question is yes. Not technically, yes, but absolutely yes. Now, I'm not too familiar with those two videos, but there are situations where secondary reliable sources have included page views in their coverage - thus addressing weight - but who's numbers are out of date. For example, the number of page views of Friday (Rebecca Black song) was widely reported by numerous reliable sources. In such cases, we would be doing the reader a disservice by falsely reporting an outdated number simply because it was in a secondary source. In such cases, it's allowable under policy to provide the reader with more accurate information. Now, personally, I wouldn't want to be the one to update Friday (Rebecca Black song) everyday to keep it current, but we had no shortage of volunteers who were willing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Although there have been a lot of responses to the contrary, I find your response to seem to be the most intuitive. I would like to be able to site pageviews for "Cat Daddy" and Twitter followers for Justine Ezarik. Both of these seem to be allowable objective statements of fact from primary sources based on your interpretation of policy. I will await contradictory logic however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that absent of any other source saying it was a popular video, the statement "The video received X million views by DATE" backed only by YouTube is a POV/OR/peacock statement. We have no idea if one person created all those millions of hits (its possible), so the popularity could easily be falsified. Now, if third-party/secondary sources are reporting that, they may not know that fact, but at that point, they're probably well aware of the popularity of the video and can judge that the video hits weren't from a few people - that is, using that value from those sources removes all POV/OR statements.

Now, it is true, if a source in 2011 gives a number, then it's possibly ok to state what the new number is. However, that goes to the point I found to be true when you leave "current" numbers like that: anon and new users are going to want to update it every single day or that moment when they read the article. To me, this isn't a good practice, nor helpful, even if it meets WP:V. Again, my experience on videos, it's having established milemarkers reported by sources that are the encyclopedic content. Another way to see it: if the video is truly notable and otherwise not a copyright violation outright, it's going to be in the external links and can be checked by the reader. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with a statement such as "According to Youtube, these videos have been viewed X million times as of <date here>, since its upload date Y". Youtube is an acceptable source for that. Drawing any conclusion from those numbers is not ok. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The only reason you'd include these numbers is to indicate popularity. If no other source talks about popularity, it's OR/POV problems. So care has to be taken. And if there are secondary sources that state that info, it is better to use them than youtube. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the function of this noticeboard is to determine what is or isn't a motive behind a particular claim/edit. It is only here to determine if a source is RS for a particular claim/edit. Youtube is RS for the claim that a video has had X number of views since it's Y upload date. It *might* be a POV issue (but personally I don't see how, depending on how it's used), but I see no OR problem with that claim, although further analysis about that in the article probably would be. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 03:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - the problem is that we're dealing with a data point that can be biased by a small number of people with multiple accounts and automated tools. To say "This video has received X million views" is a reliable statement of fact that can be sourced to youtube, but what does that "x million" number mean? Without any other source to companion with that piece of data, it could mean one person hit refresh X million times, or X million people hit the video one time. It means nothing, and has the potential to be a bad data point that we shouldn't include in here. When you add to that a reliable source that likely has reviewed the mention of the video in the blogosphere and elsewhere and itself reports on millions of views, then that number from youtube directly has more meaning, as we're pretty much assured its not the former case of one person clicking millions of times. In other words - reporting the page count from Youtube faces all issues that WP:SPS have, and shouldn't be used in the absence of any other source to report on the popularity of the video. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the figures do not translate into an accurate reflection of its popularity, however, a neutral statement saying something like "It's YouTube page states that it has received X million views" does not imply a conclusion unsupported by the data, and is objective reporting of a primary source. Whether this constitutes 'due weight' is a separate discussion.Ankh.Morpork 13:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)In this case, we have RSs that say it got to 9 million and 21 million while it was in the news. Now, it is at 70 million. That is just making something that we viewed as encyclopedic more current isn't it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Technically, there is no RS problem, but I will point out what I've seen before: if you leave a bare "Currently the video has X million views on Youtube", you will be having editors updating that every time they pass the page, even editing down to the last digit ("It has 32,568,23*1* views, not just 32,568,23*0* views!"). That's less an RS issue than just behavior which is why I avoid using that in favor of milestones reported by other sources, but that's me. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Masem: Do you have any specific evidence that these two videos have been tampered with? It sounds like just original research/speculation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Of the specific cases that TonyTheTiger is interested in, no, and we have other sources that give measures, so its not an issue there. I'm only speaking to the general case: that the pagecount number from YouTube is effectively an SPS and shouldn't be used in WP articles without other sources to help affirm claims made on that. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the problem here, you're speaking in generalities, this page is for specifics. I agree that there *might* be other problems in the future caused by using the number, but that's not a valid reason to avoid it. The question was is Youtube RS for the number of views, and as you ageed above, the answer is Yes. And that's all this noticeboard is for. It's not for arguing about what content should or should not go into your article, that's for your talk page with the editors there. You may find some other reason to reject that edit, but I don't think it can be on source grounds. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• We should avoid using YouTube as a source as far as possible for the reasons that Masem has stated. To cite page views directly from a YouTube page is original research. If something is inherently notable enough for Wikipedia, it will be possible to source it from third party sources. If not, we should not use it. --John (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To cite page views from Youtube directly is NOT OR, where else would the numbers come from? Even in a secondary source? The ONLY reliable source for that information is Youtube. However, as stated several times, you may not interpret,analyze, or synthesize those numbers in any way. Just quoting the numbers themselves from Youtube is RS. A passing fad like these videos in particular is very unlikely to have third party sources appear for that type of information (and they would almost certainly lift the numbers right from Youtube, because, again, where else would you get them??). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 07:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and not a repository for "passing fads". If it isn't verifiable to a third-party source, we cannot use it. --John (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether WP is a repository for online fads or not, is outside the scope of this page. From the WP:V page you cite, "While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic", which directly contradicts your claim that "If it isn't verifiable to a third-party source, we cannot use it" -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to explain to me how that is a contradiction because it doesn't seem to me to be. --John (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's break it down a little further so the contradiction is easier to see. The policy says "...primary sources are appropriate in some cases...", you said it must be presented by a 3rd party source. Those two things are contradictory. Now, it can definitely be your opinion that *this* is *not* one of the aforementioned "appropriate cases", but that's a different discussion from what I understand your opinion to be, which is that we cannot use it unless it's sourced to a 3rd party. And in response to *that* position, I would again ask, where else would the pageview numbers come from if not Youtube (even if presented by a 3rd party, where would those numbers have to come from?)? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I interpreted the question the wrong way, but I think the discussion about primary/secondary sources is off-topic with citing the number of viewer to a YouTube clip. The real question I believe is in citing the number in what context. Are we citing viewer number 1) at a given moment/time period? 2) at now? 3) to prove that the clip is popular?

• Assuming 1): given that YouTube counters are changing by the second, does YouTube ever archive the counter numbers for clips periodically and publish them for statistical purposes? If no then how can you actually cite YouTube in the first place? If yes then we got the other problem to talk about.
• Assuming 2): given that YouTube counters are changing by the second, how are we going to define the notion "now"? The moment you started to add the number to the article? The moment you clicked the submit button? Are you going to write a widget in Wikipedia that update YouTube viewer statistics automatically in an article? The possibility to interpret this question are endless...
• Assuming 3): answer to this question is a resounding no. YouTube never stated that x number of viewers equals to very popular, y numbers of viewers equals not popular, etc...who are we to make the judgement based on personal preference?

Anyway this my interpretation of the question. Jim101 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to your questions

1. I don't think anyone is too concerned over the "to-the-second" count, if something has 7 million views, I don't care if that number is out by a couple of hundred (it's never going down), also http://web.archive.org/web/20110202213908/http://www.youtube.com looks like it would prove the claim too
2. that's why we have an {{asof}} template, and WP should strive to be a level of "general knowledge" in this light, common sense would seem that a "close enough" answer is close enough for this case
3. You are correct, WP should not make any statements about popularity based on youtube pageviews, it should only say how many were reported, it should draw no conclusions

-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

On the second count does matter given that popular video worthy of Wikipedia attention tend to generate millions of views within days. Say, for example, the counter on mid-night January 1st, and the video got 1 million views, and by 12 pm, it got 2 millions, but mid-night of January 2nd, it got 3 millions - how are we going to cite the statement that video clip x got y number of views as of January 1st? Obviously all three answers above are correct, but there is no way to verify it without using a trusted third party take a snap shot of the counter at an arbitrary time frame. But if you are citing that trusted third party for its choice of snapshot, then this is not really about the reliability of YouTube, is it? Jim101 (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

On a side note...Keep in mind that if a video goes viral to the point that enough third-party reliable sources have covered it to meet Wikipedia's notability requirement, then pretty much by definition it's going to be popular. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Jay's Musik Blog

1. Website in question is Jay's Musik Blog.
2. Gold, Listen to the Sound, The Road, You Got My Attention, See You, Believer, If It Leads Me Back, Nothing Left to Fear, Into the Glorious, The Lost Get Found, Heart and "All This Time", which came for this website, and Every Falling Tear, and On the Altar of Love that came from Christian Music Review.
3. Many just go look at the critical reviews or critical reception sections because it is self explanatory.

About Jay Wright

Here is his LinkedIn Resume, which here is him on staff at Christian Music Review, and here is him at New Release Tuesday. Now, he has his own main review website called Jay's Musik Blog. So, I am wanting and have used him from all three websites as a professional reviewer on such article as Gold and others. The policy that I kept in my frame of thought is USERGENERATED, when it says "self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." See he has published reviews on Christian Music Review as a Staff Reviewer and Lead Reviewer and New Release Tuesday as a Featured Reviewer, which even their site founder Kevin McNeese published his reviews as a Featured Reviewer and not a Staff Reviewer. So, I consider him to have satisfied the previously been published by reliable third-party publications, which is one part of the criteria, and it is relevant to the content that I am using from his review blog on Wikipedia. My question to the community is should I be using him likewise of not?HotHat (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss below

Do you have a specific edit to a specific article with a specific source quote you would like to discuss, or are you just asking generally if this person can be used? (in which case, since it's kind of a wishy-washy question, guess what kind of answer you're going to get? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 07:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a professional journalist. Much of my work appears in numerous newspapers, and meets WP:RS. However, my personal blogs - as intelligent and well-researched as they may be - do not meet the qualifications for a reliable source. Jay Wright is no different. At that point, they're mere opinion pieces (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite what WP:SPS says, it may be that some of your personal blog information is RS, however, you, in particular, should not reference them. Others may be able to do so, with large caveats that I'm not sure are too important at this moment, unless you are the Jay Wright this section is about. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Despayre. Nearly any source might be an RS for "something". But yes, it is true that the personal blog of a normal journalist is likely to be of minimal use for most subjects. In short, to consider, we need information about the specific edit being sourced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

CMS Wire as a reliable source?

Hi! I'm writing on behalf of a new set of editors on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharepointboost discussion. The users are very, very new so they're a little unaware of the reliable sources policies for stuff like press releases and the like. What is the bigger point of discussion is whether or not CMS Wire is usable as a reliable source or not. I'm not a specialist in that area and while it does look somewhat legit, I've been trying to explain to the other users why CMS Wire might potentially not be a reliable source. I figure I'll bring it up here for anyone more familiar with the scene to take a look at.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As the last editor suggested, it would be helpful to provide examples of the sources you would like to cite and the context for the citation. Meanwhile, here are a few things you might want to consider. The biggest source of contention might be that cmswire.com very much has the look and feel of a blog. It is not a news organization in the traditional sense, but then again, neither was Politico when it was started. This is WP:IRS has to say about blogs:

"...these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

The contributors appear to be professionals in their respective topic areas, which helps. The editing staff consists of the founder/executive editor, who does not come from a journalism background, and he has a managing editor and an assistant editor. That very well could qualify. If anybody questions a particular citation, you might want to research that individual writer, as a way to gauge their credibility. Has the writer been published in other news publications? Does the writer have any books published by reliable publishing houses? What is their writing background? Just because a person has a lot of experience working in a given field, don't assume his writing ethic is the same as a professional writer. Of course, that goes for any cited author, really. Encycloshave (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's some of the articles they're trying to use: [22], [23], [24]03:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't provide the article where these would be used, but I take it this is related to the AfD discussion? Bottom line: I don't see CMS Wire as a reliable source. The last two links you provided are to the same article. My guess you forgot to copy the third URL. Both articles have a marketing and brochure feel to them. With "An Easier Way to Change Your SharePoint Password," I feel like the writer is trying to sell me something, which may just be in her nature, as she has a degree in marketing. Barb Mosher is also an IT solutions architect and is probably accustomed to advising clients on their best options. David Roe is an established journalist. With "SharePointBoost Moves Outlook Messages to SharePoint," Roe does compare SharePointBoost with another company, however minimally.

