Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Hagelstein's cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften

(This section was archived by a "bot" before a significant number of opinions (compared to other requests) were offered. CAN the article described below be used as a secondary source for various primary sources?)

The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal Naturwissenschaften has published a number of articles on cold fusion over the past five years, some of which are used in that article. However, Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)

Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:

1. "⁴He has been observed in the gas phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced"; and
2. "Such a large amount of excess energy produced with commensurate ⁴He as a product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical process"?

Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a review article, and it does not support cold fusion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Why does it say "REVIEW" across the top of the first page? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not have the style and format of a review article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a general topical review, but it is a wide-ranging review of particular data which it summarizes. Does that make it any less authoritative as a reliable source for the article? More importantly, why would or wouldn't it count as a secondary source for the two claims excerpted above? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a review of helium production in such experiments, and it does not evaluate those two claims. But you seem more interested in wikilawyering than in science. Bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a decent source, but it's not a review article even if the journal decided to paste "REVIEW" at the top. It's more like a commentary. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. They went through 1000+ sources tabulating data for summarization. In the process they noted helium correlations, which they reported along with a summarization of their results in a graph. How is that like a commentary? Ura Ursa (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I "second" that question. Naturwissenschaften was previously argued-about by anti-CF editors here, that it could not be a Reliable Source journal, just because it dared to publish a cold fusion article or three, among all the other types of articles it publishes. The anti-CF editors lost that particular debate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion#Use_of_Naturwissenschaften_article ), so they have since focussed on whether or not particular articles can qualify as sources for used on the main Cold fusion page. I suspect in this particular case, the anti-CF crowd might have to admit that this new article is a Review, which theoretically means that earlier Naturwissenschaften articles might now be allowed to be mentioned in the main CF page, --but that the anti-CF group will also be able to prevent referring to this new article there, because it itself has not been mentioned by other authors in other articles. And, obviously, if this article can't yet be referenced, then the other articles still can't be referenced! My new Question is, then, how may "layers" of reviews of reviews must the rest of the Wikipedia editors wait for, before any of those primary-reliable-source articles can be referenced???? V (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, good point. So let me add another question here:

3. Whether or not it is a review, is it a secondary source for the purposes of including the primary sources it discusses in the cold fusion article? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a secondary source published by a reliable publishing house (Springer Verlag). It's not necessary to clarify whether the article is a review or not. In addition, any original thought in this paper may be used as an expert opinion, but this is a different matter that should be discussed separately from the question of whether the source can be used to present the papers and positions it is presenting.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

??? What could be the problem? If it is a secondary source that references various primary Reliable Sources, then what in Wikipedia's rules could possibly prevent those primary sources from being referenced in the cold fusion article? V (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

HELLO? Only one editor above has indicated that the newly published Hagelstein paper can be used as a secondary source, for allowing certain primary sources to be used in the cold fusion article. Given all the controversy at the cold fusion pages, that is not enough, by far! V (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this be moved to the cold fusion talk page? It looks like it's about to be archived here. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think no. THIS is the place where the Question posed is most appropriate, to await an Answer. 208.103.154.219 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Musa E. Mazzawi on UN resolution 242

Musa E. Mazzawi was a well-known university professor, lawyer, and BBC broadcaster who was trusted by British politicians and civil servants alike.[1] In "Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict (Garnet & Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN 0863722229) he cited the published remarks of George Brown as reported by the London monthly magazine, "The Middle East", in its May 1978 edition.[2] That information is well-sourced and third-party verifiable. It represents one of the published views of a party to the negotiation of UNSC resolution 242. It is in substantial agreement with the details of the negotiations contained in journal articles authored by Glenn Perry and a book published by Prof. Arthur Lall, a member of the UN delegation from India in 1967 "The UN and the Middle East Crisis, 1967" (New York and London, Columbia UP, 1968.

Brown's remarks in the magazine interview are also consistent with his statements on British policy that were recited for the record on the day resolution 242 was adopted. See S/PV.1382 (OR), 22 November 1967, paragraphs 50-54, and 57.[3]

WP:NPOV and WP:ARBPIA require that the views of all the parties to the dispute be included. Some Wikipedia editors have removed the Mazzawi citation and have challenged its reliability. Others have claimed it is inconsistent with some of the views Brown expressed in other publications. However, there is abundant literature on the subject which attests to the fact that George Brown and other statesmen did make contradictory statements. For example, Glenn Perry wrote "Subsequent statements by particular statesmen who were involved in the drafting and passage of the resolution (e.g. George Brown and Lord Caradon) are not conclusive, particularly when they contradict what they said during the UN debates in 1967." See Glenn Perry, Security Council Resolution 242: The Withdrawal Clause, Middle East Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 413–433:see page 415;

Glenn Perry and a number of other authors have written about the use of cherry-picked inconclusive and contradictory quotes to support Israel's view of the meaning of the withdrawal clause in UN Security Council resolution 242. Some examples are:

• Donald Neff, The Clinton Administration and UN Resolution 242, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter, 1994), pp. 20–30;
• The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Volume II: Readings, John Norton Moore, Princeton University Press, 1974, pp. 1024–1144;
• John McHugo, Resolution 242 – Why The Israeli View Of The Withdrawal Phrase” is Unsustainable In International Law, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Winter 2000–2001, Note 1 pages 89–90. harlan (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the Mazzawi citation is OK, the source reliable. It shouldn't be removed unilaterally, but only by agreement to get a balanced selection. To be impeached, it would have to be challenged by another RS, or far more outlandish - like mentioning intervention by aliens from Sirius.John Z (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK primary sourced quote farm, because a few editors are edit warring to keep published analysis from secondary sources, like the ones above, out of the article. harlan (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been a coatrack quotefarm for a long, long time. In wikipedia's defense, reliable sources on it tend to be a bit coat-rack-quotefarmish themselves.John Z (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal website

Is this a reliable source for a death? It appears to be an official personal one and is already linked from the article http://graal.co.uk/index.html article is Laurence_Gardner Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say this is okay, since is is a self-published source used for information about its author. It might be argued that Gardner couldn't possibly have posted his own death notice, but I would say that this is a complication we can safely ignore, because there doesn't seem to be any reason to question the reliability of the site. I think the death of an article subject is somewhere where it is common sense for WP not to be over-strict in its application of the RS policy. Hypothetically, if no source other than this website ever reports his death, are we to pretend forever that he is still alive? --FormerIP (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I did also do an archive search on the site and it has been in existence for a few years and it clearly is official in some close associated way, so sadly I have added it, thanks. (ec) Yes I have seen this can be a problem when people who are not very mainstream notable pass on and the sources reporting can be not mainstream and weak, I feel this one to be correct, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are secondary sources available. Here is one [4]. Jrod2 (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. Especially for death notices! Death notices have to be treated with extra care and have to come from especially reliable sources. If the death is legit, it will be picked up elsewhere. Even if the other source cites a personal website/blog, it is incumbent upon us to wait until other sources announce the death notice. I'm not familiar with unknowncountry.com, but unless it is truly a RS, I would be reluctant to accept it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

