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 90

←

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

Can we have a discussion regarding Yahoo blogs? FACs are dependant on this and I thought that it is better to have them here. Some FAC reviewers are of the opinion that Yahoo blogs, being blogs, are not reliable. I oppose the viewpoint because these are not just some random blogspot.com papers. The yahoo blogs and the threads are written by highly respected music editors, journalists, theorists from the music world, including Paul Grein (former Billboard editor), Caryn Ganz (senior Rolling stone editor), Billy Johnson Jr. (music critic), Lyndsey Parker (Billboard) etc. Just because the term blog is associated with them, the editors are rejecting these sources, which present high volume of information. FAC reviewers are also of the opinion that Yahoo! doesnot have any rights over these blogs, which is codswallop imo, because every page is copyrighted to them. I opened this thread to know the opinion of other fellow editors here at WP:RSN, so that the confusion and the blanket overlap between reliable and unreliable sources are cleared. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Blogs which are published by distinguished/reknowned/notable experts in some field can be treated as self published sozrces an expert (see WP:SPS, WP:USERG). In short they may be acceptable in articles as source, whether they are or not depends on the particular usage and context. However FA may formulate additional criteria which rules them out (I don't really bother with FAC), but this is not really a question for this board but the FA process.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC is not above WP:CONSENSUS I believe, in this case the whole of music board has accepted these sources as reliable. My question for coming here is to look into that consensus, and see, if it is right. If so then I see no reason for FAC to dictate something, I will surely notify them. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG would seem to apply. Pieces written by a known journalist, signed, and appearing in a reputable website should be fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying FAC is right. I'm just saying the consensus of the music board is correct and in line with policies/guidelines as far as articles in general are concerned. Whether FAC should/can formulate additional requirements on sources for its articles is a separate topic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points: first, does Yahoo exercise editorial control over its blogs, as required by WP:NEWSBLOG? Just because it's copyrighted by them doesn't mean that's the case, and demonstrating that it is would help to verify their reliability. Second, the FA criteria demand high-quality reliable sources, which is a more stringent requirement than most other areas of the project. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, is this WP blog enough to support a death claim - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-mortem/post/snooky-young-92-year-old-jazz-trumpeter-dies/2011/05/13/AFtW7p2G_blog.html - it seems to be looking at the about the poster has been writing obituaries for the post since 2004 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postmortem/2007/09/matt-schudel.html - Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering what the view is about using sources from a "political" publisher like South End Press. On their website it says "South End Press is a nonprofit, collectively run book publisher with more than 250 titles in print. Since our founding in 1977, we have tried to meet the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change." This might be interpreted as a self-admission that they promote "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" - ie a "questionable source" under WP:RS. They even have a tagline of "Read. Write. Revolt". On the other hand, they've got an extensive catalogue, and their seems to be a level of editorial control, but you'd have to wonder about the NPOV of their fact checking, particular in older works from the 80s. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icerat (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things. One is that "radical social change" is not exactly the same thing as "extremist". The other is that we separate fact-checking from POV. Writing could be entirely factually correct but still advocate a viewpoint. This publisher seems to have published the work of some quite prominent scholars, although it is not a scholarly press. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How would you suggest their material be used then? They're quite upfront that they're pushing a particular POV, which when dealing with controversial issues I feel should be noted, but on the other hand pointing out the POV of the publisher along with statements from a book could be considered POV pushing in itself and a violation of WP:SYNTH couldn't it? --Icerat (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It very much depends on the book, its author, and what statement it is being used to support. If you can give some details, we can give more useful advice. You are right that it isn't normally appropriate to cast doubt on the veracity of a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Itsmejudith. If you could give an example of its use to support a statement, in relation to a particular work, we could help. Some partisan presses like Homocult have published works which are notable for their POV, such as Andy Anderson's thesis that The enemy is middle class; though, in this case Anderson is an expert in the area. Conversely, many partisan presses (such as AK Press) publish works which are considered the standard scholarly references regardless of their POV or the publisher's status as a politically engaged text. It depends what you cite, for what fact or opinion, in which article. Anderson's Enemy is probably worth citing in Anarchism in the United Kingdom; or, Theories of the middle class; but not worth citing for Middle class itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's 1985 book on Amway. It and some Mother Jones articles (also a left-wing publication, albeit clearly RS) were used to support an extensive Politics & Culture section in the Amway article. I've since cleaned it up a bit with some other sources and clarifications so it's no longer quite the "hit piece" it looked, indeed apart from one quote this book could probably be removed as a source completely. Still the combination of self-admitted POV sources in this section is worrying. I think most folk reading an article that said "FoxNews reported" would know they're getting a certain bias, but with less known publications that's not so apparent. Some additional eyes appreciated. --Icerat (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

