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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

• Fortes, Michael (2007-03-20). "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer". jefitoblog. Retrieved 2007-03-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

As a citation for this information in Backmasking:

Slayer included at the start of the band's 1985 album Hell Awaits a deep backmasked voice chanting "Join Us" over and over at increasing volumes.

Though it is posted at a blog, I find this article well-written and credible. Others have disagreed at the talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote relevant policies:

• from WP:RSEX:
  • 'Popular culture and fiction' section: Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.
  • 'Use of electronic or online sources' section: 'Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources.'
• from WP:ATT/FAQ:
  • 'Are weblogs reliable sources?' section: In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of WP:ATT. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available. Blogs must never be used as secondary sources on living persons; see WP:BLP.

My advice is as follows: if the information is not contradicted by more reliable sources, use it with a note that it was published on a blog, and add information about its author, publisher, fact-checking (or lack of thereof), pay attention to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight (if the extra information blog provies are not very notable, they should be used with caustion). If the information is contradicted by more reliable sources, it should not be used.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a note within the article, like this?:

According to Michael Fortes' "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer", published at jefitoblog, Slayer included at the start of the band's 1985 album Hell Awaits a deep backmasked voice chanting "Join Us" over and over at increasing volumes.

The information does not seem controversial enough to require attribution to a specific person - Fortes simply happened to mention it, but he is not the discoverer or a proponent of this information, just the best source for it. Or do you mean a cautionary note in the reference? Λυδαcιτγ 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The attribution in text, noting its a blog, seems enough if the information is not controversial. If some opponent of this wants to elaborate on unreliability of blogs in a note, it would be ok, too. Bottom line is its a self-published source with no fact-checking, so its not very reliable, but if the information is plausible and not contradictory, and type of source (blog) and other info are mentioned, it seems ok to note it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute on Stephen Barrett that may come down to the reliability of the sources provided. In short, Stephen Barrett is not board certified. This information has been verified by several primary sources including Stephen Barrett himself at Wikipedia and some legal documents . The question is open about the necessity of secondary sources to support these primary sources and whether any of secondary sources we have meet reliability per Wikipedia policy.

The two sources which we are examining now are:

• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic

Other sources to be examined include:

• Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Case in his own Hometown
• Examining the Truth By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, ABHM and Sabina DeVita, EdD, DNM, RNCP with Karen Boren PDF
• Wathing the Quacker By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, and Karen Boren PDF
• Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation
• True Lies About Anti-Aging and Growth Hormone by Fintan Dunne for MyLongLife.com.

The content which will need support will essentially say: "Dr. Barrett is not board certified." Third-party opinions about the reliability of these sources to support this content will be most appreciated and will certainly help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are enough for factual statements, but not for making interpretations. See WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources: Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. If there is consensus that the primary sources you have are stating he has no board certification, they are enough for it; of course the more sources, the merrier. Are there any contradictory sources stating he has a board certification? PS. Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Types_of_source_material and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources give some examples of primary sources if clarification is needed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No there are no contradictory statements in any sources thus far presented. Thank you for your input here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This confirms our previous consensus that the information is indeed verfied. What we don't have consensus on is if we have any "secondary sources which verify and give weight to this information" (quoting Levine2112 - see Talk:Stephen_Barrett#No_agreement_on_existance_of_reliable_secondary_sources and Talk:Stephen_Barrett#No_consensus_on_existance_of_reliable_secondary_sources). If you'd like to look at the sources in this context, please do so. There are WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:WEIGHT issues here. I'll be happy to summarize them if anyone's interested given that this dispute goes back over 15 months. -- Ronz  19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think weight is an issue here. All we are wanting to include is the verified fact that Barrett is indeed not board certified. That's all. This isn't a minority opinion; it is a verified fact. Weight isn't an issue here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Others think WEIGHT is an issue. I don't know what to make the inconsistency of your comments above and the quote of yours just above ("and give weight"). -- Ronz  19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why WEIGHT is an issue then, but let's bring this back to Talk:Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In an earlier phase of this discussion I made an extensive argument about the reliability and notability of the source Dynamic Chiropractic ( found here: 3 ). This trade magazine can not just be dismissed. MaxPont 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Imho, it is not necessary to support primary documents with secondary ones. If a primary document says "he is not board-certified" then that may be quoted and cited and you're done. Wjhonson 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Wjhonson. This is a great help. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wjhonson, I agree that primary sources are enough, but if secondary would add something new, they can be used - if they are reliable. May I suggest describing each secondary source in a subsection here, and listing arguments pro- and con- against it? A simple solution is to note in article that X from publication Y claims that, but indeed if there are problems with undue weight this is not enough, as the question is whether the source should be used at all or not; however note that there is a difference between minor source and minor claim, and a difference between minor and unreliable source.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. But I don't think we want to say anything other than that Barrett is not Board certified - a fact which the primary sources support. The secondary sources say this and more, but we are not interested at this juncture in the "more". As you know, our primary sources include two court documents and a statement by the subject himself on Wikipedia. All explicitly state that Barrett is not Board Certified. It doesn't sound like we need anything else to insert this information other than the primary sources. Correct?

Here are our main secondary sources:

• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance - article claims that Barrett is not Board Certified and that he failed the certification exam to become Board Certified.
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic - article claims that Barrett is not Board Certified and that he failed the certification exam to become Board Certified and that he had to admit this on the stand during trial.

This has been a contentious issue for us on Talk:Stephen Barrett and in the interest of settling this, we are currently looking to compromise by only stating that Barrett is not Board Certified and leave off the part that he failed the exam (even though, Barrett confirmed this information on Wikipedia). Again, we are only interested in inserting that he is not Board Certified, a fact verified by several primary and secondary sources. Are there any other issues which we should be considering?

