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.

Norman Naimark is a respected historian in the USA and partially in Germany, he isn't quite popular in several other countries. Hubert Orłowski quotes E. and H.H. Hahn's critics, a summary of their 2007 article uses the word "völkisch". Norman Naimark has obtained a number of German distinctions and prizes. Compare also "Bloodlands" by T. Snyder. Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the question, and does it have anything to do with RS? I don't even see any discussion at the article talk page or recent edits to the article itself which would enlighten me as to why this is posted here. Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is about citations in Rape during the occupation of Germany, particularly Rape during the occupation of Germany#Analysis. Discussion at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany#Nazi attempt to portray Poles as perpetrators --Habap (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The cited sources above, and the essays they are referencing are not the sources being disputed in that Rape/Germany article. Nothing in these cited sources say anything about "bias", whether Naimark is or isn't respected in one country and not another, nor or about his popularity or lack thereof. The cited sources concern a strong disagreement between two academics - Naimark and Hahn over an essay about a different, though certainly not totally unrelated question. So, I am left still wondering what the question is supposed to be for RSN. Fladrif (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Norman Naimark is involved in "Expulsions" debate on German side, in another words he is "biased". An example From Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II "Yet as the war went on, Lower Silesia also became a Polish war aim, as well as occupation of the Baltic coast west of Szczecin as far as Rostock and occupation of the Kiel Canal." The main Polish war aim was to survive and to regain independence in stable Europe. Poland wasn't able to achive any war aim and moving responsibilty from the US administration to a group of brige players in London is non-academic propaganda. I don't use the word "lies" because I believe that Naimark ignores elementary knowledge of Eastern Europe. Quotes from Naimark aren't accidental, the neutral part of his texts isn't interesting, the quotes are selected to support anti-Polish BDV-type propaganda. About the rapes: there are plenty texts about Polish men raping German women, Naimark is quoted even if he doesn't directly write about the rapes, why?Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. Naimark appears to be a reliable source, and sometimes reliable sources have bias. Historians are known to disagree, so I see no fundamental problem with using Naimark as a source. I also see no support in the article for "Poland wasn't able to achive any war aim and moving responsibilty from the US administration to a group of brige players in London is non-academic propaganda," what is your source for that statement? Where is Naimark quoted regarding rapes, and what does that have to do with the quote you provided, ""Yet as the war went on, Lower Silesia also became a Polish war aim, as well as occupation of the Baltic coast west of Szczecin as far as Rostock and occupation of the Kiel Canal." --Nuujinn (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And what is Naimark's source? Xx236 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Same here. I have no idea from any of these posts what the "Explusions" debate is; what "sides" there may be to that debate, assuming it exists, on what basis one would conclude that Naimark is on one or another "side" assuming there are sides; and why, assuming he is on one side or another, that constitutes "bias". I am completely baffled about how the quoted language from the Expulsion article sourced to Naimark is supposed to demonstrate any of the foregoing, even assuming Xx236's unreferenced assertion that Naimark is wrong about the Polish government-in-exile's war aims (realistically achievable or otherwise). I am likewise baffled as to how the two articles cited in the original post, in which Hahn disagrees with one of Naimark's essays on historical roots of ethnic cleansing in Central and Eastern Europe have anything to do with bias. But, more to the point, as Nuujinn points out, even if Naimark is "biased" as alleged, his books and articles are reliable sources, and that is the limit of RSN's scope. Fladrif (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So you don't understand, don't know the subject, but Naimark is reliable. Xx236 (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

