Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

Mentioning DissidentVoice.org as outlet publishing writer

Here DissidentVoice.org as an outlet that regularly prints Gilad Atzmon articles has been removed yet again. Despite the failure to address arguments for keeping it at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Dissident_Voice_60_plus_wikipedia_mentions. As of today there are 71 mentions in search, a great many of this relatively innocuous sort. (See past WP:RSN discussion of it at [this old WP:RSN] discussion.) And this by same person who thought it was reliable to mention that David Duke published him, despite no evidence he asked them to! So obviously a POV deletion. Opinions here or on the talk page section welcome. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A POV deletion in an Israel debate? Geez, that's never happened before on WP. And in an article about the author, too. Revert it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. Now that I know 3rr actually means reverts and not any and all edits, I'm just going to have to keep doing it!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope that's a joke. Fences&Windows 11:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Songfacts.com

Can we please get a final ruling on whether or not Songfacts is useful? Most of the content appears to be user submitted and therefore unreliable. One user, Pvae (talk · contribs) has gotten blocked for a week for constantly spamming this source within articles, despite multiple whacks with the cluebat. I don't wanna keep going around in circles, so let's finally get a final ruling, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable, in the same way that all wikis are. At Songfact's legal page, it says: "The information on this site is gathered from a variety of sources, including contributions from users of the site. Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors." There it is. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Content generated by anonymous users, website disavows accuracy of content. Doesn't meet WP:RS requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Looks like each page at Songfacts has an initial section that's written by the staff, and might be reliable, and a separate section of user's comments, which is not RS. From their "about us" and "staff" pages, this was initially something created by professional radio DJs out of Hartford, who then took their database online. They have professional writers and occasionally interview the artists. [1][2] Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No site guarantees the accuracy of its content! That's a standard legal disclaimer, and these legal disclaimers should not be used in judging the reliability of a source. The important part is "The information on this site is gathered from a variety of sources, including contributions from users of the site." If they have parts of the site that are written by professional staff, those might be reliable. Material like interviews written by these people are probably OK to use as a source. Fences&Windows 12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd steer clear of it, it's very difficult, there's little attribution for some of the 'facts', they could be written by anyone. --neon white talk 09:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends which kind of disclaimer. "Not liable for errors or omissions" doesn't disqualify. "You are entering a comment area and this is user-submitted" does. This disclaimer has both. But there's a very obvious tearline on each song's page separating the editor's facts from the user comment facts. It may meet RS, but I would encourage our editors to see if we can't find those facts in a book or magazine. It's always good to continually improve sourcing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Random Musing

I have been presented with what on the surface looks like OR, but I could verify it (note there is no contorversy this is in the way of a general nose about). So my question is, If something can be physicaly checked out by you (such as the colour of a towns bus livery) Do you need Third party RS or is saying, "I saw one" RS becasue it can be verified?Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on the case in point, Steven. If it's a fact of crucial importance to the article which is unlikely to be disputed then fine. If the article can survive without it though, the question is: why should WP note it when reliable sources haven't seen the need? --FormerIP (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A photo might verify it, except that "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments".[emphasis in the original] I suppose you could include a picture of the bus and not comment on its color! Saying "I saw it", "I know it", etc. is never a reliable source because we don't know whether the person making this statement can be relied upon. This is the core reason for WP:V. Fences&Windows 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But what if you can check it (and perhaps do), ohh and it might be worth noting that the text that raised this can be sourced to RS (well a local paper), would that constitute verifiability?.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Think you might need to lay your cards out a bit more, Steven. Is stating the colour of a bus the actual thing you want to do? --FormerIP (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly its not something I want to include, its something else someone else put in an article (in this case that a mechanical land mark is now working when before it was not). Secondly I have no objection to the edit (as I said this is just a random musing). I was just intrigued by this idea that if something (like the exsistance of the Earth) can be verified by personel observation then is it RS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In general no. Take some LSD and observe some fairies (or monsters). It can be verified, but a reliable source for their existence..... In your example, it may be that the mechanical landmark (let's call it a windmill to make it more concrete) was 'working' as part of maintenance only, or in the context of a one-time historical study. So it really depends and caution is the best way forward. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK seems fair enough. Personel observation cannot be considerd RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ::::::Think that example would need a source, otherwise the fact that the structure is working fails WP:V and WP:N. You mentioned that there was a source, so that should be okay then. I was imagining the statement might be something more like "Manchester United's home shirt is red", which could be sourced, but is so widely-known that I don't think you would really need to. --FormerIP (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's something as simple as describing the color of a bus, there shouldn't be any problem with captioning a user-submitted photo of the bus and citing the caption. If the color can be described without adding any art or judgement on the part of Wikipedia, then we're not introducing original research. If it can only be described as "red" we should be cool. If it's an odd color and editors are debating between "chartreuse" and "lemon" we should probably avoid those. If its something where the perceived color itself is up for debate, perhaps it's a photo of some astronomical phenomena that might be beyond the color gamut of the camera, then we should find a published source to describe the color. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"The spies who came in from the art sale" article from Creative Loafing

Could someone verify the reliability of this source article.

http://clatl.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Creative Loafing is a newspaper from Atlanta. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And the writer John Sugg is a seasoned journalist:[3]. This is for Art student scam, right? Fences&Windows 11:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is for "Art Student Scam."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is FearNet a reliable source?

I want to add that Seth Grahame-Smith is going to be writing the script for Tim Burton's Dark Shadows, sourcing it to http://www.fearnet.com/news/b19590_seth_grahame-smith_enlighten_dark.html. Is this a reliable source? I think it may be more reliable than http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/20913 Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume at the very least, you could say "Fearnet.com reports that Seth Grahame-Smith will be writing the script," if not actually just say "he's gonna write it." Or, you could cite both, and definately just say "he's gonna write it". Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Er... why not just use the Variety article that is their original source, and cut out the middle-man? [4] Did you not notice that both posts linked to Variety? Fences&Windows 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. No, I didn't notice that. Thanks.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

EDL

is one, and another RS for the EDL being a political organisation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but. :-) They're local papers, which would be sufficient for reliability as such, if we didn't have better ones, but in this case it seems we do, there's no shortage of national coverage. The English Defence League don't really seem to stand candidates for office, or even lobby candidates as such, so calling them political seems misleading. They seem to go in for protests rather than elections. I'd look for what larger papers call them. Here: The Telegraph: controversial right-wing group. The Guardian: chaotic organisation based largely around existing football groups and hooligan networks (Whoah! That's pretty strong there.) The Times: far right group. Looks like we'll have a better article without saying "political". --GRuban (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think it is a shame that "far right" is applied as a label in the lead when it is disputed. What is wrong with qualifying it in 1 or 2 lines down in the lead? "Political" and "far right" are both things sources say and might even be true but if it is disputed (not only by the group but actual secondary sources) then why force it into the first line like that?Cptnono (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All the major national newspapers call it Far Right, which secondary sources were you thinking of? --Snowded ^TALK 09:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already provided them for you and you chose to ignore them or focused on any part that did mention far-right only. And I a still perplexed that it has to be done as a label in the first line instead of an attributed line receiving tons of weight in the second line. It makes no sense. And completely ignoring claims by the subject (especially when reported in secondary coverage) makes it even worse. My favorites are the video where the guy flat out says it is not known if they are or not or the article that says they have been infiltrated by the far right.

Your line right there would even work "Major national newspapers call it Far Right" if "but the group disputes this" could be added.

I can see by the recent lock and the numerous complaints on the talk page that you are still filibustering and ignoring WP:LABEL.Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single citation which says they are not far right, other than primary sources. All the third party sources say "Far Right". If you have them list them here for comment. Also please WP:AGF, the lock had nothing to do with me and the complaints are coming from two EDL apologists. Most editors are working towards a consensus --Snowded ^TALK 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we have more imput please. Are these two local papers RS (and more RS then this [[5]]Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Portrait Magazine.

Is the magazine http://www.portraitmagazine.net considered a reliable source for reviews? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bose References

This discussion is surrounding two statements

In some consumer-level publications, Bose is regarded as a producer of high-end audio systems.

There have been sources provided showing publishers that claim or talk about Bose as having products that are considered by the general public as high end.

CNet

Forbes Magazine

Popular Science

PCMag.com

The Register

These have been removed because apparently they "support a larger, general statement about Bose being a manufacturer of high-end audio equipment is WP:SYNTHESIS." But a Google News or a simple Google search reveals many such statements. As I said before Personally I believe that the High-End statement is a bit weak, but it does show what a lot of people on the street believe and is personified by not only one link but multiple sources. It was talked about before Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 3#High-end: arbitration? Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 3#High end citations.

These is also another debate about:

Today Bose products can be found in Olympics stadiums, The Broadway Theatre, the Sistine Chapel and the Space Shuttle.

The below references are to verify that these are correct statements.

Cisco NASA Publication

MIT Inventor of the Week Archive

They have been removed not because they do indeed verify this is a true statement but because "The passing mention does not help the reader understand anything about the product." Which is not the intent of the verifying process.

Can someone outside of this article please shed some light on this issue? Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is already an active and detailed discussion of these sources, and of the article's various issues, at Talk:Bose Corporation#CNET reference and below that at Talk:Bose Corporation#Discussion of challenged references. Two editors, myself and Mattnad, have weighed in regarding the unreliability of these references, or about the inappropriate use of reliable refs to support a general statement synthesizing a number of off-hand remarks found in sources. One editor, Phoenix79, has not been able to establish that these sources are reliable or, if reliability is not questioned, are used appropriately. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of the these sources qualify as reliable (in that they are published) but the issue is not one of reliable sources, but how they are being used. Typically, these are being cited to support a broad claim that Bose is a maker of "high-end audio" products rather than focusing on their respective niches. If you look where Bose operates, they go after low-end niches like clock radios and iPod speakers and develop products that are relatively high-end within that segment, but not high-end for the industry and overall market. Since the citations are NEVER from publications that are expert in audio, there's a further perpetuation of this misunderstanding. There's an effort on the talk page (on my part at least) for more specific explanation about where Bose is high-end (not the general audio market) to avoid continued over-generalization.Mattnad (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

copied from talk page [6]

Good luck with that—having more eyes on the problem is a good thing. To me, it looks as if you did not appreciate being the lone voice against two editors describing your favorite sources as unreliable, or their use as synthesis, so you called for reinforcements. My expectation is that your rallying cry will bring a greater number of opinions weighing against the use of the dubious sources and against the construction of a synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; I think that most of the sources above are reliable and support the broad assertion that "Bose is considered high-end." I sympathize with you that the statement is flawed in the sense that the only thing high end about Bose is their marketing but to deny that Bose is perceived as high end by many, many people is futile and disingenuous. ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a reliable source state, plainly, that Bose is considered high end by many, or that Bose is a manufacturer of high-end audio products. You have not brought such a source to the argument—instead you brought an opinion based on personal observation. Certainly, it would be interesting to discuss why Bose's marketing has succeeded, but I cannot find a source ballsy enough to tackle this subject. Bose's legal department is heavy handed, making objective discussions of Bose very scarce in mainstream publications. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bose is definitely considered high end. I used to sell electronics, and we had a saying "no highs, no lows, must be Bose". Still, customers thought it was a fancy, high quality brand. I don't think it's that controversial of a statement, so it doesn't require the highest quality peer reviewed source from academe. Not sure which of the above is the best, or if there is a better one, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that some editors are loosing focus on the point. There is a general perception with the average man on the street that Bose products are High-end. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You yourself have lost focus. The phrase under discussion is "high-end audio systems" or "high-end audio", not just high end by itself, which can mean high end of a market segment. You brought this notice here to this forum to discuss the following sentence: "In some consumer-level publications, Bose is regarded as a producer of high-end audio systems." That's the focus. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Try using the word "premium" instead, I'm sure there will be no shortage of sources that could be used to back that up. I agree that without straying too far into syntheis, we should impart to the reader that while Bose may be high-end, it's more associated with "lifestyle" products like tabletop radios and luxury car audio, as opposed to studio or audiophile component systems. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that accurately represents how most people view Bose. Further, I suspect that some of the editors involved in this are more interested in presenting The Truth and ensuring that everyone knows that Bose is overpriced than presenting the actual viewpoints of others as substantiated in reliable sources. I sympathize because I personally agree that the common perception that Bose is "high end" is a mistaken belief supported primarily by Bose's (fantastic) marketing department but this is not the place to right that wrong. ElKevbo (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

While you are viewing our policies correctly, I'm not so sure that those sources are inadequate. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Replying to ElKevbo, Phoenix brought this here to forum shop since he could not realistically defend obvious OR/SYN issues. The issue is not one of reliable sources, but whether the sources say what he wants them to say (I would guess) so he can overstate the case for Bose. So for instance in this earlier version favored by Pheonix [7], references 5 and 6 make claims that bose provides equipment for "high-end automobiles" even the the sources only refer to "luxury" cars. And then citation 37, which says "Forbes Magazine – describing Bose as a producer of high-end products" where the actual reference is much more reserved and speaks only of high-end headphones among other products. There are more examples of this attempt to manufacture a case for Bose as being broader in it's market position than represented by the sources. Hence the real debate on the talk page.Mattnad (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that I was Forum Shopping, but if you believe that I do not think you understand what places like this are for. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Russia Today

• Is Russia Today considered qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS?
• Does this Russia Today video qualify as a reliable source? It was removed by User:Bdell555 from The War Logs with the edit summary change source as per NPOV section of Talk and eliminate claim data not verified because that was essentially the job of NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel: to provide some ind verification Is the removal appropriate?

Smallman12q (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RT isn't quite like the old Pravda but it is a source with a strong POV on this issue. Some of what they reports is opinion, like saying there was a coverup. In those cases, it'd be best to attribute the view, for example, "A broadcast on RT calls the leak proof of a coverup." It might even be appropriate to identify RT as state-financed media.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reporters sans frontières note that RT was set up by Kremlin at about the same time that ABC News was denied accreditation, according to this link. See also this CBC News story: Journalism mixes with spin on Russia Today: critics. The New York Times has said it was created to promote "pro-Kremlin views." Der Spiegel minces no words, describing Russia Today as a "Russian state propaganda channel". The Guardian calls it "the Kremlin's 24-hour English language TV channel" and elsewhere quotes a former RT employee who says "It's North Korean television. They have a large budget and massive resources. But it's not really journalism. It's a third-rate channel which produces Soviet propaganda."

The Moscow correspondant for The Independent described RT's coverage of Russia's war with Georgia as "obscene" and "extraordinarily biased". During Russia's war with Georgia, RT claimed that "At least 2,000 people, including many children were killed within the first 48 hours of the conflict (i.e. by Georgians before Russia intervened in force) yet subsequent investigation found this figure to be massively inflated. English speaking reporter William Dunbar was censored by his employer, Russia Today: "I had a series of live, video satellite links scheduled for later that day, and they were cancelled. The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it."

The authoritative Economist calls RT "propaganda" and gives some examples that support the thesis that RT is not a reliable source. Are Wiki editors seriously going to claim that "They used the NGOs, the American Aid, the International Monetary Fund, the George Soros Organization to try and actually infiltrate and destroy Russian society from within. Today, the US government is building 13 secret bases in Afghanistan for the forward push to an eventual war against Russia" and cite it to RT?Bdell555 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Eventual war with China, surely. ;) Unomi (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple other gems for you: New 9/11 photos 'prove WTC exploded from inside. See also what "Crosstalk" host Peter Lavelle says at 22:15 of this clip: "The people that perpetrated 9/11 are not fundamentalists at all". By RT's own account, they are "an alternative to mainstream media" and thrive on controversy. That doesn't mean they are necessarily routinely unreliable, but it does mean they are closer to tabloid than to authoritative.Bdell555 (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Using such allegation of bias to bar RT would mean the CNN, BBC, NY Times with proven failures of oversight are flagrat POV then. Particulatly the latter 2 who even admited as such. RT is similiar to France 24, and a govt media just like BBC and Al Jazeera that is used on here.Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. There are serious, credible claims of state interference in the reporting of RT, which makes it different from BBC, F24 or Al Jazeera (which I don't think is state funded anyhow - edit: okay, I see from its WP page that it has received a state loan). In many cases RT will be RS, but it is clear that there will also be cases where its impartiality can legitimately be questioned. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case, having taken a quick look, I don't see why RT should not be considered an RS. However, the edit that removed it did not change any factual information, so why is it worth worrying about so much? --FormerIP (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Trade Arabia and Leisure Opportunities

I currently have an article up at FAC with the following two sites used as a reference and have been asked to prove they are reliable sources. This is my first FAC so I'm not quite sure what to do. Can anybody help me with this process? The two sources are;

• a reliable source? Trade Arabia
• Leisure Opportunities

Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bollywoodworld.com

Is [8] (whose webmaster is evidently one of our editors) a reliable site? See [9] for the articles where it's linked. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic site placards

I'd like to work on an article about a historical site I visited. One of my main sources would be the many placards that were displayed around the site. This is a provincially registered historic site, and the placards all have the Government of Saskatchewan logo on them, so I assume they would be considered reliable sources. Questions: A) Is my assumption correct? and B) How would I go about citing these placards? I've taken photos of all of them so could upload them to Commons for verifiability, but would prefer not to if possible (I'm lazy). Sasata (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Think these would probably be RS, although I am not familiar with them. Assuming they are sober in style ("a great hero" might be problematic). The normal test is that they are in principle accessible by editors who want to check them. Think you could do the world a service by uploading your photos onto flickr or something, which would make verification easier. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The plaques are probably reliable sources. What you do at Flickr is your/their business, but posting photos here or at Commons may violate copyright policy. Like you can't take photos of all the pages of a printed, copyrighted novel and post that, you also cannot post photos of a copyrighted plaque's text. In some cases Wikipedians have pursued getting release of copyright for all of its plaques from a U.S. state or a local government or other entity. When i visit a historic site i certainly take close-up photos of the plaques for my own reference, but I don't post them. Sometimes the plaques are readable within larger scale pics of the place that I do post, though. --doncram (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mangalore Today

Is Mangalore Today a reliable source for articles related to Mangalore? Mangalore Today is basically a magazine, and www.mangaloretoday.com is the authorized version of the magazine. The site has coverage in reliable third-party sources [10] [11]. Deccan Herald is a popular newspaper. 115.184.18.225 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we know who the editor of the magazine is?... or who publishes it? Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Family Security Matters

This site is so not a RS. Just count the factual errors here: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6857/pub_detail.asp

So nobody will object when I purge them, right? Hcobb (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you enlighten us? Most editors at RSN may not be familiar with the subject matter. Its possible this could be an RS, albeit with a POV. It has staff and appears to be sponsored[12] by the Center for Security Policy think-tank. Advocacy organizations can still be RS, though we can debate whether it's a good source for naval aviation. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hcobb And when you say "purge them", do you mean in a specific instance when considered in context per WP:RS, or do you mean find every use on Wikipedia and eliminate it? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hcobb And what are the factual errors? I haven't read it yet. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Free Press

Hi everyone,

Hawaii Free Press is a twice-monthly, independent, locally owned alternative newspaper published in Hilo, Hawaii since January 2005.

