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.

I have seen the website Mariners, particularly its 'Empire' ship section increasingly used as one reference for ship articles, like SS Empire Abbey (to pick a fairly recent example). The index page lists sources consulted, but the sub pages (this one for the Empire Abbey article) don't reveal where the specific information is obtained. The website seems to have copiled information that's not otherwise available in the internet. So can the Mariners website be considered a reliable source? — Bellhalla (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. I can't find anything about their editorial policies. A few books mention them. A description of the author doesn't seem to make him an expert as we define it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The "editorial polices" bit of WP:RS is dubious, for a lot of reasons I won't bore you with. I tend to go more on reputation of the author in the relevant field(s) - so e.g. Stephen Hawking is very WP:RS on some aspects of physics but no more WP:RS than I am on e.g. politics or religion.

Do a follow up on the claims made at Peter Christian's page. If they stand up, Peter Christian is a recognised authority on genealogy and his recommendation looks good for genealogical content at the Mariners site, and I'd accept it when doing a GA review.

Follow the same sort of approach for other topics at the Mariners site, e.g. ships, incidents. Sites that link to Mariners may be helpful, boks that mention it even more so.

Document what you find that supports the status of a source, both on (a) your User pages, a sub-page of that, a relevant Wikiproject page or sub-page; a note with citations on "why this is reliable for this topic" within articles that use the source. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment The Mariners-L website information is generally backed up by other sources. I used the basic info in the creation of this list which I have been using to give basic info to start creating the various articles on the Empire ships. In all articles I've created on the various Empire ships I've used as many sources as I can find, not just the Mariners website (see MV Domala). The definitive reference for the Empire ships is The Empire Ships. London, New York, Hamburg, Hong Kong: Lloyd's of London Press Ltd. 1995. ISBN 1-85044-275-4. {{cite book}}: |first= missing |last= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), which I have managed to get on loan from my local library. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How much weight does research have that is paid by the manufacturer of a product when it comes to the safety of the product versus independent research. Is there a wikipedia policy on this? If there's sourced evidence that a study was paid by the industry, is it okay to purposely withhold that information to the reader? Who benefits from withholding the industrial sponsor, the industry or the public? In the article I'm contributing to, this is a regular issue among certain editors. How do other editors separate industrial propaganda from independent information and more so, is it important to make such a separation? Immortale (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think the reliability of published research that is sponsored by someone with an agenda (whether its an industry or some political advocacy group) is going to depend more on the method/location of publication than on the source of funding. A good peer-reviewed journal will eliminate propaganda and (ideally) even subtle bias. If, for example, industry sponsored research is reported in a quality journal such as Nature, I don't think it would be necessary to mention the sponor (and doing so may in fact bias the reader to discount important findings). But if it is published in a trade industry journal, mentioning the sponsor could be a good idea and put the report in appropriate context. This is the kind of thing that really needs to be addressed case-by-case, in my opinion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

external link; wikipedia article

Is this a reliable source regarding the legal requirements regarding disclosing information on the illnesses of top executives in "publicly-held" corporations? See first paragraph of "health concerns" in of Steve Jobs. --Rogerb67 (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally a self-published source shouldn't be used. Normally, self published sources should not be used, but he does seem to be an expert in his field (Apple), according to google news. On the other hand, WP:BIO requires extra care, so I would say in some cases he would be an RS, but maybe it shouldn't be used in this case. I bet a better source exists for the claim in question. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I found a source from the Galegroup Databases, and have provided the following citation for it (Which attempts to be as close as possible to the MLA style of citations):

(ref name= Diego_Perez) (in Spanish) Perez, Diego. “Genios: De Sudamerica salieron las maravillas del futbol.” El Pais (Montevideo) Mar. 2008. Gale Group Databases. 19 Jan. 2002. <http://infotrac.galegroup.com>.(/ref)

Of course, I've replaced the usual "<>" tag with the "()" in order for you to see the content within. The information is factual and can be found within the database. An editor has challenged the reliability of this source, and I would like to hear your opinions on the matter. Thank you in advance.-- (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Gale (Cengage) is reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's also what I thought. Thank you very much.--|!*//MarshalN20\\*!| (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence Report is a national magazine published for many years by the Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks hate crimes and other activities of white supremicist, nativist and "patriot" groups throughout the United States. Is it considered a reliable source on such issues? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to qualify as reliable within the area of investigative journalism. It has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards 4 5. Unless there is a specific reason for questioning the content of one of their articles, I don't see any problem in using them as a source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked because a couple of editors WillC and 96.239.140.104 (who has no user page or talk page) are disputing it as RS on the article pages for Morris Dees, Southern Poverty Law Center, Sierra Club, and Federation for American Immigration Reform, for information concerning activities of anti-immigrant hate groups. And the manner of their dispute is rather disruptive, perhaps an edit war? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Where it presents opinions, they ought to be marked as opinions. This is being and has been discussed in several other places on WP:BLP/N where extended information will be found. Collect (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SPLC is a reliable source, but it is a political watchdog group and should be used carefully. Would be a good source for in-depth analysis of how different groups operate. But it should be quoted with attribution ( SPLC says ... ). We've had a discussion before, in archive #22, about whether it's appropriate to use it to label organizations as "hate" groups.6 It shouldn't be the only source for "hate group", and in my opinion that's an inflammatory term and should be avoided anyway; terms like "anti-immigration", etc are more encyclopedic. That's for articles on organizations; I have doubts on whether watchdog groups should be used at all on BLPs. Also, the intro paragraph to Federation for American Immigration Reform is sourced almost exclusively to SPLC, which is an NPOV problem, and some of that material should be moved down to the criticism section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To add a bit of context, the intended use is to refute allegations of improprieties by the SPLC. It would only be tangentially true to say that it's being used about hate crimes and racial issues. arimareiji (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this website meets WP:RS. As I would like to use material from http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_08_dec_24/ ( an investigative journal type web video published by rocketboom ) for a WP:BLP. The subject is related to internet memes. Can they be used? AuricBlofeld (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on my separate WP:OR of the subject, I will put foward that, as far as I can tell the source is NPOV and seems to me, to be trustworthy and authoritative. I need a second opinion. AuricBlofeld (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If it had been Joanne Colan speaking, it might have been reliable. I don't think that just anything that rocketboom.com can be considered a RS. It's too bad, I've seen some Magibon videos; they're weird but mesmerizing. Good luck, though. I got KevJumba to Good Article status, and it wasn't easy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, anyways, I will try WP:BOLD. AuricBlofeld (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Jason Scott case article, Anson Shupe's Agents of Discord (2006) is referenced 30 times. Of those 30 citations, 20 were used in a subsection entitled "The deprogramming". Of those 20, 17 are the only supporting reference for statements. Many of those statements are highly abrasive of Rick Ross (consultant)'s reputation, describing the incident in graphic detail. Even if the statements are true, the article needs to be presented in a way that represents the subject neutrally, in accordance with BLP stipulations.

