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 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Hello! I have a question on using The Daily Kos as a source for Wikipedia edits. The relevant articles are Remote Area Medical, Nursing, and UVA SON. I am the editor who added those sources; I'm trying to get an impartial ear here, so I created another account to get some advice from those currently uninvolved with the brou-ha-ha over there. Anywhoo, I tried to include sources to The Myth of a Recession-Proof Job: Nursing, as well as The Busiest Emergency Room in America. Now, I understand the general principle of blogs being potentially unreliable sources- except that on both of those articles, there is extensive research chronicled well, and well-cited in both of them. I went through the links to verify the information was correct, and I even took an extra step on the "ER" room article, and contacted the head of the Remote Area Medical clinic to verify that article properly represented that clinic in Wise, VA.

Now, I believe part of the problem these people had with these sources was that they assumed I was the author, which is incorrect, and I can happily substantiate via IRL sources, as well as my communication with RAM's founder. If that was the case, obviously it would provide a COI, even though personal promotion would be hard to accomplish if the author is anonymous. I also found out via searching the DailyKos site that those articles were both reviewed by administrators there to verify it's content/veracity, which I can provide evidence of (or anyone familiar with DailyKos can verify personally via their account there). Indeed, I discovered he plans on hosting the "ER" article on his website, via the author's permission, to help chronicle the event.

Now, I think those are both important articles containing relevant information to the events, and, as such, would constitute a reliable source. Sources on blogs are no more relevant than citing Wikipedia in scholarly work. I understand the reluctance to rely solely on either a blog, or Wikipedia, in this manner, and if these articles were not well sourced, then I would never have included them. That would be unacceptable. Another point of contention is that the author is nominally anonymous, but I have contacted him and he is willing to be sourced personally on those articles. However, I would note that a part of Wikipedia's nature in and of itself rests largely on anonymity, for a variety of great reasons, and that alone should not preclude those sources from being cited. However, I am more than happy to follow the community consensus here; especially on the "ER" topic- and I'll admit this for full disclosure- but it is truly a noble thing those people do, and the conditions under which they operate and the services they provide make me, as an American, ashamed we have let our system get that way. Yes, I know, we're going for neutral tone, and we're not an advocacy group here, so I did the best I could to avoid bringing any of my personal feelings in on that topic. I would like to think I succeeded in that effort. However, this is absolutely not worth creating a WP:Battleground over on the pros or cons of using blogs as sources, or any such nonsense, and all three of those articles deserve only professionalism in the tone of addressing these concerns. That's pretty much it. Let me know your thoughts, thank you, and God Bless. Ks64q3 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Any relation to User:Ks64q2 ?

Blogs of anonymous authors are not reliable. -Atmoz (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source that may be cited in Wikipedia articles is in itself reliable; a Wikipedia editor's judgement that an author did a good job writing a well-referenced article does not turn an external article by an author who is not known to be an expert, on a website that is not known to have high editorial standards, into a reliable source. What you could do is read the sources cited on the external site and use those sources to improve the Wikipedia article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And yeah, I'm that user. I did read all the sources there, but they're nicely contained in one place, as opposed to unwieldlyunwieldy linking each one to form a barrage of disparate information. For instance, to get the information on the rate of nursing shrinking requires extensive use of the DOL Jobs site report. I would note that I feel that DailyKos has no less editorial standards as many print publications; simply the fact that it's a blog shouldn't preclude it from being cited, IMHO. If these articles were published verbatim in a print source, would that make them automatically worthy of citing (obviously, not the local biweekly flyer)? Ks64q3 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics, as a general matter, it's hard to view referencing reliable secondary sources as "unwieldy linking" to a "barrage of disparate information". If the blog is actually a synthesis drawing conclusions from what are essentially primary sources, then it almost certainly shouldn't be cited (and nor should the primary sources be synthesized here). However, there may be similar conclusions drawn in other reliable sources, so keep huntin'. Bongomatic 04:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Further research shows me lots- lots- of Wikipedia articles using blogs as sources from people with no automatically discernable notability. Should we edit those out, or what? Ks64q3 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the blogger's notability is not automatically discernable doesn't mean that the blogger's notability is not discernable at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, is correct, but obviously just because someone put a blog link in as a reference doesn't mean it's been approved or meets our standards, so a lot of those should be edited out, yes. It's not an all or nothing thing either way. You have to do it case by case. DreamGuy (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) WP requires "reliable sources." Blogs by their nature (no editorial supervision or fact checking, no accountability) even if they are written by Saint Jude are not in the category of "reliable sources." That a lot of articles use them is unfortunate - "other stuff exists" is not a reason for adding any. Many articles, in fact, have no real sources at all, and date back five years or more. Sources which are primarily editorial in nature, written by a well-known person may be used occasionally, but the opinions need to be cited as opinion, and not as fact. If this precis is wrong, please correct me. Collect (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of political blogs, but you can probably use "The Busiest Emergency Room In America" as an external link for Remote Area Medical. Which btw should be renamed "Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corps". On the other hand "The Myth of a Recession-Proof Job" probably couldn't be used in an article with such a wide scope as nursing. And there are many other sources out there you can use to point out that while health care isn't as market-sensitive as some other sectors, it's not immune to budget cuts either. Hospital cutbacks are in the paper every day, but its still a lesser evil compared to finance or construction. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the online database ebsco a reliable source? It is a subscription database so the links would lead to a log in page. My question is can ebsco articles(information found on ebsco) be used as a reference for wikipedia?Smallman12q (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ebsco itself wouldn't be the source. It's providing access to articles published elsewhere (newspapers, magazines, academic journals, etc.). Whether the article is a reliable source depends on where it was originally published. Generally, I would think that if the publication is in the Ebsco database it qualifies as a reliable source, but if there are questions about individual articles, that can be handled on a case-by-case basis. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I was looking for. So a publication in ebsco would generally be reliable(with some exceptions). Now my other question if I put links, they are subscription based(not everyone has access), is that okay?Smallman12q (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not a problem. You can also cite books that people can't get access to without buying. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could let me know if a news paper article online is a reliable source, it is being used on the Banksy article, as follows.