See where a source has been removed as unverifiable. A quote was requested in June 2009 but has not been found. At Talk:Vile Vortices#Refutation by Paul Begg there's a bit of discussion about this also dating back to last year. It is available in a number of UK libraries and easily available from Amazon, so I don't think that the statement that it is "only held by a very few, generally obscure, libraries" is correct. Is the issue the supposed difficulty in finding the book (the editor who removed it wrote "is there anywhere where this material is accessible by Wikiepdia's readership/editorship?" or the lack of a quote? Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Vile Vortices? Not notable. AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If the quotes can't be verified, AfD for lack of verifiability. --Habap (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the article fails WP:N miserably, regardless of the verifiability of the disputed source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's easy (and cheap) to get hold of this book . I can see no reason for deleting a source that anyone who is not penniless can access if they want to. Paul B (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I dare say the book is easily available. Does it pass WP:NBOOK though? I doubt it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The WP:NOTABILITY of a book is irrelevant to its reliability. There are probably millions of books that are perfectly valid reliable sources that aren't notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Which I don't mean as an argument in favor of this source. And I doubt this crackpot theory deserves an article either. Dlabtot (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a crackpot theory, but see - it's easy enough to source and to debunk. I'd argue against an AfD, we just need a better article. Larry Kusche's book on the Bermuda Triangle, for instance, has a short chapter debunking it. And although I don't know if it was specifically mentioned in Lost (TV series) it was discussed a lot by its fans, eg. 7, A good article would be a service. And I see no reason why Begg wouldn't be a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the book series appears to be readily available, so it can be verified. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for it via inter-library loan. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I was writing on the page for the Transformers: Timelines comic book series. The company that published that comic book posted a video on their youtube account which was the lead-in to one comic story book mentioned on the page. So I posted an external link to it. I have another editor upset because he says you can't link to youtube as a source. I'm not using this a proof of notability, just as an external link. What's the best way to post this link? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If you were posting it as an external link, it needs to follow the external links guideline and you should post your question at the external links noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If the company that owns the content put up the video, it should be no problem. And an EL is not a source and doesn't have the same rules that a source does. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It actually might be possible to use as a self published ref but keeping it as an external link shows some good restraint on your part. Why do you need an external link though? How about just pointing to the official site if there is one. Or in the body, use a ref from a reliable secondary source. Although there may be better options, there still could be precedent to use the EL as you are trying (you need to verify that it is the official channel). And see WP:VIDEOLINK for more info (disclaimer: an essay I wrote).Cptnono (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Alcoholics_Anonymous

On the AA page pro sentiment appears strong, information is be nixed by group consensus much like an AA meeting. Need clarification for editing purposes.

Issues with what is reliable and what is not for wiki purposes. under the heading AA Data:

A source Loran Archer is being cited and has been quoted verbatim from the reference source here:

this:http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AAHistoryLovers/message/4447n Reliable source??

When I researched Lorne Archer I discovered a review by Stanton Peele that had been published earlier in a Journal.

http://www.peele.net/lib/denial.html

The second Rand report (Polich et al., 1981) responded systematically to criticisms of the original report; again, the investigators found substantial numbers of what they termed "nonproblem" drinkers. Criticism by the NCA and related groups was somewhat muted this time around, while a large number of social scientific reviews in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and the British Journal of Addiction were almost uniformly positive. The most remarkable consequence of the second report was that the Director of the NIAAA, John DeLuca, and his executive assistant, Loran Archer (neither of whom had a research background), offered their own summary of its results. This summary emphasized that abstinence ought to be the goal of all alcoholism treatment and that AA attendance offered the best prognosis for recovery, statements the report explicitly rejected (Brody, 1980

Peele sources previously published in psychjournals. Are they a reliable source , would he be considered fringe.

Bankole Johnson http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html t again He was deemed unreliable and quickly edited off.

Reasoning for Peele not reliable cited here:

Peele's self-published criticism of Archer and Deluca is vague, general, incomplete and seemingly out-of-context. Just what are the "honest differences", and how have the Rand researchers "called out Archer for fudging research data"? Peele is mute on the particulars. If we had reliable and relevant sources, they would be welcomed.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Reason for Archer being considered reliable cited here:

Removed primary sources and replace them with reliable secondary sources. See edit summaries for explanation of restoration and additions. Unless there is a RS to counter the validity of the Triennial Surveys, there really should be no discussion of the analysis of AA's data. This talk page is not a forum to argue about AA. or editor's opinions of AA's data unsupported by RSs. Also note that a valid self-published source is used. I've seen editors summarily dismiss any self-published source, and in this case, that would be a mistake. Finally, The talk page is the place for further discussion, not edit summaries via a revert war. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous

for reference purpose only:

Previous source deemed by group consensus as reliable has already been ruled on

http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf which I verified earlier a decision was made on the source earlier on