However, the most concerning part of all of this, and the reason for my post here is the fact that Anson Shupe himself was called to the stand as an expert witness in the Jason Scott case, which illustrates a very obvious potential for interpreting related past events in his favor.

Now, it is clear that Anson Shupe has academic credentials in the religious field, and an impressive bibliography; but I think we should call into question his reliability for this instance, a case in which he most probably has a personal slant. Also notable is the fact that he is cited by and associated with CESNUR, an organization whose interests involve discrediting the "anti-cult" movement.

In addition, according to a paper by Stephen Kent published in Skeptic Magazine (Vol. 6, No. 3, 1998), Shupe's relevancy in the case is called into question:

When asked about how he gathered his evidence against CAN, Shupe admitted that he had never attended a CAN meeting, did not know the names of its officers, had not conducted formal research on the organization since 1987, and had not formally interviewed anyone on the "countercult" movement since 1979. Moreover, he had never subscribed to CAN's newsletter, although he "was able to obtain copies now and then from various people around the country" (Scott v. Ross, et.al., 1995a, 83-87).

←Spidern→ 04:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If he participated in that trial/case, then no, unless it is attributed as his opinion/involved party. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I would like to get some views on this link 7 and would like to know would it be considered a reliable source on a subject that is quite controversial. By following the links on the site I traced it back to the author’s web site. The author says that he lectures in the area of E-Learning, and has an “interest” in the period. It’s my opinion that he is not an historian and his site is a self published source. It would also be my view that while using the sources he cites would be acceptable as reliable sources, using his site would not? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the cite does not look like a very convincing RS. Collect (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. That site is not WP:RS, but you can check the sources he used to see if they have value (as long as they are RS). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and I agree with using the sources if they have value. Both sources would be considered WP:RS but one of them is dubious. Thanks again for your help. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Sources are reliable, but may not be properly weighted

8

The claim is that Alex Macandrew, a PhD in physics, is not a reliable critic of Eric Lerner's book. I beg to differ. Can others opine?

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

9

The claim is that his evolution blog is not a RS, when there are plenty of other published (not self-published) sources that we can rely on. Even if he is an expert and therefore reliable for his opinion, it is inappropriate to heap on so much criticism; sticking to great sources doesn't really limit what can be said about the criticisms at Eric Lerner. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, the claim is that Feuerbacher and Scranton, physicists/astronomers, are not reliable sources simply because they published in TalkOrigins Archive. I beg to differ again. Can others opine?

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Same issue. Isn't there a policy about piling on? Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has reported my comment above as "disruptive" in an appeal to get me blocked. I hope that it wasn't seen that way by others; let me know if so and I will apologize if appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If the text is already supported by better ciations, why do you want blogs and newsgroup sources? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The text is supported best by these sources which are of equal or better quality per WP:PARITY. I'm not sure what Dicklyon is referring to when he says "better citations". These are not "blogs and newsgroups", incidentally. They are articles written by scientists for the general public published on the web. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The question to me would be the editorial standards of the website they were published on... at a glance http://www.evolutionpages.com/ looks no more reputable than peswiki or any other self published source. Anything on TalkOrigins Archive would be the same, unless of course it were published somewhere else as well. Certainly the authors aren't tainted by their involvement in those sources, but I would argue against using anything strictly published there Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with it being published there? Do you have any reason to think that this is not representative of their positions on the matter? Do you have any reason to doubt the veracity of those sources? This isn't an amateur comment on PESwiki, these are credentialed, acknowledged experts on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can have some confidence that something posted on the scientificamerican.com was written by who it is credited to. I have no information about the credibility of evolutionpages.com. Perhaps the credited author wrote it, perhaps not. Perhaps it was posted as they wrote it, perhaps it was edited by someone other than the author. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What rationale is this? Your "trust" of the website is irrelevant. The situation is, simply, that experts comment on an obscure book through webpages because it's not worth publication at scientificamerican.com. See WP:PARITY. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you do not like established precedent against using blogs and newsgroups, work to change the guidelines. At this point, however, neither blogs nor newsgroups qualify as "reliable sources." The issue is not whether a person holds a position, the issue boils down to WP standards and practices on this. Collect (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, these are neither "blogs" nor "newsgroups". Secondly, other articles on Wikipedia use the TalkOrigins archive which is considered a very good source for many issues relating to the creation-evolution debate. Thirdly, we make explicit exceptions at WP:RS for articles written by experts published on the web. Surely that exception applies here. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Alec's Evolution Pages" sure sounds bloggish to me. Gawrsh -- it even says "BLOG" on the home page. Now let's see what "talkoriginsarchive" is ... gosh it says "Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology." Now why the heck would I think it might be a newsgroup? Just because it says it is? Now if a blog is not a blog and a newsgroup is not a newsgroup, I am significantly puzzled <g>. Collect (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a weblog, but it is a private webpage. He does run a blog, but this particular page is NOT a blog. Also talk.origins is the newsgroup, but the "archive" is essentially a separate entity and is a webpage that is a web-based published source that is separate in order to explicitly free itself from the amateurs that post to the newsgroup. If you're this bad at vetting sources, you really shouldn't be commenting on this noticeboard <g>. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"If you are that bad at understanding English and dealing civilly with others, you really shouldn;t be commenting on this noticeboard." is how I read the prior comment SA. Wouldst thou like to refactor? Collect (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me what you want refactored. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also love a clear explanation of the difference between a 'blog' and a 'private website', since the distinction is so obvious to you.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you need a tutorial: Go to Alec's Evolution Page and click on the "blog". Then compare it to the other pages that link there. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well lets see... both are published by a guy named Alec... neither has any editorial control that I can see, other than the same guys say-so.....both are completley controled the same guy Alec... some text on one seems to be credited to other authors, according to Alec... oh! the dates! One has dates! that must be the distinction. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you continued to be confused as to what a weblog is compared to a webpage, you can certainly read our articles on the subject. The issue is, Alec Macandrew is an expert. What he has to say is relevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

SA... I am trying to understand why you feel strongly about these particular sources... assuming that you are correct and that they are reliable, are they the most reliable sources for the given viewpoint expressed? Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In a sense, yes. There are essentially four detailed critiques of Lerner's book available and these two along with Ned Wright's happen to be the most recent and up-to-date. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of these sources are "self-published" in a sense because they are done on-line. However, both sources are written by established experts in the relevant field previously published by reliable third-party publications. Furthermore, the sources are useful because they address this parochial and marginally notable book directly while referencing the broader context. Can we link to sources that explicate the larger context? Sure, but to remove these sources and to link to those sources is something of a WP:SYNTH violation since the synthesis is made by these sources explicitly. To act otherwise is explicitly Catch-22. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you reliably source these articles to their authors? Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In what sense? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do your sources meet the literal requirements set forth in WP:RS without any cavil at all? I fear not. Collect (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