POV and RS are two different concepts. There is no requirement to use NPOV sources, merely to write NPOV articles. TFD (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that's kind of the question - how do you right NPOV articles using non-NPOV sources without noting the POV of the source, especially when the sources are limited (ie no "opposing" POV available)? --Icerat (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The article involved here seems to be Amway, which uses references from the obviously "biased" Amway itself to support many statements. Icerat, do you think really each of these should note "the POV of the source"? No, as others have pointed out we use the best available, most reliable sources available. In this case, South End Press is a reputable press, and as an indication of the book's reliability and significance. the book itself has been cited over 100 times in other reliable sources including scholarly journals, books and newspapers. Many of the points made in WP's article are echoed in these other secondary sources. --Slp1 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you right NPOV articles using non-NPOV sources? By neutrally presenting all sides of the issue, citing sources with different viewpoints (giving each source its due weight), and attributing in the text so the reader knows who says what. Our WP:NPOV policy explains this well. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And if there are only sources with a certain POV, you need to explain what that POV is (if the authors in that tendency themselves explain it) and simply present that POV. Because when there is only one scholarly or journalistic POV, this means that this is all we can write about. For example, when discussing "Fred Studies" which is dominated by the "Jane School" and the "Jane School" authors identify this as such in their introductions or literature survey, you say as such that "Fred Studies is covered by the Jane School of analysis which describes itself as..." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit confict, and replying to Blueboar's post) Yes, though I'll just emphasize that attributing a viewpoint is not always required or even desirable; it depends, as Blueboar says on giving the various sources due weight, and the statement at hand, but attribution in certain situations can be a means of introducing point of view, by implying doubt. e.g. "According to an Amway press release, the court case was dismissed." In this case I note that many of the critical remarks about Amway are already attributed. --Slp1 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Attribution doesn't really help when you say for example "According to Joe Bloggs" when nobody reading the article has a clue who he or his motivations or POV are. In an area of few sources you can't get "balance" by citing opposing POV, and explaining POV as per Fifelfoo's example seems to me to verge on OR/SYNTH. I've had a similar example on another company article where Forbes was used as a source for a quote, essentially denigrating the company, but a moments research discovers that the person Forbes quoted actually owns and runs competitor companies. That's pretty important when assessing POV! But Forbes didn't mention this, and us digging it up and mentioning it would I think be SYNTH. --Icerat (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) If necessary, you can add a brief descriptor to the attribution: "Whatsisface, which also manufactures widgets, said..." or "Joe Bloggs, a self-described radical socialist, said..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But once again, doing so can be an attempt to marginalize, diminish and discredit Joe Bloggs and Whatisface's opinion. I've seen editors do this time and time again in order to push their POV. It's probably worth noting that Icerat edits mainly in the area of Multi-level Marketing, with a particular perspective that he acknowledges on his userpage. --Slp1 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that's "worth pointing out", unless you're indulging in a little SYNTH yourself :) In any case it seems we mostly agree - adding descriptors could be SYNTH and considered POV pushing and that opens a whole range of other problems. It doesn't matter what POV we're talking about. If your quoting a company about itself then it's RS, but everyone knows there's a clear COI. If you're citing FoxNews then it's RS, but most readers know there's a certain bias. But there's a legitimate issue here with relatively unknown sources. Elsewhere on this page is a discussion on The Long War Journal, which apparently has a particular POV that is known to those with knowledge in the field. It's a legitimate RS source, but has a POV that ideally needs to be considered by a reader when interpreting information sourced from them. Without that knowledge I'd read an article citing them and just accept what is said. Another example - a companies products have been certified "banned drug free" by an ostensibly independent testing agency. But that agency is actually partly funded by the company. Now, I'm aware this type of POV source problem is an issue not just for wikipedia, but is there perhaps some standard approach we can come up with to help alleviate it? --Icerat (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A publisher/publication's POV has nothing to do with whether it is an RS. We don't disallow the use of the NY Times or Fox News just because of their pro-corporate, capitalist, U.S. nationalist POV. What disqualifies something as an RS is a poor record for fact-checking, lax editorial controls, self-publication, etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The issue is how to appropriately deal with such POV sources, in particular ones that have a self-admitted bias (so there's no dispute). I suppose I should have posted this in RS/Talk, I was using a particular example because they'd explicitly called themselves "radical", which might be interpreted as an RS problem according to the guideline. That's already been cleared as OK, and so South End Press today appears to be an RS publisher (no idea at the time of Butterfields book) but it also has a self-admitted POV. Same with, for example Mother Jones, or The Heritage Foundation. The Long War Journal, discussed elsewhere on the noticeboard, is another example with a well understood POV for those who work in the area, but not for most readers. Some editors suggest adding some descriptions about the source is appropriate, others feel this is SYNTH. --Icerat (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask... if all the sources take the same POV, what makes you think there is a different POV to discuss? Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be Original Research. :) Note that at present, when talking "all the sources", we're talking about the massive number of two. --Icerat (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

