This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

I've been creating articles for Tennis players, mainly based on the databases of WTA and ITF. These are script-based databases: one interrogates them, and is shown results. They don't produce URLs that one can use to show this or that piece of information. So, although all of the information is in those databases, inline citations cannot be created for specific pieces of information. I have been placing the links to the WTA/ITF player pages in External links, and leaving it at that. Anyone who wants to check the information will have to press the appropriate buttons at the WTA or ITF sites.

Recently, one of these was hit with a {{No footnotes}} tag. On one hand, I can't deny that the warning is literally true, but on the other hand, there's nothing that can be done about it when the sources are in this form.

I am not here for arbitration, I just want advice. Am I justified in removing the tag? Is there another tag that would be more appropriate? Any comments would be welcome.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

An example of an article that may serve as a test case? -- Banjeboi 06:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Liza Andriyani is the one I was talking about. Ordinary Person (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, the <ref> mechanism just introduces footnotes. Just put a cite web template into it and add a comment that explains that one has to search the DB. This is not an optimal solution, but I would think the WTA and ITF sites are reliable enough for basic details of their players. I don't know if they are good enough to establish notability, as listing there would be essentially automatic. See Wikipedia:Notability (sports). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give that a burl.

On notability: I am certain that WTA and ITF listings are _not_ enough to establish notability, since they include players who never won a single match. There aren't any guidelines yet for notability of tennis players but I'm going on the idea that if you've won at least five ITF tournaments or _any_ WTA tournaments, you're probably notable enough.

But that's by the by: the article's not being challenged on notability. (yet)Ordinary Person (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want to draft some language if nothiing else as a guideline for those who know little of the sport suggesting what would infer notability for the sport. -- Banjeboi 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this considered a reliable source? The site is dedicated to media with a detective theme and is not publicly edited like Anime News Network encyclopedia. Currently it's used to source List of Case Closed episodes (season 1) at its Detective Conan episode section. DragonZero (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethel Merman has a fact tag challenging the assertion that she is a mezzo-soprano. I found this, which describes her as mezzo-soprano/alto. Can I use this to cite her as a mezzo-soprano/alto? Dlabtot (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me. The site seems relatively comprehensive and up to date. I can't see any obvious objection without evidence claiming the contrary that she is something other than a mezz-soprano/alto from a more authoritative source. Chaldor (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are scans of copies of marriage certificates considered reliable sources? Another editor is claiming he has these for Bob Ross and wants to use them in the article but would like to confirm they are considered reliable considering they are scans of copies. How do we "authenticate" them? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No. That's the kind of item one might use when conductng original research, but it's not a published source. Dlabtot (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Different jurisdictions have different rules about obtaining marriage certificates. If a jurisdiction will send a certificate to anyone who asks, it meets the definition of published. However, other sources may be necessary prove a person named in a certificate is the same person described in a Wikipedia article. Of course, a scan of a certificate in the possession of a Wikipedia editor is not reliable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If a jurisdiction will send a certificate to anyone who asks, it meets the definition of published. umm, no. Dlabtot (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one could make the argument that if such documents have been made publically available by the jurisdiction (say on an online database) then they have be "reliably published". But a scan of a copy? no. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But does it matter that you're using the scan of the copy? After all, you're referring to the Marriage Certificate itself, it's just that in practice you're not actually using that yourself to look up the relevant facts. What matters is whether everyone could get the actual certificate or a reliably published copy to corroborate what you claim. No? sephia karta | di mi 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be the first place of publication for any information (see WP:No original research), and unless the certificate can be considered to be previously published, then using the information contained in it does make Wikipedia the first place of publication for that information. The key word here is "Published" (ie disseminated to the Public)... This is why we have been discussing whether the document has been reliably "Published" or not. I don't think going to the courthouse and copying the certificate qualies as "Publication". Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC Trust#2009 Editorial Standards Committee report section (which has been moved from the Jeremy Bowen article following an edit war, protection and 3rd opinion) discusses a recent report of the BBC Trust issued following complaints made against Middle East reporting by Bowen and BBC News. One editor is insistent that the comments of the complainants following the report should be included, in particular that some comments by someone called Jonathan Turner should be quoted. I do not believe that Turner is a reliable source and his opinions should not be recorded here, irrespective of his partially successful complaint. His comments have been widely reported including in The Jerusalem Post and the Guardian, which I assume to be reliable themselves. However, I do not think that makes any difference to the reliability of Turner's comments.

One particular quote that this editor wishes to include is something to the effect that the BBC took 2 years to correct an article that was found to breach accuracy regulations. The full comment from Turner is that this (and Bowen's reporting in general) has had an impact on anti-Semitic attacks. That, to me, is an exceptional claim which requires an exceptional source and Turner is not an exceptional source. Further, the Guardian article linked to above is particularly critical of this statement and says it is an "unfounded slur". Now, both the comment and the response could be included in the article, but I think that including this comment by an unreliable source is over-representing a minority viewpoint and should be left out altogether.