Thanks again. Your input is a tremendous help. Thanks so much for setting up this page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"But I don't think we want to say anything other than that Barrett is not Board certified" There is no consensus on this, and in fact many editors such as myself argue that taking Barrett's certification status out of the context of the sources we're using is a violation of WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOT, as well as an attempt to get around WP:BLP. -- Ronz  23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot say he failed the exam, or anything else, on the basis of a posting to Wikipedia, because we have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. that would not just be using a primary source, but using ourselves as a primary source. If you want to say he failed the exam, you should try to find it in a court record.

But I think the real question is whether the fact that he is not board certified means that he is deceptive in calling himself a psychiatrist. From the court hearing referred to, he gave what I personally consider a totally misleading but technically true statement that an MD does not have to be board certified to practice as a psychiatrist. Legally, an MD can practice any speciality (I think that's still true). And , of course, almost any doctor practices some basic psychiatry--or so we hope. But that's not the way the words would be taken. How to express this at WP is a puzzle--we cant give it as our interpretation--we have to find someone reliable who said it.

The chiropractic sources listed above are not in my opinion RSs for anything other than their opinion on the subject, any more than he is a RS for the nature of chiropractic. I think you could use a quote as their opinion giving the source--anyone would be able to tell the likely bias. After all, you're not going to find them admitting his claims about them are correct. DGG 05:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input, DGG. I am curious, did you have a chance to review these sources: 45 6? These are the primary sources which verify that Barrett is not board certified. (One of which is Barrett himself at Wikipedia confirming htis information.) The Fonorow suit shows that while Barrett objected to the manner in which it was presented (that he was forced to admit this under oath), he doesn't disagree that he isn;t board certified. His comments at Wikipedia confirm that he isn't board certified. If all we want to insert is that Barrett is not board certified (and leave out that he failed the exam), can we do so with the sources provided? Piotrus and Jhonson believe so, but I would really appreciate your thoughts here as well. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DGG, if I am not mistaken(!) I believe you misunderstand the situation, and thereby are doing Barrett an injustice with this statement:

• "But I think the real question is whether the fact that he is not board certified means that he is deceptive in calling himself a psychiatrist. From the court hearing referred to, he gave what I personally consider a totally misleading but technically true statement that an MD does not have to be board certified to practice as a psychiatrist. Legally, an MD can practice any speciality (I think that's still true)."

There are three points to clarify here:

1. The difference between specialization and certification. They are not the same. Specialization is an extension of the basic medical education, while board certification is a step beyond that. At the time Barrett took and failed the exam, only 1/3 of psychiatrists were board certified and his lack of certification was never a problem during his entire career. He was able to testify as a psychiatric expert witness without any problems.

2. It is not necessary to be an MD, an MD specialist, or even a board certified MD, to be considered by courts to be an expert witness on a medical subject. There are examples of persons who have established their expertise on subjects outside of their own profession, who are admitted by courts as expert witnesses. This also applies outside of the medical and scientific fields. While it may be unusual, it does happen.

Barrett's status as an expert witness in the later years (since his retirement) has not normally (if ever) been as a psychiatrist, but as an expert in quackery and healthfraud, and in that capacity he is considered by many to be one of (if not "the") the foremost expert(s) in the world. His expertise on those subjects has been recognized by numerous private and governmental organizations and consumer protection agencies. It is not necessary to be educated in a quack field (such as homeopathy) to be able to use common sense, knowledge of what is legal or illegal, knowledge of consumer protection laws, knowledge of ethics, and knowledge of scientific matters, to be able to judge whether a claim is proper or improper, and thus classify it as quackery, healthfraud, or something like it.

3. I'm not sure that it is legal for an MD who has not passed specialty exams to claim to be a specialist. The same would apply to board certification.

I hope that my explanations help. I could be mistaken on some minor details about the legalities about point three. I just wish to clear up a misunderstanding that is injurious and unfair. He has not been deceptive or misleading in this matter. On the contrary, it is Bolen who has been misleading, weaselly, and libelous in his attacks on Barrett, and he is being sued for it. We don't want to repeat, support, or participate in his perfidy here at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 08:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In regard to this:

You cannot say he failed the exam, or anything else, on the basis of a posting to Wikipedia, because we have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. that would not just be using a primary source, but using ourselves as a primary source.

AFAICT, it doesn't matter if the post is to a Wikipedia talk or user page or to elsewhere, as long as it meets the requirements of WP:V for self-published sources in articles about themselves. The most likely objection is reasonable doubt as to the identity of the Wikipedia editor claiming to be the subject of the article. Anomie 14:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sbinfo is definitely believed by all to be Stephen Barrett. Again, I don't want to put in any attacks on Barrett (a la Bolen); I just want to put in the relevant info which Barrett himself has verified here - that he is not Board Certified. I would Wikilink "Board Certified" to American Board of Medical Specialties so any questions about what this means would be answered by following the link. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia afterall. . . It's better! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion here (at this most helpful page), I have put forth a proposal to add the information that Barrett is not Board Certified. Please feel free to drop by and weigh in on this proposal. Hopefully the guidance provided here will help with the resolution to this long dispute. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is still no consensus to include this verifiable and relevant content. I have brought up your guidance on WP:RS at Talk:Stephen Barrett, but it is being ignored and I am being accused of having an agenda to include biased material. I don't understand. Stephen Barrett isn't Board Certified. This isn't a point of view. This contains no bias. Barrett has come to Wikipedia and told us this, and what's more, he has told us that he is open to sharing this information. Aside from Barrett at Wikipedia, we have several primary sources verifying this information (listed above) and a number of secondary sources (also listed above). Now the editors wishing to keep this information out of the article are insisting on a tertiary source. Any other help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

There is still disagreement at Talk:Stephen Barrett over inserting the verified content that Barrett is not board certified, despite the finding here that say our primary sources are reliable and sufficient. Above, it is stated that when it comes to sources, the more the merrier. I would appreciate an analysis of the following two secondary sources (which will be used to support the reliable primary sources discussed above).

• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance - article claims that Barrett is not Board Certified and that he failed the certification exam to become Board Certified.
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic - article claims that Barrett is not Board Certified and that he failed the certification exam to become Board Certified and that he had to admit this on the stand during trial.

Both articles come from widely read trade publications. Are these sources reliable in terms of secondary sources of the information (that Barrett is not Board Certified)? Basically, those editors who are in favor of excluding this content feel that we would need a reliable secondary source to provide the context and weight for this issue. Judging by your comments above, I don't know that this is necessary, but if it is a chance to end this long dispute, I certainly welcome your expert analysis. Thanks for your time and guidance in this matter. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Levine and I think you'll agree that the main contention is something on the lines of "Whether or not he is board-certified is irrelevant" or "Simply saying he's not board certified emphacizes a meaningless distinction." Perhaps you could better sum up what the argument from the other side is exactly, if it's not the above. Wjhonson 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the main contention from "the other side" is similar to what you have stated here; but in terms of policy they have stated their contention to be per WP:WEIGHT - without a reliable secondary source, there is no way for us to determine the relevance of Barrett's lack of Board Certification. Sure, the fact that he is not Board Certified is completely verifiable. We all agree that he is not Board Certified. The primary sources are certainly reliable and abolutely confirm this. However, those supporting excluding this information believe that a reliable secondary source is necessary, WP:WEIGHT cannot be determined. Since we are not dealing with a viewpoint, but rather a verifiable statement, the section of WP:WEIGHT which would apply reads as follows:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

What I have proposed (as a compromise), I believe satisfies this requirement. The wording would be: Barrett is not Board Certified. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe that the secondary sources provided are even necessary to state this; especially in terms of WP:WEIGHT (a policy which states nothing about a secondary source requirement).

Now then, there is another contention that this content doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV in general (WEIGHT is a "sub-policy" of NPOV). The secondary sources provided above tell a point-of-view; that while on the courtroom stand, Barrett was forced to admit that he had failed the Board Certification exam. While Barrett's point-of-view (as he has stated here at Wikipedia) is that he is not ashamed of nor reluctant to admit that he failed his Board Certification exam. Clearly, there are two point-of-views here in terms of Barrett's willingness to admit that he is not Board Certified. The solution: Don't mention whether or not he is reluctant to admit this. Make the general and verifiable statement: Barrett is not Board Certified. And be done with it. We are not saying that he is reluctant or open with this information. Hence, WP:NPOV has been acheive (simply by avoiding any point-of-view and just sticking to the verifiable facts rather than the verifiable opinions).

So, while I don't think that the secondary sources are necessarily required to satisfy either of these contentions, I would not mind an expert opinion of their reliability in terms of being secondary sources of this content. If there are any other contentions (a recent one which was debunked was WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content), it would be nice to know whether or not be have reliable secondary sources. Again, all I (and the majority of editors at Talk:Stephen Barrett) want to include is a simple and verifiable statement: Barrett is not Board Certified. Any insight which you can give will be most appreciated. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you can agree that it sounds a bit derogatory to say that someone is not "board-certified". As you know, he or his counsel answers this statement by saying "It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry." It seems a neutral way to present the information would be:

"He is not board certified (citation), but he responds by stating that 'It is not necessary to be board-certified to practice psychiatry'" (citation)

Wjhonson 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That to me would be a neutral expression presenting both *sides* of that topic. Wjhonson 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think that is a workable solution. I definitely see your point with regards to WP:NPOV. Let's see what the editors currently favouring exclusion think of your suggestion. Thanks so much for your input. I really appreciate your expertise! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is one editor who still feels that this information is in violation of WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content. I think this is unfounded as this material is certainly not malicious, and given Jhonson's extra NPOV precaution, it is certainly not biased. It is a verifiable fact which the subject himself has confirmed as true here at Wikipedia. (BTW, I realize that this isn't the "BLP noticeboard", so if this is way out of place here, I apologize.) Any guidance or thoughts on this editor's concern? Thanks again! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, going to BLP noticeboard may be a good idea; I think reliability issues are settled. For the record, I don't think this editor is right and BLP does not apply here, but better experts than me are available there to address that particular issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thank you for your help on the reliability of sources issue (and I appreciate your insight on BLP as well). I tend to agree with you, but let's see what they say at the BLP noticeboard. Much gratitude to all the editors who helped us out here! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Search engine optimization is a featured article candidate. Due to the nature of the subject, we have relied heavily on web sources, including several prominent blogs.

• SearchEngineLand.com - Industry journal published in blog format
• SearchEngineWatch.com - Industry journal published in zine format
• Matt Cutts' blog - Personal blog of a Google insider, used as a primary source about Google