They definitively do, according to my judgment, and there is certainly no caviling I offer here. I grant that your opinion differs from mine, but I've pointed out that you've got some unfortunate misconceptions and you have essentially ignored the quote provided from policy above. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at these sources, I would say they do indeed "meet the requirements set forth in WP:RS without any cavil". They are not "blogs" or newsgroup postings, but essays written by noted scientists and self published on their websites. WP:RS allows for such self-published material. Yes, it would be nicer if these were published in a peer reviewed accademic journal or some other high quality publication, but that is not a "requirement". The only question is whether there are better sources for the viewpoints expressed. If there are better ones, then the better ones should be used... but if these are the best, then I see no reason why they can not be used. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's really more a matter of weight. If these were the only cosmologists who had something bad to say about Lerner's book we would use them. But since we already cite other non-self-published sources, the negative reactions are well represented. Piling more on is not going to make the article better. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Weight is a matter best left discussed elsewhere. The real issue is that you removed these sources claiming that they were not reliable. I am saying that they are reliable and in spite of some misconceptions that have gotten thrown around here about how these things are either a "blog" or "newsgroup", I am proposing plainly and clearly that they are reliable sources for this particular use. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I had not gotten any pushback on cleaning up the David Talbot article by removing those same sites as unreliable sources, and I didn't expect any here; since you now claim their expertise trumps the self-published-blog problem, it becomes a weight issue. It's really both. We can talk about it wherever you like. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Could www.happycow.net be regarded as a reliable source for the eating habits of celebrities, specifically if they are vegetarian? --Rogerb67 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, the site seems to a bit of a private club/volunteer type thing. Also if these celebrities are living, then by WP:BLP a careful line almost certainly rules this one out. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Cheers, --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a dating service first; could articles in the "local scene" section be regarded as reliable sources? --Rogerb67 (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for saying what? The articles there look to all be op-ed pieces, and they do seem to be signed by and large. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I realize this may be an inappropriate question for this noticeboard, since it's a little more "is this edit acceptable?" than "is this source reliable?". If this is inappropriate, please let me know and accept my apologies.

I've attempted to cite this blog post10 as an example of media coverage of Oom Yung Doe. My edit was reverted, on the not-wholly-unreasonable grounds that blog postings aren't at all reliable for anything. However, because the topic is specifically what media coverage of Oom Yung Doe is like, and because the post is by a Seattle Spectator staffer on that paper's blog, I can see this one both ways.

Should this be considered a reasonable citation, or no? Subverdor (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just a blog, not subject to editorial oversight. Not something you can cite to assert notability, nor as a WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper blogs by real reporters are reliable. This seems to be a blog from a student newspaper. Is that right? If so, it's debatable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is a student paper, yes. The reason I'm raising it here is because we're debating it -- finding out that it's debatable doesn't solve my problem :-). If it's uncertain, I'd be inclined to err on the side of not including it as a source, since there's some dispute about it. Subverdor (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely hosted by a student newspaper; that of Seattle University. It's a blog post, and an op-ed (see the tags for the post), and posted in something called "SU Communities", which is "a forum for University groups to communicate with the public by encouraging moderated, two-way communications through blogs and discussion groups". I also note that the site says "All that is needed to get started is to create a free user profile" (see here). So I'm not sure if we can call it a staff blog, but it is worth noting that the person who wrote it is at least a journalism student. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He's a journalism student, and also apparently an editor for the Seattle Spectator11. Subverdor (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This blog is almost entirely cut-and-paste from two unverified emails; effectively it's as reliable as a comments board in my opinion - i.e. not at all. That an editor of this newspaper thinks to publish this with apparently unverified details (occupation, experience etc. of writers) as fact makes me worry about the reliability of the publication in general. Either ofthese emails could have come from anyone, perhaps even both from the same person with an unknown agenda.

In the more general case, I agree that newspaper blogs are less subject to editorial oversight. I would say that in general, for a reputable and reliable publication, staff journalists' blogs are "self-published sources from an established expert" (WP:SPS) and thus citable comment; that is, you should say "<journalist X> of <newspaper Y> said he is a vegetarian" rather than "he is a vegetarian"; also WP:BIO indicates that care should be taken using such sources for living people. Notability requires "significant coverage". If there really is "significant coverage" in multiple newspaper blogs, by different independent journalists, I would say that enhances the case for notability. To get significant coverage, all or most of the blog would need to be about the subject, and it would need to be of a reasonable length. But if this is the case, I would expect the newspapers to be running stories alongside that unequivocally establish notability. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point -- since the author does make pretty clear that his whole knowledge of the organization is based on these two emails and a little bit of research on the internet, I can see a clear case that using this source doesn't add any verifiable information to the discussion. Thanks! Subverdor (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, my question is regarding this source which was very recently added to Roxette discography to support the act's sales-figure of 45 million albums and 25 million singles. The source in question seems very much like a site created by Roxette's fans who post anything about the act that might catch attention regardless of whether the contents are taken from reliable sources. I have to add that just recently I removed numerous sales-figures from Roxette discography which were being supported by another unreliable source. I studied Roxette's Gold/Platinums by taking seven larger music markets including U.S., UK, German, French, Canadian, Dutch, Austria's and Swiss, and the total figure that I came up with does not suggest that they could have sold as many as 75 million records (even if one exaggerates it in order to include the sales within smaller markets) as the provided sources claims. Thanks. --Harout72 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks very much like a group blog to me. I don't think that comes close to being a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Agreement seems to have broken out, but this was not in any case about the reliability of the source, which is beyond question, it was about the weight to give to particular editions, a debate about WP:UNDUE, which does not really belong here. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a reality check ... For more than a year, the Freemasonry article has cited the OED for a definition of the term "Anti-Masonry" in our "Opposition to and criticism of Freemasonry" section. The use of this term and definition is now being challenged. Apparently, while previous versions of the OED (I have the 1979, two volume "Compact Edition") contained a definition of this term, the newest version (after 1989) omits it. The more recent version contains the related term, "Anti-Mason", but not the word "Anti-Masonry".

The challenger is now saying that we can not cite the 1979 version, as that is really just a reprint of the 1933 OED (as if that in some way makes the citation outdated or something). (see this dif. He insists that we must use the related term "Anti-Mason" instead (even though that is not what the section is discussing).

I agree that, if possible, we should use the most recent version of reference works... but if that version has dropped a word, is there anything wrong with going back to the most recent version that does contain it? I would think the OED (even one published in 1979) is going to be the most reliable source for the definition of an English word. Am I off base here? Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any problems with using the 1979 version so long as the citation clearly notes it, particularly in a historical discussion. At best, add a note to the prose that "in the 1979 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary..." with a ref/note indicating that the word is no longer included. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually For more than a year, the Freemasonry article has incorrectly cited the 1989 OED as the source when it was not (Talk:Freemasonry#Anti-Masonry 2). I double checked and added the updated definition which does encompas anti-masonry:

• Anti-Mason (U.S.) One who is opposed to Freemasonry, used esp. (in the U.S.) of a member of the Anti-Masonic (political) Party. So Anti-Masonic a.; Anti-Masonry

PS "The 1979 version" is simply a reprint of the "1971 Edition" itself a 1933 reproduction (see Oxford English Dictionary#Compact edition). I believe Blueboar's outdated (and previously misquoted definition) Here is a misrepresentation as it stands in the article. Also Blueboar has provided an alternative definition from Websters which I would be happy to go with. I certainly believe, at the least, Collectonian's provisos should be included. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lucian, if anyone is misrepresenting things it is you. Yes, the citation erroneously listed 1989. I corrected it. As it currently stands, there is no misrepresentation. The definition used in the article is correctly cited to the 1979 OED.