AFIK there is absolutely *nada* on our guidelines that clearly says that a confirmed primary source can NOT be used as reliable source to verify the death of the article's subject. If anything, logic says they can be just as reliable. Example, *unreliable* news source or news blog *X* announces the death of a subject from a long illness with cancer while a very recent article on the subject's personal site reveals that he has gone on remission and is expected to survive. The primary source confirms that the information coming from X is a hoax. Assuming the subject's personal site was not hacked, we can't assume that reliable secondary sources such as Rolling Stone magazine, etc will pick up the death notice of a person, right away. WP:Notability doesnt mean WP:FAME. This means that a combination of primary and secondary sources should b enuff . Jrod2 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeedy, the guys dead, its in his article a couple of days now. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that if someone succeeded in hacking an individual's web site, one of the first bits of mischief that might occur to the hacker would be to post a false death notice. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why a primary, secondary sources combo will fit the criteria. But not using the subject's personal site at all seems ridiculous to me. Jrod2 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And the notion that someone could self-publish their own death notice does not seem ridiculous to you? Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

nope, not if a secondary source corroborates it. Ya assume only the owner has access to his own site...what bout his web designer or the webmaster, ha??. Jrod2 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just a simple and undeniable fact that you can't self-publish something after you're dead. If someone else publishes it, it's not self-published. Dlabtot (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What does that got to do with all this??....if ya dont like the wording at the guideline, change it, aight? i.e. "if subject is really dead, then his personal web sites are dead too and cant be used for s**t".... :)Jrod2 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the guideline is fine. It is your interpretation that is off. Dlabtot (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If the wording is fine then what's your point?? Jrod2 (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is what I've previously articulated. That dead people can't publish their own death notices. Therefore a death notice can never be self-published and therefore would have to meet all the regular RS requirements. I have no interest in engaging in a pointless dispute with you about whether dead people can publish things. Dlabtot (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason self published sources are not considered reliable is that there is no editorial oversight and an individual could publish anything. You're arguing that because the owner of the web site is dead, they cannot be the one publishing this. True enought, but what that also means is that we have no idea who is publishing the data. The data is self-published, it's just we don't know at this point who that self is, thus the source cannot be considered reliable. Nuujinn (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop clogging n' making your own interpretations of guidelines with a non NPV....if ya found wording that states primary sources cant be used to corroborate the death of the author, just cite it. Jrod2 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is true that we don't have a policy that explicitly states that sources that are self-published by dead people are unacceptable. So in that sense, you are right. Dlabtot (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot, I dont mind having long discussions bout guidelines ad nauseum with u. I kinda like ya ;) But me thinks the problem here is defining the word primary "sel-published" source. Should it change its definition of being primary SP source when the author dies?? Maybe, but if someone else is now publishing on there, then the source only becomes a secondary source...now whether is reliable and meets WP:RS or not, thats why we here for. Jrod2 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:SPS personal website are not considered reliable sources, and the web site in question is still a personal web site, even if the original author has passed on to the great wiki in the sky. We could call it a secondary source or a primary source, but it's still not a reliable source. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and this personal web site fails those criteria. Nuujinn (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Geez, this GL is so confusing to so many editors, i better take it to the VP....Nuujinn read carefully the language, it doesn't say that self publish sources "can NOT be used as reliable sources, but that are "largely not acceptable". Then theres that caveat on the next paragraph saying basically that if a SPS is an expert then we sure can. This is the function of this noticeboard...to determine WP:RS. This keeps going round n' round in circles, Yo. Jrod2 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really in circles, it's really very straightforward. It's a personal website, and we could take the owner of the website as an expert on themselves, although if we do so, we have to be very careful because it falls into BLP. But in this case the web site says the owner of the web site is dead. If we take it as not true, it's de facto unreliable. But if we take it as true, it's not a BLP, but the author of the obit is not the owner of the website, and the obit is thus self published material without any oversight, from an unknown author, and thus we cannot assume the author is an expert and the material is de jure not reliable. Seems simple enough to me. Nuujinn (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Source for Prahlad Jani

There is a question that came up in a discussion on the NOR noticeboard in regard to use of a video from Youtube, specifically one, which is linked from an article from the Guardian. We're still wrestling with the OR issues, but at this point it seems to me worth asking for clarification as to whether the youtube video can be considered a reliable source. Editor Nazar has argued that the video is "used together with the Guardian article and is a constituent part of it, which makes it a special case". My view is that the video is of unknown origin (it appears to be footage from more than one source which has been subtitled in two different language and shown on news or discussion TV show, which has then been further edited prior to the upload to youtube) and should not be used. The article is a BLP, and it seems to me there may be copyvio issues as well. Any guidance would be appreciated. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article is RS; the youtube video is not. As per multiple policies, guidelines and the consensus of many discussions of this topic. Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. --Martin (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article is RS. The Youtube video might be allowable as a primary source because the Guardian article essentially quoted it for the story, but it would be up for debate whether any facts should be cited from the video or whether it would essentially be used as an external link embedded in the text.

As far as copyright issues, if these are short clips and snapshots, that should be fine under fair use ( remember, fair use under US copyright law, not the fair use policy for uploading binaries to Wikipedia ). If it's an entire news segment then that wouldn't be fair use and we shouldn't link to it unless it was uploaded by the TV station.