A reviewer has asked for community input as to whether these sources, and others used in the article, are reliable or not. Please comment here or there. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply about blog reliability at #The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer. Briefly: 1) are the blog claims controversial or contradicted? If yes, consider removing that info, if not, keep it but add in text information that the source comes from blog X by Y.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment there are a lot more articles and stubs that have the same problem. What was said for the SEO article is also true for a lot of existing and missing articles about any type of internet marketing. Its the platform of choice. All print publications in affiliate marketing switched to blogs over the years as their online publishing CMS. A lot of other sites did as well, including sites that were always online publications only, but used some sort of CMS in the past. See my comments here at discussion for the SEO nomination as featured article candidate (starts at the first line, I created an anchor). Jeochman also started a discussion about some rephrasing or changes to Wikipedia guidelines to more reflect reality than they do now see here. We will run into the issue time and again and I have to say that it is getting old in some cases where you have to explain over and over again that site xyz is a reliable news source that happened to switch their CMS to WordPress. That did not change their editorial process nor the way how they research facts. The switch to a blog did not make those publications become sloppy. I think this issue should be addressed as soon as possible, because it will only get worse --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a key point is whether the source is fact checked; if it is than it doesn't matter if they publish via blog, paper of papyrus :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments. This article was promoted. Jehochman ^Talk 01:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Every once in a while someone tries to "correct" the Super Nintendo Entertainment System article with their pronunciation, which usually results in a few pointless edits until we reach a compromise. So I decided to research the issue, and discovered (unsurprisingly) that people pronounce it in many different ways: "sness", "snez", "s-nes", "s-n-e-s", "super nes", "super nintendo", etc. The ideal statement for the article then would be along the lines of "English speakers pronounce SNES in various ways, including ...". The hard part is finding a reliable source, as AFAICT no one has bothered to write an article on the subject. I have an argument for using what is normally an unreliable source, but I suspect my line of reasoning will be opposed by some editors. Step by step, the reasoning is:

1. If someone posted their claimed pronunciation to a blog or forum, WP:V says we could use that under the following conditions:
   1. The source is used in an article about that person.
   2. The claim is relevant to the person's notability. This is more about whether the statement should be in Wikipedia at all rather than whether this source should be used to source the statement.
   3. The claim is not contentious. I suppose this means "No one reasonably thinks the author is lying"?
   4. The claim is not unduly self-serving.
   5. The claim is not about third parties or events. This is satisfied by the definition of the post being considered.
   6. We can verify the identity of the author.
2. While it's not explicitly allowed, as WP:RS and WP:V generally consider a source's merit only as a secondary source, I can think of no reason that blog or forum post couldn't be a primary source for the statement "Person X pronounces SNES as P" in any article (besides "Oh noes! It's a forum post, and forum posts are not allowed!"). This relaxes the first WP:V criterion to "The source is used in an article about the author or to source a statement (in any article) that the author makes the claim". Also, the second criterion shifts to whether the new statement is appropriate for its article, rather than whether it is relevant to the author's article. We still have to meet criteria 3–6.
3. Of course, we don't particularly care about Person X in this case, just the fact that someone pronounces it that way; this blog or forum post could be used for that purpose as well if you accept step 2. Since "someone" doesn't depend on knowing the identity of that someone, the sixth WP:V criterion no longer really makes sense (the author is trivially identifiable as "someone"). Note that criteria 3–5 still apply, as do the modified 1 and 2.
4. A statement "someone pronounces SNES as P" is not particularly notable, of course. We can cite a number of such forum/blog posts to strengthen it to "some people pronounce SNES as P". Note that "a number of forum posts" could all be in a single thread, so the number of actual <ref>s need not grow unmanageable.
5. If we have statements "some people pronounce SNES as P1" and "some people pronounce SNES as P2" sourced as in step 4, we can rewrite them as "People pronounce SNES in different ways, such as P1 and P2". Note that one thread could have both posts supporting P1 and posts supporting P2, further reducing the number of <ref>s required. P3, P4, and so on can be added similarly.

In general, this sort of thing could support a statement of existence like "Some people believe Y about X" or "People believe different things about X, including but not limited to Y1 and Y2". It cannot be used to support statements like "Everyone/No one believes Y about X", or any quantitative statement about levels of belief or non-belief in Y, or "few/many/most" semi-quantitative statements, or any indication as to whether Y is actually true or false.

This could also apply to use of voodoo polls, although they may often be disqualified under criterion 3 on the argument that people lie to screw with the poll results.

Any thoughts? I've read some of the past discussion in various talk archives, but it only went as far as step 2 in anything I've found. Sometimes there was consensus, and sometimes not. Anomie 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• as there is no consensus--or the balance may be changing-- and as opinion about this varies with whom you ask, simply use the best source you can, and word it in the clearest way. For disputed pronuciation or spelling, I like the wording, "It is sometimes written/pronounced X, and sometimes Y." The only problem is when there are conventional RSs for X, and only a blog for Y. In general, your description of the situation above is--in my opinion,as always-- the fullest presentation of it that has yet been written. DGG 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have such a statement already, I'm mainly looking for comments on my reasoning for use of forum threads in this unorthodox manner. Especially if the consensus here is "that's acceptable", I can point to this discussion in support of the use. Anomie 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. Give a full presentation of pros and cos for various names, either in a separate section or a footnote.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "pros and cons" of the various pronunciations are relevant to the article, and I certainly can't source any such presentation. The current footnote just mentions the existence of the various pronunciations, and the effect this has on choice of indefinite article in English.

