Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Please post new topics in a new section.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEDyC0QRyM0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLz-ChkPQo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0cVU-Uv7p8

Above are three youtube movies which are in an information/lecture format with an expert delivering the information to the camera. They are in the public domain, produced by the US Geological Survey and available on YouTube. They tie directly to the subjects of Supervolcanoes and Volcanism in Yellowstone National Park. There is no better source for information on these topics than the individual, Jake Lowenstern, speaking on each short movie. He's the scientist in charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory and he's in many ways refuting widespread misinformation about the Yellowstone's volcanic status. Is there a better source? I tried posting these as "external links" in the "supervolcano" page at the bottom they were quickly dumped i guess due to the youtubiness of the links. Can someone please help me get around this problem?

Memri

The Middle East Media Research Institute is a highly partisan presss monitoring group run by Yigal Carmon, a retired Israeli colonel (who specialized in intelligence). The criticisms of this group's work -- largely by their ideological opponents, it must be said -- as a distorting propoganda operation are legion. Here's a post by Marc Lynch, a middle east expert at GW (his bio here [1] from a few years ago [2] that i think fairly captures the way academia feels about Memri's "translations." I can provide example after example of situations where their trnaslations have been contested, but it's fair to say that no one in academia views them as reliable (because it's assumed they distort translations for political ends.) So, while i'd hope that Memri would never be considered a reliable source for anything, I certainly don't think it's a reliable source for teh claim that one of the most important preachers in Egypt refered to jews as the descendants of "apes and pigs" per this inserted edit here. If a public figure said something that extreme, surely there's a reliable source that reported it?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are other RS's that support that, no? Or am I confused about what figure you are talking about? IronDuke 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Memri is highly partisan. If this is true, there should be independent sources which reported it. --hippo43 (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—per 'According to ...' clause, which is duly used in the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an "according to" followed by an opinion. It's an "according to" followed by a claimed statement of fact. That's a crucial distinction.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such distinction. When a clearly notable but partisan (and/or unreliable) source makes a controversial claim (i.e. they claim it's a fact), you write 'According to [source], [claim]'. It should be clear to any reader what this means. That's how it works all over Wikipedia. Also, I'm again assuming that you spelled 'jews' without capital J by accident. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an allegation against a living person (assuming he is, and whatever the article in question is) BLP demands controversial statements/accusations of facts have impeccable sourcing. And the standard for the deceased is just about as high. It's certainly a statement that would be repeated elsewhere, if true. Also the implication of bigotry is unnecessarily WP:uncivil. Also see previous discussions on MEMRI #1, #2 CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This jew who doesn't care about Capitalization found that implication highly offensive and passive aggressive. But i'll get over it. Thanks for posting the past Memri discussions.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad you didn't take offense. My thinking on this is that Ynhockey made it clear that he was assuming good faith, and correcting a grammar error. Re: Memri. That fact that a given source is partisan is not grounds to dismiss it. The question has to do with reliability. If it were not so, we would dismiss Al-Jazeera, the BBC, Fox News, etc. etc Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I take extreme offense to that comment, and don't believe for one second his intent was to point out a grammatical issue of no relevance to anyone. He was passively aggressively attributing bigotry to me. That's offensive and he should have been ashamed of such a low tactic. Now, i'm a big boy and my day won't be ruined because Ynhockey behaved so appallingly. But it was indeed offensive. Just so we're clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if you simply spelled "Jew" properly, you would dispel his qualms. IronDuke 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per ynhockey.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As to Memri - it has a reputation for innaccuracy and partisanship in its translations. That should diaqualify it as a reilable source for translations that are contentious. Says who? GW Middle East professor and fluent arabic speaker Marc Lynch [3] [4]. Umich Middle East professor and fluent arabic speaker Juan Cole [5]. Fluent Arabic speaker and Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker [6]. Here's a Le Monde Diplomatique article describing memri as misleading and disinforming with some specific examples.[7]. Etc... Bali ultimate (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cole's being a "fluent" Arab speaker makes him an expert? Hm. I'm a fluent English speaker. Do I get to be an expert in all things related to the English language? My qualifications appear to be analagous to Cole's. IronDuke 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the the most absurd reasoning I've ever heard. Yes your a fluent english speaker because it's your first language. The point he's making is that people who are fluent in arabic dispute MEMRIs translations. Try to address the issue instead of trying to divert attention away with nonsense like this and "oh he spelled jew wrong". Seriously are these the best arguments you can muster? annoynmous 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? The most absurd? That you've ever heard? You appear to travel in rarefied circles (i.e., not Wikipedia). So what if English is my first language. Let's say I'm fluent in French, too. How are my qualifications to weigh in on a French to English translation any poorer than Cole's? What if added that I'm a professor of Art History at Yale? My opinion still wouldn't be that notable. And I'm diverting nothing, merely noting that it makes some people uncomfortable (for good reason) when others spell Jew with a small "j." When you refer to reasonable concerns like this as "nonsense," it is you who divert attention. IronDuke 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think it is absurd that we shouldn't consider the word of people who speak the language fluently and instead trust a partisan advocacy group founded by a ex-IDF member. An yes If you were fluent in French than your opinion would be notable, but were talking about arabic not french. Again it would be nice if we actually addressed the arguments ahead instead of wasting time on diversions like this. annoynmous 16:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per above, this is getting silly. ALL sources are partisan to one degree or another and MEMRI, just like FOX, Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and every other source, must be considered on a case-by-case basis. A partisan POV is no bar to being a reliable source. L0b0t (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree-The difference is that MEMRI is not a news organization, it is a partisan watchdog group. Also in this case the link MEMRI provides as evidence that he said this is dead. Outside of MEMRI I haven't been able to find a single reliable newspaper that quotes him as saying this. annoynmous 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This makes no sense. It would amount to my saying that if I oppose (for instance) using the Heritage Foundation as a WP reliable source -- because I do not like their POV -- then it should not be allowed as a source; subverting the real intent of WP policy, which is to have a spectrum of views represented through sources. If that approach was taken, WP articles would not represent anything more than the views supported in a WP majority vote. That would transform WP from an encyclopedia into a gigantic blog. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Memri is indeed a partisan source... it is also a notable source. As such it is reliable as self-published source for statements as to Memri's opinion. However, WP:BLP limits using self-published sources in articles about living people... even for a statement as to the opinion of the source. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the difference is that MEMRI doesn't produce any scholarship. You may disagree with it, but The Heritage Foundation produces scholarship. The only thing MEMRI does is watch Broadcasts from the arab world looking for anti-semtic comments. There an advocacy group, not a foundation or a think tank. annoynmous 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be said that Bali is referring to a specific example in the Islam and antisemitism article where theres a quote where Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy supposedly states "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs". MEMRI is the only source for this and the link they provide at that there cite to prove this is dead. In this case and I feel in many others MEMRI is not a reliable source. annoynmous 19:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The quality of MEMRI's translations is widely acclaimed. As many of the articles from the Arab media and other statements from Arab public figures are highly embarrassing to hardline Arabists and Islamists, MEMRI's translations have been scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb time and again, in fevered attempts to find fault and thus impugn their credibility as a source. Such attempts have failed. Having withstood the "trial by fire" and having come out of the ordeal unscathed, MEMRI's translations are acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs on the "wide acclaim" for the quality of its translations? Up thread i've provided links to a number of scholarly and journalistic sources that consider them unreliable. I can provide more if that would be helpful.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not start by reading the WP article on MEMRI? When you have lib-dems like Thomas A. Friedman and repubs like Jay Nordlinger both commending them, you know that MEMRI must be doing something right.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, as you may know Friedman (who can hail a cab or order kebab in arabic, but that's about it) is unabashedly pro-Israel and critical of Islam generally (most famously he often writes that no influential imam has even condemned terrorism by Moslems, when in fact there is a rather long list of such imams). As for Nordlinger -- doesn't speak a word of Arabic -- and likewise holds similiar views to Friedman in this area. At any rate, both men are opinion columnists. Do you have any citations to offer of Memri being praised for the quality of its translation by fluent arabic speakers or a newspaper/magazine of record on its news pages?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein - denied tenure by the university at which he was teaching - and an anglophone journalist writing for al-Guardian are hardly qualified to assess the quality of Arabic translations, and even less credible as neutral, objective and disinterested people. It is of course lethally dangerous for Arabs in the Arab world to praise MEMRI, so not surprising that there aren't many who do. However, there have been some expat Arabs who have praised MEMRI's translations. Sorry no photographic memory but one of them might have been Fouad Ajami. I have a life outside Wikipedia and have put as much time into this thread as I am going to. So guys, keep having fun with this, I'm out.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No links to offer to support your assertions? Got it (Finkelstein? Who mentioned him?)Bali ultimate (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Finkelstein, MEMRI once realised a heavily edited video of an interview he did on Lebanon's New TV. Since he was speaking in English and the full video was available though, it proved a bit of an own goal. Wodge (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, MEMRI is a reliable source for claims made by MEMRI, not for statements of fact. In a case like this, and absent another (more NPOV) source, I would want to give the reader some context on what MEMRI is - for example "According to the pro-Israel advocacy group MEMRI..." or maybe "MEMRI has claimed that Tantawi said..." Pretending or implying that MEMRI is a neutral translation service is just not credible, and misleading to readers. --hippo43 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Our reliable source policy in a nutshell, is that we use reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

MEMRI does have a reputation -- a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Definitely not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of MEMRI Dlabtot (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The translation of material created for Arab propaganda and audience and not intended to be read and discussed in the West is going to be inherently controversial. If a MEMRI translation is cited and there is a significantly different translation, then the two can be neutrally summarized by Wikipedia editors and both can be cited. No judgment about MEMRI's neutrality has to be made. patsw (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per discussion above. Memri is a reliable source. Even if one or two translation errors have been found (and there is no proof of that, just assertions by a few biased political writers) and even if it were (is) true that MEMRI has a bias, that does not make its reports unreliable. So far there is no real meat in the accusations of bad translations. It is obviously true that if there were, with all the Arabic speakers in the U.S. --there is no way it would still be being used by (so many) members of Congress as a reliable source! It may not be well liked by some, but it is reliable. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just to underscore the point, here are some WP:RS (with the possible exception of ---Mother Jones) using MEMRI as an authority most recently in the following links: (Boston Globe), (Mother Jones),---(New York Times), (Wall Street Journal). If it is good enough for these high-quality newspapers who do their own fact-checking, it should be sufficient for Wikipedia. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked only at your first link. The author of the article quotes a comment by Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI. It seems to be a mischaracterization to describe this quotation as 'using MEMRI as an authority'. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not, however. When a noted newspaper goes to source for comment, it goes there because the source is noted as "expert," and the opinion as "valuable," thus implying "authority." Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Being quoted by a journalist does not convey authority and it is absurd to suggest so. Dlabtot (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? When was the last time you were interviewed by journalist(s) for the NYTimes, Wall St Journal or Boston Globe? The last time I was, some years back, it was because I had particular knowledge about the subject being written about. Oddly, they did not interview just anybody who happened along. Absurd, isn't it? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Are you seriously suggesting that the New York Times etc. are NPOV on Israel/Palestine? Alarics (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No. In point of fact the New York Times is generally biased toward the Palestinian narrative. [8],[9],[10],[11],[12], etc etc. Nevertheless, it is still considered a WP:RS. Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Every single one of the links you have there is from far-right and/or Zionist extremist organisations complaining about the New York Times. For those of us with no axe to grind one way or the other, by contrast, the NYT (and more or less all the mainstream US press) seems to be in the pocket of the Zionist lobby. Alarics (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you TB. Do you happen to know if MEMRI is run on a shoe string? They lack a page on their web site citing reviews of their work, something that is de rigueur nowadays.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting bit of information on Juan Cole and MEMRI. It suggests that Cole is less than reliable as a source on MEMRI. And as for Cole's expertise as a translator, surely that was shot when he tried desperately and ultimately unsuccessfully to spin and whitewash Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" comments.

