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.

Editor says the article is "based on material copied with permission" from Virtual Vermonter. I'm not sure this is a reliable source for the entire article, or that "copied with permission" is a valid claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right to doubt these things :) Virtual Vermonter doesn't appear to meet our criteria as RS. If I'm right, no need to worry about the permission thing because the material should not be used as our source.

The Olcott book, mentioned on the web page, would be a primary source: we might use it with care, if someone can find a copy, but we can't base a whole article on it. The Williams book listed under "sources" on our Eddy Brothers page, published by Knopf, is probably OK: ideally, that's the kind of source we want. Maybe the Cranston book also, but whether it contains much relevant material I don't know. Andrew Dalby 14:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Having recently been fragged for copyvio myself, I know how easy it is to misunderstand and run afoul of close paraphrasing. This article seems full copyvio, to my eyes. The Virtual Vermonter page has no copyright-free notice but it does have an "all material copyright Virtual Vermonter" notice. In addition the story itself is listed as being "excerpted from" a separately copyrighted book by Rich Gray. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, the answer on that is that we would need full and precise documentation of any claimed "permission" given by Virtual Vermonter. We can't take an editor's word, because breach of copyright is a legal matter. But, as I said above, I don't see Virtual Vermonter as a reliable source, so we shouldn't be using it to build our text. And the style is not encyclopedic. That's three reasons to delete any substantial material taken from Virtual Vermonter. If we're to retain our article as more than a small stub, we need to consult other sources. Andrew Dalby 11:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The talk page comments suggest that there is no copyvio: the author and owner of the original work submitted the article himself in 2004. The article should therefore not be blanked on copyvio grounds. It should, instead, be treated like something written by any other editor that happens to be in need of better sourcing and some copyediting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, this fella is claiming that Blogspot is a reliable source... Talk:Golden_Dawn_(Greece)#blogspot Shii (tock) 10:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of the page, or in the edit window. Some unedited blogspot sites or posts may qualify under SPS or About Self. Others may be fully edited publications in the traditional sense, merely uttered by blogspot. (most, of course, are not) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it appears to be just a random blog being cited as a reliable source for photos of old magazines. Shii (tock) 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of the magazines is quite a different question. A library catalogue would probably be a reliable source for the existence of a magazine. We do have such a thing as a "convenience link", as well, but a Blogspot blog is not ideal even then. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest Shii, I'm not leaving this page, digging around in an article talk page (possibly the article) to interpret which source I should look at. Could you provide a link to the source in question as asked for at the top of this page and in the top of every edit window. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Here it is: http://jungle-report.blogspot.de/2012/03/blog-post.html Shii (tock) 13:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Shii. This is an unedited pseudonymous blog with no indication of an Expert exemption to Self-published sources. It is manifestly unreliable for the extraordinary claims that a group is a Nazi front. Moreover, it is not reliable as an archive of magazines as there are none of the standard features of a trustworthy archive present (named archivist, deposit policy, accessions system, register, etc.) Not reliable for that article, probably not reliable for anything notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wescom Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I went through the archives and could not find if a Better Business Bureau rating is considered a reliable source. An IP editor has been adding the BBB rating of Wescom Credit Union here and here. This rating does not seem appropriate for a Wikipedia article but I would like to refer to a specific policy or guideline if I remove it. Any advice or pointing me in the right direction to a previous discussion would be appreciated. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. BBB is a legitimate, respected organization. From a reliability perspective, I don't see an issue, particularly if in-text attribution is used ("According to the Better Business Bureau..."). That said, there might be MOS or WikiProject guideliness regarding BBB, I don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's incorrectly formatted, doubtless due to the editor being inexperienced, but it's a perfectly fine source (none better for this fact) and a reasonable enough thing to say about a large business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I was kind of questioning the BBB citation because of the controversy over its rating system (see Better Business Bureau#Criticism) and I also wasn't sure if this fell under WP:NOT. The formatting is an easy fix. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the Christian Post a reliable source for the claim that Zhang Wenfang, a woman (BLP) in China, was forced to undergo an abortion? I argue that based on the CP's history of what could generously be described as failure to fact-check and less generously described as deliberate propaganda on abortion issues, they are not a reliable source for any story relating to abortion. They regularly report, for instance, that studies show abortion causes breast cancer (all major medical bodies completely reject this), that the morning-after pill prevents implantation, which anti-abortion advocates consider to be abortion (modern studies agree that the pill works by preventing fertilization), and that the recent American healthcare law will fund abortions (this is legally impossible, which is why real news sources agree that these claims are nonsense). Given their obvious subordination of fact-checking to an anti-abortion agenda, they clearly fail WP:RS's requirement that a source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and are unsuitable for use in WP article space.

Particularly suspicious is the fact that it's been two weeks since this story broke and reliable sources just won't touch it. Mainstream media has been all over the forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, and news outlets are starting to pick up similar stories from other women (eg. the BBC on Pan Chunyan). But Zhang Wenfang is only in sources with an anti-abortion agenda such as LifeNews, National Right to Life News, Christian Post, and OneNewsNow.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to Christian Post's demonstrable inability to fact-check to the standards required by wikipedia in this area, this article which falls into this area is unreliable for the extraordinary claim that a state forced an abortion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. A minor political newspaper that places its political mission above its responsibility to fact-check in a particular editorial area is not reliable, and not extraordinary. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the Christian Post is not used as a source in the article. The dispute is whether it is appropriate to have an external link to a story about a woman who came forward with her claim to have had a similar experience as the actual subject of the article. The external link is presented as a claim only and the reader can decide for themselves the reliability of the story. I feel this is the appropriate way to handle the situation. (Note also that the BBC story is a likewise a publication of a claimed story - again presenting it as an external link allows the reader to decide for him/herself.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Stating that the Christian Post has an anti-aboriton agenda is itself an unproven assertion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

RS/N deals with editor evaluations of sources according to a depth of consensus and understanding of sourcing issues that the community has developed over an extended period of time. Regarding External Links, you'd want the External Links noticeboard, they have their own criteria that they're obliged to evaluate external links by that differ significantly to the reliable sourcing criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've re-posted the Q on the EL noticeboard as the dispute is over using CP as an external link, not as a source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want more info about the Christian Post views on abortion it may be useful to read this page. Arcandam (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable. The CP is terribly biased with its facts in servitude to its agenda. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

1 < Would this be considered a reliable source? It has a mention on Anime News network, Blu-ray.com cites them without comment, About.com Guide Deb Aoki links to one of their articles, and ICV2 cites them with attribution.

Possibly. The question is for what claims on what articles? Their editorial policy here is fairly sparse. There's no indication that their reviews are weighty. But they do have a minimal "fact checking" apparatus in place. So what do you want to cite for them on what article? I'd certainly dispute that this is a source that contributes to notability. Sandra Scholes appears to have extensive reviewing experience, but again, this doesn't make her opinions weighty. In what article for which claims? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well for example the source is used in Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle for Reception, the article is rated as a GA class article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, just no. Those reception claims are cited against "reviews" by non-experts in a shoddily edited blogzine. There's nowhere near enough WEIGHT behind those reviews to substantiate using those opinions in those articles. Sure, we can trust that Active Anime is reliable that those reviewers believed those things regarding the text. What I don't see evidence of is why we should care what those reviewers think. Opinions aren't facts, and these opinions come from people, and a magazine, with no real reason to attend to their opinion at all. Attribution doesn't make up for discussing something which is entirely weightless. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On the Rudolph Rummel article, this was used as a source for criticism. It was apparently posted to "MarxMail.org", and the editor who added it claims that it was written by someone named Louis Proyect. Proyect may be a reliable source but I don't know who he is, and I didn't see his name in the article. It looks dubious to me, but CartoonDiablo insists that I would be biased to remove it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source at all, unless it was published elsewhere and is just being shared on "MarxMail.org" -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) largely per Jrtayloriv, but in depth: Louis Proyect appears to be a system administrator and political activist. He keeps a collection of contributions he has written to an internet mailing list on his website here. He has been broadly published in left wing presses and scholarly journals ("My articles, many of which appeared originally as postings to the Marxism list, have appeared in Sozialismus (Germany), Science and Society, New Politics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Organization and Environment, Cultural Logic, Dark Night Field Notes, Revolutionary History (Great Britain), New Interventions (Great Britain), Canadian Dimension, Revolution Magazine (New Zealand), Swans and Green Left Weekly (Australia).") Some of these publications are reliable in the wikipedia sense. I see no evidence that Noam Chomsky, Crooked Timber and crooked numbers (2006) has been so published. If this were published in GLW I'd think it worth noting, possibly along the lines of "Rummel's statistical competence and methodology has been harshly criticised in the popular left wing press." If this were published in Science and Society I'd say go further and note that scholarly criticism of Rummel's statistical competence and methodology exists. But unless Noam Chomsky, Crooked Timber and crooked numbers (2006) was published by one of the organs Proyect names, I would say we shouldn't use it. Proyect's personal expertise does not go to the criticism of statistical demography of mortality. (And there are, I believe, trenchant criticisms of Rummel's demography in the scholarly press). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if it was published elsewhere. I've asked CartoonDiablo to explain if it was or where it originated. It looks totally unreliable to me, but he may have some explanation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My very best wishes removed the source. It's up to CartoonDiablo to respond now or accept this removal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article about conspiracy theorist James H. Fetzer contains the following statement...

