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 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

On three other forums these questions have come up: If the FBI does an interview with Dr. X, who is the "primary source" and who is the "secondary source"? If The New York Times does an interview with Dr. X, who is the "primary source" and who is the "secondary source"?

Here is Wikipedia's definition of "primary source" from http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Primary_source :

"Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.

"In historiography, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. If created by a human source, then a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied."

I don't see anything in this which says that when the FBI does an interview of Dr. X, the FBI is the "primary source," but when the New York Times does an interview of Dr. X, Dr. X is the "primary source."

That is the claim on other discussion pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:2001_anthrax_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic_situation_at_2001_anthrax_attacks EdLake (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oke, well I read all the discussions (including the one on the original research talkpage, where I was planning on referring you at first). Some points:

• The article for which you are writing seems to be more about the FBI investigation than the actual Antrax attacks. I think it is therefore correct to see most of the FBI report as a primary source.
• Any newspaper article describing the FBI investigation is a secondary source.

There is some dispute about this, where a newspaper article contains no collation of facts, nor any analysis, but merely regugitates a press release. In such a case the newspaper article may be considered by some as a primary source.

• An interview can be a primary/secondary source depending on the subject and the interviewee. It makes no difference who the interviewer is or where it is published. If commentary is also provided by the article writer we are back to the previous two cases.

More importantly, The primary/secondary source issue seems to be a red herring and not the reason why your edits to the 2001 anthrax attacks article are being reverted. Editors on the articles talkpage have stated repeatedly that you can use the FBI report as a source. The main problem seem to be that your writing style is not encyclopedic and not compliant with the manual of style. I would actually suggest you read a few Featured articles to get an idea how a wikipedia article is supposed to look. Furthermore editor North800 has shown to be willing to help you improve on the articles talkpage, so please listen to his advice and ask for more. I can also review a section of text for you if you want to, if you do please leave the section on my talkpage and I will have a look at it. Yoenit (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Government departments like the FBI are primary sources.
2. Newspapers are secondary sources, except for statements about those newspapers.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your rationale for saying a government department is a primary source? I would say it depends on the subject. Yoenit (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not whether it's a government document or a newspaper. That doesn't matter. What matters is what it is in relation to. An FBI interview can be a primary source for one topic, and a secondary for another. Yoenit is probably right that it's primary in this instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

FBI reports are primary sources because once they start to investigate they become a participant in those events. Occasionally in investigative journalism the reporter will cease to be a secondary source if his actions start to become a part of the story. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is confusion between colloquial uses of the term "primary source" and the actual literal definition of "primary source" used in dictionaries and by anyone in science, journalism, research, analysis and/or almost any other field.

If I casually ask someone, "What is your primary source for what you just said?" The guy might point to a newspaper article. But the newspaper article could literally be a tertiary source, i.e., a report on an FBI report which contained an interview of a suspect. The primary source is the suspect. The secondary source is the FBI's report. The tertiary source is the newspaper report about the FBI report. And the guy who mentioned it to me is a quaternary source.

Colloquial uses of "primary source" can mean anything. If you rely on colloquial uses of the term, you can have NO firm rule and NO firm definition. Anyone can make up any rule they want. That seems to be what's happening.

Yoenit - The reason Cs32en gave for deleting the "hidden message" section that started all this was "Sorry, but you have to take *information* from the secondary sources." And that was his argument for DAYS. He argued that the FBI's Summary report was a PRIMARY source and I could not use primary sources at all on Wikipedia. He/she never mentioned "style." Only North8000 mentioned style. (At one point on another discussion page, "Crum" argued that if the media ("secondary sources") didn't thoroughly review the FBI/DOJ's Summary of the case, then the case was not "notable" and the entire entry about the anthrax attacks of 2001 should be removed from Wikipedia.)

I'm afraid that if I present a section to someone for a review of my "style" before putting it in the article, it will be the subject of discussion for weeks and months and will never get posted. I'd much prefer that you review my "style" as it is currently seen on the anthrax attacks article. A good one to start with is http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=2001_anthrax_attacks#Dr._Ivins.27_.22non-denial_denials.22 It already contains a comment that I used "improper synthesis." From my point of view, I just summarized things to make a clear point. Am I suppose to dig through every article about the attacks looking for some newspaper reporters' words that are similar to what I wrote? EdLake (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought all your changes to the article had been reverted. I will create a new section on the article's talkpage about it. Yoenit (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone just added a note that I use "too many quotations." But, if I don't use quotations, the complain will be that I "synthesized" something. It appears there is no way to satisfy every editor. EdLake (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

EdLake, when I wrote "Sorry, but you have to take *information* from the secondary sources," this was in response to one of your edits in which you simply added a sentence that said "Newspapers X, Y, and Z have commented on the issue." You merely mentioned the reports (which are not opinion pieces, by the way), without using any information from them. And interviews, whether by TV stations or by the FBI, are primary sources, of course, because nobody else but the interviewee vouches for the accuracy of their content.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to the "too many quotations." tag. I disagree with the placement here. That specific section does not contain too many quotations, although other sections do (especially the comments from X stuff, which should be removed). I have therefore removed the tag. @Edlake, Instead of quoting somebody you can paraphrase them if needed. Yoenit (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en - As discussed at length, the newspaper articles I listed are brief, often totally wrong and nearly worthless as "information." The SECONDARY source, i.e., the DOJ/FBI's Summary report is the complete version that the newspaper reporters were attempting to summarize. EdLake (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yoenit - I'm not positive by what you mean about "X stuff," but I think you have no idea how controversial some of this stuff is. Any attempt to delete things will bring an UPROAR from the conspiracy theorists and True Believers who have dominated the postings to this article for YEARS. EdLake (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion page for the article about the anthrax attacks, you'll see someone tried to delete the section about the "Chile letter." But it was put back. It was then deleted again, and it was put back again. It remains, even though it has NOTHING to do with the article - other than that some people think it does.

There's also a section about Dr. Philip Zack. As far as I can tell, Zack was only considered to be a "suspect" by neo-Nazis because they thought he was a Jew. (He's acually a Catholic.). Plus, the links in the section are either meaningless or they point to Dr. Assaad, not Zack. Delete it at your own risk. EdLake (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete it at your own risk. Risk of what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Risk of other editors reverting me. It's not a threat, just pessisism resulting from previous clashes about content. It's been over 10 hours now since I removed 30% of the page and no reverts yet, so I seem to be lucky. Yoenit (talk)

The comment above seems to have been posted by Yoenit. He's right. But I seem to generate automatic reverts from others. People have to think a bit before reverting things others did. They know who I am, they may not know who the others are. But, all the conspiracy theorists and True Believers do not examine the article about the anthrax attacks of 2001 every day. It may take them awhile to notice the deletions. Or maybe they'll figure they're not worth fighting over. Either way, they were good deletions, IMHO. EdLake (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to sign indeed. My bad Yoenit (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion occurred in several places where I participated; I did not know this one existed and it was pointed out that I did not post here. The FSI/DOJ report is an compendium of work by hundreds of people acting in may different roles. IMHO, with respect to this article, it is a mixture of primary and secondary sources. And that any claim that it is entirely a primary source could not be substantiated. Further it is by far the most reliable and comprehensive of the available sources, and IMHO it should be used. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the web site Watts Up With That run by Anthony Watts a usable source for Watts opinion? Specificly this edit which has been edited out? mark nutley (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Forgot to say this was discussed before and consensus at that time was it was ok to use for Watts opinion mark nutley (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB is pretty clear on the subject. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, provided they meet the following five criteria:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Points 1 to 3 are irrelevant here, as the source is only used to support he said something. I don't see a problem with the last two, so yes it is a reliable source for his opinion. Yoenit (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that really works. It's not a "web site", it's a blog. Marknutley is attempting to use a blogger's comment to support the notability of a YouTube video. As such it clearly falls foul of point 2, since it's being used to support the contention that the video is "hilarious and extremely well produced" - a claim about a third party. It does not fall under the exemption under which blogs can be used as sources about the blog or the author of the blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is being used for Anthony Watts opinion on the video, there is no claim about a third party, just what he thought of the vid mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim about the third party is what is being cited - that the video is "hilarious and extremely well produced". You cannot cite bloggers' claims about third parties, pro or con. Suppose you had a blogger giving his opinion that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim with a forged birth certificate. You cannot cite such a source with the excuse that that's "just what he thought". -- ChrisO (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe that "a video" can be construed to be a person, an organization, or an entity (in the sense clearly intended, i.e. a legal entity). --Rush's Algore (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The link presented seems to be to a discussion about a totally different topic. Could I ask Yoenit how far his proposed principle goes - if I were to start blogging, could someone insert my opinion about any and every wikipedia article just by putting "Hipocrite blogged x" in front of all my opinions when editing them into wikipedia pages? My understanding was that blogs were not acceptable sources unless they were otherwise reliable - are they now acceptable sources if we just write "according to (random blog)" in any article? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Which link? the one which has As for Watts - IMO, his blog is a reliable source for his opinion, as well. Obviously. Guettarda (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC) in it? If a person is notable then their opinion carries weight, so yes using a blog of a notable person for their opinion is fine. @ Chris0 you are wrong, Watts is giving his opinion, equating his opinion with some conspiracy theory is silly mark nutley (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