==Orpington==

New work of Banksy is to believed to be found in Orpington Kent London Borough of Bromley some speculation about the art which shows a baby with some balloons and a small child with spray can has been mentioned on the Banksy forum 1--86.11.100.50 (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any particular problem with the reliability of the News Shopper, but you'll see that the article is pure speculation based on comments made on an internet forum. Too trivial to mention. At least at the moment. If the images do turn out to have been authored by Banksy then it will be reported in other sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of articles written in the news start out as tips, hunches, or chatter in online forums. But once those tips and hunches go through the editorial process and end up in a newspaper, then you have a secondary source, at least for the fact that the speculation exists. However, if you want to use this it should be worked into the material of the article, alongside all the other alleged or credited Banksy murals. You have an RS but you still have to watch for undue weight. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, much of this article on Donald P. Scott is sourced from fear.org, which I suspect may not be a reliable source. What do others think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd treat it as a self published source.... it seems like it should be possible to find better sources for this article. Dlabtot (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dlabtot that fear.org should be treated as a SPS. There is no evidence that this source publishes materials with a reliable publication process, nor are their authors generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative. Better sources need to be found. I also fear that this person fails WP:BLP1E. -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS could really use a section on advocacy groups, as this question comes up all the time. Dlabtot (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck getting a consensus on that. Someone tried to add one at one time but it fizzled out. But we do have a problem with the label "self-published" being used by some editors to refer to official sources, publications from organizations, etc, while to other editors "self-published" means only a personal blog or vanity press. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems more like published, but by a political advocacy group, and one which happens to cite its sources. If you have access to the original newspaper reports and would like to bring them in to improve the article, more power to you. But I wouldn't remove the political articles just yet. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a difference between a website that is self-published by an organization and one self-published by an individual... the problem is that this is often impossible to determine which is which. An individual can set up a website, claiming to be an "organization" ... while some legitimate organizations (especially non-profits) often rely on one computer literate volunteer to host the organization's offical web page under the auspicies of his or her personal website. All you can do is conduct some additional research, to find out if a website claiming to be an organization actually is one... or whether it is really one person pretending to be one. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I scrolled down on the FEAR website and there was something about it being influential in legislation intended to rein in asset forfeitures. That shouldn't be hard to verify, and if it checks out, it speaks well for notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to Squidfryerchef's views, and towards this organization's acceptability or reliability, especially if it just being used as a host for material originally published elsewhere. This is a legitimate organization, as these gbooks, gscholar and gnews searches show: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Citation by books from university presses and mainstream scholarly or legal publishers therein gives evidence toward it being "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative," although of course, it has a POV which should be accounted for in writing articles. John Z (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use foreign language sources in English language Wikipedia (that is French or German government sources published in French and German) for numerical information like gallons/year? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Although English sources are preferred, you can use others when necessary.