6 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a classic example of lies, damned lies, and statistics. The site cvannot be considered a RS. - Nick Thorne talk 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also I would like a link to a wiki board that deals with information being posted being taken out of context. Once a decision ruled on, I assume I can safely edit. Regards Jayseer (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Jayseer, I don't really like being quoted in the way you have done so here - please link to previous disucssions, rather than lift one small part of it and place it in a different context. Secondly, the issue has not been "ruled on" as you put it. I have expressed an opinion, that is all, I have no authority to "rule" on anything. Wikipedia works by consensus and towards that end I am happy to contribute my opinion. But please do not ascribe to me any authority to make determinations on behalf of the ommunity. Until and unless enough other people also post on the point so that a consensus can actually be established, there is no such consensus. Certainly one opinion does not make a consensus, any more than one swallow does a summer make. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A graduate thesis “Doing it for the lulz?”: Online Communities of Practice and Offline Tactical Media is being used in the article Facepalm (an internet slang term). Since I deleted the other sources which were clearly not acceptable (urban dictionary, etc.), this thesis now remains as the sole source.

My first reaction was "Wow, somebody spent their entire grad school career browsing 4chan and ED, and then he managed to pass it off as an MS thesis?" This reaction alone makes me biased in reviewing this reference, so I don't want to delete or modify it based on my own opinions. I thought it might be an elaborate trolling attempt hosted on student webspace at the university, but it checks out as a genuine Georgia Tech publication, albeit a surprising one to me. My understanding of a published student thesis is that they are acceptable on their specific topic and then should be used sparingly on other, related topics when alternatives cannot be found. In this case though, the nature of the subject makes it seem less reliable to me - whereas most theses are completed under ostensibly close supervision of the committee, it's a little hard to imagine such supervision producing content like this:

One example of Anonymous trolling involved sending particularly inflammatory messages to the messageboard of The Oprah Winfrey Show...The apparent misreading of the post by Oprah led to many members of Anonymous re-appropriating the clip, re-mixing the audio with music or using the image of Oprah in the episode and mixing it with other elements familiar to Anonymous such as the “Over 9000” meme and the “pedobear” meme.

(The entire section is unsourced, but followed by an image macro which is also unsourced.)

Two questions, first does the questionable academic value of this thesis make it unacceptable? Obviously I don't think too much of it, considering 4chan itself and various anonymous posters are cited by post number as part of the references - though it does contain legit sources as well. However I don't want to remove it simply because of my personal thoughts on the quality. If this were a book by a reliable publisher, it would be acceptable no matter how "bad" it is, and the fact that four Ga Tech professors accepted it certainly establishes an editorial process...still, well, it's a thesis about memes.

Second question, even if this ref is acceptable, is it enough on its own to establish notability for the article? The subject of the article (facepalm) actually occurs as an unsourced footnote within the thesis in question. In other words, the information came from the student's own general knowledge (presumably from browsing the aforementioned websites). Personally I think that is inadequate to establish third-party coverage, but I'm just a lowly IP and some moderators seem to disagree strongly about this so I'd like to hear what others' think. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally, we don't consider a Masters thesis a reliable source. Even a Doctoral dissertation can be iffy. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Doctoral dissertations are acceptable once they are published. It is unfinished dissertations that are not allowed. See WP:Reliable_sources#Scholarship.

And when the dissertation is published, the reliability is a function of the academic journal in which it is published, not on the fact of it being a dissertation. Wikiant (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Most doctoral dissertations aren't published in academic journals, but by UMI, as stated in that section I linked to. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as a masters thesis, it conceivably could be used as per the above guideline as long as it has been published. MA theses--even unpublished ones--at one time were routinely cited in published papers, but they are not seen as often nowadays. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

HAs it been published?Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that it has been published in any publication. Georgia Institute of Technology is listed as the publisher, but that's it.8 Siawase (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Georgia Institute of Technology is an acceptable publisher, IMO. Looking at the thesis itself, the second page lists his committee members, all of them doctorates, so it fulfills the requirement of being vetted by the academic community. For the purpose of this article, I would say it is WP:RS. Whether the topic is notable or not is a different question altogether. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. In the US, IME, a thesis is usually only a local publication, and the committee that approves it does so in the limited context of passing it as one requirement for completion of the degree. Mine sits in my uni's library, and a copy is in the department's library if the shelf hasn't gotten too full. It is far from an equivalent to publication in a peer reviewed journal. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Masters and doctoral theses are both published "locally", yet doctoral dissertations (also just one of several requirements for completion of the degree) are acceptable once they are published in that manner. MA theses are available in the same place PhD theses are: UMI (you remember that fee you had to pay them, right?), and neither of them are published in a peer-reviewed journal unless the recipient revises it and goes through the publication process.