One opinion in an unrelated discussion about an unrelated site is not a "consensus." Claiming it is is bad faith. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is clear from that discussion that the use of a blog for the opinion of a notable person was fine, that was the consensus, please redact your bad faith remark mark nutley (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Forget about conspiracy theories, forget about Watts. The principle here is simple: is it permissible to quote the views of bloggers about third parties? The short answer is that it is not, and point 2 of the WP:SELFPUB restrictions was enacted specifically to prohibit doing that. Otherwise you open the door for citing anyone's views about anything and abandon the principle of reliable sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity which part of opinions on a video falls under it does not involve claims about third parties (such as People, organizations, or entities) a video is none of those things is it mark nutley (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop the wikilawyering, please. You are simply providing more diffs for the current arbitration case. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Redact your PA, and answer my question please mark nutley (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain how it is you feel that "a video" could be considered to be a "third party", because this seems quite a stretch to me. A "third party" in the sense it is being used is a legal entity with rights and obligations. A "video" has none of these things. --Rush's Algore (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are absolutely reliable for the opinions of their authors, per WP:SPS. I don't see any valid objections to using this source in the manner that it is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The question asked was is the blog in question a reliable source for Watts opinion. I answered that question and it is obviously a yes. All the source does is support that Watts made a statement, whatever is in the statement is irrelevant. Whether Watts opinion should be included in the article is an entirely different question and one that belongs on the articles talkpage, not on this noticeboard. Yoenit (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. This is a self-published source from a blogger who is not any kind of an expert in the subject area (climate science), nor has any publication record in the relevant field, nor has been published by reliable third-party sources. It is being used to make claims about a third party. These are exactly the circumstances in which self-published sources must not be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an article about climate science. It's article about a video, which is not a third-party. I still don't see any valid objections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A third-party entity, as stated in the policy. Even if you accept the premise that it isn't about climate science, Watts is not a videographer, nor does he have any publication record as a videographer, nor has he had anything on that subject published by reliable third-party sources. It still fails WP:SPS. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This clearly runs afoul of WP:SELFPUB#2, as ChrisO points out. It's also doubtful whether the view of someone who isn't particularly notable, that a video is 'hilarious', is relevant to an encyclopedia article, but that discussion isn't for here. First Light (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Chris, I think you're misinterpreting SPS. Bullet point #2 is about people or groups of people ("such as people, organizations, or entities"). This is an article about a video, not a third-party. No, Watts is not a videographer but he's not being mentioned for any expertise in videography. Instead, he's mentioned because his opinions are notable in relation to the Climategate scandal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Bullet point #2 is about people or groups of people ("such as people, organizations, or entities"). This is an article about a video, not a third-party.

You appear to be erroneously re-stating "bullet point 2" which actually reads...

...it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or entities).

Using your suggested paraphrase, it should read...

Bullet point #2 is about people or groups of people or entities

A "video" is also an "entity". Either I'm missing some nuance here or your assertion, IMHO, doesn't appear to hold water. Can you expand or clarify? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can explain it any better than I have. Bullet point 2 is about people or groups of people. A video is NOT an "entity" in the sense of what it's talking about. IOW, you're missing the context of what it's saying and taking a single word out of context to make it mean something that it doesn't. Look at the whole sentence. It's about people. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not supportable. You are paraphrasing the "bullet-point", removing "entities" supplied by the original as an example of a "third-party" reference, then claiming that "third-party" solely relates to "people or groups of people". Yikes! JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, we can't cite Stephen Hawking's blog on the universe because the universe is an "entity". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Hawking is a published expert and all, expressly exempted in WP:SPS. Could you please review the policy you are professing to comment expertly on, please? Hipocrite (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

But that's not the argument being used. The argument is that the universe is an "entity". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My observation has nothing to do with arguing the admissability of the suggested content under WP:SPS consideration, only that WP:SPS, by definition (bullet point 2), is pertinent to a consideration of that admissability. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the universe is an entity. As such, if Hawking were not a published expert, we could not include his opinion about the universe. Since he is a published expert on the universe, we can include his opinion. Perhaps you should use a hypothetical that illustrates only the issue you would like to focus on, as opposed to highlighting your misunderstanding of the policy. Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. The issue here is whether a claim is being make about a third-party. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is not even remotely about Mr. Watts. It has zero relation to Mr. Watts. He is not the author of the video, nor is he in the video. His relation to the video is that he commented on the video. Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec, you keep changing your argument. In any case, his opinion is notable because he's involved in the Climategate scandal and global warming controversy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. There are two ways to put an SPS in an article. The first way is if its an expert. Watts is not an expert on viral videos. The second is if they are closely involved with the subject. Watts is not closely involved with either Climategate or this viral video - you argue he is closely involved with Climategate. Even if he were, this is a viral video, not Climategate. Another source has commented on the video and is just as involved in Climategate - Dr. Connelley. His opinion is not in the article yet - why not? Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, "Closely involved" is a matter of personal interpretation and it's not in WP:SPS anyway. The simple fact is that a blog is a reliable source for the opinion of its authors and no claims are made about any third-parties. Start a second discussion if you want to discuss a second source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I am being quoted (or rather, quote-mined) let me clarify things: yes, WUWT is a reliable source for Watts' opinion - in a place like Anthony Watts (blogger). When the article is about Watts, his blog can be used. But it's not a "reliable source" for factual information - Watts is not an expert in this context. Guettarda (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda is almost correct. The information is not presented as factual information in this case, but as Watts opinion. WUWT is a reliable source for Watts' opinion, no matter on what article. but if he is no expert on the subject his opinion carries no weight and should not be included in the article.

This is probably my own mistake for pointing out those rules and then stating they were not relevant, should never have done that. Lets try to explain it one more time with an example. Say my grandma has a blog and it is established that it is not a fake written by somebody else. Now say grandma writes on her blog: Monkeys evolved from pancakes. Grandma's blog is now a reliable source for stating "Grandma said: Monkeys evolved from pancakes". This does not mean grandmas blog is now a reliable source for the evolution theory nor that her statement should be included in wikipedia articles. Yoenit (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not an article about science and WUWT is an involved member in the Climategate scandal. The situations aren't the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

is it permissible to quote the views of bloggers about third parties? No, per WP:SELFPUB as ChrisO says. This is an attempt to sidestep WP:RS, per Hipocrite. Guettarda's summary is correct. Verbal chat 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not being used to make any claims about third-parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Watts has worked as a broadcaster, he could be said to be an expert within the field of media and as such he would also be ok to use mark nutley (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that his work about the field of media has been published by reliable third-party sources (as per WP:SPS)? Source for this claim? Guettarda (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No i`m saying he has worked in the media for years and might just have picked up a thing or two along the way, use your common sense please mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The policy is clear. If you want to re-write our policy on self-published sources, this isn't the place. Guettarda (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

...and no claims are made about any third-parties.

This assertion, contrary to your earlier point, has considerably more merit. The issue, IMHO, hinges on resolution of the question as to whether the content attributable to Mr. Watts is from a "third party" or a "second party". Hipocrite's query as to the admissability of (and thus far uncited) observations of WMC are most relevant. IMHO (and not being particularly familiar with relative notability of CC "identified" personas), I believe a valid case might be made that both Watts and Connelly observations on this video are both admissable as "second party" observers and also might afford counter-perspectives of interest to any prospective reader. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• claims in WP:SELFPUB (points #2 and #3) refers to factual claims (and analytical claims only insofar as they relate to or rely on facts, stated or implied). The purpose of a "reception" section is to get a sense of the opinions of anyone influential regarding the subject of an article -- it helps readers understand the position of the subject in relation to the wider world and helps readers learn something about both the subject and the wider world. Watts is an influential, even "expert" opinionator regarding the climate change debate. The most prominent people on the denialist/skeptic areas of the debate as well as on the other side (and any influential side) should be mentioned in the "Reception" section. It seems to tell us something about the reception of the video that Watts likes it while William Connolley doesn't. It also tells us something about the polarized nature of the climate-change debate, and probably something about Watts and Connolley as well. These are encyclopedic reasons for keeping those responses in the article. And none of these sources could possibly be unreliable about their own opinons. And reliability is the kind of thing this board is here to discuss. No one thinks any reader will be mislead by any inaccuracy in any way by inclusion of these reactions. What does that tell you? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a farrago of nonsense, and you know it - your approach drives a coach and horses through the reliable sourcing policy. Blogs are not reliable sources except in a few very limited circumstances, none of which are met here. Watts is a blogger with no expertise in the topic area - whether videography or climate science, whichever you claim it to be - and no history of publishing in reliable third-party sources. Connolley is a bit better in that he actually has some published expertise in science, though obviously not in videography. Neither of them meets the very limited criteria set out in WP: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" You haven't demonstrated that Watts is "an established expert" on the topic of the video in question. You haven't demonstrated that he has any publication record, let alone one from reliable third-party publications. The SPS exemption was created to allow blog posts by experts on topics of their expertise - e.g. Richard Dawkins commenting on evolutionary science on his blog - to be quoted. You are trying to take this very narrow exemption and lever it open to allow, essentially, anyone who has commented on anything on their blog to be cited as a source. Under your reading of SPS, a blog post by any random 9/11 conspiracy theorist or an Obama birther could be used as a source, since your reasoning would deem them to have prior "expertise". That is a completely self-defeating approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the policy. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's right, but the use of the source in this question is to give the blogger's views on something else, not himself. So that exemption doesn't apply, as you know perfectly well. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

I dunno about that. It is certainly arguable that both are quite studied in the methodoligies of propagandizing their respective positions in the CC controversy...which this subject directly addresses.

You haven't demonstrated that Watts is "an established expert" on the topic of the video in question.

A reasonable and examinable assertion, but is it true if the subject of the article is about the propagandistic nature of the video in question? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So? There's no rule against that, AFAIK. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So that exemption doesn't apply, as you know perfectly well.