In the article, Colleen Hanabusa, it is used as a source of allegations against Hanabusa.

1. Link to source in question: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/978/Cayetano-Hanabusas-Broken-Trust-connections-lead-to-Ko-Olina.aspx
2. Article where it is being used: Colleen Hanabusa
3. Statement in the article it is supporting:

   According to former Governor Ben Cayetano, Hanabusa acted against Bronster at the behest of Henry Peters, Hoaliku Drake, Jeff Stone, Dickie Wong, and Larry Mehau. Hanabusa admits to meeting with Wong and Mehau, but could not remember whether Bronster's confirmation was discussed.

4. Relevant talk page diffs:
   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colleen_Hanabusa&diff=362372854&oldid=362368309

      The source is a one man newspaper who has engaged in rumor mongering against politicians he opposes.

   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colleen_Hanabusa&diff=375686983&oldid=362535233

      ...the Hawaii Free Press is nothing more than a one man extreme right-wing blog, therefore not a reliable source.

With this edit and this edit, I've asked people with comments on Hawaii Free Press to discuss the issue here.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It should absolutely not be used in BLPs. It is indeed a right-wing blog. I've taken it to AfD in fact, after searching for everything I could find out about it. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I think the first mistake it made was calling itself the "Free Press"; most news publications with that title tend to be anti-authority. The "about" section also exposes itself as clearly right-wing, and thus unsuitable to reference anything regarding Democratic politicians. The links make me facepalm too; anyone who still thinks Breitbart's opinion is worth anything is either retarded, right wing, or both. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have had some sort of relationship to the Canada Free Press, another website. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Available only to paying subscribers

How do we deal with such sources? Obviously, it is impossible for me to verify that http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395500694117006.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle actually supports what is presented in this edit. __meco (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You can subscribe and pay, so it is not "impossible" to verify the source. We do allow sources that require payment (but are otherwise accessible to everyone) as the information is not limited to a group of people by the choice of the site; everyone who really wants to (and pays) can have access. Also note that most scientific journals have a paid service only. We would not want to exclude the Lancet, Nature or Science because you have to pay. Libraries have sometimes access to such sites by IP recognition, or in any case may have the paper archive where you can check the source for free.

That said we tend to prefer to list free access sources if they are available, as that makes checking easier. Arnoutf (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would be appropriate for me to tag that reference with {{verify source}} to have someone with a subscription to the Wall Street Journal verify the reference? __meco (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just find someone and ask them to verify it if you have concerns. Adding further tags I feel adds little. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "just find someone"? How large a percentage of random people do you believe subscribe to any given subscription site? Or do we have a Category:Wikipedians with WSJ subscription hidden off somewhere? __meco (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to your local library. They are apt to have either a subscription to the paper with back issues on file, or a subscription to the electronic version. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, that sounds viable. __meco (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Or, if you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, someone will supply you with the article. It beats me why more people don't make use of that page. Deor (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Meco, I have access to the article for some reason (maybe my university subscribes to it?) and I can confirm the quotes are accurate. If you want a private copy of the article, email me. --Cyclopia^talk 14:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I was just looking to confirm its correctness. __meco (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably because it's insufficiently advertised. I haven't heard of it earlier. __meco (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There's really no difference for verifiability purposes between paywalled websites and reliable printed sources; obviously you can't verify either one with a simple Google search, but both can be reliable. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct. There is nothing that says that it has to be easy, or free to verify. It just has to be out there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo! Travel

While searching Google for sources about the Waring House in Greenville, Ohio, I discovered a Yahoo! Travel profile for the place. Is it appropriate to use it as a source for the statement "Today, the Waring House is operated as a bed and breakfast."? I'm not planning to use it as a source for anything else. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I've not discussed this with anyone else, so I can't provide any links to other discussions. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any dispute, I don't see a problem. Dlabtot (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Caller

An editor is objecting to the use of The Daily Caller on the basis that it is not a reliable source. There is widespread use on WP of other such ideological sites as a RS--but they tend to lean to the left, such as The Huffington Post, Salon.com, and even the progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America. Drrll (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note BLP/N also. Note also that the Washington Post has also published much of the material, and I doubt anyone would call it a radical right wing source <g>. It should also be noted that WP does not disqualify sources because they are liberal or conservative - only whether they have editorial controls over the posting of facts. To the extent that no one contests the facts, the source is certainly reliable. Collect (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideology isn't the problem. The problem is that The Daily Caller is more akin to Newsmax than the Huffington Post. The Daily Caller is a lurid partisan tabloid whose reporting is almost universally disputed by the subjects of their reporting. To use their "facts" on Wikipedia would be to basically throw out RS and BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you actually have that The Daily Caller is so dodgy? Such a dodgy operation does not merit an interview about the site by the Columbia Journalism Review. As far as it being partisan, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote, "The Caller has tapped a number of down-the-middle journalists, including executive editor Megan Mulligan, who was the Guardian's Washington editor. Conservative politics "is not my thing," she says." In addition, The Daily Caller broke a story about a scandal at the Republican National Committee--hardly a partisan move. Drrll (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that comparison between Newsmax and the Huffington Post. I'd have to opine that they're equally partisian, and both have a certain "tone" in their reporting. But that aside, there's nothing wrong with us using partisian sources as long as we keep our articles NPOV. These specialized sources bring depth to our articles. At any rate, if this is about that Journolist story, the Daily Caller is pretty much a primary source so it would be citable regardless. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideology is irrelevant, as is the 'luridness' of content. That said, this Noticeboard does not generally make blanket statements of reliability. What is the exact url of the specific citation or citations in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article or articles that the source is supporting? Where are the relevant talk page discussions, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The refs are here and here and here. The articles involved are Jeffrey Toobin and Spencer Ackerman. The material that was in the articles is here and here. The current discussion is here. Thanks for looking over. Drrll (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Try to make it simple for me.

This citation: [13] is used to support what text in which article?

This citation: [14] is used to support what text in which article?

and

This citation: [15] is used to support what text in which article? Dlabtot (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This citation is used to support "He wrote concerning Jeremiah Wright,

Part of me doesn’t like this sh*t either. But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals...It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically. And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

in the Spencer Ackerman article.

This citation is used to support "Upon the election of Barack Obama as president, Ackerman wrote, "YES WE DID!" and added [quoting Obama], “'…we may not get there in one year or in one term, but America I promise you, we as a people will get there.' HOLY. F***ING. S**T."" in the Spencer Ackerman article.

This citation is used to support "Regarding the pick of Sarah Palin as running mate to John McCain, Toobin remarked as follows: “what a joke...I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale" in the Jeffrey Toobin article.

Drrll (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything non-RS about those cites, although it seems obvious that the intention in putting them in Wikipedia is to make Ackerman look bad. Even though they don't actually make him look bad. These partisan disputes are pretty tedious, imho. Personally I think everyone who is here with a political axe to grind, left or right, should be banned without fanfare. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd never actually heard of The Daily Caller before this RSN question. Considering the CJR piece and Carlson's place in the center of the mainstream of American news media, there's no way this source could be 'generally disallowed'. It's certainly usable in particular instances. But... I looked at one of these cites in depth. When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack. This piece contains numerous quotes from the forum concerning McCain picking Palin as vp nominee. What is conspicuously absent, however, is anything that even remotely suggests the conclusion that is trumpeted by the headline of the piece. There is absolutely nothing supports this - whatsoever. So based on this, I would have no problem with citing the article for a fact - ( "John Smith said that water can quench thirst.") - but conclusions, opinions, and so on ("John Smith engaged in a plot to convince people to buy more bottled water") - would have to be cited as the opinion of the author. Dlabtot (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the headlines and some of the analyses in these pieces are a stretch. As far as "liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack", most of the participants weren't straight journalists, but opinion people. But there does seem to be a little coordinating with "Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”"

I wasn't going to use any of their analysis, just the quotes (and actually less of the Ackerman quotes than I gave above). Drrll (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Daily Caller isn't a reliable source in any sense of the word, especially on the only subject anyone other than Tucker Carlson's mother will read the caller: the Journolist mailing list. Multiple sources have shown that the Caller has exaggerated (at best) the nature and extent of the emails on that list in order to maximize impact and incoming clicks. Using even pull quotes as though the underlying information isn't a lie is unhelpful for our readers. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Multiple sources have shown that the Caller has exaggerated (at best) the nature and extent of the email"

Um, you cited one source, and that source said it couldn't determine if they were exaggerated because they haven't seen the full emails. Saying it's inconclusive is pretty far away from showing that they lied. Anyway they seem like a reliable source to me in the sense that I'm sure they posted the correct quotes, why don't you just state that more of them haven't been made available so context cannot be fully established instead of trying to remove the quotes in their entirety?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to undertake a complete investigation on the subject, but at the very least the link I gave you listed a half dozen sources and other comments. Apart from Greg Sargent's comments (and the comments of others on Journolist), you can read the CJR's comments on the initial leak and the subsequent leaks. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Protonk, not a single person whose e-mails have been divulged has made a claim that their specific e-mails lack context. It's also important to note that Greg Sargent, who is the ABC reporter who writes the Plum Line, was a member of Journolist who presumably has access to the entire discussion; if he is alleging a lack of context, he is certainly in a position to provide it. In any case, it's hard to see how one could provide context to Ackerman's remarks which are the focus of this particular discussion, though. Carlson has clearly stated that the reason he is not releasing everything is because a lot of it is boring, inside-baseball wonkery which nobody cares about. Looking to the larger picture, there is nothing that indicates that the Daily Caller is not reliable; it simply has a partisan edge, much like The Huffington Post. Horologium (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't that they lack context, it is that the content of the emails is being deliberately trumped up in order to bring readers of the caller to conclusions contrary to the intent of the original email authors. Period. If deliberate misrepresentation isn't disqualifying in terms of WP:RS, nothing is. And if you believe Carlson's reasons for not releasing the emails, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that The Daily Caller deliberately misrepresented something? BTW, most major reliable sources have misrepresented something at one point or another, whether deliberately or not (e.g. the NYT story about John McCain's relationship to a lobbyist). Do their misrepresentations disqualify them? Drrll (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I only have the evidence that everyone else does. The response from Dave Weigel, Nate Silver, Ezra Klein et al. noting the salacious copy used by the Caller to reveal what really are garden variety email shennanegans. But tabloid copy isn't an irredeemable sin. There is also the interesting coincidence of Tucker Carlson's timely rejection from journolist right before he publishes an "expose" which found almost no defenders save the Post's Ombusdman. There is the article Liberal journalists suggest government censor Fox News which of course contained no actual email suggestion that the govt. censor fox news. Almost every article published reads like that. Outlandish claims with very little substantiation. Hell, the closest they got to accurate was the Ackerman emails, shocking considering that Ackerman says that kind of shit on his blog anyway. So I guess we can treat this as serial incompetence. Carlson has access to the bulk or the whole of an email archive for a vast liberal conspiracy and he's so bad at journalism that he can't manage to make copy meet sources. Or, he's deliberately witholding contextualizing information, hyping up pull-quotes and ignoring contradictory evidence. I know what I believe, but either way it isn't a very reliable source on the subject. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: you have no basis to make such claims that what has been released from those emails paints the opposite picture of what they were discussing. Nobody has seen the rest of the emails so it's impossible to conclude whether they misrepresent them or not.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So we should conclude that the Caller is reliable on this subject, despite the weak evidence presented in the Caller that the emails rise to even their described nature and despite claims from Journolist members that the emails were misleadingly plucked, and despite the obvious fact that no really damning emails have come out? Without access to the original email archive we physically cannot prove the extent and nature of conversations on the site, but we aren't forced to believe the Caller's summary. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there some text I missed in some article that you are referring to? There were some references given above. Is that it? What is the point of this argument? Is there some dispute related to some specific Wikipedia article? Dlabtot (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The bulk of cites above about Ackerman and the Journolist are where the reliability of the Caller is being questioned. My comment was originally to note that the Caller's presentation of the facts in the journolist email stories has been at best sub-par, damaging our ability to see them as an honest broker. I'll ignore your other questions. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you, but it seems there is no reason to continue the dispute on this noticeboard as there appears to be no outstanding RS question. Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Democracy Now source article "Cheering Movers and Art Student Spies"

I know Democracy Now has been determined to be reliable on this board in the past, but another user has questioned the reliability of this.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/8/cheering_movers_and_art_student_spies

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This democracy now article is for use in the wikipedia article "art student scam" about suspected Israeli "art student" spying.

Relevant Talk Page Discussion Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam#Democracy_Now_program Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy, Dlabtot is right. You has to look at the context, per WP:RS. It is not possible to make a determination if the ref is out of context. I'll go look now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is just a Talk page. Where was it used on the Main page in context? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If information from this article was added directly to the wikipedia article, other editors would likely repeatedly revert it like the salon.com article. Hence, I'm getting this source approved as reliable. The previous salon.com article was repeatedly dismissed and insulted by seemingly biased users attempting to whitewash references to Israeli "art student" spying. Thus I am getting this article verified here where hopefuly there will be third party users who are more objective.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The determination of whether or not this article is reliable will affect whether I support or oppose including this article as a source in the wikipedia article "art student scam." If this article is determined to be reliable, the process for an article inclusion consensus will be made much easier. If this article article is determined to be unreliable, there won't be reason to have an article inclusion consensus on the talk page.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you decide to reveal what specific text the source might be used to support, remove the resolved tag because then we would have something to discuss. Dlabtot (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Add this specific quote by journalist christopher ketchum about the art students. "Many of them were highly trained in electronic intercept and intelligence work that was far beyond the compulsory military training required by Israeli law." Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Since he prefaces that statement by saying: "because it is truly a mystery, even to me—I’m a complete agnostic about this part of the story", I would say no. He is essentially saying that he is relating a rumor which he does not claim to be correct. Dlabtot (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about "suspected" and not proven "art student" spying.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please review WP:INDENT? Proper indenting makes discussions more readable. Dlabtot (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The source should certainly not be used for this material. The source itself (democracy Now) doesn't weigh in on the matter, they're merely interviewing someone who brings it up, but he doesn't claim it to be true.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Dlabtot (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement "Many of them were highly trained in electronic intercept and intelligence work that was far beyond the compulsory military training required by Israeli law." is true. The statement made is by veteran journalist Christopher Ketchum. It's the spying that might not be true. Hence, the article is about spying allegations.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is true it needs a better source than this. Again, we can't attribute a statement of fact to Democracy Now that is actually coming from someone they just happen to be interviewing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Especially since he specifically says he doesn't necessarily believe it to be accurate. Dlabtot (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat, the spying is suspected, the quote about the intelligence backgrounds of the art students is a statement that is not questioned by four reliable sources.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This was also presented in a four part fox news special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about suspected israeli spying where it was said about the suspected 140 spies

"Most of those individuals said they had served in the Israeli military, which is compulsory there. But they also had, most of them, intelligence expertise, and either worked for Amdocs or other companies in Israel that specialize in wiretapping."

However, the links to the twenty minute four part special had to be deleted from wikipedia due to potential copyright issues.

This was also mentioned in the salon.com article http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html

"Many of the students, the DEA report noted, had backgrounds in Israeli military intelligence and/or electronics surveillance; one was the son of a two-star Israeli general, and another had served as a bodyguard to the head of the Israeli army."