If there's concerns about original synthesis, it is OK to say "source A says X" and "source B says Y". But you have to word things very carefully if comparing/contrasting sources. There shouldn't be any deduced facts that don't appear in the cited sources, and the wording shouldn't promote a particular thesis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do take a look at the video. It's 7:41 long. I do not think it was uploaded by the TV station--rather, it appears to be a copy of a TV segment that has been edited and uploaded by the author of the piece in the Guardian. It is unclear as to who the sources are--we don't know, for example, who put in the polish subtitles in the one set of clips. I'm leaving the OR issues aside here, since that's already in discussion on the other notice board. Nuujinn (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, a youtube video is very rarely (never?) a reliable source, but usually it is necessary to know what statement is being verified in order to judge whether the source is adequate. The background is that Prahlad Jani claims that he has lived for 70 years without eating or drinking, and someone wrote an article in the Guardian to contradict claims by supporters of Jani. One of the statements in the article is "an official video clip revealed that Jani would sometimes move out of the CCTV camera's field of view...". An editor has performed an analysis of the youtube video to show what are claimed to be flaws in the Guardian article. The question is: is the video a reliable source for use as in this edit. The answer is no. Johnuniq (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct I think. The Guardian article is an RS, but the YouTube video is not. --FormerIP (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Nuujinn for bringing the issue up here, as well as everyone for expressing their opinions. Leaving out the technical details, it is my view that an effort should be made to include certain direct citations from the video material to highlight the fact that all the footage used in it comes essentially from 2003 (which is confirmed by the subtitles, which happen to be in Polish and Hindi -- the languages not known to most readers of the Guardian), and not from 2010, as is claimed by the author of the Guardian article. This, in my opinion, is important for the WP:NPOV of the rendering of material in question, because the criticism included into the Guardian article severely discredits multiple entities, including governmental agencies, respectable accredited medical institutions, as well as numerous private persons, involved into the tests as medical experts. Of course, care must be taken to avoid pushing a WP:Synthesis, as well as WP:OR into the article in this process. From my point of view, there is sufficient information in the subtitles of the video in question to provide for the neutral exposure of the above issues. I'm sorry if my attempts were not perfect enough. And I'd appreciate if someone with more experience stepped in and amended the article to make the readers aware of the facts, which would help them judge the Guardian article summary included into the Wikipedia more knowledgeably and neutrally. I remind once more that the video in question is used in connection with that article and is claimed by the author to be his main argument, which supposedly reveals the facts he claims. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the Guardian article closely, the author does not claim the video is form 2010--he lists some possible loopholes, and then says "While the test was running, I exposed some of those loopholes in a live programme on India TV: an official video clip revealed that Jani would sometimes move out of the CCTV camera's field of view; he was allowed to receive devotees and could even leave the sealed test room for a sun bath; his regular gargling and bathing activities were not sufficiently monitored and so on." But I don't think that's really important for this discussion. My feeling is simply that there is too much uncertainty about the origins of the various component parts of the video to allow it to be considered reliable. As a far as I can see it cannot be verified. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"there is too much uncertainty about the origins of the various component parts of the video" - agree. Still, the whole Guardian article is written in such way as to make the readers believe that there is an undeniable evidence in the video which reveals deception during 2010 tests. Also, in the video itself, there is an inserted blue screen with English headings (likely the result of Edamaruku's editing) before the episodes of supposed 'obstruction by devotees', which falsely claims them to be related to 2010 tests. It just pains me to see that a conman like that can mislead so many people, and we have to repeat his misleading claims here in Wikipedia, misleading the readers in the same way. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazar, with all due respect, you have a right to your opinions and your interpretations, but they are not suitable for inclusion in an article. We should stick to reporting what reliable sources say, and it is not our place to protect people from what we believe are misleading claims. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Do you think that using a con to discredit an exceptional claim is an acceptable option? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos are used in a number of articles as reliable sources, most frequently on articles about YouTube personalities and producers - Category:YouTube video producers, though also on some of our most high profile Featured Articles, such as Barack Obama. The YouTube site is source holder for various videos from reliable and unreliable sources, so a video on YouTube may or may not be used as a reliable source depending on the individual video and the context in which it is being used. If the video itself is created by an individual it would fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH. In this case it appears that the video was created and uploaded by Rationalist International, who have this website, and of which Sanal Edamaruku, the author of the Guardian piece, is the president. There are a number of very respectable scientists and thinkers associated with Rationalist International, though they are "honorary" associates, rather than directly involved, and Rationalist International do not appear to be quoted by academics or news organisations listed on Google. The question then is, not about YouTube, but about Rationalist International. Is Sanal Edamaruku using his position within that organisation to self-publish the video - if yes, then the video comes under WP:SELFPUBLISH, and as this is a BLP article, the video would not be allowed. If it is felt that Rationalist International are a proper organisation, then the video is a reliable source. Having looked carefully at the website, I feel there is sufficient doubt that the organisation is anything more than a vehicle for Sanal Edamaruku, so WP:SELFPUBLISH would apply and the BLP clause would kick in, and the video be removed, even with the link in the Guardian. The Comment is free column in the Guardian is an opinion column, close to a blog, but that is regarded as reliable by WP:NEWSBLOG, so what Edamaruku says there can be used in the article - though used with appropriate care, as this is a BLP, and that is an opinion piece - so the use in the article should make clear that it is the opinion of an individual writing in the Guardian, and not passed off as fact. SilkTork *^YES! 15:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph and badscience.net

[5] is presented as a reliable source because "Ben Goldman is an expert" (presumably on the newspaper? On Climate? On what?) I noted that badscience.net is a blog not under the editorial control of any newspaper per WP:RS. The edit does not qualify tghe claim as an opinion, but states it is a "notable mistake" on the part of the newspaper. The queries are: Is the blog a "reliable source" for a claim under WP:RS and WP:BLP (as it impacts "living people")? Ought the claim be presented as an opinion of the author if the source is relaible? Is the claim, if it is proper, properly worded as a "notable mistake" including the part about "despite allowing other comments"? Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Its been removed which I agree with, its basically a blog, self publiished source only good for quoting comments about himself. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Goldacre also writes a column for The Guardian entitled "Bad Science", I assume that is the basis for the claim of expertise (which seems reasonable enough to me). Without looking into it further I don't know how much of a crossover there is between waht goes into his Guardian column, and what is published purely through his own site. David Underdown (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Under RS? Yes. Ben Goldacre is a published author in criticism of science journalism—e.g Bad Science—and his blog posts tend to be aggregated, after editing, on The Guardian's site, and/or appeared in his 2008 book. On the BLP judgement... I'm leaning towards yes, too, but not as strongly. Neutral on the last two questions. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case at hand, the material is not on any Guardian site - only on his own personal blog. Collect (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre is clearly an "established expert on the topic" (ie the topic of professional science), so his self-published blog is an RS except for information about living persons. The information the source is used in support of appears to be primarily about the Daily Telegraph, which is not a living person, so this looks basically okay. I would suggest removing the name of the scientist mentioned, even though nothing contentious is said about him. There may be a further issue about the notability of this incident, but that's not for here. --FormerIP (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We had a discussion (now archived) of something similar with Gearslutz.com where a user referenced comments from an audio engineer *expert* on one of our articles. Forums are not WP:RS per our guidelines, however, because of ambiguous wording some users read it as "it's OK" in some circumstances. There is huge loophole, Yo. So when i get some free time Ima take this to the pump and fight to re-word guidelines. For now, and in this very particular case using our current guidelines on WP:SPS this blog meets the requirement for use 'cause it belongs without any doubt to the so called expert.Jrod2 (talk)

Its the guys blog and is not reliable for anything apart from comments about himself. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not what policy says (it's not a "loophole", Jrod2, it's policy). See WP:SPS. The author is, there is no doubt, "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". So his blog is an RS for the relevant field (science, and particularly media reporting about science), but may not be used to support statements about living people. --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bro, but ya forgot to read the last line on that G...its a gray area [6] (a loophole to me cause you can use forums to talk bout the subject himself). This policy is called Verifiability WP:V to be more specific. It says: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer".