Perhaps so, but only if Watt's is a "third-party" source. I don't believe (pending further discussion) that either Watt's or Connelly have been definitively established as "third-parties" for the purposes of this examination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we all get a grip? The subject of this article, up for AfD, is a non-notable here today gone tomorrow Internet meme. But just say for a minute it was a published movie. Then would a review of it on a blog be RS? Probably not. We look for reviews in the mainstream outlets. The argument that an SPS is RS for someone's view comes up here fairly often, but nearly always when the SPS is written by the subject of a biography. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Listen to yourself, ChrisO: the topic area - whether videography or climate science We're talking about a frickin' propagandistic, light-as-a-feather Internet video here. Climate science is not the "topic area", the politics of the public climate science controvery is the topic area. It sure as hell ain't "videography". This video exists within the climate change debate. No. Where. Else. It ain't art and it ain't science, and you very well know it. Watts is one of the most relevant "experts". Jeesh. And the WP:CIV violation at the beginning of your 20:39 post doesn't help. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the tone of your comment it would be best not to take others to task for "WP:CIV violation." Model the behavior you want to encourage. Itsmejudith's "Can we all get a grip?" is the best comment so far. It's getting a bit tiresome to once again see the usual people on the usual sides arguing about the usual stuff. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to follow me around from page to page and shake your finger at me, Boris, please shake it in the direction of editors I'm responding to who are making comments that are far worse. But thanks for the pointer; I'll keep it in mind. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just confirming is the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online considered a reliable and acceptable source for articles that are Roman Catholic related? 3 LoveMonkey (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer, I think, is "it depends". The information this century-old source gives is quite out of date on matters such as canon law, and citing it with regard to the present situation would be misleading. Some of its articles are opinion pieces, such as the one on use of the term "Roman Catholic". Those on historical matters are generally quite good, at least in relation to the knowledge available in the first years of the last century; but of course they do not outweigh more recent research. I would not classify its articles as tertiary sources: they are signed articles, written by experts of the time. Accordingly, with the limitations mentioned, and perhaps others that have not come to my mind, I think they can be considered sources acceptable for citing in Wikipedia. They have the advantage also of being out of copyright. Esoglou (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I more or less agree, maybe quite a bit less. I found one article that was describing a religious order as though the information was current which was obviously pretty useless. And even for historical issues, you can't get around the fact it's a century old. When I see articles using this as a source my reaction is 'why should I think this reflects what historians say today'? Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Article: The Last Airbender
Disputed source: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Last-Airbender-Has-A-Total-Budget-Of-280-Million-19238.html
Section it is sourcing: 4

My problem with this reference is that it uses an LA Times article as its source for the information which is already used as a reference in the article. I consider the Cinema Blend article wholly unnecessary since it is second-hand information, which we are already obtaining directly from the original source. Apart from being pointless, using second-hand references is often considered bad form and articles are much stronger when the original sources can be used. In my view the Cinema Blend article should only be used in the case of where the LA Times article is unavailable. I would like to know your opinion on whether it is acceptable for the CB reference to remain or whether it would be better to come out. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be cited to the LA Times. I don't really understand why someone would cite cinemablend in this instance. Dlabtot (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since cinemablend includes the following disclaimer: " CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously." I think we should take them at their word - it is a site intended as entertainment, not to be taken seriously. It can't therefore can't be RS for Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Much substantive content is being added to the article, and a lot of it is based upon first-person accounts, as told to, and recorded by a witness to and self-described private researcher and archivist of the event 5. An overview from objective contributors would be welcome. JNW (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a message to the IP's talkpage about reliable sources, including a statement that unpublished personal accounts are not acceptable. Gonna wait and see if he reacts to it. Keeping an eye on the page for now. Yoenit (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I found this a tough one, because most of the content is credible, and who wants to argue with someone who was at the scene and has devoted time since then collecting accounts and information? Still, there are bound to be issues regarding objective reliable sources and conflict of interest. JNW (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, talk about lack of verification! Eg footnote 30, "^ (wishes to be kept anonymous), Hazmat Instructor, near Utica, Ohio". 33 and 34 " Personal account of David Brock, former busboy, purported arson witness and long-time private researcher and archivist of club records and testimonies. (Personal accounts of former club employees, Wayne Dammert and David Brock, "Survivors for Justice"" - a large number are like that, eg "Additional accounts were obtained from Bruce Rath's son, Scott, who is also a volunteer firefighter at Southgate fire station, Ft. Thomas, KY., and lifelong resident." This is basic policy stuff here, we can't have an article so heavily based on unverifiable personal accounts. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any advise for a course of action? Right now I plan to revert the article to a version from little over a week ago 6 if all of th IPs fail to respond to my messages in the next few days, but I am afraid it will just lead to an editwar and them getting banned. Yoenit (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with that. I've raised this at WP:BLPN also. Your suggestion seems a good one, I couldn't figure out a way to actually disentangle it without a major reversion. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from my comment on the article talk page, the problem is severe and must be fixed. I support Yoenit's plan, but agree that bad outcomes are likely (which is why I tried to explain the situation gently). Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

After 6 years of being correctly identified in the article, User:Malik Shabazz, (WP:COI), has decided to change the book's authorship, as he prefers Malcolm X to be listed as the author, rather than Alex Haley. I corrected the article, a second time, and inserted a reference, which Malik Shabazz promptly removed.Mk5384 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is here, since it's not a question of WP:RS. In any event, I showed Mk5384 two editions of the book (actually three, because Amazon has photos of two editions) that show the book's authorship "with the assistance of Alex Haley".78 That an article has been wrong for six years doesn't turn a mistake into a fact. And I'm very curious what my conflict of interest is here. That I admire Malcolm X? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Then where should it be? You admit, yourself, in the article that Alex Haley wrote the book. Where it says "with the assistance of Alex Haley", it certainly doesn't say, "by Malcolm X". I also admire Malcolm X. But I don't take it to the ridiculous level of pretending he wrote something that he didn't write.Mk5384 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion might be more appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point in asking for a 3rd opinion of a fact that is explicitly clear. And like I said; that's one of the problems here. Because you're an admin, I'm supposed to ask for a "3rd opinion" about a fact that was never in dispute, and you just decided to change because you like it better that way.Mk5384 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This does indeed not belong on the RS noticeboard. A better place would the articles talkpage and a Request for comments. That being said I do have an opinion on the matter, though I never heard about the book before. Apparently the bookjacket says Malcom X wrote the book, which seems no more than logical it being his autobiography and everything. If he did not write that the book, than a Reliable source stating that very fact should be presented. In that case the discrepancy should be mentioned in the article. Yoenit (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for a 3rd opinion, as suggested. However, I'm concerned that it will be filled with comments like the one above. Those unfamiliar with the subject may, quite naturally, assume that, as it is an "autobiography", it only makes sense that Malcolm X wrote it. As far as a reliable source, I did provide it. Malik Shabazz promptly removed it.Mk5384 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that Haley wrote the book. What the original edition said is marketing. We need academic sources. Paul B (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

After filing at Wikipedia:Third opinion, it was immediately removed. So it doesn't belong here. It doesn't belong at 3rd opinion. It comes down to what I originally said. As the person who wants Malcolm X listed as the author is an administrator, he gets what he wants, without regard as to the truth. What a joke.Mk5384 (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My view carries no more weight than yours, except that mine is supported by the title page of the book itself. I'm still waiting, though, for you to show me another Wikipedia article about an autobiography that attributes authorship to the ghostwriter, as opposed to the putative "author". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The title page is irrelevant. I think the debate about relibility does legitimately belong on this page. This is a question of what academic sources say about authorhip. There are many comparable examples, from books said to have been written by Aristotle through to "autobiographies" of air-headed celebrities obviously written by ghost authors. As long as we have clear RS consensus about who the author is we can go with that. Paul B (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

From the articles talkpage:

"Here's a scholarly source: 9

Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley... Malcolm X told the story of his life to Alex Haley in a series of interviews that took place over a period of nearly two years. Malcolm read the text of the Autobiography, approving and correcting the chapters as Haley wrote them, although he did not live to see the last revisions made in the manuscript. Evidence both internal and external to the Autobiography suggests that Haley kept to the agreement he made with Malcom -- to include nothing Malcolm had not said and to say everything Malcolm wanted included.

That pretty much settles it, in my opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)"

I gotta agree with him, this seems like pretty clear that Haley functioned as a ghostwriter, which are normally not credited as the primary author. Yoenit (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is helpful but Paul McCartney wrote Yesterday (song) but Lennon-McCartney are credited as co-authors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

One way to resolve bibliographic problems like this is to consult a major library to see how they handle it. They are supposed to be the experts at bibliographical picky-pickies. The Library of Congress lists the author as Malcolm X. Zero^talk 00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources I see above are citing the title of the book, which includes the phrase "with the assistance of Alex Haley". These are not sources referring to the book as written by Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley. --GabeMc (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are five scholarly sources who use the phrase "co-authored by Alex Haley":

• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14

GabeMc (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are five scholarly sources who refer to Haley as a co-author of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19

GabeMc (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why this is here, since it's not a question of WP:RS. In any event, I showed Mk5384 two editions of the book (actually three, because Amazon has photos of two editions) that show the book's authorship "with the assistance of Alex Haley".2021"--Mailk Shabazz 20:13, 23 June 2010

but Malik Shabaz said this when he reverted good faith edits by GabeMc, "Amazon isn't a WP:RS" 22GabeMc (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Here are three citations of the Autobiography that all attribute authorship to "Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley".123

Here are more than 1100 more books that indicate the authorship was "with the assistance of Alex Haley:

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&q="autobiography+of+malcolm+x"+"assistance+of+alex+haley"

GabeMc needs to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The three scholarly sources above 123 are actually foot-notes citing the title, not using the phrase "with the assistance of Alex Haley" in a DESCRIPTIVE sentence. They are not describing the book that way, they are including the phrase as part of the title. According to the Library of Congress the "main title" is officially "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley." That is the title of the book, not the author, editor, or publisher giving credit.--GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are not attributing authorship, "with the assistance of Alex Haley" is PART OF THE TITLE.--GabeMc (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you have three recitations of the title while I have over 10 WP:RS referring to Haley as the co-author. --GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are ten MORE sources that refer to Haley as the co-author of The Autobiography of Malcolm X--GabeMc (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32