This was also mentioned in the Creative Loafing Article

"Perhaps most intriguing, the Israelis' military and intelligence specialties are listed: "special forces," "intelligence officer," "demolition/explosive ordnance specialist," "bodyguard to head of Israeli army," "electronic intercept operator" -- even "son of a two-star (Israeli) army general." "

http://clatl.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html

I'm having this Democracy Now source approved because users claim that I would be giving other sources undue weight if more than a sentence or two is added from them.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop repeating your argument over and over again. It is too long and you always fail to give the proper background to the conflict (New York Times & Washington Post > Salon.com).Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to providing the quotes and the links, you need to provide the context. Exactly how would it appear in the main Wiki page? What statement would be made and what ref would be used to support what and where. You see, WP:RS requires an examination of context. Until you provide that context, no approval of any reference can be made. It all depends on how the ref is used. Show us how the ref is or will be used. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Source used for Del Taco's history

This source is being used to provide an extensive history of the restaurant chain Del Taco. Is it reliable?Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It says it is from a volume in this series [16]. It looks as though it is. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good sign. I'd like further input on that type of publication. I know it claims that part of its audience includes "historians" but I'm pretty skeptical of that.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a subsidiary press of Gale, which publishes all types of references and compilations. Probably as WP:RS as it gets. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Greencarcongress.com

Throughout any "green" car articles, the self-published blog "http://www.greencarcongress.com/about3.html" is used as a RS. This blog is written by one man, Mike Millikin and "published" by his wife, Mary G Arlotto, who lives in the same domicile per tax records, but this relationship is not disclosed on the blog to give the impression of an independent publisher/editorial oversight as required per WP:RS. There are no other personnel of this "BioAge LLC" organization that "publishes" this blog. It's a husband/wife blog, nothing more. And it's being used as a reference extensively, in articles about the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, and other similar topics, even in lieu of legitimate WP:RS that aren't run by a couple, that is using WP for promoting their blog. Search of "Greencarcongress.com" on WP reveals an extensive campaign to link this blog throughout WP articles as a reliable source. It does not meet WP:RS and as a self-published blog should be relegated to WP:EL only. Cookiehead (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Special:LinkSearch/*.greencarcongress.com has about 400+ links in the mainspace. Just to provide an idea for how far-reaching this goes. Killiondude (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd have to have a good argument even to use it for an EL. I agree, no way is it a reliable source. Do you know if it's being pushed by any particular editor? I took it out of 2 articles just now, but both additions were old, 2007 and 2008. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Many other editors have also agreed that Green Car Congress does not meet WP:RS on 'featured articles' discussions where it was required to be removed from articles to be considered for FA status. First 7 links or so here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.greencarcongress.com show the FA discussions. Cookiehead (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Green Car Congress is a newsfeed website (so no editorial board is required), all it does is to present a summary of relevant news and provides a link to them. Its reliability is proven by the fact that many academic sites from prestigious universities link to it. I am a professional in the field an I can attest that the material is absolutely reliable, this is no blog site. Read the WP article and confirm the sources. Furthermore, if the issue was raise that is no reason to begin deleting all references in Wikipedia sourced from GCC, the opinion of three editors if far from consensus. Provide more time for discussion to allow other editors to participate.-Mariordo (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This "prestigious universities" link to it is just that. They link to it as good "WP:EL" as we would here on WP to go there as a news aggregator. For WP:RS, WP requires the primary source, not the middle man aggregator that is all over WP with redunant (usually in line right next to another WP:RS, which is overkill). Hey, it's a great blog. Sorry if you're a fan, let's keep in in the WP:EL sections of the articles. You won't be able to get these articles you work so hard on to go to FA status. GCC has already been nuked on 6 other articles up for peer review for FA. Just trying to help, it will come up later. These green tech articles are going to become much more popular, and scrutinized going forward. Time to get them shaped up. Cookiehead (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just fine, every one of us is entitled to our opinion. I am asking to wait for others to participate in the discussion, as 24 hours is hardly enough time to have an open discussion in the noticeboard, and much less to begin deleting all the references, and the way you did left many orphans.-Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I was asked by Cookiehead if I had any personal connection to Mr Millikin. The answer is no, there is no conflict of interest at all as I do not know these folks. I believe there is a misinterpretation of the FA judgement. I have edited articles to GA status with GCC refs and being warned that for FA it was no good. That is not the same as saying it is spam or self-publishing, since actually is good enough for GA. Also I believe that given the openness and flexibility of Wikipedia, the status of a reliable source should be establish on the merits of the source. In my professional opinion, and I am an expert on the field, it is a reliable and rich source of materials, which help scholars and students keep updated with the latest information. The fact that it is used by several academic institutions speaks louder than me, plus its quality have been recognized by several awards. Since they do not produce content but are a newsfeed web based service provided for free and without commercial sponsors I do not think the criteria stated above applies, and I want to propose that we consider CCG for once and for all a reliable source, and stop rejecting it in feature article reviews.-Mariordo (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Just Some Website to me. Dlabtot (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider it a reliable source as we use the term, remove and replace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Trek

Are any of these RS for a cartoon having a referance to star Trek, also do they establish notabiltiy (yes this is ot the right forum i know but it would mean asking the same question in two forums). [[17] , [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] I am not that sure as they seem to be blogs or OR (it does look like the narcelss).Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that cartoon is beyond awesome. Well, something resembling the Enterprise is in there, and there's also a Star Destroyer (though you shouldn't link to copyvio). Tripatlas is a Wikipedia mirror, so not a good source. Project Haruhi is a blog that used Wikipedia as one of its sources, the other two being a fan site[21] and the offical site.[22] J-Phile doesn't seem particularly reliable either. I don't think you're any closer to verifying that it is Enterprise or that Daicon III or IV are notable based on those sources. Here's a better source:[23] Fences&Windows 19:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

MangaloreMithr

Is MangaloreMithr.com reliable for news and article related to Mangalore City?

The site is the authorized version of the famous Mithr weekly? [24] The editor-in-chief of the site is Andrew D'Cunha, who happens to be well known in the field of journalism.[25] - 121.242.181.2 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Teesta Setalvad

Is this reliable [26] - I removed it as the article is subject to a lot of pov editing, but it was replaced. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it could possibly vaguely pass as RS, but it was interpreted in a pov manner and you were right in removing the passage. It would be fair to say that the organization submitted a 3500-page amendment to the Gujarat High Court in July 2010, and that the amendment was rejected by the court. I'm not familiar with this publication since before though, looking at its portal design, I'd prefer a reference from a larger newspaper. Off-wiki, I'd say that the article, if anything, shows the fascistic hegemony in Gujarati politics, that the court itself is very much part of the Sangh Parivar aparatus. Do note how Setalvad's name is stated as "teesta javed" repeatedly (a name she doesn't use herself). The naming stresses that she has married a Muslim, and act considered treacherous by the Hindutva rightwing. It is akin to how people who were married to Jews or had distantly related to Jews would sometimes get their names 'Judeaized' in German media before WWII. --Soman (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's userful. Most of the edits by the editor in question have been reverted by me or someone else because he either uses no sources when making serious allegations, or blogs. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it appears to be problematic. It does not appear balanced, and it is not a well-known paper. The Hindu may well report on this soon, it reported on the submission of the report. Fences&Windows 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Business Page

• Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yes, that article again. The question is now whether the restaurant's Facebook Business Page can be used under WP:SELFPUB to support uncontroversial information, in this case the identity of the current chef. Nobody has given any reason to doubt that the Facebook page is authentic, and the information given about the chef is consistent with OpenTable.com, Menuism.com, Superpages.com and not contested anywhere. It would be preferable to use a third party source, but none are yet available. The only reason not to use the restaurant's own website is that it appears to be under construction, the "bios" section is not completed, and the chef (first name Charles) is currently referred to only as "Chef Chuck."KD Tries Again (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Assuming what you said is correct, yes, it's a fine primary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is fine, with the caveat that only the information provided by the account owner (i.e. the restaurant itself) should be cited. Any posts or discussions by visitors to the page are off-limits. I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that this is the facebook page of the restaurant: it makes announcements of wine tastings etc., complete with invitations for people to ring the restaurant, and it provides the correct phone number, as given on the restaurant's website. So sourcing something like the name of the current chef from this seems fine to me. --JN466 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayen466: Thank you for adding that caveat which I neglected to mention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

www.nr.nps.gov

The above website is used extensively in Wikipeidia. It is used in literally hundreds of articles on US buildings to cite the fact that the building is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) ... it is one of the core citations used by the NRHP project (and in many of their articles it is the only citation given in the article). The website is supposedly the front page of a NRHP database. I say "supposedly" because, unfortunately, it does not work. It may have given access to a database at one time in the past... but if so, it no longer does this. It is essentially an unsupported dead link. So can it be called a reliable source for saying that a specific building is listed by the NRHP? Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the discussion here of help to you?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please continue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#NRIS_website_will_move here (the discussion Wehwalt links to), instead. Yawn...about the repeated attempts to drum up contention... --doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the NRHP Project is aware of the problem, which is good... but that does not answer my initial question... Is the www.nr.nps.gov site reliable or not?

The site is broken (in that the search function no longer works), but it has a link to the current official site, where search does work. I would say it meets the minimum standards of reliability. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply... so shouldn't we cite the "official site" instead? and shouldn't we go further an cite the actual page that talks about the building? To give an example... for our article on Crane Hill Masonic Lodge... rather than citing the old non-working site... or even the new search page ... shouldn't we require citation to the actual page on the building? Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For years, this has been the oficial site. As the "here" link from Wehwalt will tell you, we're trying to decide how to transition from the old official site to the new official site. It's impossible to link to individual pages on individual properties; your "the actual page on the building" link produces a message of "HTTP Status 404 - /internal/internal.jsp". FYI, the most important part of nr.nps.gov still works — our citations depend on the complete database, which can be downloaded from the Download Center that appears on that page. Finally, the old official site is quite reliable; there's no less reason to trust it than there is to trust factfinder.census.gov for official US Census Bureau data. Linkrot isn't a reason not to trust data from a website — that's why all the style guides require an access date, since information may change from day to day. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the links to actual pages (or at least skipping everything except the final click) can be generated. Here's the link to Crane Hill Masonic Lodge. I explained the link at User talk:Doncram#Querying NRHP Focus, but Doncram and I haven't been on the best of terms lately.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra, sorry I didn't comment specifically about your suggestion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings to use type of specific NPS Focus link instead of linking to the NRIS database. Honestly, in the context of what has seemed like undue negativity and personal tone in your comments about me, and given that you emphasized your own comments were driveby in nature (that you wouldn't watch the page any longer), I thot it was probably best not to respond directly. Sorry if my not commenting caused you further confusion.

But, I wouldn't recommend the specific type of NPS Focus link you suggest, to replace NRIS references generally and in that specific case. NPS Focus links like your example for Crane Hill Masonic Building might serve to document merely the fact of NRHP listing, but cannot serve to document architecture type, acreage of listing, and many other fields that we routinely get from NRIS, which are simply not available at the NPS Focus link. In the List of Masonic buildings article, NRIS (via the Elkman interface) was my source for architecture, year of construction, and other factoids supported by references to NRIS; NPS Focus was not my source and does not provide that info. And the NPS Focus link would surely frustrate readers and editors even more: it is a slow link, and it suggests that NRHP nomination documents and corresponding photosets will be available in PDF files, which is unfortunately false in most cases. In your Crane Hill example, the link gives URLs to click with false promise. Clicking only yields new reports that the files have not been digitized. Even that is false! They are digitized but just not available via the NPS Focus system; I know you know that because you have collected electronic copies. The NPS Focus site is pretty awful, frankly, and linking to it seems to me to be more unfriendly to readers than linking to NRIS. --doncram (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Focus website does list many facts found in the NRIS database. Granted more may appear in the database, but Focus clearly shows architect and year built, as well as listing date and location. Focus even tells you what the site is notable for (in Crane Hill's case, it is "Social History" and "Event"). No, it's not as great as the NRIS database, but as the site says, it will "soon" be taken down. Also, instead of making users search through a database, this performs the search already (thus the slightly longer load time) and puts the user one click away from reading information (if we use reference numbers instead of names). I'm not saying it's better than the NRIS.. just more user-friendly and more updated. Yes, it gives false links to pdfs, but over time they will be uploaded. Right now the site is lacking, but over time, I see these links as the way to go. For all we know the NRIS database could be taken down tomorrow, and we'd be screwed. It's time to look for a long-term solution and update our references. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The search page of the website is not a reliable source for anything, and never was; you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a proper citation. Individual pages on the website are reliable sources for whatever they document. To document something from the site you need to use the individual pages; for example, this and this are reliable sources showing properties that were listed, the NRHP listing numbers, and the date of listings. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Many featured articles use the {{GR}} series of templates, even though they're rather similar to the link we're discussing. If featured articles permit links to the search page, there's no reason that this link should be in question. The issue with the nr.nps.gov site is that it can't produce links to more direct pages, so this is the only way to use it as a reference. Both MLA and Chicago permit links of this sort when more direct links aren't viable, and if it's good enough for academia, it's good enough for us. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The website actually can produce links to more direct pages, as I showed in my previous comment, and regardless of what MLA and Chicago allow, it doesn't meet our WP:RS requirements. To repeat, you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a citation that complies with Wikipedia's requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be an untenable and unrealistic position, Jayjg. Of course we should always require direct links when pat all possible but I'm sure that there are some reliable sources where that is impossible. Saying that a particular database is unreliable or unusable just because it has a shitty interface seems over the top. (I think this a bit analogous to citing books. We don't force people to cite page numbers which, in essence, is telling the reader to "go look it up." I would love for us to require book citations to include page numbers but that's as untenable as your stance.) ElKevbo (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but GA and FA articles, for the most part, do cite page numbers, and if they don't, they usually have a page range or a chapter cited for easy reference. Blueboar and Jay's concerns have been raised for years now (and I've raised them myself in the past with no satisfactory answer forthcoming) and nothing has been done by the NRHP project to alleviate the problem. It's time for the project to find a better solution. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A proper citation to "hard copy" certainly does include page numbers... and we have a template for situations where they are not given. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I was astonished that someone would claim we don't "require book citations to include page numbers" because it's "untenable". And ElKevbo, the issue here is not that the database search isn't working any more. The webpage was never a proper citation, even when the database search tool was working. To re-iterate, you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a citation that complies with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is premised on the theory that the entire http://www.nr.nps.gov/ is about to be taken offline. However, that page merely states that the search application on that page will soon be removed. Is there any indication that the NPS is planning to eliminate the "download center" at http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm ? That download center is in fact the place where Elkman and other Wikipedia contributors have gone to obtain the complete NRHP list in order to use it as a source -- and that complete database is the basis for verifiability for information used in list-articles and infoboxes (at least for listings old enough to appear in the most recent version of the database). --Orlady (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The nr.nps.gov URL is not working as of this hour, but I think this likely is due to one of the transient technical problems that the NPS website suffers, because http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/index.htm indicates that it is still online. I looked into whether the new "download center" at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html could be cited in lieu of the old download link, but is not much of a "download center", and it does currently not provide access to copies of NRIS. (It only provides access to Google Earth add-ons that have coordinates for NRHP-listed properties.) Regardless of whether I can download the NRIS database right now, it is still true that much of the information about National Register listings that is used in Wikipedia was obtained from the 3-13-2009 version of the NRIS database that was downloaded from the NPS website by various different Wikipedia contributors. The fact that a source formerly available online is not currently available online does not normally disqualify that source from being cited. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A second issue

Doncram's comments here and at Talk:List of Masonic Buildings raise another (related) issue... from what I understand, a lot of the time when information is cited to the NRHP database, what was actually relied upon was User:Elkman's "Who Has" search tool... which is used as an intermediary to query the NRHP database. This means that the editor adding the citation did not actually look at the NRHP database being cited, but at the results of Elkman's program.

Now, Elkman's program seems to do an accurate job of finding information on the NRHP database, and I would trust it to give accurate results, so I don't have a problem with editors using it as an intermediary program to query the database (despite it being hosted on a personal website) ... but I do have a problem with not including any reference to this intermediary program in the citations. I think some reference to its use should be included per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to NRHP webpages with the information on them. That's simple and actually complies with policy. Here and here are examples of how to do it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good... but how do you locate the pages that contain the info about a specific building? Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Google the name, and include the "site:www.nps.gov" parameter in the search field. For example, when looking for information on Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, use this search, which turns up three relevant documents, including one that has all the information needed. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But if the documents aren't online, they don't show up. See this search for "Threefoot Building". Staff. "NPS Focus: Threefoot Building (#79003408)". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. using {{NRHP Focus}} is much better for places like this.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of the two, I think Dudemanfellabra's option is better... The result of Jay's option does verify that a building is listed on the NRHP, but the information given on that page is limited, and the search does not work for buildings where the documents are not on line. Dudemanfellabra's option takes us to a page that is only one obvious click removed from the actual NRHP database page for the specific building... a page that contains quite a bit of information. Obviously it would be even better if we could link to that actual database page but, since that seems to be impossible given how the database works, this seems the next best thing. I will ask Dudemanfellabra the same question I asked Jay... how does one locate the page for a specific property in your option? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra's method won't yield a citation that complies with WP:V, though, which is the issue (it also produces a ridiculously long citation, but that's an aesthetic issue). The method I've provided gives more than just the fact that the building was listed - it also gives the NRHP number and the date it was listed, at a minimum, and often a great deal more. You can use the same method to search http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com which in the case of the Threefoot Building returns this listing, which also works if the searching the first site doesn't, and has all the necessary information. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking? You just type in the reference number of the NRHP you're looking for and type and optional name parameter (which does nothing to the search btw.. just the link display). Look at the code of my reply.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What if you don't know the NRHP reference number? To illustrate... At List of Masonic buildings we have a large list of buildings (many of them redlinks) that are included because they are on the NRHP... they were cited to the old (now unsupported) nrhp.gov page... we need to update this to the new page (preferably to the "one step away" link you suggest)... but we don't have any info except the name of the building, and the town it is in. So how do we get to that one step away page for each of these buildings? Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the reference number, you can search the database for the name of the listing and find the reference number. Then you can come back to Wikipedia to generate the {{NRHP Focus}} link to use as a reference. Alternatively, you can use the method I describe at User talk:Doncram#Querying NRHP Focus to search for the name directly without having to use the search interface. If there is more than one NRHP listing with the same name (i.e Grand Opera House), though, the database will return all of them. After finding the correct listing, that property's reference number is tied to that property and that property alone, so it's a more reliable reference. Still another way to find the reference number would be to use Elkman's tool, mentioned above, and search for the name. This is a roundabout process for the editor to generate the Focus link, but in the end, the reader is one click away from relevant information. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the reference number, you search http://www.nps.gov and http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com by property name. For the Masonic Temple in Fairbanks, for example, the search is this. I've given an example in the article List of Masonic buildings, replacing an improper citation with a proper one. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK...thanks for clarifying. Your method is somewhat hard on editor trying to format the citation, but the result is acceptable to me. And that is the key... Once the citation is formatted, the reader trying to verify the information will be directed to a page that will (with one obvious click) get him directly to the NRHP NPS Focus page on the specific building where the information can be located. I think this is the best we can do. Do others agree?

No, I've explained the proper way of doing it directly above, which gets the reader directly to the page with the information, and is not hard on the editor trying to format the citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: While the above discussion is very useful, we have gotten way off track from issue I want to discuss in this sub-section... when and if editors use Elkman's "who is" search tool, shouldn't they be required to note this fact in their citations? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, these various citations ought to reference the NRIS database itself (with the date the database copy was obtained) -- not a website nor Elkman's tool -- as their source, supplemented by a link to the NRHP Focus page that includes some of the content from the database entry for the property.