@Icerat: If this has nothing to do with WP:RS, then it doesn't belong here. Perhaps take a look at WP:NPOVN. However, you've really provided nothing other than a quote from their site that says that they publish books on a certain topic (i.e. books about "radical social change"). This does not say that they are "biased" any more than a medical publisher is "biased" for publishing in a single topic area. South End Press is an established publisher whose publications are often cited in scholarly literature. They easily satisfy RS, and unless you can show via other reliable sources that a specific fact cited to a South End Press publication is at odds with the majority of other sources available, then you really have no basis to claim that there is a violation of WP:NPOV either. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming there's a violation of NPOV, just how to handle RS sources that are not NPOV. That's not the same thing. But yes, medical publishers tend to have biases as well, for example against CAM.--Icerat (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Most reliable secondary sources, particularly academic papers, are not neutral and it may be that neutrality is unachievable. But we need to distinguish facts and opinions. Does SE Press for example claim that the U.S. is in Africa or that the moon is made of green cheese? Reliable sources present the same facts, regardless of political viewpoint. TFD (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolute neutrality is I think unachievable. Quality academic papers at least try to achieve it, depending on the field of course. If you have quick look at titles out of South End Press it's obvious they have a particular POV, and that POV is not going to treat any multinational company in an unbiased manner, let alone one whose owners are well known Republicans. To their credit they make no pretense of neutrality, but this is not going to be something obvious to a casual reader of a wikipedia article. The vast majority of their books, if published as a newspaper article, you would expect to be labelled "opinion" or "op-ed" and they'd be disqualified from wikipedia as RS for anything but opinion. As a book publisher that label doesn't apply. --Icerat (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Academic papers are rarely neutral. Most begin, "while scholars normally believe x, in this paper we will argue y." (Why else do scholars write articles, except to present new viewpoints.) The value of these papers is that the facts, including the description of what most scholars believe will be accurate. TFD (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some new edits on Amway that are clearly based on poor sourcing, inaccurate paraphrasing, and WP:SYNTH – the issue is now bordering on tendentious editing. There are two examples, and they are precipitating an emerging edit war with the user who who made the edits (Icerat), who happens to have quite the history of POV pushing and, shall we say, less than ideal conduct on Amway-related articles.

Example 1: Quote from -- Maryam Henein. (November 28–December 5, 1997). "The Revenge of the Amdroids". Philadelphia City Paper. Retrieved 2011-05-11. http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/112896/article009.shtml.

Original text reads:

“Philadelphia City Paper correspondent Maryam Henein stated that “The language used in motivational tools for Amway frequently echoes or directly quotes the Bible, with the unstated assumption of a shared Christian perspective.”Source Henein 1997

Revised text (by Icerat)2 reads:

“Philadelphia City Paper correspondent Maryam Henein, referring to motivational materials produced independently by distributors Dexter Yager and William Britt and sold to other distributors in their downline, stated that “The language used ... frequently echoes or directly quotes the Bible, with the unstated assumption of a shared Christian perspective.” Source Henein 1997 (newly added text is indicated in bold)

Note two things here: Henein’s quote included in the original article’s text was taken -- verbatim -- directly from the beginning of a section of the City Paper article entitled “The Lord’s Way” in which she introduces a new discussion about the promotion of Christianity within the Amway organization and about a book by Steven Butterworth that addresses this theme. First of all, note that the edit replaced a key portion of the quote (“in motivational tools for Amway”) with ellipsis ("...") to make it seem as though the author did not refer to Amway specifically – in other words, purposeful obfuscation. Secondly, the section of Henein’s article that the original quote was taken from, verbatim, mentions absolutely nothing about Yager or Britt, and it is misleading on Icerat’s part to represent that the author was “referring to materials” specifically produced by Yager/Britt. This is WP:SYNTH and non-neutral POV -- the apparent aim of the edit was to make it seem, rather deceptively I would have to say, that Henein was not referring to the Amway organization but rather to only two these 2 individuals specifically.

Example 2: Alleged 1982 Dexter Yager interview with CBS.

The second example of contentious editing/improper sourcing by Icerat was the addition of new material to the Amway article that allegedly was based on an alleged 60 Minutes interview in 1982 with Dexter Yager. This material was added immediately following the Henein quote to create the misleading impression that it is Yager alone who is responsible for the promotion of Christianity in the Amway organization. The text added by Icerat3 was as follows:

“Dexter Yager, interviewed on 60 minutes in 1982, admitted that he promotes Christianity through his Amway group, but stated that this was not the case in other Amway groups.”

Icerat cited the source for this simply as “Soap and Hope. 60 Minutes. CBS. 1982”

No link was provided to any transcript, video, or any official source that confirms that this show even existed let alone that it included comments supportive of the text Icerat added to the Amway article. No air date was included in the citation nor was an access date included to confirm that the source was in fact verified by the editor in question. When challenged on this edit, Icerat replied4 as follows:

“As for the Yager quote, Wallace, following up on Yager talking about his christianity, says ‘I see overtones of religion in Amway’. Yager replies ‘In my Amway, not everybody's Amway, everybody has their own Amway’. Wallace then goes on to talk about the talk of religious overtones he's encountered talking about Amway in Charlotte (where Yager lives and is being interviewed) and Yager again says ‘well, that's me, I'm a Christian’.

Note two things here. (1) No verifiable source (2) the unverifiable quoted text provided by Icerat doesn’t even remotely support the paraphrased version added to the Amway article. Yager doesn’t admit “that he promotes Christianity through his Amway group”, as indicated in the text Icerat added to the article, nor does he say anything suggesting that “this was not the case in other Amway groups”. It’s yet another example of WP:SYNTH, poor sourcing, and POV pushing. I pointed this out to the editor, but to no avail.5 Notice also the ironic fact that Icerat prefaced that Talk thread with a lecture about the evils of WP:SYNTH, not using verifiable sources, and POV pushing.6

Can we please get some reliable eyes on this so that we remove this dross from the article without it precipitating yet another unnecesary debate 7 and edit war8 with Icerat. Thanks Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Example 1 - the article used as a source repeatedly refers to the fact these materials are produced by Yager and Britt, not Amway. Removing this information makes it appear as if the quote is referring to materials produced by Amway rather than independently produced by Britt/Yager for their Amway groups. Rhode Island Red's claim that it's in a "new section" is specious. Rhode Island Red also claims to have read the Buttefield book, which he himself has used as a reference, so is also aware that Butterfield repeatedly refers in his book to the fact the materials are produced by Yager and Britt, not Amway.