Most of the complaints about MEMRI are motivated by the fear of people finding out what public figures in the Middle East really say when addressing Arab audiences. The truth, however, cannot be suppressed. MEMRI's translations are good enough to be cited unless refuted by a reliable source.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for the great link to that "Cole mine." It jogged my memory too. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Human needs and gravity strength or earths status itself

Humans have a lot of needs, obviously. When we need something, we go out and get it. It can be one individuals needs, or even a whole demographics of a nation. Needs, like to help us maintain ourselves. To be decent in lifestyle. To acquire the various needs of humans, and other species that serve humans, we need a cycle. A habit, to maintain ourselves.

One mass production of human needs is the technology. The way we acquire base metals, and precious jewelery for our bodies. We invent enormous machines that weigh over tons, and relocate enormous amounts of weight to get to the element that we are interested in. Thus, the webpage that explains the gravity, proves to itself that humans are indeed, creating a change on the surface of the earth, because we are changing the flow of gravity, via depleting oil reserves, mining out the precious elements that once were underground; which ultimately changes the weather as we know it, making it even more intense, faster and stronger.

Assuming the thickness of the earth crust and the 'humans' scratching the surface is not important, because of the whole density and weight, and layer makeup, is very dangerous in my opinion. Even the smallest change can have an enormous outcome in difference. Any feedback is welcomed, as I think we need to work together to get the big picture correctly in our mindset.

I think you want the Help desk. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha. That was mean! ;) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Video interview from a blog

Hello everyone, I have a particularly frustrating situation here. Okay, here's the story: voice actress Jennifer Hale purportedly voices a character named Samus Aran in the Metroid Prime trilogy of video games. I say 'purportedly' because there were no reliable sources to support this, only dubious ones like the IMDb, until this video interview with Hale was conducted by a blogger named Sadie a.k.a. "UltraNeko" and placed on her (Sadie's) blog late last year. She has performed several other interviews with voice actors, as well as other people in the video game industry. Within the video interview, Jennifer Hale confirms she voiced Samus (it's at about 2:10 into the video). So, I added that information to the Samus Aran and Jennifer Hale articles and used the video interview as the source, but a user named Gary King removed the information, stating the video isn't reliable because "the person in a video might not necessarily be who they say they are". Is that reasonable? Because to claim that one of Sadie's interviews isn't authentic is to claim they're all inauthentic. These voice actors look like themselves, and they even perform their characters' voices within the interviews.

At Gary King's request, I brought this to a user named Ealdgyth and she agreed with him that the video interview isn't reliable enough. But the fact still stands that Jennifer Hale confirmed she voiced Samus and I have the video to prove it. The interviews are definitely authentic, so why can't they be used? Or can they? Thanks to anyone that responds. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All reliable sources have two inter-related components... the author has to be reliable, and the publisher has to be reputable (another way of saying reliable). The best sources (such as articles in peer reviewed academic journals) are strong on both components. However, for some topic areas (videogames being a prime example) we often have a problem because there are no sources of this quality. We often get reliable authors (such as game designers) making statements in unreliable publications (such as a blog or web forum). This is the situation you are facing... Ms. Hale is the author of her own statements, and Sadie's blog is the publisher of those statements. While Ms. Hale is a reliable "author", Sadie's blog is not a reputable (ie reliable) "publisher". Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for responding, Blueboar. I understand the importance of citing reliable sources, but this isn't a case of "some random blogger says Jennifer Hale voiced Samus, so let's use it as a source." Of course that wouldn't be considered reliable. This is a case of "Hale acknowledges she voiced Samus on video", so why does it matter who shot the video or where it's hosted? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sesu Prime. We are getting into process wonkery to say that a video of a person saying something non-controversial isn't a reasonable source of what that person said. Given that this "publisher" has a reputation for doing exactly these kind of interviews, I'd call it an acceptable source unless someone expresses a basis for believing otherwise. That this is in a WP:BLP makes it more of an issue, but I just don't see the problem here. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing template data

What is the correct way to reference data in a navigation template? Say, a bottom bpx listing the holders of a world record in X must, I suppose, provide source for numbers and names (they are debatable), but where ? talkpage ? NVO (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's a navigation template to related articles, I think the source should be present at the related article in question. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it same as citing wikipedia? Related articles aren't written by a single person and are not frozen in time, so their references may contradict each other and their common template. NVO (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure most navigation templates have "centralized article" where all sources are collected and used. In the case you were describing, there is the World record progression 100 metres men. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 10:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

One day, when the crisis or something worse will idle me down for a couple years I might just tackle the "centralized article", but today it just does not exist. In some cases, i.e. {{Nikon DSLR cameras}} centralized articles won't exist in the foreseeable future (btw, here's an example of referenced but not sourced template and a lot of relevant discussion on talk page). I was really looking for a policy-based, general reasoning. NVO (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I would suggest that you not put citations and references in the navigation template, but instead make sure that the information presented in the template is discussed and referenced in each of the seperate articles for the various Nikon camera models listed. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Since neither navigation templates nor categories provide an obvious means for adding references, the common sense principle to allow would be to include only content that is (1) obvious from reading the linked article(s), and (2) is either sourced there or is indisputable. Of course, if one or two sources suffice for referencing all the content in a template; those sources can be added as footnotes in the template, just as we sometimes do for infoboxes. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing a non instaneously available US Government documents as neutral outside source

I was approached by customers to add references to our wiki page. The page is Mount Pleasant Winery. I was approached on listing label references for bottles of wine that were produced by our company and a previous company that used the name Mount Pleasant Winery. Since I am an interested party of one of the companies, I needed to find a reference from a neutral, outside source.

All wine labels, bottle silk screenings or verbage put on a wine bottle for sale must have the approval of the US government. An application is made and the government approves the label or it rejects it. These filings then become public record. If approved, the government issues a Certificate of Label Approval (COLA). I wished to cite COLAs as references. The current agency that approves these applications and authorizes the use of the label is the Trade and Tariffs Bureau (commonly the TTB), United States Department of Treasury. It was previously the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and refered to as the ATF. It assigns it a TTB ID number from its form TTB F 5100.31. The filings are not readily available over the internet but can be attained through containing the TTB by anyone. Does refering to this filing as proof of the label verbage constitute a verifiable source? Is the TTB a reliable source? Is the TTB considered a third party reference? Please give reasons why or why not.

If so, how should the reference be listed, or how should it appear? If not, what reference could satisify the basic verifability and reliability of what verbage is on the bottles?

We have had someone edit the page which deleted the listing of the labels explaining that "source cited does not reference this." After contacted said editor, said editor claimed that s/he contact a family member who works for the TTB within eleven minutes of the posting of the references and claimed that they were unable to verify the references. After discussing with said editor, it appears that the reasoning for the edit is

"It is a very common occurrence that material of questionable or insanely hard to verify sources are quite often beyond the scope of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We see this often in WP:BLPs where someone wants to insert some very personal information from court documents."

Examining the first part of the argument, it is not a three minute reference check. It took me days to get the COLAs of the previous company. Since the references are not instaneously available, it could be successfully argued that the TTB reference is not easily verifiable until the TTB gets this information into an on line form. However, this argument could preclude enormous amounts of material for thousands of references across the internet. It does ask an interesting question of how long of wait determines "insanely hard" to verify sources, which I do not have an answer.

Examining the second argument, a court document, such as a witness on the stand that says "Sam stole from Bob" cannot be used a reference for saying that "Sam stole from Bob." However, a decisive action such as court ruling where Sam was found guilty of stealing from Bob could be a reference for saying that "Sam stole from Bob." I think that using this template shows that a decisive action, such as the Government issuing the COLA can be then used to state that the verbage does appear on the bottle.