That neither article offers a critical review of the product points to reliability of the third party. Most glaring are the media kit combined with the articles Quick Take Review: Adobe Contribute for Micro Publishing and Mobile Content Delivery: FatWire Mobility Server Feature Review. Near the bottom of the media kit, which is information for potential advertisers, is a list of some of CMS Wire's advertising clients, with Adobe at the top and FatWire further down. Both of the articles are "product reviews," but neither discusses how the product compares with similar products, not do they present pros and cons. Certainly CMS Wire has neutrality issues. SharePointBoost's logo is not among the clients in the media kit, but this may be just a sampling of clients. There is only so much room. Encycloshave (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah... it is related to that discussion. Sorry about not providing the article, but it is related to the AfD posted. I've posted that the links don't appear to be usable as RS for notability and linked them to this page, but I'm honestly not expecting a great response to this. The original editor has been fighting against any opposing opinions as far as whether or not the sources are reliable or not. If you feel up to helping the user, please feel free but I'll warn you that some of the parting remarks have been a little on the rough side.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of MediaNama

The website in question is MediaNama, described in their About Us section as "the premier source of information and analysis on the Telecom and Digital Media business in India." You can find more details in the link. I want to use the website for the article Ra.One. The specific article I wanted was here. I would like to find out if the said source is reliable and usable for the article. I'd be much obliged. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I would like to point out that a Google Search of MediaNama throws up about 239,000 results, while a search for the site's editor Nikhil Pahwa throws up about 82,300 results ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• This Interview of Shahrukh Khan published at Medianama seems to be reliable for the article Ra.One.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks RS and rather uncontroversial to me, was there something specific that was causing a problem for its use in your article? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

During the FAC, an editor tagged is as "unreliable source". hence the doubt. Thanks a lot for the clarification :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Cyriac Pullapilly

I am totally clueless about this author. What is he? Is he a RS for history related articles? - InarZan Verifiable 17:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the technical error.

Pullapilly, Cyriac K. (1976). "The Izhavas of Kerala and their Historic Struggle for Acceptance in the Hindu Society". In Smith, Bardwell L. (ed.). Religion and Social Conflict in South Asia. International studies in sociology and social anthropology. Vol. 22. Netherlands: E. J. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-04510-1. Retrieved 2011-06-09.

Is this source an RS for the various claims in Caste_system_in_Kerala#Origin_of_the_caste_system? - InarZan Verifiable 05:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In line with WP:HISTRS. Brill is a scholarly publisher, and the book is on topic, dealing with the structure of religious identity in South Asia. Moreover, Brill has a specialised publishing interest in this area of scholarly publications. The book is appropriately edited for an academic text. The claims in the article are that multiple theories of the origin of the caste structure exist. The article adequately characterises these, except for the third paragraph, which implies that Pullapilly believes this third theory (without explicitly indicating this). Pullapilly is good for these claims as they currently exist as claims that a variety of historical theories exist. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Soundtrack reviews

I'm currently expanding Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) into a future FA. Is this Allmusic review reliable? Or this review from Billboard? Thanks in advance for weighing in. Ruby 2010/2013 21:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Just adding that I know the websites themselves are reliable, just the authors of the reviews are in question. Ruby 2010/2013 21:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Billboard review is just taken from Allmusic; however, Allmusic is reliable for these things so it's grand to use it. If you could find the review quoted on Billboard on the Allmusic site it would be better to point to that, though, as Billboard have only mirrored that content rather than producing it in any way. I see no problem with the authors themselves, they're no more or less reliable than any other Allmusic staff. GRAPPLE X 21:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, allmusic.com is reliable, the author is less of an issue, since he is more or less covered by the umbrella of allmusic.com's reliability, unless you have a specific problem with an author that you can prove. It's tougher to say that this source is reliable for you specifically, since you haven't provided an edit that it could be used as a source for. Without context, I have a hard time saying much more about it. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the helpful comments. I'm intending to use the reviews to inform the music section, not the critical reception section. So I won't be citing their opinions (like in a normal film review). Rather, I'll be using lines like "he has come up with a couple of dance cues ("Meryton Townhall," "Another Dance") that actually recall the dance music of the period, as well as a march ("The Militia Marches In") that a military band actually might have been expected to play at the time. But the main scoring, calling upon Beethoven's sonatas for its inspiration, finds Marianelli providing music for pianist Jean-Yves Thibaudet, sometimes accompanied by the English Chamber Orchestra, that has a strong Romantic flavor to accompany the familiar romantic plot." (from William Ruhlmann of the second link). Ruby 2010/2013 22:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

On one hand, given that these are the opinions of critics within the field of music, their opinions on whether a piece seems period-appropriate, etc, are still trustworthy and reliable. On the other, connecting a piece with a loosely-defined genre is still something that falls within the realm of subjective opinion and so you're still using a critic's opinion to source their opinion. Either way, the proposed addition seems fine. GRAPPLE X 22:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Free Library

Is this a reliable source to use for the Push the Button article? I need information for the music video which is virtually non-existent elsewhere. Also, would I cite 'The Free Library' or 'The Mirror'? Thanks. Till I Go Home (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable there is no reason to believe that "The free library" actually archives material intact, invariant, and complete. If the article Gavin Martin (2005-09-23) "On the button: Sugababes are back and their hot new video proves they're just as sexy as ever," The Mirror actually exists, it would be reasonably reliable for its contents for a music video article. I suggest you go to a library with a back issue of The Mirror and actually read the original, you might also find a supplier of data that appears in the least reliable—"Thefreelibrary.com" doesn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It is published by Farlex which claim that they are an independent and privately held company. Is there any way to obtain the official URL for the Mirror article? Till I Go Home (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's available on Highbeam.[25] I've not yet worked out how to cite Highbeam references, and have no knowledge of or interest in the subject; maybe someone else can use this? RolandR (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also available on NewsBank, assuming that's a reliable archive? link. You'd cite the Mirror. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's your highbeam cite:

<ref>{{cite web|title=MUSIC: ON THE BUTTON; SUGABABES ARE BACK AND THEIR HOT NEW VIDEO PROVES THEY'RE JUST AS SEXY AS EVER.(Features) |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-136524809.html|publisher=The Daily Mirror is published by MGN Ltd, part of Trinity Mirror plc, the UK's largest newspaper publisher [[HighBeam Research]] (subscription required)|accessdate=12 May 2012|date=September 23, 2005}}</ref>

-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fairex's claims aren't substantiated with any of the apparatus expected of a service of that kind. Compare their information about themselves to NewsBank (still pretty shitty, but over the line), and HighBeam. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yitzhak Kaduri

Is what used to be the subject's own website a suitable RS for his biography? What about Israel Today, Ma'ariv, World Net Daily, or the Hebrew source News First Class? These are all sources of the question of Kadouri's Messianic note.Cpsoper (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2012

I presume it relates to this argument? --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, here is the Hebrew news source News1, with the note and its contents. Here is the very poor google translation. The World Net Daily article is [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41669 here]. Israel Today's archives no longer contain the article, and its editor has received but not yet replied to my enquiries, but copies of screenshots of the original article on 30/4/2007 are widespread, in youtube videos and in static screenshots. Two examples of copies of the whole text are here and here. Here is a screenshot of the article. I realise any reference to these would have to be qualified. Attempted interpretations and images of the note are still being addressed on what is reported to have been Kaduri's own site Intensive discussion on the meaning of the note is documented elsewhere here for example.Cpsoper (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable source for a paywall source

To start with let me say that I know per WP:PAYWALL that Verifiability is not violated simply by difficulty of access to a source. Given that, however, I still have some reservations about this edit made by a previously indef-blocked editor who has recently been contributing positively (despite his block evasion). Ignoring the issues of sockpuppetry, re-blocking, enforcement by reversion, etc. am I right in thinking that the circumstances surrounding the contributor of this particular paywall-like ref tips the scales in favor of excluding the source? I am not interested in signing up with the website just to verify this sketchy guy's claims.

In a word: Should we exclude a difficult-to-access WP:PAYWALL-style source due solely to the fact that the contributing editor is a known vandal?

Thanks for you help. -Thibbs (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Even vandals can make the occasional good edit... so... Is there reason to question the source's reliability other than the fact that it was added by a vandal? Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't jumped through the hoops to examine the source and verify the claim so it may well be accurate and verifiable. I'm wondering if his past as a known long-term vandal is sufficient to warrant removal of this difficult-to-verify source. -Thibbs (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also for full disclosure, he recently has been contributing positively (or at least in good faith). -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Then I would leave it. (it can always be corrected if it turns out to be wrong). Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the question is really whether WP:PAYWALL is a hard rule that a claim is presumed verified until examined whenever it has a PAYWALL source or whether WP:PAYWALL is really about assuming good faith. In the latter case I would imagine that the citing editor's history of long-term vandalism would cut against the assumption of goodfaith. But if it's a hard-rule presumption regardless of goodfaith then it wouldn't matter that the contributing editor has a history of vandalism. -Thibbs (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL isn't about "presumption" or "good faith"... it is simply to say that "ease of access" is not a factor in determining reliability. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To me it sounds more like a hard-rule presumption of verifiability. If there's no rationale involving assumption of goodfaith behind the addition of a difficult-to-verify source, then the policy taken at face value would seem to be simply saying that whenever a PAYWALL-style source is used as a ref (irrespective of reliability factors), it is considered to meet WP:V unless proven to fail. I don't think reliability is at issue here. The central question addressed by WP:PAYWALL is that of verifiability. -Thibbs (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reason to question verifiability, a paywall is irrelevant, at which point, the onus is on the editor who wants to insert the edit to verify it's true. We have a board here that can usually help finding a source. However, in this case, it turns out that Buddy Rubino has his own Youtube channel, and this would be one of the few times that Youtube is considered RS (explanation available if needed), if you can find his video that has him saying he's the voice for "Bop It!". (Hint: Video named "Thoughts are things", at the 7:32 mark) . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• The reason not to use this source is because it is unreliable not because it is behind a paywall or inserted by a particular user. The source is unedited. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK Thanks for all the help everyone. I think I can take it from here. -Thibbs (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

New York Times summary

The summary at the top called Income Inequality is being dismissed as unreliable. What do people think? B^e——C_ritical 21:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it is a summary analysis of the issue. In the context of WP:NEWSOFG News organizations, it looks like it falls somewhere between "factual (reporting) content" and "analytical (editorial) content." I could understand why somebody might view this as falling into the category of "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces [which] are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." I would need the context, i.e. which part of the Income Inequality piece and where in the Wikipedia article is it going? Encycloshave (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's actually for the Occupy Wall Street article. It's used to source the text:

During the 1990s, economists began to release studies which showed the increasing income inequality in the United States. Although these were cited by liberals and Democrats, this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests were particularly concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations

I don't personally see anything controversial about that, and don't see why saying "according to the the New York Times..." would help. Would it really? B^e——C_ritical 01:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the discussions over OWS and the request for mediation, but my guess is that "in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations" is the source of contention here. Though unquestionable for some (AIG), it's still a generalization encompassing every single bank and corporation in the world. Had the NY Times summary been phrased something like "in addition to what they saw as the greed and...", there probably would be less contention. This way it comes across as more reporting and less analysis or opinion. However, you could probably incorporate something similar into the OWS article. I hope this helps. Encycloshave (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the text is not (yet) in dispute, but the source is highly questioned [26]. I'm one of those editors who would think that it's obviously their opinion as opposed to a statement by WP, but qualifying as you say would be acceptable. Thanks! What you didn't do (question whether it was legitimately the NYT), upheld my opinion. B^e——C_ritical 02:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that different readers will react differently. If you're familiar with Greed and fear (yes, an actual article, and it should probably be linked there), then the idea that the markets are motivated by greed is merely a plain, uncontestable fact of life, not an insult. If the only time you encounter the word greed is when some relative is telling you over the holiday dinner table not to be so greedy when you ask for a second serving of dessert, then you'll probably think it's a childishly inappropriate moral judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Godfather prequel

Ciao Despayre et al. In this permalink at prequel, the second History graf begins "Its first known use" with two sentences cited to Jim Smith's biography of George Lucas (link to cover). An IP inserted this in 2006 and I reinserted it in good faith that the IP cited the inaccessible source correctly; the sentences are properly also tagged with a quote request. Is the source reliable for the two sentences of claim? This question is more straightforward but there is naturally talk-page background and any clarification for all editors involved would also be appreciated. JJB 02:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the IP cited the source correctly. And you should need more than that to claim Its first known use in film was in the original press pack for The Godfather Part II (1974) regarding use of the word prequel in an encyclopedia. It is highly dubious - There's no known journalist who picked it up and used the term at that time, as would be expected if they saw it in the film's press kit. They called the film a sequel, noting it used flashbacks. It's been more than three weeks since Betty Logan and I agreed this should be pulled from the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the RSN for the deletable template, but I believe I did follow all the header instructions: please look again. Gothicfilm, please remember not to conduct original research about the IP, about dubiousness, or about known journalists and expectations; I did remind you of why I reinserted it (after Betty deleted it last month after 6 stable years). I also reminded you that Betty said it should be pulled again if the source was not found, and the source was promptly found some time ago. Your difficulty hearing each of these things repeatedly said to you makes it very hard for me to understand why you are pressing so hard against this sentence simply because you doubt it. JJB 06:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the difference between us - I don't believe incorrect information should be put in an encyclopedia just because one sloppy writer published it somewhere. You want to scold me on disputing this? I see above other veteran editors here have had problems with your procedures, so it's not just me. You yourself called this "source" inaccessible, so you've never seen it, correct? Yet you insist on keeping this dubious info in the article. And I've been told more than once length of time some text has been in an article is irrelevant. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Supply full citations Fifelfoo (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Side note: if full citations are desired, that is not clear from talk consensus, page instructions, or the template alone. Anyway, as you can see by following the instructions attached to the first link above, the source is Smith, Jim; Hardy, Rebecca (March 2003). "Virgin Film: George Lucas". ISBN 9780753507551. JJB 03:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is the publisher? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Virgin Books. Barsoomian (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Virgin is not a scholarly publisher. Virgin is not known for publishing authoritative sources on etymology and word use. Jim Smith appears to have an WP:EXPERTise regarding film. He doesn't appear to have one about word use and adoption. Not reliable for such an extraordinary claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If the book quotes Lucas as stating something like "I created the term 'prequel'", or Coppola saying "He created the term", then I would think an inline attribution would work, doesn't mean it's true, just means he said that. I don't know why you say the source is inaccessible though, I see through the link provided that there are 9 copies for sale from Amazon, starting at $0.01. That doesn't seem inaccessible to me, and I'd probably look directly at the source before I went any further with it.