A recent interview in which Jones was Fetzer's guest, which revealed the depth and breadth of their differences, elicited dozens of negative comments.

...with an incompletely formatted citation that points to this blog post with replies. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source issue or an original research issue or both. Thanks! Location (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's both. First, 911blogger.com is not a reliable source and even if it were, comments left by readers may never be used as sources. Second, yes it's original research to read the comments and draw conclusions about them. And since Fetzer is a living person, it's a WP:BLP violation, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Per A Quest For Knowledge's reasoning. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Location (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may bring up another one. The article contains this statement:

With Canadian journalist Joshua Blakeney, he has organized a second conference from Scholars, "The Vancouver Hearings", which will be held there 15-17 June 2012.10

...with an incompletely formatted citation that points to 911vancouverhearings.com. It appears to be primarily promotional, but there is no "About us" and I'm not sure how this is judged by RSN. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

911vancouverhearings.com would not be a reliable source, unless for the opinion of its author. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! Location (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I also have a question pertaining to YouTube as a reliable source. The article states:

On June 22, 2006, Fetzer was a guest on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes where he discussed his stance on several 9/11 conspiracy theories. In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barrett had been at his alma mater, Boston University, "this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state."

Although the statements are not currently cited, I believe one or both were previously linked to viewer-uploaded YouTube clips. My interpretation of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview is that clips would need to be uploaded by Fox or a legitimate archiving entity for them to be used as reliable sources. Is that correct? Are these links alone even enough to state that he appeared on Hannity & Colmes or O'Reilly? Thanks! Location (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a City Pages article that could be used to support the statement that he was on Fox, but Wikipedia labels City Pages as a tabloid. Would that be acceptable? Location (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Tabloid format is not a disqualifier for reliability! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Location (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The largest problem with the paragraph from the article is that it synthesizes multiple sources in a way that makes it look like things were said that weren't:

• On 11 July 2006 Bill O'Reilly said "But here's the problem that I see at Wisconsin. There's no leadership here. There's no leadership in the board of regents at the university. This guy Barrett would have been gone at Boston University, my alma martyr in a heartbeat. The chancellor there, John Silver, this guy would be in the Charles River floatingthroating down, you know, toward the harbor. It wouldn't happen. But here at the University of Wisconsin, there are no standards. This guy can go in and say anything, not back it up, and get paid by the taxpayers. And I'm just stunned." ("Impact." Fox News Network. (July 11, 2006 Tuesday ): 845 words. LexisNexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/07/16.)
• On 25 July 2006, O'Reilly said that Barrett had written a letter about the 11 July broadcast - "So what did Barrett do when he heard I said that? He wrote a letter to my boss saying, quote, 'It has come to my attention that one of your announcers, Bill O'Reilly, has stated on national television that he would like to see me murdered and thrown into the Boston Harbor,' unquote." followed by "Yes, I mean, this guy Barrett is obviously -- there's something the matter. I don't know what it is. But you know, when he -- when he writes that I wanted him murdered." ("Controversial Professor Teaching Conspiracy Theory." Fox News Network. (July 25, 2006 Tuesday ): 879 words. LexisNexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/07/16.)
• Fetzer was not mentioned or quoted on either program, and was never quoted on Fox as having anything to say about the interchange.

The article combines these statements, along with unsourced commentary by Fetzer, and makes it sound like there is a RS for Fetzer's commentary. WP:SYN. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove that second sentence. I found Fetzer's commentary in a press release, but it does not appear that his thoughts about O'Reilly were reported on by reliable secondary sources. Right now, I'm just looking for a RS to back-up the article's assertion that he has appeared on Fox. Location (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

He has been on several times. I will pull citations and drop them at the article talk page, since they are Fox News transcripts I don't think there's a RS issue. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Would this TMZ article be reliable source for info regarding Sage Stallone's death? Shark96z (talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Helpdesk#TMZ Arcandam (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you both checked the RS/N archives? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Arcandam (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The article in question is written by a staff writer of an unedited blog. There is no way that this is reliable for news, such as the death or conditions of the death of an individual. Moreover, the "content" is a montage of quotations—and TMZ has no fact checking or editorial policy. This is a definitional example of an unreliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone offer an opinion of the reliability of anandtech.com? This is specifically in reference to Talk:iPhone 4#Can a confirmed user please add a citation for me for the Apple A4 Intrinsity design?. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anandtech, in my opinion is undoubtedly a reliable news source, articles from the website have been cited by numerous other reputable sources such as "PC Magazine" and has a considerably high Alexa ranking for a special-interest website. The website also has a Wikipedia article that appears to be well-sourced with both primary and secondary sources. I personally have referenced various articles on mobile devices, computer hardware and other technology-related concepts on Wikipedia with article from that website. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Anandtech is a reliable source for tech news. Currently being used by over 300 articles. Zad68 16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Anandtech is a reliable source for hardware related stuff. I bought a GTX295 and a GTX580 based on their reviews and the results I got were pretty much the same as the results of the benchmarktests they published (in CoDWaW and Wolfenstein, I did not test every single game). Arcandam (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the citation, thanks all. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just curious, would Fashion Model Directory be a reliable source at all? It doesn't seem so to me. For the curious, I'm now in a "dispute" at Lily Cole, wherein the IMDB, Fashion Model Directory, and other similar sites list her birthdate as May 19, 1988. However, The Observer, an actual newspaper, printed on January 6, 2008 that she just turned 20 (link here). The Evening Standard, dated February 26, 2004, states that Cole is 16 at that time (Link here). She twitted a picture of a birthday cake, saying "24", on December 27, 2011 (implying a December 27, 1987 birthdate); (link here). When someone wished Cole a happy birthday the night after December 27, 2011, she replied with a thank you on her verified Twitter account (link here). British Birth Records list Lily Luahana Cole as having her birth registered in February 1988, which fits with the December 27, 1987 date that she asserts. Surely, given her verified Twitter account, this is an open-and-shut case, and something like a Fashion Model Directory can be duly ignored? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You could just give her birth date as 1987 or 1988 and give all the sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? She celebrates her birthday in December. Nothing worth believing says May 1988. Aside from that, I found two more newspapers that state her right age (17 in April 2005 and 18 in April 2006). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A content dispute has arisen at Scopes Trial involving multiple questions of policy (WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). For lack of a better idea, I'll bring it here and seek some outside opinions on whether the sources are reliable vis-à-vis the statements they're being used to support.

• Sources in question include Answers in Genesis, Creation Worldview, Evolution News, and (strangely enough) About.com.
• Diff: 2

Thanks for any guidance. Rivertorch (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither AIG, not CW nor EN is remotely a reliable source. They are all promoting quite particular (and particularly implausible) interpretations of one religion without regard for reality. They could be used as sources for their own opinion, but I very much doubt that these opinions are notable. I don't know how good or bad the editorial policy of About.com is, but again, I fail to see this comment as notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

AIG, CW, EN are not reliable sources and should not be used - expect in the very limited circumstances described by Stephan. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. I alluded to that on the talk page. Many thanks to both of you for your help. Rivertorch (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand about CW, which I mistakenly left in, and also EN, even though the writer is from the Discovery Institute.