Example 2 - Rhode Island Red claims in his edit summary to have watched the show9, so his claim of verifiability must therefore be false. Copies of the interview are available on youtube and elsewhere. Yager talks about christianity, Wallace asks about religion in Amway, Yager responds that it's his Amway, not everybodies Amway, and continues to talk about christianity. To claim that it's synth to refer to "christianity" rather than "religion" is also specious, but changing the edit to say "religion" is perfectly acceptable to me.

Either way, the source of the first example is the article Rhode Island Red included, and the source of the second is 60 minutes. Clearly both are RS, so not sure how he can claim "poor sourcing", and the POV pushing through exclusion of sourced information is on Rhode Island Red's part, not mine--Icerat (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for an article on a fictional work? I couldn't find much definitive information on the reputation of any of the associated parties:

• Wendell, Carolyn (1982). Alfred Bester. Starmont Readers' Guide. Mercer Island: Borgo Press. ISBN 9780916732080.

Any input appreciated, Skomorokh 04:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Starmont series seems to have been reputable.10 Amazon lists quite a number of their titles. My impression is that this meets the standard for RS for science fiction criticism. TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Can this source be used to support the statement that the word "falafel" entered English through Hebrew? The main counter argument seems to be that the Oxford Dictionaries don't mention it when discussing the origins of the word 11. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy is not presenting this correctly, several sources has been brought up at the falafel talkpage saying the word is Arabic origin without mentioning any other language:12 Malik also brought a good point that the Oxford dictionary word for "paradise" mentions: "that "paradise" entered English from Old French, but that its origins lay in Avestan (an Iranian language). And note that the entry for falafel does not mention Hebrew." 1314 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a case of quote-mining. The source is at most circumstantial evidence that the word might have entered English through Hebrew. However, that is very unlikely given that Hebrew speakers with a Middle Eastern cultural background are a minority among immigrants to English-speaking countries when compared to Arabic speakers (and other Muslims). If the word were known to have entered via Hebrew that would be a remarkable fact that would of course be recorded in etymological dictionaries. But it isn't. They all say it's from Arabic, nothing about Hebrew. Hans Adler 17:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is just a heads-up that MobileReference, a Boston-based e-book publisher of encyclopedias and reference books for Kindle and similar platforms, uses material from Wikipedia. Where this is the case, their works fail WP:CIRCULAR and should not be cited.

We have a few dozen citations to their works at present; they come up in Google Books, and may easily be mistaken for a reliable source. --JN466 17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I once saved an article from deletion by citing MobileReference, I feel guilty now. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now added an entry on MobileReference to Wikpedia's list of its mirrors and forks.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 10:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, shit happens (aka the lord works in mysterious ways)! --JN466 10:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I would add that it appears to me that all MobileReference publications should generally be regarded as not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, even if they are not obvious forks of Wikipedia. Although the licensing information in their Wikipedia forks asserts that their editors have "carefully checked and organized the material", most of the Wikipedia material seems to have been copied verbatim, including misspellings, grammatical errors, unidiomatic phrasing, and outright misrepresentation of cited sources (citations to which are generally not included, however).
David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A court judgement is a primary source for itself, ie the judgement and case that it is about. I've encountered a situation where an editor is using statements made by the judge about related, but uninvolved parties, ie they did not participate in the court case or hearings. This would seem to me to be using the judgement either as a secondary source for this information, or perhaps as a primary source for the judges opinion. This situation isn't really covered in WP:RS, but either way it doesn't seem an appropriate use of the source. More details here. Thoughts appreciated. --Icerat (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Court judements are tricky... they are reliable primary documents for findings of fact relating to the specific case... but they are secondary documents in regards to how the Law should be interpreted in connection to the case. A side comment about an unrelated third party would a primary source the opinion of the Judge, but not a reliable source for a statement of fact about that third party. Blueboar (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They are primary sources. Note that when errors of fact appear in reliable secondary sources, they may be corrected through newspapers, revised editions of books, or by subsequent scholarship. But the facts in judgments are almost never subject to appeal and harmless errors are not corrected. Also, facts which only appear in court judgments lack notability. TFD (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that decisions of a court pf general jurisdiction, which weigh and evaluate witnesses and documents, should be acceptable as secondary sources for the parties and facts involved in the case, not treated the same way as trial transcripts, docket sheets, etc. However, a judge's passing mention of people or matters not involved in the case is "dicta" and should not receive the same respect. In this particular instance, someone wants to source a statement about company A to a court decision involving company B. I don't think the decision is a reliable source in this instance. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Blueboar is technically correct about the classification, but you're asking the wrong question. The policy says, "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question." The issue you need to be considering is whether this is an appropriate source for the content in question. A passing comment in a court document will almost never be an appropriate source for information about uninvolved parties. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, an appellate court's opinion is a secondary source on a lower court's original decision.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Appellate opinions are tricky because they are an amalgam of different things. For example, generally, appellate opinions don't make findings of fact, whereas trial courts do. Another example, appellate opinions evaluating a lower court decision may be secondary, but an appellate opinion can also make law, in which case it is probably primary. I'm not sure how much any of this matters. I'm more of the view that what's important is the particular context in which the opinion is being used as a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If an appellate opinion says "the lower court rejected the motion to quash the subpoena", then that's a secondary source. If the opinion says "quashing subpoeanas is appropriate in these circumstances", then that's a primary source.   Will Beback  talk  12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"In this particular instance, someone wants to source a statement about company A to a court decision involving company B. I don't think the decision is a reliable source in this instance." In the context of the actual edit/source Icerat / Insider201283 is referring to here, I'm not sure the above statement is relevant to this edit. To clarify, the court document mentions "company A" by name, and company A (network twentyone) and company B (amway) are inextricably linked. The decision is not on A, but it is very much involved.

