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 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Hey. So there has been a long battle on Talk:Kitchen Nightmares about whether or not this article, published by the New York Post, can be used to say something like:

In August 2009, the New York Post reported that of thirteen restaurants visited in the first two seasons, only five are still open.

One user is against using the article because he feels the NYPost is a tabloid. Another questions the logic of the source, since it mentions thirteen restaurants, but there were twenty-one covered in two seasons. This has been countered by saying that the article covered restaurants only in the New York metropolitan area.

Either way, the question remains as to whether or not the source can be used to make such a claim. What do you guys think? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a reliable source and see no problem using it, with in-text attribution and clarifying the covered restaurants were in the New York area. Crum375 (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only with explicit attribution, as in the quote above. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The source is a tabloid that has stretched its definition of New York area far beyond what's reasonable (to include three states?) and considered no other explanations for the restaurant closures, with a clear agenda to present a biased view of the outcomes of Ramsay's efforts. Drmargi (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In full disclosure, Drmargi is the editor I mentioned above who felt the publisher is a tabloid. I had tried to keep this neutral... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The NY metropolitan area does cover parts of three states. It's referred to locally as the "tristate area". There's nothing strange about that. And yes, the Post is a tabloid; what of it? It's still a RS. -- Zsero (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The NY Post is most definitely RS, especially with attribution. The "Tristate Area" is a commonly used term used to discribe New York City and surrounding areas... essentially the commuter belt of Northern New Jersey, Southern New York, and Western Connecticut. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, with proper attribution. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RS -- and tristate only includes Fairfield County in Connecticut <g>. Collect (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is where Stamford is. That's the one that Drmargi has been claiming is a "stretch". -- Zsero (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stamford. Due west is New York. Due south is New York. Due north is New York, Due east is New York, Collect (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Relating this back to the article in question... all of the NY, NJ and CT restaraunts mentioned by the Post are within the commuter belt for NYC (ie the metro NY area)... or to put it another way, they are all in the area the Post normally covers. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. The U.S. government recognizes parts of New Jersey and Connecticut as being part of the New York metropolitan area, so there is no reason not to include those parts as being in the area. Furthermore, it doesn't take a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter to find out whether a restaurant is still in business or not. The fact that the Post is a tabloid doesn't mean that they are unreliable as to that kind of information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In a discussion on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk page, Dynablaster and Jim Fitzgerald have said that Ahmadinejad's official site is "not reliable" though they have not provided an answer as to under what context the site is "not reliable". Given the multiple sources used when translating Ahmadinejad's statements, my opinion is that his official site should certainly be included. The section in question is

In a speech on June 3rd 2008, the Iranian presidential website quotes Ahmadinejad as saying "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map." and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."<ref>http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=10114</ref> In an interview posted on Ahmadinejad's official website on September 23, 2008, in response to the question "whether Ahmadinejad believed in need for elimination of Israel from the world map" he answers "We say such moves need to be ended; now if the only way to end them is to wipe Israel, well let it be wiped." <ref>http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=12377</ref> Drsmoo (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

With contentious material, self-published sources are generally discouraged. Also, this is a topic that is well-covered by independent reliable sources. Why rely on a self-published foreign language source when this matter is extensively covered by clearly reliable independent sources? That noted, there is some value in directing readers to a subject's own words on an official site. My recommendation would be include the links as supplementary footnotes, rather than the primary citation material. Vassyana (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have "nowiki'd" the section so the references will display here in plaintext. I personally have no idea what the people who are objecting to the use of president.ir as a source for quotes from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be thinking. President.ir can be verified as being an official site of the Iranian presidency. If a quote from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears on it in English translation, it must, at minimum, reflect what Ahmadinejad or his staff want to have communicated in the English language as being his views. I am aware that there is a dispute over the translation of Ahmadinejad's comments in 2005 about Israel being "wiped off the map". But clearly someone on Ahmadinejad's staff must have approved the translations quoted above indicating that he did support Israel being "wiped off the map" at least in his 2008 statements. In response to Vassyana, the president.ir site is being used to establish what the subject's quotes are. Contrary to Vassyana, these pages are already in English. I don't know if Vassyana is trying to convince us that A'jad never said Israel should be wiped off the map, but perhaps they should start by convincing A'jad's own web site staff of that first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The same reasoning could be applied to the 2005 translation ("wiped off the map") which also appeared on the English-language version of the Iranian presidential website. Several Farsi translators who examined Ahmadinejad's remarks and were approached for comment said the translation is plainly incorrect. An editor who has examined the 2008 translation has also spotted an immediate error (he says the word "map" is nowhere spoken). This is why I asked for a secondary source to resolve the problem. If a single reliable source reproduces the text exactly as it appears on the Iranian website then both links can be added to the main article. There is a story by Fox News we can use for this purpose. In addition, there is a third instance where the same inflammatory remarks ("wiped off the map") appear on the Iranian presidential website. These were made during an interview with PBS. When we look at how PBS transcribed the same remarks, however, the translation differs. This, to my mind, reinforces the need for reliable secondary sources. Dynablaster (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that A'jad's translators on his own presidential web site have been mistranslating his words into English, either intentionally or unintentionally. If intentionally, why would they do that? I realize that A'jad is unpopular among large segments of the Iranian public, but among his own staff? And if unintentionally, is it really possible that the English translating staff would not have heard of the controversy over these statements and changed them if they did not reflect A'jad's views? It seems much more plausible to me to assume that even if "wiped off the map" does not literally translate A'jad's statements in Farsi, his English-speaking staff thought that was the closest metaphor in English to reflect the extent of his opposition to Israel. And, consequently, we should not try to second-guess them. If you told me that A'jad's English web site omitted or moderated his most controversial Farsi-language statements, I could believe that, but not if you told me that his English web site inserted hostile statements that he didn't believe or that it made his statements sound more hostile than they were in the original. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When the original error was pointed out by translators, a government spokesperson acknowledged the mistake but the mistranslation remained on the website and was never corrected. I can't tell you why it remained so. Several credible sources (not merely bloggers) have said English language translations that appear on the site are not always accurate and contain obvious error. Coupled with my concern that nobody appeared to have reproduced Ahmadinejad's 2008 remarks anywhere else--not even state controlled news--I thought it necessary to seek a reliable secondary source. Dynablaster (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable in what context? Accurately conveying the intentions of the Iranian government? The Iranian government should be allowed to speak for itself. Good translations are never word for word, so the assertion that the official Iranian translation is somehow "not reliable" (in terms of what?) because it only conveys the meaning and not the direct translation is false. If the original 2005 page still exists then that should be included too. You seem to be pretending that President.ir is a random third party source, and not the official word of the Iranian government, and therefore immediately notable. As Metropolitan90 said, the official Iranian government source is notable in and of itself, and there is no rule that says it shouldn't be used. When you have an article that includes disputed translations from bloggers, it is highly curious that you would try to keep out an official translation. Drsmoo (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a valid primary source for the article, and attention from secondary sources only makes it more notable. I support citing it in a compare/contrast with the secondary sources. Our readers deserve to see the original documents. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The original is in Farsi. Dynablaster (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of our readers speak Farsi. But I'm also speaking of the official translation. No problem with citing that as long as its attributed as such. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is www.studentdrinkinggames.com a reliable source for information about drinking games? Hobit (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• The site gives no indication about who is responsible for it. Consequently, I would consider it minimally reliable at best. If one can find a better source, one should use that instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RS states RS are "reliable , third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This site is instead a questionable, self-published source without an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, and it does not appear to have any notability. Consequently, it is not reliable. Шизомби (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that on some topics that is the best one can find. -- Zsero (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It could be notable without being reliable- great events in history follow this motif LOL.

They might be topics that aren't ready for an encyclopedia yet, then. That would not appear to be the case with drinking games, however: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22drinking%20games%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=sp http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22drinking%20games%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws Many of those may not be RS, but it looks like many of them probably are. Шизомби (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm copying here a discussion we had on the gajim deletion discussion, so other may comment, and for easier future reference. Pcap ping 08:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on Softpedia review. We had a similar discussion in the past about linux.com; that was before the site changed ownership. It had a "reviews" part of the web site where there was editorial oversight, and a "news" part in which there wasn't; well, not as much, it wasn't a wiki. But it was easy to tell the two apart. (See also Bruce Byfield's post-non-disclosure agreement take on it). Now, as far as Softpedia goes, the same is true. The have an editorial team which nowadays employs two editors for Linux matters. Take one of them for instance. He write both reviews, e.g. 1, which are cleary identified as such in the title, format (see stars at the end), and URL, but he also just "sings off" (I guess) on news e.g. 2, which again have a different URL and format: only the 1st paragraph appears written by the Softpedia editor, and he attributes the news piece to whoever let it out, in that case "Robert Shingledecker, founder of the Tiny Core Linux project, ..." So there's a clear enough distinction between the two sections of Softpedia, just like linux.com had. Now one can argue that these guys are from Romania etc., and that their reviews aren't a of such high-quality, but you can't say their review section is indiscriminate or user-submitted. The gajim Softpedia piece I linked above is a review, not a news release. Pcap ping 14:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What is indiscriminate is their criteria for what they review. They will review anything and everything. The issue isn't about whether they are an RS about facts but whether the presence of a review is evidence of notability. Notability wants non-routine coverage. Softpedia reviews are routine because they are indiscriminate. All software eventually will have a softpedia review. Miami33139 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not my impression. They've have some 23 "Linux software reviews" for the entire 2009 3, most of these are well-know products, major distros etc. So, one review every two weeks or so. Given that they have two paid Linux editors, it doesn't seem like a review mill. If anything, they have an editorial bias for desktop Linux products, but I'm not sure that's impeachable. Pcap ping 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Totten, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs Dictionary of Genocide Volume 1, Greenwood: 2007. Contains an entry Kim Il-Sung entry link. The Entry Kim Il-Sung is proposed to be used at Mass killings under Communist regimes to substantiate a claim regarding the number of deaths caused by the North Korean state during a time period.