What I don't understand, though, is why a creationist perspective can't be given on the play/film Inherit the Wind if it is clearly labelled as such. It isn't a matter of science, but of historical fact, which the play/film clearly distorts in the favor of the evolution side. For just two things, it never mentions the ACLU's involvement, making Scopes seem persecuted, and it made the creationist lawyer traumatize the teacher's girlfriend on the stand when Scopes had no girlfriend and no women were part of the trial. If the serious inaccuracies in ITW aren't addressed, then WP seems to be approving the play/film as fairly-accurate history and a reliable source itself, when it's not. As one of the sources, Austin Cline of the atheism page on About.com, acknowledges, ITW is taken as history. People don't know what the difference is since most will never actually study the trial.

I also proposed, although maybe not clearly enough, that if the research in AiG's article on the discrepancies wasn't allowed, then at least a straight opinion from the article on what creationists see as its bias against creationists be included. Something like, "creationists believe that the play/film is biased in how it portrays the trial," along with Austin Cline's comment on his view that it is not historically accurate. I also want to mention, too, that I haven't seen a comment on including Austin Cline's remarks and if they are considered RS. Psalm84 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

None of these sources are reliable for the claim. The standards expected for sources here would be scholarly literary criticism, scholarly history of science or scholarly applied theology / religious history. None of the sources meet this standard. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In that particular section the article, which isn't on the actual Scopes trial but on film/plays about it, there are two sources to Bryan.edu and Allegedthemovie.com, which don't meet that sort of standard.

In the section on plays/films it seems the standards should be closer to those for plays/films/documentaries would apply, wouldn't they? And About.com seems to be a frequent RS for WP. Psalm84 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I also am wondering, too, are there any RS that are creationist, so that there could be a creationist reply to how creationism is portrayed in the play/film, even if it's just a remark that they find it biased? I am also wondering if the historical inaccuracies and the bias in the film are clear to others. I placed a couple of examples here of the inaccuracies, and there are more in the diff in the original post. Psalm84 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How can gutter presses evaluate the historical accuracy of a fictive work? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Film critics often do it. A lot of the inaccuracies are blatant. And it is objective that creationists object to how they're portrayed in the film and believe it distorted what happened. That belief is also backed up by those discrepancies. I mentioned a couple, but there are more. Psalm84 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

So find it in an appropriately edited press, and bring it to RS/N. Bring your sourcing out of the gutter. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Right now since I dropped two sources I'm just talking about Answers in Genesis and About.com. I'm not sure why either are "gutter sources"? And there is a problem with finding such a source that isn't creationist that talks about the inaccuracies in a play that attacks creationism. As I wrote on the talk page: "if AiG is so objectionable, how about a quote from the article which is clearly their opinion that they find the film to be biased and inaccurate?" Psalm84 (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would we give any credence to such a fringe unreliable source and their opinion? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If a play/film negatively portrays a certain group of people and they object to it, why shouldn't a comment on how they believe they were falsely portrayed be included? And in this case, comparing the trial to the play shows that. Psalm84 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.answersingenesis.org/: 1114 external links.
• http://www.creationworldview.org/: 2 external links (including this discussion).
• http://www.evolutionnews.org/: 207 external links.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources listed have a suitable fact checking editorial policy. In particular the religious sources listed are sub-tabloid. About is a link farm with an open door policy on content and no expertise. If serious scholarly literalist theologians have engaged with the subject of the subsection of the article, then please bring those sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We are starting to go in circles - there is no consensus to include your fringe sources in any form and unless you bring new sources to the table there is nothing left to discuss. That other pages need clean-up means nothing to this discussion (leaving aside that 95% of the usage are to talkpages) --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about the play specifically, and right in the article, when it gets to the play, it says it was "was loosely based on this trial" and "... not based on any actual event", ergo, it's fiction. It does not need to portray historical accuracy, and certainly does not need any clarification from a "creationist perspective". That's absurd.

• AIG not RS.
• CW not RS.
• EN, I would like to see the specific article cited, it's possible the author may be credible (for his own opinion only), but the site is not RS.
• About.com not RS.

In response to your question about finding a suitable film review, if you can find a film critic who is RS and points out the creationist view flaws in the movie, it may be RS, but may still fail under WP:WEIGHT or WP:FRINGE concerns, admittedly, you're in a very tough place to advance from, at least that's how I see it.

As an aside, many articles here have poor sources, that doesn't mean we should add one more, it means those other articles with poor sources should be written better, WP:OSE is never a good argument. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My previous post wasn't meant to illustrate that these sources are reliable. Instead, it was meant to illustrate that the problem is more widespread than this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Widespread use of potentially inappropriate sources

I'm going to keep this up here for a bit, so as to specify the problem and allow RS/N editors to examine test cases from these publications. I resolved the single inappropriate use of creationworldview.org already. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/: 1114 external links.

Is Wright, David (9 March 2012). "Feedback: Timeline for the Flood". Answers in Genesis. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) a reliable webpage to act as a reference for Flood geology. Flood geology is a FRINGE science, and so in an article on a FRINGE science, participation in standard scholarly peer review may not be a reliability criteria, as long as the work has been reviewed by the FRINGE community and is used for discussion of FRINGE beliefs. As the work is used as a general reference in Flood geology, no specific claim is sourced against it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say no, unless it is to back up reliable sources. Fringe beliefs that have not been discussed in reliable sources t of the fringe community are probably not noteworthy of inclusion in WP articles. First of all, we have the problem of weight. We cannot tell how prominent a particular belief is within the fringe community based on the say so of highly partisan promotial, advocacy or apologetics sources that do not have a reputation of being neutral sources of relaible information, and in fact have a reputation for misrepresentation.

The question is topical as I was just considering removing this section 3 and the second paragraph of this section 4 because they are entirely sourced to fringe sources. In my view, creating material based solely on in-universe fringe sources is tantamount to OR based on primary documents. I would appreciate your input.

Furthermore, whether something has been "reviewed" by the fringe community is irrelvant, as the "review" is not truly independent, nor does it resemble in any aspect real scholarly review. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's a peer reviewed journal of Flood Geology, then the papers contained within are probably useful for explaining the beliefs of Flood geologers, edited anti-science is still edited and it would be reliable for the views of that FRINGE anti-science community. It would obviously be completely and utterly worthless in explaining geology. Regarding the two sections you noted, if "Robert Larmer" is a scholarly theologian, or highly esteemed professional practicioner with widespread publications in professional theological presses, his views might be noteworthy. The rest looks like garbage. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Robert Larmer, "Is there anything wrong with "God of the gaps" reasoning, " International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52: 129–142, 2002. is reliably published, and appropriately peer reviewed afaict, the question would be, does it support the supposition in the text, or is the supposition OR? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not talking about the Larmer paragraph, but the next paragraph starting with "Christian young Earth creationists". That paragraph does look entirely like OR.

As for "peer reviewed journal of flood geology", I trust that you mean genuinely academically peer reviewed, and not a sham pseudo-academic journal that claims to be "peer-reviewed" as described in the first paragraph of WP:PARITY. I'm not sure, but it seems that you are saying that "editing" is sufficient to make a source reliable. The "editing" that takes place solely within a fringe community does little to add credibility to a source, the same as with "review". An editor has to have a reputation for sound editing within the mainstream community for a source to be considered reliable, and a belief has to be discussed (whether favorably, unfavorably or neutrally) by the mainstream community to be considered noteworthy. Your thoughts? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You would be correct if the topic were geology, or the scientific correctness of flood "geology," but when representing faithfully the beliefs of flood "geologists" themselves, we should use the best available flood geological sources. Let us consider three sources (Guttersnipe 2011) a christian YEC link aggregator with no authors for the article and no editorial policy, (Fringe 2002) a "peer" "reviewed" Flood "geologist" journal, and (Geologist 2010) a peer reviewed geologist in a normal magazine. We would use them such: "Flood geology is a pseudo-science whose views are utterly rejected by the scientific community. (Geologist 2010) Flood geologists believe X, Y and Z. (Geologist 2010; Fringe 2002) These beliefs fail to account for observed phenomena A, B and C. (Geologist 2010) Flood geologists mainly collaborate through a yearly conference held in East Timor. (Fringe 2002)" Do you understand what I'm getting at here? We should never use guttertrash link aggregators, even when using them to source the contents of the beliefs of FRINGE groups. Some FRINGE groups, such as Flood Geology may have internally consistent systems to verify that Flood Geologists actually believe X, Y or Z; when such systems of confirmation exist, we should use such sources when explaining the content of FRINGE beliefs. Such sources can't speak to the validity of FRINGE beliefs, but they can speak to the content of FRINGE beliefs. Do you get me? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm talking about any content, not just scientific content. The beliefs of fringe groups are a topic of scholarly interest, and thus require sources deemed as reliable by the scholarly community, whether the source itself originates from within the fringe community or not.