Other comments on this whole affair have been made by CAMERA and the Zionist Federation. The Guardian article is equally critical of their comments and, in my view, CAMERA had the chance to voice their opinions in the ESC Report. While I am not as bothered about including quotes from these parties (since they are established organisations rather than individuals) I still think doing so is putting undue weight on their apparently minority opinions.

Sorry for the long explanation, but the whole issue of Middle East reporting is very sensitive and (as I mention above) prone to cause edit wars so I wanted to give people as much info as I could. GDallimore (Talk) 13:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Turner's comments may or may not be reliable on their own... but the fact that his comments have been reported in reliable sources such as the Jerusalem Post and the Guardian makes his opinion notable. I think this is more an issue for WP:NPOV than RS... The key is to phrase any discussion on Turner's comments neutrally... and make it clear that what Turner says is his opinion and not proven fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, although I'm far from convinced that a "notable" opinion is also a "reliable" opinion. But if the comments are notable AND reliable, then I guess they have to go in, in which case the only solution from an NPOV perspective is to go overboard and report all the facts and both sides of the debate - something which I have been loath to do in view of repeated comments from various third parties that we are falling into the traps of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. GDallimore (Talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing reliability with "truth". They are not the same. In the case of statements of opinion, what needs to be reliable are the sources that report on the opinion (ie we must be able to rely on the source to accuratly report who holds the opinion and what that opinion is). The opinion may or may not be "true". I do think you have a point in raising WP:UNDUE. I don't think you need to go into great detail on this... It sounds as if this is something that can be dealt with by making a passing reference. Just note that the criticism has been made and if there has been any official reply. A few short sentences should do it. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but questions about "what is true" are usually tied in with "verifiability" rather than reliability. I agree that this opinion is clearly verifiable (having been published in reliable sources). Consequently, it's also clearly true that this chap holds this opinion. My question is whether he is a sufficiently reliable source on this matter that we should even consider recording his opinion. I don't see how the fact that he has been quoted makes his opinion more reliable (although it makes it more verifiable) than if he had not been quoted. GDallimore (Talk) 16:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a matter of NPOV (and specifically WP:UNDUE) and is not within the scope of this noticeboard. Personally, I think it warrents a passing mention under a "criticisms" heading, but no more than that. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to define the journal of "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology" as a non reliable source since it has as sponsors many groups with conflict of interests 1 and many of its articles are written by employees of consulting companies like Cantox/Intrinsik whose role is defined as "protect client interests while helping our clients achieve milestones and bring products to market"2.Nutriveg (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We generally try avoid making blanket statements that sources are always 'reliable' or 'unreliable', preferring instead to examine specific citations to sources in context. So what is the citation in question? Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot, and most journals will publish industry-funded work. Incidentally, Regulatory Tox and Pharm. is listed in User:Yilloslime/Questionable_Sources. One example of its use is in aspartame controversy. In 2002 a pretty good review was published in Regulatory, which was authored by industry-funded scientists. In 2007 a similar review was published in Critical reviews in toxicology, whose lead author worked for Cantox International, which seeks to "facilitate timely regulatory global approvals". These are a couple of the main sources on aspartame's controversy, and no mention of their industry funding appears in the article. Although several editors think the conflict of interest warrants mention, a couple have managed to edit war it out in order to keep from poisoning the well. Generally I think that Wikipedia should have the same standard of disclosure as journals do, which means the disclosure should be on the Wikipedia page. II | (t - c) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly the use of this journal has been problematic in articles relating to secondhand smoke; it was one outlet for material produced by the tobacco industry intended to forestall regulation. In one case, the journal's editor was paid $30,000 by the tobacco industry to write a paper which downplayed the risks of secondhand smoke. The industry then cited this paper in its arguments against EPA regulation of smoking.

  The Center for Science in the Public Interest has criticized the journal by name as "reading more like a house organ of big business than an independent, peer-reviewed scientific journal... It is hard for anyone to have confidence in RTP's published research when blatant conflicts of interest are concealed." (3). In the book Doubt Is Their Product (Michaels, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780195300673), RTP is described as the best known of a group of "vanity journals that present themselves to the unwary as independent sources on information and science... the peer reviewers are carefully chosen, like-minded corporate consultants sitting in friendly judgment on studies that are exquisitely structured to influence a regulatory proceeding or court case."

