This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 115

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The section which currently concerns me reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is necrometrics.com a reliable source?

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

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

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

The cite has been changed12 to cite the Brown University Eisenhower Study Group, which looks like a reliable source. (Good work, Stumink!) I think we can close this. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like they do:

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

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

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

Ugo Bardi is the founder of ASPO Italia.

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

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

From the page on Wikipedia on ASPO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"In 2008 the school developed an educational card game to aid the teaching of nutrition. Pupils created cards to help them learn about the properties of food,¹ and with the help of the Headteacher, they developed this into a Top Trumps style game. The Grocer magazine ran an article about the initiative which aimed to raise funding from public and private sources in order to distribute the game free to every school in the country as part of the national "Year of Food and Farming."²

First of all, the most obviously misleading item in the current text is that The Grocer published not one article but three online161718 (and possibly one in the print edition). All three articles seem to be non-neutral in tone and are soliciting funds for this school project. I think this may have been changed to downplay the advertorial nature of these sources which was apparant in the original version of the text19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In order to your questions

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

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

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

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

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

About Jay Wright

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

Discuss below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's some of the articles they're trying to use: 22, 23, 2403:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the technical error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's your highbeam cite:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_122
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---