Sidenote: if you expand the template, precise examples of cites are given too. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is unacceptable. "First known use in film" is not the same as "first known use in the history of the universe". Fifelfoo says that the author is an expert in film, which seems relevant. In the absence of contradictory claims by other sources, I think I'd let this stand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Pope Stephen IV

I have concerns regarding some sources that have been recently added to the Pope Stephen IV article.

• Mann, Horace K., The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, Vol. II: The Popes During the Carolingian Empire, Part 2: 795-858 (1906).

Concerning the author Horace K. Mann who only appears to have been an educator. Does anyone have any information concerning this author? If he is not a historian then should this source be considered a reliable source?

• Louis Marie DeCormenin; James L. Gihon, A Complete History of the Popes of Rome, from Saint Peter, the First Bishop to Pius the Ninth, (1857).

Two issues here;

1. The book is incorrectly attributed to James L. Gihon. From what I could find of James L. Gihon is that he was simply a publisher.

2. I believe that Louis Marie de Cormenin was a jurist and political pamphleteer. I have found no indication that he was a historian.

I would appreciate any help. --Vrok (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Horace K Mann

Educator, born London, England, 1859; died Rome, Italy, 1928. He was educated at Ushaw, was ordained in 1886, taught for several years at Saint Cuthbert's Grammar School, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and was headmaster from 1890 till 1917. From 1917 until his death, he was rector of the Beda Collegc at Rome, corresponding member of the Royal Spanish Academy of History, member of the Royal Societa Rom. di Storia Patria and of the Accademia d'Arcadia.

While I cannot find any other books from him, his CV would make me believe his RS for this topic.

Your second source, Louis Marie DeCormenin has an article here, while it does not mention this book, it seems clear that he was a fairly prolific writer on events regarding civil liberties and government. Yes, James L. Gihon is only the publisher. The ideas of "jurist" and "pamphleteer" are somewhat smaller now than they were back then. He was a well known author of the time. Given his commitment to "the human condition" (my description only), and his access to library materials at the time, I don't see any reason he wouldn't be RS for some things from that source. Is there anything being sourced to him that is overly controversial? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Analysis per WP:HISTRS. Both sources are appallingly out of date for medieval history. The 1857 source should not be used. A sufficiently large series of changes in historiography have occurred since 1857 such that there's no way I can reasonably construe a purpose for using such an outdated analysis—particularly troubling is its use to lend credence to a myth or speculation, that is phrased more as a statement of fact than folklore, worth double checking what DeCormenin actually bloody said. Use only if Louis Marie DeCormenin is quoted for presenting a notable opinion in modern historiographical surveys of the history of popes. Horace K Mann was published by Keegan & Paul, a reliable scholarly publisher. His correspondences with scholarly societies is also a good sign. However, his work is extremely dated (for one, the revolution in social history occurred 50 years after this work). I've just looked at the source availability for Pope Stephen IV, and Mann should probably be kept. The sourcing basis needs expansion, but I can't find a recent biography, and I can't find biographies except in religiously motivated cyclopaedia from the first decade of the 20th century. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree... the sources are out dated. I am surprised that there is nothing more modern. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

One issue may be that specialists find the 100 year old encyclopaedias adequate for scholarly use, due to their specialist ability to read bad sources into good sources (they can "read out the bias" with their "expert knowledge of the sourcing context"); whereas, we poor encyclopaedists can't do that on wikipedia. Another reason may be that the history of the Church[es] have become less focused on biography (most hits younger than 15 years old were focused on Stephen IV's relationship with crowns or Italians, in passing). Finally, Church history may be poorly indexed when I do two 30 second searches to try and find a Stephen IV biography more recent than 1900, pref 1950. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We were not given what context the 1857 source was to be used, why should it be blanket-not-used? I think it was sufficiently long after the fact of Stephen IV's reign, that many points may still be valid. He was obviously educated, a renaissance man, and a published author, like Rousseau, or Voltaire, both of whom are still quoted in many books today. And given the dearth of other sources there, if it's not a controversial claim, I'd be tempted to leave it in unless a better source can be found. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 03:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Such an outdated source(DeCormenin), since it wasn't written by someone recognized as a historian and unless corroborated by a modern source, should not be used, in my opinion. I believe the same stipulations should apply to the Horace Mann source, since nothing exists that confirms him as a historian.

IF such information(per Mann & DeCormenin) exists, surely modern historians have written about it and those published sources should be used. --Vrok (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You can make an argument for Decormenin not having solid enough credentials, but did you not see the credentials I posted above for Mann? I thnk those qualify him as a de facto historian more than sufficiently. Again, however, since I have no idea what you want to use him for, I can't say he's definitely going to be RS for something, but his credentials should hold for basic premises. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In his time Mann had very good credentials. His work set a standard. He is certainly outdated now, but for some of the popes there may be insufficient newer work. He had a point of view which often differs strongly from a modern one, and if using him it would be safer to do so with inline attribution (Mann in his 1907 history of the Papacy said ...). Then the reader knows what's going on.

As for de Cormenin, he is considerably older again, was not a historian, and had a strong political point of view (even the US publisher in 1857 refers to this in the preface). We can't possibly treat him as a reliable historical source. Andrew Dalby 08:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think these are largely outdated, although they might be useful for some very basic material (e.g., dates of death), but the theme of "not a professional historian" is misplaced. Historians, in the modern sense of a paid, professional university employee whose primary career goal was producing scholarly writings, barely existed back in 1857. I think it would be fair to consider the author of the 1857 book much like a modern journalist who is writing a pop science or pop history work—good enough for basics when uncontradicted by other sources, but to be used cautiously for any claims more ambitious than simple facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed (and I think I mentioned... ). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Loudwire a reliable source?

Hey all. See Loudwire and loudwire.com/ Your thoughts?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

austchristiannews.blogspot.com.au

Resolved

Is this source [27] reliable for this claim: In a show of unity, more than fifty Australian national leaders of Christian Churches endorsed a document on the importance of marriage as a legal institution on the grounds it promotes and protects the identity of children and their internationally recognised right to know, have access to and be nurtured by both their mother and father.

I ask as the URL has the term "blog" in it; I can't tell if the source is reliable or just an un-notable blog. Freikorp (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not reliable, as it is an unedited blog. No authorial or editorial responsibility has been taken for the work, there is no reason to believe that any fact checking has been conducted, or that the opinions of parties have been accurately and fairly summarised. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Freikorp (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman conquest of Cyprus

Hi, Please advise whether:

• http://www.localhistories.org/cyprus.html

is a reliable source with which to state that

1. "At first most Cypriots welcomed Turkish rule preferring it to the oppressive Venetian rule"

in Cyprus dispute#Historical background prior to 1960 as done here.

Thank you 23x2 _φ 18:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I would say that is a serious enough statement that it needs a better cite than the personal website of someone with a B.A. in History. There are no references listed, and falls under WP:SPS. Not RS for that claim imo. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

RenunciationGuide.com cited source for data

I looked through the web site for renunciationguide.com which is used twice as a reference in the wikipedia article "Renunciation of citizenship" (ref #4 and ref #14)[shouldn't it be only 1 reference?] I could not find any author or source identification. The site claims they analyzed the CFR published lists and they seem credible but without any identification (ie anonymous)and without providing the raw data and their analysis, I don't see how they can be a "reliable source". Could you check?71.31.149.105 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the website, but they have a resources page which has lots of links to very good official docs and reputable news papers http://renunciationguide.com/Resources.html those are the refs to use. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Although the website appears to be well-informed and reasonable, its editorial team is anonymous and it is unclear whether they have any knowledge on the topic above that of an informed layperson. [[28]] It should not therefore be used as a Reliable Source.Martinlc (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not RS. There is some "About us" info on the FAQ page, but nothing that makes them any more RS. This site seems well intentioned, even including a warning that reads should "Please note that much information you find about expatriation - online or elsewhere - is misleading at best and dangerously wrong at worst. We strongly recommend confirming the accuracy of any non-official sources you find." And I think that is the crux, they have no identity, there is no way to confirm any of their credentials, and there's no indication how often they maintain the website and keep up to date with current laws that change over time. I would also suggest, as stated above, looking further into using the sources they list, instead of their website. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be acceptable as an external link (at the bottom of the article) per WP:ELMAYBE: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a useful suggestion. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Cutting Edge and Jewocity.com

An editor has used the following two sources:

• http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=593
• http://www.jewocity.com/blog/the-first-jewish-start-up-nation-chabad-marketing-genius/1956

as citations for the claim that Chabad is "the largest Jewish organization in the world today." While the sources do make this claim, are either of them WP:RS on the subject? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jayjg.

TheCuttingEdgeNews does not have an appropriate editorial command of the content being produced—they rely on unnamed volunteer, and do not have a named editor in chief. As TheCuttingEdgeNews does not have an appropriate editorial command of its content, it is not reliable to make claims about the comparative size of contemporary Jewish organisations.

JewOCity.com does not have an appropriate editorial command of the content being produced, which is user submitted—no named chief editor or editors, not acceptable. JewOCity.com was however reprinting Ronn Torossian’s For Immediate Release which is published by what appears to be a commercial (almost mercenary in their commerciality, without having any sense of "Vanity") press BenBella Books. I'd look into Ronn Torossian For Immediate Release BenBella Books. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Cuttingedgenews.com, agree, not RS, for the reasons pointed out above.

JewOCity.com, agree, not RS, for the reasons point out above, also. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian is a PR executive. His book For Immediate Release is about building brands and public relations. I'm not sure what would make him or his book reliable on the subject of religious movements, populations, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

He could have an opinion on the efficacy of their PR, but not on the movement "size." You'd really want a demographer or sociologist of religion for that. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Prequel -- Big Picture Big Sound

A follow up to a previous query (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#Prequel).

A new citation has been added, and inevitably challenged.

So, is this source able to be cited as supporting the named films' inclusion in the list of films at Prequel?

(Just the 2008 DuHamel ref, if this Reflist gathers up anyone else's refs.)

References

The source, Big Picture Big Sound, looks like it has an editorial board: An "Editor in Chief", "reporters", etc. (see "About Us"). The cited writer is "Brandon A. DuHamel, Blu-ray Reviewer/Staff Writer". So while not Cahiers du cinéma, I think it's not just a random blogger. Please advise.

Thanks. Barsoomian (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DuHamel is a paid staff writer on an edited outlet, his ambit is reviews of movies in a particular physical format. It doesn't seem to be a greatly controversial analysis, and the article appears to represent it reasonably. (The article has massive problems though, being half article and half list). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. Barsoomian (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus dispute

Hi again,

Please advise whether this source: http://sim.law.uu.nl/sim/caselaw/Hof.nsf/1d4d0dd240bfee7ec12568490035df05/636862e7f2911c42c1256a490031e2f2?OpenDocument is a reliable source with which to state that: "The Cyprus dispute is the result of the ongoing conflict between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey, over the Turkish occupied northern part of Cyprus" in Cyprus dispute. Thank you again 23x2 _φ 18:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• supply a full citation Fifelfoo (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No. the document, which should not be used in this case, as it's a primary document anyway (see WP:PRIMARY), doesn't say that. It *may* be RS to state that "Based on documents filed by Turkey with the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, they believe that the situation in the northern part of Cyprus is due to the ongoing conflict there, between the native Cypiots and Turkey's creation of the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'." But even that, I see as borderline SYNTH. But again, the short answer here, is No, this is not RS for that claim. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it could be hard to find a "perfect" source for a definition that is almost tautological. Is there really dispute between editors about the definition of the "Cyprus dispute"? I mean the definitions of the parties and the territories involved are pretty clear from almost any source on this I would imagine? (The definition above, basically just lines up the parties and the teritories. I do not think that is very high level "synth"?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Synth is Synth, it doesn't matter if it's hard to find sources or not, the rules apply equally. However, I didn't say it was synth, I said that the document doesn't support the edit (I said my suggested alternative may be synth). Synth also falls outside the scope of this noticeboard, so I don't have to dwell on that here . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all three for your input, may i ask/clarify the below in bullet points so it easier to read:

1. I was asked for a full citation, i'm sorry i dont 100% understand what that means. I have search for the primary location of the court ruling and i think is this one: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697331&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (is this what is needed?)
2. Just for clarification, why a court ruling on a dispute between two countries is considered a WP:PRIMARY account of events? On the source we have a. the one side's argument b. the second side's argument and c. the courts ruling. Im a bit confused as to why a courts decision is considered as a primary source (?) considering a court will issue a judgement based on two primary sources. The reason i'm asking is because of the definition of a primary source.
3. There are editors insisting that the Cyprus dispute is not between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey because of the invasion but as per their claim it is a dispute between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, example here

Thank you again, 23x2 _φ 16:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

To point #1, if you had expanded the template that was placed in this section, it would have given you examples of the best way to phrase your question, however, there was enough info provided (and it was a really slow day at work!) that we were able to work around it this time. Please note, at the top of the page there are clear instructions on the optimal way to present questions here, but that's moot in this case now.