The editor then goes onto to try to discount the entire reason for the reference itself stating that the content of the article was not proper, but this does not constitute the question that is being asked, nor is it a listed reason for the original edit. I ask that we contain this topic solely to reference question and the question of whether listcruft is for another topic of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowineguy (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Informational note: The article in question is Mount Pleasant Winery and the source that was questioned is "United States Department of the Treasury: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms filing 8808; Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Certificate of Label Approval filing 00011880154,9725800000218,01211000000040,02192000000102; Tariffs and Trade Bureau Certificate of Label Approval 03132000000171,04054000000101,05062000000160,06258000000063,07248000000065,08018000000075". --Orlady (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

US government documents typically are reliable sources, but Without seeing this source, it is difficult to comment on what it could be a reliable source for. Also note that this is a primary source. Primary sources must be used with care, if they are used at all. Regardless, I think the question of the reliability of the source is moot, as the year-by-year list of Mount Pleasant's novelty/commemorative wine labels seems like a collection of trivia -- not content that belongs in an encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a few other issues. The article had been tagged for not citing references. An article must have at least a couple references from secondary sources, meaning books, magazines, etc to show notability, otherwise editors might nominate it for deletion. Something like the COLA record would be a primary source. It may show that the winery exists, and might be usable for information about the artwork on the bottle, but you need secondary soruces to show notability on Wikipedia. Written into the article it says it was reviewed very well in Wine Enthusiast and was used in at least two World Series celebrations, which must have been mentioned in at least some newspapers. Look those up, and you'll have some secondary-source cites. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now as far as whether a COLA meets WP:V, our policy for verifiability, I'm not sure. The fact that there's an ID number helps. Not sure which citation template best fits this situation, but that's a number that could be used where an ISBN or OCLC would normally go. But if this is something that requires a lot of letter writing to get, a FOIA request, or visits to a goverment agency, I don't know if that meets WP:V. If it's available in libraries ( some college libraries are designated as "repositories" for government documents, and if the BATF publishes some bulletin of recently granted COLAs ) that's one way to establish verifiablity. Another way would be if the agency itself made the records themselves online. A third would be if a credible organization obtained the records and made them available in print or online. There might also exist specialized paid databases of COLAs that are used in the wine business, but if theyre difficult enough to get access to they might not meet WP:V. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the issue of whether primary sources can be used at all, I think theyre great when theyre used properly. Wikipedia isn't just something for grade-school kids to use for book reports about dinosaurs. When I need information on something, I want a Wikipedia that digs deep. There's a wealth of information sitting there in patent filings, obscure academic journals, etc that could be used to strengthen our articles. The argument about "obscure public information" has come up before, but in the context of people, for example it is improper to publish addresses of movie stars from public records. But that doesn't apply here. The bigger issue is what editors here call "undue weight". Magazines that have reviewed the wine which haven't been cited yet, why should the first citation be on a highly technical matter? I'd say hold off on the COLA and look into other cites. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If the only issue was what is written on the wine-bottle labels, one could look at the bottles themselves and write that in the article. That would likely comply with verifiability (especially since the wine bottles seem to be more accessible than the COLA filings), but would be considered undue unless some secondary source has thought the information noteworthy enough to report; I don't see how the TTB document gets over the undue problem.

Currently the article lacks any evidence of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" as required by wikipedia guidelines. The only reference is a trivial mention in a Boston Globe article ("This is like an alternate reality," said Sox owner John W. Henry, soaked in champagne (Mount Pleasant, 2003 Brut Imperial). All of our fans waited their entire lives for this." [13]). So I second Squifryerchef in recommended that editors' efforts would be better spent looking for secondary sources that establish notability; else the article is unlikely to survive an AFD nomination. Abecedare (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the TTB document is the undue problem. If there was a debate over the wine label itself then it would be important to cite the COLA. I think the Globe article is OK, though the reviews in wine magazines are more important. It may be a brief mention, but a Major League ball club can choose any wine to celebrate winning the World Series with. That they chose this particular wine says something. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bernama (Malaysian National News Agency)

Controversy has arisen in the Matthias Rath article as to whether Bernama, the Malaysian National News Agency, is a reliable source or not. In particular, a number of editors, including myself, feel that material from the first sentence in the news report at [14] could be used in the article’s intro, either right after, or just before the statement about The Sunday Times (Johannesburg), the text from which is taken from the sixteenth and seventeenth sentences of the piece at [15] I would therefore appreciate some expert advice re. this issue. Many thanks. Caseoccur (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard Bernama as at all reliable on anything other than what the Malaysian government can be quoted as having said. As with all the Malaysian print media, it is controlled by the government and staffed by "journalists" who by any western standards are pretty incompetent. Having stayed awhile in Malaysia I know that most of their media just uncritically print any press release that comes into their hands. In the case in point, it looks as if Bernama has simply regurgitated a press release from the so-called "Society of Natural Health". If you cite this article, you might just as well cite the Society of Natural Health's own press release itself. Does this organisation have any scientific credibility? If they are giving the time of day to a charlatan like Rath, I would suspect not. You have to remember that south-east Asia never had the European enlightenment, so they tend to be rather fuzzy about concepts like empirical facts vs. superstitious claptrap. Alarics (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would use state-media with caution; beyond that, though, in this instance, the operative principle is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". This most certainly is not a reliable source for verifying that he "made [a] scientific breakthrough connecting heart disease, cancer and many other chronic conditions to nutrient deficiencies" Dlabtot (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Den of Geek

Is the website Den of Geek a reliable source for information, reviews and commentary on science fiction movies, television, etc.? It might be considered a blog and hence a SPS, but it's owned and operated by Dennis Publishing (see here). What's the current consensus about professionally published pop-culture websites like this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The same publisher that prints Maxim, Fortean Times, MacUser, etc. Shouldn't be any problem with this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the reply. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert K. Crane discovery of cotransport leading directly to ORT

The primary editor of this article made the claim that Crane's discovery led directly to the development of ORT. I personally think this is an overstatement (and have some evidence to support my view, please see the talk page for the article). This claim was supported by current references 6 & 7. ref 6 is an article where Crane himself is stating how central his role was in the development of ORT. I don't feel this is reliable because he has a clear bias and a self-referencing reference is a bit dubious (this is a live-person bio, after all). The NEJM article cited in ref 7 is a scientific medical article that is explaining the role, if any, of bismuth for diarrhea. The opening sentence of the article directly supports this claim, however I feel this is a situation where the author of the NEJM article is not an expert in the point being discussed. The NEJM author is not an expert in the history of ORT, but an expert in the science being presented. For this reason, I feel the source is not reliable as the author is in error making an unverified claim. The reference that the NEJM article presents to support the first line only deals with the impact of ORT (which is not in question), and not the history of ORT, further weakening the claim. I am asking for independent opinions on this issue. Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

World of Greyhawk

I am developing a rewrite of the article on the World of Greyhawk Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting. The creator of Greyhawk, Gary Gygax, was invited by the D&D website ENWorld (http://enworld.org) to answer user's questions about his life and work in an open-ended forum. This ongoing forum, in which Gygax used the handle "Col Pladoh", lasted until Gygax's death in March 2008. The hundreds of pages of Q&A have been archived at http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/. These archives are a valuable source of information about the earliest days of Greyhawk and how it evolved, and contain much information that does not appear in either published interviews with Gygax or in any of his written work. Given that it was ENWorld that invited Gygax to the forum, granted him forum admin status, the forum lasted for 6 years, and has been archived, can this could be considered a reliable on-line resource? We are currently discussing this question at WikiProject: Dungeons & Dragons, where I have set out the above arguments in more detail.Guinness323 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this as I followed his posts on enworld. I don't think there is any doubt it was him making the posts and I'd treat this just as we'd treat a blog or authors' notes by any famous writer. We can rely on them, but they are of no use for notability purposes. But I'm "involved" and would welcome other opinions. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is verifiable (by reference in a reliable third party source) that Gygax was "Col Pladoh", then I would say his comments from the forum can be used. If not, no. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Found it: An Gygax interview with KCGeek in 2003 where Gygax said: "I hit EN World as Col_Pladoh. I also post a lot on the www.lejendary.com boards, and on the MSN Lejendary Adventure Community, and www.dragonsfoot.org ones about once a week." (edited transcript at http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/03/04/dungeons-dragons-cre.html, complete interview archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20031204163509/www.kcgeek.com/archives/interviews/mordenkainens_fantastic_interview/031302.html)

Very iffy... you are essentially using one type of unreliable source (KCGeek's blog) to verify another (a "anonimous" forum posting). The problem is (obviously) that these are in all likelihood the best sources you will be able to get. I would say that you can go ahead and cite Col Pladoh's comments on the enworld forum, and if someone objects, I would say this situation calls for a judicious invocation of WP:IAR. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm an involved party as well, but it's clear to me that it really was Gygax. I would say use it per WP:SPS. Basically no controversial BLP info, which I don't think is a problem in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

IRMEP

Is the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy(IRMEP)[16],[17] a reliable source for accusations of terrorism ? See : Charities accused of ties to terrorism. In fact, could it be considered a RS for anything related to the middle east and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Migraine Associated Vertigo

There is a discussion on Migraine Associated Vertigo about whether or not http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/ is a reliable source. The site is published by Timothy C. Hain, a doctor who focuses on neurology and who teaches at Northwestern. A partial list of his publications appears on http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/nupthms/faculty/hain.html and shows that he has repeatedly published papers in this field. Per WP:SPS, is dizziness-and-balance.com an acceptable source? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As above website is a patient info site of a doctors office and clearly commercial in nature, makes appointments etc., I prefer to have the article cited to Dr. Hain's peer reviewed publications including PMIDs, which should be no problem if everything is as claimed. A pubmed search doesn't yield many publications of his.

Should not enough such material arise from a pubmed search, I prefer to have the article sourced to high quality secondary sources, representing the mainstream contemporary medical opinion on the topic.

I think the standards are discussed well enough at WP:MEDMOS.

I don't want to read medical articles which are narrowly sourced to the multiple web sites of a practitioner. (even if he is god-knows what of a capacity, just take neutral peer reviewed publications)

From the article I had already to remove several misleading statements about the alleged dangerous side effects of main stream medications, and I want to prevent that fringe science opinion finds its place here.

70.137.153.83 (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The applicable guidelines are to be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)

70.137.153.83 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Migraine Associated Vertigo#Page blanking as well as on here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with 70.137 here. The dizziness-and-balance.com site is a great place for information and links to authoritative sources, but I wouldn't use it as a reliable source for medical information. In the artice under question, the .com site is referenced extensively, but that page appears to be a compilation of facts from primary literature. If that's the case, there should be no problem backing up every claim with that found in the medical literature (assuming of course the claims are actually supported). Instead of citing the .com page, I would recommend looking up the articles cited in the dizziness-and-balance.com site and reference those based on the content found there. I wouldn't trust someone else's interpretation of the medical literature, particularly when there might be a commercial bias present. If the doctor in question is an expert, cite his peer-reviewed articles, not a website under his sole control (that is not under peer-review). Additionally, I could understand one reference to the site if it was all that necessary, but using it for seven references as it currently stands fails WP:SELFPUB. Let the medical, peer-reviewed literature stand for itself. Cite that, not the .com site. No one has to speak for the journal articles. Chaldor (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I wasn't the one who readded the refs the second time, so we should probably go through and ditch a bunch of them. Thanks for clearing this up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• For some reason there was not notice of this discussion on the talk page of the article on question or the talk pages of the editors, either. Since I have just recently been made aware of this I shall go ahead and chime in. Professor Tim Hain is a fully tenured Professor of Physical Medicine, Neurology and Otolaryongology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. He is the medical director for the Chicago Dizziness and Hearing Center, which is a clinic affiliated with Northwestern University Hospital. His profile at the NWU website lists a very partial list of publications. A PubMed search reveals dozens more. Near all of his papers revolve around the area of migraine, dizziness and otology. He is a recognized and well published expert on neurology, otology, dizziness, hearing and migraine. He has been maintaining a website for several years which which includes loads of information regarding these medically related topics and also includes papers on the topics. I believe we can all agree to this. Right? Since we all recognize that he is an expert as to these topics then we can all agree that WP:SPS most certainly applies to him, per

  Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

  Professor Hain's publications most certainly have been in this area. As such there is nothing dishonest nor would a violation of policy occur by quoting this as-of-yet unpublished paper. As someone who is in the medical and research fields- and who will be specializing in neurology- I can vouch for the fact that some papers take a significant amount of time in getting published. It is highly likely that this paper has been submitted and is simply undergoing editorial review. That really does not matter, however. WP:SPS makes it very clear that there is absolutely nothing wrong in citing this extremely well written and highly relevant paper by a recognized expert in the field. If WP:SPS does not apply then how and when does it? Basket of Puppies 05:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I must beg to differ. Citing an unpublished article is indeed a violation of the original research policy. Please see the first line of the policy: WP:OR (no unpublished facts). Even outside the wiki world, you don't cite unpublished articles in a professional setting. It's sidesteps the entire peer-review process. I know it takes a long time to get through the publication process, but there's a reason for that: that's how we know the paper is trustworthy. It's fine to discuss such things with friends/colleagues, etc (e.g. the talk page would be an appropriate place to keep tabs on this paper). But one does not get the seal of approval until it's accepted by the journal and you have a publication date. When dealing with science, you have to ensure that cited facts have been vetted, regardless of how authoritative the author might be. Chaldor (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Chaldor, I think you may be misunderstanding the issue. The paper is not unpublished but rather it is currently self-published. Taking into account Professor Hain's expertise and long list of already published papers on the topic, then WP:SPS absolutely applies. If you believe WP:SPS does not apply then how and when can it ever? Again: Recognized Expert with May Existing Publications->Current Self-Published Paper on Same Topic->WP:SPS states allowed to be used in article. Do you agree or disagree? Basket of Puppies 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm now thoroughly confused here. In the message that I replied to, your comments about how long the publication process takes and words like as-of-yet unpublished paper made it seem to me like there was an article in the works here (i.e. one that had been written and submitted to a journal). If that is not the case, please clarify. I no longer know what is being questioned as a reliable source here. In the motion you have proposed, precisely what article (provide the direct link/reference) is being evaluated and how does it related to the dizziness-and-balance.com website site? Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I believe Puppies is referring to this paper. I think it's pretty clear that it's current self-published, and thus falls under WP:SPS. 140.247.28.157 (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that is the paper I am referring to. Sorry that I forgot to link it. I do believe the paper is indeed self-published, and as such falls under WP:SPS Basket of Puppies 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines state clearly to give absolute preference to high quality peer reviewed secondary sources, as explained above. There is absolutely no reason to resort to SPS .com site, as long as the statements of the article can be sourced to such preferential sources. See explanation above. See also a link to a peer reviewed published review article on the talk page, which also contains many links to related sources. If there are so many pubmed hits of Dr. Hain, use these published articles with PMIDs. All as explained above. The patient site is not peer reviewed, but a rich source of links to peer reviewed materials supporting the statements. Use these. See above. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dr. Hain appears to be an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Therefore, http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/ COULD be used in some circumstances, as long as the specific citation meets all the requirements of WP:SPS. Indenpendent sources would be preferred. Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • So that's one vote for using it, and one against. Can someone else chime in? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No its one against using it and one stating to use under some circumstances, but prefer independent sources. The latter also means not to source to it, where other sources can be used for the same statement. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion stating Professor Hain's self-published paper on MAV meets WP:SPS requirements

Support

1. Basket of Puppies 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per reasons given above in first comment in thread. Additionally, this is a website, not a paper, let's please call it as such. WP:SPS states that caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. In the competitive medical world, particularly at academic universities, I can't imagine why something that has already been typed up like this hasn't been published in a journal. This is a real source concern for me. I can't trust new information presented here, let alone base so much of an article on this source. Use the sources this website has cited, but not the source itself. Chaldor (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are the following sources reliable?

Are these sources ok to use for factual citations? The Red Peacock (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• www.highbeam.com/
• www.thenation.com/
• www.huffingtonpost.com/

Short answer: Sometimes (and perhaps even "often"). Longer answer: These are all admittedly partisan political sources, and that does influences their reporting. However, they are also extremely notable political sources. Thus, while we should mention what they say (in accordance with NPOV), it is best to phrase any material taken from such sources as statement of opinion rather than fact, by direct in text attribution (as in: "According to the Huffington Post, blah blah blah "). Obviously, this would apply to similar sources on both sides of the political spectrum. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What about highbeam.com? Is that reliable? The Red Peacock (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Highbeam is an archive of other sources, so it will depend on the particular article. Most of what they archive is reliable, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a subtle point about using sources which contain political advocacy for matters other than opinion. For example, when an editor inserts a quote from a political journal "According to the Census Bureau..." "FBI statistics report..." -- that quote, stating a public fact, can be challenged by another editor if the purported cited fact cannot be found in the public records of the source's source. This doesn't imply deception on the part of anyone, it could be an unintentional and correctable error. patsw (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Schools

Hey,

Is it acceptable to cite a school's website in its article? Computerjoe's talk 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What school? If it's a normal public or private US school, then yes, but only for non-controversial information about the school. If it's John's School of Witchcraft, then probably not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well a private UK school. Guess state UK schools too. Computerjoe's talk 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just raised the same question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools. It seems to me they ought to be able to be cited as a reasonable source for hard factual information about the school as long as one avoids peacockery, advertising and POV, i.e. they might try to "big up" their sporting awards etc. but they are hardly like to tell barefaced lies about when their new building was put up, or what courses they offer. Alarics (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Carina Axelsson entry

Hello,

The "references" on this page are largely Weblogs, wordpress, and other zine style material. There is a fan named "Unionsoap" who continually puts these blogs back in and simply reverts them to the blog material.

I would like to move these:

^ http://books.google.com/books?q=Carina+Axelsson&btnG=Search+Books ^ http://www.workhousepr.com/underground/books/spring2004.php ^ http://royalandco.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/carina-axelsson-a-new-princess-for-sweden/ ^ http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/21/magazine/fashion-the-waif-farers.html ^ The New York Times: The Waif Farers ^ http://danishroyalwatchers.blogspot.com/2006/11/danish-royal-roundup-11.html ^ http://royalandco.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/carina-axelsson-a-new-princess-for-sweden/ ^ http://royalandco.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/carina-axelsson-a-new-princess-for-sweden/

to "External Links" and take out them as references, with the exception of the NY Times. (I really don't even think this article should be in here at all.)

Are these links above considered to be "reliable" sources?

Thanks, PR (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The blogs are easy to address. Blogs about living people should never be used (unless it's the individual's blog). They are not reliable sources. See the policy: WP:RS#Statements of opinion.

I don't know what the question is with the books.google.com entry, but so long as that is being used to show that there are books published by her, etc...then I'd consider that a reliable source. Any further claims or interpretations beyond that however are not supported. Chaldor (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Carina Axelsson entry

Sorry, double post. PR (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

This article has been tagged with {{Primary sources}}; however, in my estimation, such a tag is unwarranted. The tag reads as such:

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

While the article does cite some primary sources (the actual decisions from court cases which the article pertains to), the vast majority of the references are from reliable third-party sources such as newspapers, online media, and published legal references.

We are attempting to get this article elevated to GA status. Having that tag in place is definitely detrimental to this process. So, is the tag warranted or not? Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the article does indeed have quality secondary sources (which it certainly appears to), that tag should if anything only be placed on sections which lack such. It is wrong, in my opinion, to place a blanket template at the top of an article unless the problem is very obvious to anyone familiar with Wikipedia practices, and this problem, if it exists at all, is far from obvious. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The tag doesn't belong there. A online court transcript on the court's official web site is about as reliable and verifiable as anything in the Wikipedia. I concur that the many secondary sources already cited are the backbone of the article: This article does not need (more) references that appear in reliable third-party publications. The editor who added it might have been under the impression that primary sources contaminate an article otherwise well-sourced. patsw (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Criteria to establish notability of a short story

There's no notability noticeboard that I know of, so I'm posting this here as it addresses sourcing issues. Some of you may wish to comment on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Short story? about whether a new guideline is needed to address the notability of a short story. NJGW (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions

Sorry if this has been asked before but I couldn't find the answer through the search engine. Too many common words, I suppose.

1. Are reliable sources always reliable? For instance, is every article ever published on the New York Times reliable?

2. If there are inaccuracies in an article from a reliable source, like say the New York Times, does the entire article becomes unreliable?

Thanks. --Anarchodin (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This comes under 'Verifiability not truth'. New York Times can be cited as saying something, even if other RS show that NYTimes is wrong. Martinlc (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

1: No. 2: No. There is so much junk on the Internet, that we require reliable sources just to consider including the information. We can still pick and choose among the reliable sources to include only the ones that appear to be correct on an issue, or if the issue is too complex or controversial to decide what is correct, major opposing views from reliable sources are presented. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me explain the situation. There's no edit war here or anything like that. This is just something I'm wondering about. I recently came across this article, originally written in 1998, on heavy metal music. The entire article is an exercise in poor journalism. Among other things, it coins several neologism ("trench metal", "new york squatter metal", "extreme ambient", "machine assisted metal", "turncoat metal") that does not exist, it mix up genres (sludge/stoner, black ambient/darkwave), misidentify bands (Pantera/Sepultura/Brutal Truth/Kreator as power metal), etc. This is really bad misinformation and I'm not saying that because of my personal viewpoints or anything like that. I mean, you can find numerous reliable sources that describe Brutal Truth as grindcore but this is the only source I've seen that describes them as power metal. It's one thing if you confuse two similar genres like grindcore and death metal but only an idiot (sorry) would confuse grindcore with power metal. I don't think there's any sources that say Brutal Truth is *not* power metal because that's just the sort of nonsense that nobody would think of in the first place, so why even refute it? It would be like asking for some source that says Elvis Presley is not chinese classical music. So what I'm wondering here is whether this sort of article that makes a lot of bizarre, strange statements can really be a reliable source. Can we at least say that there has to be additional sources to support any of the statements made in such an article? --Anarchodin (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not in the business of making lists of bad articles that appear in otherwise reliable publications. If we were writing an article on categories of heavy metal music, and we could find 5 reasonable articles plus Ratiff's article, we could just ignore Ratiff. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Both the NYT and Ben Ratliff are considered reliable sources. Can they make mistakes?... Of course. We do allow for editorial judgement. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP sourcing/content disputes on Julie Bindel

Resolved

 – Remove NUS sourcing and content, no prejudice towards re-adding if reliable sources demonstrate notability. -- Banjeboi 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Greetings all, I likely will be making a few trips here but wanted to start with the most complex one as the others are pretty basic. Julie Bindel is a writer, Guardian columnist and a career activist. We have a group of editors intent on including information about some of Bindel's opinions on transgenderism which would be fine except it's being done in problematic ways. I don't consider myself an expert on trans issues but certainly rather well-informed. My interest however is neutralizing the information to remove POV and poor sourcing. This has been steadfastly opposed so I've called in support from ANI and ... it's currently mired in circular discussion. (sigh)

Meanwhile I've had one lingering concern I need help clarifying. National Union of Students of the United Kingdom has annual conferences where various platforms are presented and voted on. These seem awfully politicized and I have doubts on their notability for use in this manner. We are reporting:

“ Despite continuing disapproval of her views from the transgender community and a vote of censure against her at the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign's 2008 Conference, she was nominated for the UK LGB rights organisation Stonewall's 2008 "Journalist of the year" award, which was eventually won by Dr Miriam Stoppard. ”

sourced to NUS LGBT Summer Campaign Conference 2008 Motions Document

and

“ In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles led to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign. ”

Sourced to NUS Women’s Campaign 2009 Motion Documents and NUS Women’s Campaign 2009

One of these spells her name wrong as Bindle, I believe.