And as WP:Reliable_sources#Overview states, "The term 'published' is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online", which means that when read in context with the rest of WP:RS an online publication by a reliable source (in this case Georgia Institute of Technology) is an acceptable source as long as it meets the rest of the criteria. The policy itself in that section states that the examples given are not exhaustive, and it also says that "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." I think in the context of this article, Facepalm (an Internet slang term), this source is more than acceptable. For an article on, say, Philosophy, Politics and Economics? No, but Wikipedia policies encourage us to use common sense and editorial judgement, and IMO that is what is needed here.

And again, that has no bearing on whether the topic is notable enough to have its own article. If it were up to me I'd have to say no to that question. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• "does the questionable academic value of this thesis make it unacceptable" Wikipedia editors are not practicing sociologists, cultural studies academics, or anthropologists while they are editors. We rely upon the institution (GIT, a research intensive institution) and the proof of acceptance (yup, it was accepted). However, definitionally, Masters Theses are not original scholarly contributions to knowledge. They aren't held to that standard. I would be very reluctant to allow a Masters thesis be used to establish notability. Additionally the discussion on "published" status is a bit septic. Publication covers two things, "Has the work been reviewed by an external body prior to publication, such as by editors or by peer reviewers?" Yes, it was assessed by a scholarly committe. "Is the work available for consultation?" In this case yes. Not useful for establishing the notability of facepalms, really. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• @Tom Reedy, "you remember that fee you had to pay them, right?" No, as a matter of fact, because I didn't, and they don't have my thesis, as far as I know. I just looked for it, and can't find it via proquest. At my uni, paying that fee was required for the dissertation, but not the thesis. Please note that Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship mentions dissertations, but not master theses, and notes that dissertation are cited often in other scholarly works. Theses, generally, are not. Also, I looked up the author and the title of the thesis in question on proquest, and no joy. Have you verified that the thesis has been published by UMI, and if so, can you provide a link to same? Also, if you believe the subject isn't notable, why argue for reliability of the source? If there's significant coverage in reliable sources, GNG is met. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Can you explain your distinction between "dissertation" and "thesis" which is not present in my academic system? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why am I arguing? Because it's an interesting topic, it's not simple, and I want to find out. (IMO Wikipedians need to get back to the Socratic idea of argument instead of the in-your-face toxic idea that arguments are only to convince someone that your side is right and theirs is wrong.) Also back before a PhD was required for being a custodian plenty of respected and widely-published scholars held only an MA (also the fact that I only have an MA myself might be an unconscious motivation!).

But as I suspected, this topic has been thoroughly discussed, and more than once. It appears to me that the consensus is that a masters theses should be avoided if there is any other source, but that on some occasions they can be used with great care when they are recognized within the field as reliable sources. I doubt this one meets that standard. As far as PhD dissertations, they are specifically allowed by WP:RS policy. (And the difference in usage is that of geography: In the U.S. a thesis is written for an MA and a dissertation for a PhD; in the UK it's usually the opposite.) Tom Reedy (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A master's thesis is pretty much on the edge of RS. They might be useful to cite on subjects that are highly technical and matter-of-fact, or in pop-culture articles where sourcing is thin. But it provides only a weak claim to notability. I'd treat it almost like a primary source, OK for non-contentious facts, but not enough to establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that while some Master's Theses are undoubtedly fine works, the oversight process at least as far as I am familiar with it in the UK context, is not strict enough for silly opinions or syntheses to be struck out in the final version. People can pass with a poor thesis that doesn't drag them down into failing. There isn't typically the formal reiterative process of viva voce, outside independent input, followed by revisions, followed by a further submission and so on, which tips PhDs, in my view (and depending on the country) over the line in terms of RS. (Meaning I think they're useable if there is nothing better available). On the other hand, I think Masters' Theses can provide excellent bibliographies. Is there nothing in the thesis you could raid for use here? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks to all users who responded, the discourse was very helpful. Personally, I don't really care if an article like Facepalm exists or not, but I do care about what the acceptance of certain sources says about the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. It's not my wish to personally attack the student that wrote the thesis either. (If it were my university I'd probably voice my concern regarding the acceptance of such a thesis, but it isn't, and I'm not -- after all some departments will give you a thesis for just about anything.)