1. Is this a Tertiary Source
2. Is this a signed Tertiary Source within the general reliability rules
3. Is this reliable for a specific death toll in the DPRK for Mass killings under Communist regimes
4. Is this reliable for a generalised death toll claim in the DPRK for Mass killings under Communist regimes

Reliable source rules regarding tertiaries: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The authors are experts in the field, even having WP articles, and the book is identified as being written by them. Hence not a "compilation" of work by others. Meets WP:V and WP:RS. Signed secondary source. Also note this is forum shopping 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. --- one editor has hit almost every noticeboard on the main topic involved. 8 makes clear the nature of the work. Collect (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The source looks like a vanity or to-order publication, although it is hard to be sure. In any event, to its immense discredit, it sources the data in question from this website: 9. Although this is hosted by a university, it is clearly a personal, self-published, homepage. It apparently offers "a freedomist view" and "alternative history". I don't know an enormous amount about North Korea, but I recognise animated clip-art when I see it. --FormerIP (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting claim, that. Especially since the authors are noted scholars in the field. Publisher site 10 contains reviews from notable sources. 18,000 titles in print. Part of ABC-CLIO, and associated with Praeger. Not a "vanity press" to be sure. First time I ever saw Praeger etc. being called a "vanity press" <g>. Collect (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm..."associated with". Like I say, it's hard to be sure, but the website is the main issue, since that's where the data comes from, so please address that. I really think you've Googled the bottom of the barrel on this occasion, Collect. --FormerIP (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically they are the same corporation <g>. They publish real books, are not in any sense a "vsnity press" etc. Totten is, in fact, a co-editor on a major journal in the field. A journal which is RS as well <g>. ABC-CLIO issues awards 11, is on WP as ABC-CLIO, 12 some info from Business Week, etc. Bottom of barrel? Nope. Major well-known publisher. Over 4K results for individual books on Amazon. Collect (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Greenwood Press and Praeger Publishing are both imprints of the Greenwood Publishing Group. Greenwood is one of the most reputable academic publishers on the market. When combined with the fact that the authors are all reputable, and even prominent, scholars, it seems unquestionable that this source is not only reliable but also at the top tier of the reliability scale. Vassyana (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to offer some evidence for all that? In any event, it's not really the point. Any publication which uses a selfpub webite as a source for this type of data is not to be taken seriously. --FormerIP (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a large number of textbooks published by GPG are widely used in reputable top-quality universities should suffice for the reliability of the publisher. A simple search for any of the authors establishes their credentials and reputations. The self-published website you are deriding is authored by R.J. Rummel, who is one of the most prominent scholars (if not the most prominent) on the topic of government-implemented mass murder. The website alone would more than qualify under our standards for self-published sources. (The author is clearly a topic area expert and has widely published on the exact topic.) But we're not simply talking about the website, but rather a book authored by other reputable scholars and published by a top quality academic press. I really don't see how there's any wiggle room for denying the reliability of the source. Vassyana (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Vassyana, I don't count that as evidence, you are just asserting the reliability of the source. To my mind, it doesn't matter if it was sung in harmony by the Queen of England and Nelson Mandela. It sources its data from a self-published website. --FormerIP (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Its sources may even be from interviews -- but the fact is that it is RS as a secondary source written by scholars notsble in their field, published by a major publisher. The fact is only that it meets WP:RS and WP:V entirely. WP does not examine the primary sources used by a reliable secondary source, it is far beyond our ability to do so, and far outside WP guidelines and policies to do so. Collect (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree... the source meets all of our criteria for reliability... it's reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The source more than meets WP criteria for both reliability and relevance to the article. I would ask editors to keep a lookout on that article, as there seems to be an ongoing effort to get rid of it, it has been nominated for AFD three times in the past five months, and I'm finding it very difficult to assume good faith on this matter. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that its a three paragraph tertiary source worries nobody, and that tertiaries are limited to covering general survey information? I find it incredible that people would conceive of a dictionary of such small entries as a "secondary source". Collect appears to have not read the policy on tertiary sources, or have examined what a tertiary source is, and this discussion has seen a lamentable pile on from both sides of the article's current editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Um... I have never edited that article... so I don't see how my comment could be considered a 'pile on'. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't describing your contribution as a pile on, nor Vassyana's. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I believe you may have a misunderstanding about tertiary sources. Nothing in the relevant policy section would deprecate the use of the source. On the contrary, in discussing the reliability of tertiary sources that policy defers to the policy discussing reliable sources. The policy states books published by respected publishing houses are among the most reliable sources. It additionally emphasizes the value and high reliability of academic publications. Vassyana (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are misreading policy, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is rather clear about what tertiary sources should be used for, and what they should not. In the demography of genocide, death tolls are anything but summary information, and secondary sources do exist. The quality of an edited dictionary without specific sub-authorship is more or less nil, and, the internal evidence of scholarship pointed out above indicates the text displays lackluster academic standards: not surprising for a non-peer reviewed source that isn't part of the monograph / edited scholarly collections system. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was reading over Rape in the United States. It says, "From 2000-2005, 59% of rapes were not reported to law enforcement." I thought that was kind of a strange statistic, how do you know what rapes aren't reported? So I looked at the sources. One was a broken link which I have since deleted, the other is this website: http://www.rainn.org/statistics/ . I took a look at the section that says "60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police." This is the rant on that page that makes me question the reliability of this source:

If a rape is reported, there is a 50.8% chance of an arrest.

If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.

If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a conviction.

If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spent time in jail.

So even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to the police, there is only 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.

Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.

15 of 16 walk free.

This site is objecting to people accused of rape but not convicted walking free. Can we really trust them about "unreported rapes"? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Look again at http://www.rainn.org/statistics/

Every one of those blocks of headline statistics has a big link button saying "learn more about", and when you follow the link you'll find references for the statistics. That's more transparent sourcing than you'll get in major broadsheet newspapers. Check the references if you like, but at first gloance it looks good to me. And the US Dept of Justice itself links to the RAINN site, from http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/sexassault.htm --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Look again at my comment above, "I took a look at the section that says '60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police.'" I saw the sources. My question was whether or not they were interpretted accurately since the website seems to think that everyone who is accused is guilty until proven innocent. Btw, this is what you see when you click on that link from the US Dept of Justice website, "The Department of Justice does not endorse the organizations or views represented by this site and takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over, the accuracy, accessibility, copyright or trademark compliance or legality of the material contained on this site." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with BHG. From other studies I've seen, some of those numbers are a bit off or reported oddly (if you count total number of rapes rather than total number of unique victims some of the race and gender numbers change a lot if I recall correctly. I also think they may be ignoring prison rape). But the source looks quite reliable. Also 13 might be of interest. I'll have to go read that Wikipedia article now. Hobit (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

With broken links, it's preferable editors not automatically just delete them per Wikipedia:Linkrot, but instead try to find the new location of the page or an archive, or find an alternate source for the statement. Rainn's citation style is a bit incomplete. I think this might be the document they're citing, but I'm not sure:14. That document says the percentage of "rape or sexual assault" that was reported to police in 2005 was 38%, which would seem to mean 62% went unreported. Maybe what I found is just a similarly titled document and they were citing something else, or the 2% is the margin of error, IDK. As to how the DOJ determined that, IDK you'd have to look at their methodology, etc.15. It may be that police kept a record of women "reporting" rape or sexual assault, but did not count it as a formal "report" unless the women pressed charges (this happens at my college). On my campus, rapes are also reported to the counseling center - some of those women may indicate that they won't report it to the police, or the number who report to the counseling center may be higher than the number who reported it to the police. IDK: WP:OR. Шизомби (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, there were two cites anyway. I googled it earlier and found a bunch of sources confirming the claim made by rainn thus negating my purpose for questioning the reliability of the source. The other dead link I deleted on the page was a source for the statement, "16% of rapes go unreported," so I feel pretty good about that edit. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If the figures originated from RAINN, then you should also have a cite attributing them as a primary source. Their opinion is likely notable if the DOJ links to their studies, disclaimer or no disclaimer. But our readers should be shown which figures are facts and which are opinions. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There are several issues here. If you were trying to estimate the number of stars in the universe or the number or bald eagles living in the wild, you may not be able to observe and enumerate each of them but at least you would have some methodology for making an estimate. Further, while you could argue about what exactly a "star" is, definitional issues wouldn't be a big deal. Here, the actual definition and classification seems to be in dispute and in any case can be subjective or arbitrary with areas like date and statutory rape- fundamentally then the details are legal or definitional. A notable opinion needn't be truthful or accurate factually of even plausible if stated as such- " widely cited advocacy group B stated there is no such thing." If the organization's opinion is some how relevant, then indeed anything they say could be mentioned in the article from any source that is a reliable reflection of their statements. Presumably if there is a methodology or set of assumptions, it would be a great guide to the reader to make these known, " using definition C based on surveys from various groups source D says the figure is foo percent too low." Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, I was thinkin about that. The article says, "1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape." That seems outrageously high to me for the definition "forced sexual activity." In looking at the source, it actually says those are the results of a poll, and of course people are going to use different definitions. Think I'm gonna reword that sentence a bit. Thanks for the idea. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, many things which are often decided by jury are legally defined ( I think a lawyer may be able to comment but there is something about matters of fact vs matters of law or something ) and the whole point of advocacy groups is often to change laws, definitions, or criteria. The FBI/DOJ AFAIK can make up taxonomies too. I guess if you are arguing about words then more words and details may help. Essentially estimates of non-reported criminal acts need to make some assumption about what a jury would do or the group needs to explicitly state its own criteria. Sorry, I also forgot the classic example of "marital rape"- by some criteria this can not exist. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A doudt has been expressed on the EDL page about sources not backing up as true claims they report16. This is in regards to this removal of material 17. Now the questions are. 1.is it true that a source has to claim that a statment is true for it to be used as a source for that statement having been made? 2.Can said source also be used for what was said (if it makes no judgement on the truth of the statement)? 3.Can Mr Darbeys blog be used for this statment on a page about the organisation Mr Griffin tallks about but which they have no offical links to (but which they have been accused of having links to 18. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the RS discussion for this material has been had and it was deemed to be reliably sourced. If someone has rasied the issue of its inclusion on the basis that it is only someone's opinion, then that is clearly a non-starter. It should, of course, be attributed in-line. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That issue was rasied on the BNP page (organisations that Mr Griffin and Mr Darbey work for. This new question has been raised on the EDL page. Moreover the question the objection was different, this is about if a source can be used for a statment being made that the source does not endorse.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So the suggestion is that a source has to approve of a statement it quotes or else it is not an RS? Sounds to me like someone is grasping at straws. --FormerIP (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"if it makes no judgement on the truth of the statement", that's a blatant attempt to mislead anyone who hasn't actually read the source. What the source says is that the person making the allegation is "bonkers" and his claims are "loony conspiracies". A convicted racist with a history of Holocaust denial will never, ever be a reliable source for a claim that the owners of British national newspapers formed the English Defence League in order to "start a civil war on the streets of Britain, which would somehow allow Western countries to launch a nuclear war against Arab states". The claims fail WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE, and this continued advocacy for extremist fringe viewpoints to be included in Wikipedia is getting tedious. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But they have still reported them. I have not read in any of Wikipedias policies that a source has to agree with the statement that it is being used to support, as long as it reports the statment. It can be verified that Mr Griffin said it, the source makes it clear he said it. The EDL page is not a BLP, nor does the claim accuse any individual, it accuses an organisation no individaul is named. Mr Griffin's BNP has been accused of setting up the EDL, so how can his views on this matter be fringe? His views go to the heart of whether or not the EDL is a BNP front. It has been reported by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