I do, however, agree that the best sources from within the fringe community can be used, with "best" defined by their standing outside of the fringe commnunity. That is, have real serious scholars found the source reliable and used it in their discussion of the topic. A source that is valued and referenced solely within the fringe universe is probably of little value here on WP. I would reject your recognition of "peer" "reviewed" as adding credibility to the source (Fringe 2002), though, if that credibilty is entirely self-assigned or recognized only in-universe, and not by the scholarly community at large.

The example you gave, "Flood geologists mainly collaborate through a yearly conference held in East Timor", is particularly troublesome, because it's not necessarily non-controversial. Fringe communities tend to be extremely factionary, and their publications tend to be exceedingly partisan in this regard. The source you picked may repesent a small off-shoot of the community that does indeed meet in East Timor, but ignores the BIG pow-wow attended by most other factions in Ouagadougou (the infamous "no true Scotsman meets in Ouagadougou" fallacy). Without recourse to out-of-universe sources, it would be impossible to evaluate the reliability of their claim without violating WP:OR. Unless I had out-of-universe confirmation, I would not allow the sentence as you posted it. I MIGHT allow clearly non-controversial statements about themselves in a very limited sense, though, based on such sources, but not about the fringe community as a whole.

Indeed, the reason that I am removing the first section I mentioned above is that it is factionary, and limited to the Seventh Day Adventist element of the YEC community, which promotes vegetarianism. The rest of the YEC community does not really care one way or the other about vegetarianism.

Last of all, please give me your opinion on the SECOND paragraph of this section 5, beginning with the words "Christian young Earth creationists". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to use all caps by the way. I would pull the second and third paragraphs in their entirety. There's no indication that the opinions in the second paragraph are weighty (particularly as the article is YEC, not Answers in Genesis, etc.). The third paragraph appears to have no sourcing other than tripe articles. (You'd think a fucking fringe community would at least be a coherent whole—obviously the "about oneself" exemption only applies to the organisations publishing such organs.) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Agree with third paragraph as well. Fringe communities are very rarely unified and uniform. I've been workign on sourcing for the articles on astrology for the past year, and it's almost impossible to identify significant figures or movements in that "community" at all because exremely few reliable out-of-universe sources exist at all. Much worse than with creationism, for which we do have abundant reliable out-of-universe sources. Thanks very much for your input! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It gets worse. Their stuff is in general unedited shite from non-notables, but they have run a "Technical Journal" with no about information, on which one paper at least claims review prior to publication (cf: Bombardier_beetle#cite_ref-am_5-0); and actually run a "peer reviewed" publication, ARJ to publish pseudo-science. ARJ looks like it would contain "weighty" opinions by biblical literalist pseudo-scientists; if the opinion of a pseudo-scientist would otherwise be weight-worthy in a particular article (noted controversy in non-FRINGE sources, etc, involving the FRINGE). So we can't just nuke this, because occasionally there might be "good" stuff there, but most of the 1000 links are either going to be talk space or utter crap. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Vis a vis 'flood' geologists, J Harland Bretz was no Biblical literalist, but his regional catastrophism was scorned by the American Geological Society, probably from vehement distaste for any form of catastrophic explanation, until his more rigorous interpretation of the data vindicated him - test propositions carefully.Cpsoper (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how Bretz is relevant to the discussion of a link aggregating website that publishes unpeer reviewed magazines? If you want to start a discussion of the use of a particular Bretz work in a particular Bretz article I suggest you start a new section in RS/N at the bottom. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I quote, 'Flood geology is a FRINGE science' - precisely how the AGS myopically reacted to Bretz. The relevance of neglecting a wealth of important data and of a blinkering paradigm like gradualism should be obvious given this and other historical antecedents.Cpsoper (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have the privilege that original researchers have of reacting myopically or with good long sight to novel or non-standard hypotheses. We represent the preponderance of scholarly knowledge. If you wish to change the preponderance of scholarly knowledge, then a geological, theological or history and philosophy of science doctorate and subsequent scholarly publications is only 10-15 years away. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Links starting: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/

These represent articles reprinted from Journal of Creation, formerly Technical Journal; a product published by Creation Ministries International. Journal of Creation / Technical Journal has no indication of peer review and has a mission to publish pseudo-science. Answersingenesis.org makes no acknowledgement of Journal of Creation/Technical Journal's copyright, and these items should probably be deleted as copyvio links, when they're not deleted for being non-noteworthy FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities.

Example article: Bombardier beetle

Example source: Armitage, Mark H.; Mullisen, Luke (April 2003). Preliminary observations of the pygidial gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp.. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 9 July 2007.

Actual source: Armitage, Mark H.; Mullisen, Luke (2002) "Preliminary observations of the pygidial gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp." Technical Journal (Christian Ministeries International) 17:1

Claim supported, "Others such as intelligent design proponent Michael Behe and Answers in Genesis, accept most of the scientific view but contend that "complexity" suggests an origin by design."

Claim fallaciously claims weight to this FRINGE view, and misattributes it. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Vis a vis 'flood' geologists, J Harlen Bretz was of course no Biblical literalist, but his regional catastrophism was foolishly scorned by the American Geological Society, till his interpretation of the data vindicated him - be careful to test things carefully.Cpsoper (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And that's relevant how? I see that what you identify as your "home page" on your user page contains an array of links to some of the unreliable sources under discussion here. Rivertorch (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, please give an example of unreliability in the citations quoted.Cpsoper (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Technical Journal isn't peer reviewed, it fails to meet the basic criteria for science articles. The claim "Others such …Answers in Genesis, accept fact" is manifestly unverifiable from the article as Armitage and Mullisen (2002) was never published by Answers in Genesis. Even then, it is a misweighting, as AiG's opinion (a religious lobby organisation) means sweet fuck all on a scientific article. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Foul language betrays weak argument - to avoid clogging up this noticeboard, see rebuttal on my talk page shortly, where you may reply.Cpsoper (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't wish to participate in a consensus forming discussion, do not be surprised when your opinions are not included in the consensus formed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Fifel. It is a valuable comment, looking at some of the expressions in the section above.Cpsoper (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with yourself—mass suspected copyright violation external links are a serious business. Also, as you would know from detailed policy discussions; that while I am sad that your variant of English is so limited, I am not going to go and erase my own variant of English to meet your personal needs. I will perhaps avoid using my own variety of English's natural emphatics, mate, but your decision to withdraw from consensus formation and your use of an effectively ad hominem attack are not particularly good engagement with the policies of our community. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through this link series, generally replacing these links with citations to Technical Journal and only removing content when the claims were that content cited against Technical Journal was representative of Answers in Genesis' views. Cases where these were indicative of YEC community views as a whole were tagged with an inline weight template, and discussion started on the talk page for the community of editors there to evaluate. Outside of a few scientific articles, these links were on YEC related pages. Links starting http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/ should probably be blacklisted due to the copyvio element; could someone advise on this? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Links starting: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/

Represent a peer-reviewed FRINGE "journal", Answers research journal, which I believe indicates that these views may be weight worthy within the FRINGE science community represented; such that they would be reasonable to use when commenting on the FRINGE practice itself (but obviously not its validity) in articles solely dedicated to FRINGE practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Any other links in article space

Represent unedited or at best "popular" magazine articles representing FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities from non-weight worthy opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/: 207 external links.