  We've had an entry on RTP in a (completely informal) list of "Questionable Sources" for awhile now. I agree with Dlabtot - context is important, and it's hard to make binary, blanket pronouncements about reliability, but there's certainly a case for a large grain of salt here. I would, however, hesitate to extend the six-degrees-of-separation approach suggested by II, unless similarly reliable sources are similarly critical of Crit Rev Toxicol. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, a six-degrees-of-separation? I didn't say either were unreliable, I said all journals publish industry-funded papers. I actually added an interesting Regulatory article to animal model not too long ago (PMID 11029269). I mentioned Critical reviews because it is worth noting that Regulatory isn't the only journal willing to work closely with industry. Critical reviews, one of the most widely-cited toxicology journal, could seem even more questionable in that it's willing to devise schemes to make it seem like their industry-funded work is entirely unbiased -- in the aspartame paper, they said that the authors didn't know who the sponsor was until after the paper was published, although in truth the authors more than likely knew because Ajinomoto takes in something like 90% of aspartame revenue and sponsored a similar review in 2002. And the fact that they appointed as lead author someone who has been campaigning for sugar-free coke doesn't isn't really encouraging either. That doesn't mean Critical reviews is unreliable or pro-industry per se. in fact they published an article which appears extremely critical of genetically modified food not long ago (PMID 18989835) (that was Crit reviews in food science). You could probably find articles critical of industry in Regulatory similar to the way you can find articles critical of pseudoscience and the paranormal in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. II | (t - c) 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)I would normally assume an Elsevier journal to have decent standards. However, in this case, there is serious doubt. The editor in chief is a former tobacco industry shill, and the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health has gone to the very unusual step of publishing a debate about the quality and independence of the T&P peer review. David Michaels' Doubt is their Product, published by OUP, is also less then complimentary. So I would suggest it is not, in general, reliable. Good catch! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Some people think that IJOEH and CSPI are, in general, not reliable, which is why articles from them have been continually reverted from the aspartame controversy. So it goes both ways. And personally I think IJOEH/CSPI's position on aspartame (that it likely causes cancer) suggests that they're not very rigorous. II | (t - c) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think what distinguishes a journal as a reliable source, and a self published work as generally unreliable is the review process and the quality of the editors, so if that review process is weak and publishes anything, the publication turns out to be as unreliable as a self published work. My case was of an article about Roundup, it looked as a general citation, but I decided to investigate the authors and discovered that the lead "scientist" worked for a lobby group, another author worked in research about another Monsanto product (aspartame) and Monsanto sponsors the Journal. I don't mind presenting all those facts together with the citation, but the evidence that a research is tainted is not always present (like Cantox operates abroad and doesn't list its clients) so the burden of proof that a specific research from that journal is reliable should be on the side of who cites it.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, User:ImperfectlyInformed was the one trying to eliminate the Roundup article, resuming it to few citations in Glyphosate.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• To add my two cents, I think it can be used as an RS depending on its relevance to the article at hand. It may be a horribly biased and industry-favoring source, but it's still an official publication house. Use it with the appropriate disclosure. Don't necessarily state opinions expressed from these articles as facts, but ensure there are appropriate lead-ins: According to an article in the JRTP... and then follow-up with other sources which call into question the bias/reliability/integrity of the journal/article/author, etc. If you can't find any specifc evidence against the author/article in particular, yet feel the article is misleading, cite an RS that criticizes the journal and use it as evidence to call into question the integrity of anything coming from the journal (the key is making as full a disclosure as possible). There's nothing wrong with presenting a slanted source, so long as the slant is also disclosed. It's not up to the wiki community to evaluate the truth, but simply to present all the relevant information (remember, the key is WP:V not truth). If an article in the JRTP is a notable voice in the scientific dialogue that occurs within the context of the respective article in question (which it appears they are in this case?), then it deserves mention. Just be sure to explain/point out the bias and any relevant notable voices against this voice as well. Chaldor (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of any wikipedia articles that set a good example for tackling this issue? COI in industry-funded studies is a valid concern, especially in WP:CONTROVERSY articles on medical topics, and should be given appropriate weight. Not too much, and also not too little. In a densely-written article "According to an article in JRTP" would be wordy, and uninformative. "In an industry-funded critique" would read as biased, and has been rejected by one editor at Aspartame controversy. Is it WP:OR to make judgements about a source? --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it's not original research since articles are rejected all the time based upon editor's impressions of the work even if these impressions are not based on actual published evidence. For example, the IJOEH was rejected from aspartame controversy based on no sources. II | (t - c) 16:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's part of the process, and can be either good or bad. As editors we do play an enormous part in this process. Should we add Humphries review article (PMID 17684524) on aspartame's safety to the aspartame controversy article? We don't have articles specifically criticizing the publisher (Nature Publishing), the journal, or really the author. But it's still an article which is wildly at odds with other evidence, and thus it's OK to exclude it. We could give it a sentence maybe. The IJOEH has defended Ramazzini's studies, but it hasn't engaged the criticisms of the studies, so it's not a great source. II | (t - c) 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A user sourced material at The Good Witch of the West using allcinema.net. Is someone well versed in Japanese willing to check if this is a reliable source? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Maria Surfs The Web is a spot on KTTV (Fox news channel in LA) where Maria Quiban reviews web sites. Reliable source for establishing notability or any other uses? Examples here --neon white talk 10:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the proposed use? If it's just to show a website's been picked up on by more mainstream media then maybe, if we are citing her opinion and providing WP:Attribution then also maybe. If it's citing her as more an expert then you may need to also source those credentials as an authority. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Potentially to show a websites notability, though that isnt currently in question, it's possible that someone might question it. Also to cite info provided in the broadcast. I presume, as this goes out on a news show, it would be subject to some kind of editorial oversight? None of the info in her broadcasts is really 'expert' in nature more very general info about the websites featured. In this case to cite a general categorization of a website. --neon white talk 09:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes as it's attributed, onscreen even, to the news channel which will have reasonable standards for fact checking. As long as the content cited errs on the conservative it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe check use {{cite video}} at WP:Citation templates as well. -- Banjeboi 15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The particular one i want to cite is this one to cite the website's categorization as an auction site. As you can see it's mention in both the text on the page and video. The page also seems to be under news stories on the site. 4 --neon white talk 19:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a total fluff piece that shows nothing more than the fact that the site exists. It is not "news" by any means, and does not contain any useful commentary or analysis. Neon is editwarring to use it to supplement other existing RS sources (which actually offer analysis and have some sense of journalistic integrity). If this installment of MSTW was the only source for a website, I think an article about that site would fail AFD. Can we have this conversation with the other editors on the talk page instead of hiding it here? NJGW (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's published by a news station, on a news show, it's contained in the news category on the web site, how many more clues do you want? The spots might not contain in depth info about sites but it is cites the info and is verifiable. We do not base the reliability of sources on such strange ideas. Your obvious personal prejudice against this source does not change the established reliability of Fox News and affiliate stations. As WP:RS staes "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." This is not edit warring. Using the RS noticeboard to ok a source is the correct and proper procedure and i take such accusations as a personal attack and warn you not to continue them. --neon white talk 09:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The article about the Oom Yung Doe martial arts school relies heavily on the book "An Introduction to Traditional Moo Doe", copyrighted by Oom Yung Doe and used within the school as a sort of training manual. The book is available online5. It seems pretty obvious that this is not a reliable source for controversial information about the school (such as the quality of the training or the accomplishments of the founder of the school), but is it a valid source for noncontroversial information (such as when the school was founded or what styles are taught)? Subverdor (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a Self-published primary source, with all the limitations this implies (See: WP:SPS). You are esentially correct in how it can and can not be used. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This self-published source is from an author involved in a long-term legal battle with the State of Illinois Attorney General's office ( see the article with references Oom_Yung_Doe#Legal_Entanglements). The author voluntarily entered into a consent decree. I feel this legal action concerning fraud reduces the reliability of these self-published sources below the level needed for a Wikipedia article. jmcw (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the subject did not admit any misconduct or wrong doing in the consent decree... so the allegation of fraud was never proven. Unless the book is alleged to have played a part in the alleged fraud, I don't see it as being relevant to its limited reliability. As long as we don't use the source for anything controvercial, I see no reason not to allow it for basic noncontrovercial facts (if need be, we can attribute anything we take from the book to the book... as in "according to Kim's self-published Oom Yung Doe Handbook, the school was founded in 1972 and teaches X styles". This changes the statement from being a statement of fact about the school to a statement of fact about the book. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I assume you have looked at the Oom Yung Doe article and the online book in question 6. This links to a discussion of the author "jumping from the equivalent of an 11-story building" and the author "has taught some instructors ... They are now able to jump and land from a 2 or 3-story building without injury". Could you tell me which of these Wiki conventions you feel applies to this author? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