Some users like fall into confusion because of ambiguous wordings on this policy 'bout forums. Thats what Ima bring up to the WP:VP if thats ok with ya. Again, we cant use that citation.Jrod2 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the loopholes I discussed. Anyways, I looked into that edit closely and I realize now i made a mistake. Under our present guidelines conditions, blogs (personal or not) can NOT be used to reference content that relates or discusses other living persons. The caveat is living. If the subject was dead, then the so called expert could under some circumstances talk about somebody else. Example: quoting the opinion of a music expert about Jimi Hendrix. Jrod2 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Never? From WP:BLPSPS "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." There is a pointer to the next section covering when to use self-published sources of information, which clearly blogs are. There's a lot of gray area there, but I don't think you can toss a blanket "Bad Source!" on it. Ravensfire (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Jrod: Forums can be used as primary sources in very very limited circumstances, to cite a statement by a person when the identity of the person is verified and known (which is rare, but can happen). I raised this point regarding tweets a year ago, where the same applied; see: RSN A34: "Stephen Fry's twitter". Reading the Gearslutz discussion, my reading of it is that the same holds for forums, with the caveat that it should be a forum with proper administrative procedures. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep Sceptre, that's the gray area Ravensfire and I were referring to. U cant use something the expert said about a living person though, thats policy. OTOH, some users feel that if the public forum belongs to a verified expert (verified that he is also the publisher to this blog/forum thru his own web site's link page) and if the content is only about himself, then forums can be used. This is what i wanna bring up to the Village Pump for clarification on our guidelines. WP:VP . Jrod2 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This case is nothing to do with forums, though. --FormerIP (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For the last time...the author of this self published content here, violates our policy here 'cause it relates to claims bout a third party (Prof Fairchild) so correct me if i'm wrong. Jrod2 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Policy would be that we can't refer to Prof Fairchild on the basis of this source, not that we can't use the source on the grounds that it refers to Prof Fairchild. The basic information that has been added is therefore fine (the editor wishes to say something about the newspaper, not the professor), just the name of a living person shouldn't be included in the edit. --FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct, as long as theres no mention of that professor, i guess its ok. Jrod2 (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the protagonist has now stated that I am not a "rational person" and since he has not given any actual reliable source for his claims, I consider this more a WQA type of situation than anything else. Collect (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A *WQA situation* as in Wikipedia Alerts?? Do you wanna clarify?? Jrod2 (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page involved for the epithets used. Or see [7] for my post, which also points out the problems thta editor has had in the past about civility blocks, etc. The editor "knows" what he wants in the article, but that is primarily that he wants it to be a climate change denial fork <g>. IMHO, adding CC to the mix of an article where it has not been heretofore present is begging for dramah at best. Collect (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

boar.org.uk — The Bourne Archive and Gesta Herewardi

Hello, I'm looking for help with something which I think isn't a reliable source, and also involves WP:COI.

I recently found something which struck me as odd in this version of the article Gesta Herewardi: there, the subject of the article is said to have been written by Hugh Candidus, and as far as I knew, the only thing known to have been written by Hugh is a history of Peterborough Abbey. I posted an initial enquiry on the talk page for Gesta Herewardi, but did some rooting around myself. Incidentally, in the process, I found a very reliable source which attributed the writing of "Gesta Herewardi" to someone else, and this also led me to move the article and talk page.

As I indicated in further comments on the talk page for Gesta Herewardi, I found that the article, as it still stands at the time of writing, seems to me be a clear example of WP:COI. The article had (and still has) no inline citations, and the only EL was to this page of website The Bourne Archive. While the WP Gesta Herewardi article is mostly the work of editor "RJPe", The Bourne Archive is the self-published work of "R.J. Penhey", and the similarities between the article and the website are also striking - e.g. the attribution of the "Gesta Herewardi" to Hugh Candidus, as mentioned above: for R.J. Penhey's attribution of "Gesta Herewardi" to Hugh Candidus, based on a statement made in the preface to a 19th century edition of the "Gesta Herewardi", see here, especially "RJP’s Footnotes" no. 2, on the same page, here. Note that I also believe "online texts" at The Bourne Archive to be self-published sources, on the basis of R.J. Penhey's incorporation of his/her own footnotes into this text, and, for example, that the "online texts" here and here are both the product of R.J. Penhey's own work: both include the statement "Web page transcribed from [Fenland Notes and Queries] by R.J. Penhey." In other words, they are effectively self-published editions.

As The Bourne Archive seemed to me to be a self-published source, I removed the EL to it from the Gesta Herewardi article in this edit at 02:18, 16 August 2010. Then editor RJPe enlightened me about his/her attribution of "Gesta Herewardi" to Hugh Candidus with this comment on my talk page, 10:14, 16 August 2010. And, at 20:54, 16 August 2010, editor RJPe effectively restored the EL which I had removed, albeit in different form and with two different links to The Bourne Archive (these being the last two "online texts" cited by me above), with this edit. In the process, editor RJPe left behind some hidden text from my earlier removal of the EL.

Sorry if that's all a bit complex, I've tried to be as clear as I can, and I hope I've brought it to the right place! Any thoughts regarding "reliable source" status for The Bourne Archive, and WP:COI at Gesta Herewardi, gratefully received, and in the meantime I'm holding off from any related editing. Nortonius (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really want to rewrite another article today, and may not have time, but clearly the article should not state it was written by Hugh Candidus. It's clearly an editor's personal opinion, while on the other hand we have sources such as "Anglo-Saxon England, Volume 28 By Michael Lapidge, Malcolm Godden, Simon Keynes" which we should be using. The Bourne archive is not a reliable source by any criteria I can see. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - yes, the Google Books search result you give is for the same paper I linked above, by Elisabeth van Houts - I'll try to have a crack at the article today! Cheers Nortonius (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep with caveats. I am going to gently disagree here. On the one hand, whilst expressing unsourced or poorly sourced views within wikipedia violates policy, the loss of contributions from editors will hurt the project in the long run. We should strive for high quality sources sure, but not at the exclusion of content which can be fixed by more experienced editors. The Bourne Archive is not a learned resource. However, it does not pretend to be:

The aim with the The Bourne Archive is to publish archive material with some of the small historical and geographical studies I have been gathering, so that the information in them can be seen and developed. I have set about the job in a reasonably formal way so that others have the information they need for pursuing subjects but I have tried not to be so formal that only trained academics can penetrate the jargon.