This is all a bit grey, but isn't a judge's verdict a tertiary source?

Policy states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." which I feel is what was done in this instance, however pro-MLM/Amway editors often edit/re-interpret the court statement, removing phrases such as "pyramid", such interpretation of course is forbidden, or want to have the whole statement removed, which is what Icerat is seeking. Financeguy222 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Network21 was not a party of the case that is beeing cited, but it's buisniss practice was a central part of said suit. So we can assume that the court has made an effort too check the facts of said practice. The sourcing is this case is adequate no matter if we consdider the source as primary or secondary. This because the wording is lifted more or less directly from the finding. Copyright might be an issue, and the statement in it's current form should be treated as a quotation. Meaning that attribution is needed. I would say the problem is more about POV than about Reliable sourcing. Taemyr (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the judgement? The judge explicitly stated that the suit wasn't about the businesss practices of companies like Network 21, let alone "a central part" and they were not party to the case. We can safely assume the court has made no effort to check facts about them. Indeed, as I noted in talk, the statement is factually incorrect. --Icerat (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Financeguy222 is continuing to try to include this "quote" in the article. Note again (1)The article in question is about Network 21 (2)Network 21 was not involved in the court case being used as a source (3) The quote he wants to use is of the judges opinion, not a finding of fact. AFAIK, none of this is disputed. --Icerat (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting reliable sources problem: the BBC Domesday Project is now online again (or at least, half of it - the stuff on the Community Disk). It contains a wealth of local information about towns and villages across the United Kingdom. On the one hand, it is a valuable historical record and is online. For non-controversial information like local legends, the history of village churches, when schools were founded and so on, it seems like it might be useful. But, it is contributed by ordinary people with minimal editing (the dodgy spelling and grammar on some of the entries, for example). The BBC did do some minimal editing to the entries but not a great deal (then again, that's probably the same as current day newspaper/news website output!). Regardless, this seems like an extremely valuable resource for building up coverage of UK topics.

Thoughts? —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't count it as anything except a primary source of dubious quality, so not a source of notability either. It is very interesting but much of the stuff was put in by schoolchildren as projects for their local school. There might be some stuff that can be referred to but the main use would |I think be in external links and suchlike where it could provide extra background information. I would be happy for it to be used for that purpose despite it not being much better than many blogs in quality. Dmcq (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Article uses a single source that maybe user-created. Opinions?

Not much evidence of any real notability, for a start. It could be trimmed to 'Turney Stevens, a former investment banker, is a dean at Lipscomb University'. And yes, it looks like his résumé. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely needs a) a rewrite, b) independent secondary sources. If they don't exist, send to AFD. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A new article Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls is heavily based on two POV sources and the creator has recently sought to add a third. All three seem to be essentially self-published works untouched by any fact checker. All three seem to be essentially works of propaganda or argumentation, selecting those aspects of the 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic that would show unfair criticism of Israel. Could those with experience on WP:RS give feedback on whether these 3 sources can be used to make claims about events in 1983, or whether claims about what schoolgirls did, what newspapers reported, what doctors found, etc. be sourced to more reliable authors and publications?

1. A column for the Hudson Institute by Khaled Abu Toameh called "Is Hassan Nasrallah a Mossad Agent?" 15 The author is an activist, not a scholar, who starts off with 2 paragraphs that position the fainting epidemic as an example of a hoax: "Sometime in the early 1980s, a large group of Palestinian school girls in the West Bank, who wanted to avoid exams, claimed that they had been "poisoned" by Israeli authorities. The girls said that Israel had put poison in the tanks that supply drinking water to their school. One after the other, the teenage girls started "fainting" in the school yard, especially as photographers and TV crews showed up. The girls were all released from the hospital after medical tests refuted their claim. But at the end of the day the girls and their families had good reason to be happy. The exams were postponed indefinitely and Israeli "occupation" was once again blamed for perpetrating a "new crime" against Palestinians." Aside from the vagueness of his description of the time, this presents many claims that are not supported by a single WP:RS describing those events. No fact-checker would have permitted this material to be published without serious revision. (What really happened according to RS. Some girls started fainting at one school and were hospitalized, rumors spread that poison had been involved (with Israelis and Palestinians making counter-claims about who did the poisoning), the epidemic spread and was later determined to be psychosomatic and stress-related, with some fakery also starting about four days after the first reported cases. )

2. A book by Raphael Israeli published in 2002 by , Poison: Modern manifestations of a blood libel. The author is a Professor of Chinese History and Islamic Civilization.16 The book is not, in fact, about the fainting epidemic but about the "blood libel", as the author calls it--that is the false accusation that Israel had poisoned Palestinian schoolgirls. Lexington Books is not a fact-checking academic publisher,17 and here is what they say about the book:18

This is the story of an amazing manifestation of a modern blood libel against the Jews and Israel, involving not only Arabs and Muslims, but also the European media and world organizations. Based on rich documentation from all angles: Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, European, American, and International, Raphael Israeli aims to draw our attention toward another piece in the multi-faceted puzzle of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and of international antisemitism. . By bringing this Middle Eastern version of the perennial theme of blood libel before their readers, the author hopes to instruct people of good will of the dangers inherent in protracted conflicts, such as the one opposing Israelis and Arabs, which can provoke war, misery, destruction, and violence, but also recriminations born out of hallucinations and ill-will. This is a multi-disciplinary book which should interest not only students of antisemitism, Judaism, and Israel, but also psychologists, journalists, political scientists, and scholars of communications, the Middle East, international relations, and the Israeli-Arab dispute.