← I'm sure that this is sufficiently obvious that it barely needs pointing out, but Nick Griffin is a reliable source for the following: trivial personal information about Nick Griffin; information pertaining to the British National Party. For anything else we would have to review it on a case by case basis, with any generic rant about purported conspiracies being extremely unlikely to be viewed as anything other than utterly unreliable. We can, of course, cite him as saying that he believes this, just as we can cite him as saying that he believes the BNP is not a party of far-right thugs, but we absolutely don't report it as fact and we don't report it at all unless multiple independent reliable sources have already discussed it, since we would not want to give undue weight to what is verifiably a fringe view from an individual who has shown in the past that he can have trouble separating fantasy and reality. Redux: no chance. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Guy's take on this is correct. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

the origional text said that in a "braodcast intervirew Nick griffin and Simon Darby said... ect". There are by the way two independant sources for this19 and 20.Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please try to keep discussion about this in one location, SlaterSteven. There is another thread regarding this issue here at the BLP noticeboard and also on the articles talkpage. Perhaps a quick read of Wikipedia:Forum shopping is in order. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I would poi9nt out that strickley speaking no desision has been reached on any page, moreover I am asking differing questions (that have sadley megered) this was about the comment that a source has to agree with a statment to be used as a source for that statment. As well as A blog being RS in this instanbce, I am happy to revert this to those questions. This is linked (but seperate) from the BLP issue. I would also point out that previous to this it mhad been generaly agreed that the daly star article was RS, but an objection was again raised so I yhave aksed for confirmation that in this instance the daily Star is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that strictly speaking no decision has been reached I would suggest that perhaps you also need to read Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT . Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no suggestion of reporting the notion that the EDL are a zionist plot as fact, just as the opinion of Nick Griffin. We can, as Guy states, report this as his opinion. --FormerIP (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I should add, when I has posted these discusions no decision had been reached. Moreover on the articles talk page its quite clear that a majority had thought (and its still about 50%) that the material was valid. Previous discusion about this soource (but in regards to a differnt page) led to allmost unanimous agreemnt that this material was RS (with one disenting voice as I recall).Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about this, but it does mention the quoted material 21. Also how is www.pickledpolitics.com rated as an RS, it looks like a blog to me, but I though i should check? Also how RS is www.workersliberty.org/?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello all,

There is many house fans that keep posting this site for proof of airdate but there unwilling to accept that it is unrealible. However i am also getting told that to leave the article the way ti is with teh source for the epsiode broken as two parts i either accept twitter as realible or not

Moved from realibel source talk

here is the page http://twitter.com/GregYaitanes

can someone please tell me how to go about this?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes... Delete the article... or at least merge it the article into the main House article... there is no need for an article on each season of any TV show. Furthermore, If you can resist the temptation to put trivia (like the air date of episodes) into the article in the first place then there is no need to find a source for it. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

mmm so you are saying the wikiproject television should go and delete thousands and thousdand of season articles i think you will find there a lot oppposaiton as theey are notable, i was asking for advice on the source of twitter for the producer of th show sicne all the fans keep saying it cna be used--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I am saying in a nutshell... I never said my opinion was popular. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't things like this be discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And by th way somebody's blog is definitely not a reliable source Dmcq (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

yes it should i jsut lost the page ill move it there now, oh and that wha ti thought but there to many fans on teh article determine to use it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• There has for quite awhile been an established consensus against twitter feeds as RS or even EL. Dlabtot (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion just above re: verified twitter feeds (#Twitter feeds from RELIABLE sources) seems a bit more nuanced than that. Most of the points brought up there would probably apply in this case too. Siawase (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is a rather open ended request for more people to look at a bit of a mess on a thermodynamics topic- one that often attracts perpetual motion machines and other odd ideas. We've been debating this page for a while now, http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Law_of_maximum_entropy_production and got a consensus to merge. However, part of the issue is a content dispute between a small group ( conjectured one person) or "Team Swenson" contributors and all other parties. Team Swenson wants to make this an article about Swenson. If you look at the talk page, now redir into my user space, you can see some of the issues. This isn't so much about a POV any more as much as questioning the validity of the sources. One editor was unable to confirm with a journal that an article existed, another seems to be from a "journal" controlled by Swenson. If anyone is interested please help discuss at talk page. Thanks.

Why don't you present the diffs rather than making an elongated argument? This noticeboard is a reliable sources noticeboard with respect to particular sources. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a spin-off from this this AFD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Cameron (Galway). One of the questions in the debate is whether the Galway Advertiser, a free newspaper with a circulation of 70,000, is a reliable source in respect of a politician.

The question here is not whether the politician is notable (I don't want to re-hash the AfD), but whether this local newspaper is a reliable source. I don't know enough about the paper to make a strong argument either way, but I am concerned about outright dismissal of its reliability merely because of its free distribution and localised content.

The context in which the source is used is in respect of a politician on the Galway City Council. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd be careful citing it for highly disputed topics, but it certainly seems to be a reliable source. Some people dislike local news sources and discount greatly for counting toward WP:N as then "any X" would have an article. As WP:N, WP:V and WP:PAPER indicate there is nothing really wrong with that as long as it's verifiable and seen significant coverage in reliable sources, I personally don't buy that. But some people !vote strongly around that notion. Hobit (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That sounds a wee bit WP:ILIKEIT. On what basis do you you conclude "it certainly seems to be a reliable source"?
    I have been arguing with Mkativerata at the AFD, and my concern is not that it's local per se (though that does affect the scope of notability it might confer), but that local free publications like that have miniscule journalistic staff, and simply don't have the resources to engage in the sort of fact-checking that a bigger paper will do, or even that a better-resourced local paper will do. Every one of these local freesheets I have ever dealt with will happily run a lightly-edited press release as a news story.
    If you don't believe me, compare for yourself the National Roads Authority's press release on the opening of the M6 with the Galway Advertiser's story -- the newspaper adds unsourced commentary to the press release, and off it goes. No comment sought from Galway politicians, opposition spokespeople, road users organisations, environmental groups or anyone -- the only quotes are from the NRA chief and the minister, just as in the NRA press release. Does that look like a publication which does good fact-checking? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • So? They took a press release and quoted from it a lot. Is it a reliable source about local issues? I treat any newspaper, free or otherwise, as being a RS for the material on its "beat" unless there is a darn good reason not to. Being small, free, or local doesn't dismiss it as a reliable source for local news. That it doesn't cover all sides of a story isn't material to it being reliable on the facts. As I said, I'd personally avoid it for highly disputed topics. But for facts in its beat (a road is being built, Bob is running for mayor, John got shot) I really don't see a problem. Again, one could argue that a local paper covering a local politician doesn't help with notability. I'd disagree, but that may well be a majority opinion. Hobit (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers are generally presumed reliable, local or otherwise. Whether a local paper with a small circulation counts towards notability for local topics is debatable, but there's no reason why we can't cite a local newspaper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Local newspapers, and free newspapers, are generally presumed to be less reliable than newspapers from larger cities, or larger circulation newspapers. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is another article where the Galway Advertiser clearly just reprinted a press release, giving one politician's views without seeking other input or fact-checking: 22. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Number 1, I don't see that this is clearly a 'reprint' though I'd guess a press release was heavily quoted. Number 2, are you claiming this creates evidence that the paper prints untrue statements? They made it really clear whose opinion was being given, so it's a perfectly factual article and doesn't make them any less a reliable source. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I would mention that "fact checking" means just that- checking the facts you are contemplating publishing, not determining if there are more facts. Every editorial staff has baises and agendas and a focus or some kind. The fact that an article is "one sided" doesn't mean its facts are inaccurate- indeed, the whole premise of wikipedian "Balance" is just reflecting the reliable sources with not presumption they are ever "right" ( whatever that would mean if it were an issue). A repackaged press release is questionable- you see this all the time on national "wires services" that simply send PR from companies all over the internet ( see for example PRNewsWire). As with a local paper, they can be presumed to "check" the fact that a given story originated from a given source and should be reliable about that source but it doesn't create notability for the authoring entity as it is not independent. If the paper thinly rewords it and claims it to be a news story, that would be another issue. A reporter may not always get a huge number of sources but certainly this appraoch would not create a reputation for fact checking. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