To point #2, Court documents are specifically pointed out as primary documents in [WP:PRIMARY]], that's why we treat them that way here. If you meant to ask why are they listed at WP:PRIMARY, I don't have a good answer for you, I would suggest trying the talk page of WP:PRIMARY.

To point #3, WP:NPOV says that when you have opposing or conflicting viewpoints, both should be included in the article. If they have sources that back up what they say, and you have sources that back up what you say, and neither view is WP:FRINGE, then both sets of "facts" should be given equal weight in the article. Anything less is a violation of WP:BALANCE. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Electric knife and NYT obit

A fairly obvious hoax has repeatedly been inserted into this article[29]. I deleted most of it, but left in the claim that "most attribute" its invention to Jerome Murray. This claim to invention can be found in his NYT obituary. However, I cannot find any confirming sources that are not based on the NYT obit. Even worse, I can't locate any of the supposed 75 patents attributed to Murray, even though these are some quite notable inventions. I can, however, find the patent of the 1939 inventor of the electric knife named in Popular Science Monthly. Normally, I would accept the NYT as a slam-dunk RS, but given that this was part of a hoax, can we rely on an obit for this information. It occurs to me that even the NYT could be hoaxed as well. SpinningSpark 00:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is in the Business section, not the personals, I'm not sure it's fair to call it an obit. It's also sourced to a specific reporter at the NYT. My advice would be to leave the info, sourced, in the article, and add a {{disputed}} tag to it as well. WP:V says it's not what's true, but what we can verify. We can verify the NYT said this, and we don't have a specific source that disputes his claim, even though we have another source that says someone else invented it. Yes, I realize those 2 things contradict each other, but that's how the policy shakes out. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliably source incorrect content can be removed if editors believe that it is mis-WP:WEIGHTed—discuss at article talk. This would only go to reliability if the NYT consistently and demonstrably got things wrong, ie: if it impinged on the NYT's reputation for fact-checking and accurate characterisation of opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have put a {{dubious}} tag on it for now as I am not able to research this further. SpinningSpark 15:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Why We Fight series reliable source for views of US 1942-1945?

I'm having an issue over at the World War II. I am trying put in

"Although during the war itself Prelude to War stated 18 September 1931 was the date the world war started,("remember that date: Sept 18, 1931 a date you should remember as well as Dec 7, 1941. For on that date in 1931 the war we are now fighting begun." (Prelude to War 1942))...

and one editor keeps removing this claiming "70 year old wartime propaganda film is a reliable source on anything other than itself" despite Prelude to War being produced by the Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government making it an official US document.

He clearly don't understand what reliable source as Prelude to War is being presented as the views the US had at the time of the conflict so can we rule this is a reliable source for the US views of 1942-1945 and end this nonsense?--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just when I saw the header, before I read your whole post, I was already thinking "this is a propaganda film, not a reliable source gauging public opinion." I agree with the removal. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the film is a propaganda film, but so what? For many WW2 scholars, the war did begin with Japan's invasion of China. The film just repeats that assertion. But just because you don't like the source does not make the information that source provides any less valid. Albert14nx05y (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Its propaganda for sure, but you could still use it to source text, as long as the text is something like, "US propaganda films at the time claimed X". Avoid using it to source contentious statements. — GabeMc (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Albert14nx05y and GabeMc get it and I have the ultimate proof for my argument--THIRD PARTY RELIABLE SOURCES!

Robert Niemi's History in the Media: Film And Television ABC-CLIO ISBN-13: 978-1576079522 which notes and I quote "The 54-minute film won the 1943 Oscar for Best Documentary" (pg 71-73) and also notes and I again quote "Countless millions of civilians in the United States and Allied nations also saw one or more of the films, making “Why We Fight” the most widely viewed documentary series of its time."

Peter Rollins, John E. O'Connor (2008) Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History University Press of Kentucky goes into even greater detail regarding the propaganda vs documentary aspect of the series continually referring to is as a "documentary".

I should mention that based on that Oscar award the Why We Fight series is still being marketed as a documentary and even Internet Archive uses "documentary" (as well as propaganda) to describe it.

Claiming a film produced by the United State government that got an Oscar as a Documentary is not a reliable source for the views of the US at the time is IMHO boarderline delusional and my third party sources shows just how delusional that position is.

I should add that since it had been given an AWARD as a documentary' and is refereed to as such by several reliable sources claiming it is not a "documentary" is also boarderline delusional. All Documentaries have some propaganda elements to them--that doesn't mean you can dismiss them. As I said in the talk page DEAL WITH IT!--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, there. You appear to be thinking that a documentary cannot be propaganda, or that propaganda cannot be a documentary. That if you prove the film series is a documentary then it must not be propaganda. That if it won documentary awards then it is not propaganda. All of those assumptions are false. The series was great—I have watched every bit of it—but it is still not a reliable source for bald statements of fact. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

To put a finer point on it: The film did not win awards for its faithfulness to facts, it won because it was effective in its military mission. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting this is being added to the second paragraph of the lead in the World War II article: [30]. There seems to be no reason to give any emphasis to this US Government propaganda film in the highest-level article on the war, and especially not such prominent emphasis. The article already has a brief section which discusses the differing accounts of when the war started, cited to reliable secondary sources (World War II#Chronology. BruceGrubb's attempts to justify the inclusion of this material on the article's talk page are, to put it mildly, uncivil and aggressive: [31] Nick-D (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Does any of this shit really matter? I don't have a clue about the article or reference at issue here. I was just surfing through this page seeing what's up when I came across this post here and stuck my nose in. It seems to me that the issue is whether or not WW2 started in 1931 with the invasion of China. Most academic sources say "yes". Who cares whom it is attributed to - a film some label as "propaganda" or one that isn't? In fact, weren't ALL films during WW2 considered to be propaganda from one side or another? Who cares? The date is what matters, right? Albert14nx05y (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What academic sources say World War II started in 1931? I've read very widely on this topic and have never seen such a claim. Some books say that the fighting in Manchuria was an important part of the path to global war (which is pretty uncontroversial), but not the start of the war itself. Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"For Americans, World War II began in December 1941 and ended three years and eight months later. Japan's war, in contrast, began with the conquest of Manchuria in 1931 and expanded to all-out war against China in 1937." Embracing Defeat ISBN 978-0-393-32027-5 pg 87

Saburo, Ienaga The Pacific War 1931-1945 [http://pantheon.knopfdoubleday.com/ Pantheon) ISBN 978-0394734965 says much the same thing.

"Ask most Westerners where and when World War II began and they will tell you that it was in Europe in 1939, yet to millions of Asians it began in Manchuria in 1931,"

"Some historians have said that World War II began on the windswept plains of Manchuria, in the war between Japan and China." Peterson, Barbara Bennett (2006) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, preserver of spirit and hope

"While some historians argue that the war started on 18 September 1931 when Japan occupied Manchuria..." Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116

Pull you heads our of your rear and realize for Asia WWII did indeed start on 18 September 1931, DEAL WITH IT!--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

These particularly documentary films were not scholarly in nature, and do not represent the current historiography of WWII. WWII is a historical article, and should be written by reference to the preponderance of current scholarly opinion, while including other scholarly opinions that are widely and currently held by scholars, and possibly including links to scholarly opinions that were previously widely held, probably in a Historiography of article. The film isn't reliable for its claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter Lang is not scholarly in nature ARE YOU MAD? I am serious, ARE YOU INSANE?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

...and the material has just been edit warred back into the World War II article [32]. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And Nick-D is conveniently ignoring that Cheng is referenced Wernar Ghuhl's (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Publishers ("The Publisher of Record in International Social Science")

Also note that editor who is supposedly "taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia after getting that thing in in early 2013" tried to archive this with only three hours allowed for editors to comment. THAT IS WAY TOO SHORT. Per WP:DUCK this looks to me like Wikipedia:Gaming the system to prevent a real discussion on this matter. Furthermore, any more attempts to archive this before the bot does will be considered vandalism as it would be a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree this is not a source to be used, there are far too many other books on the subject that are in unison against this point, it has wp:weight issues, and it borders on wp:fringe issues too. Aside from that, there are much better more recent texts that should be used, we should not be using the "best efforts" from a nation at war to describe that war, from 70 years ago. We have new thoughts on the matter now. I do agree with Nick-D's comment that saying for Asia, the invasion of Manchuria was an important factor leading to war. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 07:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernard F. Dick (1996) in The star-spangled screen: the American World War II film University Press of Kentucky talks about the impact and accuracy of Prelude to war and Peter C. Rollins and John E. O'Connor's Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History also by the University Press of Kentucky states quite clearly "It's (Prelude to war's) aim was to provide factual information of events leading up to the war" as well as citing Dicks.

Benjamin Leontief Alpers' 2003 Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture by University of North Carolina Press from pg 178-179 also goes over the film in detail citing Dicks along the way finishing up with "Capra defend the film's style, maintaining that it was simply the most effective way to package fact."

Other such sources regarding pr citing Prelude to War are

Thomas Patrick Doherty's (1999) Projections of war: Hollywood, American culture, and World War II Columbia University Press Page 72

Gordon Martel's The World War Two Reader (reprinting much of Benjamin Leontief Alpers work) Psychology Press (of Routledge) pg 167-168

The fact that involved editor (Fifelfoo) archived this after only three short hours before such sources could be presented raises serious question about allowing editors to unilaterally archive such discussions. I agree under WP:DUCK it does give the appearance of Wikipedia:Gaming the system and skirts a little too close to potential WP:VANDAL for my tastes.--67.42.65.209 (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you do NOT WP:OWN this board and crying to ANI is not going to get your way. If anyone of us editors could close of a thread whenever the mood hit us then RSN would NOT have any meaning and issues of WP:GAME would pop up like ducks in a shooting gallery. Your claims are without merit and IMHO only come off as an effort to WP:GAME the results.

The fact that four modern University Press books and a modern work done by a "publisher of quality academic books, journals & online reference" supporting my position of Prelude to War being reliable were provided after you did that archive nonsense only proves that you closed this way too early.

Let the thread be archived by the bot.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that my original question regarding Prelude to War was regarding it it reliable of views the US (ie United States GOVERNMENT) had at the time of the conflict. But we are being told that a movie made by the United States Government during the height of WWII and one would assume fully controlled by said Government is NOT a reliable source for views held by United States Government between 1942-1945. Please tell me how in the name of sanity does that made ANY degree of sense?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Based on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Time_to_axe_the_Daily_Mail controversies over "fake" stories we should axe BBC/CNN for theier made up case for the war in Iraq. Which is a rubbish idea. This noticeboard says "Please keep in mind that reliability depends on context" which is more pertinent. With that in mind, clearly shows "all the evidence shows CNN/BBC doesnt care." Its ludicrous to cite on example as a reason to remove the whole publication when theres no evidence to suggest otherwise. Point being, there are other pieces that can be notable and cited and in ;;context;; for this publication as in Greek legislative election, 2012Lihaas (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you want to say here. Do you defend the Mail or attack other media? Yes, even the best sources will occasionally mess up. But that does not mean that all are equally good or bad - it's a matter of degree. Can you elaborate your position? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Being reliable doesn't means the same thing as never making a mistake. It means they try to get it right, they expend resources making sure they have the best info they can, and if they get it verifiably wrong, they have policies in place to rectify the situation. All our sources come from people, all people make mistakes, by your definition, there's no such thing as a reliable source, and where would that leave us? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but i think you guys hit the nail on the head in what i was trying to say. The previous discussion blankelty said the daily mail was not RS, i was trying to ay that it does not automatically mean because they made a mitake they should be kept out as a RS.Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• This may be of interest as I believe it provides context for what Lihaas is trying to ask here. Specifically, can/should we use the Daily Mail to verify the claim that Vidal Sassoon's father was a "womaniser"? --John (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  That seems awfully WP:COATRACKy to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  I might trust the Mail with football scores. I wouldn't trust them with historical biography, and in particular, with classifying and appropriately portraying the sexual life of people in the past. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any REASON for the comment either of the source or his link? Conversely the comments above explain their reason per verifiability and the editorial oversight requirementLihaas (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Youtube videos of panels from conventions

Working on the assumption that video recording is allowed at a fan convention, would a video of the panel be considered an acceptable reliable source for a statement made by one of the panelists, in lieu of any source of reliable source reporting or official transcripts of the panel? Let's assume that the video isn't professional quality but also isn't one taken from the far back of the room - so it is clear who the panelist is and what they said can be clearly made out. Is it going to matter who the youtube poster is - obviously in most cases someone that we have no way to assure editorial accuracy but if there's multiple accounts of the panelist saying something and the video shows that to be true, it's hard to deny it, but again, it is a tricky question. The situation here is only to provide a statement of how said panelist reacted to a certain event, not a complete loss to an article if that can't be used, but would make the article more interesting if it could be used. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it depends on who uploads the video. If it's CNN or the organization that organized the convention, it's acceptable. If it's by some fan in the audience, it's not. (You do have WP:IAR if you really want to cite an unreliable source.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just curious: how do you distinguish this case from the Clevver TV case above?—Kww(talk) 03:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the other video was published by Clevver TV itself while in the case of this hypthetical video it has not been established who published the video and that makes a major difference.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

as stated, not RS. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with that. If it's official, it ought to be OK. If it's unofficial, well, it's amazing what they can do editing things these days. I know by experience that a carefully edited film can give a totally misleading impression, and it's much easier with video. Peridon (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Nominations

In this article Robert_O._Becker a source [33] says that he was "twice nominated for the Nobel Prize". Another editor wishes to include this statement in the article although the Nobel prize committee does not disclose nominations until 50 years after the Nobel prize has been awarded:

The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize.