This is not a contest of who can find the most reliable sources. This discussion was started because an editor wanted to credit Haley as the main author, a position nobody seems to be defend anymore. It shifted to whether Haley should be called a "co-author" or an "assistant", which is a downright lame discussion. I have little doubt hunderds of sources are available to support both views, so linking all of those is not gonna solve anything. The best authority on the subject are probably the big libraries, which don't seem to support Haley as a co-author. I would therefore propose to keep Malcom as the author with Haley as an assistant, but include that Haley has also been called a co-author with a reliable source (preferably one that also discusses the controversy in question). Yoenit (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What is being missed here is that this not a case of "an editor wants to credit Haley as the main author". It is a case of "the article correctly credited Haley as the main author for 6 years, until 2 months ago, when Malik Shabazz, who owns all articles that mention Malcolm X, decided he liked it better calling Malcolm X the main author." Malik Shabazz is abusing his position as an admin by attempting to bully other users into accepting the version he wants. His comments, like "this is a closed issue", and "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass", are egregiously out of line.Mk5384 (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a case where every bibliographic citation of the book attributes authorship to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley" but you and your buddy are making a "controversy" where none exists. That an article was wrong for six years doesn't turn an error into the truth. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right that no controversy exists. And you assumed ownership of this article long before you decided to change it. The only error that exists here is your hagiography of Malcolm X, which contradicts your pledge on your own user page.Mk5384 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop claiming Malik Shabazz is "abusing his position as an admin", this is a serious accusation. If you have proof feel free to stand him up for recall (see user:Malik Shabazz). If you don't, than know it is considered a personal attack and can get you banned if you keep making it without presenting any evidence. Yoenit (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've presented plenty of evidence. And here's one I haven't said yet. It appears to me that he has used rollbacks to revert to his preferred version, even though no vandalism took place.Mk5384 (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I am curious, why are your three sources better then my 20? And one more time I will explain why I think you seem so confused, "with the assistance of Alex Haley" is a phrase FROM THE TITLE OF THE BOOK so your sources are good if you want to confirm the title, nothing more. This is beginning to feel like a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." --GabeMc (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• There does not appear to be a question as to the reliability of any source. This noticeboard is not a venue for disputes. Please desist. Dlabtot (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed, no question as to the reliability. The issue here, is that Malik says his sources are the only ones that count, and continues to revert to his preferred version.Mk5384 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

UCLA, Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, and The University of Chicago all give Alex Haley an author credit on the Autobiography.

• 33
• 34
• 35
• 36
• 37
• autobiography of malcolm x%22&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3A(%22OX%22
• 38

--GabeMc (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So far, no source has asserted that Alex Haley wrote the book and Malcolm X didn't. Ergo the article would be wrong to cite the book as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, by Alex Haley. At the same time, all sources assert that Alex Haley played a large part in the authorship of the book. Many even describe him as the co-author. So it would be equally wrong to cite the book as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, by Malcolm X. This is not a reliable source dispute, this is a content dispute about the precise form of words to be used to describe a book which was written by two people. You should go back to the content page, and decide between

• Malcolm X with Alex Haley
• Malcolm X and Alex Haley
• Alex Haley and Malcolm X
• Alex Haley, from interviews with Malcolm X
• some other permutation of both names.

If necessary, hold an RfC.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That Alex Haley wrote the book is fact. To state otherwise, is duplicitous, and a disservice to our readers.Mk5384 (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

People might like to discuss this with the people working on Shakespeare, a number of whose plays (as generally so described) are regarded by most scholars as involving various degrees of collaboration. Authorship is not a straightforward concept. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm expanding several historic browsers with User:Mabdul such as Agora (web browser) and Arena (web browser). I've contacted the original authors of the browsers via email, and they've responded with certain information that isn't in any book, nor on the web. How would I cite an email? Should I foward the email to OTRS and then cite it with the OTRS ticket?Smallman12q (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a personal e-mail should qualify as a reliable source. Please don't think that I'm questioning your integrity or honesty, Smallman12q! Most of what I write is written to APA publication standards and in APA publications you only cite personal communications in the body of an article, not in the reference section. This is relevant because the reasoning APA uses is that other scholars can not access personal communications and use them in their own research. As annoyed as I am by many APA standards, I think they have a good point on this issue and it seems relevant for us, too, in deciding if personal communications are reliable.

But I don't know how we have treated this issue in the past. Anyone? ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't cite an email like that. Only published sources that are verifiable. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What if the information isn't in published sources? I'd like to cite Dave Raggett and Arthur Secret both of which work at the W3C. The information I'd like to cite is concerning now obselete/history browsers Agora (web browser) and Arena (web browser), yet the information is not available in published sources. I don't see how the original program authors can be considered "unreliable"?Smallman12q (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you can't use it. The applicable policies are WP:V and WP:OR. Dlabtot (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, Dlabtot is fully correct, but does no effort to explain why) The core problem is verifiability. People have to be able to check the whether the information is correct. You could put this email online somewhere, but there is no way for us to know whether you changed it before doing so (aka, you are "unreliable", not the program author). Don't they have some kind of official website where they could put the information in question, so we can verify it was really given by them and not made up by you? Yoenit (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtor and Yoenit are correct. Furthermore, even if they publish the information on their own websites, you must be careful of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't OTRS be used to verify the email, and then perhaps make a subpage copy of it? I'd really don't see a need to further burden the authors with the creation of additional webpages. There is some information best obtained from the original developers themselves, for example, why they chose to name a browser a certain way, or certain technical aspects of the development.Smallman12q (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that they would have to receive the email directly - just forwarding it would allow you to intercept the content. The only other solution I can think of is that you would have to give them access to your email account if the email is still on the mail server, and then they can verify that it hasn't been tampered with. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:V only requires cites for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. If this information isn't contentious, you're free to include it in the article and not cite your sources. If you really want to cite this e-mail, publish it somewhere on the internet and invoke WP:IAR: any rule that prevents you from improving Wikipedia should be ignored. Again, I'm assuming the information isn't contentious, controversial, etc.. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:V is wrong. The second sentence of the policy: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed.". Information in an email is not attributable to a reliable published source, thus should not be included in articles. You can ofcourse invoke wp:IAR, but that will not make the problem go away, as it will just get challenged again at a later date. Yoenit (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, wording of WP:V has changed since the last time I looked at it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if I were to send a list of questions to a software's original author, and they responded, would that be considered WP:OR?Smallman12q (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see above for reasons why. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What about if I emailed the W3C and put up their response to the email in a simple .txt faq on their site...this would now qualify for WP:RS right?Smallman12q (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting case. William Connolley is both a notable person and an editor here on Wikipedia, User:William M. Connolley. Connolley created a blog post as the result of an article dispute which he is involved in. Now that blog post is being cited (by a different editor) in the article (but for non-controversial information). His blog is obviously reliable for the opinions of Connolley, but I don't know if it's appropriate. I have some WP:CIRCULAR and WP:COI concerns, not to mention the fact that a Wikipedia editor specifically created the blog post as a response to the article. I honestly don't know enough about Wikipedia policies and guidelines to make an informed decision.

1. Link to the source in question: Flaunt the stupidity
2. The article in which it is being used: Hide the decline
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:

   William M. Connolley on his personal blog said of the video, "It wasn't funny, it was dull."

4. Links to relevant talk page discussion:39

Can we have some uninvolved editors weigh in here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone commenting here should also review the section directly above and justify why their responses are the same/different for these two statements. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My view is the same as expressed above, with the addition that the opinions of Anthony Watts and William Connolley on whether a youtube video is "hilarious" or "dull" are both outside their areas of expertise ("weather presenter" and "climate modeller"). If Roger Ebert ("film critic") gave a similar opinion about a short film, then it might be notable. Or perhaps Bill Murray ("weather presenter" and "hilarious"). First Light (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I consider both bloggers to be experts with deep knowledge of the relevant field: climate-change political bombast. And I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. Really. No, really.-- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a gag order for the uninitiated? Could you please cite any policy that prohibits posting comments without prerequisite posts elsewhere, or "justifications", or tribal dances? East of Borschov 07:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by not very involved (at the moment) editor. No, no, no, no. Nowhere near Wikipedia, please. None of this is notable or worth including. Not the original video, not William Connolley's comments on it, not none of it. People are trying to run rings round Wikipedia, let's not let them. No. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In Newport_Tower_(Rhode_Island) a reference to a review in what seems to be a reliable source (Baltic Astronomy) of an unreliable source (New England Antiquities Research Association Journal). Does a review in a reliable source suddenly turn that article into a reliable source? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link to the source: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997BaltA...6...71P (Yes, it really does look like that. ;) ) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article that was published in the NEARA journal was republished in Baltic Astronomy and the link is to an abstract, not a review Yes it is reliable, it was written by a physicist and published in a reliable source (Baltic Astronomy). It is an unusual subject for a physicist, determining whether an ancient tower may have been designed as an observatory, which probably explains the publishing history. TFD (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha, then I understand. OK, then it's a reliable source. Now I just need to get my hands on a copy, so that I can verify what it actually says. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. This looks odd. Why is a peer-reviewed astronomy journal reprinting an article that appeared earlier in NEASA? Has BA previously published any articles in archeoastronomy? Or are they simply picking something up because it looks interesting? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been redirecting non-notable stubs about Space Invaders sequels and spin-offs to List of Space Invaders video games. One of the last ones on my list is Space Invaders Trilogy. However, I've hit a snag looking for a reliable source to add it to the list. The article currently doesn't provide any link that I think would meet WP:RS. About the only good source I found is this page on TechRepublic, which is owned by CBS Interactive. I've never used TechRepublic before and would like to know if this qualifies as a reliable source. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

I wouldn't have a problem with Techrepublic being used as a source, as long as we're talking about articles written by their staff. I use it quite a lot for technical reviews, etc. but the page you linked to appears to be a reprint of a press release that originated with the company that produced the game, so it isn't an independent source. The company producing the software is probably reliable re. the game's existence, but are you looking for more than that?--Michig (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The game is not-notable because a lack of independent sourcing. So I'm really just looking for a source to add it to List of Space Invaders video games, a Featured list. I want to use the TechRepublic page to source the release year, the developer, and that it is a compilation of three Space Invader games on mobile phones. Basically the bare bones of its existence. Will it suffice? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

I would have thought so, unless we're going to doubt the veracity of the company's press release, and I see no reason to.--Michig (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll use the source then. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