If these platform votes are not reported in reliable sources do they belong at all? If we do include them what is the NPOV way to do so? Any advice appreciated. -- Banjeboi 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't present yourself as a neutral figure here, Benjiboi. You have made resolutely dismissive comments about Bindel's critics on the talk page, and have a history of both highly partisan edits to the article and consistent refusal to work cooperatively with others on the talk page.

While I don't approve of the current text and think it needs to be reworded - it's badly written, and a bit opinionated as it stands, the reference is fine. The NUS Women's Campaign is a significant feminist organisation, and this is their official policy. That they refuse to share a platform with a speaker due to her record of vilifying minority groups is an entirely reasonable thing to include in a short section about said comments. Rebecca (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca, cease and desist. I made my position above rather clear and further accusing me of falsehood and other behaviours is unacceptable and unwelcome. You're also mistaken as I pointed out on that talkpage which is full of bad faith against me despite my many improvements to the article. The only edits that are opposed are confined to this one subject area and these will be cleared up and made to be policy compliant with or without your input. Please let those experienced in sourcing issues clearly state how these sources can be used or why they can't so we can stay constructive. They won't be swayed by either side - only the sources. OK? -- Banjeboi 18:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Encyclopedic content must be verifiable to reliable sources. These documents are not reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you please elaborate clearly why as I'm sure this will be a sticking point? -- Banjeboi 18:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of elaboration you are looking for. Those documents aren't reliable third-party published sources, and I can't even imagine what form an argument would take to try to say that they are. Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tend to agree but I'd like more editors experienced in RS issues here to weigh in so there is no ambiguity. -- Banjeboi 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

NUS & its committees are notoriously polarized. They are none the less widely known, like many controversial groups. Nobody would think their platform represented a neutral judgment, but they are a RS for their own internal votes. The more serious problem with the sentence quoted is the first half: "continuing disapproval from the transgender community" needs either a neutral source saying that, or references to specific sources, along with a search for comments from the transgender community on the other side. Starting a sentence with "Despite" is also a non-neutral wording. I suggest putting the vote in one sentence, and the award nomination in another. DGG (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If no published, third-party reliable sources have specifically cover this, that's usually a good indication of something that should not be in an article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the link to this Word document would verify that this conference has passed a motion to declare that Bindle has made transphobic comments. However, who is hosting this document? Where is this document from? I am having a similar problem with an unreliable site apparently hosting a very important document. I can't use it because the site is just not reliable. --Moni3 (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

These are the types of primary sources that a researcher or journalist would use to do original research, which would then be subject to editorial review and fact-checking and then, if published in a venue with a good reputation, we could cite it. Dlabtot (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely the NUS document can be cited purely as an indication of the fact that the conference took a particular view. It doesn't meen WP is agreeing with it. If the NUS's own report of its own conference is not reliable, what on earth is? Alarics (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is not just is it reliable, but even if it is, is it significant? I would agree with several editors above that if no independent reliable source has seen fit to mention the motions, then their notability and significance is pretty darn questionable. As others point out, these motions are also really primary sources, (and one of them seems to be unavailable now), and need to be used with extreme care, especially in a BLP article.--Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion to remove sources

Based on the above discussion I propose that these sources and the content related to them be removed as they are primary sources used on a BLP and likely not notable as the content is not published by third-party reliable sources.

• Support as nom, no prejudice to re-adding if the content is later published in reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support: it is primary source and very politicized. I also notice the beginning of this sentence In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles[18] uses her article as a reference, which is pure WP:OR. Petty disputes among various political factions - or attacks on notable figures who disagree with some faction - don't belong here until they rise to the level of a true WP:RS covering them. Where there are such sources fine. But if she's written controversial things on other issues that also have been covered by WP:RS they should be included too, in proportion to importance. Wikipedia should not just used to smear Bio subjects by political opponents who disagree with their views or their frank or less than diplomatic ways of expressing them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see why the opinion of the National Union of Students about Julie Bindel is important enough to include here if no third-party reliable source has commented on their views. Bindel is a mainstream journalist with a high profile, whose colorful views are criticized by all and sundry. There should be no problem finding reliable sources that discuss her, and discuss the views of people who disagree with her. Among the people who have debated her in public who disagree with her views are Peter Tatchell and Stephen Whittle. Since they are public figures who have expertise in LGBT topics, their opinions should be quotable in Wikipedia with no problems. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support I concur with Ed's comment. Every comment ever on a person need not be included. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - If no reliable sources have covered this, that's a good sign of something that is not significant enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close and act

The consensus seems to be clear to remove. If no one is opposed I think we should close this and if an admin would be willing to remove the content we can move on to other issues on this BLP. -- Banjeboi 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Official sites for confirmation of existence and basic details

Do we accept official sites as references, in order to

1. Confirm basic non-controversial details?
2. Prove the existence of an item in a list if it is challenged?

This has come up in regards to List of gamelan ensembles in the United States recently. An editor is saying that we cannot use official sites as references, because it is somehow too close to spam. I have suggested that it is equivalent to sourcing specifications of aircraft or for software comparisons, and that we use official sites as references throughout Wikipedia. Further details at the AFD.

This was also discussed recently in regards to List of liqueurs, where it was agreed at WT:Reliable sources#List of liqueurs that "weak sources are better than zero sources, and the information (major ingredients, which the manufacturer of a product really ought to know) is strictly uncontroversial" and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 31#List of liqueurs that "while commercial sites may not be the most reliable sources, they do pass the bar and are better than nothing."

Confirmation would be appreciated. (With acronym links to fend off the wikilawyers, if possible). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sources that don't meet our RS guidelines can't be used to verify contentious material or to establish notability. Material that is actually not in contention does not even need to be verified with a link that could be interpreted as WP:SPAM. Dlabtot (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  We are not trying to verify contentious material or establish notability. Read my question again.

  Items in a list do not need to be notable. See the featured List of Caribbean membranophones. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't publish lists of indiscriminate information. List of Caribbean membranophones is a list of notable, sourced information, therefore, it has nothing whatsoever in common with List of gamelan ensembles in the United States. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the individual membranophone types are not notable (or at least have no article links).

It is not indiscriminate. As I explained at the AFD (does anyone read these things?!) a gamelan is a large set of instruments that are played together. They are rare (as in, there are only a hundred or so in the US) and most of the existing ones have an ensemble associated with them, a few of which are notable. This is completely unlike a "list of woodwind ensembles" which would be indiscriminate and would extend to many thousands of items. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I just raised the same question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools in relation to schools' own websites. It seems to me they ought to be able to be cited as a reasonable source for hard factual information about the school as long as one avoids peacockery, advertising and POV, i.e. they might try to "big up" their awards etc. but they are hardly like to tell barefaced lies about when their new building was put up, or what courses they offer. Alarics (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS applies. Dlabtot (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The only applicable sections of guidance I could find were: WP:NOR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." and WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Certain editors aren't accepting this as sufficient. Is there anything clearer? Do we need to add clarifications somewhere? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:SPS says "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so". But that simply is not the case with various details about schools (and I suspect this probably applies in a lot of other cases too). Especially this is true in countries other than USA and UK where sources in English, other than the school's website, are likely to be nonexistent. Alarics (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the policy. If the information hasn't been published elsewhere, it most likely does not belong in Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That part of the SPS is in reference to material self-published by third-party individuals. A school's publications would likely make the best citation for basic facts like what year was the school founded, how many students go there, and so forth. For the list of gamelan ensembles, while WP:N does not apply to line-items in an article, I would like to see at least a mention of each ensemble in some kind of source other than the band's website, whether it's a college's website or a newspaper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is most odd. Either I'm missing a whole page of policy, or the editors have backed themselves into a corner and refuse to admit to a fundamental mistake.

1) We use primary-source references and commercially-tainted references throughout Wikipedia to confirm non-controversial details and facts. This is acceptable, yes? This is the core dispute we need resolution/confirmation for.

See any recently featured culture or business article/list, for a slew of such: Scene7, List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, Yes Minister, List of QI episodes, Year Zero (album), Riven, etc. (and understand that none of the Meerkat Manor meerkats are individually notable.)

2) The list itself is mainly based on the directory that was maintained by Dartmouth University and the American Gamelan Institute, and the list that is given at the Embassy of Indonesia in Washington DC. These other links are to provide confirmation of the details, and as a source for more information (for the reader that is reading, and for the editor who is improving the list in the future).

To put it in wikiphilosophy terms: The immediatist/spamcop desire to eliminate external links is preventing articles like List of symphony orchestras from eventually becoming as good as List of Telecaster players or List of tallest buildings in Atlanta (a featured list entirely based upon 2 directories, I note) or List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.).