Currently Becker is not listed in this database. This essentially means the it is impossible for the source to know if he has actually recieved a nomination or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

it's basically a press release anyway and I wouldn't consider it an RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This source states it too: [34] (possibly as a result of the above source). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A 1979 newspaper source: [35]. Location (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think more explanation than that is needed. First of all, the source is the research division of Upstate Orthopedics at the SUNY Upstate Medical University, and academic institutions per WP:RS and WP:V are generally considered to provided reliable information. Whether or not it was put together for PR purposes, the pdf documents some of the research they have done and there is no reason to believe that they are manufacturing information. Secondly, as outlined in Talk:Robert O. Becker#Nobel Prize Nominations, there is precedent of mentioning Nobel Prize nominations that are unconfirmed by the Nobel Foundation in many Wikipedia articles. Location (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The "precedent" is a bad one and those articles need to be corrected. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Because of the common (and often false) claims for being "nominated for the Nobel Prize", we need to be unusually careful about sourcing, and I believe we should only accept the Nobel Prize committee itself for such information, IOW 50 years later when they release the information. Before that, such mention should only be made when documenting such false claims by quacks (a common thing) and others who use the claim for self-promotion and to puff up their "credentials". We should not be repeating possibly false claims here at Wikipedia. By using sources of lesser quality than the Nobel Prize committee itself (and for this ANY source is of lesser quality, regardless of how reliable it normally is considered), we are aiding those who misuse this claim for self-promotion or promotion of their favorite person, quack or otherwise. This needs to be clarified as a special case in the RS policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing for some sort of double standard here: Ignore sources that are normally deemed to be reliable when they point to a legitimate claim to a Nobel Prize nomination, but accept sources that point to false claims of a Nobel Prize nomination (i.e. "mention should only be made when documenting such false claims by quacks"). If there is in-text attribution to such claims by reliable sources, then the reader gets to decide whether or not the claim is legitimate or not. Location (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

While your opinion has some merit BR, it is not the current policy in place. I don't think the job of this board is to decide when policy should and should not be ignored, it's job is to apply the rules to a question, and provide an opinion based on the understanding of the current policies. I think that your suggestion, while useful in the future discussion of policy change, only muddies the water on this question. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I caused any confusion, but I'm not arguing for a double standard. One cannot know if a claim of nomination is true until after the prize has been presented to a winner (one can rightfully infer that the winner MUST have been nominated by the committee), or until at least 50 years later when the committee reveals those whom they had in the running. Until then claims are only claims. I learned the details of how this works while researching such puffery claims made by a physician who claims to be the world's foremost authority on Aspartame (and its supposed dangers). He is of course supported and promoted by Betty Martini of the Aspartame controversy hoax fame. It turns out his office personnel wrote to the Nobel Prize committee and "nominated" him, and after that he claimed to be a nominee! How convenient. Well, such a claim is BS, and anyone who claims to have been nominated (without proof from the committee itself), should be treated with extreme skepticism, since they do not know they have been nominated "by the committee" (until after they actually win). Their claim is only an attempt to puff up their reputation. So, the upshot of this whole thing is this....the only absolutely RS on the matter (before a win, or 50 years later) is the committee itself. No other form of RS can know for sure. They may well be reporting a rumor as if it were fact, simply because they don't realize that such claims cannot be true if they don't come from the committee itself. If there are other details, or if I've misunderstood something in my research, then please enlighten me. At the time, the Nobel Prize committee was quite adamant that such claims, which did not originate from them (and they are VERY secretive), should be ignored. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position BR, if I thought what you said was 100% accurate, I think I would change my mind, but the Nobel website contradicts you when it says "Nomination to the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is by invitation only. The Nobel Committee sends confidential forms to persons who are competent and qualified to nominate candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine." Which, to my mind means there's another way they could have gotten the nomination info. If not for that, I think I would probably agree with you. But, based on that and WP:V, I think that outweighs your personal knowledge of the situation, at least from a WP perspective, which, sadly, isn't always the common sense perspective. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. That does open up the possibility that the nominator(s) themselves might tell someone what they had done, so I'll factor that into my knowledge bank. The question remains - can we consider such revelations "reliable"? Such a claim can be made by almost anyone without a way for outsiders to know if it's true, and we do know that many quacks make such claims, without a real chance of them ever being taken seriously by the Nobel committee.

There is also part of the process of which I'm ignorant. Out of the thousands of possible nominations received, does the committee then narrow it down to ones which THEY pick as real "nominees" in the final running? I would consider only those to be good enough to consider for possible mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ya, definitely good questions. I didn't read anything about the process that indicated they narrowed the field down further from the nominees they receive (I took the website to infer that by making the nominations invote only, and by only asking qualified participants for those nominations, that was their way of getting a final list to pick from), which makes sense, unless you have medical experts on the panels too, which they may, *shrug*. We just don't know I guess. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V make no specific mention of Universities so I have no idea why you think that qualification exists, they do mention Universities presses but that's a different thing entirely. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:V states: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable." It appears as though the source has been made public, now the question is whether the research division of Upstate Orthopedics at the SUNY Upstate Medical University has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:RS states: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." I would consider the research division of Upstate Orthopedics at the SUNY Upstate Medical University as an authoritative source of information on the work of Becker while he was employed there. Location (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But it's not a third-party source, it's a primary source, as for the rest - they might be authoritative about what he does at the university but about the Nobel price process? No. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you've confused me: You are rejecting what you claim is a primary source for the information, you are rejecting secondary sources for the information by claiming that the initial source of information (i.e. the primary source) is not accurate, but you appear to be accepting the notion that another primary source (i.e. appearance in the Nobel Foundation database) is necessary to include the information. Is that right? Even if the SUNY source is a primary source, use of it would be permitted in that it would be a descriptive statement of fact and not an interpretation of the material. In this instance, SUNY doesn't need to have authoritative knowledge of the process, but they are an authoritative source of if he were a nominee. Location (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In my view these are basically negioations in confidence of which there is no indepedendent verification until 50 years later, unless the nomination is publically declined (which tends to generate a lots of press, as per things like Declining a British honour). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The source seems like it would be RS to me. I don't see why any serious academic institution would claim 2 Nobel nominations if they weren't there, and even if it's a mistake, if the source is RS, you can add it (although if you *know* it's wrong, you should not). However, a quick search of Highbeam shows Dr. Becker's obituary in "The Post-Standard" newspaper (link here), which also mentions 2 Nobel nominations. Based on the academic source, and the apparent notability of Dr Becker himself, I would tend to believe someone would be jumping up and down if it was published and it was not true. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 03:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that we know there is no way that they themselves can know per the reasons of Stuartyeates. Small newspapers write off press releases so it's likely they all retrieved the information from the same source. It is something that can not be verified by -anyone- until 50 years after. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a reason to believe that the university is lying, and the Dr, (now the estate of), is lying, you cannot reject the information on the grounds that the Nobel can't confirm it, only if they deny it. There are many simple ways the information could have been obtained, as simple as him keeping the nomination letters. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

They never confirm, deny, or otherwise comment on nominations until 50 years after the event. Therefore the absence of a denial is meaningless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is meaningful in that there is nothing to refute the claim of what is normally understood to be a reliable source (i.e. an academic institution). Given that we don't normally insist on verification from a primary source for similar claims, the burden of verifiability in this instance seems to be set higher because Becker has been embraced by those with fringe beliefs. For example, if what is normally understood to be reliable source states that Becker attended Gettysburg College, we don't reject the claim until we find independent verification from Gettysburg College itself. Location (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd omit this on the grounds that it's meaningless puffery. Do you know what it takes to be "nominated for a Nobel"? One letter from any university professor, anywhere in the world. That's it. The letter doesn't even have to say anything other than your name. "I think Joe is a great guy, so you should give him a Nobel Prize" counts as a nomination. Buying a bottle of nasal decongestants at your local pharmacy requires more serious paperwork. People ought to be embarrassed to tout this as a claim to fame. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on your conclusion, but your argument is brutally overstated, and factually incorrect. From the Nobel website, "Nomination to the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is by invitation only. The Nobel Committee sends confidential forms to persons who are competent and qualified to nominate candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine." -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The link for reference. Location (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right: nominations for that particular Nobel Prize are limited to seven categories of people, including every professor of medicine in five different countries, plus every professor of medicine at six other medical schools—and there are five more categories besides this.

For a Nobel Prize, however, my description is essentially correct. The Nobel FAQ says that thousands of people qualify to make nominations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this comment earlier. You are still factually wrong. As I pasted, it's an "invitation only" nomination process. The list of potential nominators does NOT include "every professor of medicine in five different countries..." etc. Further, we are talking about *this* Nobel, the process for other Nobel's is *completely* irrelevant to this discussion. In *this* discussion, your argument is NOT "essentially correct", based on the facts provided directly from Nobel. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I can concede that you downplay the importance of Nobel Prize nominations, but the question here pertains to the reliability of the source making a statement of fact, not the importance of that statement of fact. Location (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can take it as a statement of fact as SUNY have no way of actually confirming the nomination. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That is the exact point. We don't know why sources made this claim, and we're not saying anyone was lying, but we know that they could not have known, and therefore the source is patently unreliable on this point. We do this all the time when we find that an otherwise RS has made an unreliable statement. We don't use that statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In terms of reliability, any of the sources named would be adequate for a plain statement with WP:INTEXT attribution that "____ says he was nominated for a Nobel Prize". But as this is a trivial, WP:UNDUE matter, whether the statement can be reliably sourced is wholly unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

An editor has added the text stating that it helps with notability: [36]. @Despayre, it's not about whether they are lying, it's about can they actually reliably know this information, it's obvious they can't though because the information is not disclosed until 50 years after the fact. Some sources repeat the "two Nobel prizes" statement, they would have relied on the press releases for the information (standard practice for journalists). There is no mechanism for these journalists to independently verify the information. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Being nominated for a Nobel prize is not a meaningful achievement, and is a red-flag that an article is filled with overwrought puffery. It should not be included. Hipocrite (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, this whole anecdote is presented in a misleading way: The Nobel nomination is listed alongside awards which Becker did win. A normal reader would infer that being Nobel nominated is a notable form of recognition (like being Oscar nominated). --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, it can easily be known, while Nobel may not release the list, they still send out letters to the nominees, all Dr. Becker would have to do was show them to SUNY. Also, if he was nominated by someone he knew, and was told/shown the paperwork, that would also prove it. That's 2 reasonable and valid ways I can think of within 30 seconds. We have no way of knowing what some sources relied on, that's just speculation. It's equally likely they were also shown the nomination letters or forms. We don't know either way. If SUNY didn't have some reason to believe the nominations were real, do we believe they would print that? Honestly, it makes a lot of sense to me, that someone else at SUNY probably nominated him, great for the university, and you can bet they would use that as PR, but that's just conjecture on my part, reasonable though I think.

Further, I'm completely baffled by editors here saying that a nomination of a Nobel prize is not notable. Maybe not, if you've already won 4. But other than that, what kind of scale are you using to arrive at that conclusion? The same one that says if you're nominated for an Academy Award it's not relevant? Nominations for a Pulitzer, are equally unimportant? Really? What am I missing here? Since when did a worldwide award for excellence in your field, awarded to extremely few individuals of impeccable qualifications, become unimportant? Just being on a list of X number of possible winners is a HUGE achievement imo. A vastly smaller number than 1% of all people in any field even get considered for nomination, how is that not meaningful? I don't get that. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your question "Since when did a worldwide award for excellence in your field, awarded to extremely few individuals of impeccable qualifications, become unimportant?" isn't relevant. No one's saying that getting the worldwide award isn't notable. As for being nominated, well, that depends. If there is a public long list and a public short list and press discussion, then the fact of being on these lists may be notable. But the Nobel Committee (unlike some of those other awarding bodies) doesn't do it that way. Hence I agree with some others above: a nomination may well be very hard to source reliably and in any case isn't notable unless it becomes the subject of press discussion. Andrew Dalby 09:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, my question was what kind of scale is used to arrive at "Nobel nominations aren't notable?", the remainder of my text, including the questions, is comments and food for thought. I simply do not believe that anyone on this page who was nominated for one would think it was not a notable accomplishment. I think that's somewhat preposterous. I don't agree that it depends, and you argument for that is that it may be difficult to source? That's a non sequitor. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that it's relevant what anyone on this page would think about their own accomplishments.