We've seen plenty of big name newspapers (and other media outlets) get stories wrong, invent stories, and get fooled by their own dishonest (or just lazy) editors or reporters, even CBS and the NY Times, both of which I think no one will argue are generally unreliable or unacceptable sources. But as I must comment every single time- not every source is reliable or unreliable in every single instant. If the Galway Advertiser got the story right and it is factual, whether or not it is based almost soley on a press release or not is irrelevant. It is a reliable source in this case. I have seen plenty of (minor) mistakes in articles from the NY Times, the USA Today, the Wall Street Journal simply because the reporter didnt do as good a job as he/she should have in researching whether or not an interviewee really knew what he/she was talking about (eg- "This historic warehouse has been in this city since the 1720s; its not going to be torn down and turned into a Walmart" when the warehouse is actually from the 1750s; minor issue for a newspaper who cares? Major issue when it comes to writing a Wikipedia article, I care). Point is- if its true then the source is automatically reliable. Got it?Camelbinky (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is another reason to cite primary soures when known. Reporters can collate and verify but often more mistakes occur during editing than are corrected. Typos happen, numbers get confused, there isn't time for everyone to check everything. But, sometimes people get upset with primary sources even when used by a secondary source but not fully cites. The use of primary source in this way can not be considered OR and helpful to reader who cares about accuracy of details. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

On Afik, a page about an Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights, a piece by Aaron Klein in WorldNetDaily is used to source the following:

the prophet Elisha foretold that King Jehoash of Israel would defeat Ben-Hadad III of Damascus, also near Afik.

The source for this is http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102484 this "source". Seeing as how the Bible is one of the most researched books on the planet I would expect that hundreds of actual scholarly works would support this line if true. Other users have insisted that this source is fine. Looking back at previous RS/N threads (see here, here) there appears to be an overwhelming consensus that this "source"" is generally unreliable. The other users have insisted that we raise the issue again. Is WorldNetDaily a reliable source for either exegesis of the Bible or about Israeli settlements? nableezy - 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There was never an overwhelming consensus on WND, but it is highly slanted towards a Christian Fundamentalist and Christian Zionist point of view. If it was for an interview, or something matter-of-fact such as the road network around the Syrian border it would be OK. But for Biblical interpretations, no, we should find a more academic source for those claims. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In a related note, would the Bible itself be an acceptable source for a claim like this or should an academic secondary source be used instead? nableezy - 01:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

An academic secondary source. It's very difficult to cite the Bible in that way without straying into original research. More specifically, we'd need to know whether the Afik in the Bible, which simply means "riverbed" in Hebrew, is the same place as where the settlement is. Which it may not be, as there are other sites in the region also called Afik or Afek. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think that these sources would be fine, though perhaps better if bothe were attributed. (If we are to be even-handed--Nableezy just commented at an AfD in support of an article supported by Electronic Intifida, which has much lesser indicia of fact-checking and reliability than WND). At the moment, the entire sentence reads as follows:

The Book of Kings tells how King Ahab of Israel defeated Ben-Hadad I of Damascus near the present-day site of Afik,23 and the prophet Elisha foretold that King Jehoash of Israel would defeat Ben-Hadad III of Damascus, also near Afik.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102484

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A book review on EI is a RS for what the book review says. Pretty simple. nableezy - 13:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Another website, a tour guide with photos, identifies the Biblical Afik as being much closer to the Mediterranean, near the city of Kiryat Bialik ( Haifa area ). With a nature preserve, ruins from Roman and Crusader times, and a kibbutz that's been there since the late 1930s. It then goes on to say Note that in Israel there are other Biblical sites with the same name: in the Sharon (Rosh Haayin) , in Jezreel valley (Gilboa area), and in the Golan (on the Syrian border, east to the sea of Galilee).( www.biblewalks.com/sites/Afek.html )

The point is, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. Pretty much anything linking a Bible story to an ongoing territorial dispute would be an extraordinary claim, this one more so as it contradicts other information out there.

The Bible quote you linked to does mention Aphek, but it doesn't contain any commentary about which of the several present-day Apheks it might be. If you can find a mainstream edition of the Bible that does contain scholarly endotes that clarify this matter, that commentary would be considered a scholarly tertiary source. It also shouldn't be to hard to find it in one of the many books on Biblical places, or a book on Israeli or Syrian history. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WND may be OK for news and current affairs, depending on context. Not OK for historical placenames. This is the sort of thing that good magazines and news outlets get wrong all the time. Books and articles by historians are the expected standards for sourcing of historical info. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

hi, i was wondering if this is a reliable source for the article Sungazing?

http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter34.html

i'm not sure if the information is from the book or just his updates or blogs concerning his views/musings?

--wondering about this source also... http://www.randi.org/jr/122603li.html seems more like a commentary and Q and A.

Thanks for your time!

J929 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How is it being used? Blueboar (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Carroll's book primarily reprints his website, but the entries on the website continue to be updated. The SWIFT newsletter of the JREF has been cited in a few books, not many, though Randi himself and some of the other writers are more notable. Both Carroll and Randi are well-regarded as skeptics. I have the same question as Blueboar. Шизомби

(talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

J929 has been trying for some time to promote sungazing, the practice of gaining supposed health/nutritional benefits by staring directly at the sun. The Randi and Carroll references are used to counter Hira Ratan Manek's contention that retinal damage can entirely replace food and water. Skinwalker (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"HTM" may be too marginal for anyone to have written about him specifically, and I wonder whether "sungazing" is perhaps more commonly referred to by some other term. Some of what has been written about the breatharian cult in general may address it. The article on HTM actually has multiple RS issues under Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources: citing his own website, YouTube videos, and podcasts? Not good. Шизомби (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the article on HRM has serious sourcing problems. I have yet to find alternate terms for sungazing after some medical searches though I suspect there may be one in psychiatric circles. Schizophrenics sometimes injure themselves by staring at the sun. My contention throughout this dispute has been that HRM is an unacceptable source for medical claims, and especially not for NOTHOWTO-violating instructions on how to sungaze "safely". The breatharian cult seems separate from HRM, having largely collapsed in the 1990s following the deaths of a few of Jasmuheen's followers. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

in context, "Proponents of sungazing claim increased energy levels and decreased appetite; as with other forms of inedia, this claim is not considered credible due to the lack of scientific studies confirming it."
http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter34.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/122603li.html

J929 (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideally a well known medical research institute would conduct a study to determine whether staring at the sun can replace the need to eat, and we could then cite the study. However, no reliable institute is going to bother to investigate an absurd claim that violates all known understanding of how the body operates, not to mention the laws of physics (try calculating how much energy arrives at an eye from the sun). So, there are not going to be any good sources that investigate this phenomenon. However, since there are no good sources for the claims made by sungazers, we do not need gold-plated sources to refute them. In summary, the sources you mention are sufficient in the context of this pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

there is more to the practise of sungazing than the hopeful outcome of not having to eat. ideally gathering sources that are reputable is most beneficial.
these sources should be held up to the same standards that the sources describing the processes are. J929 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Can this link be used to verify the fact that the Charlie Bit My Finger video has been viewed more than 140 million times? Thanks, Theleftorium 18:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think so... but I have to ask why it is necessary to cite it... the fact that it is the "most viewed" is what is important... and that is established by an independent source. I don't think we need a "running total". Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Really?, as an inline link..I had this same request turned down? Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, when we say that Youtube isn't reliable... what we really mean is: The videos hosted on youtube are not reliable. The Youtube website itself... that requires another determination.

In the case of the "number of views" statistic that appears on the webpage, it isn't compliled by the person who created the video, nor the person who posted the video to Youtube's website (if they are different)... it is a statistic that is compiled by Youtube (I assume by a program running in the background). As such, I think we can consider it reliable (although I am not 100% positive.... what are the arguments against?) Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks Blueboar! Theleftorium 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thsi comes up all the time, YouTube is not considered to be a reliable secondary source and it is also not a reliable primary source unless it is verified to have been published by the subject. (YouTube is the host web site, not the publisher) For a thorough explanation and discussion of this topic see here: 24

AFAK, there is no such thing as a source which is inherently unsuitable for some purpose. Indeed, the argument above makes a good case that a you tube view counter may in fact be reliable for a limited purpose. You can argue about a lot of issues here, but if for some reason part of the article needed to cite the number of views, this may in fact be reliable per the above argument. It is ostensbly intellectually indepdendent and could maybe be tested or otherwise verified ( maybe it could be manipulated as with click fraud but that is another matter). Furhter, if an article was ABOUT you tube, it would always be a reliable source about itself with the right claims ( ok, if all of a sudden you tube claims they prophesized something that itself may not be a true self-referential claim but it would be true that they made such a claim. etc etc etc). I would however consider the rest of the above arguments as it would be hard to argue that "most viewed on you tube" is encyclopedic as opposed to trivia. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"YouTube is the host web site, not the publisher"... that is true for the video, but not for the statistic on the number of views. For that statistic, YouTube is the publisher... YouTube compiles the statistic, not the creator or poster of the video. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