Is the headpage of evolutionnews.org reliable for the claim, "According to the Center for Science and Culture's weblog,3 at least 10 state legislatures are now considering legislation reconsidering how evolution is taught." in Intelligent design in politics? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Holocaust Denier Led the Charge Against Academic Freedom on Evolution in Alabama Casey Luskin. Discovery Institute, Evolutionnews.org. reliable for the claim "A notable characteristic of this free speech on evolution campaign is the Discovery Institutes framing the issues as a confluence of free speech, academic freedom and discrimination," in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Such sites are reliable only as primary sources to describe themselves, and then only in the most basic terms. The subjects of articles don't get to decide which of their own characteristics should be termed notable. On a broader note, it looks as if you've uncovered a potentially widespread sourcing problem here. Do those counts include both inline citations and standalone external links? Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't uncover them, another user did. They appear to be at least 50% article space, and most of them references rather than External Links. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

At first sight it looked terrifying, but I see that quite a lot are on talk and project pages. Then there are articles that from their titles are about organisations and individuals involved in this perspective. These probably need a long trawl through to see how many are notable, and whether we have a huge walled garden here or not. The references on science articles, like Bombadier beetle can never be justified, as far as I can see. That creationists evoked the B. beetle might be a notable fact in creationism but isn't a notable fact about the B. beetle. The material should simply be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This large scale clean-up is causing problems for articles like Objections to evolution and Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism that cover the Creation–evolution controversy, which may be notable as a scientific controversy because of the psuedo sicence nature of creation science, but is quite notable as a cultural/political/religious/sociological phenomenon. Anyone with any sense knows that Answers in Genesis is never a reliable source for any scientific topic, but it is a reliable source (and an important one) for what creationists say and think and it is widely cited as such by postings on websites that are reliable sources such as National Center for Science Education, TalkOrigins Archive and NMSR. If we can't cite sources from organizations like AiG or Creation Ministries International it is hard to cover the controversy, especially since those organizations are significant players in the controversy. It is a long established principle that sources that would not otherwise be considered reliable for anything else, are in fact reliable sources for their own viewpoints. Let us stop and discuss this a little before we continue to hack up perfectly good articles like the two I mentioned. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We are trying to bear that factor in mind. You'll have seen that I divided the articles into categories; that was to help cleanup and allow people with subject expertise to help out with the articles most relevant to them. I see the use of AiG to illustrate the YEC position as an open question. If their position is notable in regard to a topic, it can go in. It isn't always notable. Often, there will be a better source for the same position. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are trying to keep that in mind, but the edits at objections to evolution in particular don't seem to be consistent with that, and it has sparked a mini edit war. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

QClash is currently going through a pre-afd discussion about notability due to a lack of reliable, independent third party sources over an extended period of time. QClash is a sports rivalry, involving two teams from the Australian Football League. The articles sources are comprised solely of the AFL.com.au website and various sub-domains (domains for individual teams).

The Australian Football League itself owns and operates the AFL.com.au website. This source is already used over 4,000 times on the site so this source covers far more than this singular topic.

A point has been raised that we should consider sources from the AFL.com.au to be independent, third-party reliable sources for topics about the Australian Football League and Australian Rules Football. The basis of this claim is that because the writers label themselves 'journalists' they do not have any conflict of interest and should be considered independent and third-party for the purposes of wikipedia and it's various guidelines in regards to topics involving those subjects.

I have several problems with that in regards to WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. A third party must be independent and unaffiliated with the subject. This site is owned and operated by the Australian Football League and the title of afl.com.au is The Official Site of the Australian Football League. There is a clear conflict of interest and complete lack of independence on display in the very title of the site. The writers on that site are paid for by the Australian Football League to write on topics owned or directly involving the company that hired them, that the articles are directly affiliated with the subject and topics. Hiring and paying someone who calls themselves a 'journalist' to write them doesn't make the resulting article any more independent or reliable than having had someone titled 'marketing manager' or the CEO write them.

I believe this source cannot be considered an independent third-party source on topics related to the Australian Football League. Can I get a ruling or consensus on this? Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

afl.com.au appears to be a news aggregation site. Many, many articles there are harvested from external sources, and those that aren't seem to be written by reputable journalists. My random pick was 6 which includes a footnote "The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs". The poster seems to be implying this is like a media department writing COI material (which is complete nonsense). I see no reason to think this is not a reliable source. It is also true that Macktheknife needs to WP:DROPIT. Moondyne (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What Moondyne said. I see no reason why the league would NOT be a reliable source of information about itself and teams in the AFL. This also appears to be part of an ongoing issue where Macktheknifeau is forum shopping after articles about the A-League were deleted. --LauraHale (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the issue. I have been allowed by an administrator to continue checking these articles and that is not to be considered 'disruptive' so I would kindly ask you to consider the issue at hand. As to the issue itself, the site has hired hundreds of staff members to work in it's new media-marketing arm very recently and a great deal of it's content is now written by members of it's own staff. While it may have been an news aggregation site in the past it's articles are now written by people employed by the company. This isn't about reliability as much as independence. The writers for the AFL.com.au media-marketing arm are paid and funded by the AFL, under the banner of the AFL, on the 'afl.com' website. They are reporting on their own company and it's products, they are paid by that same company, and they write about their companies own league, products and the teams that participate in it. The issue is that some people wish to use these sources, paid and bought by the AFL, to be considered 'independent' (and thus to use them as proof of notability), despite their content by produced by a company and staff members with direct affiliation with the subjects, violating WP guidelines on notability, independence and third-party sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Prior to a major change to the AFL Media earlier this year, it could be argued that the AFL and club sites had a conflict of interest, but as Mack well knows, they reorganised themselves and expanded into a fully fledged news organisation and claim to have complete editorial independence from the AFL commission. Unless this can be proven to be false we should AGF and for this year's articles use it equally to any other news outlet. As I said on the QClash talk page, some believe that all Australian news outlets are conflicted in some way due to sponsorship, licensing, access or accreditation reasons. In any event it is rare that we must rely only on afl sites for verification, most topics (including the one that sparked this notice) are almost always virtually duplicated on all of the main news sites. Whether they are still available online or protected by a paywall is one of the reasons why AFL links are often easier to use. I have frequently recommended to new editors to try to use at least one non AFL site source to fulfil beyond any doubt the independent requirement of GNG. Finally, there is actually no problem with using some non-independent sources to verify information, if it is considered a reliable source. It is only to prove notability that the independent clause is important. (edit conflict addition) calling AFL media a marketing arm is insulting to the journalists involved and Mack needs to AGF and drop it. Are journos from The Times or The Age marketing arms for News Corp or Fairfax? Their main aim is to sell newspapers, isn't it?The-Pope (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

and a quick search on the Fairfax and Courier Mail sites has found a few refs on each. Mack still doesn't seem to understand that these articles aren't GA/FA level and can be improved by what else is out there.The-Pope (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If those News Corp or Fairfax journalists were reporting on their own company then yes, of course they would have a conflict of interest and should be considered non-independent in regards to Wikipedia guidelines, and I doubt us saying so would be an insult to them. The same thing matters here in my view. My concern is people attempting to use the non-independent, non-third party afl.com.au sites as proof of notability for topics that are directly owned by the AFL itself and as such ignoring the guidelines that consider direct affiliations non-usable for the purposes of notability. Anything outside this 'proof of notability' issue is a secondary issue that isn't the focus of my request for clarification here. I have no problem using AFL.com.au articles to confirm details, but not being used as proof of notability on topics directly affiliated with that company. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well thats different to what you asked for an opinion on. This is the WP:RS noticeboard. WP:N/N is thataway. Moondyne (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that the Niche Marketing section of the Internet Marketing page needed work, so I re-wrote it over the course of a day or two. Several times I attempted to use a self-published source (blog) from an expert in the field. I attempted to argue that the source is an expert based on their having been invited to publish five articles on a recognized online journal in that field (They have been a contributor also on other journals in the field, but I chose the most recognized one.) The source was a how-to blog for SEO and the author (Aviva Blumstein) was previously published on Search Engine People which was recognized as a reliable third-party source by: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/so-you-want-to-start-a-big-seo-blog/29976/ and http://unbounce.com/online-marketing/75-top-marketing-blogs-to-make-your-rss-reader-fat/ and http://www.invesp.com/blog-rank/SEO

Am I misunderstanding the following policy from WP:RS: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

In particular, the section in question is the Niche Marketing section of Internet Marketing which can be found at this link to id 502828086. A useful diff for the section might be this.My attempted justification can be found on the talk page of Internet marketing, in a section entitled "Niche Marketing section needed work" The sources I'm citing can be found at: http://www.debi-z.com/2012/03/27/convert-the-converted/ and http://www.debi-z.com/2011/05/09/how-do-i-find-the-best-keywords-for-my-site/

Please explain to me if and how I'm being silly. Thanks! 109.65.136.189 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You've been told by at least three different experienced editors that it's not appropriate; please see WP:FORUMSHOPPING. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I was also told to ask here by one of them, if you look at the talk page there. Apparently that was inappropriate advice. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, two of them said to ask here. Maybe it wasn't inappropriate advice at all. Also, I'm still looking for an explanation as to why I'm wrong, if I am indeed wrong, as I stated in the above paragraph. If you are so convinced that I'm wrong, perhaps you could explain it to me. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no argument above making a credible expert exemption. Cite the sources that make this author an "expert" (and I'm looking for DOIs here). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! Are you saying that a reliable source can't grant reliability to another source, or are you attacking the reliability of the granter? Furthermore, what do you mean by DOI in this context? Do you mean that you want an ISBN of a book they've written? I'm sorry for my ignorance. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Cite which sources you believe makes this author an "expert." Include a full citation. I am expecting to see a DOI because I don't accept gutter trade press as providing any indication of expertise. Also cross citation by other reliable sources doesn't grant reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if that's true then I'm simply mistaken. I don't have that level of verifiability for the source. However, what would even be an example of a source on Internet Marketing that would be acceptable in your view? I can't think of any sources that would fit the bill. Also, to clarify your point on granting reliability, if a news agency publishes the work of a reporter, does the reporter now have reliability, or just the posts that were published by the news agency? I have a feeling that this is the part I wasn't understanding. Thanks for your help! 109.65.136.189 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The best sources for internet marketing are any of the scholarly peer reviewed journals of marketing (also general business or management journals occasionally publish marketing). The next best sources are independent trade presses with an editor, editorial board, editorial staff and paid journalists. (This should be demonstrable either in their "Editorial Policy" or "About Us" page).