For this it should be applauded. I agree it would be better if the website was more WP:NPOV; it is the job of the person writing the wikipedia article to ensure that such resources are used sparingly and with care. To deny such a valuable resource to the careful wikipedia editor I feel is setting too high a standard. There are far worse web resources out there. In my own small corner of Wikipedia, apparent WP:RS websites have been proven wrong — one ODNB entry (wrong birth village); two IoE entries (photos not of indicated building); five CHER db entries (various from wrong reference to incorrect information) — all for people, buildings or archaeological events within a 5 sq mile area of East Cambridgeshire.

To be honest, I am not WP:NPOV myself here; this incident has come at a time when I feel too many uncaring administrators are turning away (using overly aggressive AfD's) potentially useful (though very inexperienced) content contributors; a trend I, even as a new contributor myself, feel needs urgent action. --Senra (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate your concerns regarding "uncaring administrators", and the sufferings of "potentially useful (though very inexperienced) content contributors": I've had negative experiences myself, and (hopefully!) you'll have seen how I've put quite a bit of effort into explaining things, trying not to be negative. That is an issue, as you say; but this issue is strictly about "reliable sources", and, as well as the comments I've made earlier here, and at Talk:Gesta Herewardi, I would point to Wikipedia:Verifiability, e.g. where it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (note that the bold type isn't mine, nor is the wikilink). I'm sure I've strayed from that in my time editing WP - we're all only human - but it won't have been intentional, errors can be reverted, and this is policy, and includes the word "must". And, the quotation you give from The Bourne Archive does indeed show laudable intent, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is a self-published source, and is therefore unsuitable for WP. Whether or not something is easily accessible isn't a criterion - do bear in mind, that there are many edits that I too would like to make, but can't because I don't have access to the sources.

By the way, are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, and e.g. Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR, through which you can ask someone who has access to JSTOR for assistance? It might help you, though not necessarily with the immediate issue. You can find a few similar resources by searching WP for "Category:Wikipedians who have access". Hope that helps. p.s. I've taken the liberty of tidying preceding entries, only for clarity. Nortonius (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

See also recent changes at Gesta Herewardi, and on the article's talk page. Nortonius (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is plain wrong. This is straying into POV-pushing and the use of policy to deny reasonable access to the readers. The The Bourne Archive should be allowed qualified use. The above debate, to deny even external link exposure to the archive is against current practice. See for example Lendering, Jona and Kurtus, Ron in this Demosthenes featured article or A contemporary account of the executions of the plotters in the Gunpowder Plot's more recent featured article. In these examples, self-published sites are used in the external link sections and are not central to the body of the article. I repeat. Removing the Bourne Archive from the external links section is wrong --Senra (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been as civil as I can, pointed to reliable sources and WP policy, and gone to what I think are considerable lengths to interact with Senra over the last few days (later: i.e., not just here), so I really think that talk of "POV-pushing" is unreasonable - I'm surprised, to be honest, and, if that continues, I foresee Godwin's Law coming into play here. This discussion risks moving from seeking opinions on RS to content dispute, which was not my intention. Further comment on the actual issue is good though, and if this discussion resolves in The Bourne Archive being restored as an EL, so be it - I just don't think we've got to that point yet, especially since another editor has provided excellent alternatives, at Talk:Gesta Herewardi, one of which I've already added to the article. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the reliable source question goes, I'd say this is more or less resolved. The personal website, however interesting and useful, simply does not pass our criteria, especially given that published scholarly sources are easily available. Of course we should be able to incorporate material from the reliable sources that the site uses, and Senra should be encouraged to continue work on the article to turn it into a great resource. Whether to include it as an external link is, to my mind, something that ought to be resolved at the article in question.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that. Nortonius (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that the fact that an EL link exists in another article doesn't mean that it should exist in that article, you can't use that as precedent (I'll probably remove at least one of them). Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Nortonius (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above, fair enough. The Bourne Archive is not a WP:RS. I was wrong to accuse anyone of POV-pushing. I apologise. I actually meant to write risk of; a comment which was meant to reflect the almost single POV up to that point. Other editors agree the archive is not WP:RS and therefore I accept the consensus. I do not accept the clear removal of the EL before this WP:RS had run its course, an action which could have helped to over-dramatise this discussion. That removal was despite the statement "... and in the meantime I'm holding off from any related editing" made 13:24, 17 August 2010. Indeed, as is clear, I do not accept the removal of the archive as an EL anyway. I will hold that discussion elsewhere --Senra (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) I've responded to the preceding comment briefly on my talk page, and plan to give a more considered response there later. Nortonius (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenCRS is not a source

I'm mostly to blame for this, but OpenCRS is (hopefully) not a source for any information at all. So every article that uses this non-source needs to have a wikilink to Congressional Research Service please. Hcobb (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. The term "source" is broad and can include authors, publisers, and re-publishers. Project Gutenberg and, apparently, OpenCRS, are re-publishers. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you say that Gutenberg wrote Little Red Riding Hood? And PG at least is somewhat selective in which version of the story it publishes. OpenCRS on the other hand simply passes information through and is no more a publisher than Google is for hosting AFP news. Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds more like a debate over citation format than over the source itself. And there's a couple of ways to go about this. If you're sure that the source you read is an exact reproduction of the original, then you would cite the original publisher but the convenience link would be to the archive. Otherwise, you can credit them both with a cite to the original publisher, then "via" and cite the archive provider. FYI, if it was one source quoting another, the guideline would be WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Conference papers