You repeatedly miss the point here... the definition I prefer is not "outdated". It has not been replaced with a newer definition. You keep posting the definition of the word Anti-Mason... not the definition of Anti-Masonry. Not having the 89 OED to hand, I am assuming that this is because the '89 OED has omitted the term Anti-masonry (if I have misunderstood... if the '89 OED does in fact contain an entry for the word Anti-Masonry... then we should certainly use that.) Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Right. How about

"Opposition to Freemasonry, used esp. (in the U.S.) of a member of the Anti-Masonic (political) Party"

Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not "Avowed opposition to Freemasonry" (cited to the 1979 OED). It's short, it's accurate. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:RS What is the ISBN of your reference so I can check it? Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also a reliable source (I don't think you can get more reliable than the OED)... There is no ISBN listed in my copy (had they invented ISBN numbers in 1979?)... it does give a Library of Congress Catelogue Card Number of 76-188038, which should help you check it. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have found it at Amazon UK... here... that does not give an ISBN either, but it does give an ASIN of B0011SBCKC

and here it is on Google Books. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

10-digit ISBN code was used in the UK after 1974. 76-188038 gives The compact edition of the Oxford English dictionary Oxford University Press, 1971 . Other than that I am happy with the article as it now stands. Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

me too... glad we could finally agree. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get some input about the reliability of a source for a discusion at 12. There is an argument that this is a reliable source 13 inpite my having used the linked forum to ask the author about the issue of Obama's denomination here 14. In her reply, the author of the page admits she needs to update the page. In this one instance, would this be a reliable source for Obama's current denomination?Die4Dixie (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that Die4Dixie's challenge to the reliability of about.com is based on a forum comment, not allowed as a source of information on Wikipedia (and even the forum comment does not say anything about whether Obama's denomination should be changed in the article). There probably are thousands of reliable sources cited on Wikipedia whose authors would like to update the source. That does not render the source unreliable. To challenge a reliable source, you need another reliable source. And a forum is not a reliable source. Ward3001 (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I expect they can read. I did mention that. Also the forum is sponsored by the article's author and about.com, where she is the moderator. The forum links from the page and also the author's name on that page. So your argument is that we should use a source that the author says is inaccurate and needs to be updated. I guess we'll just let these good folks do the job the volunteered for.BTW, I don't want to use the forum as a reliable source to use in mainspace editing like you reference to policy would indicate, but rather to refute the reliability of the source in question. A very different matter.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Snide remarks are uncalled for and counterproductive. This is a discussion page. I can expand and clarify as much as I feel necessary. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. My argument is that we follow Wikipedia's policy of not using a forum as a source of information, and that reliable sources are challenged with other reliable sources. And your argument that you "don't want to use the forum as a reliable source to use in mainspace editing" unnecessarily oversimplifies the issue because you are challenging the reliability of about.com, which might be used to challenge another source that you have "used in mainspace editing".
I can accept it if this noticeboard concludes that about.com in general is not reliable. But let's try to do it honestly without distorting my position or obfuscating the issues. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please. It's not oversimplification. It's really just that simple.Why don't we just give them a chance to answer. No one has put words in your mouth. Die4Dixie (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that others should be given a chance to discuss this, and without your oversimplification (which it is) and twisting of my words. You don't speak for me. Ward3001 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly not consider about.com to be a reliable source ... it is, however, a good place to start your background research and to locate reliable sources that (after you read them) might be used. Sort of like Wikipedia in fact. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The parallel to wikipedia is apt. Citing About.com isn't quite as incestuous as citing wikipedia, but fails RS in the same sort of way. PhGustaf (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, given how often about.com quotes and cites Wikipedia articles, I would say that "incestuous" is a good word to use... More to the point... I would say about.com is even less reliable than Wikipedia... since about.com rarely bothers to update it's database when the Wikipeida articles they quote and cite are updated. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that About.com should be used as a source for that kind of information (or for much of anything, actually). Even if this claim was undisputed, the editors should find a much better source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

About.com can be reliable. Here are some posts from the archives. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree they can be used in many circumstances. The original argument referred to here was about their use for a disputed point of BLP, and for that purpose I would certainly not consider them reliable, but the standard for such is particularly high. But, otherwise it would depend upon what their source is: to quote their "about" page,"We start with 180 trusted... reference publishers, and we add ... original articles researched by Answers.com's in-house editorial team, community-contributed articles from Wikipedia, and user-generated questions & answers from Answers.com's industry-leading WikiAnswers "... where "Anyone can ask, answer or edit questions, " In all of this, some of the material is cited. The material is under some degree of editorial control, by a hierarchy of volunteers. I haven't seen anything disgracefully wrong, and the quality I would say varies from WP quality upwards. DGG (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

About.com can be used under some circumstances, but facts about Obama's religion are best cited from a newspaper. WP has higher standards for sourcing BLPs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been here several times before with this, but we finally seem to be having a specific case worth looking at: Talk:The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen#Academic_freedom_section.

Brief background: the "academic sexologist" clan, including User:James Cantor whose boss is one of the principals in the debates (Ray Blanchard of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory), wants to be able to cite the "controversial paper" by Alice Dreger to criticize their "enemies", the "transwoman" clan, and their friends (I'm a friend of Lynn Conway). I've tried to balance some of their outrageous stuff with a few words from the other side, citing commentaries in the same special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior on this topic. In the past, Cantor, in spite of his outrageous WP:COI, has pushed the idea that the editor Kenneth Zucker said that Dreger article was "peer reviewed" but that he took all comers for the commentaries (not quite true), and that therefore those have to be treated as self-published (an absurd stretch, in my opinion). Furthermore, he argues that if one of those authors is not among the academic sexologists, in the sense of not having published in a peer-reviewed journal on sexology, then they're not expert enough to have their "self-published" writings cited in wikipedia.

Now, Cantor and User:WhatamIdoing seem to be going even further, and objecting to citing Charles Moser (physician), a notable sexologist, as "not an expert on academic freedom," while Dreger "is demonstrably an expert on ethics and on the activism of sexual minority groups." One thing we can't deny: they've got balls!