A newspaper does not grant a journalist any reliability, except when the newspaper actually publishes a journalist's writing. A long standing journalist, who is highly esteemed, may be an "expert" journalist in wikipedia's sense. This would allow them to independently self-publish journalism. However, when such "experts" make "extraordinary claims" it is usually questioned why an expert has chosen to self-publish and thereby avoid the editorial controls placed over them when publishing in an edited mode. In some cases, such as John Pilger we know why, he has always been an independent journalistic documentarian. In other cases we question why a journalist has suddenly become committed to the New England New State independence movement in Australia—perhaps they're not reliable when self-publishing. Similarly a journalist who is an expert journalist can't suddenly write history. Nor a historian write journalism. Expertise is field specific.

A newspaper that quotes another source does not make that source "reliable." Deep-throat is not reliable for US politics. The Newspaper's publication of Deep-throat's allegations is reliable. Edited independent works can analyse unreliable sources and publish reliable results. Academics who use qualitative techniques in marketing question unreliable respondents; through academic processes they produce reliable publications. Their work doesn't make Jane Undergraduate reliable for marketing. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a really good explanation. I'd vote for it to be included in WP:RS ! I'm still a little unclear on the last sentence or two, though. Are you saying that being factually correct and being reliable are two completely different things? What's the difference? Can one be reliable and factually incorrect? Can one be factually correct and unreliable? Also, would I be wrong in concluding, after having read this, that a large percentage of sources on Wikipedia would be considered unreliable (and there just aren't enough people enforcing the principles)? 109.65.136.189 (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Being factually correct and being reliable are two completely different things. If I make 100 statements and 99 of those are lies then I am not very reliable, but still that one statement is factually correct. It is possible for a reliable source to make a honest mistake and be factually incorrect. For example Encyclopaedia Brittanica is pretty reliable, but it still contains a couple of factual errors (see: Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia). The main difference between reliable sources and sources that are not reliable is the fact that reliable sources try to minimize the possibility for factual errors to slip through, for example by using peer review or avoiding primary sources. On the other hand it is also possible that a very unreliable source, like a gossip-blog, is factually correct about something. Indeed, most people who use Wikipedia never read the rules. Arcandam (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

i was wondering if this report 7, published by "center for american progress", complies with wp:rs, and if it can be used as a source on the islamophobia-page?.-- altetendekrabbe  14:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a serious report, but given the subject it should be cited with attribution, like "According to ...". Zero^talk 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks.-- altetendekrabbe  16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Center is a politically-progressive American think tank. Its reports should be taken seriously, but as Zero says, should also be properly attributed. The report itself is a good source of further leads to sources that could be directly used in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

is musicOMH a reliable source to use for critical responses about songs and albums? For example, this. Till I Go Home 12:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the article on Little Russia states that "The term has become an archaic one, and anachronistic usage in the modern context was considered strongly offensive by Ukrainian nationalists." It cites the following source for this statement:

Eternal Russia:Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and the Mirage of Democracy by Jonathan Steele, Harvard University Press, 1988, ISBN 978-0-674-26837-1 (page 216)

I fully agree that this is a reliable source for attitudes by Ukrainian nationalist attitudes at the time it was written. But it is it a reliable source for now?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Then set the claim in its historical context: "As of the late 1980's, the term had become an archaic one, and its anachronistic usage was considered strongly offensive by Ukrainian nationalists."(source) -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Source in question: Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement - an article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, Spring 2012, Issue Number: 145.

Material in question: factual statements about the men's rights movement (like "The suicide of Thomas Ball drew additional attention to the Men's rights movement") and additionally as a source for the opinion contained within the article (like "An article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report stated that some prominent men's rights advocates vilify women.") Obviously, opinion would have to be included only with appropriate weight, but issues of weight are outside the scope of RSN. This material would either be included in parts of the article on men's rights that already discuss the men's rights movement, or included in a new article about the movement itself (an RFC is currently underway on the talk page.)

I believe that the article is a reliable source for both the factual issues involving the men's right movement that it discusses as well as the opinion of the article. The SPLC is a well-regarded group that I would compare in stature to the EFF or the ACLU. Their intelligence report is a quarterly magazine that has editorial oversight that is widely circulated among (and frequently cited as an authoritative source by) academics, the media, and law enforcement officials. I believe that the article meets WP:RS, and I see no significant reason why it wouldn't be reliable for both statements of fact and statements of the opinions of the author.

Most of the arguments against the use of the article involve the fact that the article does not attempt to be neutral. I'll leave a notification of this discussion on the talk page of the article, so that editors who believe the article should not be used have an opportunity to explain their opinions in greater depth.

The discussion on the article talk page currently is generating an awful lot of heat and rather little light, I would appreciate it if some of you could throw out your opinions either here or at Talk:Men's rights about the reliability of the article in both contexts I posed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They clearly have a level of fact-checking in place, although I would not put them on the level of ACLU. This is serious investigative journalism, but it is "breaking news". The simple answer is "use with caution". Look for corroboration; see if any of the stories have been taken up more widely in the press. The most dramatic instances quoted in the story may turn out not to be notable in our terms. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC has specific political positions which appear to make much of their material subject to being treated as "opinion" and not mere statement of objective fact. Always attribute opinions to those holding them. And be wary of using their statements in WP:BLP articles. Collect (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith has struck the right note. Fact checking is good, but as a recent news item it should be treated more carefully than a well-researched long-term survey. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear that the SPLC has a position on Men's Rights, but rather on hate groups. Thomas Ball was a member of the Massachusetts Fatherhood Coalition. That is not a hate group; it is a rights group and so something the SPLC would be expected to support. That it does not, may be seen as a microcosm of the environment in which the Men's Rights groups often operate.

Tom Ball did not "war on women," he committed suicide by setting himself on fire in front of the courthouse, leaving a manifesto-- his reasons for what he was about to do (pour gasoline over himself and light a match). His reasons were despair, not hate (except psychologically, as suicide is rage turned inward). However, that is not the implication of the article.

The article implies that a father's rights group is equivocal to a hate group, that a suicide of despair is equivocal to an attack on women. Only if we accept a premise that a rights group is the same as a hate group is the SPLC a "reliable source." The question is not "reliable," rather, the question is "source." The article was virtually silent on rights.

I admit that, as policy goes, this is a grey area, but couching the argument as one of "reliable source" with an emphasis upon "reliable" is missing the point. The article not only does not address Men's Right's, it equates the subject to hate groups. That is a clear "ends justify the means" agenda on the part of the SPLC which has no place in the Men's Rights article-- unless such an agenda matches that of the editors. We ought the have ethic that the use of such an article is inappropriate-- as inappropriate as calling one man's suicide a "war on women" and calling a Men's Rights group a "hate group."

I submit that if one cannot talk about Men's Rights without discussing a specific man's "sins" then the agenda has become to articulate why men should not have rights. I can think of no other rights-based group which is expected to overcome such an obstacle-- and that does lead to despair-- and probably hate of those who place such obstacles before them. Therefore, I further submit that the SPLC is a questionable source on Men's Rights, reliable or otherwise.--cregil (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't make up our minds about sources on the basis of whether or not we agree with their conclusions, or on the political stances they adopt, but on objective criteria like the ones I and others presented above. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what it is being used for. I am unable to comment without knowing what the proposed text is. (I say this because the author has refuted what many have used it for in the past). Arkon (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have details on what I want to use it for in the original post of this section. That's probably not how I will word it exactly, since the context of the sentence will depend on how the RfC closes. Basically: facts about the MRM in a section dealing with the history of the MRM, and probably the opinion of the author briefly mentioned in a section about public reactions to the MRM or something similar to that. (Obviously sticking with what the text supports and not using it to say something like "The MRM is a hate group" since that's both not supported by the text and explicitly disavowed by the author.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That agreement or disagreement with the article's point of view is not at issue is exactly right. Agreement with an article does not make it a source anymore than disagreement with article makes it not a source.