According to our article, Techrepublic is owned by CBS Interactive. Their white papers are featured at other reliable sources.4041 although I'm not sure what these other sites' policies on whitepapers are. There doesn't seem to be an About page for this source, but article authors are named and they seem to have an editor-in-chief.42. Looks promising. OTOH, this source isn't cited by very many Wikipedia articles.43 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A question has arisen about Newsweek's "The gaggle" blog for use in Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please review this diff, this source and Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#The_Gaggle and provide assistance. It would be nice if the climate change standard parties would not respond here, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is. The relevant policy is WP:NEWSBLOG and Sharon Begley is obviously a professional writer. The only problem seems to be whether "the gaggle blog" is "under full editorial" control. The fact a company statement was made via the blog seems a good indication of that and I can't find anything that points to the contrary. The Burden of evidence may lie with the user adding material, but the request made on the Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#The_Gaggle is rather ridiculous. I don't think you can find a statement specifying the blog is under full editorial control for any newspaper blogs, so if that would be required we might as well delete WP:NEWSBLOG. Yoenit (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is newsweek british owned? If it is then under uk law all online content falls under editoral control. mark nutley (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. (In any case, the question would surely be where it is published, not who owns it.) Barnabypage (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, that's not what UK law holds. UK law, like US law, states that material published in online blogs is the responsibility of the newspaper publishing them. This is the same between the UK and the US. If "The Gaggle," were to publish libel, Newsweek would obviously be liable, as they are the publisher (not merely the provider of interactive platform). If UK liability laws make all UK newspaper blogs "under full editorial control," just because parent publications are liable for the online blogs, then all US newspaper blogs are as well. Hipocrite (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then there we go, if they newsweek can be held accountable for the content then they must retain some editorial control, otherwise they`d be screwed. I would say this is a wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This might be a nice example of a major newsoutlet being held accountable for a blog post when their editorial control failed44. Yoenit (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Given all of this, is it then the opinion of the uninvolved editors here that Newsweek's "The Gaggle" blog is a reliable source in this context? Hipocrite (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, blogs must be under the full editorial control of the publication. Is this blog under full editorial control? I haven't seen any evidence that demonstrates this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I agree that it is a reliable source. I do not agree that the attribution should be to Newsweek as it is in (at least) the first diff, ie articles should not say 'Newsweek' says, but the atribution should be to the author of the blog, adding that it is in Newsweek. WP:NEWSBLOG makes this clear: "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")" Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I accept this compromise, though I don't believe the piece is an opinion piece. Hipocrite (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this New York Observer article settles the question definitively, as it describes the editorial regime for "The Gaggle": 45 It's edited by Newsweek's senior editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that New York Observer article supports the contention that this blog is under their full editorial control, however, Hipocrite has contacted Newsweek and Newsweek has replied that it falls under their full editorial control, so I am satisfied.46 I do wonder whether that means they mean that this blog should be treated as a straight news story or as an opinion piece. But for the sake of harmony, I won't examine that issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The New York Observer article clearly states that (1) "The Gaggle" was established by Newsweek's editorial staff; (2) it is written by the weekly's reporters; and (3) it is edited by the senior editors. You can't get much clearer that that. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No one's disputing that it's written by Newsweek's staff. Newspapers frequently publish opinion pieces, but that doesn't necessarily make that reliable for anything more than the author's opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a separate issue from the exam question of "is it under editorial control". "The Gaggle" clearly can be used per WP:NEWSBLOG; whether it should be used is another matter altogether. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty straightforward case of WP:NEWSBLOG. Usually we would treat these as equivalent to opinion pieces in the print version of the paper. I suggested on WP:Identifying reliable sources that there is now a blurred relationship between signed opinion pieces in the good quality press and news, and no-one demurred. As well as news and polemical essays, there is reportage and serious commentary. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is sho-shin a reliable source? How about the Nihonto Club; is it a reliable source? For instance this text. I'd also like to make use of other texts on swordsmiths/swords (for instance to connect the signature with the name of a smith and his province) which can be accessed through the meisearch for List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts-swords). However I'd like to know if it can be considered reliable before I delve into it. bamse (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sho-shin. Owner is named Robert Cole, seems a selfpublished site. There is a Robert E. Cole, who wrote some books about the Japanese industry 4748. Two questions remain: Is this the same person (I think so) and are his books considered "in the relevant field" to see him as an expert on Japanese weaponry (I don't think so). I would really like a second opinion on this.
• Nihontoclub seems also selfpublished, but here the author is only known as "kazarena". There is also a "Paul Martin", who seems to write books, which I can't find on google49. Don't have much hope for this one. Yoenit (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll not use these sources in this case. How about The Japanese Sword Society of the United States, is it reliable? bamse (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, would http://www.nbadraft.net be considered a reliable source? It contains some good mock drafts and scouting notes on future NBA players. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to in any way meet the criteria of WP:RS as far as I can see. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not getting a sense of reliability. There's nothing on their about page that makes any claims of being associated with a notable person or organization or anything like that. Seems like it might be just a guy with a site, which is WP:SPS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It was cited by USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2010-06-23-2589105885_x.htm ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The result of their mock draft is cited, but they aren't cited in support of any fact. If the mock draft were relevant and significant in some article, then perhaps they would be RS, but it is hard for me to imagine a valid such instance, since we are not chroniclers of current or future events. Dlabtot (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...their About page gives no indication that they have a professional staff or editorial policy. OTOH, I found favorible reference to it at Forbes50. Sports Illustrated says its "visited, at the very least for reference material, by a sizable number of NBA decision-makers. Not the old school GMs, necessarily, but definitely by their tech-savvy underlings and scouts. Said one Eastern Conference evaluator, "It's not like we're on the clock on draft night, scrambling, and then saying, 'Who does NBADraft.net say we should take?' That would be ridiculous. That would mean we aren't doing our jobs. But do I look at their mocks? For sure." "51 It appears as if Fox News has published some of their articles5253. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how much this means, but it's cited by (about) 142 articles54 which tends to indicate other editors have found the site reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the New York Times, "When they first went online, NBADraft.net (in 2000) and DraftExpress (2004) focused almost entirely on mock drafts. They have since expanded into independent scouting operations, with modest staffs of self-trained experts."55 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cross posted from: WT:RS#Supplementary sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

At Manchester United F.C.'s recent archived FAC, one thing that came up was that apparently some of our sources were unreliable. The sources in question were: unitedkits.co.uk, historicalkits.co.uk and prideofmanchester.co.uk. All of these sources are essentially fansites, but are excellently maintained and THE place to go to find out information on kits. They were used to reference manchester united's past kits. Anyway, I have been down to the Manchester United museum to check that the information is correct. So my question is, shall I just replace all the sources, or use the manchester united museum as an additional source and if so, how should I do this? Just add a footnote explaining that the sources have been checked at the Manchester United museum or add additional inline citation wherever one of these sites was used? Thanks, Tom 81.159.216.106 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mining Meaning from Wikipedia56 Any idea of if this is a Reliable source for Wikipedia Related info? Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ArXiv is not necessarily a reliable source. Articles on ArXiv are self-published, and not all vetted by the moderators. I will review the linked article shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That paper, however, appears to be published by individuals who might reasonably be considered experts. Before using any controversial facts from the paper, consider seeking further confirmation. What would you like to use the paper as a source for? Hipocrite (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that it was in bibliography here and here, as i was unfaliliar with the site i brought it here to learn more Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This paper was reliably published: Medelyan, Olena; Milne, David; Legg, Catherine; Witten, Ian H. (2009), "Mining meaning from Wikipedia", International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67 (9): 716–754, arXiv:0809.4530, doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.05.004. So it turns out to be a reliable source after all; I found this by searching Google scholar for the title, or it would likely have worked to use crossref.org instead. However, in other cases where a reliable publication of the same paper cannot be found, then arxiv papers should be considered as self-published sources: only reliable to the extent that their authors are known experts in the subject of the paper. They do not go through any significant peer-review, only a cursory check by the arxiv moderators to ensure that they are on-topic and meet some very minimal standards of scholarly communication. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In 2003-2005 "Finese and Runway" formed, gaining notoriety as an Avant-Garde Perfromance art band. The members consisted of Dino "Runway" Felipe, Melba "Finesse" Payes, Jenny-Tambourines and Conceptual Visual/Performance Artist Belaxis Buil( www.BelaxisBuil-PerformanceArt.com). The trio was known for provocative and invasive shows that pushed boundaries as " visceral work"(http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2004-09-23/music/hott-people&page=1). Dino Felipe and Melba Payes later went to perform in Paris. Belaxis Buil continued to develop her own work which has gained international recognition. Rumors of upcoming albums and performances hold fans in suspense...as it is part of the concept with " Finese and Runway"

This is information is not in the Dino Felipe article, nor has the IP in question edited anything before. I don't know why you are posting it on this page. Yoenit (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add football player profiles from www.transfermarkt.co.uk to the external links section of footballers wikipedia profiles.

Example: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/frank-lampard/profil/spieler_3163.html

The transfermarkt database is used by many scouts, player agents and managers all over the world as a source for performance data of all sorts of players. (It covers over 80 leagues worldwide with dynamic (statistical) match reports)

It has detailed information about pretty much every player in professional football.