Having downloaded the NRIS database and searched it on my own computer, I know that the NRIS database is not searchable online on public NPS websites, but it is (or at least used to be) downloadable from NPS, and can be searched offline using software applications that are compatible with it. What Elkman has done is create a web-based software tool that accurately extracts information from the database. I have confirmed that (for the handful of entries I checked) the output from Elkman's tool matches what I was able to extract from the database on my computer using Microsoft software. I know that other users have done similar validation checking. Whether a contributor used Microsoft software, some other publisher's software, or Elkman's tool to work with the database, it should not be necessary for reference citations to identify the software that was used to extract information from NRIS. However, if the information in an article is derived solely from the NRIS database without supplementation from other sources, the article should explicitly indicate that the database was the source (this is something that the boilerplate citations favored by certain NRHP WikiProject members have not done) and the date of the database should be listed.

An appropriate reference citation would (as displayed in a reference list) be something like: "National Park Service (2009). National Register Information System database, updated March 10, 2009. Obtainable from [whatever NPS page currently works for downloading]." (Note that I don't remember the date of the most recent version of the downloadable database; the date I quote is just a random guess.) --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't give a database search as a citation for the same reason you can't give a google search as a citation: you must reference at least somewhat static content. Databases are inherently dynamic, and for this reason generally unreferenceable. Searching http://www.nps.gov and http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com produces all the required information in a way that complies with WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not suggesting a link to a database search result, but rather a reference that identifies the source as the NRIS database and lists the date of the database version -- much the way an offline publication would be cited. In this case, however (unlike an offline publication), it could be supplemented by a link to the web address where the database can be downloaded. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A database website and a date is no more a valid citation than saying "www.google.com - searched July 18, 2010". The fact that a database can be downloaded at some later date, when its contents will undoubtedly have changed, is no help at all. I don't understand why, when proper, citeable pages are readily available, as explained above, editors are still trying to salvage this inappropriate source as a citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, new editions of the NRIS database are made available very infrequently. The March 2009 version is the latest edition. It's like a specific edition of a book. Many people, me included, have a copy of this book. It is the source used. A new edition of a book may indeed include some different information. We just need to cite the edition used. The "proper, citable pages" are inadequate as providing documentation of much of the information commonly taken from any edition of the NRIS database. They don't provide many fields of info that is available in NRIS; they are not the source used. --doncram (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't understand why, when proper, citeable pages are readily available, as explained above, editors are still trying to salvage this inappropriate source as a citation." ... I can guess... While we are focused on List of Masonic buildigns in this specific complaint... there are hundreds of other articles that cite the source. It is the default citation used by the NRHP WikiProject. If we determine that this page is unreliable, the NRHP WikiProject is going to have a lot of work to do fixing all these references. Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Returning to this later, I notice that Jayjg actually has a good suggestion for how to find, efficiently, the NRHP's Weekly Announcement announcing NRHP listing for a given place. I notice there's no current suggestion that way in the wp:NRHPhelp resource page for editors, and i will add it. Such weekly announcements are online and findable for recent years, and those are okay sources (and NRHP editors do use those as sources) for articles about recently NRHP-listed places. But for older NRHP listings, the announcements are not online in the same way; they may only be available within PDF files that unfortunately aren't easily searched, such as all the listings for 1966-1978, which are in one big file. All the NRHP announcements are available by year or other date ranges at http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/nrlist.htm. Note, an NRHP listing announcement, on its own, could be misleading, as a place could later have been delisted. The NRIS database includes all updated records for a given place, including someetimes a nomination pending, then the actual listing, then later a delisting for reason coee indicating demolition or otherwise. So looking up in NRIS itself will more assuredly get you the correct information you need, for all but recent listings. Thanks for the tip, Jayjg, and same for efficiently finding "NRHP.COM" mentions, too (but note NRHP.COM has some known systematic errors).

Also about "Databases are inherently dynamic, and for this reason generally unreferenceable", really that does not apply to the NRIS database, e.g. version of 3/13/2009, a fixed database that many people have copies of. New editions have come out once or twice a year, only. This is a stable, fixed database, like an edition of a book, and many editors can perform lookups reliably getting exactly the same results using this database, for any possible search. --doncram (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Doncram, for pointing out the existence of compilations of listings from years past. Your remark that "they may only be available within PDF files that unfortunately aren't easily searched" is true, but an understatement. These are huge graphical PDFs (i.e., scanned images of paper documents) that do not contain the OCR data that is needed to make them searchable. Additionally, the older listings are very cryptic (consisting only of the county name, town name, property name, street address, identification number, and two dates -- one of which is presumably the listing date). I can't imagine very many occasions when someone would want to use one of those files as a source.

Thinking about the theory that "databases are inherently dynamic," I can think of plenty of examples to refute that claim. Nowadays, a lot of data that formerly would have been published in table form on reams of paper is now published in the form of computer-manipulable databases that are stable and referenceable sources of information. Those databases often are made available online, as well as by CD/DVD. One example that is in some ways comparable to the NRIS is the US Census Bureau's use of the "factfinder" website (which is widely cited in Wikipedia) to disseminate 2000 Census data (as well as more recent data sets) in a searchable format that allows users to prepare customized reports. The content of those databases is very stable -- it's the user interface that's inherently dynamic. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A third issue

Blueboar has now embarked on an edit campaign to remove the NRIS source from List of Masonic buildings, where it was indubitably the source for about a hundred instances in the article. It is not the source for other information in the article, and stripping it out makes a mess. I find Blueboar's obsession with this source irritating, but wouldn't mind some refinement of the standard footnote. However, his simply removing the source is wp:POINTY, disruptive, and various other pathetic things, IMHO. I've reverted him for now. Would administrators and other editors please consider admonishing him not to do that? --doncram (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had my disagreements with Blueboar in the past, but on this he is in the right and I support his position. Why can't you just fix the refs? Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed citations to www.nr.nps.gov (what Doncram calls the NRIS source) from that article. Based upon the above discussion it seemed that there was consensus that it was not reliable ... but please note that I have only removed the citation, and not the statements the source is being used to support. I am not challenging whether the buildings are on the NRHP; I am challenging the citation for that fact. www.nr.nps.gov might have been fine as a citation in the past... but it is no longer acceptable. As we have been discussing above, the citation points to an obsolete non-working search engine. In short, the citation does not appropriately support the information. As we have discussed above, the citation needs to be replaced. I am willing to leave the information unsourced while we figure out the best alternative for that replacement, but I will not leave the bad citation in place while we look for a good one.

As for disruptive behavior... Doncram says at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, that he relied on User:Elkman's "Who is" search tool for the fact that the buildings are on the NRHP, in other words he is citing a source that he did not use and did not look at. And yet he keeps insisting on citing www.nr.nps.gov for the information. That is both sloppy, lazy research and dishonest. I have attempted to find alternative citations, and each time Doncram simply reverts back to the unacceptable citation. I am tired of his bullshit and unwillingness to accept that he is wrong over this. The truth is... If anyone is being disruptive here it is Doncram, for insisting on a flawed citation when multiple editors (both here and on the article talk page) all say the same thing... the source is not acceptable. At best, he has a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I developed the list-article in response to previous complaints by Blueboar about different matters, including his claims that redlink items should be deleted. My adding footnotes to support the NRHP-listed items resolved that. I also gave plenty of patient advice how to obtain documents towards making better footnotes. Now he wants to delete the footnotes, which has the effect of losing track of which items are supported and which are not. That is no way to develop anything. No matter if you have some complaint about the footnotes to NRIS that could lead to a refinement, you don't simply delete them. --doncram (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the source you added in these footnotes is flawed... it does not directly support the information and thus does not resolve the problem. The simple fact is that www.nr.nps.gov is a flawed source, and must be removed and replaced. This will take time... especially because it means formatting a citation for each building on the list individually instead of using a group citation (to the old, non-functional search page). Because I am not challenging the fact of NRHP listing for these buildings (only the source used to support this fact), I am willing to leave the entries in place and uncited while we add new citations... but I am not willing to keep the flawed source in place while we work on fixing the problem. I would be fully within my rights to make Doncram do all the work per WP:BURDEN... however, I repeat my statement that I am willing to help... if he is willing to meet the rest of us half way and do some of the work himself (he created the mess by adding the flawed source, so he should at least do some of the work to clean it up). As for loosing track of which items need to be supported and which do not... There is a parenthetical note by each building listed that says... "NRHP listed"... those are the buildings we need to replace the citation for. We have not "lost track" of anything. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar's actions are correct in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

However, he's replacing one citation that fails WP:V with another one that, although better, still fails WP:V. I've provided information on the correct way to do this above. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is incredibly frustrating! As I am getting conflicting advice, I will stop editing the page for now... but from our conversations above, I was under the impression that the citations I was adding do pass WP:V.

OK... lets look at our options and the arguments for and against them. Using the first entry on the list (a Masonic Temple in Fairbanks Alaska)... the choices are:

• www.nr.nps.gov ... this is the old NRIS search engine's front page that was originally cited by Doncram (note that it is cited on several hundred articles written by the NRHP WikiProject). This website is no longer supported and no longer works... and I think most of us are agreed it does not pass WP:V. Even if it worked, it required a reader wanting to verify the information to perform the actual search.
• nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&referenceNumber=80004568&natregadvancedsearch=Search.... This is the NPS-Focus search engine's result page targeted specifically for this property (and is similar to the other citations I have been adding). It is one click away from the page I really want to cite (the page with all the relevant information on it)... but unfortunately for some technical reason we can not link to that page (we get error messages when we do). Thus it is as close as we can get to that page. I thought this was reliable, but Jay now seems to think otherwise.
• www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ak/Fairbanks+North+Star/state.html... This points to NRHP.com. I actually tried using this as a source early in the debates between Doncram and myself... Doncram reverted my edit, and informed me (in this talk page thread) that NRHP.com is actually a private website ... I gather (correct me if I have this wrong) that it is a copy of the NRHP database that is hosted on a personal website. Thus, it is not supported by the NRHP, which calls into question its reliability.

So... we have three potential citations... none of which are completely right. So what do we do now? Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss the most obvious option! Form a regular reference to the online-available NRHP nomination document for the place. The discussion has been running for a month or two or more, in which I've encouraged you to read and use these. As far as I know, you have not consulted a single NRHP document, and it seems pretty clear you have not consulted it for the Alaska one, where that one is even on-line. For the Alaska one, the online full document is available and can be directly linked in a proper reference showing author, date, title, etc. of the document. Perhaps this shows the poor quality of the NPS Focus link, which defies even a very interested editor from figuring out how to download the actual document that is wanted. --doncram (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, surely you are aware that the vast majority of nomination documents aren't available online. --Orlady (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I have explained that repeatedly. It seems incredibly "sloppy, lazy research and dishonest", however, for an editor to be using the Alaska case as an example, and overstating the size of this issue, when the NRHP nomination documents for that and a good number of others are available as a superior source for most purposes. --doncram (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

[EC with Doncram (I am replying to Blueboar)].

• I don't understand why you say that the nr.nps.gov website does not pass WP:V. At least until recently, it was an authoritative place to go to get access to data in the NRIS database (notwithstanding the fact that the search utility on the site often didn't work -- it was still a place to get the information).
• There are two big problems with nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. First, it is a commercial site that provides access the NRIS database, but is less authoritative than NPS. More significantly, we have found one serious error in the utility used by that site to parse the NRIS data -- acreages listed on that site are off by a factor of 10. Thus, it's a front end to the NRIS data, but an untrustworthy front end.

And one other serious systematic error in the NRHP.COM private site, is that it gives as NRHP-listed on a certain date, places that were demolished or for other reasons were in fact delisted on that date. NRHP.COM is oblivious to listing status information. --doncram (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The types of property-specific links to NPS Focus that Dudemanfellabra describes under the "Fourth issue" heading (below) are stable links to the NPS Focus site. --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• It has been explained pretty clearly why nr.nps.gov doesn't pass WP:V. When it worked, it was just a front end to a database, so neither citeable nor verifiable. Now it's not even that. That said, the site itself still contains many pages that are citeable and verifiable.
• I was unaware that it is a commercial site; how do we know this for certain?
• The links described below are not "stable links" to anything; they're searches of a database. There's no guarantee that the search will produce the same result, or any result, tomorrow.

Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and, in any event, even if the nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com website isn't acceptable, sure this PDF of the Nomination Form is. It's also vastly more informative. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jay, The PDF of the nomination form is excellent when there is one ... unfortunately, the vast majority of NRHP buildings do not have their nomination documents scanned... Try https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/01001294_text, which should take you to the PDF for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge, the next building on the list, and you will see what I mean. However, the NPS-Focus citations should be stable as I have formatted the link... while it is a search engine result, what is being searched for is the specific NRHP ID number for the building, which is unlikely to change. Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, exactly, that NRHP document prepared in 1979 by James Marcotte (as u can see in its Section 11, several pages in), is superior for most descriptive purposes about the Alaska site. As it is a nomination document, however, it documents facts about the site but not the NRHP listing. Note many places are nominated but not listed. To document the fact of NRHP-listing requires, well, a citation to an edition of the NRIS database would probably be best. --doncram (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Since the document also shows the certification of the State Historic Preservation officer that the property is on the register, in this case it's actually the best source to document the fact of NRHP-listing. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so. The vast majority of those nom forms aren't online, and the ones that are online aren't consistent about providing information such as listing status and listing date. Furthermore, the State Historic Preservation Officer's information may be different from what is recorded by the National Park Service. The NRIS database is an official U.S. government information source (provided by the National Park Service staff who are the official keepers of the National Register) and it is the single best source of information on whether a property was listed on the Register, its date of listing, the name under which it was listed, and similar details. It does suffer from the limitation that it is not updated frequently (the last version of the database is over a year old; NPS Focus also is based on old data), so listing and delisting actions since the date of the last database have to be obtained from other sources.

On the other hand, the mere fact that the NPS changed its website structure, is abandoning the nr.nps.org URL, and has a new "Focus" website interface that formats records as "search results" does not indicate that there is something wrong with the information provided by the NPS.

Verifiability is not about data formats, but rather is about whether or not a person can obtain the cited information in order to check it; the NRIS database information is most emphatically verifiable. --Orlady (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

[EC: Blueboar and Doncram typed faster]. In reply to Jayjg (not necessarily in order):

• I am not the right person to try to defend those links to nr.nps.gov because I have a long record of disagreeing with certain NRHP Wikiproject members over their habit of using NRIS as the source for a lot of content. Nevertheless, I can attest that it used to be possible (at least on days when this .gov website was functioning) to use a search form on that website to verify an entry in the NRIS database. The uninitiated might have had a hard time figuring out how to get the information, but sources were (and still are) fully verifiable within the meaning of that term in Wikipedia policy.
• We know that the nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com website is a commercial site because it has a .com domain that is registered to American Dreams Inc. in Rockbridge, Ohio; the site sells advertising; and there's a disclaimer in the lower left corner of the home page saying "nationalregisterofhistoricalplaces.com is not affiliated in any way with the U.S. Dept. of Interior, the National Park Service, or the National Register of Historic Places." Moreover (unrelated to its commercial status), serious errors were introduced into the content of some articles (and there was some serious acrimony amongst us) when Wikipedians relied on that site for information when the search function on the official .gov website wasn't working or was cumbersome to work with. (That's a mistake not to be repeated.)
• Those links in Dudemanfellabra's example are indeed structured like search-results links, but since the search term is the property's unique identifier in the NRIS database, they are not really search results. For better or worse, this is the way that the folks who set up the website have structured the user interface. A link like this one will return the same result (exactly one record) every time.
• There are two problems with replacing NRIS references with links to PDFs of the National Register nomination forms.

1. First, as I said to Doncram a few inches above, the vast majority of nomination forms aren't online. When you click on the links on an NPS Focus page, you get a useless page like this one that says "The PDF file for this National Register record has not yet been digitized." That kind of link provides no verification of anything!
2. Second, the information in most of these NRHP list-articles and infoboxes was obtained from the NRIS database entries, not from the original nomination forms. This may include transcription errors introduced in the process of entering the information into the database, and it also includes various listing codes that probably are derived from information that is somewhere on the original form but may be very difficult to find on that form. It would be inaccurate and dishonest to cite the nomination form as the source of information that actually came from the NRIS database. --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Holy hell, a lot of talking has gone on in just the last few minutes here. To respond to several things at once (and I expect an edit conflict), here goes:

• The NPS Focus links generated by Template:NRHP Focus are completely stable. They search the database for a specific number, called a reference number, that is attached to only a single listing. At no time in the future will any other property be given this reference number, so though the format of the link appears to be a search, it is a reliable search in that it will produce the same result every single time.
• http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com is not a reliable source as several have explained above in that it gets many things wrong. Acreage is the main thing I can think of, but as Doncram reveals above, properties sometimes are listed as being placed on the register in a certain year, yet in reality they are actually removed from the register then. An example, from the same result as the Threefoot Building search above is "Dixie Gas Station". This property is shown on nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com as being added to the register in 1987, but as this list article explains, it was actually listed in 1979 and removed in 1987. These errors make the website unreliable.
• Nomination forms (pdfs) are the most reliable source for any site on the NRHP, but in cases where the forms are not online, the most reliable source from this thread I can find are the Focus links.

--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A fly in the ointment?

Something to consider in this... the nomination documents are Primary sources. Primary sources can be used... but with limitations. One of those limitations is that an article should not rely solely on primary sources. I am not sure if I completely agree with that policy when it comes to something like this... but it is the policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem with that. NRHP nomination documents usually contain secondary source information about the notablity of the place. They also usually contain primary source info about the condition of a given property as reported by the nomination document preparer, and also other descriptive information that may be primary and should be used with car. But usually the architectural details and condition info is not controversial. There are multiple sources available to prove a place is NRHP-listed, of which NRIS is the best probably. For most NRHP articles there are at least two relevant sources to use: the NRHP nomination document about details of the place, and NRIS about its NRHP listing status. --doncram (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Doncram. The nomination forms themselves are, in essence, research reports regarding the properties, complete with reference lists and bibliographies. These are not primary sources. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A fourth issue

A fourth (and broader) issue related to the NRIS database references is that entries in this database are the sole cited source not only for lists of properties on the National Register, but also for thousands of articles about individual properties. Two random examples are Sevierville Masonic Lodge and Colony Historic District. I don't think that a terse entry in this database is a reliable basis for a freestanding article. --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... that is the elephant in the room, isn't it. Blueboar (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Would the desired solution to this be something like that which is found at National Register of Historic Places listings in Lauderdale County, Mississippi? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the NRHP Focus property-specific refs in that article. Those definitely are better than a generic reference to the NRHP website. Unfortunately, though, for most listings NPS Focus has no more information than the terse database entry in NRIS. Indeed, the Focus entries do not even contain some of the details that are available in NRIS. (NPS Focus links are very informative when the property-specific information has been digitized and uploaded to the website, but that has not been done for most properties.)

