Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

For the record, the discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place here and here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

You know you have a serious Wikipedia problem...

...when you're shopping at your local electronics store, you pick up a flier on audio and video cables, and wonder to yourself, "Is this considered a reliable source?". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not for BLP stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the areas where subjective experience defies objective measurement you picked audio cables... what a shame :)) NVO (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your Wikiholic score? :-D Colds7ream (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating to me that audio cables have become an area of mysticism. It's worse than cosmetics and mineral water today. / PerEdman 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nurse nayirah

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Nurse Nayirah (Moved from talk page)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On the nurse nayirah page commodore sloat is persistantly using editorials as reliable sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309265055&oldid=309254335 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make false statements. On that very page, the anon ip is disruptively deleting well sourced information and personally attacking me on the talk page. csloat (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion as of yet, but ".<ref>See, for example, Michael Kunczik..." seems a bit odd. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{EC}Deception on Capitol Hill is an opinion piece and is only reliable for statements of opinion, not fact. You will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to <author's name>", "<author's name"> said that" or words to that effect. If you have any doubts on whether a particular source is reliable and reliable for what, please post specific questions on the WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quest is right about opinion pieces. They need to be attributed. It's not that hard. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this particular Youtube video looks legit, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards of WP:RS and should be removed from the article. See if you can find some coverage on a major news site, such as BBC News A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CONGRESSMAN SAYS GIRL WAS CREDIBLE is a reliable source but be careful. Some of the reporting is done with inline attribution (i.e. "According to Tom Lantos,..."). If the New York Times felt the need to use inline attribution, we should probably, too.
Kuwaiti Gave Consistent Account of Atrocities appears to be a letter to the editor which should be treated as an opinion piece. It is only reliable for statements of opinions, not facts. As before, you will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to <author's name>", "<author's name"> said that" or words to that effect.
Kuwaiti Gave Consistent Account of Atrocities; Retracted Testimony appears to be a letter to the editor which should be treated as an opinion piece. It is only reliable for statements of opinions, not facts. Again, you will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to <author's name>", "<author's name"> said that" or words to that effect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three more sources which (at quick glance) appear to be reliable for statements of fact that you can use in the article:

not a vote, but

I'm curious how to proceed with a conflict about whether there was consensus on a RS. The discussion wound up with 1 editor saying it was a RS, 6 editors saying it was not and 5 editors noncommital (including discussion of different points, comments that "there are better sources", or saying it can be handled case-by-case). So, it's not a vote, but when there's an argument about whether there was consensus, how do I handle that argument? CRETOG8(t/c) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be a good start to post the article, source and links to discussion on this noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had this discussion on the noticeboard, and the editor's opinions above come from the noticeboard discussion. To me, I'm willing to say that's consensus, but if another editor disagrees about their being consensus (as is occurring here), then what do I do? CRETOG8(t/c) 20:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally, a discussion here does end up with a "no consensus" result, and there is not much more we can do except continue to discuss the source, and seek more opinions. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Heather Harmon questionable sources

How come every article that has been submitted to the notice board has been commented on except Heather Harmon? Is it in violation of some kind of policy? If so, why hasn't somebody left a comment about that? Eagerly awaiting an opinion - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I revised my request down to just one source and removed discussion about the article. Can I please have an explanation as to why it was ignored? The Afd discussion ends tomorrow and it's the main source for the article's notability claim. -Stillwaterising (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah... not a policy... just the usual conspiracy.

Seriously, sometimes it takes a while for questions to get answered... especially on obscure topics. We are volunteers, you know.

In any case... I have given an opinion. Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is required to comment on a request. We try to, but sometimes things slip through or requests are particularly intractable/uninteresting. Protonk (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that a lot of people edit during their lunch hour at work or school and are reluctant to bring up adult-industry trade journals. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of non-questions and outside-the-scope questions

Should entries such as laurie pavitt, brent south, died 1989 be deleted? --Bejnar (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or if in doubt request clarification. --LexCorp (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better to request clarification before you delete. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Armor of God Broadcast

WP:N Clearifies that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic" and that "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

WP:WEB Clearifies "Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content"

WP:RS goes on to state "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Given the information listed form Wikipedia policy, could The Full Armor of God Broadcast achive low importance notability in the area of Christian Metal and /or Christian Radio with its "Self-published or questionable sources or Web content" in the mp3 audio clips of notable guest liners, it's refernces to it's FM, LP and Internet Radio affiliate listings and references form other bands on notable music websites?

The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not a household corporate radio enigma such as "Bob & Tom", but within it's limited genre of Christian Metal and/or Christian radio wouldn't the current refernces be sufficient enough sources to establish a Start Class Low/Mid Importance article? Armorbearer777 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This board is the expert at assessing whether a specific source X is reliable to use in article Y to support specific statement Z. You are really asking a very different question, namely whether we should have an article on this topic at all. That question is addressed by the community at AFD, specifically Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Armor of God Broadcast (2nd nomination), where you are already participating.

What an article really needs to exist here is independent and reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the article topic. In general, it is best to write an article using only such sources. If what you have is a real article, you can then fill in minor holes using self published sources. I strongly recommend that you follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test - forget everything you know about the subject and try to write an encyclopedia article solely from the independent sources. If that can't be done, then the topic is not ready to have an article at this time. GRBerry 19:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]