I do agree with you (below) that we're slightly off topic, so maybe the fact that we don't agree about the rest of it doesn't matter so very much :) Andrew Dalby 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, regardless of all this off-topic discussion. SUNY is an RS source for the statement, as per WP:V. Anything else about it, is an issue for your article talk page, or other noticeboards. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The source in question appears to be published by the State University of New York. I see no reason why this would not be considered reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is a medical faculty in upstate New York likely to be a reliable source for the private correspondence and deliberations of the Nobel Committee. In most cases I'd submit that the answer is no. The one obvious exception would be if a member of that faculty did the nominating, however we have no reason to believe that this is indeed the case. Even though this organization is a reliable source for medical information, there's a strong promotional interest in puffing-up the qualifications of faculty members. In addition, this sort of document is often issued by the university press-office and is unlikely to have been subject to the same level of scrutiny as if (for example) the medical faculty were publishing information on medicine. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well if you want to engage in speculation, we could also speculate that there would probably be legal ramifications in releasing information about a doctor's credentials that were not true. I think that would probably be very serious, and again, we have no reason to believe that SUNY is not reliable for this. As stated by myself, and SalimFadhley above, it's likely that a member of the faculty did the nominating, and that would explain why a) they know about it, and b) they aren't worried about legal problems by "lying" about their staff, and c) makes them RS for this source. But that's only if we're speculating. If you ignore all the text here from editors that are on the article talk page, I think you have your uninvolved editors opinions on the RS-ness of this source. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If we follow this highly speculative route, then how notable would this whole affair be if a SUNY faculty member nominated another SUNY faculty member and then the SUNY faculty made a vaguely worded reference to this on their own site? Regarding "lying", there would be no consequences to exaggerating the qualifications of a former-member of the faculty. The document was published after 2002 by which time Becker had left the faculty. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, sometimes I'm not clear. My point was, we should *not* be speculating at all. If you have a RS source, use it; don't speculate on why you think maybe it might not be used. If there is disagreement that you have an RS source, take it somewhere for another opinion. Take the responses back to your talkpage, don't argue it all over again at RSN. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles Theodore Dotter

I want to see if the above discussion applies equally to subjects such as Charles Theodore Dotter, who is described in various sources as the "father of interventional radiology" and does not appear to be a favorite son of fringe theorists or New Age medicine people. His article currently does not have a source for the statement that he was nominated for a Nobel Prize in medicine in 1978, but this could be backed-up by Oregon Health & Science University, UCSF, and others. The claim even appears to be mentioned in a plaque at OHSU. Are the sources reliable enough to be added to the article, or should the statement be stripped as unverifiable or as "puffery"? Location (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expect to gain from this question. I think it's reasonable to assume that all those that opposed the idea above, are probably opposed to this too, and all those that were not opposed, are probably more at ease with this one as well. I might suggest glancing at WP:POINT before bringing every article with a Nobel mention here to RSN. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The plaque, in itself, is an excellent source for the claim that Dotter was nominated, and it makes the claim notable. As such, mention it. What we possibly won't have until 2028 is a reliable source for the fact. Andrew Dalby 17:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please AGF. While you may be correct, it's not yet clear to me that we can assume what you have indicated. It appears that one or two generalized arguments have been offered that suggest that mentions of Nobel Prize nominations without the Nobel Foundation as a (primary) source are inherently unreliable should be stricken from various articles... something that would certainly be disruptive without clarification and/or consensus. It appears other arguments have been put forth that suggest that the background of the subject (i.e. individuals embraced by the New Age movements or "quacks") is somehow relevant, and the second example merely helps clarify whether that is true or not. Location (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any AGF issue here. Different sets of sources and claims will have different answers. This is RSN (Imagine that as James Earl Jones says it, it sounds more impressive that way ), not the place to debate your article at length. Unless you have a policy that says only Nobel can say who was nominated, which we don't, it really doesn't matter what other editors opinions are, although you will still have to deal with consensus and weight issues, but that should all be done on your talk page, not here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll retract the question. Cheers! Location (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement should be stripped as puffery. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The entire worship of a private Swedish awards system is bizarre. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Visible Ink Press

Any comments on Visible Ink Press? Are they WP:RS? They seem really strange, but probably not a self-publisher. But they seem to publish mostly unusual items. I started the page just because it did not have one and is used all over Wikipedia. Personally I would not trust anything I read in any of their books... but.... Is there a classification called "so so publisher"? A few comments on the talk page there will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can make a blanket statement like that. But just picking one book at random, African-American-Almanac-400-Years-of-Triumph-Courage-and-Excellence, it appears to be written by PhD who's "head chair of the department of arts and languages at Fisk University and has published numerous biographies, critical reviews, and scholarly perspectives, including African American National Biography, The Black Scholar, Contemporary African-American Novelists, Encyclopedia of African American Popular Culture, and Notable African American Men." At a glance, it sounds legit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The question of RS for a source cannot be answered without context, almost all sources are RS for *something*. If they are a source for an edit, or a proposed edit, and you would like an opinion on that, you should present a specific problem here. I don't think we can randomly choose a Title from their catalog, and expand on that to say it's representative of their entire organisation (if I'm reading it correctly, I don't think that's what AQFK is saying either, he's saying that the one book he looked at appeared legit, but when I read it first, I thought his text was a little ambiguous, just clarifying). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just unhappy about their wide use in Wikipedia. The book Quest mentioned is as he says it is, but they seem to have a lot of far out items too. They just seem strange.... History2007 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel the same way about a lot of editors too, but someone thought WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to apply from time to time. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A number of presses with social missions publish a wide variety of material. Sometimes it matches what the editors/printers want. Sometimes it matches the variety of material produced serving a social need. I'd look at material case by case. Visible Ink Press prefers to publish populist reference works, though they will publish more scholarly ones too it seems. Again, this leads us towards a case by case approach. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliability should always be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some books by this publisher might be reliable and some might not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No reason to think that in of itself it would not be a reliable source ; it appears to be a genuine publisher [37] and its works are being featured regularly on other sites, like Amazon where they seem to get respectable reviews [38]. In any case I would think that reliability would depend more on the specific text chosen, rather than the publisher.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for BLP's

Is there anything that says that a local newspaper is not a reliable source for use in a BLP like User:Salimfadhley stated when he removed information with this edit? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times has been a topic here many many times, and as far as I know has *always* been found to be a reliable source. Unless that editor can cite a specific problem with that article, or it's an OpEd piece, it is definitely RS and I think his edit summary is kind of misleading too. I don't consider the LA Times a "local paper", even when I'm in LA. The editorial staff of the LA Times determines what is and is not "an important article", not WP editors (if it's not, they don't print it). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's possible I misunderstood... , are you talking about the Kingman Daily Miner? and is that not also backed up by the LATimes article? Is the church in the same community as the newspaper? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Kingman source aside, in this context I could understand calling the LA times piece a local one, as it was published in the local section of the newspaper. Regardless, the source is still reliable and not possibly derogatory, so I don't see how that would be considered a BLP issue. I also don't know what Salim meant when he said the paper didn't meet the "notability standard" for BLPs. It's uncommon but certainly not impossible for reliable sources to be non-notable, and again, since the content is not derogatory or extraordinary, reliable is enough. If he wants to argue the significance route, that's an editorial issue and not a BLP one. Regardless, have you spoken to Salim about this to ask for further clarification? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not talk to Salim about this yet, the edit summary was written in such a matter of fact way, I assumed there was a policy I missed. That is why I cam here. I hope to work on the article some, but won't get around to it for a while. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP or RS policy violation there, but for a 3rd (4th?) opinion, you could ask over at the BLP noticeboard as well, WP:BLPN. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Web Cartoonist's Choice award

Are the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards sufficient to count towards notability of the web comics that have won it? Google news archive search shows 239 results. [39] Dream Focus 19:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Arguably can count towards it but probably not sufficient on its own. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Similar to the recent ongoing discussion over Nobel nominations, the awards website is suitable in the context of a particular cartoon being awarded or nominated for the award. For example "Octopus Pie received the Web Cartoonists' Choice Award for Outstanding Newcomer in 2008" would be fine. Anything beyond the details of the award, e.g. date, category, etc. does not meet RS standards. It doesn't look like the site has anything more than lists of awardees/nominees and examples of the cartoons, but should they also have articles about the artists and their cartoons, the articles would not qualify. We would have to know more about the writing and editorial staff, if any, reputation, etc. Right now, the site only shows a judging committee, which doesn't cut it for WP:RS. Encycloshave (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned about reliable source. An editor is nominating the same articles he previously nominated for AFD, claiming that it wasn't a notable award, so winning it did not count towards notability. So I figured I'd take it to the reliable sources noticeboard to discuss it. Hmm... not sure if this is the right place now that I think of it. Dream Focus 20:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You want the Notability Noticeboard. But since you mention it, no. Simply winning an award is not enough for notability. You'll want to review WP:NOTE. Cheers. Encycloshave (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Many subject specific guidelines state that winning an award adds to your notability. In fact, I think all of them do. Dream Focus 21:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a question about reliability here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we already covered that. Simple mistake. I put the question over at the right spot now at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Web_Cartoonists.27_Choice_Awards Dream Focus 22:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Livadia Palace

The link associated with the architect N Krasnov is incorrect as it is linked to a military person and not the architect. As I am a descendent who can confirm this. Please refer to the article http://www.directarticle.org/Uncle_Krasnov.pdf written by my good friend Sue Woolmans

There does not appear to be any article about any architect with the last name Krasnov. Where did you see this link? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I get it. There was a bluelink at Livadia Palace (see the misspelt heading above!) which linked to the wrong Nikolay Krasnov. I have now made it a redlink to Nikolay Krasnov (architect), so the anon. editor could now, if he/she wants, start an article about this architect. Andrew Dalby 15:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

IETF RFCs not a reliable source ?

In [[40]] there's a note "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources."

The FTPS article refers to a couple of RFCs in the Notes section. I'm not sure if that is what the references note is talking about, but if so, then in my opinion it's wrong. RFCs are a definitive published source for internet protocols, and filtering them through a third-party publication is just asking for trouble by allowing inaccuracies to creep in. As I recall, in the case of SSL and TLS, the IETF publication was considered more authoritative than an extensive body of implemented code, causing a fork in the protocols due to a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaviel (talk • contribs)

• RFCs released by the IETF are definitely reliable sources - these are the standards the net is built on. They are, in a sense, primary sources, so there need to be some discretion in reading them (several of the older ones are, e.g. superseded by newer ones), but apart from that I would have no problem in accepting them for the purposes used in the SFTP article. It would be good, but not strictly mandatory, to find additional sources for the non-technical aspects. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree they are reliable sources. They have some aspects of primary sources, because the people who write them are certainly close to the subject. They also have some aspects of secondary sources, because they are based on a review of comments from experts. But some RFCs become an indispensable part of our civilization, while others languish and are forgotten, and you can't tell which is which by reading the RFC. So sources who have no particular interest in whether the RFC gets implemented or not should be relied on to decide if the RFC is notable. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• They are primary sources, while they are reliable it's preferable that they are complemented with secondary sources so that the right due weight is given in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• As with many things, it depends on context. When describing the on-the-wire protocol (message formats, etc), the RFCs are undoubtedly primary sources. When describing background issues, they may be secondary in some cases. Looking at the article, there's very little background, and little information about adoption, third-party assessments of security and other issues, etc. Secondary sources would be ideal for such issues. Jakew (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of ClevverTV's video channel on YouTube as source of interview content

There is a discussion at Talk:So Random!#Series finished? that touches on using a ClevverTV recorded interview to support the statement in the article "On May 2, 2012, Tiffany Thornton acknowledged in a video interview that the series has not been picked up again." (see [41] and [42]).

This is the official YouTube channel for http://www.clevvertv.com/, basically a celebrity news and gossip site but also does interviews with celebrities. My understanding of WP:RS is that, although this channel is not a reliable source due to lack of reputation for fact checking, it is not necessarily unusable as a primary source to support factual statements made during an interview by interview subjects. This channel is the outlet of a well established media organization with a fairly good reputation for interviewing celebrities.

While I wouldn't trust any conclusions or evaluation they make about the contents of an interview, I think it is extremely unlikely that they would corrupt the statements made by their interview subjects. I understand the issue with anonymous youtube channels not being trusted not to do creative editing. This is not an anonymous channel and I think it can be used for the limited purposes of supporting interviewee statements.