Congrats on getting that list-article updated to cite NPS Focus. Was that a mammoth task, or have you found a way to automate it? --Orlady (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It didn't take long. Many of the articles on the list already have articles with infoboxes, so I just copied those over. For those that don't, I have most of them stubbed in User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox, so I copied the refnum from there. If there's a way to automate the process, though, I'm all ears haha. As to the amount of information in Focus, they give at least the listing date and location, which is basically all that shows on the list page anyway except coordinates. And those can be found from Google Maps if need be (though the NRIS database gives them). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus entries do not include several NRIS database items that are typically included in the Wikipedia infoboxes. In addition to lat-long coordinates (something that I've gone to the source to verify on several occasions), the omissions include acreages (a particular issue for historic districts), architect name(s), and the often-irrelevant "governing body" entry. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

True, the NRIS database does contain more information than Focus, but the entire point of this thread is that the link to the NRIS database is not satisfactory. Usually people use Elkman's tool or some other way of accessing this database, so as you suggested above, I believe we should link to his tool instead of the generic NRIS database. Btw, at least the architect is shown (in all the ones for Lauderdale County at least).. couldn't find anything about acreage, which I agree is very useful for districts. I'll look into it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If the content is from the NRIS database, the article should cite the NRIS database (not some other source). As discussed above under "Second issue", this could be done the same way that an offline book is cited (that is, cite the March 2009 version of the NRIS database, which is the source for most everything that is currently referenced to nr.nps.gov). The NPS Focus link should be provided, too, but because some of the information that is included in lists and infoboxes cannot be verified from NPS Focus, it's not a valid stand-alone source. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Btw, did you know it's possibly to query Elkman's database directly by adding variables to the URL? (i.e. http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php?refnum=89000169 for Beth Israel Cemetery). This could possibly be incorporated into a citation? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thought. Elkman's database is not a reliable source (unfortunately), but I suppose it could be treated as being analogous to an archive. Thus, I guess an Elkman link could be incorporated into a reference that also (1) cites the NRIS database as if it were an offline publication and (2) provides a link to the NPS Focus page. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hows this as an example, again for Beth Israel Cemetery:

"This information was obtained through the National Register Information System (NRIS) database (a copy of which is available here for download) and accessed using this search interface. The specific NRIS information for this site can be found here, and a listing in the National Park Service's Focus database can be found here."

-Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

At least partial resolution is needed

I realize that we have not yet reached a full consensus on what to cite (or perhaps the issue is how to cite it)... but are we agreed that simply citing www.nr.nps.gov (the old NRIS search engine's front page) is not acceptable? This is becoming a problem at List of Masonic Buildings, where Doncram continues to use it and continues to insist that it is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I am open to some wording expansion or improvement in references to NRIS, but it is not acceptable to remove references to NRIS when NRIS is the source for information. What Blueboar refers to is my use of NRIS to support a factoid about the Crane Hill Masonic Temple which is available in NRIS but is not available in NPS Focus. My reading of this discussion here, as I assert at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, is that there is clearly no consensus against use of reference to NRIS (and which use that URL). Some wording improvement is possible, perhaps, to clarify for certain editors that NRIS's 3/13/2009 version is a specific edition of a database which, like a book, can be consulted to verify the information asserted. --doncram (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram... please do not remove the header for this section again. I will consider it vandalism. To get back to the point... As I stated at the article talk page... no one is challenging the reliability of the NRIS itself... what everyone is telling you is that linking to www.nr.nps.gov is an unacceptable citation to the NRIS. What the discussions above are trying to figure out is what is an acceptable way to cite this information. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I agree that it is okay for you to have some discussion about possible wording change for the NRIS reference. However there is no consensus here that removing NRIS as a source, when NRIS is the source, is acceptable. It seems to be consensus here that the NRIS reference should continue to include a link to that URL or a similar URL where the NRIS database can be downloaded. Your repetition that "everyone" is saying something does not make it so.

About the subsection title At least partial resolution is needed i removed that to avoid fragmenting the discussion, which your edits seem aimed to do. There is no urgent need for a "partial resolution". If/when an improved reference to NRIS can be agreed upon, that can be used to refine the NRIS reference in place. However, it is absurd to suggest there is a crisis from the usage of the existing NRIS reference, and removing it would be nonsensical, causing slippage in referencing which facts are supported by what source. This is Referencing 101 basics. It is below the level of discussion that should take place on this editors' noticeboard, to be contending, if you are continuing to do so, that a source should simply be removed because you don't like its formatting in some way, when in fact it is uncontested that it is the source for information in articles. --doncram (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram... you continue to engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and it is at the point of being disruptive. Multiple editors have tried to explain that linking to www.nr.nps.gov is NOT an acceptable citation to the NRIS. Even when it worked, it was the front page for a search engine and did not support any information. Yes, the information is somewhere in the NRIS... but it isn't at www.nr.nps.gov. We have to find some other way to cite the information that is in the NRIS. You can add all the language you want to the citation... but as long as it links to www.nr.nps.gov the citation will continue to be flawed. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to force a solution, then. See the article talk page. There is a communication problem, and we're going to fix it. On the talk page, both sides are to present their arguments for why their sources meet RS. I invite the users here (who are familiar with RS), to assist in creating a consensus based on policy compliance once both arguments are up by dissecting said arguments. If RS is not met, obviously, the source cannot be used.

In the meantime, I've requested page protection for the article, and the disputees are not to edit the page prior to resolving this issue. Failure to assent to the conditions for resolution will invalidate the user's position, and any editing of the page by either side prior to resolution will probably lead to a block of some duration. MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (note... I made an edit just before I saw this proposal and agreed. If MSJ feels that this edit is against the spirit of my agreement, he may revert it). Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I've removed the non-citation and enforced the decision of this board. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Now it becomes NECESSARY

From an email earlier between the NPS and I: "That database doesn't meet our current computer security requirements, and we have just taken it down." Looks like the problem just got worse.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

Discussion of an improved reference for NRIS database-sourced info in wikipedia continues in discussions at Talk:List of Masonic buildings and at wt:NRHP. I must say that Jayjg's assertion, a few lines above, that he has "removed the non-citation and enforced the decision of this board", as if he is in charge and as if there is a consensus that the NRIS database is non-reliable, is preposterous. He just made a similar assertion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, and i realized the above discussion-ending comment, needs a reply. NRIS is a reliable source: Orlady, me, many other editors can reproduce exactly the same information from it, which is the definition of reliability. The judgment was discussion-ending only because it was horse-do-do, nonsense, given the information provided by what i see as more serious editors contributing here. I have recently noticed that Jayjg was formerly an arbcom arbitrator, or some such position like that. I don't mean the following as a personal attack, but rather as a comment on roles we get to play. Really, Jayjg, you are not in a position of being the one to make a decision and have that be accepted because of your position. You do not have that role, that privilege, now. Flat assertions, ignoring opinions and information provided, don't convince me, or, i think, others, here or elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fulminations and personal comments won't make the webpage comply with WP:V, and the editor leading your mediation has also noted that my statements are correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the self-appointed mediator there did make a pretty blanket assertion that any/all of your statements are correct. It was a mistake, mediation-wise, for him to do that. The mediation is now stalled, with the mediator having committed to unreasonable, untenable positions, and having selected none of the proposed wordings for an NRIS reference that would have settled the debate for that one list-article. It looks like a failed mediation. --doncram (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd, everyone who explains the WP:V policy to you is suddenly holding an "unreasonable, untenable position". Reminds me of when another editor, above, said it was as "untenable and unrealistic" as it was to expect people to do things like cite actual page numbers from books. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the debate

OK... given the statement from the NPS noted above, and the fact that the NPS has shut down their old www.nr.nps.gov website, I think my initial question has been settled... the www.nr.nps.gov website is not reliable, and must be replaced Wikipedia wide.

We seem to have moved on to a more fundamental question... whether WP:V and WP:RS allow us to cite the NRIS database that this website once accessed. We seem to disagree on this issue... Some of us think the NRIS database is reliable ... some of us think it is not. What has been missing in this discussion are policy/guidleine based arguments for and against. So... in the sections below, please outline what Policy/guideline provisions either allow or do not allow the NRIS database. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, you're asking the wrong question. There's no question that the NRIS database satisfies WP:RS - the problem, is, it doesn't satisfy WP:V. That is, the NRIS and its database are a reliable source regarding properties on the NRHP, but it's not available in a form that can be properly cited for the purposes of verification. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see that you are not doubting that NRIS is a reliable source, Jayjg. Your view on that matter has not been made clear previously. As for verifiability, NRIS content is fully verifiable. A lot of the content is accessible on the National Park Service's current "NPS Focus" website -- go to the advanced search page and enter the unique record identifier for a National Register listing action, and you can get a lot of the NRIS record information for the listed property. It's also possible to check groups of records by entering the name of a property, geographic location, property type, and other attributes. Some record information from NRIS is not readily obtainable from that website, but there are lots of copies of the database in circulation -- finding a copy is likely to be easier than finding a library that has a copy of a particular out-of-print book that is cited as a source in a Wikipedia article. User:Elkman has made a copy of the NRIS database available online for the benefit of Wikipedia contributors, and those of us who have checked it by comparing Elkman's data to our own copies of the NRIS data are satisfied that he has an accurate copy and that his web interface parses the information correctly. Eventually, it is to be hoped that the National Park Service will have a fully functional website. In the meantime, if a user can't find a copy of NRIS and doesn't trust Elkman's version of NRIS, I'm sure that they could verify that the information in an article came from NRIS by sending an e-mail query to the National Park Service. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, which reliable, accessible sources host copies of the NRIS database? Has it been published in book form and is now held in public libraries? So I can use a citation like "NRIS printed database, Harvard University Press, 2009, p. 334", and we can all go to the nearest library, get out the book, and read the material on that page? Saying "I've got a copy from March 1, 2010 on my computer" really doesn't comply with WP:V, unless you're willing to let everyone who reads Wikipedia go over to your place and peruse the contents of your hard drive. And, frankly, not even then. As for Elkman's copy, that's self-published, so it obviously also doesn't comply. By the way, is Elkman his first name or last name? Or is it his only name? I assume it's not yet another anonymous Wikipedia pseudonym, because that would pretty much throw any verifiability right out the door. Also, when did personal correspondence become reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's the summary? Summary of what? Given the section title, I'd think there'd be a summary of a debate, but if it is about a debate somewhere else, i suggest you try to summarize, within that debate, what has been said. If this refers to discussions at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, I would think a proposed summary should be proposed there.

I am pretty tired of Blueboar opening up new, duplicative discussion sections. There are 60 or more discussion sections so far opened by Blueboar now on this topic. --doncram (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to "Also, when did personal correspondence become reliable sources?" I am not suggesting that personal correspondence with NPS staff is a reliable source. The subject here, if I remember correctly, can be distilled as "How could a user verify that information in Wikipedia came from NRIS, now that the National Park Service no longer offers convenient online electronic access to some NRIS information?" My answer was (and is) "I'm sure that they could verify that the information in an article came from NRIS by sending an e-mail query to the National Park Service" -- that's very much like phoning a far-away library to ask a reference librarian to look up a piece of information in a book that happens to be in that library's collection. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But that kind of "verification" isn't relevant to WP:V. "Personal correspondence with NPS staff, July 28, 2010" may be the kind of thing one sometimes finds in footnotes of books, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia only accepts information that has been published. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is the National Register Information System (NRIS), an electronic compendium that was published by the National Park Service in the form of an electronic download, with the last version released on March 13, 2009. That particular version was available for free download for over a year, and plenty of people have copies of it. (Earlier versions were available before March 2009. They were not different in their content, they just didn't include as many records.) NRIS is not currently available for download from the publisher -- much like an "out of print" books that is no longer available from its publisher. As far as I know, all we are talking about here is what a skeptical reader of Wikipedia would need to do to obtain a copy of this out-of-print resource, or otherwise verify that a particular factoid in Wikipedia was truly from that source. You seem to be saying that if electronic information is not currently obtainable from the website of its publisher, it must be expunged from Wikipedia (or at least flagged as unreliable). Others of us think you are being ridiculous. --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

When someone publishes something, the source becomes them. In this case, anonymous Wikipedia editor User:Elkman is publishing it. "Plenty of people" who downloaded a database don't qualify as a WP:RS, and raw databases themselves are unciteable, otherwise, as explained, we could simply use "Google.com, July 12 2010" as a citation. Google is nothing more than a large searcheable database. This is unlike "out of print" books, which are typically still available in libraries (among other places), and have actual publication dates and page numbers that can be cited. Even out-of-date webpages can be found on archival sites like archive.org. And I'm completely unconcerned if two or three editors desperate to retain unreliable and unciteable sources, simply because they can't find reliable ones, find it ridiculous to insist that WP:V is still policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether the casual observer would have any clue that the Wikipedia content whose sourcing has aroused such vigorous concern on Jayjg's part consists of statements like "The Old Macon County Courthouse, including its 1.5-acre grounds, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 1, 2001." (This isn't exactly controversial stuff.) Additionally, I wonder if anyone who is riled up about the consequences of the change in the structure of the NPS website has become equally disturbed about the fact that pages like Oklahoma Historical Society FAQs About the National Register of Historic Places and "What properties in North Dakota are listed in the National Register of Historic Places?" (by the State Historical Society of North Dakota) provide detailed information on NRIS and link to the now-disabled NPS website, or that the state of Florida relied on NRIS data in constructing a state GIS system, or that this academic journal article cited it. (I can find plenty of other examples of respectable entities unrelated to Wikipedia that have relied on this resource.) --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

These sources aren't Wikipedia, and they don't have our content policies. They're allowed to violate WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, because those are our policies, not theirs. That is why, as I've explained, you'll find reliable sources that have footnotes saying things like "Personal correspondence" etc. Our policies, however, do not allow these as citations. We can only cite information that's already been published in a reliable source. If you want to change Wikipedia's content policies to match those of various other websites, this is not the place for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're just making up s*** now, Jayjg. You're projecting that a journal named Economic Development Quarterly permits unverifiable references, POV sources, etc., based on nothing. You're just dismissing information and arguments out-of-hand. If it ever was a serious debate among editors expressing good faith opinions, it is no longer. --doncram (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Another NRHP issue

Is http://www2.elkman.net/ a reliable source under our rules. This has an impact on whether we can use http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/whohas.php (known at the NRHP Project as the "Elkman Interface") to access the data from the NRIS database. Personal websites are not normally considered reliable, but is this an exception? Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The source of the information that is being cited in these cases is not elkman.net or nr.nps.gov, nor any other URL or domain name. The source is the National Register Information System (March 13, 2009 version), which is a large, formatted, collection of records that was published in electronic form by the U.S. National Park Service.

NRIS formerly was available for free download from a website owned and operated by the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS also had a search interface on its website that allowed users to extract a fair amount of information from NRIS. The NPS is in the middle of a slow and not-very-functional restructuring of its website (since this is government, it is likely that this situation is largely due to hiring a new low-bid contractor to manage their web content). The website currently does not make NRIS available for download, and the current search interface on the website doesn't provide some information in a particularly good format (but the search interface does work). However, a lot of us still have copies of the downloaded NRIS information. The NPS probably would supply a copy to you today if there was a way that you could supply a blank CD-ROM and they could copy it onto your CD-ROM without violating federal cybersecurity rules, but between the cybersecurity rules, the low-bid contractor, and federal budget limitations, they can't do that right now. The website problems and federal cybersecurity rules have not invalidated the information in NRIS, nor have they made it unavailable, they have merely made it somewhat harder to obtain.

Fortunately, at least one commercial website has a copy of NRIS that is accessible via a reasonably well-functioning (but flawed) online interface, AND a Wikipedian (Elkman) has a copy that is accessible via a well-functioning online interface. Elkman's website is not a source (the source is NRIS -- the National Register Information System), but Elkman's website is an unofficial archive that people can check to verify that a particular information item is in NRIS.

I'm getting rather tired of these allegations that the National Park Service is not a reliable source because they have a dysfunctional website. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The National Park Service is a reliable source. Elkman isn't the National Park Service, and the National Park Service doesn't run or oversee his website. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous WP:SPS, no editorial oversight. Sorry, fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS does not apply; Elkman's site is not a blog or anything with any editorial or other comment whatsoever by Elkman or anyone else. It provides an interface to its copy of the NRIS database. It's like a Google copy of a scanned book. Read wp:SPS, it's short. NRIS is a reliable source, which Jayjg has conceded elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course WP:SPS applies; User:Elkman has taken a bunch of information, and published it on his website. It's no different than the hundreds of other Self-Published-Websites WP:RS/N sees and rejects every year. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the publisher is the NPS, Elkman's copy is analogous to a convenience copy of the data. David Underdown (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we know it's an exact copy of the NPS's database? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• David Underdown has it right. Having an explicit link to Elkman's site was discussed at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, but only because Blueboar wanted it and/or a possible link was proposed towards satisfying Blueboar's concerns, in discussion at that one list-article. Elkman's site is not linked from Wikipedia mainspace articles anywhere. Seems linking it or not should be discussed there. Also, this is not "another NRHP issue", it is Blueboar opening yet another discussion section, fragmenting and duplicating discussion elsewhere for no good reason. Discussion section count: about 60 and climbing. --doncram (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question... does the Elkman interface give us all the information contained in the NRIS database... or only selected portions of it? Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And as for the number of threads I have opened relating to sourcing in NRHP articles... what do you expect... When editors repeatedly use the same flawed "cut and paste" citation in hundreds of articles, of course it will take a lot of discussion and threads to sort out the problem. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Elkman interface provides a couple of different types of standard query results. I don't think that any one query result provides all of the information that NRIS has about a particular National Register entry or property. However, in essentially all of the instances where Wikipedia cites "NRIS" with the URL nr.nps.gov, the information supported by the citation was based on elements that can be found in Elkman's standard queries. (I say "essentially all" only because I believe there are some instances in which information was obtained from some other source, but an active NRHP Wikiproject member visited the article and officiously inserted "NRIS" in place of the source initially cited.) --Orlady (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Elkman's site is not not a copy of the NRIS database... it compiles information from that database. The information it compiles may well be accurate, but it can not be considered a convenience copy.