“	Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, 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.	”
— WP:RELIABLE#Self-published_sources

“	Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.	”
— WP:PRIMARY

“	Self-published material may, in some circumstances, 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.	”
— WP:SPS

“	Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information ... so long as: ... 4 there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources.	”
— WP:SELFPUB

No, I have not read the article in question. I would definitely say that what you are talking about now is using the book to support a controvercial claim, and I agree that such claims should not be cited to the book in question. I was responding purely to the idea that the book can be used for non-controvercial statements, such as the year in which the school was founded or what styles of martial arts are taught. For such basic facts (and only for such basic facts), the founder of the school can be considered an expert (as he was there at the time). Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that serious, thoughtful editors (like Subverdor) read the policy pages before they post here. What is needed is input in the context of this particular article and this particular reference source. The reliability is in question. I believe that the source is not reliable due to unusual material in the self-published book. The author is not a recognised authority. The author has not been acquitted of the fraud charges. The lead page of the reference in question posits the author levitating. I assume good faith concerning Wiki editors. Why do you assume reliability about levitating source authors when the self-published sources in question are the main reference for the article? Your opinion would be of greater value if you read the article and source in question. Thank you for your time! jmcw (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point... a) I would not use the source to discuss claims of levitation or anything like that. I would only use it for basic statement such as the year the school was founded. b) The source in question should not be the main source for the article. No article should be based primarily on self-published primary sources... ever. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose a guideline as to what can be used from the Handbook: Posit: If a Wiki editor visited a school, could she/he usually see the activity or item being referenced. For example, if the Handbook say "During training, students hit themselves with bags of herbs", this would be acceptable. If the handbook say "Students and instructors wear various coloured belts", this would be acceptable. If the handbook say "There is a legend ...", this would not be acceptable because a visitor could not verify the legend.