I am interested in a discussion of the merits of my argument for considering a forum thread to be a reliable source for this particular type of statement. Anomie 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Basicially forum thread is a reliable source only if no more reliable source can be presented. See WP:ATT/FAQ#Are_web_forums_and_blog_talkbacks_reliable_sources.3F and WP:RSEX#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources. This would be an exception, as we usually don't accept forums as reliable sources - but if no better refs are presented, I think it can be mentioned.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as an "Oh noes! It's a forum post!" response. Your two wikilinks seem to be considering reliability as a secondary source, or assume the "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" criterion of WP:V#SELF cannot be met. In this case, the use is as a primary source supporting the fact that someone states the opinion that the author states in the post. The use is along the same lines as sourcing the fact "Some cows are brown" by citing a number of photographs of brown cows: proof of existence by presentation of direct evidence. Anomie 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the reasoning, although you may want to consider whether this is not bordering on WP:OR (I'd think not but it's close...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad my reasoning makes sense, and thank you for your input. Specifically, I'd be concerned about it being WP:SYN, but I agree it isn't quite there. The reasoning depends on a bit of logic and a bit of summary, but there doesn't seem to be any novel conclusion. Anomie 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a ''Nintendo Power'' which clarified that it is pronounced "Super NES"?--Flamgirlant 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a quote from the September 2000 issue of Nintendo Power here, but "after checking with our legal team and passing a survey around the lunchroom" doesn't sound that official—it sounds to me like legal said "no official pronunciation we know of" so they took a small survey. Perhaps that forum post is inaccurate, or perhaps there is a second issue addressing the question, but until someone supplies the citation information and relevant quote.... Anomie 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this discussion resolved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, produces the CCG Magic: The Gathering. As part of their website, 7, they regularly produce informational columns 8 and provide specific information on cards 9. They also answer questions 10 . Sometimes the articles can be a bit silly (I included one for an example), but in general, I feel it's clearly a professional site with an acceptable standard for accuracy. Now there may be concerns about marketing bias and other such issues, but I think that the appropriate response is to use them with a slight level of caution, and if other reliable sources contradict them, to include that contradiction if it comes up. IOW, I believe that usage of the site is acceptable in general, and only individual specific concerns are worth covering. Is this acceptable or not? I've invited the person who disagrees with this to make their position clear, but you can also read about it on the MTG Wikiproject's discussion page. FrozenPurpleCube 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As a magic player myself, I am actually familiar with the website, and would certainly agree it has many valuable informations. There is indeed concern about marketing and bias, this is addressed by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves - however I don't think this would be much of a case here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, this is a gross misrepresentation. I've only been removing a narrow case of references; claims of "Notable cards" sourced only to WOTC's website. Since when do we cite the publisher of a product as a source for opinionated claims about their product? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Would a possible compromise be: card X is considered notable by the publisher'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I suggested you add your perspective here. Perhaps instead of saying I'm wrong, you can be more clear on your position, since the previous discussion I've had with you indicates that you're not just concerned about this particular usage, but about overall usage of Wizards.com in general. Am I wrong about that? And in this case,I think you're mistaken in your representation of the situation as well. in many cases, there weren't opinions about cards (though sometimes there were, but those were often unsourced to anywhere, let alone wizards.com), but instead nothing but facts about specific cards. If you'd just edited the various iffy examples of notable cards, that'd be one thing, but your methods to me indicated a wider problem with using wizards.com at all. Do you have no objection to using them in some cases, such as to say which was the first card to have a given attribute? Or the last? That's not exactly an opinionated statement, is it? Why then, do you remove it here 11 and here 12FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we wouldn't have these bulleted lists of trivia; instead, incorporating them into the body of the article. The first thing we need to do with eliminate this heavy element of parroting WOTC's party line on their products. Why are we citing the official site of the publisher of a product for critical reception of that product? Why should we mention their faux critical reception at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first would be a style issue, not well-addressed here. It's not about sources at all. The second would be, um, confusing to me. As what critical reception is apparent in "this is the first card to have double-digit power and toughness" ? I'm afraid I don't see your comment as applicable to the individual situations over all. Perhaps if you gave an example of a usage that concerns you? FrozenPurpleCube 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't be parroting WoTC, you're right. And maybe I'm misunderstanding what you've been removing, but if a source is an article on wizards.com, it is certainly quotable, as it is not actually the entity that is Wizards of the Coast itself, but one person writing an article. And if a source is gatherer...well, that should be a statistical resource, and should still be fine. If the source was just "wizards.com," then that's wrong. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Every card that isn't a stock reprint of something is the first card to do something. Every single card introduces something new, even if it's something trivially new (such as a new combination of old ideas). Why are we saying that such-and-such card is notable when the only source is a form of advertising? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there's nothing wrong with use of self-published sources, and Wizards.com is a reputable site that isn't simply blind advertising, but a professional website that provides content which you haven't actually impeached. FrozenPurpleCube 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the question of whether what a card does is unique or not, that's one that exists regardless of sources, so I don't feel it's relevant here. When it comes right down to it, I could probably find unique and verifiable information about a huge number of cards. I believe some editorial discretion will be needed. FrozenPurpleCube 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Every card is unique, and deciding on our own which ones are most unique is definitely original research. Now, using reliable sources (SCG, Inquest, Scrye, MTGS, etc.) would be different, but deciding on your own or using a company mouthpiece isn't a good way to do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to this Gatherer page, Spellweaver Volute is the only card that enchants an instant. Is that original research? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it's original research to claim that that is important. Fugitive Wizard is the first 1/1 Wizard with no game text. Kavu Glider is the first Kavu with enemy-colored activated abilities. Every card is unique. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Our deciding what cards are most unique may be original opinion, but our deciding what cards to cover on a given page is nothing more than editorial discretion. It's not original research to use our own opinions and reasoning to write a page. If it were, we couldn't write any pages at all. In any case, I'm still not seeing a clearly articulated specific objection to wizards.com. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That editorial discretion, as with all NPOV disputes, needs to flow from the form that the reliable sources take. I'm disputing that any card not covered by a third-party source isn't noteworthy. (Most of the "notable" cards, before I first started trimming these lists, were pretty silly.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To repeat my statement, I'm still not seeing a clearly articulated specific objection to wizards.com. That's the problem here. You can't even accept the invitational cards if verified solely at Wizards.com. I'm sorry, but your opposition is excessive and not supported by actual examples. FrozenPurpleCube 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, as long as those guidelines are followed, wizard.com can be used as a source. Let's review them one by one:

• it is relevant to their notability; -> from the preceding discussion, the answer seems yes
• it is not contentious; -> from an online dict. "involving or likely to cause controversy"; I don't see any arguments that the information would be controversial
• it is not unduly self-serving; -> again, I don't see that much bias on wizards.com, although care should be taken to distinguish articles from purely marketing pages
• it does not involve claims about third parties; -> I don't believe so?
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; -> I don't believe so?
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. -> this is important - read: state that the source is publisher's webpage, wizards.com, in the article.