I think it's about time for someone to push back a bit on this transparent bias based on conflict of interest. But for now, a simple opinion that if Dreger is "reliable" then, for opinions, so are the other articles in that special issue on the topic, would be helpful. Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you stuck to the issue rather than adding digs at other editors. For example, I can see no point in the debate where James Cantor has raised an objection to the inclusion of Moser; only WhatamIdoing has done so. It's a moot point whether an academic has to be a specific specialist on the subject of academic freedom for their views to be included. I don't think there has been any clear determination made about that. Typically we have included the views of notable persons in the relevant field of study, which would seem to be the case here. Paul B (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to stick to the point; I agree. The reason I mention Canter here is that his diff that I linked was in support of WhatamIdoing's argument, and against mine, even though as you note he did not specifically reject Moser there. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is simply whether a self-published source that expresses an opinion by a non-expert is considered a reliable source. WP:V is pretty clear: it's not. We've already had two long conversations about these sources on this page, and these 'letters to the editor' there were 23 of them, in response to an open call and a promise to publish everything received on the subject, regardless of the author's qualifications were deemed to be self-published for Wikipedia's purposes. Moser is an expert for sexology, but nobody is an expert on every single subject. So we could cite his views in this letter about sexuality under WP:SPS, but not his views on things outside his expertise (e.g., whether having your children's names and pictures posted to an activist's website with nasty remarks has any chilling effects on free speech).

I also believe that Dicklyon misrepresents the overall tenor of Moser's letter, but that's a separate issue.

The good news here is that the disputes around these articles have been accepted for formal mediation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the Richard Tylman article and these edits: 15161718 None of the sources provided in support of the subject’s advertising work includes mention of his name. Given this fact, I ask how it can be that they in any way support the assertion that he contributed artwork to these advertisements. A limited discussion of this matter is found on the article’s talk page 19.99.242.160.225 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that talk page, it sounds like the sources used would not be able to tell a reader whether or not the guy actually contributed to those ads. Time magazine is normally a reliable source, but if it cannot back up the claims, it should not be used. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The above single purpose dynamic IP number 99.242.160.225 (talk · contribs) is engaging in a disruptive WP:POINT campaign, clearly shown in the malignant nature of his/her edits,2021 made via two separate IP ranges, the second one being 74.14.227.243 (talk · contribs). There's nothing wrong with the references listed. But, lying and reverting of a well respected administrator from under the cover of anonimity is. --Poeticbent talk 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is Richard right here, but the anon's actions seem to violate WP:BLP (defamation of Richard Tylman). I suggest a quick permban (interested users may want to link this thread from WP:AN).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How does noting the absence of credit defame Richard Tylman and violate WP:BLP?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.160.225 (talk · contribs) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to wait and see whether the disguised user continues with his/her attempts at trying to discredit me in real life, but if not, I think WP:RPP would be in order, or perhaps a permban, as suggested by Piotrus. Please see my replies at the article's Talk page. Be well, --Poeticbent talk 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My behaviour, motivations and honesty and the relevance of WP:POINT, I’ll leave for impartial parties. I do want to make one thing perfectly clear. Not one of the ads cited gives credit to Richard Tylman. Not one. Whether or not his signature appears on them is another matter. I didn’t see any, but then I was looking at decades old black and white microfilm on a microfilm reader. Poeticbent, are you saying that the ad you’ve identified on the talk page is clearly signed “Richard Tylman”? If so, I think they should be considered valid sources. And what about the ads published in ‘’ Business in Vancouver’’, ‘’The Vancouver Sun’’, ‘’The Calgary Herald’’, ‘’The Edmonton Journal’’, ‘’The Winnipeg Free Press’’, ‘’The Globe and Mail’’, ‘’The Ottawa Citizen’’, ‘’The Montreal Gazette’’, ‘’The Toronto Star’’, ‘’The Financial Post’’, ‘’ he Official Guide to Expo 86’’, ‘’ Feel the Excitement of Expo 86’’? Are all of these also legibly signed “Richard Tylman”? 99.242.160.225 (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what I was afraid of while waiting. The anon takes days to respond trying to use an inconvenient IP number for maintaining his/her disguise. I'm tired of these stabbings in the dark, and would like to request some form of assistance from the noticeboard, please. Questioning the truthfulness of a plain list of references with obvious proof of my track record and my signature in it, and thus questioning my professional standing as an artist, is defamatory, malignant and infantile, and ought to be dealt with through official remedies. However, I believe, this board is already best equipped to put an end to any further pointless exchange with 99.242.160.225 causing me unnecessary stress. Thank you. --Poeticbent talk 21:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think my previous questions can be worded more simply, but I will boil it down to one: Since not one of the ads credit Richard Tylman, are they at least clearly signed “Richard Tylman”? 99.242.160.225 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. A lot of small artwork pieces are not signed by artists in a legible manner. I'd assume that there are legal documents attesting who is the creator in some cases, but I am not an expert on that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pietrus & Poeticbent separately asked me for an opinion. To allege that artwork signed by the last name is not that of the artist of the last name claiming it, who is known to work in that field, when there is no other person by that name prominent in the field, or indeed apparently in any field of the fine arts, is the sort of extraordinary statement that does indeed need some very strong evidence. The very least necessary to even consider it is an assertion of what other person by that name it is likely to be. A resort to this as an attack on the sourcing for the article is extreme, so extreme that unless supporting evidence can be presented, it does cast doubt on the motives involved. DGG (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that it is dynamic ip, I have thought it wise to semiprotect the article and the talk page. DGG (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether uncredited commercial art signed legibly or illegibly should be considered as a source is an issue I hope this board will address. I believe that a clearly identifiable signature should count - whether it includes the full name or not. However, there is still the matter of which ads here feature any signature at all. I didn’t notice any, but have said that I may have missed something. On the talk page, Poeticbent identifies one ad as printed with his signature. What about the others? Do they each feature his signature? Questions concerning these ads have not been answered. Piotrus, as the user who introduced this material to the article, you must surely know the answer. Are all of these ads signed?

There seems is a rush to silence queries posed by myself and others. I end my participation here and leave the matter for others to deal with if they so chose.99.242.160.225 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Are chambers of commerce reliable sources for a thumbnail description of the economy of a community, or are they not sufficiently independent? Specifically, I am considering using information from the lead paragraph of this web page to draft something more general and informative than the present Encino, Los Angeles, California#Economy section. I am a little concerned that the C of C does not cite its sources or indicate the timeliness of the statistics, but I wonder if it is a good enough basis for a couple general sentences. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Generally, yes, unless it's disputed in which case you will need a local government body. For uncontroversial facts it should be no problem. Their sources may not be cited, but they are pretty good and they do have an incentive to be at least reasonably accurate. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback Guy. I feel bolder now. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see below a reply I posted on the talk:British Isles page with regard to the Scots Language Centre being a reliable source for the use of a Scots language term which (currently) appears on the British Isles article:

"For those with issues as to the SLC being appropriate, I can only venture to suggest that for an organisation:

• whose representatives are held in sufficiently high regard to not only be invited to participate fully in, but also to act as "Secretary" to, a Scottish Parliamentary Cross Party Group
• which can meet the strict criteria necessary for obtaining funding from public bodies
• whose academic staff include those who are held in sufficiently high regard in their field of expertise to act as Honorary Research Fellow at one of Scotland's leading Universities
• whose Director is sought out by the national press in order to comment upon matters pertinent
• which is variously described on a multitude of other reputable sites as having being principally "founded to promote the Scots language, giving people who speak Scots the chance to learn more about their own language", (source)

not to be regarded as being appropriate for source material for Wikipedia, frankly demonstrates a failure to apply WP:UCS".