Where do we stand on conference papers that are not collected or published? Are they considered SPS? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer really depends on the field of study. Can you specify the particular article/subject of interest ? Also, by "not collected or published", do you mean there are no conference proceedings, or (at least) published abstracts ? If so, the "source" may simply fail verifiability since an independent editor cannot confirm that such a paper was even presented at a conference, and said what is claimed. PS: I am pretty sure such questions have been raised and discussed on this board before; a search through the archives may be the quickest way to judge where RSN consensus lies. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd think even conference proceedings wouldn't all automatically become RS. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not. In my field one of the purposes of conference papers is to get reactions from one's peers to findings that are incomplete or speculative. We accept everything that isn't completely off-topic or obviously insane. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the information sciences (don't let the word science fool you it's on the soft social sciences side), specifically knowledge management. There are public abstracts on a conference website but as far as I can tell the paper was never published or the abstrast published anyway. The paper can be found here and the conference it was presented at can be found here. Brigade Harvester Boris - I publish in the information sciences area (which has quite a bit of overlap with the Knowledge Management area) and it's the same. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, only the abstract should be regarded as "published", although it too would lie at the bottom of the totem pole of reliable sources. Ok to reference non-contentious information, accorded little (if any) weight, and replaced by a better source as far as possible. Essentially, while I don't think we should have a blanket rule forbidding use of such abstracts, involved editors should question if the information is indeed needed in an encyclopedic article. Abecedare (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Question (to satisfy curiosity): Is the whole paper reviewed before acceptance to the conference, or do the reviewers only look the abstract ? Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the conference page, it looks like they simply look at 'proposals' - which is pretty vague. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside: To see how conferences are judged differently in (certain areas) of computer science, see reports such as:

• Evaluating Computer Scientists and Engineers For Promotion and Tenure
• Research evaluation for computer science
• Conference and Journal Publications in Database Systems and Theory

which conclude that the best conferences in the field(s) are better than journals in terms of prestige, timeliness, selectivity, and novelty of their publications while the journals have the advantage of allowing longer papers, allowing multiple revisions, and being weighted more heavily by some lower ranked schools who have yet to catch up with the changes in the area! The world can look really different from different academic silos. :-) Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Abecedare has it right. Another thing I'd say, is that even in cases where a conference paper wasn't demonstrably reliable on its own, it could still fall into the category of self-published sources that we can use if the author is an established expert in the field.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it depends very much on the field. As usual the broad question "Is X a reliable source?" isn't very meaningful without further details. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformats.org

Is http://microformats.org/wiki/ a reliable source for information about microformats? It appears to be an open wiki (I made an account and made an edit), yet with some kind of overseeing authority. Thoughts? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You've answered your own question, it's an Open wiki that anyone can edit, so it's not RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a pointed reaction to the refutation of OrangeDog's mistaken claims at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats . If the microformats wiki (which houses the canonical specs for microformats) is not a reliable source for information about them, then what is? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This was a genuine question, as I was looking at our articles on microformats and noticed some using this wiki as a source. Knowing that open wikis are explicitly disallowed as sources, I thought I'd check here as it seems to be a pretty official-looking open wiki. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If it really is editable by the outside world, then, no, it's not a source. But it may be acceptable as an external link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Cameron Scott and Squidfryerchef. Open Wiki's do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability but it may be acceptable as an external link (in the 'External links' section). Feel free to post on WP:ELN if you want confirmation (or refutation) whether it's acceptable as an external link. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is a person's LinkedIn profile a good enough source for what school the person attended?

For the purpose of added someone to the list of alumni of a particular school, is the person's LinkedIn profile a good enough source for the fact of their attendance? The person is Jay Hodgson , who seems to be a stellar young Canadian academic in the field of music, and the school is Upper Canada College (UCC), a prestigious private boy's school in Toronto. An IP-editor (not me) added Hodgson to the list lately, twice, but the addition was reverted as unsourced, twice. By some quick-and-easy googling, I turned up a fair amount of material on Hodgson, but among the online sources I thus found, his attendance of UCC is given only by his own LinkedIn profile. It seems to me that this should be a good enough source for the purpose of adding Hodgson to the list of UCC alumni, according to "Self-published ... sources as sources on themselves", within Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. (It would be most unreasonable to suppose that Hodgson has lied about attending UCC, in his own LinkedIn profile, or that the profile is really the work of an impostor who is otherwise accurate but gives wrong information on that one point!) However, the incipient edit-war over the adding of Hodgson to the list points to a need for care, so please give your expert opinions. Thanks.
-- 205.250.69.234 (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you guarantee that this person actually wrote their LinkedIn profile? I've seen some cases where this was doubtful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot think of any way such a thing could be absolutely guaranteed. It seems to me that any online profile or other self-published online source might, in principle, be the work of someone other than the purported author. Why, though, would someone other than Professor Hodgson put Hodgson's profile on LinkedIn? I can't see what use that would be to a hypothetical imposter. Nor is the information given in any way suspect.
-- 205.250.69.234 (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In other words, to quote the 4th criterion at WP:IRS, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". -- 205.250.69.234 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to fit the criteria of "Self-published ... sources as sources on themselves" to me... SBHB could you please point us to the cases you posit as precedence? Dlabtot (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that it is really their LinkedIn profile, then yes, it's reliable per WP:SPS with all the qualifications that WP:SPS brings to the table. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Rangers Central a reliable website!

I have been editing the article Day of the Dumpster. I am in dispute with the user User:Ryulong as he believes sources like this [8] are useful. I believe the website Rangers fails as a reliabe source because its a fansite does anyone have an opinion. Is it a reliable source or not? 82.25.105.18 (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's reliable; it's a self published website that's not affiliated with any official organization or anything. I wouldn't use it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It falls far short of being a reliable source - it's self-published, no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy from third party sources, etc. First Light (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well someone needs to inform User:Ryulong that Rangers Central that its an unreliable source because this won't be resolved any other way. 82.25.105.18 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I just looked up the edits in question. The problem there was under external links, not reliable sources. The site shouldn't be used as a reliable source, and it probably shouldn't be linked to in the EL per WP:ELNO #11 - "most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe Rangers Central is a website published by any recognized "authority." So surely it should be removed. 82.25.105.18 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I was blocked for the entirety of this discussion and could not weigh in at all, I would like to point out that in the case of Power Rangers, as well as many other children's television shows which are notable in their own right, there will not be many non-trivial mentions in reliable third-party sources. As such, the only thing that editors of these articles have to get their information from is either directly reporting what happens in the show itself, or relying on self-published fan-created websites. As no one is going to be writing on the unaired pilots of Day of the Dumpster other than the fans, we should use their knowledge, even if it is below Wikipedia's standards of quality.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that WP:FILMPLOT allows you to cite the episode itself as a primary source so long as there's no interpretation or analysis involved. As for citing sources which don't meet Wikipedia's guideline on reliability, you have WP:IAR to fall back on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is The Skoda Prize worthy of being carried in the Wikipedia?