The real issue seems to be the context of how the thesis is used. In this case, the article cites a footnote placed in the thesis, in which the student explains the slang term for the committee faculty (who are, presumably, unaware of the term's meaning). While I'm not arguing the "truth" of this statement, I am questioning the verifiability since there is neither demonstration of independent research nor sources cited for the author's claim in this case. In other words, the author simply stated it based on his own general knowledge as a point of clarification. Other types of publications could rely upon the author's own knowledge and the presumption that the author is an expert in his/her field, but by definition that is not yet the case for a student writing a thesis as a degree requirement.

Regarding VsevolodKrolikov's question: The only part of the thesis which has anything to do with the article in question is aforementioned footnote, and again it was given without any explanation of where it comes from. In the article in question, there were two moderators who seemed keen on stopping the article from being deleted, despite a positive vote in the RFD - and this thesis is the only thing keeping that article alive. For me, a lowly IP, to delete the reference without some consensus on the source's acceptability would be stepping on their toes. I'm trying to play nice. :)

Let me put forward as a consensus that a thesis for an M.S. degree is acceptable in some cases where (a)it is needed to support an important point, (b)no suitable alternatives can be found, and (c)the methods and results leading to the specific conclusion for which the thesis is cited are clearly stated. Because of this specific instance not meeting criterion (c), the thesis is not an acceptable source for this particular subject. It seems like the takeaway from this discussion regarding the article in question, but if someone feels I'm in error please say so. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit late with this, but see WP:IRS#Scholarship. Also (out of purview here), WP:N says, "Sources for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability", and "Multiple sources are generally expected", with clarifying footnotes there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have marked some absolutely rubbish Masters theses. One problem is, what is a Masters thesis? In the UK it can be a relatively short paper done at the end of a taught course, where the grade is mainly based on an examination. I'd say that unless it has been cited multiple times in reliable sources it shouldn't be used. In this specific case, it appears that either a thesis or project work is 1/6th of the credits required for this 2 year degree. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it looks like we might need to reword the relevant policy. I'm in the southeastern US, and my experience is that the masters thesis is primarily a demonstration of the candidate's potential to complete a doctoral dissertation. I would suggest that one requirement for use as a source under WP:V would be that the paper in question be published fairly widely, for example, be available via Proquest, or in multiple libraries. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the policy needs to be made clearer, especially since this question seems to be an evergreen on the noticeboard. If I had to choose between an outright ban on using MA theses or allowing them all, right now I lean toward a ban. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Only rarely to be regarded as reliable sources. We can make an exception if there is evidence that the thesis has been referred to by other scholars. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. It sounds like there are instances where it could be used sparingly, but in a case like this where the quality is more like an ED article than a scholarly work, it is a definite no. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I have proposed a wording change in the scholarship section, see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Clarification_of_use_of_dissertations_and_theses. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the idea of a masters thesis being an RS should remain a gray area, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at the thesis in question. It's a thesis about the online group Anonymous and theories of how memes work. It only mentions the "facepalm" meme in passing, one sentence in a footnote. It certainly doesn't confer notability on the "facepalm" meme, but it might make a good WP:EL on our article on Anonymous. I thought the thesis was pretty decent, and it cited quite a few scholarly articles on memes and RS reports about the group; it did cite a few websites as primary sources but that's what research is.

I would also say that while I don't agree with the removal of the primary sources from facepalm, it is not notable and should be merged to a article on memes, an article on emoticons, or even an article on body language.