Frankly, I am not sure if we have dealt with a situation like this before. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding of how relational databases work, and what a database query is. Now it is possible for a badly formed query to return unrelated data, but from everyhting I've seen here I don't think taht fundametnally alters my previous assessment of this as a convenience copy. David Underdown (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding of how WP:V works. Databases are dynamic, and Elkman's is a personally created WP:SPS, regardless of whether or not various other anonymous Wikipedia editors think its contents are an accurate and faithful reproduction of the NRIS database. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think David Underdown's analysis is correct. Elkman has a valid copy of the original database. Because this is a relational database (and not, for example, a large table in ASCII format), the database file is in a format that isn't directly readable -- a user needs to have an appropriate software interface to read the records contained in it. The NPS website used to have an online interface for extracting and reading selected records from the database, but that web interface often wasn't available, and they've taken that interface down. I have been able to read the file on my own computer using Microsoft Office Access (after running some sort of conversion program to transform the data into a format that Access could read); other Wikipedians have also obtained and used their own copies. Elkman has created an online interface that extracts records from the original database. The new NPS Focus website now has a different online interface (and I think it's likely that the database itself has been converted into a newer data format). The NPS Focus interface works a lot more smoothly than the old interface did, although it isn't programmed to display some of the information items that Wikipedians have previously obtained from NRIS and included in articles. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we know "Elkman has a valid copy of the original database"? Are there reliable sources that vouch for its accuracy? Does it have any editorial oversight? This is yet another astonishing and rather ridiculous attempt to accept an anonymous WP:SPS, simply because editors have trouble finding a source that complies with WP:RS and WP:V. Sorry, we don't accept sources that do not comply with WP:V simply because we can't find ones that do. And this from the editors who rejected http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com because it was a "commercial website"! Nope, WP:V is still in force on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Several Wikipedia contributors have compared information extracted from Elkman's copy of NRIS, using his online interface, with information that we extracted ourselves from our own copies of the database (downloaded from the NPS) or that we obtained from the NRIS interface that was formerly maintained by NPS. We have found no discrepancies, so we have concluded that it is a valid copy and this his interface works correctly. Elkman's website is not the source of the information, it is merely a place where the electronic information is stored and where there is a free software interface that can be used to display contents.

In contrast with Elkman, there have been serious errors in information obtained from http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com because that website's interface does not correctly interpret some of the database fields in NRIS. The fact that it is a commercial website that has no connection to the publisher of the data is just one of several reasons why it is not a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does WP:V or WP:RS explain that a source is reliable or verifiable if "several Wikipedia editors" have compared one database to another, and "found no discrepancies"? WP:RS is about editorial oversight, not about the actions of anonymous Wikipedia editors. And Elkman may or may not be the source of the information, but he's certainly the publisher.Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The data was originally reliably published by the National Park Service - the very people with the legal authority to decide what is or is not on the NRHP. Then, as I understand it, database dumps were made available for the public to download. Elkman, along with other members of the NRHP project, obtained the data in this way and has constructed a front end which allows certain queries to be run against this original data, as published by the NPS service. Such copies are effecively convenience copies (especially now the original in no longer readily avaialable). Now, I would certainly prefer that the original were still available (at least in dump form), I did wonder if data.gov would have it, the closest I can find is [27] and I'm not actually familiar enough with the specifics to be clear if this is precisely the same thing.

As to the idea that information published in database form is not relaible because it's "dynamic", WTF!! Yes data can be changed, but so can a webpage (and in fact an awful lot of websites are based on content management systems which are basically just a big database, or use for example php and mySQL to generate web pages on the fly) but a give query will repeatably return the same data (so the results obtained by one person can be verified by another), if this weren't the case databases would be no practical use to anyone at all. David Underdown (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Convenience copies are only of value if the sites they are found on have some degree of reliability, particularly that the contents are unchanged. This board regularly rejects WP:SPS websites as reliable even just for convenience links - for example, people often insert the contents of newspaper articles into bulletin board posts, but those still can't be cited as a convenience link, even if the original publisher is reliable. Also, no-one said that a database is unreliable because its dynamic; rather, as explained more than once, it's not citeable. The great thing about a static source like a newspaper is that you can go back to it 100 years later and be guaranteed that the exact same information will be on the exact same page. As for webpages, as also explained, they become effectively static when they are stored on archiving services like archive.org. Databases are great tools, and many are reliable for all sorts of purposes, but they don't meet Wikipedia's WP:V requirements - and, when they're published by anonymous Wikipedia editors, they don't even meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But there is no requirement to cite only to an archived version of a webpage. Yes giving a retrieval date is considered good practice, but there is no guarantee that you will be ale to find an archived copy that corresponds to that date. A well designed database source will tell you when the data was last updated (and it seems to me that this is effectively equivalent to a publication date). I really cannot see that this is fundametally less verifiable than a "static" webpage. The lines can be pretty blurred too. Consider Dove's Guide for Church Bell Ringers, the most comprehensive listing of church bells hung for English-style change ringing. It began life as a book, behind the scenes it became a database,f rom which subsequent editions of the book were issued, the last printed edition being issued in 2000 (the 9th edition), and an online database made available at the same time. Now, in this instance one can link to the page for an individual church with what looks like a url, for instance for St Lawrence Church, Ipswich, http://dove.cccbr.org.uk/detail.php?searchString=Ipswich%2C+S+Lawrence&Submit=++Go++&DoveID=IPSWICH+LW - but is actually a search string passed ot the database and the webpage generated on the fly. The date the information was updated (and its source) is clearly stated. If you look at the data, you'll see that by the casting date for each bell is a dagger. If you really dig through the information on the site you would find [28] that this means that the bells are considered to be of particular historical significance and that the Church of England (which by virtue of its status as the Established Church, possesses certainly delegated powers which would normally be exercised by the secular planning authorities) maintains a database listing those bells (and bellframes) considered to have this status. Now in this case, I cannot see any way of generating a url to the listing for an individual church (and for any church, each individual bell considered historically significant would actually have its own listing), but as I've cited it in the Ipswich St Lawrence article, all you have to do is enter "ipswich st lawrence" in the parish name box, click search, and low and behold, you'll see exactly what I saw, again with a clear indication of when the data was changed. How is this unverifiable? Having jsut done a search of the archvies for WT:V I cannot see any particular consensus for databases per se being unverifiable, nor anythign in WP:V itself that directly addresses the issue. David Underdown (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

AHRQ and Transcendental Meditation

A review and meta analysis for transcendental meditation was published in 2007 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:

• Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP (June 2007). Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research (PDF). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
• Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, et al. (June 2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 1–263. PMID 17764203. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

As this is one of the only independent analysis of TM research ( along with a 2006 Cochrane collaboration review ) a few of us feel that it and Cochrane should be exclusively used to summarize the healthcare outcomes in the lead of the TM article. A number of TM practitioners disagree stating that as this is a government report and not formally peer reviewed it is biased. Could people comment on how best we should summarize the research on health care outcomes?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be a fair summary. As it is, these meta analysis carry heavy weight in the article, so it seems fair they also do so in the lead.

The problem of course lies not in the science, at least not in the meta-analysis but in the believers. See "though TM researchers said an inappropriate method of quality assessment was used". I could easily reframe that as "though TM researchers said this was unfair because all the biased studies carefully contructed to confirm beneficial effects while being unable to falsify those effects were excluded.". Often these alternative medicin studies are not done rigorously enough. If the practitioners truly believe in their method they should work towards the best practice science. Arnoutf (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I distinguish between the AHRQ as a publisher/editor and the AHRQ as a US healthcare agency that requests and supports research that can be eventually published in peer reviewed journals. The systematic review prepared for the AHRQ resulted in two reports, which are mentioned above, and also in an article in a peer reviewed journal:

• Maria B. Ospina, Kenneth Bond, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Nina Buscemi, Donna M. Dryden, Vernon Barnes, Linda E. Carlson, Jeffery A. Dusek, David Shannahoff-Khalsa. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. December 2008, 14(10): 1199-1213. doi:10.1089/acm.2008.0307.

I have two distinct concerns, which are not against, but related to the AHRQ and Cochrane publications. First, when we refer to the AHRQ meta-analysis, I feel we should use the peer-reviewed publication, which is about the same meta-analysis, but we have the added value that the reviewers must have filtered partial or unclear statements. Clearly, the main points must be available in the peer reviewed publication. Taking a specific statement in the report, which is not found in any form in the peer reviewed article, seems like cherry picking to me.

The second concern is the most important. I disagree that we should only use the Cochrane review and the meta-analysis prepared for the AHRQ in the lead. I am not arguing that we should reject these two reviews, but that the results and conclusions of the other systematic reviews should also be presented. In the heat of the discussion, Doc and myself might have confused the peer review aspect here. This has nothing with lack of peer review because we have peer reviewed publications for these two reviews. However, I do maintain that the fact that the review was prepared and supported by the AHRQ, a governmental agency, is not a guarantee of impartiality, I mean, it is not a guarantee that this is a universal POV, which must be preferred over all other POVs. It cannot be used to justify that we only use it and reject the other systematic reviews, also published in peer reviewed journals. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

However reviews published by those who are part of the TM movement are much less universally accepted which is why they are not being presented in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when the vague and undefined concept of being "universally accepted" is a criteria in Wikipedia. The first problem is that you must answer the question "universally accepted amongst who?" Amongst the medical practitioners? In the scientific community in general? In the general population? Second, even if you do define the group that you consider, the Wikipedia criteria is to refer to reliable sources that represent this group. In our case, the group is not the medical practitioners. It is not also the general population. It is not the scientific community in general. It is the community of experts in the domain. The only way to have their POVs is to rely on systematic reviews in the area. The report prepared for the AHRQ and the Cochrane review are not alone representative of the community of experts in the area. I can easily give you a lot of examples to prove this.

Also, perhaps, if it was true that the other reviews were published by those in the TM movement, you would have a point to consider, but it is not true. First, ultimately, these reviews were published by peer-reviewed journals, not by the TM organization, after a decision of an editor who considered the recommendations of independent reviewers. Second, for many of these systematic reviews, if not all of them, there were independent authors (not working for the TM organization). Certainly, some of the studies considered in these reviews had only independent authors. In any case, it is not fair to assume that the only authors that can be potentially biased are those working for the TM organization. There can be authors working for other organization that are biased against TM. So, it is excellent that we have both categories of authors for a study. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We have one outside opinion above lets wait for others. BTW we now have two Cochrane review that state the the research is too poor in quality to draw conclusions. PMID 16437509 and PMID 20556767 for anxiety and ADHD respectively.[User:Jmh649|Doc James]] (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Edith, with regard to the claims that AHRQ governmental agency may be biased or impartial, can this be referenced? Are there any references which imply or document bias by the AHRQ in relation to TM? Was AHRQ involved in a lawsuit for example with the TM movement? What exactly is their conflict of interest? What is the basis for your belief that AHRQ may be biased in relation to TM research? Normally government reviews are considered high quality sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, I don't need to provide a reference for that claim for many reasons. First, it is an obvious truth because of the "maybe". For example, "maybe Barack Obama is gay" is true. Second, I will never want to include it in the article. Third, you don't tell me where I might have written this statement. I don't remember having written that. Perhaps I have suggested it somewhere with a general statement. Anyway, if I did apply it especially to the AHRQ, please accept my apology. I must have meant that, in general, it can only be better that a journal is independent from governments, corporations, etc., as respectable as these institutions can be. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc James has made a false statement. He says that AHRQ, along with Cochrane, is one of the only independent analyses of research on Transcendental Meditation, but in fact are scores of independent research reviews, including a number that are more recent than AHRQ. Since this is RSN, would these reviews that Doc just deleted from the article[29] be considered reliable: [30][31] Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me provide the text that these two reviews were supporting: "Other research reviews cite a 1989 meta-analysis of 146 studies that found that relaxation techniques for anxiety had a medium effect size and that Transcendental Meditation had a significantly larger effect." So the results of these reviews are not actually commented on in our article but used only to mention an old review in an attempt to refute the conclusions of a more recent Cochrane review.

Here is the a ref for the 1989 review Eppley KR, Abrams AI, Shear J (November 1989). "Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis". J Clin Psychol. 45 (6): 957–74. PMID 2693491. Two of its authors Abrams A. and Shear J. have significant connections with TM.[32] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If recent independent research reviews (and there are more than these two) continue to cite this 1989 meta-anlaysis of 146 studies as evidence that meditation reduces anxiety, why would we exclude it from Wikipedia? You fail to note that Cochrane looked at a single study from 1980. Plus, Cochrane missed three RCTs reported in 2001 that looked at anxiety and that are included in a broad review of meditation research that appeared in 2003. The research landscape goes beyond your two favored reviews. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Arnouf, you are apparently assuming that TM research has only been done by practitioners. TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that Cochrane looked at only a single study. Cochrane actually looked at all the studies but only one was of significant quality to analysis further. As per the methods section:

All relevant randomised controlled trials comparing meditation therapy alone or in combination with conventional treatment (consisting of drugs or other psychological treatment), or to another type of meditation or to conventional treatment alone or no intervention / waiting list control. Exclusion: Open trials, case series, non-randomised controlled trials.

Thus it seems 145 of these 146 trials mentioned above were not RCTs and therefore are not appropriate for making health claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Doc James I would be extremely hesitant to use any 1989 meta-analysis for a number of reasons (1) This is the pre Cochrane time. i.e. at the time there were no generally accepted methods for meta analysis, most specifically study inclusion criteria (as much as Cochrane can be disputed they put an equal standard across therapies). We need to go back to the original 1989 study to consider how this study deals with placebo effects, control groups, etc. (2) 1989 is more than 20 years ago. We miss out on a lot of new insights if we base ourself on such old studies. Especially since the 1990 the rigorous demands of Cochrane were known and shoud be used to set up high quality empirical studies. That the authors were TM practitioners is of secondary concern compared to these.

Of course this is confirmed by the Cochrane study which throws out all but 1 study. What worries me especially is that since the 1990's when evidence based medicine and Cochrane became leading, no high quality studies conforming to these demands were published.

@TimidGuy, No I do not think that TM research is only done by practitioners, I do however think that in the TM research practitioners are likely to be overrepresented, partly because the majority of non practitioners researchers simply don't care about their claims. Arnoutf (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Arnouft, your reply to TimidGuy seems right, especially because you only say that it is "likely", but I don't see how this likely and natural situation could be used to exclude an important POV, even only as a "secondary concern" as you mention in your reply to @Doc James. This other reply is more a concern to me. The point of view that you seem to suggest in it for the exclusion of all the reviews except the AHRQ and Cochrane reviews is nothing else than the POV that is used in these AHRQ and Cochrane reviews. It is not the POV that is used in other recent meta-analyses that were published in peer-reviewed journal. In particular, you miss the point that the 1989 study was included in these recent meta-analyses. It is ridiculous to use one POV as a criteria to reject the other POVs, but this is what is going on here. I sympathise with you if you are a complete adherent to the AHRQ POV and feels that it must be used as a way to reject all competing POVs from the article. I understand how you might feel, but, please, take a step back and recall yourself the WP:NPV policy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I did not mean Cochrane is the only way to do it, but it is a way with standardised assessment of article quality. Personally I do have serious issues with any health related meta-analysis which does not exclude (or at least controls for) studies without a decent control condition or any other control for the placebo effect; which is often shown to be huge. Of course adding a double blind placebo control to a meditation trial will be difficult, but without such controlled tests any scientific claims that go beyond placebo are problematic at best. Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. However, as editors it is not our job to evaluate the scales that were used in the various meta-analyses. Our job is to select the reliable sources in a neutral manner and then present their POVs also in a neutral manner. In accordance with [[WP:NPV] and WP:RS, I don't see why some meta-analyses published in peer reviewed journals should be excluded. In particular, we cannot reject sources as unreliable because we think they used the wrong scale. Moreover, even if some highly respectable organisation proposes that some scales should be used in meta-analyses, it makes no sense to use these scales as criteria to exclude meta-analyses. Their purpose is not to accept or reject meta-analyses for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is taking these criteria out of their context. Using a POV within a reliable source to exclude other reliable sources is a misinterpretation of the WP:RS policy that directly violates the WP:NPV policy. It is just an indirect way to use a POV to exclude other POVs. BTW, I should not have written that your proposed logic rejects all reviews except Cochrane and AHRQ. I meant that it rejects all reviews with a different POV and this is in violation of WP:NPV. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I in turn do see your point. My main problem with the 1989 meta-analysis is not necessarily that it used different scales, but (1) it is very old and misses out on new evidence, either in favour or against TM (2) developments in scientific rigour in medicine has been huge since 1989. I would treat any paper from before (about) 1995 on medicine with caution and make sure the outcomes still live up to modern best practice, just like we no longer accept the empirical evidence from 1400 in astronomy without serious questions (ok analogy is over the top, but the point is not very different).