It's covered here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Center against Expulsions presents (only in German version of the site) an alleged table of expulsions http://www.z-g-v.de/aktuelles/?id=58 . It's a biased synthesis of quoted sources. A part of the table is quoted in Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe and an editor has removed even my POV template. I doubt we need such POV here.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC) No comments yet.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please list reliable sources which say it is a biased synthesis. Knepflerle (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please list reliable sources which say it isn't biased. Xx236 (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The article Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe is a collection of different sources and methods to examine the numbers of German refugees and expellees in connection with WWII. The article is a spin-off of Expulsion of Germans after World War II, which would be way too large if all different sources and methods were included there. The table in question is one of numerous estimates presented in the "Demographic estimates ..." article and summarizes the numbers estimated by the Foundation Center Against Expulsions, a foundation of the Federation of Expellees, the head organization of German expellee groups.

The web address www.z-g-v.de 7 is the internet portal of the foundation, whose objection is to document the expulsions in the name of the federation, and is used according to WP:SPS to present the view of the expellees, who after all are the very subject of the article. Though the Federation of Expellees does not represent non-organized German expellees, their views should be notable enough to be included in the article. The table is properly attributed to the federation in general and also specifically its foundation. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In another words - let's put the waste in a basket and we obtain science. Generally subjects aren't reliable in any case. Xx236 (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You are again choosing to avoid substantiating your complaint. Editors here will look favourably at a well-sourced argument. If you want editors to take the time to take your complaints seriously, you should take time to provide the relevant information. We're waiting. Knepflerle (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the table sourced entirely to the www.z-g-v.de, and is it the site of the Federation of Expellees? If so, it doesn't strike me as the most reliable of sources; at the very list it should be clearly attributed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The table is sourced and attributed to the federation of expellees, foundation center gainst expulsions, and their website. There is no confusion whatsoever who the source is. The table is not intended to represent "truth", but is only one of various data sets presented in the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The table is biased

1. It doesn't inform about the expulsion of 550 000 Poles from Warsaw by Germans, see Planned destruction of Warsaw#Expulsion of civilians.
2. It downgrades expulsion of Poles by Germans as "Oktober 1939 - März 1941 460 000". Expulsion of Poles by Germany informs about 4 years long expulsions of ethnic Poles, more than 1 million of expelled. Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does not inform about any expulsion of Poles. The article is about expulsions of Germans, and the table is one of several different data sets presented in the article. For the Warsaw and other expulsions of Poles, there are other articles. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the table is about any expulsion, as the title says: "Chronik der Vertreibungen europäischer Völker im 20. Jahrhundert". So if it is unreliable regarding expulsions of Poles, it becames unreliable regarding any other expulsions, including the ones of Germans. Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the website does not state exactly the numbers you have in mind regarding issues unrelated to the article's scope, it does not make the cited numbers unreliable as the federation of expellees' estimates regarding the flight and expulsion of Germans. To every number in the expulsion statistics there are different numbers from other sources, that's exactly why the "Demographic estimates..." article collects several relevant estimates and attributes them to their respective sources rather than stating just one number from one source. Everyone is free to evaluate the given background of the presented estimates (source/method) and draw their own conclusion. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Either a source is reliable or isn't. I have proven that the source is unreliable. Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't push a Polish nationalistic site as a reliable source. The same a German nationalistic site doesn't deserve to be quoted as reliable. If the site quotes reliable sources, the original secondary sources can be quoted, rather than an amateur mixture of numbers.Xx236 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.patriotresource.com/index.html

Can somebody vet this web site for reliability, please? Thank you! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS. In fact, I it does not meet WP:EL in the first place. Looks a advertisement site, related to rentals etc., --Nvineeth (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Linked to quite a few articles: 8. dougweller (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And a furthe search shows it is a personal website owned by a Scott Cummings. dougweller (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks all! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