I have been referred to the reliable sources section to have this site considered a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klattius (talk • contribs) 11:46, June 30, 2010

First off, external links don't have to be reliable sources, per the fourth point of WP:ELMAYBE. That being said I don't think it would be a good idea to add it to to footballer articles per WP:LINKSPAM, unless you can provide some evidence the site is to football what say IMDB is for movies. Yoenit (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, I didn´t know that. How would I provide this evidence? I see soccerbase links to almost all player profiles - they are similar, but (in my opinion) not as detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klattius (talk • contribs) 12:34, June 30, 2010

I don't see why soccerbase links should be allowed either. There seems to be some external link spam going on on those articles. I just noticed we actually have a separate noticeboard for external link issues, so I moving the the conversation to there (Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#External_links_on_football_player_articles). Yoenit (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The following sources are being used in the info box demonym field for Northern Ireland:

1. Paul, Dickson (1997). Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. p. 220. ISBN 9780877796169. Northern Ireland: Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or the collective Irish and Northern Irish {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Martin, Jeanette; Chaney, Lillian (2009), Passport to Success: The Essential Guide to Business Culture and Customs in America's Largest Trading Partners, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, p. 254, ISBN 978-0-275-99716-8, The United Kingdom is made up of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. While all of the people of the UK are known as British, the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish.
3. Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (Third revised ed.), Oxford Dictionaries, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953296-4, Ulsterman (or Ulsterwoman): a native or inhabitant of Northern Ireland or Ulster.
4. Belfast Telegraph exclusive poll on United Ireland, 15 March 2010, retrieved 30 June 2010 (last few paragraphs of report, also covered the same day by the BBC - Irish identity tops new Northern Ireland poll, 15 March 2010, retrieved 30 June 2010)

The sources are used as follows:

• Source 1 and 2 is being used to support "Irish"
• Source 1 is being used to support "Northern Irish"
• Source 1 indirectly supports British as it states that it is used in regards to the UK, which Northern Ireland is a part of (as well as the British Isles) (← edited by Mabuska)
• Source 3 is being used to support "Ulsterman (or Ulsterwoman)"
• Source 4 is being used to support "British" (← edited by Mabuska)

In particular:

• Questions have been raised about the reliability of sources 1 and 2.
• Objections have been raised to Sources 2, 3 and 4 (edited by Mabuska) because the do not use the word "demonym".
• Objections have been raised as to whether the UK general term in source 1 should apply to localities of the UK, i.e. Northern Ireland. (← edited by Mabuska)

A related question that may invite comment here is whether any of these sources are suitabile to support "British" as demonym for Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC) / Mabuska ^(talk) 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(Additional info: my own view is that all of these sources are reliable, I sourced each of them. However the question is being raised persistently and a number of editor have suggested taking it here for a 3rd opinion. --RA (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

It is important to point out that Paul Dickson, the author of cite #1, is credited by National Geographic as the person who coined the term demonym in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Source two clearly states that all the people of the UK are known as British. The term Irish does not just apply to Northern Ireland, it applies to the whole of the island of Ireland. If Irish can be used despite being about a wider area then why can British not be included as clearly stated in that source the people of Northern Ireland are known as British because they are part of the United Kingdom.

There is only 1 identity that is Northern Ireland specific and that is Northern Irish. If that was the only thing listed in the infobox i would have no problem, but if Irish is listed British must be as well. To discriminate against a large part of the community in Northern Ireland because they only identify as British is unfair and offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether the sources are reliable, it is not a soapbox for your personal views. O Fenian (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I want a neutral editor to confirm the people of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom are British. This is stated in source 2 which is meant to be a reliable source to justify using Irish. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We should let others decide what the sources back up. Let's wait and see what is said. That's why it was brought here. Jack forbes (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help if we all had access to this Dicksons book. The source quoted above fails to cover what is said about the United Kingdom and it is not available on Google Books. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't bring the debate over from the N.Ireland talk page and allow others to come in and decide for themselves. Most of the comments here (including my own) don't belong here. Jack forbes (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

people need to understand the full situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, this notice board is simply to ascertain the reliability of certain sources for use within Wikipedia, nothing else. Please raise other issues in the appropriate place. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• The issue is not just reliability of specific named sources. The actual issue surrounding the use of these sources in that article is massive, with many different issues, ranging from PRIMARY to NPOV to GAME to REDFLAG to UNDUE to OR and on and on. It is extremely tiresome that this 'request' has been raised in the exact same manner the whole debate has been conducted by the side that believes 'there's no issue' here - by totally ignoring MASSIVE parts of the objections, and pretending this is just about 'reliability'. Dickson's book is published by a reputable publisher and it has an entry that supposedly says a demonyms for NI are Irish and Northern Irish. Dickson is the guy who invented the term demonym. Yes, everybody understands that. Stop taking us for idiots by continually suggesting the reverse is somehow the issue, while you carry on with the annoying tactic of repetition and willfull pretension. This is NOT the issue in question, and if uninvolved people are just going to post here saying, 'yes, it looks like a reliable source' without investigating the entire issue, then don't bother, because that misses the point of this dispute entirely, although no doubt some will claim such satements of obviousnesses as vindication for their IDIDN'THEARTHAT positions over there. If anyone is interested in what specific issues are, incase they want to give a full opinion, I've raised them a million times on the talk page at the article in question, but all are all distilled into the collapsed box near the end aswell. MickMacNee (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I added in a new source above, number 4, and gave the reason why i was told it wasn't relelvant or acceptable despite the same people allowing a source that went against the reasons they gave me; it didn't state demonymn, despite the fact its a poll on how people identify themselves as, which technically is what a demonymn is suppossed to be. Whilst it is only a poll of 1,000 people, it does show a considerable percentage of people identifying themselves as "British" above "Northern Irish". This shows that in the real world people identify as British as well as Northern Irish and Irish. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I also added in the other issue about source 1 - whether the fact it states British as a denomymn for the UK should apply to its localities. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska, could you not have made your edits separately to RA's, instead of mixing your text with theirs? WikiuserNI (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

RA already kindly added notes in to what were my additions. No point having them all over the place. Better having them all together in one section. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Better yet not having one editor make changes that look like they belong to another. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are allegations on the web that the Joyce Foundation (a well known anti gun group with deep pockets) essentially bought an issue of the Chicago Kent Law Review in order to publish material favorable to its position. The Law Review was required to use an outside editor (Carl Bogus) with close ties to the Joyce Foundation who was responsible for accepting what articles went into that issue. The authors were also paid $5,000 each when normally a law review can't afford to pay authors for articles. They tend to be shoe string operation.

Now the question: Would this issue be considered "self-published" as the content was under the full control of Joyce and not the normal law review staff? The issue is used in the Second Amendment article as a "reliable source"

Below are comments found on the web on this issue of the Review.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/joyce_foundatio.php

Why would I say Joyce is at it again? Well, in 2000 Chicago-Kent Law Review issued a similar symposium issue. A bit of inquiry found ... well, let me give you background first. Law reviews are run on a shoestring. They're edited by students themselves, and very proud of that tradition. Editors get paid a pittance (I got $600 a year back in 1975), and authors of articles never, never, get paid.

A bit of inquiry showed that Joyce had done some serious bankrolling. The law review consented to having an outside editor for that issue, who surprisingly was anti-Second Amendment. (And when pro-Second Amendment law professors volunteered to write, he refused to allow it). He got paid $30,000. Authors of the articles in it got $5,000 each for their time. The rest of the grant went for buying a load of reprints to be sent to judges. So Joyce had essentially bought a issue of the review, stacked the deck of authors, and then mailed a load of copies to judges.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080419/pl_politico/9722

But the Joyce Foundation in 1999 awarded $84,000 to the Chicago-Kent College of Law for a symposium on the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to bear arms, but rather only a state’s right to arm its militia.

“No effort was made to include the individual right point of view,” its organizer, Carl T. Bogus, a Roger Williams University School of Law professor, wrote in one of several law review articles stemming from the symposium. “Full and robust public debate is not always best served by having all viewpoints represented in every symposium. Sometimes one point of view requires greater illumination.”

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1112820316.shtml

Was Chicago-Kent at Fault for Publishing This Symposium? Here I think the answer is probably yes. Chicago-Kent, and the journal it publishes, purports to be an academic institution committed to the pursuit of truth. It is not an advocacy group, and it publishes an academic law review that benefits from the perception that it is not an advocacy journal. By mounting a deliberately one-sided symposia it did a disservice to its readers, its academic community, and most especially to its students who were free to attend what was a deliberately one-sided conference.

I also think that accepting funds from a foundation that limits the participants to those holding a particular view is in conflict with its mission as an academic institution. If the Joyce Foundation limited participation to one side of this academic dispute, or if Chicago-Kent did not bother to know that this money could only be spent to fund one side of the dispute, then it made a serious mistake. There are indications that the Joyce Foundation refuses to have any dissenting voices included in its programs. Indeed, it is reported to have protested the appearance at Chicago-Kent of a pro-individual rights speaker within a few weeks of its symposium. The Joyce Foundation also supports the Second Amendment Research Center at Ohio State. When I asked its director, Saul Cornell, in an email exchange if any participants in its academic programs could advocate the individual rights position, he responded that he would obtain separate funding to permit that to happen. I took that as an indication that Joyce does put strings on its funding. (David Hardy quotes and links to the mission statement of the Joyce Foundation here.)

But there is a big difference between the work product of an individual scholar, and the collective work product represented by a symposium sponsored by an academic institution like Chicago-Kent. This issue not only is weaker intellectually than it might have been, but it falsely suggests a uniformity of opinion on the subject it examines. Since the symposium was open to Chicago-Kent students, I wonder if they were informed that the program was deliberately designed to be one-sided. Aren't students (or readers of the law review) entitled to know that they are being provided a deliberately biased stream of information? Here I think the fault and discredit lies entirely with the academic institution. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is proposing to use this as a source, and where? I believe that like most law reviews it is compiled by students and largely not peer-reviewed. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional perspective. The core of this complaint that the Chicago-Kent Law Review is not a WP:RS comes from an article published on the blog pajamasmedia.com written by David T. Hardy, senior attorney for the NRA. So there are two parts to this question:

1. Is the Chigago-Kent Law Review considered a reliable source in this instance?
2. Does POV criticism from an advocacy group published at a blog play a role making determinations about reliability of a publisher?