It's not often we would use a masters thesis as a source. I couldn't see using them for something like history or theoretical science. However, I could see using one for uncontroversial, matter-of-fact information. For example, an engineering or business graduate student writing about a weather radar or a city's water utility will have information on how these things work, which will have been checked over by a professor. I could also see using them for literary criticism in pop-culture articles.

I've proposed in the past the idea of a "weak secondary" source to encompass, along with masters theses, certain types of citizen journalism, letters to the editor, in-house newsletters, fan-oriented zines with a volunteer "editorial board" and other situations where there is some acceptance process, and the idea of using those sources only for matter-of-fact details. It's also possible a masters' thesis could be seen as a "budding expert" SPS, especially if it was cited by other works, or seen as a primary source about the research activities of the academic department. But it normally falls just shy of RS, and when we decide whether to use a master's thesis, we need to take into account whether it's for a controversial academic claim, or whether it's for details used to augment what's already well-cited. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't removing primary sources as such. Yes they would be considered "primary" for the most part, but each individual source had some reliability issue that wasn't complex enough to bring here (except for the thesis). Info like this entry is a textbook case of original research and needs no lengthy discussion to remove it:

Double¹ and triple² facepalms have also been observed. the ref's simply link to image macros

Just wanted to clarify that. I wasn't on a hunt to take down every source, and the article can stay up if no one is motivated to re-AFD it after it was somehow undeleted. Personally I don't care about a non-notable article but I do care about what passes for a source because that affects the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this website considered reliable, especially for BLP? It appears to have user-contributed content and to publish on an "as is" basis. I'm thinking of Tim Sweeney (game developer), for example, for which it's the only source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article for Gamasutra, and the website itself, I'd say it's borderline but probably okay for reliability. Notability might be a different story, and if it were a request for deletion, I'd call Gamasutra too "fringe" and vote delete. They list the email addresses of five individuals, which probably could be considered an editorial process, but there's no way to know if every article is reviewed by more than one person (as with any fringe publication). I'd say it can be used when no alternative can be found, but if it's the only article and you've made a good faith effort to find other sources, put up a RFD.

Not sure what else to tell you. The article for Sweeney's company, Epic Games, is horribly under-cited; otherwise, I'd say use whatever citation that article did. As it is now, they might as well say the board of directors consists of Boba Fett, Queen Elizabeth, and Captain Morgan since there's no way to check it. Wikipedia articles require some 3rd-party coverage beyond a single publication for that particular industry (otherwise, every published professor and corporate executive could have his/her own wiki article). If this particular game developer isn't mentioned in something more widespread than an article in a game development industry magazine, I'd say he's not notable. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

At the Video Game project, Gamasutra is considered a highly reliable source - there is editorial oversight and it is the website frontend of a major game development magazine. Mind you, whether one source is enough for notability, that's a different issue, not a question of whether the website is reliable or not. --MASEM (t) 07:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Masem on reliability of the source (I subscribe to the electronic version of the magazine). I found another article using dogpile that identifies Tim Sweeney as "co-founder of Epic Games and the brains behind every iteration of the widely licensed Unreal series of 3D game engines" 9, so will add that to the article. --Habap (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I had a look at it again, definitely seems more reliable on the second glance. Sometimes smaller companies will just take whoever is in the office and list them as the editorial board -- a speculation which is not feasible to investigate for a Wikipedia source, I know. What I don't want to see is webmasters of open sites (like mobygames but less well-known) grabbing a few emails addresses in the nearby cubicals and listing them as editors in order to improve the appearance of their product. As long as there is a legit editorial process and not just individuals doing a glorified blog (the former appears the case for Gamasutra) then it should be deemed reliable. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been relisted at WP:OR/N. Nightw 11:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A small edit war has erupted with a new user and discussion has been started here:

• Talk:William Harvey Lillard#Death

Please take a look. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please follow the RS/N instructions at the top of the page Fifelfoo (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the talkpage being linked to does not make clear what is being sourced, and from where.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This page isn't for dispute resolution or anything related to edit warring. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue was about the reliability of the sources NorCalGirl78 wanted to include, which were from two self-published chiropractic websites. I believe Brangifer was trying to assist a new editor who was unfamiliar with sourcing policy by bringing the issue here so that she could hear some outside input. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC) that was me Ocaasi (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The source for details about the discovery of the burial place of William Harvey Lillard is this private, SPS, chiropractic website.