A quick search shows that this source has been used in other articles as a primary source to support factual statements. I would like to see what people think here about continuing to use this as a source for that limited purpose. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In this case YouTube is just the conduit, reducing this to a question of whether http://www.clevvertv.com/ or Tiffany Thornton are reliable sources for this statement. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The unreliability of the publisher makes all published statements unreliable. A video of Tiffany Thornton produced by an unreliable site is no better than the unreliable site printing "Thornton said ...". We wouldn't accept the quote, and we shouldn't accept the video. It may be harder to make a video misrepresent things than text, but not that much harder.—Kww(talk) 10:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Geraldo, you're correct, if a RS source uploads a video, then that video can be used as an RS source on Youtube, ie, if CNN uploads footage, you can use it from Youtube, but if I upload that same video, it's not RS. Which means it comes back to the RS-ness of the source, as Kww said. After reviewing the site, and the parent site for ClevverTV, I cannot find any editorial policy, no list of editors, no names that I can attach any kind of qualifications to, that would make them RS. Their site seems like they would not intentionally mislead people, but based on what we know, when applied to WP's rules, ClevverTV does not seem like an RS source. I think it would be ok for something like an inline attribution, such as "According to ClevverTV, Tiffany Thornton said in a video interview that she was really sad that So Random! was not picked up for a new season". I don't see the publisher as unreliable, but it doesn't meet RS requirements, and should probably only be used for non-controversial statements. The issue of wp:weight for that statement, is an issue for your talk page. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I've never heard of ClevverTV, So Random or Tiffany Thornton. So, let me ask: is there any legitimate concern over this interview's authenticity? If not, making straight forward statements of fact are acceptable ("Tiffany Thornton said....") per WP:PRIMARY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly I have doubts: it's published on YouTube by a gossip website, so it can't be treated as reliably representing anyone's statements. Your formulation would present it as a fact that Thornton made these statements in this context.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that formulation presents it as a fact that ClevverTV claims Thornton made these statements, that's not the same thing, and it's verifiable, as per WP:V. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Kww: So, you're saying that they doctored the video? If so, do you have any evidence to back that up? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is extraordinarily unlikely that they doctored the video which is why I see this source as a reliable repository of interview videos. No difference than using pictures sourced from Flickr in wiki articles where there is also some chance that the picture can be Photoshopped. Just because a source is not trusted for reporting and evaluation and unusable as a secondary source does not imply it can't be relied upon at all for anything. We are not relying on fact collection and evaluation here - it is just a video - the only question should be "is it a true record?" Viewing the video it is obvious that in this particular case it is. As to the content I believe WP:SELFSOURCE applies - the actual source is the actress involved giving statements that don't go beyond what she knows and there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, AQFK,I'm saying that none of us has any firm basis for any position on whether it is doctored. What's obvious to Geraldo isn't obvious to me, and I have no idea whether this is a "true record". That's why we rely on sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which Clevver TV hasn't got. None of us should be trying to evaluate material presented by unreliable sources to determine whether we personally believe it.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't have a problem with citing a source like this, and I suspect (although I don't know this), citing interviews celebrities give to non-reliable sources happens all the time on Wikipedia. I think this is one area where policy fails us. But that's just my opinion. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The test is whether or not there is a reasonable doubt that this is not a true record. A company in the business of doing and recording interviews is very unlikely to doctor them, they have no motivation, no ax to grind, no position to advance. Also we always must evaluate every source we use as to whether or not a particular source is reliable for a particular piece of information even when it is a normally reliable source. As WP:RS states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" --Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that you are doing any weighing. What factors are you considering? What Wikipedia guidelines and policies introduce the concept of "reasonable doubt"?—Kww(talk) 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". If you apply the spirit of this sentence to this source, it would be acceptable. Like I said, I think policy fails us. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would have no problem with using this video if it had been published on a channel I could trace to Tiffany Thornton.—Kww(talk) 19:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But it is in a channel that can be traced to Tiffany Thornton - she is the one in the chair answering questions - there is no reasonable doubt that is who is talking in the interview and that the interview is a true record. If anything a channel directly owned and controlled by Thornton may be less reliable as she would have a much higher motivation to place herself in a positive light and edit a video in such a way as to do so. As a policy question I think we are trying to remove too much judgment about reliable sources and trying too hard for bright lines rules. The rules for news sources used as secondary sources are not always appropriate for other sources used in other ways. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation, Geraldo, you say above that "we are trying to remove too much judgment about reliable sources and trying too hard for bright lines rules", I would just like to point out that the only 2 ppl arguing about it, are editors involved with your article. You brought the question to RSN, 2 uninvolved editors gave you similar opinions that it's usable. I'm not sure why you two are bringing your continued argument here still. Are you waiting for even more input from other uninvolved editors? I can tell you that from my observations here, the more this looks like 2 editors squabbling, the less likely you are to get more input from others imo. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think Stuartyyeates agrees with me, and AQFK acknowledges that existing policy supports my position (although he feels that existing policy "fails us" in the regard).—Kww(talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Stuartyyates didn't offer an opinion, I don't see how you can conclude anything from his comment as agreeing with you, but if you think so, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. AQFK said "So, let me ask: is there any legitimate concern over this interview's authenticity? If not, making straight forward statements of fact are acceptable". If that was also your position, apologies, I thought you were saying this video couldn't be used. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my position is a bit confusing. I'm saying that:

• I think it probably violates the letter of WP:V. In that sense, I'm agreeing with Kww.
• I don't think it violates the spirit of what WP:V is trying to accomplish. In that sense, I'm agreeing with Geraldo Perez.
• Personally, if I were working on this article, I would not object to using this source. (Unless I was going for FA/GA status and thought other editors would object.)
• I suspect (but don't know) that sources like this are used all over Wikipedia, particularly with pop-culture articles. In that sense, policy is out of step with the community. Policies are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, meaning they should document what editors are doing out 'in the wild'. But good luck trying to get policy changed. I suspect that this is just one of those situations where policy and reality differ.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's the part where you agree with *me*? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• The video is being released on ClevverTV's official Youtube channel. That means that it is a reliable source for Tiffany Thornton's statements and opinions. If it had been uploaded on some random person's channel, then it would not be reliable, but since it is the official channel, it's fine, just like videos released on the official CNN Youtube channel is fine. Now, whether ClevverTV qualifies as a reliable source in itself is another matter entirely. Silverseren^C 04:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are not certain whether ClevverTV qualifies as a reliable source, why do you believe it is a reliable source for Tiffany Thornton's statements and opinions?—Kww(talk) 11:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose in this instance reliable source isn't the correct terminology, since we're not dealing with an article that's stating facts, but with a person stating an opinion. Better wording would be whether Tiffany is important enough of an opinion to include in the article, per WP:DUE. Silverseren^C 17:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

But, reading over what the source is being used for, which I didn't really focus on before, I should say using her statement is perfectly fine and valid. And, since it is a reliable source, we're all good. Silverseren^C 17:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My initial thought is that Clevver Media LLC is not RS. That would mean that the YouTube video should not be used. Is Clevver Media a subsidiary of a recognized source in that industry? Am I missing something such as that Dana Ward being this Dana Ward? Realistically, I don't doubt the video or the content being added to the article and would not object. Unfortunately, that is the slippery slope of Wikipedia since videos that were at least as believable have previously been declined by the community. Online videos get extra scrutiny and I think that is a good thing. Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

http://frathousesports.com/top-10-most-famous-male-cheerleaders

Is being used as a "source" to name some notable people as "cheerleaders" and to categorize them at "Category:College cheerleaders in the United States". Is "frathousesports" a Reliable source? Collect (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Based on their About page,[43] it appears to be just another blogging site. I did find a handful of references to this site in other reliable sources, (for example[44]) but that doesn't translate to a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked -- as one editor seems "heck-bent" on labeling Republican politicians as "College cheerleaders" <g> with this wondrous source (and similar ones as well). Enough BLPs being treated this way that help would be welcome, for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not RS. No editorial oversight, not even an author listed on the article. No evidence of qualifications or expertise. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

But obviously reliable sources like Sports Illustrated say that they did things. Viewing the above, how can we possibly accept Collect rejecting this source and accepting the other one? There must be some other reason why one is acceptable and the other is rejected. What could it possibly be? Hipocrite (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope - I reject blogs in general as sources for any BLPs. Always have. Always will. Is there a reason why you show up insinuating otherwise here? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. Obviously not a RS. But the comparison of the two threads is definitely telling. Dave Dial (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not the right noticeboard to discuss "Accepting" Collect's behaviour. A question was asked, it looks unanimous from the uninvolved editors (although it's not always clear who those are, which is annoying), and there you go, not RS seems to be the prevailing opinion. Anything else is outside the scope of this board. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 02:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Two sources of the same author contradict each other

In the article 2001 QF298 one source (paper I, Table 1) claims that the object is likely a dwarf planet. However two years later the same author published a new version (paper II, Table 1) of his list of likely dwarf planets where 2001 QF298 is not mentioned at all. There is no explanation of why it was removed. However the author makes it clear that the second list is only an updated version of the first one, not a new creation. I investigated this matter and came to conclusion that the inclusion of 2001 QF298 in the paper I was likely a simple error.

The question is if the paper I in this context remains a reliable sources for the claim that 2001 QF298 is a likely dwarf planet? Ruslik_Zero 15:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations of what? Those two papers contain just two tables. Ruslik_Zero 15:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to say what a document is, why would I be bothered to read it or determine whether it is reliable. Multiple editors look over your request, and your time to supply a citation means that 10 editors don't have to use their time to do what you should have done. A citation of the document you have linked to, chiefly: Author, (Year) "Document Title" Title of Journal or Conference Volume, Issue and other Identifying data 60.242.186.80 (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you expand the template placed here, you will see what elements you are missing from your question, the more info you provide, the better answer we can provide here, also it's much less likely we're going to go off and look for important context, such as, what article this is for? Click on the [show] button. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, people are too lazy to click the links you supplied above to see the bibliographic information, so we'd like you to type it out here.

Have you considered stating the contrast between the two lists in the article, like "In 2008, Tancredi and Favre included it in the list, but in a 2010 update, Tancredi omitted it"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, there's no article attached, nor is there a suggested edit for it to be applied as a source to evaluate. As clicking on the [show] button of the template would have shown, these would be helpful to have for a more complete answer. I am not too lazy to look at the links as you suggest. Perhaps you might consider that the person asking for our help isn't too lazy to click on the link that shows him exactly how to get the best answer here and will correct the problem shortly? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you downloaded the two pdfs the OP linked, you would know the authors, dates, titles, and publication names.

I don't use "lazy" as an insult, but as a means of attracting the OPs attention to the law of the web: every extra click costs you readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If 10 OPs a day are too lazy to type bibliographic details that save 5 RSN editors 5 to 15 minutes per reference, then OPs can have their answers ignored indefinitely. RSN editors are quite frankly sick and tired of the continuous discourtesy of other users despite years of having clear instructions on this page. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I followed the instructions, which say "If it's an online source, please link to it." Ruslik_Zero 06:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with assuming that omission means they've concluded that the body is not a DP comes from the fact that the omitting table does not list objects they believe to be DPs. It lists a whole range of candidates, which are then evaluated. In the first paper, 2001 QF298 is included in a different table, one of likely DPs (with a question mark), because it has "small albedo spots"; that's not the kind of result that's likely to change. In the second paper, 2001 QF298 is not included in a list of candidates to be evaluated. Omission from that table is not necessarily a way of saying a body is not a DP, since failed and un-addressable candidates are included, not just likely DPs. We might assume that any reasonable candidate would be omitted only if it had been excluded from even consideration as a candidate, but that's a bit OR (we might expect that since it had been once tentatively concluded to be a DP, it would be included the 2nd time around, esp. if they came to a different conclusion, and for all we know it was a simple oversight. We could always write Tancredi and ask. I personally wouldn't have a problem with an informal answer like that, if someone with a bit more integrity than our poster were to do it. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Writing to the author would be considered WP:OR, and therefore not permissible. Also, the resulting private email reply would be completely non-RS. I would suggest you don't assume anything, go with the best information you have. Either state that it was there, and it isn't there on the latest version, or simply state that the latest version does not include it. Both are fine, both are policy-correct, in terms of source RS-ness (there may be other policies that my second suggestion violates, although none come to mind at this very moment). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with contacting an author. As long as the contents of the e-mail don't appear in the article, it's not OR. Alternatively, if Tancredi has a blog, you could ask him to write a post about this and cite that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wubba, wubba, huh? From WP:OR, "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" and "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". How would you do that with the reply from a private email that can't be verified (to WP's satisfaction, not an editor's)? WP:OR goes on to say "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed", that would seem to be your email again, even if not appearing in the article. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the 'wubba, wubba' reference but to answer your question, we're not using the e-mail as a source for the article. Nothing will be cited to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's just the sound my head makes when I shake it back and forth quickly . If we can't source/cite anything to the email, how does it help the article? The same problem with the actual source we have now would still be there, it would be no different than now, having not sent any email at all. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue, but if the first source is correct, the article should say that it's a dwarf planet candidate and we cite that source. If the second source is correct, we omit the claim it's a dwarf planet candidate from the article.