I have also included a reference from the Dictionary of the Scots Language, (see also "About the Dictionary of the Scots Language").

The references used on the British Isles article from the DSL and SLC are as follows:

"For "Breetish" see Dictionary of the Scots Language (DSL) & Scottish National Dictionary Supplement (1976) (SNDS). For use in term "Breetish Isles"' see Scots Language Centre website ("Show content as Scots")".

Q: Are these legitimate to use as examples of the Scots adjective "Breetish" and descriptive term "Breetish Isles"??? Endrick Shellycoat 21:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• You won't get that fixed here - there is debate about whether the Scottish Language Wikipedia should exist, and a lot of what is purportedly Scottish is simply a phonetic transliteration of someone reading te material in the style of Ivor Cutler. Your best bet is to contact the Scottish Office and the Scottish Parliament and ask them for their official positions on it, and work from there. It will take time to reach consensus on that basis, but I think it will be time well spent. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but the point I'm trying to establish is regarding the sources: DSL & SLC. The "official position" on Scots is that it is recognised by both the British and Scottish Governments under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, (ratified in 2001), and recognised by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPBC) under the SPCB Language Policy (See 3rd para Intro' & Section 12.). (See also example 1, example 2, example 3). The status of the language is not in question, I was looking for guidance as to the legitimacy of using the DSL and SLC as sources for use on Wikipedia. Endrick Shellycoat 09:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Goverment recognition or otherwise, this is a single source which uses a spelling that we cannot find anywhere else.

As I wrote at Talk:British Isles: "Does it really have any true meaning to say the spelling of British Isles in Scots is "X", where the spelling "X" is seen in only one source and isn't standard anyway? The reader at the very least might be misled into thinking this has some attested written use - but won't see this spelling anywhere, and won't be able to use it for searching for material. Are we really going to promote quasi-hypothetical namings - saying that although we can't find any sources, we're sure that if they existed then this is the spelling they'd use?"

We do not ignore all evidence to the contrary and then write that "le weekend" is never used in French because the Académie française says it isn't French. The SLC may say "Breetish Isles" is the correct usage in Scots, but we can't ignore the total absence of its usage. Knepflerle (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If I may remind you however that there are numerous sources for use of the term "Breetish", (See my own and those posts by "Bill Reid" at Talk:British Isles), and it was not the use of the word "Breetish" that was being contested, but rather this word being combined with the English and Scots word "Isles", which was. The reference from the SLC was being challenged on the basis that it was the only online example of the term "Breetish Isles", which I can produce. (This does not mean that the term has not been used elsewhere, for example, in the Scots language journal Lallans, which does not have an online catalogue. But if it does exist elsewhere online, perhaps on another bi-lingual site such as the SLC's, I have yet to find it).

However, I don't want to bring the Talk:British Isles discussion over here, rather what I was hoping to receive was guidance on whether the DSL and SLC were legitimate for this and future use on Wikipedia as sources. For example, if the SLC stated that "recent studies indicate that approximately 45% of Scotland's population use Scots in every day conversation," could I include that in an article and reference it accordingly? Or, as was described by one individual, are these websites "of unproven quality". My own summary of the SLC's credentials, (see above), and the detail regarding the DSL are what I was hoping to receive guidance for as to whether they are "reliable". (The other discussion can continue elsewhere). Endrick Shellycoat 11:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree "Breetish" seems well-enough attested as (one) way of writing "British" in Scots. My problem is in stating it is the way of writing it, particularly in combination with Isles. I think we now understand where each other is coming from though, which is good.

Secondly, it is always dangerous to label a source as reliable/unreliable per se. A source is reliable for a given fact to be shown. For example, strongly partisan political websites are reliable sources as to ascertaining what the party's stated beliefs are, but may not be reliable sources for events, say.

The SLC is is the canonical source as regards its own work, and a reliable source for many facts related to the promotion of Scots - to give it a blanket label of unreliability is obviously nonsense. But this does not afford a carte blanche of reliability.

As with any source, if somebody reasonably challenges its content we should check the provenance and sourcing of their information, and whether it agrees with or is supported by other reliable sources.

In the case of "Breetish Isles": all we can say is that we don't know about the exact sourcing of their material or direct authorship (but I suspect this would check out perfectly fine given the institutions involved); the agreement and support from other sources is entirely lacking however and hence doubts are being expressed.

I hope that sheds some light on how I view these questions! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It does, thanks very much. Endrick Shellycoat 22:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the UK news magazine Private Eye a reliable source for information, particularly on living persons, to use on Wikipedia?

Please note that I am talking about the factual sections at the start & end of the magazine (such as Hackwatch & In The City) and not the satire section in the middle.

My opinion - based on my observations over the past year - is that the factual sections of the Private Eye are a reliable source. The magazine's position is also strengthened by the fact that it has successfully fought off libel charges on several occasions. When mistakes are made it publishes clarifications/corrections in the immediately following issue.

I would be grateful to hear the views of more experienced Wikipedia editors who are also familiar with the magazine. Should we use Private Eye as a source when something is published in it, or should we first wait 2 weeks for the next issue, to see whether the article is corrected or clarified? --Buyoof (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why it wouldn't be a reliable source - it meets all of the normal criteria for investigative journalism - editorial oversight, reputation for fact checking etc etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• It will depend very much on what is being cited and about whom. Private Eye has a long history of being right about some very contentious things, and a very strong reputation in the field of investigative journalism, including co-sponsoring the Paul Foot Award. But they also have been spectacularly wrong on occasion, and on other occasions have been right on the money but without strong enough evidence (e.g. Sonia Sutcliffe, who won substantial libel damages when they alleged she had sold her story to the tabloids and then later admitted that she had done just that). Hackwatch is op-ed, In The City much less so. In The Back is also pretty reliable. As always, you will need to use WP:ATT and be prepared to back your edits - the onus will be on you to achieve consensus for inclusion of anything contentious. Don't use the Eye for contentious WP:BLP material either, please. When in doubt, two sources are better than one, and discuss on Talk first. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

agree completely, both + and - . DGG (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree too. Not good for BLP without corroboration by another source. For a bit of background, see 22 Jayen466 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, Guy, DGG & Jayen - Many thanks for your comments and advice. I'll be careful and will look for at least one other reliable source to back up material. --Buyoof (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Story here (subscription required) by Wayne Madsen is claiming that the INS Dakar was deliberately sunk by the US Navy in retaliation for the USS Liberty Incident. I have some problems accessing the website as the firewall denies access, classifying it as "hate speech". The story has already been included by an editor in the INS Dakar article. Initial impressions is this would be fringe material and certainly seems conspiracy theory territory. Would appreciate input on the sources reliability by wiki standards. Justin talk 11:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To give examples of Waynes other work, he claims Bush is a blood cult Christian. Oh, and he acctually tables the idea that Bush is literally the Anti-Christ and that the Pope wants to be younger to fight him (Man, I'd pay to see that), that is available here. He also claims the US government sent the anthrax to itself (not as derisable perhaps, but definatly conspiracy theory-esque) here. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