I have opened an article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_skoda_prize

The Skoda Prize has just been announced yesterday and is one of the most prestigious awards in Visual Arts in India. The prize which was announced at a major press conference on August 17 in New Delhi has been widely reported in the Indian Press http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=the+skoda+prize+indian+contemporary+art+award&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Let me know what else needs to be done.

Thanks in advance.

Unni

I'm not sure this is the right forum, Unni. I notice that the article has been proposed for deletion. If you want to keep it, you will need to add the {{hangon}} template to the article and explain on the talkpage why you think its should be kept. After that, I would suggest adding some references. The prize is not something I know much about, but including in the article references such as this one: [9] might save it from deletion. At the moment, just the fact that the article has no references may mean that an admin feels entitled to get rid of it. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've posted some possible sources at the AFD--looks like it's notable enough if the sources are reliable. I'm headed for the beach now, but I will follow up later here if there with particular sources if that's required. Nuujinn (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

India related articles - Maharashtra, Marathi and Pune

I'm currently in a dispute with other editors regarding content (one line) I would like to include in Maharashtra, Marathi (lead), and Pune. At an early stage in the dispute, the sources I presented were attacked for not being RS. I responded by providing the reasons that qualify them as reliable sources. But since then, despite 2-3 reminders, editors who are opposing my viewpoint have refused to say whether they consider the sources I am presenting as RS. The sources can be found in the table in this section [10] and the entire dispute starts on the same page.[11] I am seeking outside judgment validating or invalidating the sources. Detailed content from one of sources can be found at User:Zuggernaut. Please disregard the first row in the table as that is not being claimed as a RS. Thanks for your help. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is website "The Numbers" an appropriate source for film info?

• http://www.the-numbers.com/
  • The website states at the very top of the page, that it is focused on: "Box office data, Movie stars, Idle speculation" (emphasis added)
  • About page does not give much info, other than that the website is run by one individual, "Bruce Nash".
• The source is at issue on the article Knight and Day, regarding insertion of poorly sourced material from multiple suspected IP sock users of Russ.lienart (talk · contribs), please see example edits: [12] and [13]
• If the source is deemed to be unreliable and inappropriate, this insertion of material is then a WP:NOR violation at that article.
• Is website "The Numbers" an appropriate source for film info?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Numbers (website) (2nd nomination). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you for pointing that out. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's good for box office numbers.[14] I haven't seen anything to say it's reliable for other stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is even good for box office numbers. Those news links do not yield any helpful information about the website's editorial review or standards for research and/or how it even confirms these purported numbers. Certainly we are in agreement as of yet that the site does not have reliability as far as its commentary or analysis. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that other RSs citing their info is one way to establish reliability, and for raw numbers, they seem to be cited quite a bit. I didn't see enough non-trivial sources to establish notability, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to use Box Office Mojo, and I have not really scrutinized The Numbers in the past. This is what I found, though. First, Bruce Nash and The Numbers is referenced on the Wall Street Journal website several times, with this explaining the The Numbers operator after an article about Box Office Mojo: "Bruce Nash, a Los Angeles software designer who spends up to four hours a day updating site with help from two contract assistants." This from The Times apparently considers The Numbers "Hollywood researchers" and quotes Nash a few times in the article. This from MovieMaker says, "Bruce Nash runs The Numbers Website (www.the-numbers.com), which serves up a comprehensive breakdown of weekly, monthly and yearly box office totals. Box office totals for new and old titles are archived all the way back to the heyday of three-strip Technicolor. Nash says that tracking the blockbusters is more science than art these days, with all the focus centered on a movie’s opening weekend." He's then quoted multiple times in that article. On its own, I do not think that The Numbers is that poor of a source. It is worth comparing to Box Office Mojo, though, which I think is more prominent and better staffed.

For comparison's sake, let's compare the websites on some films in the past few years.

• For Batman Begins,

• Box Office Mojo reports $205,343,774 domestic and $167,366,241 foreign
• The Numbers reports $205,343,774 domestic and $167,009,243 foreign

• For The Dark Knight,

• Box Office Mojo reports $533,345,358 domestic and $468,576,467 foreign
• The Numbers reports $533,345,358 domestic and $489,000,000 foreign

Suspecting The Numbers's weakness with foreign numbers, I checked:

• For Pan's Labyrinth,

• Box Office Mojo reports $37,634,615 domestic and $45,623,611 foreign
• The Numbers reports $37,634,615 domestic and $45,600,000 foreign

• Yet another, La Vie en Rose,

• Box Office Mojo reports $10,301,706 domestic and $75,973,087 foreign
• The Numbers reports $10,299,782 domestic and $73,200,000 foreign

With this admittedly small sample, it may be worth assuming that The-Numbers and Box Office Mojo are pretty close when it comes to domestic (United States and Canada) figures. Considering Box Office Mojo's prominence, it may be better staffed than The-Numbers and be able to report overseas grosses more accurately. Its prominence is reflected in a search engine test (in Google News Archive Search) where mention of Box Office Mojo is easily in the thousands, where The Numbers barely reaches 100 with the various keywords I tried. So for Knight and Day, I would recommend Box Office Mojo as a reference instead but still caution that international (outside the United States and Canada) figures for both websites will tend to be estimates until the film's entire theatrical run is complete. In addition, I think The Numbers has a potentially useful difference from Box Office Mojo in having DVD sales figures, where the latter just has DVD rental rankings. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never had any problem with then being used for box office numbers, although as Erik points out there are some small discrepencies which are warning signs we should heed. All things equal Box Office Mojo seems to be more accepted as a reliable source so perhaps should be the default choice in this respect. Just this week I had to correct a budget sourced through The Numbers. The Numbers actually provided sources for this budget, but its own figure didn't match them! It was either entered incorrectly, or updated since without the sources being revised. I've added a lot of budget information and frequently found their figures at odds with those in The New York Times or Variety or whatever. Personally I find it incorrect too ofetn to put complete faith in it, and always feel happy if I find another source to corroborate its information, but that's self-defeating because I don't need The Numbers source then. A useful resource and probably would serve Wikipedia better in the form of an external link. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Erik's points. In my opinion, we should stick with Box Office Mojo whenever we have conflicting data between the two. I would guess that 99% of secondary sources that I have come across cite Box Office Mojo anyway in that regard. If we do decide to drop The-Numbers, we need to reflect that on MOS:FILM because currently it permits editors to use either at their discretion. DrNegative (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Ron Kurtus's School for Champtions a reliable source

See for instance [15] which is used as a source for Antineutron, or [16] which is used in Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics. Kurtus's own information about himself is at [17] and linked pages. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like a SPS and as far as I can tell, Kurtus is not a recognised expert. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a reliable source. For one all the information is factual, for two it's written professionally for educational purposes and has wide recognition. The website lists 90 books from several topics which cites the site as a reference, including ones published by NASA, and won several awards, including ones from the National Science Teachers Association. That the site's pitch ("We want to help you become a champion and achieve your dreams", paraphrased) sounds silly doesn't change the fact that the content is reliable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dosa

is a breakfast eaten in South India for thousands of years. Pat Chapman in his cook book claims Dosa orginated in Udupi, Karnataka. Thangappan Nair, an Indian writer also argues the same in his book.