This is the section involved, which needs correction to remove dependence on information from this SPS.

Here is where the discussion is occurring.

Also here.

I have been searching for an independent source, such as a book or newpaper, but without any luck. All I find is duplication of this article in chiropractic sources and mirrors of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No luck. Can we use a source like this this private, SPS, chiropractic website, without independent confirmation in other sources? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It's a personal account, published on a web site with no apparent expertise in the subject, there are no footnotes/citations to indicate source material, and it's a primary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS by a non-expert. Fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I please get some opinions on the appropriateness of this site. It's currently found on the following pages, added by the website's owner or someone associated with him:

• Architects Registration Board (reverted from this page earlier today, based on previous reversions by two IP editors)1011
• William H. White
• Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 to 1938
• Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom
• Architects Act 1997
• Chartered architect
• Architects Registration in the United Kingdom

Regards, Lara 01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Website is not subject to editorial control; fails to meet reliability standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Since the name of the editor adding these links is the same as the owner of the website whose links he keeps adding, it appears to be a spam and COI problem as well as a RS problem. Fladrif (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. Lara 02:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo and Fladrif. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tope Alabi

• Alabi has married to Soji Alabi, a studio engineer and producer, in 2000. They have two daughters, Ayomiku and Deborah.

This (above) text, which was my edit, was deleted, along with two primary sources from the subject's own web site, by an editor. Her rationale was: "Please don't source such personal information on a living person to a personal website, no matter whose it is." She even said PLP violation.

I see on many BLP articles, where that kind of marriage information and the kids are being mentioned, in the end of the Bio section. It seems to me. it's a common practice.

My question: Was it wrong to add this information with the confirming source from her own web site? Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 11:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We have really strict rules on biographies of living persons, but the info about her marriage doesn't reflect badly on her. Keep looking for an independent source. Don't include the children's names; it serves no purpose. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This would be one of the instances in which a SPS might be used in a BLP per WP:BLPSPS assuming that there is no question as to the authenticity of the source and no question as to its accuracy. I agree with Itsmejudith that you should omit the children's names. Also, do not link to the source in that manner. Use foonotes instead. And try to find a secondary source in preference to the SPS. Fladrif (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that if it is not "out there", I question whether it should be used in the article. People have the right to try to keep family members out of a public life, and to a certain extent we should respect that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Very helpful advices. There was an inadverdent mistake in my above statement. The editor deleted given text with this source I provided, from modernghana.com, and editor said this on the subject's talk page. Then I found artist's web site and first hand information about her husband and her two kids. I asked editor again, and editor said "Please don't source such personal information on a living person to a personal website, no matter whose it is."

I am sorry about the mix-up. Can we use Modern Ghana's article, along with these two sources from her own web site then? I could also mention about her marriage in the footnotes section as Fladrif suggested. Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 15:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that technically it's a violation of WP:SPS since you're using it to source information about third-parties. This might be an example of where policy is out of sync with community practice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely the policies are clear that one thing even poor sources can sometimes be "expert" about is themselves?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...so long as...it does not involve claims about third parties." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case, the source is not making a "claim about a third party"... the source makes a claim about herself (that she is married to a particular person, and has children with given names). I really don't think that this is a BLP issue either. Nevertheless, I also think it is probably best to rephrase the sentence to say: "She is married and has two children"... without mentioning names. The fact that our policies and guidelines may allow us to state something does not mean we must state it. There are things we shouldn't include, even if our rules allow us to include it. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This comes up fairly regularly. The children on notable people aren't themselves notable (or at least, they aren't unless for other reasons). As non-notable people, they shouldn't be named. The name of the spouse might possibly be relevant, but shouldn't be included automatically. BLP policy requires privacy for non-notable persons AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we violate someone's privacy simply by mentioning their names in an article (if the subject wanted to keep the names of her husband and children private, she would not have put those names on her web page). However, I completely agree with the notability issue... unless her husband and children are notable on their own, mentioning them by name is trivia. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, although I'm hard-pressed to come up with a real-life example. But if I wanted to write a real biography of, for example, Michael Jackson, it would be extremely incomplete to not include his relationship with his father or his children. Of course, this is a bad example for a number of reasons including the fact that there are secondary sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A personal website is not a reliable source for information about other people. Claiming to be married to a named individual is a "claim about a third party". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Here I found a secondary source, an interview with Tope Alabi, and she reveals her husband's name as Soji Alabi, question #4, line 5:

• How come you chose to do gospel music?