3. A book review by Manfred Gerstenfeld of the previous book. There is no indication that the author did any fact-checking about the incident beyond reporting incidents and interpretations as described in the book. The main interest for Gerstenfeld, as for Israeli, is using the aftermath of the incident to discredit criticism of Israel. Quoting Gerstenfeld;

In the more than twenty years that have passed since the mass hysteria case, there have been many similar Arab campaigns whose core element was a major lie...To date, the campaign of lies and fabrications has reached its height with the IDF operation Defensive Shield against the terror infrastructure in Jenin in April 2002. ... another type of Palestinian fabrication: after a funeral procession of a supposed victim of the massacre, the "dead person" jumps off the stretcher once he thinks he is out of the camera's range. There is an enduring need for a searching analysis of the fragmented yet total war the Arab world is waging against Israel and the Jewish people, as well as the collaboration of Western media and institutions. ... The Simon Wiesenthal Center has produced a major institutional contribution on the subject of anti-Semitism on the Internet. Israeli's paradigmatic case study is important for several reasons. Beyond his analysis of a particular case, he reveals how the methodology of Arab hate propaganda has been in use for many years.

It is my belief that these are all essentially self-published opinion pieces, but I welcome the opinion of more experienced others. betsythedevine (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me give you the general rule, and leave the specific sources to someone else:

"Source" means three things on Wikipedia: the publication itself, the author, and the publisher. If any of these three are reputable, then the source is probably reliable (for facts or other material in the publication; we leave aside here the fact that even the most awful sources are reliable for something, e.g., any book is a reliable source for the number of pages in it). With the vanity press, the publisher is not reliable, but books from a vanity press may be perfectly fine—so long as the author is generally considered reputable. (See WP:SPS for the usual definition.)

Note that we don't need to know anything about the contents of the publication to know whether the source will generally be useful (for more than a trivial purpose). We only need to know the contents once we're ready to move into the discussion of how we're using the source. That process requires you to tell us not just the source, but the specific, word-for-word sentence(s) that the source is supposed to support. Otherwise, we'll be saying "Oh, yes, very reliable" and someone will come back and say, "But the other editor is trying to use this publication about Palestinian girls in Special theory of relativity to re-define the speed of light!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for good advice and also for a good laugh. OK, here are statements the article's creator wants to source to each of these three.

• 1: Sourced to 1, the column by Khaled Abu Toameh "Khaled Abu Toameh wrote that the girls were trying to avoid exams. They claimed Israel had put poison in the tanks that supplied drinking water to their school and began "fainting" in the school yard when photographers and TV crews arrived. When medical tests found there was nothing wrong with them, the girls were released from the hospital. According to Abu Toameh, "the exams were postponed indefinitely and Israeli 'occupation' was once again blamed for perpetrating a 'new crime' against Palestinians."diff

• 2 Sourced to 2, the book by Raphael Israeli: Is it relevant or notable that Raphael Israeli called the aftermath of the incident "a blood libel against Jews"?
• 2 Sourced to 2, "Dan Margalit of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz wrote in March 1983 that the accusations leveled at Israel over the fainting spells "may yet become a modern blood libel against the Jews." Again, is Margalit's opinion relevant or notable if we have only this book's mention of it?
• 2 same source "Baruch Modan, then director general of Israel's health ministry, also concluded that most of the victims of the epidemic suffered from a psychological malady, though he said some who fell ill after April 3, when epidemiologists say the outbreak had subsided, were faking." The source of this statement is a snippet visible on pages 7 and 8 of the Google books version 19. In this snippet, Modan spends many paragraphs discussing the incident and says "all the girls involved in the first 3 or 4 occurrences were truly sick and not putting on an act. ..We have to remember that from the victim's viewpoint she genuinely feels all the symptoms of true poisoning, and when she reports them to the doctor she is not inventing or feigning them. ...But after those first 3 or 4 incidents doctors had "conclusive proof of girls who were hurt neither physically not psychologically but were part of a deliberate hoax." Because the snippet is cut off, there is no way to tell the exact provenance of these words, but the book introduces them as a summary by Modan.