http://measuringworth.com/

• spam or good? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 17:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No source is reliable in all circumstances. What specific pages from measuringworth.com and for what use? --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Ronz, good to see you again, and thanks for coming to help. Sorry to keep pestering you on these kinds of things, but you're the most knowledgeable editor I know personally (well, so to speak), on this type of stuff. I first saw it an article about a NASCAR driver, Tim Richmond maybe, - and when I looked, I see it shows up all over the place in "search". A lot of BLP articles and such, it just seemed sort of spammy to me. I didn't see it in the blacklist, but kind of wondered if it should really be used as much as it is. I see it in articles like Mary Hyde, John W. Simpson (lawyer), Emanuel Lasker, etc. I can appreciate its usefulness on articles discussing the value of a dollar, or yen, or pound, or whatever - but it seems to be showing up in a lot of BLP articles. I'm not sure how relevant it is to say that Actor A, or Singer B, or Inventor C was worth X-amount of dollars in 1955, but if we use "measuringworth.com we can see what they would be worth today. What's your (and others) thoughts on it? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Was on that site a week ago, and it is backed by several government indexes that can be downloaded. It appears to be a reliable mirror of those primary sources in convenient calculator form. That being said, its strong cautions against reading too much into the data should be heeded, and any claim it is said to support should be compared against its cautions to ensure the comparison is phrased correctly. I agree that it can be overused even for legitimate calculations, and it can contribute to Amero-bias. JJB 08:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We're having a discussion over at Talk:Deaths in 2009#Derek Benfield as to whether death announcements (not, I stress, obituaries) in newspapers are reliable sources. The question is whether the announcements are checked sufficiently by newspaper staff (so we can be reasonably sure that the named person is indeed dead) or whether the notices are essentially classified ads (prepared and published without reference to the newspaper's editorial staff). The extent to which newspapers check such facts, if at all, isn't clear. 87.114.147.43 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. We're having a debate about whether a newspaper death notice is reliable enough to use? Is there a question as to whether the person was deceased, or what? A death notice is at the very least usable as a primary source for the fact that a death notice was listed in the newspaper. And, if there's no fact-checking on these, how come we don't have a spate of bogus ones every April Fool's Day. Or is this actually a debate about whether the source confers notability? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that newspapers do any fact-checking at all on death notices. Do actually think they do research to see if John Doe really was "a loving husband and devoted father"? Of course not. These notices, written up by family and friends, do not go through the editorial process. Yes, they are essentially classified ads. Dlabtot (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncertain. I imagine that they take quite a bit of care since they wouldn't want to incure legal responsibilities, but it also seems kinda like a want ad. I would say it's reliable for the fact that a death occured, but not for stuff like "he was a great father". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Hobit (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is 9 Rootsweb considered a reliable source for birth/death dates and related info? Earlier tonight, I used it to cite the birth date of Playboy Playmate Diane Webber and I just wanted to verify that it's okay to use them as a source. Webber's entry at that site is noted with a V for verified. Who does that, I'm not sure. The other source for her birth date that is in the article is a Playmate listing site at Univ. of Chicago. I've emailed the maintainer of that site a couple times in the past and they say that they often get their info direct from Playboy magazine. Playboy could have had Webber's DOB incorrect. It wouldn't be the first time but it's hardly a common thing either. Anyway, is Rootsweb reliable? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, In an AfD discussion10, we are debating if the Daily Vault is a RS. It appears to have staff writers 11 and an editorial staff 12. I'd call it a RS, but I tend to be fairly unconcerned the reliability of about review sites for books/movies/etc., so I figured more input would be good. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

check out WP:SPS. it states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, etc., are largely not acceptable." whether or not they have editorial policies is irrelevant. if i start up my own blog, it'll have editorial policies, as well. namely, that all stories are about me. that's an editorial policy and it's not sufficient to qualify my blog as a reliable source per WP:RS.

also, check out the footnote to WP:SPS. Wikipedia:SPS#cite note-5. it states ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.". the Daily Vault is little more than a group blog in this context. if i start a message board and invite my friends to moderate it and am no longer accepting invitations that does not mean i am all of a sudden a reliable source nor does it mean Daily Vault is. Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:RS for the reasons given above. Dlabtot (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Could you distinguish an on-line newspaper from a "group blog"? Hobit (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

if an online newspaper does not have a wikipedia article it is liable not to be a reliable source imho. indeed, i believe reliability is something of a misnomer. articles discussing the killian documents, before they were found to be fake, may not be reliable, anymore, but what they said is still notable, if, for nothing else, as an example of what the prevailing view was at the time.

similarly, if someone who had an absolutely unimpeachable character, citing them would still be inappropriate if they weren't notable. WP:NOR doesn't exist because wikipedia works on the assumption that anything said on wikipedia without a citation is a lie - it exists because, for the most part, nothing said on wikipedia is notable. WP:RS doesn't exist because wikipedia assumes that the BBC are the only ones who can tell the truth - it exists because the BBC and similar organisations are the only ones whose comments are notable. articles on wikipedia should not be seen as "the truth" so much as they should be seen as a summary of what others of note believe or have believed. you can't really that without notable citations.