I think the Handbook would be more valuable to the article if there were less "statement of fact about the book" usage. Let us use what is reliable and discard the rest. jmcw (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact is that a book (any book) is a reliable source for a statement as to what is contained in that book. Whether the article should discuss what is said in the book or not is an editorial decision for the article writers to make, and not something for policy/guideline pages to dictate. That said, it does sound as if this article needs a re-write and better sourcing. While the Oom Yung Doe handbook can be used in the article (for limited things), the bulk of the article should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be wholeheartedly in favor of discarding things in the article that aren't reliably demonstrated. A lot of what's in it now seems to be of the form "Oom Yung Doe says X, whereas critics say Y," where neither of the assertions is really reliably demonstrated (although the fact that they're asserted by some person or other is). I think cutting down on the number of those little mini-debates within the article would improve it (as well as making it easier to find wording that everyone's okay with).

That's sort of a separate debate from whether non-controversial information in the handbook can be considered "reliably demonstrated," of course. Subverdor (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As for your proposed guideline, I think my answer is contained within an old revision of WP:CON (sadly no longer in the document, because I really liked it): "The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome." I personally feel that it would be better to apply policy than to adopt an ad-hoc guideline for this particular source, but how I feel about it is also sort of irrelevant. Subverdor (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published..." so we are agreed that the Handbook should not be referenced<g>. jmcw (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing the handbook as a primary source is bizarre. It's written by Tom White based largely on his interpretations of information from others (largely John C. Kim), so it's not self-evident that it's a primary source. There are reasonable reasons you could argue against using it, but you should actually argue those reasons and apply some insight into the ideas behind policy if you're expecting to convince people. Subverdor (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When Kim (the author in question) was charged, convicted and sentenced to prison for tax evasion (ie. lying), Thomas White was also charged 7. Do you know if he was also convicted? Do you believe convicted liars are reliable primary sources? jmcw (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oy... repeated ad hominem attacks unrelated to what we're discussing aren't (I hope) going to be too effective at persuading people, either. The tax case which you're describing now is different from the fraud case which you mentioned above. In any case, I said long ago that I'm not particularly interested in getting drawn into a debate over whether Oom Yung Doe is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. As a general rule, and regardless of whether Tom White was convicted, I do believe that those convicted of conspiracy to commit tax fraud (which, unlike tax fraud itself, does not require an overt fraudulent act or "lying") can serve as reliable sources, yes.

As a side note, I realize that I was actually incorrect about primary sources as Wikipedia sees them -- Wikipedia policy's definition pretty clearly does consider "An Explanation of Traditional Moo Doe" a primary source, because the source material it interprets is all (to my knowledge) previously unpublished. So there may be some merit to going over the uses of the handbook in the article to make sure that we're not relying on it too heavily (and possible adding some more of those "according to Oom Yung Doe internal literature..." phrases). Subverdor (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the fresh view! jmcw (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The article on Gerry Maclochlainn is being edited continuously because one person rejects the Western Mail newspaper as a reliable paper of record. I need someone who knows something about Wales and the Western Mail to intervene here. It is a paper of record but perhaps O fenian does not know this. He needs to check this rather than just acting on an assumption. I have tried to discuss this but he ignores my posts and removed my edits

I removed attempts at dispute resoltion from within the article itself, since this editors attacks and assumptions of bad faith have no place in an actual article. Tabloid newspapers are not good sources for rarely known controversial information about living people. O Fenian (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The proper link is Gerry MacLochlainn. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also this editor has frequently used sources that do not support the text. For example this edit uses this source which does not say anywhere that he was a member of the IRA. Similarly the same source is used for the entire second paragraph of this repeatedly made edit, when the only information in the article about the person is a photo caption describing him as "former POW Gerry Mac Lochlainn". If online sources are used that badly, who is to say what their use of offline sources is like? O Fenian (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Western Mail is a reliable source. Robert Hazell in The State and the Nations (Imprint Academic, 2000) calls it the closest thing Wales has to a paper of record. It's not accurate to call it a tabloid, with the derogatory connotations that implies. It is perceived as having moved downmarket in recent years, especially since a new editorial direction in 2005 put more emphasis on stories about leisure and entertainment. (Meryl Aldridge. Understanding the Local Media, McGraw-Hill International, 2007). However it continues to cover hard news, its stories are quoted extensively in literature about the press, and the cite in question is from 1980.