However, both authors do not attribute their claim. It is also possible Pat Chapman used Thangappan Nair's book as reference. Considering the venerable tradition among Indian writers to document hearsay as history, I am just urging editor User:Gnanapiti to be more careful.

it would be impossible to determine and definitely say Dosa or any traditional Indian food originated anywhere. First, there is no way the first person who made the first Dosa left any evidence behind and/or it is more than likely Dosa evolved from something else which had existed. For these reasons, wikipedia is better served if we attribute the use of the food "Dosa" in some old literature.

I have proposed either the removal of this information or attribute the opinion to the authors and the lack of citations in their book. English food writer Pat Chapman and Indian writer Thangappan Nair argue Dosa originated in Udupi, Karnataka. However, both books do not mention the source of their claim.

Any suggestion will be appreciated. --CarTick 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reading too far into the source. The book is published by an actual publisher (i.e. it's not self-published) so the book isn't really required to say "I learned this from X". Saying English food writer Pat Chapman and Indian writer Thangappan Nair argue Dosa originated in Udupi, Karnataka is acceptable; the However, both books do not mention the source of their claim is not. We're not here to challenge the sources, but rather only to state what the sources say. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

changed the text per your suggestion. but, I still disagree with you that being published by a publisher will make it any more reliable than self-published. i also disagree with you that wikipedia editors can not challenge the authenticity of what we choose to add. --CarTick 16:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-published versus published is one of the key aspects of reliability. If it's published by an publishing company, there's almost always some level of editing and verification done, whereas self-published is the exact opposite. You can challenge the authenticity of sources if there's some reason to do so (e.g. other people have written how the author is full of crap) but in this case, you've got a food writer and another writer coming to the same conclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

could someone comment on the :reliability of my sources

• I am having issues with other Deleting (vandalising) my Edits , I think I have followed all Wiki rules.
• I used the same sources and website used in another Wiki Article link there were no issues on this wiki page Using the same sources and format!
• The Edits in Question link thank you!!
• Also how does one attract more people for a Census ? Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be suspicious of the source. It looks like SPS. Try looking thru this lot http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbs=bks:1,bkv:a&tbo=p&q=black+slave+owners+in+the+USA.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• thank you SLater - However please take notice I used the same source and Website and format as another above mention wiki page -

Can we only Use Google Book Review / Sales ,the website I use is a book Review ????? --Kimmy (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is Robert M. Grooms by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sean Grooms is an Author on Civil war and Slavery -

Is this a better source link --Kimmy (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What we would need is the origianl magazine articel. Also your new source clarly akes this material form your old source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant who is he as in what are his qualifications, is he an academic etc. The Barnes Review seems to publish some pretty controversial material having looked at some of the issues in which Grooms work has been published. I would be surprised if they were regarded as an RS. A reprint at seanbryson.com doesn't change anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Slater that is because the source I listed is the original "Book Review" form Robert M. Grooms - The same Review is used In another Wiki page exactly how I used it link .

• Robert M. Grooms is a Author and journalist that writes for the THE BARNES REVIEW . does controversial material Excludes anything ?
• In any case I have read the books he uses for his Article should I just Omit his comment and use the Foot notes and the facts from the books ?  ? -
• Applying this standard does this same make this Wiki page incorrectly sourced link this wiki page uses the exact same website and source ? thank you --Kimmy (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:INDENT. It will make the discussion easier to follow. A citation being used in another article doesn't tell you anything about its reliability. I would say that citation needs to be removed from the William Ellison article and replaced. Sources are unreliable by default. Is there any evidence that the or Grooms are reliable for anything ? The Barnes Review doesn't appear to have been raised here at RSN before although it is mentioned here where someone describes it as an extremist site. It does seem to fit into the questionable sources category. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can find the same books on Google books -
• Because Barnes Review differs from google book review - does this make it extremist site ?
• Since grooms is Alive I would say that would border on Slander with out any proof , Just because an Opinion is one we do not share , does this make it an extremist view point ?
• That is why I Used the words According too .
• Also on the other wiki page that uses the exact same website and Author If you took out his citations you would have to delete the page unless someone rewrote the whole page ?
• I have Read the books should I just include the information with out Barnes Review ?

Sorry this is hard as the truth is hardly main steam thinking in this case - - Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read WP:INDENT yet ? Can you provide a reliable source that says who Grooms is ? You aren't a reliable source. A wiki editor describing the Barnes Review as an extremist site is slander ? I think not. Someone will have to rewrite the whole William Ellison page then if that is what is needed. WP:V compliance is mandatory and I see no evidence that either the Barnes Review or Grooms are reliable sources. Can you present that evidence based on WP:RS ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is Strange how "Daivd Duke" pops up on Google with Grooms - You are correct "Grooms" is A ghost ? I did read the books he list though - They are good works - Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Kimmy, I am finding some of your comments difficult to make sense of, but I think your statement "It is Strange how Daivd Duke pops up on Google with Grooms" tells me what I need to know. Grooms appears to be a person without established notability whose work has been published, as far as we know, only in a far-right magazine dedicated to historical revisionism and on some personal websites which appear to be far-right and/or white supremacist in nature. In short, the work does not appear to come from a publisher "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required by WP:RS, so it is not reliable an cannot be used. --FormerIP (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time - Great detective work - Grooms, uses good Literary works to Justify his Article - Got you - Thank you --Kimmy (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Barnes_Review Grooms does write for them ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Review

"Barnes_Review, Willis Allison Carto (July 17, 1926) is a longtime figure on the American far right. He describes himself as Jeffersonian and populist, but is primarily known for his promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial

--Kimmy (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Grooms does appear to have written for them, yes. There is a scan of one of his articles I found on a neo-nazi site, but I am not going to link to it. What is more, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of him being published other than by this magazine, at least not under the same name. --FormerIP (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Barnes Review - sourcewatch link --Kimmy (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)