His views seem to be notable, if on the fringe. This is more of a weight/npov thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see the point of examining this tiny snippet for RS, when the USS Liberty incident article has been carefully written to completely disguise what's in the reliable sources. As you can see here, there are at least 5 well-regarded books that say Israel intended to attack the US ship. The only book that says differently is very poorly regarded, judging by Google Scholar, which gives it just a single citation (which is for "Background Paper For Israeli Cabinet 11 June 1967" by V ChoMUN - how did that get in there?!). This compares with 57, 26, 8, 5 and 10 cites, respectively, for the hard-copy of the other books by Bamford, Green, Bregman, Ennes and Loftus. (Meanwhile, Cristol's book has lost the citation it did have for the web-version - the very existence of which smacks of self-publishing, and might be considered a black mark for RS purposes).

And this is not the only serious problem at this article - even when 5 to 2 agreement is reached that a particular clip does not belong in the article (two editors calling it a lie, something very easy to verify) it's proved impossible to edit it out. (There's been a complete refusal to have an RS discussion at the page on this subject either). A wide-ranging accusation of antisemitism was made at ANI against those dissatisfied, and a whole lot more potential editors were driven off with 4 blockings.

I will add that I'd not rate the possible contribution from "Wayne Madsen Report" very highly, even though its intriguing and could perhaps be true. It will only waste your time checking it out, since honest editors and gatekeepers of this article Justin and Narson are so demoralised that nobody's ever tried to include this theory in the article. PR^talk 17:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This website: http://www.aspartame.info is a PR website for aspartame, being provided by Ajinomoto, a producer of aspartame. Is an (unsigned) opinion that is published on this website a reliable and verifiable source? The opinion cited in the Aspartame_controversy article has not been published anywhere else, while opinions from experts published in peer-reviewed journals are not accepted in the Aspartame_controversy article. Immortale (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The aspartame website is a reliable source for the opinions of the producer, as long as the opinions are cited as such. The website also contains links to many peer-reviewed journal articles and as such would be a good source for further reading, particularly since it could help to balance what appears to me to be a conspiratorial slant to the current article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to get a neutral opinion here and not from an editor who already showed its bias in the Aspartame controversy article. Why would the industry say anything negative about their own product? How reliable is it when it's not verifiable? It's propaganda. A website linking to many peer-reviewed journal articles is not a reason to make it reliable. In that case, http://www.dorway.com or http://www.holisticmed.com would be also reliable sources and it was already concluded that they were not. There are many double standards used throughout this article. Immortale (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We have an editor who appears to be struggling with Wikipedia's basic requirements for Verifiability and No original research for some time. The editor, Posturewriter, has a known conflict of interest (he self-published a book outlining his novel medical ideas) and his apparent goal in editing Wikipedia is to share his personal ideas and knowledge with a wider audience. He has created an 'ideal version' in his userspace, and, despite knowing of strong opposition to it, he attempted to replace the existing article with his preferred version today.

The specific source in question is http://www.anapsid.org/, a website created and maintained by Melissa Kaplan. Most of the website is about caring for iguanas and other reptiles. She also posts on her website her current understanding of several diseases affecting her own health (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, and Lyme disease), which is the part that is at issue.

Her website is clearly self-published under Wikipedia's rules. Kaplan has no medical or veterinary qualifications, and she has not published anything except her website. She is simply a person interested in the subject because it affects her own daily life. She is therefore not a recognized expert in the relevant field.

The following four statements are sourced to a webpage titled "The disease of a thousand names" on Kaplan's website:

• "...more than 80 different theories and labels have been proposed and scientifically investigated."
• "Other popularly used labels included ... post-viral fatigue syndrome."
• "Opinions on the etiology of Da Costa's syndrome ... change regularly."
• "The name of Da Costa’s syndrome has changed so often...that it has created confusion in the study and diagnosis of the condition,³⁴as is evident from...a recent website which lists what it claims are more than eighty synonyms."

The question for editors at RSN is whether this self-published/non-expert source should be used to verify any assertions about medical ideas on Wikipedia, and specifically for these four statements. It is my opinion that this source does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards, and that the source must be removed (and with it, any statement that can't be sourced to something that does meet Wikipedia's standards). Does this seem like the appropriate application of Wikipedia's policies to the other editors here? (Please: even if it seems as cut-and-dried to you as it does to me, please respond with your view.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source and shouldn't be used for any claims on WP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes WhatamIdoing, I agree with your assessment. For medical articles, we need medical journals or books published by reputable publishing houses. Jayen466 04:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed; Chronic Neuroimmune Diseases and its subpages on anapsid.org are not reliable sources (in the Wikipedia sense) for medical information. Please see WP:MEDRS for guidelines about reliable sources in medicine. Eubulides (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing; I have already responded to your ridiculous and offensive suggeston that Wikipedia should exclude the opinion of medical consumers when their page is compiled in co-operation with four doctors here23 and here24, as it is an extremely serious violation of NPOV principles. That webpage is also supported by the following references which list four or five synonyms in their introductions here ^{123456789101112 13} and are used as refererences on the subpage here25Posturewriter (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter

WhatamIdoing is right that www.anapsid.org/ is an unacceptable source (on wikipedia) for any human medical condition. NPOV does not require that we use both reliable/expert and unreliable/lay sources in order to produce some sort of "balanced" picture; and being a medical consumer (!) is certainly not a qualification that establishes the requisite expertise in medicine (wish it were that easy! :) ). If the disputed information can be sourced to some other reliable medical sources (journals/book from reputed publishers in the field), as you seem to suggest in your comment, you are welcome to do so. Abecedare (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, should be removed and replaced with reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A self-published source is not reliable. And that's without getting into the special requirements for medical articles. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Editors; I have considered your comments and would like you to know that if you want the Mellisa Kaplan page of CFS synonyms26 removed as a source I will do so. However, let me first explain that there are more than 10 reliable sources to support that here27, and that I was including a medical consumers input for NPOV purposes, and the list was reasonable according to my knowledge of the history of the syndrome. You might also like to consider that WhatamIdoing has previously argued aggressively that it was appropriate to use hatnote policy to add the title of a childrens fiction novel to the top of the page to give prominence to WhatamIdoings preferred label - Soldier’s Heart here28 - and that when I asked for page numbers that were relevant to Da Costa’s syndrome Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing changed the subject to avoid criticism -see the full conversations and the last three paragraphs in the section here29.