One really shouldn't use the Youtube site itself as a primary source either; it's original research, at a minimum. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No... it isn't OR because it does not originate on Wikipedia... it originates on YouTube. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's OR when an editor goes to Youtube, and makes claims based on primary material there (such as the number of times Youtube says a video has been viewed). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't... Please read WP:NOR... which makes it quite clear that primary sources may be used (with caution). What would be OR would be if a wikipedia editor in some way compiled this statistic ... but in this case youtube compiled the statistic and posts it on their website, and all we are doing is reporting what is written on the youtube page. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still OR, since the number of Youtube views is never verifiable; it's a number that changes daily, and often hourly. We can't use as a source "Youtube views at the moment User:Blueboar happened to be looking at the page".Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since The Times source25 already used in the article mentions 130 million hits, I would include it in the article something like "as of November 2009, the video had 130 million hits" and source it to the The Times, instead of going directly to Youtube. In addition, if citing Youtube, to satisfy WP:V it would probably be appropriate to archive the video page somewhere, as the viewer statistics are not static. I don't know how WebCite handles Youtube but maybe it could archive the page itself if not the flash video contents. Siawase (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable, but it may be OR to include the info. You might say "as of...it had 130 million hits, and as of ...it had 140 million hits." That's if you can archive it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the edit history 26 ie, this diff27 it seems the real question is if it's appropriate to go to Youtube to keep the number "updated". Siawase (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And the answer is that it's not, per my comments above. Stick to the November figure cited in The Times; "as of November 2009 etc." Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that a number of sources are pdf files held on a web site with the same name of that of one of the editors of this contentious article (see the AfD to see what I mean by contentious). As I recall, we wouldn't normally say this was safe, and given the BLP issues, what do others think? Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Apallingly sourced throughout, including a reference to Google. Even though the AfD is still in progress, this BLP should be immediately stubbed right down to what, if anything, has appeared in the local press. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I got rid of the most blatant bad sources earlier, but the original article author has been restoring some of it. More eyes, please! 98.233.249.17 (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is MetNews a reliable source? I'm not familiar with it, and it looks pretty sketchy to me. But most of the substantial references in the article are from there, so it seems that would a big factor in determining whether the article should be kept. 98.233.249.17 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't make much sense of MetNews. It seems to be respectable and serious enough, but I'm concerned that it may simply reprint documentation considered in the courts rather than generating news reports as normally understood. Then it also has opinion pieces, which wouldn't be reliable for news either. If these events are notable then they should have attracted attention in the wider California press. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

MetNews clearly reprints legal stuff, 28 Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at a bunch of their articles, they are indeed news articles. Because they are a legal news specialty publisher, their articles may include a significant amount of quotation from court opinions. They also may not (e.g. this one, 16 paragraphs in length which does not quote any complete sentences of the court's opinion). It is a reliable source, and probably one of the best if not the absolute best secondary source around for the actual holdings of California court cases that it covers.

Having looked, the article is currently using various articles by the publisher for four different citations:

1. First as a one of two supports that a law was passed allowing the payment of certain benefits to judges. Clearly reliable for the fact supported, possibly redudnant - I didn't check the other citation.
2. Second to support a claim about what Fine alleged. This looks like classic reporting, no different than any other reporter covering what was said at a public event. Clearly reliable for the fact supported.
3. Third to support that the California Supreme Court allowed Fine's disbarment to stand. A reliable source again.
4. Fourth to support, a piece of prohibited original research that Supreme Court docket entry 08-1573 relates to an attempt by Fine to get the U.S. Supreme Court to review the disbarment. The other source here is clearly a primary source and is silent as to the subject matter of that docket entry. Even though the metnews article is a reliable source as to Fine's intent, the connection to the petition is not reliably sourced. GRBerry 01:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute at Talk:cocaine#health effects about whether a report on the health effects of cocaine that was funded by the WHO, suppressed by them prior to publication, and then leaked, constitutes a usable source. Additional opinions would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If the WHO authored the source but technically didn't publish it, it would still probably be usable as a self-publication by experts. I'm assuming we have some reliable secondary sources that say this is so and that vouch for the authenticity of the "leaked" material. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the status of the source in this case should be explained explicitly in the prose, rather than just mentioning the facts bluntly as from an unassailable source. Also, right now the article doesn't properly attribute or make it clear that the text is a direct quotation from The Guardian, which in turn directly quotes the report. It would be better to contextualize the current text with something along the lines of: "per The Guardian, an unreleased WHO report from 1995 stated that 'direct quote' and 'direct quote'." Siawase (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Question in my mind is: "why didn't they publish it?". I think that needs to be ascertained before the source can be considered. It might be the case that it wasn't published because it failed review (ie experts that looked at it felt its contents were wrong). In this case, I think there must be a doubt as to whether it can be considered an RS. There is a claim on the talkpage that the US govt objected to it, which is why it wasn't published. If this is the case, then maybe it is and RS, but maybe "unpublished" should also be specified in-line. In any event, the reason for its non-publication should be researched. My guess is that the WHO will have made some kind of statement giving a reason. --FormerIP (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Per The Guardian: "This report was never published because the US representative to the WHO threatened to withdraw US funding for all its research projects and interventions unless the organisation "dissociated itself from the study" and cancelled publication."29 Siawase (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so in that case it can be considered an RS. For interprative claims (eg cocaine is less hamful than...), it should be made clear that the report is unpublished. However, I don't think this would be necessary for merely factual claims (eg "there are xx cocaine users in country y"). In all cases, the word "unpublished" should be included in the endnote. --FormerIP (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No The WHO source is unreliable. Period. Unless the publisher (WHO) owns up to publishing it, reliability cannot be established simply on perception. RS is about not only the report, but the publisher, as well as the writer(s). Here, there is no authentication. And for additional information, the Guardian news item is a Saturday opinion column without editorial control, and cannot be used in any other way than an op-ed column should be. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 12:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Eckhart Tolle article: "The Power of Now" was actually first published in 1998 by Namaste Publishing according to Eckhart in the foreword in more recent editions of the book. According to Tolle in his book, it was later published under copyright in 1999 by by New World Library. However the New York Times gives the 1999 publishing as the first date of publication. What to do? Include info from both sources?. -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to confuse things, it seems both Eckart and the NYT may have it wrong... Worldcat.org lists it being published by Namaste in 1997. (but it does at least back up the assertion that it was published by Namaste before being published by New World.) Does the date really matter? Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The ISBN should settle the issue. Collect (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no question of "settling the issue". :) Wikipedia is not the place to put information based on what is the truth or not. Information is included based on valid, reliable sources. In case the publishing date is a question, use the correct English to mention all of them with the references. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 12:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The last time I searched for "twitter discussions" here it was one of those grey areas. Some people thought it was fine as long as it came from a reliable person associated with the subject. The only thing that people seem to have a problem with is of course a lot of accounts can be fake. Twitter now has it where notable people can verify their accounts and it will display "verified" on their page.

For example, Law & Order: SVU showrunner Neal Baer has posted via his twitter account upcoming episodes and airdates, only to be changed by NBC the order which they air. So it is posted on the Law & Order: SVU season 11 page as "The air date for what was initially intended to be the season's seventh episode, "Anchor" on November 4, 2009, was going to be moved to December 2, 2009, but was ultimately moved to December 9th. This episode will now be the tenth episode in the season's lineup." and cites his twitter feed as a reference. Apparently just to have a twitter cite raises red flags. Even though Neal doesn't have his account "verified", his twitter feed has been posted on the NBC website. I figured, I guess as in my opinion, that Neal is the showrunner who decides what order episodes are 'planed' to run, but NBC ultimately decides 'when' they air, he is at LEAST notable enough to be referenced.

Another scenario: I cleaned up the Resident Evil: Afterlife page and someone had posted that filming began on 9-29-09 (which was unsourced, and I tried to add the only source available for that, aceshowbiz.com, but it's blacklisted), and then someone put that Milla Jovovich finished her scenes on 12-11-09, which was taken from her twitter feed. I removed it. I don't know, it seems since Twitter has become such a big thing now, one would think it may be considered a RS on these certain occasions, especially when reliable websites re-post the twitter feed. What does everyone think about this? Thanks. --Mike Allen 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Twitter feeds are like any other self-published source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like Wikipedia may need to catch up with technology. Quote from SPS "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." So what if the twitter feed has been verified and republished by a reliable source? --Mike Allen 00:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We had this debate a few weeks ago when David Gerard noted that the death of Bletchley Park codebreaker Shaun Wylie had been reported only on the official twitter feed of Bletchley Park. From what I remember consensus on the mailing list was exactly as Jayjg says: that twitter feeds are reliable sources if they are official outputs from experts in their field (which made this one OK in the circumstances). Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what Jayjg said? Oh I must have misunderstood. So in fact my examples are OK per current consensus? --Mike Allen 01:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Jayjg can speak for himself but he links to the correct policy. Self-published sources are not banned but must be used with caution and their reliability depends on the publisher. Speaking for myself I would have said that a twitter feed officially published by the television company involved is reliable as a source for planning for future shows provided that the context of the information is explained in the the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that's what I said. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Another concern we had when this was recently brought up was the durability of the source. Sources are used to meet the policy on verifiability. If the source is guaranteed not to endure, it is problematic. The last time I saw this discussed, it was concluded that there is no archive or equivalent for twitter feeds and posts are gone and unrecoverable within hours to days. Does anyone know of an archive for twitter? Web pages we can hopefully link to the internet archive if they go dead, but last I heard there was no equivalent for twitter. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 44#Twitter. So they may be temporarily reliable sources, but still will cause the fact to fail verifiability if not promptly replaced by a better source. GRBerry 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is twitter blocking WebCite? Otherwise just archive the post/tweet there before citing. Siawase (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I just tried it and Twitter and WebCite seem to get along fine. 30 Siawase (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

One issue with Twitter and similar sources is that sources aren't used solely for satisfying WP:V but also WP:NPOV, as in to establish weight/notability. I would say in most cases where something is only found on Twitter (posted by a verified/verifiable account) it is unlikely to be something that is crucial to include in Wikipedia. And likewise, when something on Twitter is weighty enough to include, it is very often also reported by secondary reliable sources, or at least some RS will quote the Twitter post. In many cases that I have seen, Twitter is used to cover as of yet unreleased material, which will eventually be covered by reliable sources. I would say this is the case in the two cases Mike Allen brought here. Instead of using the Twitter sources, it's usually possible to wait for reliable secondary sources to cover the material and keep in mind that Wikipedia is not meant to break news. When I looked at the Shaun Wylie article referred to above, the reference for his death is no longer Twitter, but two secondary reliable sources. Siawase (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the same as any other SPS, just like Jayjg said. It might be RS if either the author is an expert on the topic, if it's in an article about the author (and you're sure the Twitter account really belongs to the person), if it's a press release in an article about an organization, if it's published by an organization that is itself a secodnary source, if the particular tweet is cited by secondary sources making it a primary source ( ex. initial reports of a disaster ), or finally if a Twitter meme somehow became notable enough for it's own article.