Looking at the article right now, the sentence that says, " As of 2012 the object is not considered a viable dwarf planet candidate by Tancredi et al and is not mentioned in the latest update of their list." is OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe it's me, I'm not sure how I see that as OR. The second source is a 2012 document from Tancredi listing all viable dwarf planet candidates, and it's not on the list. I don't think it's OR to assume that, "therefore it's not a candidate". Is that what you are saying? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless the source actually states that it's not on the list, then it's OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I follow your logic, but I see it more like the routine calculations exception of OR, the only purpose of the list is to show all the candidates, by not including it on the list, it's not a candidate. I'd be interested to hear what anyone at WP:NORN had to say. I'm not saying you're wrong, I think there is some merit to your argument, but I also think this is a pretty straightforward exception. But this isn't WP:NORN, so it's kinda outside the scope of this board anyway. the answer to the original question here I think is either "No", or "Yes, as long as you include the updated info as well, which says no it isn't". -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because the question got me curious, I've posed it over at WP:NORN, here. That board looks a little less popular, but, we'll see... -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 02:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you are write that their list is intended to be an exhaustive list of objects that in principle can be dwarf planets. From the second paper (Minor Planet Center lists all known objects including 2001 QF298):

From the list of TNOs listed by the Minor Planet Center by July 22, 2009 († )and the list of objects observed by Stansberry et al. (2008), we extract 46 objects with an estimated size larger than 450 km. This list is an updated version of the one presented in Paper I. This preliminary list of icy dwarf candidates is presented in Table 1. The objects are listed in increasing order of absolute magnitude H.

If the size of the object is not known they estimated it based on the assumed albedo of 10%. With this assumption the cut-off size (450 km) corresponds to the absolute magnitude of 4.9. The magnitude of QF298 (whose size was not known at that time) is 5.4. So, it was not included. In the Paper I they used exactly the same criterion but strangely included the object. So, they either used an incorrect magnitude or made a simple mathematical error. So, I conclude that in the Paper I the authors made a simple error, which they silently corrected in the follow up paper.

An alternative solution would be to conclude that with respect of 2001 QF298 both papers are unreliable sources and not mention them at all. Ruslik_Zero 06:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You could go that route, but the article is so short now I would hesitate before making it shorter, I think it's a better alternative to list both facts, and draw no conclusion. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The best route is to deprecate the old version of the list once an update version appears. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the first "article" given is an article at all. It is an abstract for a conference presentation. As such I don't think it even counts as a reliable source. Zero^talk 15:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It summarizes an actual article that discusses it more detail. Everyone can read the summary, but not everyone can read the full article. --JorisvS (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Breitbart.com

Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is Breitbart.com a "reliable source"? [45] presents material about the Shooting of Trayvon Martin One editor states on the talk page that

Breibart.com is not a reliable source for any encyclopedia article, much less for one with WP:BLP implications.

It seems obvious to me that breitbart.com lacks the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" demanded by this site's sourcing guidelines

AFAICT, breitbart.com is used on a great many Wikipedia pages as a source, and thus my suggestion that it be discussed here. Also, AFAICT, it is regularly cited in such places as the NYT etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Breitbart.com does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. It relies heavily on rumors and personal opinions. It is not used by other, obiously reliable sources without comment on previous reliability issues. Hipocrite (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean like the fact the NYT uses it? Cheers - but your claim is a teensy bit errant here. Collect (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to a concrete piece where the NYT uses Breitbart.com as a source for a claim of fact? I'd be rather surprised... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest uses by RSs for the site include the WSJ [46], etc. [47] shows the NYT citing the publishing of a photo to one of Breitbart's sites (several NYT cites, in fact, in different stories). And, of course, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. So much for "reliable sources" not using Breitbart. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand what people mean when they say "use Breitbart.com as a source for a claim of fact." Saying "Breitbart.com did something," is not using Breitbart.com as a source for a claim of fact, it is merely relaying a thing they did. For instance, the NYTimes frequently says things like "[Lunatic Neonazis] said that Jews did WTC." That does not make [Lunatic Neonazis] a reliable source. You are looking for "According to Breitbart.com, thing." Further, your WSJ mention is not in the reliable news part of the WSJ, but rather the highly partisan Best of the Web Today column of James Taranto. Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha -- so "partisan reliable sources" using Breitbart do not count? Interesting dichotomy you assert, to be sure. The NYT states that something is found in Breitbart - but that does not count either. I find a lot of "IDONTLIKEIT" in that sort of response which is meaningless in this discussion. Cheers - no need for further reply on your part. BTW, your Godwinian example of Lunatic Neonazis does not help your point one whit. Collect (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The NYT reports on Breibart.com, it does not use him as a source. And the WSJ article is an opinion piece, not a piece of reporting. And it's a lousy piece of opinion, too. But that's neither here nor there. It remains clear that no-one reliable seems to use Breibart.com as a source of fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It was being used for apparent statements of fact about the timeline and media referring to Zimmerman as "white". Read the article, I suppose. Collect (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the text that it's being used to verify? At first glance it looks like it has a particular bias and should be used with care. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a talk page discussion about media initially referring to Zimmerman as "white." The Breitbart article appears to list media which used that particular term in possibly inapt manners. Clearly any opinions sourced thereto would have to be noted as "opinion" as is always true. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It may has due weight if the statement is attributed, but not in wikipedia's tone as it appears to be partisan. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Are the any other sources which say that the media initially referred to Zimmerman as "white"? If so, perhaps we can resolve this by citing a different source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Breitbart.com is most definitely not a reliable source for anything other than itself. Especially for articles involving controversies or include living persons. Are we going to start using the Daily Kos and Redstate too?

• Comment - The racial designation, "White", includes hispanics (Cubans), so why is calling Zimmerman white "inept"? Has evidence of African ancestry come to light? — GabeMc (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

this article (from Reuters, through the Chicago Tribune) notes that Zimmerman's great-grandfather was Afro-Peruvian; he was the father of the grandmother who raised Zimmerman. (That would make Zimmerman one-eighth black.) Note that I am not saying anything about the suitability of Breitbart, only responding to your query. Horologium (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes in fact -- there is evidence of African ancestry. Glad to have that cleared up. Collect (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that would make Zimmerman 1/8th Afro-Peruvian, which is itself no doubt a mixture. At any rate, a 1/8th African bloodline does not make a person non-white, "The United States Census Bureau defines White people as those "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who reported “White” or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish."[4] So this would seem to apply to 7/8ths of Zimmerman's bloodline, so if one had to choose, they would not label him non-white based on US census criteria. — GabeMc (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Without resorting to connections with other cases (such as an individual who is supposedly 1/32 of a particular racial minority), what you asked for was simply "Has evidence of African ancestry come to light?", after which I provided such a link. I'll not play the hair-splitting game, because there is already a nice article on the subject; I added a convenient wikilink in my previous comment. While Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, there are sufficient citations in that article to establish that my response was sufficient to answer your original query. Horologium (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the discussion on the reliability of the source. Anyway, it seems the source isn't reliable except for attributed statements. I note that this source has been discussed before Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Breitbart_as_News_RS and from the comments by Sceptre the website appears to be unreliable: Resignation_of_Shirley_Sherrod and ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek genocide

Is this a reliable source for the figure of 2 million ("Other sources put the number at around 2 million.") in the article of Greek genocide? See some arguments here. --Seksen (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Without arguing if the source is reliable or not, it does not make that claim. The only context the number comes up is in the hypothetical "Assuming 1.25 Armenians, 500,000 Assyrians, and 2 million Greeks..." (how does one kill 0.25 Armenians?). I don't think this is a good source for the claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephan is almost right. The article does not make that claim, he has quoted you the sentence where it asks the reader to "assume" that number, so he can get to his point that deaths "could be" as high as 3.75 million. Since the article does not make that claim of 2 million dead, it is NOT RS for that statement. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That statement must be removed then. But is his claim in there even worth mentioning in the article as a suggestion? It does not seem to be reliable enough to even mention that there is such a claim (one would assume that it was claimed based on some sort of document or source). --Seksen (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not RS, if that's the only source for that number, I would remove it. He's not claiming that number is right, he's making an assumption so he can promote his overall point. He should not be cited (or mentioned) in any way for that number. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Deseret News

I was hoping for input on whether or not Desert News, the official LDS news source, is a RS in terms of using it to source articles about Mormons, particularly Mitt Romney, and particularly to cite praise or compliments. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Deseret News is not just an "official Mormon news source" to start. It is owned by the LDS, but it as much a religious paper as is the Christian Science Monitor, also owned by a religion. The news articles are ... news articles. Written by reporters. It is a reliable source for news articles. It is recognized as a paper [48], [49], receiving a goodly number of journalism awards. Including a Pulitzer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's the Deseret News, and it's a respectable daily newspaper. In the abstract, I can't see why it should be any less reliable for facts than any other similar newspaper. For statements of opinion, of course, or where there are source conflicts or other good reasons, attribution in text may well be appropriate, and there's always the more basic question of whether "praise or compliments" belong in the article or not. -Arxiloxos (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with Collect, but I would use it judiciously, as part of a good diversity of sources to achieve NPOV. The LDS Church, which owns the paper, is politically neutral with respect to candidates, so there's no inherent conflict of interest regarding the paper's coverage of the Romney or Obama campaigns. alanyst 22:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they do seem fairly neutral in terms of coverage, as far as I can tell, but really, is it apporpriate to use a newsource owned by a candidate's church to source his abilities/accomplishments? — GabeMc (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Deseret News was used as a source in the article for Harry Reid. alanyst 23:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As Alanyst said above, with judicious use, I don't see a problem, however, I do suggest inline attribution for anything sourced from them, as in "As reported in the Deseret News, Mitt Romney blah blah blah". There is a fundamental (no pun intended) bias on its Editorial Advisory Board that probably makes this source likely to be more favorable to Romney than other sources, and there's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean we should pretend "it's just another source" either. I hope I've explained that well enough to avoid any flame-wars :) Caveat: I would not use them for controversial statements not covered in other sources as well though. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I object to the idea of having to inline attribute things sourced to them. All newspapers and all media entities have potential ownership biases, be they large corporations, prominent families, idiosyncratic billionaires, whatever. The proof of the pudding is in the reporting itself. For what it's worth, the 2007 edition of Richard and Joan Ostling's book Mormon America: The Power and the Promise (one of the best books on Mormonism overall) says that the Deseret News no longer has LDS officials on its board, that one of its recent editors-in-chief was non-Mormon, and that its new building was funded on its own and not with tithe funds. Of course, the advice about double-sourcing contentious statements and striving for sourcing balance always applies. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to review the various aspects to its governance and operations by reviewing this information from Bloomberg BusinessWeek, especially clicking on the individuals to see their backgrounds. 72Dino (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to view the Editorial Advisory Board page at the Deseret News website, where at least 5 of the bios specifically state they are LDS members. --Despayre (talk • contribs)

I'm convinced that we must attribute material sources to the Deseret News (with a wikilink of course. See for instance [50] "In 2010, under the leadership of CEO and President Clark Gilbert, the paper’s new management team radically reorganized the Deseret News (pronounced De-se-RET) and streamlined the editorial content to provide “intellectually rigorous faith and family-oriented” news to an underserved niche market." This source [51] says "Gilbert, now 40, has worked his way into a position where, backed by the financial muscle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he can test his theories in the real world. Last May, he became president and CEO of the News. He immediately set about developing a stem-to-stern overhaul of Utah's second-largest newspaper based both on his research and his fidelity to his church." (Gilbert is the President and CEO). Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor would appear to be a broadly acceptable reliable source, even when dealing with reportage about Mary Baker Eddy. Same with Deseret News. It's a broadly accepted reliable source, even when it deals with matters about the Saints.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just referring to the need for attribution, which is probably the same in both cases. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's really not going to fly. Instead of writing "In August 2001, Romney announced he would not return to Bain Capital.[37]" where fn 37 is a cite to a Deseret News story, I have to write, "According to the Deseret News, Romney announced in August 2001 that he would not return to Bain Capital.[37]" ? This immediately leads the reader to think, well, according to somebody else maybe he really stayed at Bain Capital longer. It indicates doubt where none is deserved. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Try flying it :) If your hypothetical reader searches further, and finds another source on this that we couldn't find, that'll be good. Andrew Dalby 16:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding my point. This is an uncontested, non-controversial fact that is being sourced, based on something Romney publicly said. Why on earth would it have to be inline attributed? I'm using Deseret News because they're a Utah paper and Romney was in Utah at the time, and so they gave the most attention to it. I could try the Salt Lake Tribune but all their stuff from back then is behind a paywall and their pre-2005 archives search seems busted. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Wasted Time R. There's no need for in-text attribution for a simple statement of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

For that, I agree, no attribution needed. But for anything at all controversial sources from the Deseret News you would almost certainly need an attribution. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• cmt - Full disclosure: I didn't get past the o/p's suggetion that the oldest continuing running news daily in Utah is "an official" LDS source. (If that's as far as the o/p got in his research and analysis, I hope this post is simply a query and doesn't suggest the DesNews is not a RS...albeit one to be used with care, as always--viz., just as one would be careful [I dunno--thinking offhand] when using the Christian Science Monitor w rgd to issues involving the Church of Christ Scientist, Washington Times or UPI when covergin their owner the MooniesUnification Church, the National Catholic Register re Catholicism, Christianity Today w rgd evangelicalism.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)