If you have doubts about the cite, it's reasonable to ask that the editor include the author of the piece, and quote you the relevant passages. Note though that the information he wishes to add is backed up elsewhere, for instance the National Library of Wales is holding MacLochlainn's Prison Letters 1981-1983 and describes it thus: "Twenty-seven letters, 1981-1983, from Gerry Maclochlainn, a Sinn Fein activist on the United Kingdom mainland, from Maidstone prison to Ioan M. Richard, organiser of 'Dros Ryddid', a left wing republican movement in South Wales. At the time, Maclochlainn was serving a four year prison term following conviction on conspiracy charges."8 And a journal called The Blanket, published under the aegis of An Phoblacht, ran a piece by Liam O Ruairc which said "The former Sinn Fein organiser in Wales was released from Maidstone Prison in November 1983 after serving two and a half years of a sentence for conspiracy to cause explosions".9 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The information at the National Library of Wales either contradicts or differs from the information that is under dispute, and I feel The Blanket is unacceptable for accusations about a living person. As the editor has shown no interest in policy and continues edit warring to include large swathes of totally unsourced and point of view material, the chances of a successful resolution are fleeting. O Fenian (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the National Library blurb and The Blanket are somewhat weak sources, but the point is they should allay your concerns about the material in the reliable source that you do not have access to: the Western Mail. The OP's edit cited to the WM that MacLochlainn was "charged with conspiracy to cause explosions and possession of explosives". If that is so, then no other sources are needed, but nevertheless the other sources bear this out to varying degrees (the National Library says just "conspiracy charges").

If I may say so, it seems to me that focusing on the content issue rather than what you see as behavioural issues will be the most effective route to resolving this. The OP has brought the issue of the Mail here, so s/he is not disinterested in policy, process and independent views. 86.44.27.38 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Brought this here, but since ignored this discussion and other discussions and continued to add large amounts of unsourced information. Until actual quotes from the source are provided, I am unwilling to accept it as a source due to the misuse of other sources. O Fenian (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, but probably not worth edit warring over when a reference is provided. The OP has also opened dialogue on the article talk page, so you can ask him/her about what you require there, rather than the two of you back-and-forth reverting, which seems unproductive. If you don't get the progress you want, WP:30 or WP:RFC (using {{RFCbio}}) are still available to you before editing the article. I agree that the unsourced stuff should be removed persistently. 86.44.27.38 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP did not initiate dialogue on the talk page, that was moved from the article by me. O Fenian (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. ;) 86.44.27.38 (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate here... while the OP did not initiate dialogue on the talk page... he did attempt to initiate dialogue (which you then, correctly, moved to the talk page). You might assume good faith and continue the dialoge on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor is arguing that biographies on NME are copies of Wikipedia text in this article. I can't say I agree, so if others can take a look at the site and add their input, it would help. — Σxplicit 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The NME article and the 2008 version of the Wikipedia article are certainly suspiciously similar... The question is whether NME did infact take it's information from Wikipedia, or whether they are both based on some other source. That is going to be very hard to prove (it takes all sorts of digging around in old archives). One question we would need to look at is when the NME bio was written? Can we establish that the Wikipedia article is older than the one at NME? Probably the best bet is to avoid the NME article just to be on the safe side... since there seem to be lots of other sources that can be used instead. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Details here. Please weigh in there, not here. It's about the current flu outbreak all over every inch of the news media and on our main page. rootology (C)(T) 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I have a particularly frustrating situation here. Okay, here's the story: voice actress Jennifer Hale purportedly voices a character named Samus Aran in the Metroid Prime trilogy of video games. I say 'purportedly' because there were no reliable sources to support this, only dubious ones like the IMDb, until this video interview with Hale was conducted by a blogger named Sadie a.k.a. "UltraNeko" and placed on her (Sadie's) blog late last year. She has performed several other interviews with voice actors, as well as other people in the video game industry. Within the video interview, Jennifer Hale confirms she voiced Samus (it's at about 2:10 into the video). So, I added that information to the Samus Aran and Jennifer Hale articles and used the video interview as the source, but a user named Gary King removed the information, stating the video isn't reliable because "the person in a video might not necessarily be who they say they are". Is that reasonable? Because to claim that one of Sadie's interviews isn't authentic is to claim they're all inauthentic. These voice actors look like themselves, and they even perform their characters' voices within the interviews.