Are we sure about the tweets not being kept around on the system? I'm not familiar with the site, but I remember following links to tweets that had been sent months before. On the other hand if they really are ephemeral we'd have an issue with WP:V.

But there's no need to wait for particular facts to be repeated by a second and third RS, except for possibly for contentious information in biographies. While WP is not news, it is supposed to be timely, and it should be as detailed as possible.

The issue in the example of TV schedules differing from what was originally reported on Twitter isn't a problem with Twitter, it's just a fact of life that sometimes preliminary reports and forecasts need to be superceded by more definite information. You wouldn't compare and contrast the air dates of a show vs. initial reports on Twitter, that would be trivia, just replace with the more definite sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This makes me so mad. I wrote a reply and asked why a certain website was blacklisted and it got a warning that it was blacklisted and therefore lost my reply. You would think it would save what I had typed. SIGH. Let me try and remember what I said. --Mike Allen 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)::::

Well I'm still new to Wikipedia and am just trying to learn the guidelines, not avoid them, which is why someone suggested I post my concerns here to gather a consensus. I'm sorry I'm still an uninformed newbie. :) So it is more trivial than encyclopedic to include when episodes where scheduled to air? Can we determine the production codes from this?

On my second question. Milla Jovovich stated on her verified twitter account that she finished filming her scenes with Resident Evil: Afterlife on 12-15-09. The only site to repost it was aceshowbiz (which is blacklisted for some reason, does anyone know why?). See: wwwaceshowbiz.com/news/view/00029569.html That site is also the only site to state when filming begin. But apparently I can't use it. It's void. Non-usable. Therefore it would look superfluous to add to the Afterlife article that Jovovich finished her scenes on that date, without mentioning when she begin filming them. So my question is if a reliable site such as Bloody-Disgusting reports when filming begin and ended but doesn't mention when Jovovich finished her scenes, could her twitter feed be used to verify that. --Mike Allen 03:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is where I'd say WP:WEIGHT comes in. As you note, it may be superfluous to include. For most movies, and most biographies, it's not really important to include between which exact dates a specific actor was shooting a movie. And since wikipedia should try to put weight on information according to what reliable sources report, if specific dates were important, there should be good sources available. You can search MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log and 31 to find out why that site was blacklisted. Generally it's because of spamming in the past. Siawase (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It says " it was added by MaxSem on August 2006, but doesn't state why. Where would I need to go ask for the reason of its blocking? When you say spam, you mean people were posting links to the site over a long period of time? It's been over 3 years since it was blacklisted. Are sites blacklisted permanent? --Mike Allen 04:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hunting down spam reports can be a bit of a search. I found the original report here32. There is some more recent discussion here33. You can request whitelisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist if what you want to reference is deemed reliable. Siawase (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually on the global blacklist ( for all Wikimedia projects ). If it were whitelisted on the English WP, would that supercede the global blacklist? Anyway maybe at one time somebody was adding lots of links to the site. You'd have to convince them the issue has passed. It might be easier to conviince them to whitelist only a certain part of the site, such as aceshowbiz.com/news/*. And after a little Googling, apparently it is used a lot as a reference on WP, just not with a link to the site. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Twitter is just a specialized form of blogging, and should be governed by exactly the same policies and guidelines as blogs are. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to give a blanket answer as to whether any particular publisher of web content is reliable, much less an entire technology platform. It often depends as you noted on who is doing the writing, but it also depends on the specific post (tweet), what the context is, and what it's being cited to show. In general, as a self-published source there are concerns even if it comes from a recognized expert. In addition to the usual expert SPS issues tweets are informal and meant to be ephemeral so there's very little forethought in many cases, the shortness discourages full context, they're generally typed in the field from mobile devices so prone to error, most experts don't feel their reputation is at stake so they're less likely to be careful, and probably some others I'm missing. I would consider them a last resort, for uncontroversial information only, and should probably be removed if challenged in good faith as to accuracy or if a better source is found. Sooner or later we'll have to deal with the question of Wikipedia being behind on technology. More and more of the world's information is coming from citizen journalism, user-submitted content, and other crowd-sourcing methods where reputation comes from reputation methods and certain tools, none of which is recognized by our RS policy. But opening that floodgate is a daunting task and years away from happening, if ever. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon thank you for your informative reply. Do you know why the website aceshowbiz is blacklisted, or do you know where I could find that information? Nevermind. --Mike Allen 04:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Twitter is microblogging and subject to... heh, somebody added a shortcut: WP:TWITTER. It is somewhat less reliable than a blog for the archive problem noted above, and also because of security problems. We would not want to add material from tweets only to have it turn out that an account was compromised. Шизомби (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the comments made by several people above regarding the applicability of WP:SPS, I would argue that in general a tweet by definition is a quick and ultra brief thought, and as such almost automatically qualifies as a most unreliable source. At least if an author were writing a blog they could, where necessary, take an extra sentence to qualify some assertion. In a tweet, that qualification has to be omitted, so thoughtful analysis is impossible. A tweet can say "X is dead" or "X is scheduled to occur on some date", but as pointed out above, WP:NOTNEWS applies and if we have to wait to get a proper source for these factoids then so be it. Tweets are not ruled out as a source because there are always exceptions, but the exceptions should be extremely rare and thoughtfully applied. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that twitter is not to be used at all, as for celebs posting things only on twitter..if they are worth reporting they will be reported by better sources soon enough.. have a look at this the reason they are all doing it . Personally, I would remove any links to twitter if I found them. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A discussion on whether twitter sources can or cannot be used is without relevance if the particular usage is not put in question (like the Resident Evil point of view raised by Mike above). Twitter personal feeds from unverified accounts cannot ever be used. Twitter personal feeds (from verified accounts) fall under WP:SPS without any question, but they cannot be used for any comments on third parties, especially in cases of BLP. Anyway, this discussion goes nowhere without a particular usage in question. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's Christmas Eve, but my daughter has taken over the HD tv with the hard disc, and I just found this. I don't expect a quick response. This article is relying heavily on email for its sources, I'm not sure what to do about it. See the talk page also for what someone did last year. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Private correspondence is unreliable; a number of the other sources are SELF and probably unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Reliable Original Sources! Thanks for the message Doug. I'll find out which tag or deletion to start on it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Question Is Medscape considered a WP:RS and, specifically, is this educational review (which gives Continuing Medical Education credits to physicians) considered a RS? Basket of Puppies 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No. 34 should be enough to warn us that Medscape is a registration based site. Not allowed for citation. However, in case you have printed copies of Ph.D level reports from Medscape which are documented in libraries, you can quote them. Or if you can show that the content of Medscape can be accessed without going through the registration page, do please show them. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no prohibition on sources based on registration or subscription requirements. (This is an issue that has repeatedly come up and such sources have been consistently held to be acceptable, provided they meet the requirements for reliability.) Medscape appears to be a reputable source. Vassyana (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a point out there. Basket of Puppies, you could see Wikipedia:MEDRS#Choosing_sources for support to Vassyana's comment. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 12:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

People, please, if you're new to this noticeboard please make sure your suggestions are consistent with policy and precedent. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am currently in a dispute with User:Cyrussullivan about the reliability of a source. He insists that linking to a website that publishes names of purported sufferers of herpes, HIV and Hepatitis C is perfectly acceptable and a reliable source. The website is http://stdcarriers.com/famouspeople/celebrities-genitalherpes-1.aspx (that's the herpes site.)

It's not a reliable source. Anyone who registers on the site can place the name of someone who they think has one of the STDs and it's published. It states on the page that: "The sources of the reports are responsible for the validity of the information contained in the reports and any conclusions that can be derived from that information." They are not taking responsibility for the reports on their site.

The other thing that bothers me is they have a "False STD Report Removal Page" in which they urge a person who is listed to get their name removed by doing the following:

"7. Go to a doctor’s office and get tested for the Sexually Transmitted Disease (or Diseases) in some cases that you were reported for having. For Genital Herpes (Herpes Simplex Virus 2 - HSV2), Hepatitis C, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) this can be done with a simple blood test that will detect antibodies if you are infected, if your results are clean then the profile will be removed. For HPV and Genital Warts there is no blood test, but they can be frequently detected by other means, clean screening results for either will be satisfactory for the removal of a profile.

8. Have your doctor send your clean test results in an official sealed envelope to:

STDCarriers.com

P.O. Box 86448

Portland, OR 97286

• Please note that we do not accept certified mail.

9. Contact us to let us know that test results are on their way. This will cause the post office box to be checked more frequently.

10. When we receive and review the test results the report will be removed as soon as possible and you will receive the I.P. Address information necessary to help you track down the person responsible."