And, for what it is worth. The intended Wikipedia use of this Law Review article is to establish that there are more than one points of view seen in significant sourcing. The AnonIP feels strongly that his point of view is the TRUTH, and the citation to Chicago-Kent Law Review was offered up57 on the Second Amendment talk page as an example of another point of view seen in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am asking if the "one issue" of that review where the Joyce Foundation effectively bought the right to include content of its choice, and exclude content it did not want, and further paid the authors of the content it included a decent sum for their articles when normally those authors don't get paid, amounts to self-published material. In effect, I see this sort of action as little different from pushing out paid advertising. The only difference being that those who read that particular issue don't know it is paid advertising. Those Chicago Kent articles were also printed in book form - http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Law-History-Constitutional/dp/1565846990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277933196&sr=1-1 Amazon lists the editors as Carl T. Bogus and the infamous Michael A. Bellesiles. http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Michael_A._Bellesiles. Bellesiles got himself into trouble when it was found he "manufactured" his research. For instance he "purported to count nineteenth-century San Francisco County probate inventories, which had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire". One of the articles in that issuew is further authored by Bellesiles.

SaltyBoatr above is the only person editing the Second Amendment Article who wants to use this issue as backup. If the points raised in those articles are widespread then those points will show up in other articles or books. BTW: The Second Amendment article is currently frozen because SaltyBoatr was engaged in an edit war and to stop it the article was frozen. SaltyBoatr is now engaged in what amounts to an edit war in the discussion page of that article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The standing of the publication as RS is not affected either way by the involvement of the Joyce Foundation. It is not a peer-reviewed academic journal anyway. Articles in it should be judged according to the reputation of the authors. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but I feel my question has not been addressed. The question is whether this issue can be considered to be "self published". The Joyce Foundation had full editorial control and published only commissioned articles. Their control was similar to the of control of publications that they print themselves, instead of commissioning from third parties. From what I can see this issue is nothing more then "paid advertising". http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

We can only make general comments on reliability if we aren't given the info about who wants to use the source, where and for what purpose. An article in this issue or any other issue of the Chicago-Kent Law review by a scholar who regularly publishes in the field can be regarded as a self-published source by an expert. Or slightly better because the article has gone through a selection process and is definitely finished, while the same scholar publishing on his/her own blog may include unfinished work. More details please if you want a fuller answer, and if you want more people to respond. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an agreement by editors of the Second Amendment article not to use material printed by both anti and pro gun groups. That includes the NRA, the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation. If this material falls into the "self-published" category then it falls under that agreement. There is already way too much bickering on that article, and the agreement reduces it somewhat. The material in those articles can be found in other places.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would not exclude the articles in this Chicago-Kent Law Review issue on the grounds that they are "self-published". There is no reason to think that the academics who contributed to the symposium didn't believe the views they were expounding, notwithstanding the fact that they were paid for their articles. (Also, it should be noted that the CKLR already had an all-symposium format, and having an outside editor select the articles for an issue is standard procedure at that law review.) HOWEVER, I would tend to think that these articles could be cited primarily for the fact that there were academics who held the view that the Second Amendment is a collective, not individual, right. That was their opinion, and it was a notable opinion that could be described as an opinion in a Wikipedia article. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, several years after the CKLR issue was published, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. (See District of Columbia v. Heller; see also McDonald v. Chicago.) Consequently, if the contributors to the CKLR issue were to revisit the issue today, most of them would have to take that into account and probably have to at least reconsider their arguments and conclusions. (It would be desirable to avoid citing the Michael A. Bellesiles article at all, due to the problems that were found in his scholarship from around that period regarding gun-related issues, which led him to resign his professorship.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell this was the only issue ever published under the control of an outside editor, so this issue was definitely not "normal". 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Great that editors have agreed to keep material from advocacy groups out of the Second Amendment to the United States constitution article. But that doesn't extend to opinions of legal scholars, which are professional opinions, not just any old opinions. Take into account the arguments that User:Metropolitan90 makes about the way that legal interpretations and legal scholarship move on. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See the Volokh.com link cited near the beginning of this section. Randy Barnett wrote in the Volokh.com blog posts that using an outside editor was standard procedure for most issues of the CKLR. What was not standard procedure was having a foundation with a specific point of view fund the issue and having the issue editor only accept articles that conformed to that particular viewpoint. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed that comment - Barnett however also said that he offered to wrote a pro gun article and was rejected - When I saw an announcement for the Second Amendment symposium funded by the Joyce Foundation, what immediately struck me was the completely one-sided composition of the contributors. So I contacted a former colleague of mine at Chicago-Kent and offered to participate as a commentator, provided I was given the same remuneration as other presenters. I also offered to recruit some other scholars who would represent some diversity of opinion. My erstwhile colleague said this was not possible. The first reason he offered for this was the supposed lack of civility between pro- and anti-individual rights scholars. When I objected to this reason, it became clear that this was not the real rationale. Later, Carl Bogus told me (as he has subsequently written elsewhere) that the lack of balance was intentional and meant to counter the overwhelming dominance of the individual rights position. The idea, he said, was to work out the alternative paradigm with scholars who were dissenters from the individual rights position and provide fresh thinking: which again is my point. If the issue was free of outside influence Barnett offer would have been accepted - subject of course to space limitations on the issue itself. Obviously Joyce did not want to see its money go to pay for articles opposing its anti gun agenda. Also the outside editor who controlled what go into the article was on the payroll of a Joyce funded organization.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your time and effort. Assuming my last comment above won't change any views, I placed snippets of the above on the Second Amendment talk page. Please check and make any additional comments if you believe those snippets don't cover the above faithfully. http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Chicago_Kent_problem_issue 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Im looking for opinions on if this chart should be included or not or if it has been previously discussed with a verdict reached. The main article is this; Crowley Broadcast Analysis. It was created today and i got into somewhat of an edit war with an editor who created the article claiming it has passed and/or is allowed but no reference was provided. Anywho what is you take on it. The only Brazilian Chart im aware of that is allowed in articles is the Singles with a specific magazine as a reference. Crowley Broadcast Analysis isnt discussed at WP:GOODCHARTS or WP:BADCHARTS. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

These recent edits to the article Noley Thornton by 219.78.50.246 (talk · contribs) are only cited to the IMDb. I'm given to understand that, as a user-submitted resource (akin to Wikipedia itself) it's not a reliable source. Furthermore, I can't find any corroboration of these films (and their association with Ms. Thornton) at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, nor can Google find anything immediately reliable (58, 59, 60, and 61). Given the unreliability and uncorroboration of this information, I'm inclined to revert the IP, but I'd like to check myself first before doing so. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's the last time it came up.62 It appears that opinions were mixed. You certainly won't be the first editor to revert something on the grounds that IMDB isn't reliable. OTOH, it's cited by as many as 100,000 articles,63 so there's clearly wide-spread community support for it being reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, IMDB appears to cited by over 200,000 Wikipedia articles.64

Alternatively, you can watch the movie yourself and verify it by looking at the credits at the end. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rule of thumb here - if you can only source something to IMDB, there's possibly a problem with that information. IMDB is an easy place for - especially novice - editors to find cites, but really any solid, notable, information there should probably be duplicated somewhere more reliable. At the end of the day a lot of IMDB is still user-generated info and it's not all checked reliably. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely reliable for this sort of content which is not user-generated. The frequency with this question is asked is almost as tedious as the inevitable and untrue responses that IMDB's content for cast and production credits is user-generated and not subject to rigorous editorial control. Dlabtot (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The article section I'm composing is a fact, but I can't find a much more reliable source... Can this link be a good reference for Nina Girado#Voice??? - http://www.casttv.com/video/rxgk561/how-other-artists-describe-the-asia-s-soul-siren-nina-asap-sessionistas-at-the-araneta-video Kristelzorina (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not resolved, Atmoz i request you self revert mark nutley (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC) S Citizen and Stoat Both are blogs by William Connolley and are used to rebutt statements about Roger A. Pielke criticisms on the IPCC seen here 65 I had tagged them as unreliable but WMC reverted the tags out, i put them back but Count Iblis has now reverted them out, and has not bothered to go to the talk section, 66 so i figure i`d ask here mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem, Mark - I've argued that using sources like this is not acceptable - you can see such at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Watts_up_with_that - where I argue that we can't just shove somebloggers opinion, even if someblogger is a notable person, into articles that are not directly about someblogger. As you may notice, you were on the other side of that discussion. However, it appears from those discussions that we can include somebloggers opinion, if someblogger is notable, as long as we say "Someblogger says." I don't agree with that, but it appears to be what you argued - "It is being used for Anthony Watts opinion on the video, there is no claim about a third party, just what he thought of the vid." In this case "It is being used for Dr. Connelley's opinion on the criticisms, there is no claim about a third party, just what he thought of the criticisms." Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you look at Hide the Decline you will see i reverted those blogs out based on what you said, but now you say that these blogs are ok, make your mind up. And yes WMC is making claims about a third party, he is saying Pielke is wrong in his assessment, that is making a claim about a third party mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I say they're not ok, but I realize that I lost the argument. I stopped editing Hide the Decline when I realized I couldn't evaluate it fairly, and was getting distracted by sockpuppets, so I don't know, nor will I check, what the state of that page is. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

None of them are reliable sources in general - both of them can be reliable sources in context. In this particular context both are published scientists (as such) who are discussing a scientific topic, which matches the exceptions for self-published sources and since they are discussing a topic and not persons there is no BLP issue - the issue about whether we should include these or not, is one of WP:WEIGHT. If the WP:BLP issue is real, then both should be removed, since then it is very possible that no neutral point of view can be presented, as only one side of a blog-discussion can be presented. In general disagreement on a topic, is not a BLP issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a blp issue if a blog source is being used to say another guy is wrong, we have Pielke giving his opinion on the IPCC, so no issue there with blp, however WMC`s blog is used to give an opinon on a person, so blp is an issue. mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Mark - he is not giving an opinion on a person. He is presenting his take on a particular view. But as said - if disagreement with a person about an issue automagically makes it a BLP problem - then no blogs should be included, since we are then, in most cases, unable to make a neutral presentation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No Kim, To this complaint I do have some sympathy, but RP loses that by ranting. In fact what his post is really complaining about is his failure to get his point of view given primacy in the CCSP report. That is not giving a take on on a view, that is making a statement about a person mark nutley (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, i disagree Mark. We would have had a problem if we used a sentence such as "X replied that Y was ranting about being a failure", but we aren't. (which btw. isn't what Connolley is saying - but shown here as an example of a clear BLP violation). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your wrong Kim, another part from the stoat blog RP then proceeds to pick up this strawman and run with it This is another statement of fact from a blog post about a living person, as is the one posted above. It would be nice to get some uninvolved editors to opinion on this as i do not see how a blog post ca nbe used to make statements of fact about a person mark nutley (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Stoat is a blog. Scitizen isn't.