At Gary King's request, I brought this to a user named Ealdgyth and she agreed with him that the video interview isn't reliable enough. But the fact still stands that Jennifer Hale confirmed she voiced Samus and I have the video to prove it. The interviews are definitely authentic, so why can't they be used? Or can they? Thanks to anyone that responds. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All reliable sources have two inter-related components... the author has to be reliable, and the publisher has to be reputable (another way of saying reliable). The best sources (such as articles in peer reviewed academic journals) are strong on both components. However, for some topic areas (videogames being a prime example) we often have a problem because there are no sources of this quality. We often get reliable authors (such as game designers) making statements in unreliable publications (such as a blog or web forum). This is the situation you are facing... Ms. Hale is the author of her own statements, and Sadie's blog is the publisher of those statements. While Ms. Hale is a reliable "author", Sadie's blog is not a reputable (ie reliable) "publisher". Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for responding, Blueboar. I understand the importance of citing reliable sources, but this isn't a case of "some random blogger says Jennifer Hale voiced Samus, so let's use it as a source." Of course that wouldn't be considered reliable. This is a case of "Hale acknowledges she voiced Samus on video", so why does it matter who shot the video or where it's hosted? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sesu Prime. We are getting into process wonkery to say that a video of a person saying something non-controversial isn't a reasonable source of what that person said. Given that this "publisher" has a reputation for doing exactly these kind of interviews, I'd call it an acceptable source unless someone expresses a basis for believing otherwise. That this is in a WP:BLP makes it more of an issue, but I just don't see the problem here. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The results of this discussion aren't exactly conclusive, so I would greatly appreciate more input on this. Thanks to anyone who further responds. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 09:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, just a question to help back me up. Are forum threads from a website a good reference for the article talking about the website? I think not, but I need opinions. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While forum postings are generally not reliable, there are rare circumstances when they might be. You have not really given us enough information to definitively answer your question. We would have to look at the specific website under discussion ... We have to ask questions such as: Is it a closed community of experts, or can any Tom, Dick and Harry post, and: can we determine who authored the comments being cited? (there is a difference between a comment made by an anonimous member of the general public and one clearly attributable to a recognized expert) Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a an article about an online game, and some of the users of the game have decided to take to re-vamping the article. The forum they wish to use is of--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)f the game's web site. They want to use it to show threads talking about features and events of the game.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the article in question is Blockland, now, what reference are you talking about? Please don't again give some generic description. Just say what website, what forum, and what reference. Dlabtot (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Blockland Forum is what people are planning on using as a source.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... not look reliable at first glance, but we are not done yet ... next question... how do they want to use it? What exactly are they trying to cite to the Blockland Forum? Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They are using a thread about the game being sold to Lego to prove that the event happened along with numerous other things that I am not fully informed of.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be at least a press release related to the acquisition. That would not be a generally admissible source, but it could be used as far as it provides information about the source itself, i.e. the company LEGO as a part of the subject of the article. Press releases can be obtained from companies, i.e. from LEGO in this case. The forum would be a source that provides information about a third party. Then, if the information comes from the editorial staff of the board, in my view, you would need overwhelming circumstatial evidence that it is correct, and the information should still be tagged as needing a proper source. If just some people on the board are saying so, they have no reputation for giving accurate information, and they probably are not really held accountable for any false information they provide. --Cs32en (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The sale never completed, and Lego doesn't own the game, so there was no press release.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

err, but the claim that they want to support with the source is that it has been sold to LEGO, or am I getting this wrong?

They want to use the thread as proof that LEGO had an interest in buying the game.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The source would not be admissible for such a claim. I don't say the following is the case here, but I could imagine people setting up a software company and claiming that a big firm is interested in buying them, with the aim of attracting credit or venture capital. (If you don't see any reason why something would have been faked, it's maybe just because you didn't think of the one reason for which it actually has been faked.) --Cs32en (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As I thought. Thanks.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For reference though, it would be nice to have the page versions/diffs in question listed, and to have the reference in question listed here as well, just so everyone can clearly see what is being discussed and what the claim is. Can you add these? Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The page they want to use the thread on is Blockland and one of the forum threads they want to use is this one.--gordonrox24 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not include that information without further support by other sources, because of the likelyhood that it would be inaccurate by presenting the facts in a self-serving way. Thus, while a self-published source is acceptable in principle with regard to some of the information here (e.g. "I went to brickfest (a Lego convention here in Virginia) and talked with 2 lego executives"), the circumstances and content would indicate the need to be cautious here. In addition, he is making not only claims about himself, but about the intentions of other people, i.e. the LEGO executives, so this part of the information would not be admissible. (Things may be different if he presented a document from LEGO stating these intentions, as he would only be the medium then, not the publisher.) --Cs32en (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this posted by an owner of the Blockland company, or is it by a user? If we're positive it's by an officer of the company then it's essentially a press release and usable as a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The thread I posted was written by the Blockland game developer, giving it some reliability. How much, I am not certain.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Are Helium.com articles reliable sources? The article in question is Travian.--Joshua Issac (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in this case. It sounds like their editorial policy isn't strong enough for an article to be cited for those allegations. Furthermore, "criticism" sections should have notability beyond RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Joshua Issac (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is so silly that I sort of hesitate to bring it up here, but I don't know of a better forum for discussing what's an acceptable source. The Oom Yung Doe article currently has several citations to court cases (as opposed to specific court documents) -- the two references used are, in their entirety, "United States v. Kim, No. 1:95-cr-00214 (N.D. Ill. 1995)." and "People of the State of Illinois v. John C. Kim, et. al. No. C89-CH-10044 (N.D. Ill. 1992)". The editors who inserted these references have refused (or failed to respond to) several requests to identify in detail which document from the cases in question supports the statements that bear those citations.