Guilty until proven innocent, anyone? Comments, please? --Manway (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Clear BLP violation. No way should we be using this as a source or even an external link. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm... any physician who would place a patient's test results in an envelope and mail them to an anonymous website's PO Box doesn't exactly exemplify the profession's ideals. We should scour this link from Wikipedia and potentially blacklist it. MastCell ^Talk 06:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And the site is very ad heavy, so no matter what the content was it fails WP:EL. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree... remvove all instances and blacklist. Blueboar (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As of right now, the link exists here and at User talk:Manway (I did nothing besides check). Check again. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you may think about the user submission sections, STD Carrier Registry and Forum my contributions only involved lists that I compiled from personal research involving variations of Celebrities with STDs and People Arrested for Criminal HIV Transmission. I conceded that some of the celebrity profiles used tabloids as sources, but the list of criminals is legit. I know this because I own the website and personally researched those reports myself. The real issue here seems to be my insistence that the criminals list be included in Criminal transmission of HIV. Even thought I only have about 60 people listed in that section it is already the largest centralized list of people who have been charged with crimes involving criminal HIV transmission. I believe that due to it's uniqueness that it should be included in that section. It is a far more reliable source for information on people arrested for crimes involving HIV transmission than Wikipedia itself at this time since it only lists 6 people in List of HIV Positive People. --Cyrussullivan (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the Biographies of Living Persons Policies I don't see how a link to STD Carriers is any different than links to Rip Off Report located in the RipOffReport.com article and Don't Date Him Girl located in the Don't Date Him Girl Article--Cyrussullivan (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've raised thia at BLPN 35 and suggest we take the discussion there, although the COI and advertising issues also suggest to me at least that the site owner shouldn't add it due to COI issues, and no one should due to the amount of advertising. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiments that this site can never be a reliable source on wikipedia, and the owner of the site should not be pushing it. It is original research in that the owner compilied the list himself. I also have problems with the ethics of the site, "We will slander you unless you provide us with your medical records". I am just surprised no one has sued the website owner yet. Martin451 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As to the other article comparisons and other websites. We have encyclopedia articles on these websites, so it seems apt to link to those websites. If we had an article on your website, then of course we could link to it in that context. But you are comparing apples to oranges. We aren't linking to dontdatehimgirl or ripoffreport in articles not dealing with those specific websites (nor are we attempting to use them for sources). I'd also ask you what exactly you want to accomplish here at Wikipedia? DO you want to help improve content and build a better encyclopedia (which I'd encourage), or do you just want to promote off site content that you have a conflict of interest with? -Andrew c ^talk 14:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin451 - In regards to the "ethics" of the site you need to realize that the term "ethics" by definition cannot be a reliable source for judging anything. Ethics unlike true fact varies from person to person, so it really cannot be a reliable method for making a decision. In the case of my website I am a service provider and can only guarantee the accuracy of things that I publish myself. That's why I made sure to specify the differences between the public, celebrity, and criminal lists. I do admit that some of the celeb reports (like Paris Hilton) are based on "tabloids", but they are celebrities so why not have a little fun with them. The criminals list on the other hand includes links to normal media sources documenting the reports, a number of which are predatory sex offenders and all of which have been charged with crimes for exposing others to a life threatening illness without telling them about it. You also are mistaken with your “we will slander you” quote. I have never slandered anyone on my site and the rest of the site is an automated program that simply displays the information it has received. Defamation requires malice, a human characteristics that machines are yet to exhibit due to their lack of conscious thought.

Andrew – You ask the question of building a better encyclopedia or promoting off site content like they are mutually exclusive. Surely one can better an encyclopedia and promote off site content at the same time. For example two of the guys on Wikipedia’s list of HIV Positive people that are listed as living AIDS Criminals are actually dead. I will correct those errors shortly with no mention of my website. In cases where a webmaster knows that they have information that both makes the encyclopedia better and promotes off site content, why not add it? I think if I had not brought up the controversial nature of the domain my Jakes Booty Call Links would still be on that article since the external links on that article appear to be the kind of links a webmaster would add under an assumed name.

but they are celebrities so why not have a little fun with them. - Because we're an encyclopedia, not a random website for the lulz. You are free to have a little fun on celebrities on Encyclopaedia Dramatica, they will enjoy your list.

The criminals list on the other hand includes links to normal media sources documenting the reports - Then let's link directly such media sources.

Defamation requires malice - No. If I write a random script that mixes and matches names from the phone book with slanderous statement, the script is defaming these people.

Finally, please read WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:COI, please. --Cyclopia^talk 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cyclopia a random script that matches names with statements is not the same as providing a service in which someone else makes a statement. You are also missing the point that the argument is about the reliability of the criminals list. All other parts of the website are irrelevant because that section is properly segregated with its own unique URL. The link would not say that all information in that domain is reliable, just that the URL being linked to is.--Cyrussullivan

User:Cyrussullivan|Cyrussullivan, you are not reading what has been posted above. These links violate several Wikipedia principles, your talk page has plenty of warnings about them. Consensus is against you. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for a reliable source which mentions Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni as the originator of the Negroni cocktail. I have been removing the statement because a few editors which claim to be descendants of Pascal insist on adding it with references I believe to be unreliable at best. Today an admin has protected the page because I have removed statements which do not meet WP:V. Am I wrong in thinking these are unreliable? Is there a reliable source for this? To me, these are just forums and blogs, not verifiable sources.

These are the references that the admin who protected the page has given:

http://chanticleersociety.org/forums/t/820.aspx
http://ohgo.sh/archive/campari-take-four/
http://everydaydrinking.wordpress.com/tag/negroni/
- Chromatikoma (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. All blogs/forums, no good at all as sources. One of them mentions a book in Italian all about the cocktail. That might be reliable depending on the publisher. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You might try http://www.hamptons.com/Food-And-Wine/Mixology/8008/The-Classic-Negroni.html... it seems reliable enough for this. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:::There are a number of newspaper articles making the claim listed here.36 Most of them require paying for, though I might be able to some for free if you send me an email that I can respond to.--Slp1 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Forget it. Did not realize that Pascal was the issue! I'm not that impressed by the Hampton.com ref; hopefully there is something better out. --Slp1 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's one that might fit the bill.37--Slp1 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I now see that you did already use the Italian book as a source. I have asked the admin to unprotect the article as I don't see any reason at all for it to be protected. Alternatively, you can follow the links on the protection notice to make a formal request for unprotection. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm alarmed that some of those editing the article seem to have a conflict of interest and have been discussing on web forums how to slant our article to their point of view. You may want to post on WP:COIN for advice on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do note this is not the forum to continue general discussions. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nothing more to say on this board at this point, but the OP should feel free to raise any of the other sources in the article for discussion. FYI, there has been a related ANI. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I feel that the hamptons ref is not reliable because it's just a local events website for the Hamptons, and it was just a passing trivial mention. If you compare the Negroni article around early July, when this article was published, the WP article only mentioned the Pascal reference, and I feel confident that WP was the writer's only source of information on this. I will email the author and ask. The Italy mag ref I also feel is unreliable because it's just a email newsletter/website, nothing is printed. Again, if you compare the WP article around the time the Italy mag article was published, there was only one story of the origin in the WP article. For a drink that is supposedly 100 yrs old (if you believe the Pascal claim) there should be a printed reference existing somewhere before just last year, although I suspect it doesn't exist. There are many printed articles for the claim that Camillo Negroni invented it, so that should be ok. Thanks for the help. - Chromatikoma (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked out Edizioni Plan, and they seem to be a good publisher with a range of school textbooks as well as a number of recent food and drink related books. So that's an appropriate source for the article. 81.98.160.135 (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, I was looking at Wikipedia to inform myself about climate change. I was surprised to see the Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change page note that there is no notable dissenting scientific organization. Since then I surveyed the field and found that this is at least one notable contrarian organization, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). A few days ago, I attempted to balance the above said topic, with note of this significant-minority opinion, but the edits were soon undone. It became clear from the now-frozen discussion that we could not reach a consensus on whether this organization deserved to be mentioned. A number of other wikipedia users tried, like me, to get specific criticism regarding this organization with regards to the wikipedia guidelines (reliability of work, authors and publisher) from the users blocking this addition, to little success as you can see in the discussion. Those opposing users tried to articulate a rationale, but only provided vague or unsubstantiated explanations (biased, "unscientific", not "official" enough, etc.). In my opinion (as 1996 alumni of the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France), the NIPCC synthesis report published in 2009 is scientific in nature, backed by several renowned scientists with expertise in the required fields, and includes falsifiable claims and properly documented sources and published references. Again, it is clear that it represents a minority opinion in the scientific community, but claiming that "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion" (in Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) does not provide a neutral and accurate representation. Please advise on the inclusion of this source. Julien Couvreur (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dumky, this is a noticeboard for questioning or validating sources. If the NIPCC synthesis report has been published in reliable newspapers or other reliable sources, show the diffs (links) out here and on the discussion board of the page in question to back your credentials. Just one organisation commenting that the earth is flat is not enough to get its statements included. But if you find that reliable mainstream newspapers have quoted your report, show them ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The NIPCC is not a standing organization - it's an ad-hoc congregation of known climate sceptics sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a "Think tank" that has no particular scientific qualification and that also sponsored "editing" and publication of the report. Authorship is unclear, as the contributions of the individual contributors are not listed anywhere. It's in stark opposition to the opinion of every proper scientific organization that has issued such an opinion. Not a RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, at the Polytechnique did they not teach you that the singular of alumni is alumnus? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they didn't. A "Polytechnique" is an engineering university, and at technical degrees you don't get to study languages like Latin. Please let's leave all short off-topic sarcastic remarks outside of wikipedia. (and please don't come up with stuff like "but alumni is an English word") --Enric Naval (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be flippant, but I was a bit shocked. Time was when you had to be very good indeed at Latin to get into the Ecole Polytechnique. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What criteria are being applied here? Are you arguing that the report is not scientific or it is a self-published work which has not been noticed by other scientists or the popular press? Certainly sciencs doesn't require official governmental standing to be valid and in fact historically quite the opposite has usually been true. Science per se needn;t be done in a scientific institution but someone does need to make some merit assessment and note the work. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I' am arguing both. There is no sign that any science was done. Most of the points raised in the report are spurious and long-refuted (but that's my editorial/scientific judgement), it's pre-published summary has been called "fabricated nonsense" in RS 3839, it's unclear who actually did the writing, it's not published using a scientific venue, but rather by a think-tank that has a set agenda on the topic an had so for years... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The relevant question: is the NIPCC accorded serious scholarly status by experts in the field of climatology? MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the relevant question on this noticeboard at least is whether the NIPCC report was published by a reliable source, in this case the Heartland Institute? I think it is safe to say that our fellow editors have already vetted it as such in many, many cases: 40--GoRight (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You might want to look at your list - most of the hits at least on the first page are either not references at all, or references used as primary sources about the Heartland Institute or its associates. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find much support for using Heartland as a reliable source for scientific claims. It's not a scientific organization - it's a public-policy pressure group, and one that's been funded to the tune of about $800,000 by ExxonMobil, neither of which add up to a huge amount of scientific credibility on climate change. If you want to cite Heartland as a contributor to the political debate about global warming, then I think you could easily make that argument (cf. Sydney Morning Herald, and again). MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What are the criteria for the NIPCC to become a reliable source? From what I have read it appears that it has been decided already that you will never under any circumstances allow a scientific group to be recognized if it opposes the IPCC. You never base the rejection of the group on merit, but on your own personal opinions. If I am wrong then please explain what needs to happen for the NIPCC to included instead of excluded.