if Daily Vault were oft cited by the BBC a wikipedia article would probably be in order for them and in turn for the bands they mention, but they're not oft cited by the BBC. Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Erb? Still lost. We don't rate sources as reliable because they do (or do not) have a page here. As far as I can tell, we are talking about a review site. The site has editors and writers and you can apply for a writer's job (though they aren't looking for any at the moment) just as you could at a newspaper. I'm not seeing a difference. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ignore my last paragraph - i'm now discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#a source isn't reliable unless it has a wikipedia article?. to address your original question, lets approach this another way. how do you distinguish between me posting a comment on a phpbb3 message board and a website like daily vault? if the phpbb3 message board has queued posts enabled or if a particular forum can only be posted to by admins one could say that there is an editorial standard, even though it is obviously not a reliable source. at the other end of the spectrum is the new york times. they can be assumed to be reliable because they have people whose sole job it is to fact check. and if they don't do good fact checking, their reputation would be ruined and their business would crumble. where does daily vault fall in that? well, per your own comments, it's a review site. an opinion site. opinions are not reliable by definition. "he's hot, she's hot". that's all very subjective and not at all reliable. daily vault is a review site and as such, there is no presumption of reliability. per that, it's doubtful they have fact checkers and if they said something that was in error, who really cares? an opinion cannot be in error, anyway Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

an opinion cannot be in error, anyway - I know that's just your opinion, but it's wrong. j/k Dlabtot (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, easy. There's going to be sources that fall on the border of being RS; we're dealing with a continuum here. Somebody said what if you start a message board and then stop inviting new members, is it an RS? Well, if years later it has a staff and an editorial board, it may well be. Every news organization has to start somewhere. And lets not get too whacked out about academic standards in pop-culture articles. My take is it may be fine for discussion about the music, but it may not be "secondary" enough to establish notability in the AFD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Much easier one. Edited by Rabbi Isaac Landman. Don't know if it's the same as "Universal Jewish Encyclopedia". Question: Use freely, use with attribution, or don't use? The discussion is at Talk:Shabbat if you need it. JJB 03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Talk:Shabbat discussion, I'm not sure why you brought this here. In that discussion you told another editor: "you're saying that the NUJE is an unreliable source", however, that editor did not in fact say that. Anyway, all sources and their uses have to be examined in context. That this source is 65 years old must be taken into account. That's certainly enough time for a work to gain a reputation among those who know the field. (Which I don't. But for the sake of argument let's say it has a fair to good reputation.) For material that is uncontentious and unlikely to be challenged, you don't even need in-line citations. Contentious material is another matter. Of course it needs to be attributed and written carefully to follow all our policies. That's what talk pages are for. Dlabtot (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Metal Observer is cited in multiple articles relating to performers of heavy metal music. The website's coverage of band genres is inconsistent, its content appears to be user-submitted. Most reviews that I have seen from this website do not appear to be professionally written. Can anyone confirm the reliability of this website? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

I had trouble finding a good about page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem to be a reliable source- or match up to other sites like Metal Archives which do have user-submitted content on par with IMDB. Nevard (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect re: the submissions I'm afraid. Genres being "inconsistent" is purely original research, only meaningful if you have reliable sources stating this directly. Content is not user-submitted: reviews are all written by staff members, not simply users. Metal Archives is not used because it does rely on user-submitted content. As far as the professionalism of the reviews goes, it varies certainly, but no more than any review source. Even the most highly regarded here (allmusic, Rolling Stone) have examples of poorly written reviews. But poorly written or not, they are still the opinions of a staff body engaged consistently in exploring and reviewing music releases. Prophaniti (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The list of staff members can be found here so contrary to what has been said above, the site's contents are not user-submitted. --Bardin (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is nothing but an amateur webzine/fanzine. Not a reliable source for anything and should be a blacklisted link. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it an amateur webzine/fanzine? What is your definition of amateur in this context? The Metal Observer has a fairly large roster of staff members from several different countries. None of these staff members are anonymous. They have a radio show in Austria, have organised a concert festival in Canada, has been recognized as one of the world's longest-running metal website, and it has even been described as one of the the top international online metal resources. That does not sound like an amateur fanzine to me. --Bardin (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that they have a lot of people who they call "reviewers"... the question is, are these people professional staff members, assigned to review a band and paid to do so, or are they just members of the site (ie amatures) who wrote a review of a band they saw? How does one get to be a reviewer? As for appearing in the media... I am concerned that you just link to articles that are all from one website: blabbermouth.net. I would agree that Blabbermouth.net (which itself is not reliable under RS) considers Metal-Observer to be note worthy, but does anyone else? Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They are staff members. Whether they are paid or volunteers, I do not know but it's not as if anyone from the internet can just sign up to write reviews for them. There's no provision for users or visitors to write reviews. As for Blabbermouth, it is most certainly a reliable source otherwise it would not be used as often as it is on featured articles. --Bardin (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong, but Blabbermouth looked like a blog site run by a record company... they even include a disclamer saying that the material posted on it is not to be considered reliable. But... that is a secondary issue... My point in questioning Blabbermouth was to say that I would like more than just a few posts to Blabbermouth to establish that Metal-Observer has a high reputation and is more than just a popular fan site. I would do the same with a source that was only mentioned in the New York Times.