Bottom line is that if its only a producer who says its product is notable, we shouldn't repeat their claims, but if the producer is also a publisher of a widely respect (correct me if I am wrong) journal or informative website, that source can be considered more reliable, but it should be made clear in the text that a possibility of bias or unreliability is higher - so if there is no clear consensus of for or against (as seems to be the case), I suggest stating in text (or via dedicated footnote) that the claim about notability comes from wizards.com. PS. I'd suggest discussing the reliability of publications on wizard.com - is it a respectable site or 'company's mouthpiece' - as crucial in solving this debate.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the official site is being used as a source of importance for trivial claims, ones made nowhere else. WOTC had a promotional contest! (Source: WOTC's contest) WOTC made a card based on a design submitted by the winner of a WOTC-run tournament! (Source: WOTC) WOTC considers such-and-such card from an old set influential in their new product, out next week! (Source: WOTC)

Generating interest and claiming that the game is important is unduly self-serving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please convince me how the content of Wizards.com is unduly self-serving, with examples and explanations. You do realize that the keyword is unduly, which means that it would be self-serving beyond a reasonable amount. That Wizards produces content as a benefit to increasing their product sales is understood. This doesn't mean that their content is nothing but advertising pap with no reasonable material on it at all. See, that's the problem, your objection is not based on any particulars. It's a blanket prohibition that's not supported with any actual reason for it other than a conceptual one. Sorry, but I don't feel there's an inherent problem with Wizards.com content. It only merits reasonably caution. Oh, if you don't believe that the Invitational and YMTC were covered by third parties, please go to Starcitygames.com where you can look it up. I don't think adding those sources would be meaningful to these articles, as I feel it's only neccessary to add sources to demonstrate the truth of certain statements, nothing more. But if you feel a desire to do so, go ahead. User:FrozenPurpleCube|FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Out next week? That's not good, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. I think talking about notability of already printed cards, especially older, using wizards.com, is fine, but new ones? Nope, per CB ref.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Predictions aren't really at issue. My point is rather that WOTC has an interest in promoting even their older sets, as they are frequently mined for reprinted cards and ideas; in fact, every core set (a yearly release) and indeed the next set and the last four sets were based on making nostalgic references to older sets. There's lots of "Wasn't Invasion a great set? I know I sure liked it. By the way, there are new versions of the Invasion characters in Planar Chaos, on sale right now!" It's not quite that blatant, but it is self-serving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me some examples and explanations of unduly self-serving. Simply saying "Here's this, and here's this now" might conceivable be beneficial to them, but is it unduly so? I don't see you convincing anybody of that yet. FrozenPurpleCube 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WOTC just released four sets in a row that relied heavily on reprints or references to previous sets, and a fifth is on the way. Do you not understand how generating interest in older sets is self-serving, given this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but once again, I have to ask you to provide examples. You're merely asking me to assume they're biased because it's logical to you. But this doesn't demonstrate actual unduly self-serving bias on their part. That doesn't fly. If you want to say "We should use caution in using this" fine, I agree. But that means examination of each individual situation as it comes up. Can you provide one single example at all of an actual problem with the content of Wizards.com, preferably with a rebuttal from another reliable source so we're not relying on your opinion that it's wrong? You haven't so far, and I'm not even requiring you to provide a third-party rebuttal if you can just provide a decent case example. FrozenPurpleCube 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:N. Where's the skepticism? In all other subjects, we assume that the publisher of a product has a vested interest in promoting interest in their product. Why is this suddenly different for Magic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read: WP:N#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. See also WP:SPS. Therefore, I suggest you reserve objection to any use of Wizards.com content to the particulars of the circumstances. FrozenPurpleCube 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we throwing skepticism out the window because of the specific wording of Wikipedia policy, when the obvious intent of Wikipedia's sourcing policies are to keep us citing independent, reliable sources instead of those with a vested interest in promoting their employers' products?

Why are we citing promotional stunts themselves as sources that such-and-such promotional stunt is worth noting? Why are we citing the home page of a tournament's operator that such-and-such tournament winner's prize is worth commenting on?

Why are we not following the lead set by the independent coverage, and instead giving undue weight to the company mouthpiece? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said this to you many times before, you're welcome to be skeptical. That means caution and an individual examination of the circumstances behind any decision, not a blanket refusal to use them. Concern means you carefully look for a problem before doing something, not that there is an over-riding problem that prevents it. Do you see the difference? Therefore, I once again, ask you to demonstrate an actual problem with Wizards's content. If you can't, then I must say, be cautious, be skeptical, but don't deny it without individual examination of the circumstances. FrozenPurpleCube 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with WOTC's content is that WOTC has a vested interest in giving undue weight to their own products, as all corporate mouthpieces are generally assumed to be doing. (Why else would they exist?)

The question I pose to you is such: when has wizards.com been critical of a product they're selling? When have they ever seen fit not to cover WOTC's latest tournament or set as unimportant? Why can we trust them to be impartial about what is important and what is not, regarding their own products? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me an example of them giving undue weight to anything. Not being independently critical is not the same as being unduly self-serving. But to answer your question, well here: 13. In any case, I still don't see any actual problems being demonstrated by you. Can you give me a reliable source that shows them not owning up to a mistake or problem? Show me any kind of cover-up or astro-turfing on their part? FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have any sort of examples of gross malfeasance on their part. Merely a promotional tone and emphasis on self-promotion. Isn't that enough? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:V again. Your assumption there is a problem doesn't mean there is a problem. Also see WP:IAR. You seem to be stuck on the particulars and missing the spirit. FrozenPurpleCube 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If wizards.com isn't a promotional outlet, what is it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is no demonstrated objection to a problem with content overall on Wizards.com, then the concern must be with specific content. Go for it. Name some examples. Point out some problems. Perhaps I might even agree with you. But you'll have to make a good case. FrozenPurpleCube 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wizards.com is a promotional outlet" is the demonstrated objection. Every single new set is described in glowing terms. Information is rationed according to WOTC's promotional plan. Wizards.com doesn't comment on WOTC's ongoing legal matters. Promotional activities (You Make The Card, upcoming events, previews of upcoming sets) are intermixed freely with coverage of current events, with little dsitinction drawn between them.