• 3. Manfred Gerstenfeld, Chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, writes that the fainting epidemic was one of "many similar Arab campaigns whose core element was a major lie." Is this self-published opinion relevant or notable? Is this not just using the event as a WP:COATRACK for editorialing about Arabs, Israel, Western media, the UN, etc. etc. betsythedevine (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentations galore. Lexington is not a vanity press, and while it may not enjoy the reputation of a Cambridge or Oxford, the search that Betsy pointed to actually shows it has a good reputation. To quote some of the posts there "My general sense is that Lexington is respected as an academic press, but nowhere near competitive with the top university presses. "; "Lexington is a pretty good press in political theory. Not first-rank, but loads better than Mellen." To call this "slef published" is ridicolous. Toameh is a journalist, and a notbale one at that, as is Dan margalit, publishing in a mainstrema Israeli paper. Again, none of these are slef-publsihed. Betsy - please read WP:SPS. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I had thought it was a vanity press based on this statement "The Lexington I see when Googling is in Lexington, MA. Looks to be today's equivalent of a vanity press, in part, in that you can order up short runs of your own book. If a candidate for faculty in my department listed a Lexington product on his CV, I'd want to check with the publisher if publication was an editorial decision or a business decision."20 That quote turns out to be about a different "Lexington Press" that is not the imprint/subsidiary that Rowan and Littlefield acquired in 1998. I would not say that other quotes show it as having a good reputation -- one long thread recounts the dismay of two young academics who had submitted chapters for a book they thought would be published by an academic press when they discovered the publisher would instead be Lexington. "Although they go through many of the standard motions, by way of camouflage, Lexington's editorial guidelines make no mention of peer review (see http://www.lexingtonbooks.com/EditorialGuidelines/Submission.shtml and http://www.lexingtonbooks.com/EditorialGuidelines/index.shtml). The operation sounds quite a bit like our old friends at VDM. Ultimately, I doubt if publishing in this anthology would hurt your friend, but it certainly wouldn't help, by any reasonable T&P standard I know."21 "I suspect that books that get rejected by university presses end up with Lexington. I know that's true in one case." Also, unlike normal publishers but like vanity presses, Lexington asks authors to pay for typesetting their own books.22 "I might first shoot for a good univ press, but Rowman/Lexington is a good outlet . . . at least in my field. They've published some very good work. Be prepared to do all your own typesetting."23

To quote WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." If the information in question is really worth reporting, we would have good WP:RS taking note of Dan Margalit and Raphael Israeli using "blood libel" as if it were a handy piece of mud to throw at any contested accusation anywhere. There was quite a bit of pushback against Sarah Palin misusing the term that way, and my own opinion is exactly that of President of Jewish Funds for Justice Simon Greer: "The term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation.' It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing .. the speaker of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, .. use of the term is totally out-of-line." 24betsythedevine (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed Jedlicki from the article Ostsiedlung 25 and outlined my rationale at talk. This was undone and re-instated 26 calling it a perfectly reliable source and advising me to bring it here. The talk page section is at Talk:Ostsiedlung#Jedlicki.

The cited essay of Marian Zygmunt Jedlicki (1899-1954) is "German Settlement in Poland and the Rise of the Teutonic Order", first published in 1950 in the Cambridge history of Poland I (bib link), a volume containing several essays from exiled/returned Polish scientists written during late and shortly after World War II. Given that WWII was the worst ever period in Polish-German relations, and that historiography on both sides was subordinate to the respective national claims for the respective medieval "cradles of the nation" 27, I object to including material from this source. To these general concerns adds that Jedlicki is the author of "Thousand years of German aggression ", published just before and certifying his bias.

I maintain that Jedlicki is not a reliable source for the actual process of Ostsiedlung, i.e. medieval German settlement in Poland. It should be treated as an old, biased, partisan source. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems a well established, scholarly source used by respectable educational institution like Cambridge.Cherry-picking one statement that you don't agree with, doesn't mean it is not, there doesn't seem to be any argument or reason why it shouldn't be presented, not to mention it isn't even used in the article,but a wholly different publication accepted by a very reliable scholarly publisher. A great deal of research happened after the war, and there is no reason to ban it because Skapperod personally doesn't like it. I will add that to me this whole objection seems even more strange considering Skapperod's use of publication from Nazi Germany and its defense as reliable source for information regarding German settlement in Poland2829. Frankly to consider a publication by Cambridge to be unreliable while defending source published in Nazi Germany as valid source seems to indicate some problems with the editor's views of what is reliable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion this source is clearly reliable, although it is dated and possibly (I haven't researched this) partisan. The claim it makes surprises me a bit, so I think it's reasonable to ask for a more recent corroborating source. If none is found, or if there is an actual dispute about this, then it should be attributed. Hans Adler 13:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

From the sound of this no one is denying it is an OR, but it is a question of due weight? It is true that we do not need to use every OR, of course. Due weight discussions are normally best conducted amongst people working on the article or subject area? Having said that cases like this do tend to raise concerns because any well known source, being notable to some extent, should not normally be fully removed from all mention even if it is not the most leading or most up-to-date position in a particular field. Often it becomes a good idea to compromise by attributing a position to a source, naming that source ("according to...") and therefore warning readers that further reading might show up some controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC the article had a source published in 1937 Nazi Germany until yesterday30...It needs a complete overhaul--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There might be a problem of undue weight in the article, but it goes the other way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, here's the article on the author, Marian Jedlicki, I stubbed not to long ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a contemporary review of Jedlicki's work in Cambridge History volume by an American scholar (S. Harrison Thomson,Reviewed work(s): The Cambridge History of Poland, Volume I. by R. Dyboski; O. Halecki; J. H. Penson; W. F. Reddaway, American Slavic and East European Review Vol. 10, No. 4 (Dec., 1951), pp. 304-306 31.