As for your comment about the "reviewers" being hired staff, that sounds good if it can be substantiated. Unfortunately, I can not find anything on the Metal-Observer website that talks about how they pick reviewers... so how are we to know? Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, Blabbermouth is independent of the record company, and your comments above are a misrepresentation of the disclaimer that appears on the website ("BLABBERMOUTH.NET is run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner Records, and the views and opinions of authors expressed on these pages do not necessarily state or reflect those of Roadrunner Records or its employees.") This states that Blabbermouth is independent of Roadrunner, and that's all. I have no problem with Blabbermouth as a source as long as we are aware that a lot of their news stories are based largely or wholly on press releases. Original pieces should be fine as sources. I don't see Metal Observer as a reliable source though. --Michig (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think this is what you're looking for with regards to the site's selection of staff members. German language version here. I do not know of any other site that praise, criticize or discuss The Metal Observer. There are several hits for the site on google news but all the results were in various foreign languages that I do not understand. Some of the interviews they conduct has been reported as news on sites like Blabbermouth. Some of their reviews have been posted up on the website of various bands and record labels but I suspect that's only when the reviews are positive. What I do know is that The Metal Observer is one of the longest running metal websites around and that translates to me as experience. It has developed a reputation as "one of the top international online metal resources", according to Blabbermouth. I feel all of that is enough to indicate that this site is "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", to quote WP:RS. That subject being heavy metal music, obviously. --Bardin (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As well as Bardin's excellent points regarding their history and from Blabbermouth, a few extra things to throw in: Metal Observer has come up on this noticeboard before recently (brought up by myself), and two other users affirmed it.

It mentions in the FAQ section "We are a closed society for now, at least as far as reviewers are concerned", and reviewers and their profiles can be seen here 13. So it does have it's own staff body, and they're not accepting people to become new reviewers currently. Bardin also provided a link to what sort of thing they're asking of staff. WP:ALBUM states that a site can be used in the professional reviews section so long as it has an editorial and writing staff, be they paid or volunteer.