I found an interview done at a forum, and wanted to be sure it would be considered a RS or not before adding it to an article. The only forum-related rules I could find seemed to apply to posts by users rather than conducted interviews. Registration is required to view the interview. Ωphois 02:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Since registration is required, why don't you describe the interview, and add any points that make you think it is reliable or unreliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The forum has many different interviews, and this one was posted by the site's founder. It does not list how the interview was conducted, although even a lot of known RS don't do that. Ωphois 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Who was the interviewer? Who was the interviewee? How long has the site been conducting interviews. What types of interviews do they conduct? Etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I entered a request for resolution about the RPOV status of a respected Chiropractic publication, which is the largest circulation in our field. I now have an edit war going on where someone has removed the word "Founder" of an International Federation I clearly and can prove I founded, and will not see a Front page article showing me as founder, receiving the Gold Medal from the Board exactly for all the work I did in founding that federation. Why? We one editor who has challenged virtually EVERY article I can find on my field (I really don't think its a matter of principle), now claims that this CINAHL listed journal is not reliable enough for this. If this journal is not a RPOV for this, then its not an RPOV for anything and virtually ALL articles on any Chiropractic subject will have to be re-written. I need a resolution, and no one really responded to my previous request. If nothing happens here, what is the next step in resolution of this? Please help! ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see "Dynamic Chiropractic" seems to be a reliable source for Chiropractic news. I hardly think it is a widely respected publication outside the Chiropractic circles but nevertheless it is a reliable source to establish that "Mr. Press is the founder and first president of the FICS".--LexCorp (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There's been a prolonged discussion between myself and crossmr in Talk:Asian fetish#Asian fetish regarding http://www2.richmond.com/content/2009/jan/07/gran-torino-is-vintage-viewing/ Crossmr takes the position that richmond.com in general is a reliable source equivalent to Time and the New York Times "The sites usage is in line with other sources like Time, or the New York Times," and that this quote "(By the way, what's up with Eastwood's late-blooming Asian fetish?)" is a reliable source regarding the meaning and usage of "Asian fetish."

1. I question whether richmond.com constitutes "published materials with a reliable publication process" or belongs among "high-quality mainstream publications" or has sufficient "editorial oversight" to exclude it from being considered a "questionable source." Richmond.com appears to me to be a website that is little more than a blog with possibly regular contributors laid out to look like a real print newspaper's companion website, something I think is called an "internet content provider." I think it is little more than a "self-published source" along the lines of "personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, or tweets." crossmr points to the contact page of the site 41 where there are addresses for a management team, sales team, and content team as evidence that there is editorial oversight equivalent to Time and the NY Times, and that the company that owns richmond.com evidently owns some newspapers and television stations. I question whether in fact that is an editorial staff at all, and whether any of the people there are comparably reliable to the editorial staff reliable sources like Time or the NY Times has. There is no entertainment editor listed, and the e-mail address for Ward under his byline is simply editor@richmond.com, which would seem to indicate he doesn’t even have one of his own, or if he is the editor, it’s not clear why he’s not listed on the contact page, unless perhaps he is just a former editor. The potential reliability of the other newsmedia that might be owned by richmond.com's parent company is I think largely or wholly irrelevant to the question of whether Richmond.com is a reliable source. If the same company owned the NY Times and the National Inquirer, would the Inquirer inherit the reliability of the Times? Also, it’s not clear how richmond.com might rank for “reliability and reputation.” Do other “accepted, high-quality reliable sources use” richmond.com at all? If so, how “widespread and consistent” is the use?
2. I question whether Mark Wood should be considered under "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question." There’s nothing to indicate Ward is authoritative regarding what “Asian fetish” means either on a dictionary or encyclopedic level. There’s nothing to indicate he’s authoritative as a movie reviewer, though his reviews may be perfectly interesting and adequate for someone determining if they want to see the movie, he doesn't appear to be a Roger Ebert or Janet Maslin (NY Times movie reviewer). Wood's own website linked from the review indicates he runs an internet freelance copywriting business. It’s not clear how Wood would rank for “reliability and reputation.” Do other “accepted, high-quality reliable sources use” Wood at all? If so, how “widespread and consistent” is the use?
3. I question whether given the passing, literally parenthetical use of the term where it is not the subject of the article and it is not defined by the source whether a Wikipedia article can state how Ward is using it, or whether an inference about that comes under "opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." It does not appear to me that the quote itself "directly supports the information as it is presented in an article, and is appropriate to the claims made."

Defining how Ward is using the word in the absence of any dictionary definition based on how some other authors appear to use the word strikes me as a form of “novel syntheses of disparate material” per RS and WP:SYNTHESIS. I think we can personally draw some inferences regarding how he’s using it for our own selves (like, he is not using it in the sexual sense), but our inference is not anything we can actually write into a Wikipedia article.

The word is a neologism, not in any dictionary that I could find other than Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary where there is no attestation, and the word has a limited (albeit not completely rare) degree of usage going back perhaps twenty years or so, perhaps more. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms states “The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people” and “Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.” Crossmr’s trying to determine Wood’s own definition for the word “constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research.” Wood’s use is not a reliable source for a neologism per that guideline because “To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term.” Wood could at best be considered a secondary source about the movie ‘‘Gran Torino’’ that he was reviewing. However, Wood was merely using the term “Asian fetish,” and barely at that.

I also noted how Wood’s use of the term doesn’t meet the Wikipedia:General notability guideline#General notability guideline regarding “Significant coverage,” “that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.” I also noted WP:JARGON which states in relevant part “Pay particular attention to terms for which the technical meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning"; that crossmr appeared to be combining a technical usage (the various academic sources I cited on the talk page such as Hamamoto) with a layperson's usage (Wood’s). With regard to crossmr’s claim regarding "the word fetish having also lost meaning in modern terms," that sounded like original research too; I don't see a source for it.

I also don’t understand why it has become necessary to post to this noticeboard about it, but crossmr was incredulous that I was raising these issues and said I should "If you can't accept that a site richmond.com owned by a news organization which has a full staff of editors and managers isn't a reliable source, then you should take it to RSN, because that more than meets our definition of a reliable source." (Richmond.com is "more than" reliable than the reliable sources included in the definition of reliable source like The New York Times or Cambridge University Press?) Also, that was hardly the sole RS issue I was raising with respect to using Wood's mentioning "Asian fetish" in a movie review on Richmond.com. And as I noted at Talk:Asian fetish, there are more reliable sources than Richmond.com/Mark Wood for the non-sexual use of “Asian fetish” meaning simply “liking Asians or Asian things” that would probably be agreeable to everyone. However, such a reliable source would just something that can be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. If that is all the article is to be about, then this would be just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If one is not going to assume good faith, then I suppose it could appear that I dislike defining “Asian fetish/Asiaphile/Asiaphilia” as mere liking and that I want only the sexist definition included (or even that I am personally racist and/or sexist?). I disagree and hope that this is not the case. As a definition of "Asiaphile/Asiaphilia" "liking" makes sense by analogy to Anglophile and others. I do happen to think that it is misleading and at best silly to define "Asian fetish" as mere liking or preference, but clearly those uses exist and as I’d repeatedly said, could be mentioned, it’s simply that there’s not much to be said about them AFAICS and nobody has shown how it could be expanded beyond a mere dicdef if the sexual meaning were excluded, or if only the dicdefs of both meanings were included. The coverage of the sexual use is more extensive and potentially (but not necessarily) substantive enough for an encyclopedia article. I don't see what other options the article has (hence my starting an RfC for the article and the other help inquiries noted in that section).

Given that it appears there are more reliable sources for the “liking” definition, continuing to argue in favor of the use of Wood in the article seems pointless, tendentious and disruptive. I would not continue to argue against it except that the capacity to believe that Wood’s quote is a reliable source would seem to indicate an underlying problem not limited to this individual issue. I suppose it may be overkill to go into this much detail here describing the dispute, but the fact the discussion has been so protracted there would appear to indicate there’s a fundamental, broad problem of understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources on somebody’s part, if not crossmr’s then mine. One or the other or both of us, as well as perhaps other Wikipedia editors might benefit if some informed editors weighed in on this. Sincere thanks! Шизомби (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your post was a little lengthy to fully digest: did you mention the point that the proposed source is precisely for? The source is not currently in the article, and I couldn't quickly find the issue on the talk. However, my opinion is that the "by the way" nature of the remark on "Asian fetish" in the source means that the source is not reliable for any usage I can think of in the article, and certainly not for concluding something with regard to the "meaning and usage of Asian fetish". The source may well be cited for something to do with a movie, but it clearly has no expertise regarding "Asian fetish". It would be WP:SYNTH to infer something from the way the term is used. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I should remember to offer an apéritif and postprandial next time I do a tl;dr :-) As near as I can tell, the movie review is wanted to disprove that "Asian fetish" is used to mean anything sexual, or to prove that there is more than just the sexual meaning, or to prove that the nonsexual "liking" use is the most common; I'm not 100% sure which. However, it would be inadequate for all of those purposes per RS, I believe. Since there are other better sources, I don't understand why it was repeatedly brought up over a four month period on the talk page and held up as "more than reliable." Шизомби (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_52
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.

---