Relevant portion: "Chapter VII, "German Settlement and the Rise of the Teutonic Order," by M. Z. Jedlicki, presents a fair summary of the facts, but could have been better if the amazing post-war production of the Baltic Institute at Gdansk on East Prussia and the Teutonic Order (Gorski, Srokowvski, Piwarski et al.) and the not less remarkable work of the Western Institute at Poznan had been available.".

For those unfamiliar with the context, it should be noted that the work of the Baltic and Western Institutes would probably be regarded by SOME editors as "anti-German" (you can look at the Western Institute article to get a flavor of how to POV an issue - that article needs to be fixed). So the reviewer is implicitly saying that, in light of more recent research (by these institutes), Jedlicki's essay is too "pro-German settlement hypothesis" - if there's bias it is in the opposite way that Skapperod is alleging.

Basically, over time historiography moved from "stereotypical" 19th century nationalist notions of German colonists settling developing and civilizing a wild east to more emphasis and acknowledgment of internally driven economic development, home grown technological progress and internal migration as the main driver of urban development (and rural-urban migration was more or less a universal phenomenon across Europe in this period so it's not exactly surprising that it happened in Poland as well). Jedlicki's essay is just a reflection of this shift in historical knowledge (Wikipedia though tends to lag behind).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The 1951 review you cite does not mention any pro- or anti-German bias, it just says Jedlicki is not including "new" (by then) research. That an inclusion of said research would have made the work even more biased is out of question. The point is that wikipedia articles should not rely on the conclusions of an obviously biased source from the WWII era ("Thousand years of German aggression" - come on), when this episode in historiography is meanwhile itself subject to historiographic analysis with the conclusion that it was designed to prove/disprove WWII-related claims. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

-w should not rely on the conclusions of an obviously biased source from the WWII era-that's strange-you argued before that we should rely on Nazi German publication regarding Polish history, A publication which was titled "History of robbed German territories. Poles and Balts in their war against German people" and which had statements that Poles hate Germans because Germans are good workers and disciplined while Poles are culturally inferior and unable to create anything and are barbaric. Or that Nazis want peace with their neighbours. If a Cambridge publication isn't reliable to you, but Nazi German like the above is(as seen by you adding it here32...Than I think there is a problem here with what we consider reliable source. Also we are not using "Thousand years of German agression" source(plus this isn't that wrong dating of lenght of German-Polish conflicts)---MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, Skapperod, first, the work being discussed is Cambridge History of Poland, not anything called "Thousand years of German aggression". Second, the source you provide above says nothing about Jedlicki nor does it say that it was only Polish historiography which was "designed to prove/disprove WWII-related claims" - the actual text has some critical things to say about both Polish and German historiography.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia

I object strongly to Geoff Lord's entry, as I currently have a CCJ against the company he is advertising - French cosmetic surgery ltd. They have given addresses on their website in UK but is a PO Box and the address in France is a private address (flat) not a clinic.

They owe UK citizens tens of thousands of pounds including myself and I object to them continuing to publicise on legitimate companies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.73.148 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2011

Are you referring to the Wikipedia article titled Geoff Lord? TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

From a quick scan around the web it looks like French Cosmetic Surgery Ltd. is a company that offers various procedures in France and Belgium to people in the UK via sites like these: 33 34. This twitter account links a Geoff Lord (who also has a twitter account 35 and a blog 36) to the same company, which looks to be pretty dodgy, by all accounts. However, the Wikipedia article Geoff Lord is about an Australian businessman who is clearly a different Geoff Lord. This is his company bio. As far as I can see, French Cosmetic Surgery Ltd, its various sites and its employees are not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia - so there's no issue to address here, much less one that has to do with reliable sources. It looks like the person who posted this request has got the wrong end of the stick, since there are two people with the same name (actually I'm sure there are quite a few Geoff Lords in the world). Maccy69 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for much for researching this. TimidGuy (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It looks like the internet marketing Geoff Lord (based in Manchester, UK) has an account here and tried to add himself to the Australian businessman's article. His only other contribution has been to add a promotional image of gastric band surgery to the article about a fictional character who had also had the procedure. Both of those changes were quickly reverted and if he carries on he'll eventually get a ban - so I don't think the OP has anything to worry about. Maccy69 (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, going by the COI warning on his talk page, it looks like he created his own article sometime on or before 13 May and that it was deleted soon afterwards (so, on May 14, he tried to hijack the legitimate article). The date of the OP suggests that it was the deleted article that was being referred to. I can't find the deletion log because I can't guess what he called it, but User:Geofflord/Gastric band surgery is another attempt to use Wikipedia to promote his own business. So it's most likely that by the time you looked at the OP, the article they had been referring to had already been deleted. Regardless, it should be clear that there's now no issue. Maccy69 (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, very interesting. Amazing what goes on. TimidGuy (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Brad pseud., Chris Menning ?pseud., Jamie Dubs ?pseud., yatta pseud. "Playing Dead" Emily Huh (ed.), Brad Kim (ed.) Know your Meme Seattle and New York: Cheezburger Inc., 2010.
• Procedurally Generated Content "Playing Dead (Related Submemes)" Emily Huh (ed.), Brad Kim (ed.) Know your Meme Seattle and New York: Cheezburger Inc., last accessed 2011.
• Brad pseud., amanda b. pseud., yatta pseud., Tomberry pseud., James pseud. "Lying Down Game" Emily Huh (ed.), Brad Kim (ed.) Know your Meme Seattle and New York: Cheezburger Inc., 2011.

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97
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.

---