In this political season in the US, we are painfully aware of the political claims made by each side about the other. So while each party is a reliable source for its own policy, neither party has proven to be particularly reliable about the other. Therefore, one question we are expected to ask about a reliable source is, "On what subject is it considered a reliable source?"

Since we see nothing to indicate that the SPLC is involved with Men's Rights, it cannot be assumed to be a source, reliable or otherwise, on Men's Rights. The article in question is not about Men's Right. It is about misogynist hate groups. To seek to provide physical and legal resources for battered husbands and their children, for example, has nothing to do with misogyny or any other kind of hate.

Is the SPLC a source on such matters as Men's shelters, battered husbands, fairness in child custody, resources for at-home-Dads, social issues such as negative portrayal of men in advertising, or any other men's equality and rights matters? If not, then it appears to not be a source related to the subject as it is silent on the subject of Men's Rights.--cregil (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be directly involved in a movement to be reliable sources about that movement. Indeed, our sourcing policies generally emphasize the use of secondary sources and of independent sources. The fact that the SPLC as a group is not generally actively involved in men's rights issues doesn't (at all) mean that they can't be used as a source for information related to the men's rights movement, as long as they have published information about the men's rights movement in a way that meets our reliability standards. This article speaks explicitly about the men's rights movement, and as outlined by other people in this section, it does meet our reliability standards. Once the RfC passes (and it does look likely to pass) to move men's rights to men's rights movement, I'll be looking to incorporate information from the SPLC article in to the MRM article. (I think it could be fairly done sooner than that, since the existing article has a decently long section talking explicitly about the men's rights movement, but think it would be better to hold off till after the RfC ends to make major content changes.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The following sources are being used in this article, I had removed them as SPS but they have been reverted back in. Sources used For Whom the Bell Tolls: America or the Jihadists? Trafford Publishing and this 8 published on a personal website.

Are these suitable for anything at all, never mind what they are currently being used to cite. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Every source is suitable for something, even if it's just to say "Some guy wrote the following words on his personal website..."

These sources are self-published, and so whether they are reliable for any normal purpose will depend on whether the authors are recognized experts under the WP:SPS rules. Do you know anything about the authors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true that every source is suitable for something. See previous threads about Facebook pages. Gautam Matra is the author in question. I find nothing about him online at all. No reviews of the book. Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What if the author in question is given attribution for the content that is cited by his book? For example, Gautam Maitra writes so and so in xyz book etc. Per WhatamIdoing, every source is suitable for something. In this case, Maitra's work is being used to cite that India's support of the LTTE is regarded as state-sponsored terrorism and that several neighbours have accused India of being involved in state terrorism. Both these statements are not even something ambiguous, but rather a widely known accusation/fact. It might have been a different scenario if Maitra was, without attribution, being used to cite something that was not as widely known (and hence his work could have been legitimately challenged). Mar4d (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing might have gone on to say this: "what some guy wrote" is only a candidate for mention on Wikipedia if the guy's opinion is notable. That's not for this board, but, if Judith's correct that Gautam Mitra doesn't show up anywhere online at all, it could be hard to demonstrate that his opinion is notable. Andrew Dalby 10:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We need much better sourcing than this for a controversial topic in international relations. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have said that it might not be WP:DUE, rather than risking confusion with WP:Notability, but Andrew Dalby is otherwise correct. Even something as weak as a Facebook page is 100% reliable for a claim that a given Facebook page contained certain words on a given date, but that doesn't mean that we should include that information. However, that's technically a question for WP:NPOVN, not RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Andrew Dalby 09:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• If as Mar4d says it is common knowledge the "India's support of the LTTE is regarded as state-sponsored terrorism and that several neighbours have accused India of being involved in state terrorism" then he should have no trouble finding an academic source to cite this well known factoid. He is also conflating State terrorism with State sponsored terrorismDarkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• According to this source support was not as full on as the SPS would suggest. "The LTTE enjoyed material and moral support from Tamil Nadu State in India" Historical Dictionary of Terrorism p399 That is a state, not the Indian government. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, this review was used to source the following information.

It was described as "2007's greatest LP" in Drowned in Sound

Robinson's vocals have been described as..."genius soundbites emerging from his catalogue of last real bluesman howls, yabbers and harrowing squeals".

Here is my reason for removing the information

I did some research and found that DiS has been repeatedly described as unreliable at RSN. See this and more importantly this. Drowned in Sound's terms state that "We accept no liability in respect of any material submitted by users and published by us and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy". The sight contains user submitted content, and the particular content we are dealing with was submitted by "Adam Anonymous". That hardly gives me confidence in the reliability of anything posted by him. In any case, the information presented by him is his opinion which means that it was described as the best album in 2007 by a contributor of DiS, not DiS itself. I find no reason for Wikipedia to feature the opinions of a contributor, hidden by anonymity, to a site that doesn't take responsibility for it's content or the accuracy thereof

Thanks for helping out on this one! Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That review is absolutely no use as a source as far as I can see. It's nothing more than the opinion of a random person. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless Adam Anonymous is a professional music reviewer, no it does not count as a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes it is. To clarify, at the time that the reference was removed, it was used to source 'The band's 2007 album The Narcotic Story was positively received by critics, being described as "2007's greatest LP" in a review from Drowned in Sound', which makes much of the above argument moot. Previous discussions at RSN have involved few editors and very little time. Previous discussions here and here demonstrate consensus that the site is a reliable source for reviews. The site contains a forum which is clearly not to be used as a reliable source, but material submitted by the site's regular contributors (listed here) which include respected music writers John Robb and Everett True clearly are. The site has has received awards and accolades such as being named 9th on the Observer Music Monthly list of top 25 internet websites, a nomination in the Best Music Website category at the 2007 PLUG Awards and the Best Website category at the 2007 Shockwaves NME Awards, best music website nomination in the BT Digital Music Awards, Best Online Music Publication award at the 2007 Record of the Day awards. On the issue of a writer using a pseudonym, this has happened through the history of rock music writing, with several writers for the British weekly music press writing under pseudonyms (Johnny Cigarettes, DJ Fontana, etc., etc.) - it's a very weak argument for treating a source as non-reliable. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't make the argument moot at all. Who is "Adam Anonymous", and why is his opinion given any weight at all? Is he a respected music writer? After looking at the links provided I don't see any consensus at all, just a few people saying they like it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Much like the ones provided to demonstrate that it isn't a reliable source. The site is a respected music site - we don't require every individual writer for a given publication to also be well known and respected. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC) The source was being used as a reference for the opinion expressed by one writer for a respected music website - if you look at the content of the article it was not there to claim that this was the opinion of the website itself. This is just like every review in every publication - the opinion of the writer concerned, which that publications sees fit to publish. No different to Johnny Cigarettes reviewing an album for the NME. --Michig (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, we require a reliable source to stand behind the review, or the reviewer to have been previously published in the area of the review. There is no indication that the any sort of editorial oversite went into the post. It is just some comment by some guy who is likely not even using his own name. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviews are different from 'regular' sources since vitually any source is reliable for its own opinion. So, the issue here isn't reliability, it's WP:WEIGHT. Is this user-submitted content? Generally speaking, when doing reception sections of artistic works, you want to cite the most notable reviewers possible. IOW, if Rolling Stone reviewed their album, it would be a great opinion to include in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"likely not even using his own name" - I think you might be right there, just like many music writers. If Drowned in Sound, one of the most respected music websites in the UK published this review, then we should assume that DiS stands by the review. --Michig (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't user-submitted content, it's a review from one of the site's listed regular contributors - the sort of content on which the site is judged and has been judged in the past. Your argument re. WP:WEIGHT is perfectly valid - I have been adding numerous sources to this article over the past couple of days after it was deprodded, and there are more out there but I have been repeatedly diverted from improving the article by reverts and discussion on the talk pages of the article and the editor who tried to get it deleted. The weight issue would be a valid point of discussion on the article's talk page, ideally after all available sources have been reviewed and incorporated, and as you say, reliability is not the issue here - it's a writer's opinion and nothing else. My intention was to eventually move the detail of the critical opinion about that particular album into a separate article, but at this stage I am at the point of building up the content. Nobody else has made any significant constructive contributions to the article during this time. I don't feel encouraged to go ahead and continue improving the article by going through and adding the rest of the sources, however, as experience so far suggests that these will just be picked over, removed, and further discussions initiated, before the work can be completed. --Michig (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User Michig added a citation to The Village Voice, for the undisputed fact that Robinson is the vocalist. The Village Voice actually compared his voice to Adam Sandler's Cajun Man, and noted his Oxbow connection. When I added this comparison, Michig removed it, leaving the ridiculously vacuous "sounding between Robert Plant and Nick Cave" as well as information about Robinson's "professional fighter" status. It depends on whose Oxbow is getting gored....