Also I would not object if such papers were introduced as providing "indications" or "suggestions" for the effects, but according to current best practice they simply do not provide "evidence". Maybe a subtle difference, but a rather essential one. Arnoutf (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS recommends the use of reviews published in the last 5 years [33] and the use of independent sources [34]. We are as editors to assess the quality of the research per [35] Will has kindly created a list of the literature that may not be independent [36] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Arnoutf, I am an inclusionist. I like to include POVs, but I want to follow the [WP:NPV], [WP:OR] and [WP:RS] policy. I am especially careful about not including statements without sources simply because we know they are true. The inclusion of true statements without sources, even if they are obvious, is problematic in many ways. First, we have no explanation for the importance that we give to this statement. Truth and importance are two different things. We do not want to imply that it is universally considered important. Second, the way to phrase the statement can become problematic. Third, finding the valid context in the article for the statement can also be problematic. With a source, these issues go away. The statement and its importance can be attributed to the source. The phrasing and the context can follow the source. The fact that Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability is well explained in the policy. The sentence

... providing "indications" or "suggestions" for the effects, but according to current best practice they simply do not provide "evidence".

which I can accept as true, is currently problematic. I would appreciate very much if you could provide a source or think of another way to resolve the current issue while respecting the policy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not suggest to take it up in the article, only to use it to weigh the evidence. I think my intuitive reasoning (1989 is too old) fits well with the WP:MEDRS cited by DocJames above; and for that reason we should be extremely cautious about any claim of evidence from the 1989 paper. Note that the only parameter I am using here to evaluate the relevance of the paper for use as current evidence is the year of publication. Arnoutf (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that research reviews continue to cite this meta-analysis as evidence that meditation reduces anxiety. If it were outdated, why would it still be mentioned in research reviews? MEDRS says that the guideline can be relaxed in areas where the field is more static. That's the case here. If we use age as a criterion, then why would we report the results of the 1980 RCT that Cochrane looked at? Because it's in the context of Cochrane? Well, Eppley appears in the context of recent research reviews (the two that Doc deleted and more that I didn't cite). MEDRS doesn't say that we only use Cochrane. Why are we second guessing research reviews from the past 5 years? Also, Doc says that Eppley's analysis only included one random assignment study. The study says this: "As a test, the overall comparisons between treatments were repeated including only the studies of highest internal validity, with random assignment to groups and low attrition. The TM studies still had significantly larger effect sizes than the other treatments." Also, I question Doc's peremptory deletion of peer-reviewed research reviews from 2006 and 2008 that clearly meet the standard of MEDRS. TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that WP:MEDRS cannot be used to violate in any way WP:NPV, which states that all POVs in reliable source should be presented fairly, etc. TimidGuy explains that the 1989 review does not violate WP:MEDRS, but even if it did, I would only take it to mean that, as pointed out by Arnoutf, it should not be placed at the same level as those reviews that respect it, that is, not in the context of therapy for anxiety disorders (in clinical settings). The key point here is to at the least agree on the inclusion of the 1989 review (and of the other even more reviews which have been removed). Once this is clear, I think we should look at the recent reviews that refer to the 1989 review, to get the context and make sure that it has been considered positively and does not violate MEDRS. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@TimidGuy. The field of empirical studies is rather static, so I follow you there. However, the method of meta-analysis have been revolutionised in the 1990's. Therefore I would argue that the 1989 is indeed too old per WP:MEDRS. Again an over the top analogy, but would we still accept the Renaissance (or Victorian) interpretations of the ancient classics. No we don't, although the classical works have not changed (Cicero's oeuvre e.g. has remained rather static). It is our way of analysing the classics that has made the renaissance interpretation no longer acceptable. So it is our recent method of meta-analysing studies, rather than the empirical studies used that make any 1989 meta-analysis outdated.

@Edith Sirius Lee. I agree, although I would be much happier in using only the 2006 and 2008 reviews that, if done properly, will have dealt with the age of the 1989 paper, in other words we have a secondary source dealing with the age, rather than having to do so ourselves. Arnoutf (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The argument that we can ignore WP:MEDRS and instead utilitize sources that due to age or other factors are not, per the policy, considered to be reliable sources for medical claims, because an editor claims that it is not neutral to only rely on sources that do meet the policy, is a non-starter. Are sources that are not reliable permitted to be used in Wikipedia to promote a POV? No. If proper application of WP:MEDRS means that a source is unreliable for purposes of making medical claims, it should not be used. Period. WP:NPOV does not trump WP:RS or its specific application here, WP:MEDRS. The argument being made here (which is a rehash of arguments previously made in other discussions by these and other editors and properly rejected), has it precisely backwards. Fladrif (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@Fladrif, I agree with you in your first sentence. Perhaps, it is a question of interpretation. I do not think that WP:MEDRS can be used to exclude a meta-analysis that provides a valid indication that TM reduces anxiety. When we interpret a policy, we need to respect its purpose. In this case, the purpose is to prevent that a Wikipedia article provides a bad (harmful) medical advice. The policy WP:MEDRS applies only to the medical setting, it is a sub-policy for medical claim. The only concern that I can see here is that someone with a strong anxiety disorder goes to TM instead of seeking medical advice. It is a valid concern, but TM is not only used in clinical settings. Lets go out of TM, just to gain a perspective. Assume that we have a study that provides indication that jogging and exercise help reduce anxiety. I do not think that WP:MEDRS says that such a study should be excluded from Wikipedia. We must separate an application in a medical setting for anxiety disorders and an ordinary application for day to day normal stress. This being said, let me emphasis that we are still in the process of deciding whether the 1989 review can be considered in a medical setting. It seems that the 1989 review was included (in some positive way) in more recent reviews and thus respect the criteria of WP:MEDRS. If it does, then this discussion does not apply.

@Arnoutf, I think it is important to separate the WP:MEDRS policy from the point of view that is implicit in the JADAD scale. I feel from various discussions with you that you are a strong proponent of this scale or similar scale in a medical setting and I suspect that it is the opinion of a majority of experts in the area. It would have to be determined using reliable sources. In any case, it is a POV, a notable POV perhaps, but still a POV. It seems to me that the new revolutionary method of meta-analysis that you mention in your reply to TimidGuy refers to this notable POV. We should not confuse that POV with the WP:MEDRS policy. The WP:MEDRS policy does not say that we should use a particular scale. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Have started a RfC here [37] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Arnouf, I understand your concern about the possibility of a meta-anlaysis being outdated. A few days ago I skimmed a 1997 review of 63 meta-analyses (Matt, Clinical Psychology Review), and had the impression that Eppley's was one of the strongest of the bunch. But my feeling is that it's not our role to decide on the quality. (I've often been told this by other editors, even when there are blatant and demonstrable errors in the sources). Rather, we report what sources say. And this meta-anlayses continues to be included in research reviews in the past 5 years. That's why I cited the recent research reviews (which were deleted by Doc). Seems like the bottom line is whether these research reviews are reliable sources, and since they appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals, I submit that they are. TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times a "local" source?

• Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A question has arisen regarding the article Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, whether The New York Times section on New Jersey should be considered a "local" versus rather a "regional" source. Further discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. Additionally, it appears a similar standard is being tested for the usage of regional coverage such as The Star-Ledger. Would like some further feedback on whether such WP:RS coverage should be considered "local" source coverage, or "regional" source coverage. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: There is more to the context here. The type of article being discussed is in the restaurant review genre of (lifestyle) article, and not a true "news piece" -- This is the article in question. We are not really discussing local vs. regional news here. I just want that to be clear.Griswaldo (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Would still like to hear some outside views on this, whether it is to be considered "local" or "regional" coverage from The New York Times. -- Cirt (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Absolutely and I'm not offering my opinion because I'm involved with the AfD but the full context is important. It is advisable to provide links to sources and how they are being used when asking questions like this as well. Not to worry I linked the restaurant review above.Griswaldo (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Noted, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Another The New York Times source discussed is "Standouts Among the Year’s Best", listed in the New Jersey regional section. -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Local" vs "regional" strikes me as irrelevant. The NY Times is a source at the top of the food chain, to mix our metaphors, under WP:RS. What section of the paper an article appeared in is immaterial. I'm not going to weigh in at the AFD, but it strikes me that arguing that "it's just a restaurant review, its not a real article" is nonsense. Reviews are subject to the editorial process of the news organization. Reviews, whether of restaurants or entertainment or art or literature by important news organizations like the NYT are used all the time as reliable sources. I would consider a restaurant review by the New York Times in and of itself, to be strong evidence of notability, assuming that one gets past the question of whether any restaurant is notable for purposes of Wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with this comment by Fladrif (talk · contribs) regarding the source, The New York Times. -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• A restaurant review in the New Jersey Region section should be treated as a ... restaurant review in the New Jersey Region section. It's generally a reliable source for the reviewers opinions of the food and some facts about a place. But that doesn't get to the question of notability. Some like me believe that is insufficient to establish "notability;" others disagree. If I remember the guideline correctly, at least one appearance in a regional or national paper would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. The arguments on notability get to whether you can cobble together an appropriate encyclopedia article from such reviews, whether they establish "notabilty" in a wikipedia sense on their own nor not. At any rate, the despite is one over the notability. It is certainly the case that coverage of a restaurant in the main news pages, in the Time's Sunday Magazine, in the nationally distributed "Lifestyles" section, would be a bigger deal than in the NJ section.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• The restaurant review in the NYT Regional section is Regional coverage. When you want to distinguish between "local" and "regional", I would think that "local" would mean the same city. This isn't just coverage from a different city, this is coverage from a different state. It is in the US northeast, of course, but that's what a region is. Trust me, there is no shortage of restaurants just in NYC for any newspaper to cover, that it needs to cover one in central NJ unless it's an important one. --GRuban (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A large percentage of the paper's readership is in New Jersey, which is why they have a New Jersey section. At any rate, no one disputes the times and this article are generally reliable. The dispute is over notability, substantial coverage, etc... which isn't going to get hashed out here.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. If one knows anything about the geography, one knows that Manhattan borders New Jersey. The restauarant in question is only 45 minutes by train from Manhattan. It takes much longer to get from manhattan to many places in Queens and Brooklyn (and often to northern Manhattan for that matter)... and Staten Island, forget it. I think the question here isn't what city or state is Daryl located in, but whether it would have been reviewed by the NY Times at all if it were located in, say, Hartford, CT, or Bethlehem, PA, or Cape May, NJ, all of which would be quite a hike. I think that due to the proximity of Daryl to Manhattan, as well as its inclusion in the regional section, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it has met the requirement of having been covered by a paper for its "regional" importance. Whether this is splitting hairs or not, the larger question I am addressing here is that just because something happens to appear in the NYT does not automatically make it notable beyond the local readership (and by local, I mean the New York Metro area... yes, NY happens to be a big city... alert the media). Njsustain (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli "art student" mystery article from salon.com

Could someone verify the reliability of this source article.

http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Salon is generally considered reliable. And that's an interesting analysis piece. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally. I have seen some that are so full of errors (contradicted by more professional sources multiple times) that they should not be used on Wikipedia. I don't know if the author[38] is any good or not but I do know that some believe the article is scandal mongering. Makes it a little complicated.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

By "generally" I meant it's considered an RS for many topics. Newspapers are. A self-published expert on dinosaur bones is not. Now, whenever you're writing about intelligence subjects there's going to be questions about what is real and what is scandal-mongering. It would be appropriate to include this in an article about Israeli intelligence. It would also be appropriate to cite it with attribution; "according to an article in Salon.com". It looks like the "art students" angle has been discussed in other sources. A quick search turns up Fox News, Haaretz, a few others. We have a paragraph in Art student scam that talks about controversy over the significance of this, with several sources ( mainstream RS and government press releases ) on each side. I would also say that the "art students" stuff might not belong in a 9/11 related article. Some news articles about 9/11 mentioned the art students as background information, but we have other articles to put that in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia article that the users won't allow to have this source linked to is entitled "Art Student Scam." It was originally about Israeli "art students" spying on the United States and has strangely morphed into an article mostly about english speaking chinese guys on the streets of china trying to sell you fake art that they say is real. Other users complained that this salon source didn't gain traction, hence I searched google scholar and the espionage book turned up. Thus, I'm having that source checked for reliability also since it extensively cited the salon article. If the espionage book is deemed credible, that might further affect the credibility judgment on the above salon article. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Salon piece seems no more or less reliable than other sources we use in articles. To be honest, the number of sources that we have available regarding the subject matter seems to lend itself to writing more than just the stub we seem to have. Unomi (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How does this salon article become certified for its reliability for use in the wikipedia article "Art Student Scam"? .User:Preciseaccuracy|Preciseaccuracy]] (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Other users don't want to include it even though it contains some of the most in depth descriptions of the art students.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The salon.com article is reliable. Its author, Christopher Ketcham, is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in Harper's, GQ, Mother Jones, Vanity Fair, the Nation, Men's Journal, Hustler, National Geographic Adventure and The American Conservative. That his work shows up in journals of such a wide political spectrum really makes him stand out. There is no doubt of his reliability, and the article is certainly verifiable. It should stand up very well. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ketcham needs an article, actually. Some amusing auto-bio info here and a number of WP:RS mention him over last 10 years in news.google. So enough for an article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to have been pretty thoroughly debunked, at least in terms of the conspiracy-mongering. IronDuke 22:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke, When was this article "thoroughly debunked"? The 12 sentence washington post article, that was written well before this article didn't bother to obtain the 60 pg. dea document. Other sources including haaretz, Janes intelligence, die zeit, le monde, the forward, creative loafing didn't declare israeli spying on the U.S. "debunked." The dismissal of spying as an "urban myth" by the post was thoroughly ridiculous as would be demonstrated if you actually bothered to go through the sources.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If a senior Justice Department official thinks that "there is something quite sinister" going on but feels unable to put his "finger on it" "at this time" it shouldn't be WP's task to monger the rumours for want of reliable information. Preciseaccuracy, this is not about Israeli espionage, whose existence nobody will deny, but about a singular scam by a specified group of students. --tickle me 23:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, A high-level intelligence agent who had been referred to veteran journalist Christopher Ketchum by "a veteran D.C. correspondent who has close sources in the CIA and the FBI" stated that this washington post article was an FBI plant.

This wikipedia article was originally about Allegations of espionage and morphed into an article about a scam.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also said in the Insight article: ""It is a very alarming set of documents," says one high-ranking federal law-enforcement official when told of the cache of materials collected by INSIGHT. "This shows how serious DEA and Justice consider this activity."" Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection

http://books.google.com./books?hl=en&lr=&id=LN7E0U2QDhUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false

Is this source reliable? Found it through a search of google scholar.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, publisher is iUniverse.com -- a self-publishing company. Though author (Justin Raimondo) is published. Renata (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad attempt at all. Google book search not scholar for this one though since the university library does not mean it is a scholarly work. It looks like he pulled heavily from the Salon article you have been discussing See the notes on p.68. He also pulled from Cryptome. It still looks like the weight you are attempting to add into the article is more than warranted by the sources. You should also try adding a few lines into other related articles (like Mossad) since consensus as that the Israeli Art Student Spy thing was not notable. There is some mention in various news outlets (even though Salon admits that it did not receive wide coverage) so you could always look into recreating the article under a more specific title with some more google sleuthing.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I did find through the google scholar search. Type in "israeli art student" with the quotes and it is the first result.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes because it was in that university's library not because it was peer reviewed work. Google books is the way to view it wihtout having to jump through extra hoops as well. Is that all you want to respond to? The fact that the related information is primarily based on the Salon article is a bigger concern than how someone finds it.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the title sounds very far out, but I did find it through the google scholar search engine with the search "israeli art student." That is why I'm checking if this source is reliable. Let's at least wait for the opinion of a third party objective observer before deciding on reliability. This book could serve as more evidence that the Salon.com article gained traction. The above user seems to have a contrary opinion to yours on the salon.com article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't expressed an opinion on the Salon article.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that you were meaning to criticize the salon article when you said "The fact that the related information is primarily based on the Salon article is a bigger concern than how someone finds it."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No I am simply trying to point out that it is nothing new and if the Salon article is questioned by others than this won't offer anything since it is essentially the same research.Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Author was apparently the republican party candidate in Nancy pelosi's district.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

He has not had a very successful career in politics. Anyways, he took information from another source on a topic that has been called an urban myth by officials. So if you are trying to create an article on something that a fringe says is a conspiracy while officials say it is an urban myth, it is overshadowed by much better coverage. This one wasn't too bad[39] Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The magazines that this author works for seem to be opinion magazines "the conservative" and something else, but I don't know much about them. Read the salon article, fox news did not describe as urban myth, colin powell and ari fleischer seemed to avoid answering questions about it directly. Read the other 8 articles I cited. They discuss it in a serious manner. although haaretz mentions the agent's statement of urban myth it doesn't dismiss the charges completely as if it were actually an urban mythPreciseaccuracy (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely why I thought that one specifically was good. So if you are trying to ask if this source is reliable in a sense that it validates the claim and invalidates the other coverage then I would say no it does not.

If you are simply trying to get "urban myth" dropped as a label as it is currently in then I would refer to other sources that describe it better and tinker with the line so it is not so clear cut.Cptnono (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection" is a reliable source, Justin Raimondo is a reliable author. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, ho, so now we have new standard "RA" (reliable author). Can you please extend your comment a bit further and explain precisely how Riamondo is a reliable author and if you can convince us that he's, how does it make the source to be taken automatically and for granted as RS?--Gilisa (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I would allow this as a selfpub by published author, but watch out for undue weight. This is going to be a little "spicier" than the New York Times. If this is going in an "alternative views" section or to add more discussion to the "art students" report that's OK. But I've suggested above that the "art students" stuff isn't connected to 9/11 and really belongs in an article about Israeli intelligence. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What is it going to be used as a reference for? --Slp1 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If a published author self-published, that suggests he may have had a difficult time getting a publisher. Do we know who actually wrote this, Raimondo or Eric Garris? I don't see why this should be seen as a reliable source. We can't simply call Raimondo the author without knowing how much is his, how much is Garris. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell no. It is clear that the author in general is politically fringe, and not and established expert with a reputation for fact-checking, reliability and neutrality. If anything this book can be used as a source for the statements of the author himself, with clear attribution assuming that his assessment is notable. Pantherskin (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no. The author is an editorial director of the blog Antiwar.com. If he self published a book, it does not mean that his views became any more reliable and/or neutral. Antiwar was discussed at this very board, and as user:DanTD put it: "Antiwar.com once tried to fabricate some 9/11 conspiracy theory, where it accused Israel of making some secret deal in Hollywood, California at the corner of two streets which don't intersect with one another." --Mbz1 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? I just had to look around, and apparently some of the material at antiwar.com references a translation of an article from a German paper, Die Zeit, which in turn cited French intelligence sources. Somewhere along the way there was a mixup in the address format of somebody's apartment, in Hollywood, Florida. That's a pretty weak disqualifier of antiwar as a news source, and I'm not sure if the mangled address itself even appeared on antiwar.com.