In addition to this, a quick look at the statistics: it currently says they have about 14,000 album reviews. With a staff of 30, that's over 450 reviews per staff member. That's a pretty significant experience of heavy metal music. Prophaniti (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, that's rather funny. Alex, the website owner... with over 2000 reviews himself... states that his occupation as "international moving coordinator"... oh yeah, there's a reliable source there!! Val, the other website owner, claims her occupation as "working for The Metal Observer.. no salary of course." Ooo... another completely reliable source there too. The staff list consists of plumbers and taxi drivers.. HAHA! Thanks for the staff link... the site is now officially killed. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm...no. No it isn't. The staff are volunteers, not paid. No one ever denied this, nor does it rule them out as a source: WP:ALBUM clearly states that paid or not, a source can be used. So yes, they have jobs. This is irrelevant to the discussion. Regardless of what they may or may not do in their lives outside of the site, they are an editorial and writing staff with very extensive experience of heavy metal music. So the source may be ruled out in your eyes, but you do not speak for wikipedia. For which I'm very glad, if you honestly believe these people having jobs means they cannot be cited. Prophaniti (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh?? Extensive experience? Most of them are students who haven't even reached the age of 20 yet. Have you even read through some of those bios? It's like some sort of school paper where the shop teacher is the journalist tutor and the students are all 1 trashcan fire away from being expelled. It's pure comedy reading through them. There isn't a single shred of journalistic integrity within the lot of them combined. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you believe their age or jobs outweigh hundreds of reviews apiece (as well as all the other evidence provided by Bardin), then that's up to you. However, the site has been shown to meet the criteria given for a "professional review site", so unless you can provide good counter-arguments based on wikipedia guidelines (as opposed to your POV), then there's no problem using it. Prophaniti (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get hundreds apiece> Again I ask.. have you actually read the bios. Outside of the anomally of the fansite owner with over 2000 most of the volunteers on the list have less than 50. So who actually posted enough reviews to get them over 14000??? Because the sum of the people listed on the staff page doesn't add up to a number near that high... again pushing reliable source even further into the hole on this one. No metal-dedicated online webzine is a reliable source for anything. And this one is no exception. (and yes age and jobs would outweigh review amounts... if they actually had any... which they don't) The Real Libs-speak politely 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM clearly states that paid or not, a source can be used - where? I just reviewed WP:ALBUM and I can't find this statement. In fact it seems to say just the opposite. At any rate, the relevant policy is WP:RS. WP:ALBUM is a WikiProject, not a policy page. Dlabtot (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First line of the "professional reviews" section: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff." The point I'm making is that if it qualifies as a professional review site this must lend it a degree of reliability. Prophaniti (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It's a bit of a circular argument, however, since the next sentence states: The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources... . So the question is, does The Metal Observer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I haven't seen any evidence that this amateur website has such a reputation. Dlabtot (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bardin... thank you for finding that page! It is exactly what I needed to see to give a firm opinion... it completely answers my questions and resolves any hesitation as to the sites reliability. Metal Observer reviews clearly do not come from user submissions, and I would agree that they should be considered as reliable as any other professional critical review. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I just point out that just because their title is "staff member", doesn't make them an authority. I can start a website right now and call myself "Ruler of the Universe", but unfortunately, that doesn't make me so. Professional music journalists (note "Professional", as in, they make their living from it) could grind this site into the ground. See NME and/or Q Magazine. Now they are reliable sources. Not this stuff. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you could do that. But then you would not have a radio show connected to the site; be known as one of the longest running heavy metal review sites in existence; receive praise and acknowledgement from blabbermouth.net; have a team of 29 other reviewers behind you; be one of the most visited heavy metal websites in the world; nor have 14,000 heavy metal reviews to your name. That's the difference. If by "grind into the ground" you mean "are printed and cover mainstream music as opposed to heavy metal music", then yes, quite right. But I don't see what that has to do with anything. Besides which, no one is saying this is on the same level as all other music sources. There is more than one level of source reliability: just because something is not a perfect source does not rule it out alltogether. Prophaniti (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like just some amateur website. Dlabtot (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Libs, you said that most of the staff members are students who have not even reached the age of 20. That is completely wrong and I hope that it was an honest mistake on your part and not an outright lie. The editor in chief Alexander Melzer is 36 years old. Ralf Henn at 41 years old and has been working for The Metal Observer for eight years now. Steve Herrmann at 40 years old, Stephen Rafferty and Alexander Ehringer are both 38 years old, Chris Doran and Falk Kollmannsperger are both 37 years old, Dustin Hathaway is 35 years old, Patrick Weiler, Gabriel Gose and Jean-Pierre du Toit are all 29 years old this year, Frodi Stenberg, Eric Vieth, Jonathan Smith are all 28 years old, Neil Pretorius is 26 years old, Matt Reifschneider is 24 years old, etc. I could only find one staff member that was aged 19 years.

Dlabtot, you said that The Metal Observer looks like just some amateur website. Could you explain how exactly it looks like some amateur website? What were you expecting to see? You say that you have not seen evidence that the website has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have already pointed out that it has received praise by an unrelated and reliable source as being one of the top international online resources for heavy metal music.

Scarian, there is nothing on WP:RS that indicates an author must be paid to be deemed reliable or professional. What it does says is that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." Given the reputation that this website has as one of the top international online resources for heavy metal music and its record as one of the oldest running metal website, is there any reason to think that the authors are not "trustworthy or authoritative" in relation to heavy metal music? --Bardin (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not here to argue but simply to give my opinion. An amateur website is one that is not professional. One that is not the job of the people who run it and staff it. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that this website fits that description. I've seen the links you've provided and I don't believe that they establish a reputation as a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is looking for an argument but there's not much that can be done if you are just going to state your opinion without providing any explanation, as you did again with your last sentence there. Is there anything in WP:RS that specifies reliable sources can only be those from paid authors? --Bardin (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stating my opinion without providing an explanation, but I'm also not going to be drawn into a pointless argument. The explanation, (again) is that The Metal Observer does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and no one has provided any references that indicate they have such a reputation. They aren't published. They are just a bunch of people who put up a website. So, in my opinion, they don't meet any of the WP:RS criteria and shouldn't be cited under any circumstances. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Bardin: a writer does not have to be paid to be authoritative or knowledgeable. It would be fair to say that someone who is paid for it and does it for a living may well know the subject matter better, but as I say, that doesn't rule out those who aren't paid. Just look at the number of reviews: 14,000. As I say, this translates as 450 reviews per author. Over a 9 year period this averages at 50 reviews a year; which in turn means 1 heavy metal review nearly every week by every reviewer for 9 years. Obviously staff will have been hired as time passed and so on, but nevertheless, this average clearly suggests a good understanding of the subject matter. Prophaniti (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got your stats wrong again. The fansite owner... the "international moving specialist"... has just over 2000... there are about 5 volunteers listed with between 200-400 and the rest are students under the age of 20 with only a handful each. No journalists to be found here. Just fanboys. The one that states their job as "Metal-Observer (unpaid of-course) but will gladly take work that pays... know of any?" speaks volumes for this fansite. There is simply no such thing as a good heavy metal website... plain and simple. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Metal-Observer - random break