And now they're even doing it for the wrong reasons! How are links to The University of Pittsburgh Music Department and Arizona State University and The University of Chicago being classified as spam?? -- Quiddity (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The references verifying the location, type (i.e., Javanese or Balinese), date of establishment, Indonesian name, current director, etc. are essential and should not have been repeatedly, insistently, and aggressively blanked from the article. There is a finite number of gamelans in the United States and our article does a very fine job of listing them; the blanking editor seems to have found the article simply via WP:STALK, not through any particular interest or expertise in this subject. Badagnani (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani for documentation on how Badagnani has been in many disputes on this subject, and reacts with off-topic and disruptive comments exactly like the one above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 April 2009

While I think this discussion is helpful, I think it is important to point out that these links were not added to be references, but to be links to official sites for entries in this article. Editors are now looking for ways to justify formatting these links as if they are references. I've created a list of the links on the article talk page here so it's easier to see what is being discussed. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. These links are being used as references: University of Arizona link confirms the style of play and origin of instrument, Fine Stream Gamelan link confirms (and adds details) about the style of play and origin of instrument and origin of group, etc, etc, etc. This editor (and others) are trying to find various ways to delete all "official links". First they were calling them spam, now they are claiming the links aren't "really" being used as references. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"This is not true." Please do not misrepresent the situation. It was true when I made the comment. You have since verified two. They were not added as references. They now have been verified to reference some useful information. 48 other links remain. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding on both sides here. Primary sources have their place, and they can be used appropriately. I don't see anything wrong with using a primary source to verify the existance of an ensemble. However, we need to do more than just verify existance. We also need to establish notability. And for that we need reliable secondary sources (see WP:NOTE). Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't list things on Wikipedia simply because they exist. Dlabtot (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar: It is not a standalone article though - it is a split-out/sublist with notability from it's parent articles Gamelan, American gamelan, and Gamelan outside Indonesia. Similarly to how these hundreds of lists exist: Category:Lists of fictional characters or (musical topics I can find in a few seconds searching) things like List of Mormon Tabernacle Choir organists, Malaysian choirs, List of music featured on Doctor Who, List of atheists (music). Plus surely there is implicit notability in an exceptionally rare type of musical instrumentation? - how many Church Pipe organs are there (in the world, in the US)? When there are only 100 or so left, we will probably have a list of them. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations advice

I've been creating articles for Tennis players, mainly based on the databases of WTA and ITF. These are script-based databases: one interrogates them, and is shown results. They don't produce URLs that one can use to show this or that piece of information. So, although all of the information is in those databases, inline citations cannot be created for specific pieces of information. I have been placing the links to the WTA/ITF player pages in External links, and leaving it at that. Anyone who wants to check the information will have to press the appropriate buttons at the WTA or ITF sites.

Recently, one of these was hit with a {{No footnotes}} tag. On one hand, I can't deny that the warning is literally true, but on the other hand, there's nothing that can be done about it when the sources are in this form.

I am not here for arbitration, I just want advice. Am I justified in removing the tag? Is there another tag that would be more appropriate? Any comments would be welcome.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

An example of an article that may serve as a test case? -- Banjeboi 06:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Liza Andriyani is the one I was talking about. Ordinary Person (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, the <ref> mechanism just introduces footnotes. Just put a cite web template into it and add a comment that explains that one has to search the DB. This is not an optimal solution, but I would think the WTA and ITF sites are reliable enough for basic details of their players. I don't know if they are good enough to establish notability, as listing there would be essentially automatic. See Wikipedia:Notability (sports). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give that a burl.

On notability: I am certain that WTA and ITF listings are _not_ enough to establish notability, since they include players who never won a single match. There aren't any guidelines yet for notability of tennis players but I'm going on the idea that if you've won at least five ITF tournaments or _any_ WTA tournaments, you're probably notable enough.

But that's by the by: the article's not being challenged on notability. (yet)Ordinary Person (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want to draft some language if nothiing else as a guideline for those who know little of the sport suggesting what would infer notability for the sport. -- Banjeboi 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maria Surfs The Web

Maria Surfs The Web is a spot on KTTV (Fox news channel in LA) where Maria Quiban reviews web sites. Reliable source for establishing notability or any other uses? Examples here --neon white talk 10:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the proposed use? If it's just to show a website's been picked up on by more mainstream media then maybe, if we are citing her opinion and providing WP:Attribution then also maybe. If it's citing her as more an expert then you may need to also source those credentials as an authority. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Potentially to show a websites notability, though that isnt currently in question, it's possible that someone might question it. Also to cite info provided in the broadcast. I presume, as this goes out on a news show, it would be subject to some kind of editorial oversight? None of the info in her broadcasts is really 'expert' in nature more very general info about the websites featured. In this case to cite a general categorization of a website. --neon white talk 09:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes as it's attributed, onscreen even, to the news channel which will have reasonable standards for fact checking. As long as the content cited errs on the conservative it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe check use {{cite video}} at WP:Citation templates as well. -- Banjeboi 15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The particular one i want to cite is this one] to cite the website's categorization as an auction site. As you can see it's mention in both the text on the page and video. The page also seems to be under news stories on the site. [18] --neon white talk 19:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a total fluff piece that shows nothing more than the fact that the site exists. It is not "news" by any means, and does not contain any useful commentary or analysis. Neon is editwarring to use it to supplement other existing RS sources (which actually offer analysis and have some sense of journalistic integrity). If this installment of MSTW was the only source for a website, I think an article about that site would fail AFD. Can we have this conversation with the other editors on the talk page instead of hiding it here? NJGW (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's published by a news station, on a news show, it's contained in the news category on the web site, how many more clues do you want? The spots might not contain in depth info about sites but it is cites the info and is verifiable. We do not base the reliability of sources on such strange ideas. Your obvious personal prejudice against this source does not change the established reliability of Fox News and affiliate stations. As WP:RS staes "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." This is not edit warring. Using the RS noticeboard to ok a source is the correct and proper procedure and i take such accusations as a personal attack and warn you not to continue them. --neon white talk 09:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Journal "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology"

I'd like to define the journal of "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology" as a non reliable source since it has as sponsors many groups with conflict of interests [19] and many of its articles are written by employees of consulting companies like Cantox/Intrinsik whose role is defined as "protect client interests while helping our clients achieve milestones and bring products to market"[20].Nutriveg (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We generally try avoid making blanket statements that sources are always 'reliable' or 'unreliable', preferring instead to examine specific citations to sources in context. So what is the citation in question? Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot, and most journals will publish industry-funded work. Incidentally, Regulatory Tox and Pharm. is listed in User:Yilloslime/Questionable_Sources. One example of its use is in aspartame controversy. In 2002 a pretty good review was published in Regulatory, which was authored by industry-funded scientists. In 2007 a similar review was published in Critical reviews in toxicology, whose lead author worked for Cantox International, which seeks to "facilitate timely regulatory global approvals". These are a couple of the main sources on aspartame's controversy, and no mention of their industry funding appears in the article. Although several editors think the conflict of interest warrants mention, a couple have managed to edit war it out in order to keep from poisoning the well. Generally I think that Wikipedia should have the same standard of disclosure as journals do, which means the disclosure should be on the Wikipedia page. II | (t - c) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly the use of this journal has been problematic in articles relating to secondhand smoke; it was one outlet for material produced by the tobacco industry intended to forestall regulation. In one case, the journal's editor was paid $30,000 by the tobacco industry to write a paper which downplayed the risks of secondhand smoke. The industry then cited this paper in its arguments against EPA regulation of smoking.

  The Center for Science in the Public Interest has criticized the journal by name as "read[ing] more like a house organ of big business than an independent, peer-reviewed scientific journal... It is hard for anyone to have confidence in RTP's published research when blatant conflicts of interest are concealed." ([21]). In the book Doubt Is Their Product (Michaels, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780195300673), RTP is described as the best known of a group of "vanity journals that present themselves to the unwary as independent sources on information and science... the peer reviewers are carefully chosen, like-minded corporate consultants sitting in friendly judgment on studies that are exquisitely structured to influence a regulatory proceeding or court case."

  We've had an entry on RTP in a (completely informal) list of "Questionable Sources" for awhile now. I agree with Dlabtot - context is important, and it's hard to make binary, blanket pronouncements about reliability, but there's certainly a case for a large grain of salt here. I would, however, hesitate to extend the six-degrees-of-separation approach suggested by II, unless similarly reliable sources are similarly critical of Crit Rev Toxicol. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, a six-degrees-of-separation? I didn't say either were unreliable, I said all journals publish industry-funded papers. I actually added an interesting Regulatory article to animal model not too long ago (PMID 11029269). I mentioned Critical reviews because it is worth noting that Regulatory isn't the only journal willing to work closely with industry. Critical reviews, one of the most widely-cited toxicology journal, could seem even more questionable in that it's willing to devise schemes to make it seem like their industry-funded work is entirely unbiased -- in the aspartame paper, they said that the authors didn't know who the sponsor was until after the paper was published, although in truth the authors more than likely knew because Ajinomoto takes in something like 90% of aspartame revenue and sponsored a similar review in 2002. And the fact that they appointed as lead author someone who has been campaigning for sugar-free coke doesn't isn't really encouraging either. That doesn't mean Critical reviews is unreliable or pro-industry per se. in fact they published an article which appears extremely critical of genetically modified food not long ago (PMID 18989835) (that was Crit reviews in food science). You could probably find articles critical of industry in Regulatory similar to the way you can find articles critical of pseudoscience and the paranormal in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. II | (t - c) 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)I would normally assume an Elsevier journal to have decent standards. However, in this case, there is serious doubt. The editor in chief is a former tobacco industry shill, and the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health has gone to the very unusual step of publishing a debate about the quality and independence of the T&P peer review. David Michaels' Doubt is their Product, published by OUP, is also less then complimentary. So I would suggest it is not, in general, reliable. Good catch! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Some people think that IJOEH and CSPI are, in general, not reliable, which is why articles from them have been continually reverted from the aspartame controversy. So it goes both ways. And personally I think IJOEH/CSPI's position on aspartame (that it likely causes cancer) suggests that they're not very rigorous. II | (t - c) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think what distinguishes a journal as a reliable source, and a self published work as generally unreliable is the review process and the quality of the editors, so if that review process is weak and publishes anything, the publication turns out to be as unreliable as a self published work. My case was of an article about Roundup, it looked as a general citation, but I decided to investigate the authors and discovered that the lead "scientist" worked for a lobby group, another author worked in research about another Monsanto product (aspartame) and Monsanto sponsors the Journal. I don't mind presenting all those facts together with the citation, but the evidence that a research is tainted is not always present (like Cantox operates abroad and doesn't list its clients) so the burden of proof that a specific research from that journal is reliable should be on the side of who cites it.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, User:ImperfectlyInformed was the one trying to eliminate the Roundup article, resuming it to few citations in Glyphosate.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• To add my two cents, I think it can be used as an RS depending on its relevance to the article at hand. It may be a horribly biased and industry-favoring source, but it's still an official publication house. Use it with the appropriate disclosure. Don't necessarily state opinions expressed from these articles as facts, but ensure there are appropriate lead-ins: According to an article in the JRTP... and then follow-up with other sources which call into question the bias/reliability/integrity of the journal/article/author, etc. If you can't find any specifc evidence against the author/article in particular, yet feel the article is misleading, cite an RS that criticizes the journal and use it as evidence to call into question the integrity of anything coming from the journal (the key is making as full a disclosure as possible). There's nothing wrong with presenting a slanted source, so long as the slant is also disclosed. It's not up to the wiki community to evaluate the truth, but simply to present all the relevant information (remember, the key is WP:V not truth). If an article in the JRTP is a notable voice in the scientific dialogue that occurs within the context of the respective article in question (which it appears they are in this case?), then it deserves mention. Just be sure to explain/point out the bias and any relevant notable voices against this voice as well. Chaldor (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of any wikipedia articles that set a good example for tackling this issue? COI in industry-funded studies is a valid concern, especially in WP:CONTROVERSY articles on medical topics, and should be given appropriate weight. Not too much, and also not too little. In a densely-written article "According to an article in JRTP" would be wordy, and uninformative. "In an industry-funded critique" would read as biased, and has been rejected by one editor at Aspartame controversy. Is it WP:OR to make judgements about a source? --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it's not original research since articles are rejected all the time based upon editor's impressions of the work even if these impressions are not based on actual published evidence. For example, the IJOEH was rejected from aspartame controversy based on no sources. II | (t - c) 16:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's part of the process, and can be either good or bad. As editors we do play an enormous part in this process. Should we add Humphries review article (PMID 17684524) on aspartame's safety to the aspartame controversy article? We don't have articles specifically criticizing the publisher (Nature Publishing), the journal, or really the author. But it's still an article which is wildly at odds with other evidence, and thus it's OK to exclude it. We could give it a sentence maybe. The IJOEH has defended Ramazzini's studies, but it hasn't engaged the criticisms of the studies, so it's not a great source. II | (t - c) 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Aga search.com, reliable source?