The address is trivia, and I don't think there's any controversy about there being a lot of Israelis in town. What is debatable is whether they were there to watch Atta et al ( Zeit may have made this point ) and whether they were expecting something on the scale of 9/11 ( which the Raimondo book implies ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember the exact location where the site made this claim, but Antiwar.com is affiliated with Stormfront.org, a well-known neo-Nazi website. If those false claims of some secret deal aren't enough to discredit the site, that affiliation is. The fact is that any website or book that blames Israel on the 9/11 attacks is not a reliable source. ----DanTD (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very, very dubious to me, that a leftist specialty news outlet would have anything to do with Stormfront. Two, there are no "false claims" of some secret deal. There was a source quoting a source and so on, where an address number got mixed up which wasn't supposed to be a cross street. And no, despite the title, the book does not blame Israel for 9/11. It appears to be mostly about undeclared agents ( similar to this thing that's going on now with the Russians ), and trying to draw a conclusion that they were watching Atta during the run-up to 9/11. While I would take that paticular aspect with a large grain of salt, it appears useful as a bibliography of various reports about suspected Israeli intelligence-gathering during that time frame. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I got Antiwar.com confused with Antiwar.org, but neither site seems reliable at all. The fact is, Justin Raimondo is nothing more than another anti-American enemy sympathizer who want to undermine our ability to defeat Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations targeted in the War on Terror. Let's say for the sake of argument that there were a whole team of Israeli agents watching Mohammed Atta as this book claims. None of these presumed agents knew when, where, or how his cell was going to strike, because even he didn't know until the last minute. ----DanTD (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Without the spin and without 9/11 that's a decent set of information about how these alleged agents worked. Of course, we could always check out the sources the book cites if we're not going to actually use the opinions about 9/11. There's enough published material out there to write an article just about the "art students" situation. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case we are dealing fringe theory here, I don't think we should encourage it by finding leeway for how to get this dubious source into Wikipedia.--Gilisa (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the 9/11 articles already have a section on alleged foreknowledge, so which already makes a lot of these points. Even though Antiwar has an editorial staff and is cited enough to meet RS, which in turn means that the book author's been published so the book technically meets SPS, I can live with leaving it out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% Gilisa. In fact, at one time somebody tried to tag File:Atta in airport.jpg or some other image of the hijackers arriving at an airport for deletion, and I fought tooth and nail to keep it, because eliminating it would give credence to the delusions of the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement." ----DanTD (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(intended) As a matter of fact you're about right about affiliation: (search for "Justin Raimondo")--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that FrontPage article is about some website called "NoWar". That's probably where the confusion came from. It does say something about it linking to news articles from various places including Antiwar, but that doesn't make them affiliated. They can link to whoever they please. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please just search the article for "Justin Raimondo", and you will see I do not confuse anything. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Look closely. That article is about a different website, and a different person who runs it. It says it links to some articles written by J.R. But that doesn't mean anything. I can link to the Wall Street Journal, but that doesn't mean they're affiliated with me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad author, bad aource for anything other than the views of Justino Raimondo. IronDuke 01:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC) unreliable source for anything except the personal views of the author.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke, I'm not yet sure if this is a reliable source or not. Could you explain why you believe Justin Raimondo is a bad author?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I request a third party objective user to look into this? Many of the users editing "art student" scam just moved their comments here. User:Squidfryerchef seems to have pointed out inaccuracies in many of their statements. I'm not sure about the reliability of this source, but the mistatements of information by other users isn't helping to determine whether or not this is reliable.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

a link with no commentary. The article was written by Stephen Schwartz (journalist). --Mbz1 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how we could assume that a book by Justin Raimondo, published via a self-publishing company, is a reliable source. Our article about Raimondo indicates that he has spent most of his career on the fringes of political activism in the United States (such as being an openly gay supporter of Pat Buchanan) and gives no indication of his ever working in mainstream journalism or scholarly writing. If some of what he has written is true, it ought to be sourceable to more mainstream reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How-Do as a source

What's the opinion on How-Do as a reporting source. Website I'm using this reference for a small peice of info in an article. Using this article The website covers News and homes resources covering the media industry, focal pointed to the North West of the UK.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 02:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What piece of info in what article? Dlabtot (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing how they seem to be copying a story from The Sun, why not use newspaper sources? Fences&Windows 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is for Melissa Walton? The Beeb covered the 'Bulger' storyline,[40] as did several other media outlets. Fences&Windows 20:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes for both. I wanted to use it. I needed an opinion of how realiable it is, looking at other reports they make.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not unreliable as it seems to be editorially run, but I'd use the other sources too. The site looks like "trade press", which tends to be less independent of what it is covering than the mainstream media. Fences&Windows 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, I'll remove it soon if the FA people still take an issue with it. So if I am working on something else, if no other source is available in the future and it looks like it's an original article by them, I could use it right?RAIN the ONE (Talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Veteran's group called Go For Broke National Education Center

I would like some clarification about the acceptability of this link:

• http://goforbroke.org/history/history_historical_veterans_442nd.asp

The article that it bears most directly upon is 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States), currently being worked on by a new editor who is a college intern working at Go For Broke, assigned to the task of making the Wikipedia page reflect the link above.

Is the page perfectly reliable, possibly being a distillation the efforts of many subject matter experts, or is it unreliable because it has no author or sources listed? Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard of this organization and have worked with them before and they are legitimate. The whole goal of the organization is to promote the education to others of the Japanese Americans in WW2. The information they provide is directly from the over 1000 oral histories they have from interviewing veterans. It's a nonprofit organization and I don't see any reason for them to put false information up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.200.95.98 (talk • contribs) 16:21, July 30, 2010

Let's see. "About Us - Board". They seem to have a Senator, a Brigadier General, and three Colonels on their board. They also seem to be the target of a $1.5M congressionally directed Department of Defense grant.[41][42] Looks like they have a fine reputation. I'd consider it reliable. --GRuban (talk)

I am getting deja vu - I think we have discussed this organisation here before. Anyone? Moreover, the above statement does not seem to based on any policies we have - they have three colonels on their board - yeah? So what? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Means they're recognized experts in the subject matter. Goes to reputation, which is, after all, what being an RS is about. Note that this is a veteran's group, and their purpose is documenting military history. If they were writing about dentistry, then being accredited dentists would be helpful. Since they're writing about military history, being high ranking military officers is helpful. It seems to have convinced the DoD to the tune of $1.5M, which is a pretty concrete proof of being trusted. --GRuban (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Being an Army office does *not* make you a defacto expert on military history. Moreover, even if they were experts it would be irrelevant unless they were involved in the writing and editorial process (and I can't see any evidence of that), something that board members are often not. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

While it may not make you an automatic expert, I think it does help a bit. Not sure about the site, but other news sources have cited them a bit.[43] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't help in the slightest and I'm not sure why people think it does? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your'e saying being a high ranking officer does give you more credence on military issues than a random person? If so, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Scott have you actually looked at where that particular information came from? The information provided by the website is based off of 1000 interviews conducted since the late 90's by the Go For Broke National Education Center, which over 700 interviews are posted on the website. So if there is a particular author, there isn't. Its a compilation of over 1000 interviews. Is it really necessary to put down each one of their names on references part? The goal of the website and the organization is to reach out to schools and educate individuals of what actually happened to the Nisei veterans. When a search is done, Wikipedia is bound to come up and schools do not allow citing wikipedia as a source because alot of information is false. Go For Broke is trying to change the incorrect information about the 442 on Wikipedia, making it a reliable source and thus leading individuals to explore the Go For Broke website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.185.168 (talk • contribs)

The 700 or 1000 interviews were compiled by someone, or a group; they were not compiled on their own by each of the people getting interviewed. I think it would help clear the matter if the author was named, even if that name is something like Go For Broke Executive Committee. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Is www.eeggs.com a RS?

In the Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, someone added some material sourced by www.eeggs.com. Is this a RS? Vyeh (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. It is run by a husband and wife team, and created by user submissions. Fences&Windows 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't consider it reliable. It's more or less user driven and has user-submitted content, so the site is self-published, more or less. Further, I'd say that even if it were an acceptable source, the text being added to that article doesn't seem to meet WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to find a source

What's that page where you can ask people who have access to University paid journals to look something up for you? Regarding:[44] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:RX. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's the prescription I needed. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Business Wire

Is Business Wire a reliable source? My contention is that it is not because it distributes press releases for anybody who writes one. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the proposed use? Please note Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56#Is FindArticles.com reliable? in which a very brief discussion comments that Business Wire is generally "reliable" but often not "independent". --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For this edit containing this statement: "Similarly, the Shakespeare authorship question formerly enjoyed no support from the academic community but now has achieved some degree of acceptance as a legitimate research topic." Here's the press release used as the source.

I've got no problem with the factual statements in the article, i.e. two universities began academic programs about the SAQ. My objection is to the opinions expressed both in the edit and the press release, which originated from the promoters of the theory. If there were any reliable sources stating that I would have no objections, but I don't believe a source becomes reliable by filtering it through a third-party consolidator. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Having made the edit in question, I fail to understand your objection. It seems to me the edit makes two statements: 1) that the SAQ formerly enjoyed no support from the academic community - a statement you and other editors have provided numerous sources for; and 2) that, currently, the SAQ has received "some" degree of acceptance as a research topic - which is evidenced by these two universities have begun academic programs about the SAQ, which you readily acknowledge above. The fact that Concordia, for example, has opened a Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre (as the reference documents) certainly justifies the statement that the topic of the SAQ is being researched. Since you have actively campaigned against the SAQ in your recent edits, are you perhaps letting your own POV influence you here? Smatprt (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• A service that simply distributes press releases is not a reliable source, obviously. No editorial control, no fact-checking, and on and on... Dlabtot (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I consider Business Wire to be a reliable archive of press releases. It is not itself a reliable source. However, when I am trying to reconstruct or verify the history of a business (for a hypothetical example, the story of the merger between Acme Explosives and Coyote Enterprises), Business Wire can be a gold mine of old press releases. --Orlady (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A press release is a self published source and if "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", it could be used a reliable source. Suppose multiple sources state that Acme Explosives and Coyote Enterprises merged in the late 1980s but none give an exact date. If an Acme Explosives press release gives a date of October 12, 1987, you could write "Acme Explosives announced their merger with Coyote Enterprises effective October 12, 1987." -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

On matters of verifiable fact, I concur. In this particular case, there is certainly reasonable doubt whether the SAQ "has achieved some degree of acceptance as a legitimate research topic" from the academic community. I have no doubt it has achieved such support from the two universities named, but trying to turn them into representatives of the academic community is overreaching, to say the least, and betrays a WP:PROMOTION motive, at worst. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Do one or two poor reviews mean that a book published by a university press is not a reliable source?

Here there is a discussion about whether or not Making sense of heritability by Neven Sesardić meets WP:RS. To my mind, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, anything published by Cambridge University Press (or any similar university press) is a reliable source. Is that wrong? MathSci claims that "One or two poor reviews are enough to disqualify something from being a WP:RS." Is that a fair statement? It seems ridiculous to me since many/most books receive at least one poor review. Am I wrong? David.Kane (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me though mentions of bad reviews can be relevant if there is some contentious academic issue, especially if reviewer also am expert (or even competitor) in that area. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Which view seems "sensible" to you? Mine or MathSci's? David.Kane (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are no positive reviews, I'd say one or two negative reviews might be enough to justify removing it if there are no other sources. If there are clearly more positive reviews, keep it. If there are roughly equal amounts negative and positive (or a lot of negative reviews even if there are more positive), you may want to note that it's debated. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very hard to classify a review as either "positive" or "negative." Almost every review of a university press book that I have ever read has both good and bad things to say about the book. Isn't counting up reviews essentially impossible? How would you possibly do that? Would a review in a local paper count as much as a review in Nature? Would it count half as much? One quarter as much? It seems to me that there must be a better way . . . . David.Kane (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If it says both good and bad things, I'd not include it. I'd also go with just the reviews you can get ahold of, say the first page of results in JSTOR, Google, or whatever you're using to find reviews. I didn't mean for my advice to sound like a hard and fast mathematical formula, but a general ballpark. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I meant "if it says both good and bad things, I'd not include it in the tally." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have almost never seen a review of a book published by a university press that did not say "both good and bad things." Have you? In any realistic case, your tally would be zero on both sides. David.Kane (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable doesn't depend on reviews. WP:RS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered. . ." From my cursory reading of the discussion, this source reflects a significant minority viewpoint. Since the viewpoint is controversial, it should be specifically attributed in-text instead of footnoted. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this. The source looks controversial and poorly-received by other academics. It's contents should not probably generally not be presented as if they were factual and, where appropriate, it should be made clear that they are not widely held. Per WP:WEIGHT, serious condideration should be given to whether the source should be used at all or whether it may even be WP:FRINGE. --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea that reviews should affect one's impressions regarding whether a source published by a university press meets WP:RS is preposterous. WP:RS has nothing at all that would justify this sort of judgment. Presenting it as a minority view is fine -- but the idea that the source in question does not satisfy RS simply because of negative reviews is absurd and has no foundation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Strictly, you are right. But WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are the things to consider in this case. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity - exactly so. Indeed such spurious claims come close to being disruptive. Dlabtot (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's poorly considered, then just use attribution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your point here. Could you elaborate? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

While it is a reliable source, it is important to be clear on what that means. The book's descriptions of how the subject matter is generally understood by other scientists is reliable, but the theories he advances are his own. You need to consult subsequent papers to see what degree of acceptance his views have received. If there is nothing in the book except his own views, then it could not be used for facts. If his views are not notable, then they may not be included in the article. So the issue may be one of notability, not reliability. TFD (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

While it may be that complicated, all that may be needed is "Joe Blow in Whatever Journal argues that..." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I got it now. It could have been a bit clearer saying "poorly received" instead of "poorly considered." No worries. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD: I am having trouble with most every aspect of your comment.

• "the theories he advances are his own." Well, isn't that always true? When a professor writes, "I invented theory X," then, obviously, that theory is his own. But if he, in a reliable source, writes "theory X is true" or "most scientists believe theory X" or "some scientists believe X," then we can include that claim in the article unless there are other reliable sources that dispute it.
• "consult subsequent papers to see what degree of acceptance his views have received." Really? Again, this is simply a question of sourcing. If I have a reliable source that says X, I can add X to the Wikipedia article. If other reliable sources dispute X, then, obviously, I need to address it. But I don't need to consult other papers unless/until some other editor points out other reliable sources that claim the opposite.
• "nothing in the book except his own views" I have never seen a book, at least one published by a university press, that included nothing but an authors own views. Have you?
• "his views are not notable" Don't the views in a book published by a university press meet, almost by definition, the minimum standard of notability, at least assuming that the book itself is reviewed in other reliable sources?
• "issue may be one of notability" Whose "issue" are we talking about? It is a common problem in his area that various editors will try a grab-bag of Wikipedia acronyms to prevent certain views from being included in Wikipedia. Such editors --- and I am not saying that you are one --- start with the premise that View X does not belong in Wikipedia. Then, whenever anyone includes information about View X, they run through the laundry list of complaints for keeping it out. This "negative reviews mean not a reliable source" is a perfect example of such a gambit.

Anyway, apologies for ranting like this, but when editors start claiming that something published by Cambridge University Press is not a reliable source and/or should not be mentioned in Wikipedia, I start to wonder . . . David.Kane (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are my responses:

• He probably would not write "theory x is true" because that is not a scientific statement, but he might write, "most scientists believe theory x" or "some scientists believe theory x" and we can include that unless other reliable sources dispute it.
• By "his views", I was referring to the opinions expressed in the book. If subsequent papers say that these views are not accepted then we should either omit them or explain that have been rejected.
• I have not seen anything where there are no facts. I mentioned that as an extreme case.
• CUP does not publish original thought because it is notable. Logically notability follows publication. Notability is proven by the degree to which later writers refer to a work.
• Reviewers have their own biases. You need to know the degree of acceptance of each review. Someone may write, "x panned the book and the academic community agrees" or "the revisionist historian x panned the book, but it has been accepted by the mainstream".

To summarize, if you wish to include theories from this source then you must determine the degree to which they have been accepted and reflect that in the article. If they have been ignored they have no place in the article. If they have been noticed but rejected, the article may state this. Please see WP:NPOV for directions on representing differing points of view.

TFD (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Further thoughts: In this particular case, determining the degree of acceptance should be tied to a representative sampling of its reception, not just one or two reviews claiming his viewpoint is unique and motivated by pernicious bias. I don't want to argue the case, but I can think of several fields that claim a heritable basis for certain behaviours; alcoholism and homosexuality, to name two. The topic is so complicated and fraught with political perils that better minds than Wikipedian editors have wrestled with its implications (which from reading the book excerpt on Google books seems to be the point the author is making). If an editor can be reverted on the basis of "One or two poor reviews are enough to disqualify something from being a WP:RS", WP:RS should specifically say so. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus? Have we reached consensus on the question I began this thread with? Recall: Do one or two poor reviews mean that a book published by a university press is not a reliable source? I think that the clear consensus answer to that question is No. (Although, obviously, poor reviews do not increase the likelihood that something is a reliable source.) If we have reached consensus, perhaps an uninvolved editor could close the discussion above. David.Kane (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't close RSN threads. They just get archived after a while. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Does anyone disagree with my statement of consensus? David.Kane (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It certainly appears to me that a consensus of those who commented here has been reached. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that is indeed the consensus. But it should also be remembered that poor reviews can also be a good reason for excluding content, regardless of whether the source is an RS or not. --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)