Please also note that as my contributions were being slab deleted from the Da Costa's syndrome page, someone else (not me) started anonymously adding similar information to the Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome page as seen in the history of edits from 31-12-07 here30, and added a long list of medications as treatments. Nobody complained about the anonymity of the contributor, or the obvious sock puppet possibilities, or the obvious COI implications, and there were only five references to 9-4-07 when WhatamIdoing edited it here31 and none of them were linked to the text. When I mentioned this I was told that WhatamIdoing had too many other pages to edit to spend time on it. However, since then only 2 more references have been added and only two have been linked to the text, which is an example of very sub-standard sourcing and editing. Please note that I have produced a subpage for Da Costa’s syndrome which has 60 numbered WP:MEDRS references with 400 links to the text which provides a far superior sourcing standard here32. My conclusion is that WhatamIdoing has a strong opinion here, and is not interested in sourcing policy, so much as using sourcing policy to disrupt my contributions for the purpose of maintaining control of content.

Please also note that at 15;15on 30-5-08 WhatamIdoing asked "Are you satisfied with the current list of labels" here33 and it only contained five synonyms in the opening paragraph, and at 7:59 the next day 1-6-08, I added the Mellisa Kaplan list of 80, so it is quite likely that WhatamIdoing is arguing out of spite Posturewriter (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter

Posturewriter, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards. All sources must meet the requirements of the basic policy. This one does not. If you can provide a reliable source that includes this information, then the information may be included. But this source itself may not.

For the other editors: PW is currently blocked for COI violations and edit warring (including edit warring to restore this source after being told that 100% of editors here opposed it). He will therefore be unable to respond for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Findagrave an appropriate link for External links? If this is not the appropriate place for this question, could somebody direct me? Thanks in advance, --Tom 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about listing it at the end of an article (not being used to support a specific piece of information in the article), you might ask at the talk page for the external links guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! --Tom 14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at user Carl.bunderson edits in Haq movement article, this user try to insert only official government newspaper www.gulfnews.com point of view which cannot be considered reliable since it is used to make propaganda only about the country opposition--77.69.195.220 (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a source at the biography page of Cher, which claims that that Cher's single "Believe" has sold 10 million copies world wide. Personally, after checking her Certification-Awards in U.S., UK, Germany, France, Austria, The Netherlands, Sweden and Australia, I came to the conclusion that the sales of "Believe" could not have surpassed 7 million units world wide. The source was tagged as a dead link for many months; however, was found through a web archive just recently. In my opinion, this cannot be regarded as reliable at all, but I need to be sure before I remove it along with the statement which it supports. I would really be appreciative if someone could comment on this. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like they may be reliabel.34 We need to know more about their editorial policies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that source for this purpose in the face of all the evidence you cite to the contrary. Yilloslime (t) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't always correct. I had to remove cited info from ESPN the other day because it was wrongs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah... but how do we know that cited info is "wrong"? We can only judge by comparing it to what other sources say... sources that are considered even more reliable. And even then, it may just be a matter of opinion and not "error". It's a slippery slope. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case it was just comparing numbers, which is pretty straight forward. I take your meaning, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But what the Certification-Awards suggest (which I am demonstrating above) should not be viewed as someone's opinion, those are facts. I listed music markets which pretty much should cover 80% of the sales on the single "Believe"- U.S.Sales=1 million, UK=1.2 million, Germany=1 million, France=750,000, Australia=210,000, Sweden=90,000, The Netherlands=80,000, Austria=40,000. Then we can simply exaggerate the total number (which is about 4.5 or 4.7 million) slightly in order to include sales coming from smaller markets. All in all, the figure should not exceed 7 million or 7.5 million in the best case scenario.--Harout72 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If a review of an album which originally appeared in a magazine such as New Musical Express or Q is not available online, is it acceptable to reference it with a Metacritic listing.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd happily use Metacritic for its summaries of reviews, e.g. "generally favourable". For specific reviews, Metacritic doesn't give enough detail to build a valid reference, e.g. the date and author of a review. Most of the reviews shown at Metacritic are or were online. Some are subscription-only, which would be an obstacle to using them unless you already have a sub. If the problem is simply that the reviews are no longer online, you can extract the URL from Metacritic (in many browsers that's right-click on the link and then select "copy link address / location" in the pop-up menu) then see if the Internet Archive has saved a copy. If so, you should omit the url parameter in the citation template and instead provide archiveurl=(of the copy Internet Archive showed) and archivedate=(date of that copy) - as well as the usual accessdate= and the other basic info such as author, date of publication, etc. --Philcha (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The problem is that the reviews I specifically want to cite seem to have never been online to begin with. Annoyingly, they're the only two negative reviews listed at Metacritic, so I'd really like to put them in the article to ensure balance. Does that mean the only option is to try and find (heaven only knows how) four-year old copies of NME and Q.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

British Library?35 Or wave your wikipedia wand and ask the publications directly if you can access their files. Ty 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up on the BL, but travelling all the way to London to look up information goes a bit above and beyond my level of dedication to WP :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Slacker! :)

Two possible solutions: Check if the magazines are archived by LexisNexis or some other databases. Alternately, you can attribute the reviews something like, "Metacritic quoted Q's review as 'X is a poor excuse for an album'." Not ideal, since the we/reader cannot access the context of the quote, but acceptable in my opinion. Abecedare (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Would the following count towards establishing notability for Dave Carlock?

• http://www.visitshoremagazine.com/articles/2008/07/28/features/doc487e23e8cabf2450362273.txt
• http://www.eqmag.com/article/rogue-pogue/oct-05/14512

--Rogerb67 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also:

• http://www.bentonspiritnews.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=103&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=1779&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1935&hn=bentonspiritnews&he=.com

--Rogerb67 (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes, maybe, and yes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war going on at Gareth Penn involving the removal of a number of what appear to be credible sources. This entry, for instance:

Portrait of the Artist as a Mass Murderer drew national media attention, and led New York Press reporter Alan Cabal to arrange an interview with Penn that never took place. In a book review of Robert Graysmith's Zodiac Unmasked, Cabal wrote that his efforts to meet Penn were a "a run down the rabbit-hole of Northern California weirdness."

...came from a NY Press book review here, written by journalist Alan Cabal: http://www.nypress.com/article-5757-graysmiths-zodiac-unmasked.html.

A letter to the editor from the same source, the NY Press at http://www.nypress.com, was also deleted.

Why is the NY Press not a credible source? I don't edit enough Wiki articles to know and would appreciate any assistance. Scijournalist (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument is not that the New York Press is not reliable (I have no opinion one way or the other). The argument is: A quasi-literary first person narrative written by a freelance, self-described gonzo journalist about making crank phone calls and then going out drinking with a man who he imagined to be Gareth Penn but who, it turned out, was someone else (identity unknown and unexplained), is not an appropriate source for a biography of a living person. That is to say, whatever the overall merits of the New York Press, this specific article has nothing to add to a biography of Gareth Penn. Hope you understand the difference now.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27
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.

---