Is this considered a reliable source? The site is dedicated to media with a detective theme and is not publicly edited like Anime News Network encyclopedia. Currently it's used to source List of Case Closed episodes (season 1) at its Detective Conan episode section. DragonZero (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Marriage Certificates

Are scans of copies of marriage certificates considered reliable sources? Another editor is claiming he has these for Bob Ross and wants to use them in the article but would like to confirm they are considered reliable considering they are scans of copies. How do we "authenticate" them? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No. That's the kind of item one might use when conductng original research, but it's not a published source. Dlabtot (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Different jurisdictions have different rules about obtaining marriage certificates. If a jurisdiction will send a certificate to anyone who asks, it meets the definition of published. However, other sources may be necessary prove a person named in a certificate is the same person described in a Wikipedia article. Of course, a scan of a certificate in the possession of a Wikipedia editor is not reliable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If a jurisdiction will send a certificate to anyone who asks, it meets the definition of published. umm, no. Dlabtot (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one could make the argument that if such documents have been made publically available by the jurisdiction (say on an online database) then they have be "reliably published". But a scan of a copy? no. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But does it matter that you're using the scan of the copy? After all, you're referring to the Marriage Certificate itself, it's just that in practice you're not actually using that yourself to look up the relevant facts. What matters is whether everyone could get the actual certificate or a reliably published copy to corroborate what you claim. No? sephia karta | di mi 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be the first place of publication for any information (see WP:No original research), and unless the certificate can be considered to be previously published, then using the information contained in it does make Wikipedia the first place of publication for that information. The key word here is "Published" (ie disseminated to the Public)... This is why we have been discussing whether the document has been reliably "Published" or not. I don't think going to the courthouse and copying the certificate qualies as "Publication". Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

classicalsource.com

Ethel Merman has a fact tag challenging the assertion that she is a mezzo-soprano. I found this, which describes her as mezzo-soprano/alto. Can I use this to cite her as a mezzo-soprano/alto? Dlabtot (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me. The site seems relatively comprehensive and up to date. I can't see any obvious objection without evidence claiming the contrary that she is something other than a mezz-soprano/alto from a more authoritative source. Chaldor (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oom Yung Doe handbook

The article about the Oom Yung Doe martial arts school relies heavily on the book "An Introduction to Traditional Moo Doe", copyrighted by Oom Yung Doe and used within the school as a sort of training manual. The book is available online[[22]]. It seems pretty obvious that this is not a reliable source for controversial information about the school (such as the quality of the training or the accomplishments of the founder of the school), but is it a valid source for noncontroversial information (such as when the school was founded or what styles are taught)? Subverdor (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a Self-published primary source, with all the limitations this implies (See: WP:SPS). You are esentially correct in how it can and can not be used. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This self-published source is from an author involved in a long-term legal battle with the State of Illinois Attorney General's office ( see the article with references Oom_Yung_Doe#Legal_Entanglements). The author voluntarily entered into a consent decree. I feel this legal action concerning fraud reduces the reliability of these self-published sources below the level needed for a Wikipedia article. jmcw (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the subject did not admit any misconduct or wrong doing in the consent decree... so the allegation of fraud was never proven. Unless the book is alleged to have played a part in the alleged fraud, I don't see it as being relevant to its limited reliability. As long as we don't use the source for anything controvercial, I see no reason not to allow it for basic noncontrovercial facts (if need be, we can attribute anything we take from the book to the book... as in "according to Kim's self-published Oom Yung Doe Handbook, the school was founded in 1972 and teaches X styles". This changes the statement from being a statement of fact about the school to a statement of fact about the book. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I assume you have looked at the Oom Yung Doe article and the online book in question [23]. This links to a discussion of the author "jumping from the equivalent of an 11-story building" and the author "has taught some instructors [...] They are now able to jump and land from a 2 or 3-story building without injury". Could you tell me which of these Wiki conventions you feel applies to this author? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

“ Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ” — WP:RELIABLE#Self-published_sources

“ Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ” — WP:PRIMARY

“ Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ” — WP:SPS

“ Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information [...] so long as: [...] 4 there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources. ” — WP:SELFPUB

No, I have not read the article in question. I would definitely say that what you are talking about now is using the book to support a controvercial claim, and I agree that such claims should not be cited to the book in question. I was responding purely to the idea that the book can be used for non-controvercial statements, such as the year in which the school was founded or what styles of martial arts are taught. For such basic facts (and only for such basic facts), the founder of the school can be considered an expert (as he was there at the time). Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that serious, thoughtful editors (like Subverdor) read the policy pages before they post here. What is needed is input in the context of this particular article and this particular reference source. The reliability is in question. I believe that the source is not reliable due to unusual material in the self-published book. The author is not a recognised authority. The author has not been acquitted of the fraud charges. The lead page of the reference in question posits the author levitating. I assume good faith concerning Wiki editors. Why do you assume reliability about levitating source authors when the self-published sources in question are the main reference for the article? Your opinion would be of greater value if you read the article and source in question. Thank you for your time! jmcw (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point... a) I would not use the source to discuss claims of levitation or anything like that. I would only use it for basic statement such as the year the school was founded. b) The source in question should not be the main source for the article. No article should be based primarily on self-published primary sources... ever. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose a guideline as to what can be used from the Handbook: Posit: If a Wiki editor visited a school, could she/he usually see the activity or item being referenced. For example, if the Handbook say "During training, students hit themselves with bags of herbs", this would be acceptable. If the handbook say "Students and instructors wear various coloured belts", this would be acceptable. If the handbook say "There is a legend ...", this would not be acceptable because a visitor could not verify the legend.

I think the Handbook would be more valuable to the article if there were less "statement of fact about the book" usage. Let us use what is reliable and discard the rest. jmcw (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact is that a book (any book) is a reliable source for a statement as to what is contained in that book. Whether the article should discuss what is said in the book or not is an editorial decision for the article writers to make, and not something for policy/guideline pages to dictate. That said, it does sound as if this article needs a re-write and better sourcing. While the Oom Yung Doe handbook can be used in the article (for limited things), the bulk of the article should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be wholeheartedly in favor of discarding things in the article that aren't reliably demonstrated. A lot of what's in it now seems to be of the form "Oom Yung Doe says X, whereas critics say Y," where neither of the assertions is really reliably demonstrated (although the fact that they're asserted by some person or other is). I think cutting down on the number of those little mini-debates within the article would improve it (as well as making it easier to find wording that everyone's okay with).

That's sort of a separate debate from whether non-controversial information in the handbook can be considered "reliably demonstrated," of course. Subverdor (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As for your proposed guideline, I think my answer is contained within an old revision of WP:CON (sadly no longer in the document, because I really liked it): "The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome." I personally feel that it would be better to apply policy than to adopt an ad-hoc guideline for this particular source, but how I feel about it is also sort of irrelevant. Subverdor (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published..." so we are agreed that the Handbook should not be referenced<g>. jmcw (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing the handbook as a primary source is bizarre. It's written by Tom White based largely on his interpretations of information from others (largely John C. Kim), so it's not self-evident that it's a primary source. There are reasonable reasons you could argue against using it, but you should actually argue those reasons and apply some insight into the ideas behind policy if you're expecting to convince people. Subverdor (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When Kim (the author in question) was charged, convicted and sentenced to prison for tax evasion (ie. lying), Thomas White was also charged [24]. Do you know if he was also convicted? Do you believe convicted liars are reliable primary sources? jmcw (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oy... repeated ad hominem attacks unrelated to what we're discussing aren't (I hope) going to be too effective at persuading people, either. The tax case which you're describing now is different from the fraud case which you mentioned above. In any case, I said long ago that I'm not particularly interested in getting drawn into a debate over whether Oom Yung Doe is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. As a general rule, and regardless of whether Tom White was convicted, I do believe that those convicted of conspiracy to commit tax fraud (which, unlike tax fraud itself, does not require an overt fraudulent act or "lying") can serve as reliable sources, yes.

As a side note, I realize that I was actually incorrect about primary sources as Wikipedia sees them -- Wikipedia policy's definition pretty clearly does consider "An Explanation of Traditional Moo Doe" a primary source, because the source material it interprets is all (to my knowledge) previously unpublished. So there may be some merit to going over the uses of the handbook in the article to make sure that we're not relying on it too heavily (and possible adding some more of those "according to Oom Yung Doe internal literature..." phrases). Subverdor (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the fresh view! jmcw (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC Trust

The BBC Trust#2009 Editorial Standards Committee report section (which has been moved from the Jeremy Bowen article following an edit war, protection and 3rd opinion) discusses a recent report of the BBC Trust issued following complaints made against Middle East reporting by Bowen and BBC News. One editor is insistent that the comments of the complainants following the report should be included, in particular that some comments by someone called Jonathan Turner should be quoted. I do not believe that Turner is a reliable source and his opinions should not be recorded here, irrespective of his partially successful complaint. His comments have been widely reported including in The Jerusalem Post and the Guardian, which I assume to be reliable themselves. However, I do not think that makes any difference to the reliability of Turner's comments.