The problems are more ones of omission and tone, ones that are part and parcel of the editors being hired by WOTC and the whole site belonging to WOTC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you haven't demonstrated an actual problem with specific content being unduly self-serving. Please do that, or try to consider it in terms of individual situations. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to support your assumption that there is a problem which merits blanket rejection of wizards.com. Any problems that do occur should be handled as they occur. FrozenPurpleCube 01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's good, because I'm not blanket rejecting wizards.com. I'm rejecting it as a source for the implicit claim that a specific card or group of cards is noteworthy, as they have an interest in claiming that their products are noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, who has suggested that use of Criteria from Wizards.com for what makes a card notable or not? I'm not even aware they have criteria. FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody. I'm merely removing both unsourced claims that cards are notable, as well as claims that cards are notable based on insuffucient sources, such as self-published fansites and wizards.com. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it's obvious that wizards.com is a source of verifiable information. Which means of course, they can be used to verify whether or not a card meets the criteria established for notability. If you disagree as to what makes a card notable or not, then I suggest you go to the discussion on that subject. Make your points there. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizards.com is not a good source of claims that such-and-such card is noteworthy. It's a passable source of certain types of information, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not what's being done here, sorry. The idea of what characteristics determined whether a card is notable or not is not related to any claims by wizards.com as far as I know. FrozenPurpleCube 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The characteristic of being notable, on Wikipedia, is having been covered in an independent, reliable source. Wizards.com isn't independent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" is used in the English sense in the "Notable cards" sections, not in the WP:N sense. Individual game pieces are rarely notable, and there is ample precedent for mentioning them in articles without establishing their notability in the Wikipedia sense. If you disagree, go argue with the Settlers of Catan editors about how the desert tile is mentioned in the article without proof of its notability. --Ashenai 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of WP:N is not relevant here. You are confused, perhaps because in English, things can have multiple usages where their meanings are not quite identical. If you'd like, I suppose we could change the title of the section to "Selected Cards" or some other such title. FrozenPurpleCube 02:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does someone have, handy, a non-subjective definition of notable? Right now, in the articles, it seems to be "any card someone thought was neat," which isn't very helpful, or "whatever card Wizards has seen fit to advertise," which doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedia.

By the way, if anyone wants an example of the promotional tone, I suggest this article, written shortly after the release of Fifth Dawn and currently being used in Fifth Dawn as a source to indicate that a card that was created in a publicity stunt is noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an existing discussion I've pointed you to on the subject of what criteria makes a card notable. Of course, you could well argue that it's ultimately subjective anyway, but then, I've always said the whole concept of notability is subjective. That's an ongoing debate which isn't likely to be resolved, and is in fact, getting steadily more complicated. (see the recent addition to WP:NOT for an example.) FrozenPurpleCube 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And what's the problem with the content of the article? Give me some direct examples. I wouldn't use it as a source for anything, but that's because 14 is much better. FrozenPurpleCube 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That discussion sucks. It's people arguing about their own subjective interpretations of what cards are notable. Again, back to the "any card someone thought was neat" but with WP:MTG replaced with "someone." Not a significant improvement.

As for the problems with that article, any article on Wizards.com touting WOTC's latest product as "possibly the greatest Johnny set of all time" needs to be immediately discarded as a potential source, as does the wrap-up for a publicity stunt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest instead of insulting the discussion, which helps nobody, you contribute your own clearly articulated position on the subject and see if you can develop consensus for it. But your opposition to the wizards.com articles makes no sense to me. For the quote you gave, I'd simply say "person x described it as the greatest Johnny set of all time". But then, I'd do that no matter who said or where. That kind of statement merits a quotation, not a simple usage. FrozenPurpleCube 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the other source, I think it's quite a valid one for information on the process of how the card was chosen. Do you believe there's a problem with it, if so what? FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a valid source to justify mention of the contest in the first place. Once we've justified mention of the contest at all, it's a passable source for describing the contest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is, given the standard in WP:SPS, even if we leave aside the issue of the criteria for what makes a notable card. And if you think that the idea that "A card which was developed through the input of a player through a contest by Wizards" isn't a valid criteria for a notable card, then I only have to say you can easily be proven wrong. So don't even begin to suggest it or I'll think you're just being stubborn. FrozenPurpleCube 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, have you reached a compromise? Or do you need further input on reliability?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. FrozenPurpleCube 15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, where I am is here: Don't make lists of notable cards (or example cards or whatever) with no sources or WOTC-owned sources, because these sections will need to be incorporated into the article body, and personal observations and opinions aren't useful for that.