This shouldn't be necessary...

• Alexander Melzer, 36 years old, 2151 reviews, started January 2000, that's around 476 weeks, ave. 4.5 reviews per week
• Ralf Henn, 41 years old, 1033 reviews, started January 2001, that's around 423 weeks, ave. 2.4 reviews per week
• Steve Herrmann, 40 years old, 14 reviews, started December 2008, that's around 12 weeks, ave. 1.3 review per week
• Alexander Ehringer, 38 years old, 404 reviews, started November 2001, that's around 382 weeks, ave. 1.05 review per week
• Stephen Rafferty, 38 years old, 132 reviews, started February 2005, that's around 212 weeks, ave. 0.6 review per week
• Chris Doran, 37 years old, 475 reviews, started August 2001, that's around 395 weeks, ave. 1.2 review per week
• Falk Kollmannsperger, 37 years old, 642 reviews, started October 2001, that's around 384 weeks, ave. 1.7 review per week
• Dustin Hathaway, 35 years old, 110 reviews, started February 2007, that's around 108 weeks, ave. 1 review per week
• Gabriel Doser, 29 years old, 89 reviews, started April 2007, that's around 100 weeks, ave. 0.9 review per week
• Patrick Weiler, 29 years old, 197 reviews, started February 2001, that's around 419 weeks, ave 0.5 review per week
• Frodi Stenberg, 28 years old, 307 reviews, started December 2003, that's around 274 weeks, ave. 1.2 review per week
• Eric Vieth, 28 years old, 198 reviews, started November 2005, that's around 173 weeks, ave. 1.1 review per week
• Armen Janjanian, 25 years old, 264 reviews, started September 2002, that's around 339 weeks, ave. 0.78 review per week
• Jorryd Andries, 22 years old, 7 reviews, started December 2008, that's around 12 weeks, ave. 0.6 review per week
• Mitchel Betsch, 19 years old, 158 reviews, started July 2006, that's around 139 weeks, ave. 1.1 review per week
• Kevin Roy, 19 years old, 41 reviews, started November 2007, that's around 69 weeks, ave. 0.6 review per week
• etc. Most of the staff members are in their 20s or 30s. Most of them average around 1 review per week, which is probably the level of commitment that the site expects from them. --Bardin (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No that shouldn't have been necessary since several pages on your watchlist were vandalised in the time it took you to compile that but thanks for doing it... it just emphasises my earlier point about reliability and experience. (you left out the part about most of them still being unemployed and living in their parent's basements) They have the spare time to blog their opinions to their favourite fanzine... and the fanzine owner liked their writing style and said they could submit more.... which is a good way for him to meet new friends and share an interest 'n all... but... if those same people decided to cut out the middle man and post their views here... it would be reverted for numerous policy reasons. I am a 47 year old engineering lecturer and library data compiler... and if I blogged my album opinions to an online fanzine and then turned around and saw them here as a reference... it would make me cringe. I am not singularly prejudiced against this one fanzine. All internet fanzines are equally bad. Some have already been blacklisted. The rest will eventually join them. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I put that is to counter your statements that a) the majority of them are under 20 years and b) they only have a handful of reviews each. Both statements are wrong. Your claim now that most of them are still unemployed and living their parent's basements is not just wrong too but rather vindictive as well. Is it not possible for you to argue that The Metal Observer is an unreliable source without resorting to untruths? For the record, none of the pages that are on my watchlist was vandalised in the time I took to write that up. --Bardin (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31
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.

---