One particular quote that this editor wishes to include is something to the effect that the BBC took 2 years to correct an article that was found to breach accuracy regulations. The full comment from Turner is that this (and Bowen's reporting in general) has had an impact on anti-Semitic attacks. That, to me, is an exceptional claim which requires an exceptional source and Turner is not an exceptional source. Further, the Guardian article linked to above is particularly critical of this statement and says it is an "unfounded slur". Now, both the comment and the response could be included in the article, but I think that including this comment by an unreliable source is over-representing a minority viewpoint and should be left out altogether.

Other comments on this whole affair have been made by CAMERA and the Zionist Federation. The Guardian article is equally critical of their comments and, in my view, CAMERA had the chance to voice their opinions in the ESC Report. While I am not as bothered about including quotes from these parties (since they are established organisations rather than individuals) I still think doing so is putting undue weight on their apparently minority opinions.

Sorry for the long explanation, but the whole issue of Middle East reporting is very sensitive and (as I mention above) prone to cause edit wars so I wanted to give people as much info as I could. GDallimore (Talk) 13:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Turner's comments may or may not be reliable on their own... but the fact that his comments have been reported in reliable sources such as the Jerusalem Post and the Guardian makes his opinion notable. I think this is more an issue for WP:NPOV than RS... The key is to phrase any discussion on Turner's comments neutrally... and make it clear that what Turner says is his opinion and not proven fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, although I'm far from convinced that a "notable" opinion is also a "reliable" opinion. But if the comments are notable AND reliable, then I guess they have to go in, in which case the only solution from an NPOV perspective is to go overboard and report all the facts and both sides of the debate - something which I have been loath to do in view of repeated comments from various third parties that we are falling into the traps of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. GDallimore (Talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing reliability with "truth". They are not the same. In the case of statements of opinion, what needs to be reliable are the sources that report on the opinion (ie we must be able to rely on the source to accuratly report who holds the opinion and what that opinion is). The opinion may or may not be "true". I do think you have a point in raising WP:UNDUE. I don't think you need to go into great detail on this... It sounds as if this is something that can be dealt with by making a passing reference. Just note that the criticism has been made and if there has been any official reply. A few short sentences should do it. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but questions about "what is true" are usually tied in with "verifiability" rather than reliability. I agree that this opinion is clearly verifiable (having been published in reliable sources). Consequently, it's also clearly true that this chap holds this opinion. My question is whether he is a sufficiently reliable source on this matter that we should even consider recording his opinion. I don't see how the fact that he has been quoted makes his opinion more reliable (although it makes it more verifiable) than if he had not been quoted. GDallimore (Talk) 16:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a matter of NPOV (and specifically WP:UNDUE) and is not within the scope of this noticeboard. Personally, I think it warrents a passing mention under a "criticisms" heading, but no more than that. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Western Mail

The article on Gerry Maclochlainn is being edited continuously because one person rejects the Western Mail newspaper as a reliable paper of record. I need someone who knows something about Wales and the Western Mail to intervene here. It is a paper of record but perhaps O fenian does not know this. He needs to check this rather than just acting on an assumption. I have tried to discuss this but he ignores my posts and removed my edits

I removed attempts at dispute resoltion from within the article itself, since this editors attacks and assumptions of bad faith have no place in an actual article. Tabloid newspapers are not good sources for rarely known controversial information about living people. O Fenian (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The proper link is Gerry MacLochlainn. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also this editor has frequently used sources that do not support the text. For example this edit uses this source which does not say anywhere that he was a member of the IRA. Similarly the same source is used for the entire second paragraph of this repeatedly made edit, when the only information in the article about the person is a photo caption describing him as "former POW Gerry Mac Lochlainn". If online sources are used that badly, who is to say what their use of offline sources is like? O Fenian (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Western Mail is a reliable source. Robert Hazell in The State and the Nations (Imprint Academic, 2000) calls it the closest thing Wales has to a paper of record. It's not accurate to call it a tabloid, with the derogatory connotations that implies. It is perceived as having moved downmarket in recent years, especially since a new editorial direction in 2005 put more emphasis on stories about leisure and entertainment. (Meryl Aldridge. Understanding the Local Media, McGraw-Hill International, 2007). However it continues to cover hard news, its stories are quoted extensively in literature about the press, and the cite in question is from 1980.

If you have doubts about the cite, it's reasonable to ask that the editor include the author of the piece, and quote you the relevant passages. Note though that the information he wishes to add is backed up elsewhere, for instance the National Library of Wales is holding MacLochlainn's Prison Letters 1981-1983 and describes it thus: "Twenty-seven letters, 1981-1983, from Gerry Maclochlainn, a Sinn Fein activist on the United Kingdom mainland, from Maidstone prison to Ioan M. Richard, organiser of 'Dros Ryddid', a left wing republican movement in South Wales. At the time, Maclochlainn was serving a four year prison term following conviction on conspiracy charges."[25] And a journal called The Blanket, published under the aegis of An Phoblacht, ran a piece by Liam O Ruairc which said "The former Sinn Fein organiser in Wales was released from Maidstone Prison in November 1983 after serving two and a half years of a sentence for conspiracy to cause explosions".[26] 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The information at the National Library of Wales either contradicts or differs from the information that is under dispute, and I feel The Blanket is unacceptable for accusations about a living person. As the editor has shown no interest in policy and continues edit warring to include large swathes of totally unsourced and point of view material, the chances of a successful resolution are fleeting. O Fenian (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the National Library blurb and The Blanket are somewhat weak sources, but the point is they should allay your concerns about the material in the reliable source that you do not have access to: the Western Mail. The OP's edit cited to the WM that MacLochlainn was "charged with conspiracy to cause explosions and possession of explosives". If that is so, then no other sources are needed, but nevertheless the other sources bear this out to varying degrees (the National Library says just "conspiracy charges").

If I may say so, it seems to me that focusing on the content issue rather than what you see as behavioural issues will be the most effective route to resolving this. The OP has brought the issue of the Mail here, so s/he is not disinterested in policy, process and independent views. 86.44.27.38 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Brought this here, but since ignored this discussion and other discussions and continued to add large amounts of unsourced information. Until actual quotes from the source are provided, I am unwilling to accept it as a source due to the misuse of other sources. O Fenian (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, but probably not worth edit warring over when a reference is provided. The OP has also opened dialogue on the article talk page, so you can ask him/her about what you require there, rather than the two of you back-and-forth reverting, which seems unproductive. If you don't get the progress you want, WP:30 or WP:RFC (using {{RFCbio}}) are still available to you before editing the article. I agree that the unsourced stuff should be removed persistently. 86.44.27.38 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP did not initiate dialogue on the talk page, that was moved from the article by me. O Fenian (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. ;) 86.44.27.38 (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate here... while the OP did not initiate dialogue on the talk page... he did attempt to initiate dialogue (which you then, correctly, moved to the talk page). You might assume good faith and continue the dialoge on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

aintitcool.com

I'm wondering about what people think about the reliability of this source. I came across it at Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark#Impact. Dlabtot (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

aintitcool is an influential movie review site and has been recognized as such by the likes of The Guardian, the NYT and so on. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

permalink to its use here (footnote 39), since it has been edited out. I'm not sure the story quite supports the assertion in the article (that Roth "discovered" it) but that's a different issue. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

NME biographies

An IP editor is arguing that biographies on NME are copies of Wikipedia text in this article. I can't say I agree, so if others can take a look at the site and add their input, it would help. — Σxplicit 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The NME article and the 2008 version of the Wikipedia article are certainly suspiciously similar... The question is whether NME did infact take it's information from Wikipedia, or whether they are both based on some other source. That is going to be very hard to prove (it takes all sorts of digging around in old archives). One question we would need to look at is when the NME bio was written? Can we establish that the Wikipedia article is older than the one at NME? Probably the best bet is to avoid the NME article just to be on the safe side... since there seem to be lots of other sources that can be used instead. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is allcinema.net a reliable source?

A user sourced material at The Good Witch of the West using allcinema.net. Is someone well versed in Japanese willing to check if this is a reliable source? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Forum threads.

Hello, just a question to help back me up. Are forum threads from a website a good reference for the article talking about the website? I think not, but I need opinions. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While forum postings are generally not reliable, there are rare circumstances when they might be. You have not really given us enough information to definitively answer your question. We would have to look at the specific website under discussion ... We have to ask questions such as: Is it a closed community of experts, or can any Tom, Dick and Harry post, and: can we determine who authored the comments being cited? (there is a difference between a comment made by an anonimous member of the general public and one clearly attributable to a recognized expert) Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a an article about an online game, and some of the users of the game have decided to take to re-vamping the article. The forum they wish to use is of--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)f the game's web site. They want to use it to show threads talking about features and events of the game.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the article in question is Blockland, now, what reference are you talking about? Please don't again give some generic description. Just say what website, what forum, and what reference. Dlabtot (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Blockland Forum is what people are planning on using as a source.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... not look reliable at first glance, but we are not done yet ... next question... how do they want to use it? What exactly are they trying to cite to the Blockland Forum? Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They are using a thread about the game being sold to Lego to prove that the event happened along with numerous other things that I am not fully informed of.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be at least a press release related to the acquisition. That would not be a generally admissible source, but it could be used as far as it provides information about the source itself, i.e. the company LEGO as a part of the subject of the article. Press releases can be obtained from companies, i.e. from LEGO in this case. The forum would be a source that provides information about a third party. Then, if the information comes from the editorial staff of the board, in my view, you would need overwhelming circumstatial evidence that it is correct, and the information should still be tagged as needing a proper source. If just some people on the board are saying so, they have no reputation for giving accurate information, and they probably are not really held accountable for any false information they provide. --Cs32en (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The sale never completed, and Lego doesn't own the game, so there was no press release.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

err, but the claim that they want to support with the source is that it has been sold to LEGO, or am I getting this wrong?

They want to use the thread as proof that LEGO had an interest in buying the game.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The source would not be admissible for such a claim. I don't say the following is the case here, but I could imagine people setting up a software company and claiming that a big firm is interested in buying them, with the aim of attracting credit or venture capital. (If you don't see any reason why something would have been faked, it's maybe just because you didn't think of the one reason for which it actually has been faked.) --Cs32en (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As I thought. Thanks.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For reference though, it would be nice to have the page versions/diffs in question listed, and to have the reference in question listed here as well, just so everyone can clearly see what is being discussed and what the claim is. Can you add these? Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)