Not also that the RP stuff being rebutted is... from exactly the same source: scitizen In blog posts, Roger A. Pielke contends that the IPCC distorted the evidence by not including scientific results that questioned global warming.<ref name="PielkeIPCC">{{cite web|last=Pielke (sr.)|first=Roger A.|title=The 2007 IPCC Assessment Process - Its Obvious Conflict of Interest|url=http://scitizen.com/climate-change/the-2007-ipcc-assessment-process-its-obvious-conflict-of-interest_a-13-1108.html|publisher=Scitizen|accessdate=30 June 2010}} (also see links therein)</ref>. I've pointed the inconsistency of this to MN, but he won't listen. Note also MN's attempts fake this as a BLP issue: the comments are not on RP but on RP's comments William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is half the article a lengthy quote from a blog post? That's the real question here. Using SPSs to answer other SPSs is an appropriate use for them. But the real question is why? If Pielke hasn't bothered to convert this into a real publication in the last two years, why is it so notable that it dominates his bio? Guettarda (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

These are in use in Global Warming Controversy i have not looked at it`s use in Pielke`s blp mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This website - http://allafrica.com/ - isn't used on any article I have edited. 'All Africa' mirrors African newspaper websites as well as digitising National newspapers from different African countries. I was wondering whether, considering the stability of the website, this mirror could be used when the site/web page that it mirrors isn't available online. Would there be an issue with this? Thanks. Ukabia...tark 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is a blog post by William Connolley 67 a reliable source for statements about Roger A. Pielke. It is used here 68 Sorry to have to ask this again but the above discussion was closed before the issue with this blog was resolved mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for statements made by William on Pielke. The question whether we want to have William's comment on Pielke in the article is another matter. Count Iblis (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You can`t use a blog post as a source for statements on a living person, i`m going to ask on the blpn board as i am sure this is a blp issue mark nutley (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me, Mark, that you have dropped yourself in something of a hole. You argued previously that personal blogs could be used as a source for statements about living people who you dislike (viz. Al Gore). Now you argue against using personal blogs as a source for statements about living people whose views you like. You can't have it both ways. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC

When did i say a blog post could be used to disparage al gore? mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Its more of a conflict of interest and notability issues, imo WMC is not notable or qualified enough to warrant quoting in our Global Warming controversy article, also as the issues around WMC and skeptic scientists adding his blog and quoting him when there have been a fair degree of controversy surrounding his editing of such articles, this creates a COI issue. I also note that it was WMC himself that was the person that added the link to his blog and this comment "These criticisms have been described as "failed" by William Connolley" in this edit in August 2007. It is clearly not policy to add your own comments and your own blog to wikipedia articles and we would usually place restrictions on editors for such additions. I also notice that WMC's blog is almost at spam level around the wikipedia, there are 151 links to it on this wikipedia but there is only a few in actual articles. I would suggest removing it and the comment from him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is also this edit where WMC again adds a link to his own blog in April this year in the Global cooling article. We also have 50 links to wmconnolley.org.uk Again adds link to own webspace wmconnolley.org.uk to Earths energy budget here 24 July 2008. Clearly adding multiple links to your own webspace and blogs is a serious conflict of interest issue. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't link William's blog here. Incidentally, amidst all the concern for blogs and BLP, can anyone tell me why we should link Roger Pielke's blog in the same paragraph? After all, Pielke's blog post is used to disparage the integrity of individuals on the IPCC panel, which is also BLP material. I'd suggest removing the entire paragraph - both that sourced to Pielke's blog and that sourced to William's blog. MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no Pielke is commenting on the IPCC, an organization and as such BLP does not count does it? At least that is what i was told when i found exxonsecrets.org being used all over the shop mark nutley (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Is http://www.POGO.org a reliable source? Seems notable - it is cited in LOTS of news sources as contributing to exposure of gov't and contractor misdeeds. Is it a good enough source to include, for an announcement of an award given by POGO Project On Government Oversight to a politician Darrell Issa as seen here?
2. Is the politician's website a reliable source to cite that the award took place?

Or it the whole thing a house of cards? --Lexein (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reputable advocacy organizations are generally citable with attribution. WP:SPS is the controlling policy concerning a politician's website. WP:UNDUE is a different question. Dlabtot (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am just following the guidelines here. WP:RS states -- Twitter, facebook. myspace "unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." can be used., which is the case here. Countless celebs are quoted from their twitter here such as Courtney Love

based on information from her Twitter account. I reverted, but the IP editor says that WP:RS says that information from self-published material can be used as a reliable source. Is this correct? It was always my understanding that primary sources were not considered reliable sources. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:PRIMARY?Smallman12q (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that seems to contradict the WP:RS section which says self-published material can be used. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The specific question is whether Dita Von Teese's Twitter page saying she is part Armenian is a reliable source. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 suggests that a Tweet isn't really a reliable source. I'm inclined to agree. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There was recently a discussion about twitter usage at Wikipedia_talk:IRS#Verified_Twitter_Accounts. Consensus reached seemed to be that a verified twitter account can be used for information about a person themselfs. Yoenit (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This question comes up all the time. Yes, a verified tweet is usable as a primary source, but should be used with caution. See WP:TWITTER. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an important issue that is going to recur so can we please have more opinions. Summary:

• This edit at Dita Von Teese adds "Dita has stated via her Twitter page that is part Armenianref".
• The reference is a Twitter post by Dita Von Teese verified account. The post says "At eurovision, The Armenians are killing me with their hair and especially the fierce cateye liner! LOVE! I am part Armenian, in fact."

My opinion is that such "by the way" Twitter posts should not be regarded as reliable because there is no way to judge whether the author is making some joke, or speaking in some metaphorical sense ("I am a Berliner"). Further, the statement could be simply wrong and might have been corrected a month later (for example, many celebrities would have a staffer write at least some of their public statements, and a stand-in staffer might have been confused). Also, if a fact can only be sourced to a tweet, that fact is probably not very significant and has no place in an encyclopedia. (BTW, the "WP:TWITTER" shortcut was recently removed, although the redirect is still there.) Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, she clearly is not making a joke or speaking in a metaphorical sense. Dlabtot (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the Dita Von Teese to know her sense of humor. I don't get the feeling that she's joking, though I could be wrong. You know, you could try e-mailing her and she might respond. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? There's no point in conducting original research. Lets keep on the topic of the reliability of this source. Dlabtot (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Which part is original research? Concluding that she's joking or e-mailing Teese? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm having a hard time determining if you are joking. Are you seriously suggesting that editors should not exercise judgment and draw conclusions about sources? Or what exactly are you suggesting? Are you seriously questioning whether a private email exchange with the subject of an article would constitute original research? Again, this all seems decidedly off-topic to me. Dlabtot (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. Was it wrong when Hipocrite contacted Newsweek to find out if their blogs fall under their full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions of 'right' and 'wrong' are definitely off-topic here. But when editors conduct original research, such as personal email inquiries, it definitely is original research. This is self-evident. I have no more insights into the blatantly obvious to share, so I will have no further response to this thread. Dlabtot (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the reference to Twitter with this article. However, this was reverted (back to the pre-Armenian text), stating that "web articles using twitter as source material are not reliable sources either." Can someone enlighten me as to why that article isn't reliable? I checked the about us part of their website, and they have writers and an editor, and I can't find anything to suggest they have a poor reputation. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the reliability of "ianyanma.com", no, that is not a valid reason to undue an edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that both the tweet and that article are reliable sources she made the statement. Without more information, I'm not really sure that it belongs in the article though. A one off tweet that doesn't do anything more than say that somewhere along the way in the history of her family, at least one person has been Armenian. --Onorem♠Dil 13:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's not very useful, and it was just sort of plopped down into the article. I am more interested in the broader question of Twitter and secondary sources that quote Twitter. I've checked back in the Archives of this board and there seems to be a mild consensus that a Tweet is reliable if it's about the subject (just like other self-published sources), but certainly not reliable about a 3rd party. I guess my personal feeling is that a Tweet should not be the first choice as a source. As far as self-published sources go, at least with a personal website or even a blog someone is usually sitting at their computer thinking about what they're writing. Who know how much thoughtfulness goes into a Tweet. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have contributed text to the Arguments for and against drug prohibition page but have had one of the contributed arguments for prohibition removed here on the basis that it does not, in the view of another editor, quote from a reliable source. I am hereby looking for advice on the source.

Obviously debates regarding ‘Arguments for and against drug prohibition’ will not be found in peer-reviewed journals because such a debate is not scientific research as such, although it will rely on surveys that are done by reputable organizations. However this debate is found mainly in the political realm as well as between opposing drug advocacy organizations, particularly between drug prevention organizations and drug legalization organizations.

I have added an argument which appears on Australia’s official drug debate website, which is the ‘Drugtalk’ e-mail listserver operated by the peak body representing almost all Australian drug and alcohol organizations, ADCA. The listserver claims 350 participants (see http://ndsis.adca.org.au/e_list.php) who contribute to ongoing debates about national and international drug policy. This debate listserver has its own administrator and is fully archived, accessible via password from the Drugtalk administrator. I therefore would argue that the text I have contributed to this Wikipedia page is from a reliable source, from an appropriate organization that is constantly involved in the drug prevention advocacy area, and which is accessible on the internet as per Wikipedia policy.

I have cited the argument below, which is contributed by the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose name appears under this argument on the Drugtalk listserver. The text reads:

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_68
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.

---