My feeling is that this is not acceptable; a court case is an event, not a document that can be cited. A filing or transcript from a court case is, of course, a perfectly acceptable source. Can someone confirm that my feeling is correct?

Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are primary sources, and as such, must be used with caution. For example, in Roe v. Wade, a Findlaw link to the actual court decision is cited to support direct quotations from the opinion. A reader can read our article, follow the reference, and verify that our article is accurate. That is not the case with the references in Oom Yung Doe which simply refer to the name of the case to attempt to verify general statements of fact. Dlabtot (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that documents from court cases are primary sources and should be used with caution. Just to be clear -- are you saying that just citing the case as a whole is acceptable, or not? Subverdor (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that the case title (with the docket number) is verification for the fact that the case exists, but that is about it. Really, the only court documents that are reliable are the judge's decisions and rulings.Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In summary: What is the policy on Hate, White Supremacist, Holocaust Denier and Extremists concerning their validity as reliable sources?

Unfortunately, many of these haters, white supremacists and holocaust deniers have Ph.D., masters degrees (like Dr. Butz) and other advanced technical degrees from universities, colleges, technical schools etc... or these haters don't have top degrees, but extensive experience for example in execution technology like Fred Leuchter for instance (who worked in many states rebuilding execution technology and so forth see the movie Mr. Death about Fred Leuchter).

I don't condone these people getting advanced degrees in engineering or getting extensive experience in technology oriented fields, im just mainly concerned about their validity as reliable sources for example. Which came first the Holocaust Denier or the Holocaust Denier getting extensive experience in execution technology and then using that knowledge to claim or realize after extensive forensic study the Holocaust was grossly exaggerated. Holocaust Denial is something I abhor.

I started a conversation in the discussion talk area of the Leuchter Report article on wikipedia about including a link to the actual article the Leuchter Report, a research report which promotes Holocaust Denial. The problem I am having is DougWeller and a number of other editors for emotional and political reasons keep deleting and editing my discussion thread in the Leuchter Report Talk Discussion area preventing me from discussing the links to the actual research article called the Leuchter Report and thus preventing others from discussing it as well.

They also keep deleting the link to the Leuchter Report from the Leuchter report article because of hurtful feelings, sensitive political and emotional reasons, and I was wondering what the policy is on Reliable sources and can someones feelings or emotions be a reason to prevent such a link from an article. I make no personal attacks against the deleters, just their statements came off as very empty, hollow, lacking in merit and substance.

When I add the link to the actual Leuchter Research Report by Execution Technician Fred Leuchter to the actual Leuchter Report Article on wikipedia, User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon and a number of other editors keep deleting or arguing against the links, saying WP is not a directory of hate links, well I only added 1 or 2 links, as an argument against that, then they change the reason and say something along the lines Hate Sites links are not allowed on wikipedia or that you can't link to hate sites, Then I say there is no policy on linking to hate sites on a hate article. They then say / elude to hate sites are not valid and reliable sources, not notable, not good sources, one even said because of fears these links might convert people into neo-nazies by making it easy for them or make it to easy for people to find information on hate sites which arent considered valid or reliable they elude to. To restate they would rather people have to take the extra step and go to google to find the actual Leuchter Report, they dont want it easy for people to find the information.

I'm not suggesting we use references links from hate sites as sources or references for the mainstream version of the Holocaust, im just suggesting there should be a link to the Leuchter Report from the Leuchter Report Article on wikipedia and I keep meeting with emotionalism, politics, pseudo intellectual red herrings like the Hitler card or hate card. I make no personal attacks towards these editors User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon, my criticism is on their reasons and behavior - not the people themselves. Infact, I think these editors are very nice people in general, and their heart is in Wikipedia, I just find the emotionalism Politics to be against wikipedia neutrality and lacking in any kind of substance, but other than that: User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon are really really nice people with good hearts.

I do not in anyway shape or form support these hate sites, I just think on a hate article, there should be a link to the original source.

So what is the policy on hate sites? What is the policy on linking to hate sites? Is it not allowed on Wikipedia? What is the policy on hate references? etc.. etc..

Is there an administrator who can put their hatred of nazis (a hatred I share) aside, and look at this from a neutral stand point and help give me some clarity?

Markacohen (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping. This can also be found at 10 and 11. It would be nice to keep the discussion at one place. And despite what Markacohen says above, a link to the Leucter report was added to the article on the 23rd, just not one of the links to hate sites that Markacohen wants and is placing on other articles, eg 12. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, although he has raised the issue again in the last hour at Editor assistance, he was referred here a couple of days ago. But since his post again, he's raised it also here: 13 along with a complaint about my converting a raw url by removing the http:// (on a discussion page, here's the diff 14. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_33
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.

---