I dunno about anyone else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted a couple of times at The Yogurt Connection: Pioneering Drug Ring for lack of notability sourcing, it is now at Linda Leary, Richard and Paul Heilbrunn, And The Yogurt Connection. I've been in contact with the author, and the unwieldy current name is a known, separate issue from what I am bringing to this noticeboard. The article actually does have sourcing, but they are all offline sources, and thus cannot be easily verified. I'm no expert on sourcing myself, and after talks with the author I decided to get some consultation from those who do consider themselves more expert in sourcing. Do the external, offline, sources as given meet requirements for the article, or is more needed. Thanks in advance for any time/effort on this issue. - TexasAndroid 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Article moved to The Yogurt Connection and online sourcing added

Article has been moved to The Yogurt Connection and online sourcing has been added to two of four sources. The Time, NY Time and AP sources were discovered in a proprietary LexisNexis database. The indictment is a paper document obtained by me from the federal court. Also, the article is now, inexplicably to me, no longer visible. Thank you. --I3142p168 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the reliability matter solved then? Or do involved editors have any further questions?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider the sourcing adequate, and there is no requirement at all that the sources be accessible freely--people are assumed to have access to libraries. DGG 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this dicussion resolved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry for not responding in atimely manner. - TexasAndroid 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned if this site is a reliable source: 15. It neither lists where the information comes from, or even gives a date for the club's founding. I am concern that it's not suitable, and that a better source should be found. I can't even find out anything about the person responsible for the site's content. How do we know David Hayes (the person claiming the copyright) knows what the oldest anything is? I'm just not sure it should be trusted. This isn't to say the information is controversial and needs to be removed but I think a better source would be appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The author is Bill Wall as is stated elsewhere on the website. Wall is a chess author (e.g. Wall, Bill (1988). Grob's Attack. Chess Enterprises. ISBN 0-931462-86-X. ) who specialises in chess history and has his own website here. I am not arguing that it meets WP:RS and I am looking for a better source if that helps the discussion here. However, the question as to whether this source should be cited, pending a successful search for a better reference, is for the talk page of the article and that is where you should be seeking a consensus. BlueValour 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But the page itself doesn't mention Bill Wall, and exactly why should we trust David Hayes to know whether or not Bill Wall knows the truth? As for Bill Wall himself, unfortunately, publishing a book (or several) on Chess doesn't an expert in history make. Especially since the book isn't directly related to Oxford or Chess History. Where can we find his credentials endorsed by anyone else? I'm not even sure Chess Enterprises is a reliable publisher. If it's the one describe here 16 (and if that is indeed an accurate description, which it might not be, but I don't know that it isn't.), then it's a publishing out of a garage. Which makes for a vanity press. Therefore, I'm not inclined to rely on it. I'm also concerned that you replaced a SPS with the same source under a different flag. That doesn't fix the problem, it just repeats it. Again, I suggest looking for a better source, or if you can't do that, referring it directly to the claim by the club itself. That would be far more acceptable. Heck, I'm not even removing the information, just objecting to use the current sources. FrozenPurpleCube 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets are reliable. A minor webpage or a book publisher are less reliable, but unless the information is contradictory to something else we have it can stay - although it may be a good idea to mention a source in the text (ex. Bill Wall states that...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• “Partisans of Israel often make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israel’s critics. The ‘antisemite!’ libel is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel’s racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of Jew-hatred.”
  • Handleman, Scott, "Trivializing Jew-Hatred," in The Politics of Anti-Semitism, ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p. 13.
• “Apologists for Israel’s repression of Palestinians toss the word “anti-Semite” at any critic of what Zionism has meant in practice for Palestinians on the receiving end.”
  • Cockburn, Alexander and St. Clair, Jeffrey, preface to The Politics of Anti-Semitism, ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p.vii.
• "More importantly, Finkelstein exposes the nastiness of smearing the label of anti-Semitism on Israel's critics. Mostly, he tells us what we already know."
  • Paul, Ari. "Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Antisemitism and the Abuse of History". Tikkun, October 11, 2005.
• "Instead of seriously engaging with the issues raised (e.g. to what extent are Israel's current policies similar to those of apartehid and to what extent are they not?), the Jewish establishment and media responds by attacking the people who raise these or any other critiques--shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of the criticisms. Knowing this, many people become fearful that they too will be labeled "anti-Semitic" if they question the wisdom of Israeli policies or if they seek to organize politically to challenge those policies."
  • Rabbi Michael Lerner. "There's no New Anti-Semitism". Baltimore Sun, February 7, 2007.
• “The lack of debate is, of course, a measure of the power of the Israel lobby to suppress discussion of its role, and the fear the lobby stirs among American writers, especially non-Jewish liberals who cannot afford to be tarred as anti-Semites, a death sentence in the profession."
  • Shatz, Adam. "Dialogue of the Deaf". The Guardian, March 24, 2006.
• "'I’ve been hurt — and so has my family — by some of the reaction,' Carter said. 'It’s the first time in my life I’ve ever been called a liar. A bigot. An anti-Semite. A coward. A plagiarist. He paused after each epithet. 'This has hurt,' he said."
  • Cohler-Esses, Larry. "Carter Faces, and Disarms, Jewish Crowd". The Jewish Week, January 26 2007.
• “The Great Silencer: No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most important weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy – an influence that AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite.”
  • Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series, Harvard University, March 2006.

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

Some have argued that the charge of antisemitism is being misused as a way to silence criticism of Israel.

---

• “The charge has been leveled at Jimmy Carter over his recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." I, too, didn't like the book...Still, Carter's overall point about Israeli occupation of the West Bank is apt, and calling him all sorts of names does not change that...It's astonishing that in the 60 years since the Nazi extermination camps were liberated, anti-Semitism has revived and thrived. Still, it hardly makes sense to fight it by promiscuously throwing around the word "anti-Semite" so that it loses its punch or to flay Jewish critics of Israel."
  • Cohen, Richard. "Cheapening the Fight Against Hatred". Washington Post, February 6, 2007.)
• Philadelphia Inquirer: Truth at Last

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

After Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid he was labelled an antisemite.

---

• ADC Denounces New Efforts to Chill Academic Freedom, Press Release, Arab Americans Anti-Discrimination Committee, September 26 2002

As a citation for this information in Antisemitism:

Rashid Khalidi, a Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and a target of Campus Watch says:

"This noxious campaign is intended to silence such perfectly legitimate criticism, by tarring it with the brush of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, truly loathsome charges. They reveal the lengths that these people apparently feel impelled to go to in order to silence a true debate on campus."

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1
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.

---