Nonetheless, Michig has repeated advised me to "step away" from his article.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This illustrates the problem here. The Village Voice citation was not there to prove that Robinson is the vocalist, it was added as a citation for Robinson contributing to an album by DJ /Rupture - it's citation number 13 in the article. The Village voice comparison to Cajun Man was a reference solely to one track on the DJ /Rupture album, not related to Robinson's vocals with Oxbow, and the above user added it as though it was a statement of fact. Given that K.W tried to get the article deleted, stated that he has no interest in the subject, and has been disruptive since the article was deprodded, I would say that was advice that should have been followed. --Michig (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Anybody who followed your "work" on that article can see what your opinion is worth. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's sad that this sort of nonsense has now been dragged here, and now with cheap personal attacks, but should anyone wish to make their own judgment: Version before my "work": 9 and after: 10. I've had enough of this behaviour. --Michig (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You are too modest about your contributions: Consider this re-insertion of a BLP violation, re-insertion of the vacuous ("unique sound") and unsourced ("created an international following that has been growing ever since"), etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're impressing yourself with this off-topic nonsense because I doubt anyone else is impressed. Your first link above is addition of sourced content, the second was due to an edit conflict.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

DIS appears to have at least 4 levels of contributors:

• Administrators 11
• Writers 12
• Contributors 13 (our Adam Anonymous)
• Users 14

I was unable to find anything that defined what the various status mean. It would seem likely that Admin and Writer status would be considered "backed by the site" and therefore reliable, if the editorial content of DIS is in general considered a reliable source. The others are anybody's guess. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I rather think it's similar to what we have on Wikipedia. Administrators (obviously), writers (trusted high-volume editors), contributors (other editors, gnomes, etc.), and users (those who just read Wikipedia). Generally the first two are also "backed by the site" in the sense of having gained the trust of the community. I don't see how such a heirarchy makes a site useful as a reliable source, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was going on the assumption that the site overall was because it is listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites (although it would probably have been a better presumption that DIS should be removed from that list)-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian also has editorial staff, writers on the payroll, and freelance contributors. I suspect most newspapers do. We don't only accept articles in the Guardian as RS's if they're written by its regular staff. We go by the status of the newspaper, and I believe we should take the same approach with a music website, particularly a respected one such as this. It's not like sites such as SputnikMusic where anyone can create an account and publish reviews there. --Michig (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian is a leading international newspaper, and DiS is a weak source. There's no comparison. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Your analysis is clearly off. All content in the guardian goes through a HEAVY editorial screening before it appears, except for the on line user posts. And the on line user posts at the guardian are NOT allowed as sources. A central question about using DIS is how much editorial oversite of the posts happens?-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Take all of this with a grain of salt, the majority of this is based on guesses and opinions. So I went ahead and created an account on Drowned in Sound. It initially required me to answer what Mike Skinner is also known as and what Indie band wrote Is this it. At that point, I became a user. Note that this review was created by a "user". It appears that after answering those two questions, I am fully capable of contributing to the site. On another note, I have the opportunity to provide my full name and it "will be used for review credits". I'm not entirely sure what those are for, could they be to become a contributor? On another note, I attempted to go to the site's about page to see if I could learn more about what their process and I ended up on the Wikipedia page for Drowned in Sound. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This demonstrates the difference between Users and Contributors. There are an awful lot of User accounts on that site and relatively few 'Contributors', some of whom are well known, established professional music writers. Don't you think 'review credits' might just mean putting your name against a review that you write? The site indicates that 'User Reviews' part of the site is currently in 'Beta'. It wasn't there in 2007. --Michig (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"relatively few 'Contributors', some of whom are well known, established professional music writers." - we still have no criteria about what makes a "contributor" other than guesses. If someone is a "well known, established professional music writer" then their commentary, where we can verify it is them, can be allolwed. "Adam Anonymous" however, is not a "well known, established professional music writer" and even if he was, we cannot verify that this DIS account is his and not Randy from Boise claiming to be him. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The site doesn't meet the requirements for authorship, editorial oversight, IMO; I wouldn't claim to know a huge amount about it but I believe the lower level "contributors" are at best part-timer, probably more like glorified wiki-editors/bloggers/hobbyists. I just did a quick search of my local hometown music forums and found at least one guy posting links to reviews he'd written for it. Content by the respected regular contributors should be treated as reliable but trying to piggyback the anonymous reviews onto that is untenable if there's any question of the site's authority and editorial oversight. It should be treated as a situational rather than a blanket reliable source. In any case, saying that the work is "genius" and the "greatest" of the year is IMO WP:EXCEPTIONAL and if credible there should be found other, better respected sources to back it up. bridies (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest this discussion is closed. The reference is no longer in the article, so it would be a waste of time continuing to discuss it. I don't intend to waste any more of my time addressing theories about how the site in question may be run, and I would suggest that everyone else moves on to something more constructive.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  The question was asked: Is DiS reliable (in this instance). It seems that the consensus is that DiS is not reliable in itself. There is great skepticism about much and perhaps most of DiS's content, which does not have editorial review. Is this a fair summary? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure, I asked this question in the context of this specific instance. In this context, it seems like it has been determined as unreliable. I don't know that I'd use it as a source, but I don't think that a blanket statement on the reliability is evident from this discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  Ryan,

  It is good in law to make narrow decisions. However, in deciding the scope of consensus, the question is how narrow are the arguments than others have made.

  I would suggest excluding you, Michig, and myself---since we were involved before---and read what the other WP editors have written.

  The other WP editors have evaluated this case by evaluating the site (checking out reviews of familiar artists, etc.); they have found that the site is unreliable. Almost none of the WP editors here restrict themselves to "Adam Anonymous", but rather all WP editors are arguing about the characteristics of DiS.

  I would amend my suggested consensus with this caveat: "If a reliable writer credibly posts a review at DiS (and this review does not seem like a string of cliched nonsense, "last of the great bluesmen", etc.), then the writer's reliability could be transferred from his writing in edited/reviewed fora"---as others have stated. As usual, Michig and other editors are free to revisit the general case of DiS as a reliable source (as long as the repetitiveness of such discussions are seen as good-faith and non-disruptive). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  as an overall judgement of DIS, the contents would not appear to meet the standards of generally having editorial oversite. it may be an important community voice in the music world, but wikipedia is an important voice in the information world, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. individual posts under the standard view of WP:SPS may be occasionally valid. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Boy, it's too hard to figure out where to tell someone that a mistake has been made. On The Wayward Wind (song) page, at the bottom, all Anne Murray's albums are listed. This obviously doesn't belong there. I don't know how else to notify someone that a mistake has been made. Anne Murray's information obviously is not supposed to be listed at the bottom of this page.

The Wayward Wind appears to be fine and I am not seeing any other duplicate pages. maybe there was something wrong with your browser? try clearing the cache. if the problem still exists, please post a link on my talk page User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom - your question is not really about reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a pretty big book fan and as such, I edit a lot of articles about books. Every so often (rather often, depending on the genre) I'll come across a book that has a review by Dear Author, such as this book.15 I'm halfway between seeing the site as a reliable source and half not. It is essentially a book blog when you get down to it, but the site is also seen as a pretty reliable source in the publishing industry, with the site being quoted by other sites (not just no-name book blogs) and portions of their reviews being placed on book jackets and the like. They've also been somewhat responsible for the publishing of various authors by way of putting the first page of an author's work on their site. (Agents and the like see the page and if they like what they see, they contact DA and get the person's contact info and publish the book, which has actually happened.) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_127
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.