Alabi Interview

Would that be sufficient, including her web site info, to mention about her producer husband and her kids? _{Fusion Is the} Future 19:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Her husband and kids aren't notable people, so we don't name them. Notability isn't transferable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fusion is the future's isn't suggesting creating separate articles for her husband and children so notability has nothing to do with it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the WP:NOTE policy applies to all subject matter in articles, not just that in the titles. OTOH I would say that if a notable person has children that is probably a notable in that person's life. Note: noting that someone has children seems reasonable, but the names seem unnecessary unless the children are well-known in their own right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, you'll find that BLP policy applies to any living person mentioned in any article, not just one about them. Unless the subject person was notable for having children (octuplets?), they shouldn't be named. It is probably reasonable to state that the subject has children, but no more than that, unless it is significant in regard to what he or she is notable for. Sadly, A lot of BLPs currently contain trivia, but that is no reason to continue this when the policy is clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Unless the subject person was notable for having children (octuplets?), they shouldn't be named." I don't think WP:BLP says this, but I could be wrong. Can you refer me to the section that says this? Anyway, I think we need to take a step back. Are people seriously suggested that a person's spouse and children aren't important to a person's life? Granted, this article (Tope Alabi) is practically empty, but any decent biography should cover things like this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.": WP:BLPNAME. If the article is about footballer X, then footballer X is presumably notable for playing football, not for having children. Footballer X's kids may be important to him, but their names aren't important to us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that WP:BLPNAME is about people known for primarily one event. I don't think that's the case here. Also, that section is about privacy. If the person is going around doing public interviews talking about her family, then obviously they're not concerned about keep this secret. Finally, WP:BLPNAME doesn't say 'never'. It's left up to the discretion of the editors working on each article, so you can't make blacket statements like that. I think the real problem here is that the article is so short. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to pad out an article by including peripheral facts seems a little desperate. I took a quick look at the article, and it states that Tope Alabi has been involved with the Nigerian film industry. How about finding some details on that. Surely more relevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It was on instinct, really, that I gave the advice, above, not to give the children's names. But I do think it is best practice not to. For one thing, I don't think it looks very professional. For another, those kids will one day grow up and may then ask why their names were plastered over the Internet. And it really doesn't convey any necessary info. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) All of which is very interesting, but this is the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Is there a consensus that (as I believe) a personal web site is not a reliable source for the name of someone's spouse and children? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, getting off-topic, sorry. I'd say that since we don't actually know it is her website (without WP:RS that says so), it can't be, regardless of any other issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

By any sane definition of "reliable", the subject's own statement are a reliable source for who her husband and children are. (Unless there is some reason to believe she's lying or not responsible for the site.) The issue isn't really whether we can find reliable information, i.e. information that is likely to be true. The issue is whether or not we should be including personal information that affects not only her, but also her family. That is a WP:BLP issue, and BLP generally says we limit personal information to those facts that have already publicized in secondary sources. That prohibition is not primarily about accuracy or reliability, but rather about protecting personal privacy from unreasonable intrusions. Regardless, that issue really belongs on the BLP noticeboard, not here. Dragons flight (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I'm not 100% sure that modernghana.com isn't a reliable source. They don't appear to be the website of a print publication12 and their "The Team" page doesn't inspire confidence.13 But they have been cited by other reliable sources such as Time magazine14, Times Higher education,15 and if Google's search engine isn't lying, possibly some peer-reviewed academic journals.161718 I'm not sure since I don't have accounts with these journals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the point of principle I think a personal website, if we know it is real, CAN be a reliable source of information about that person. People (and organizations) are "expert" about themselves, but we would be careful of self-serving information for example. If there are doubts about the website really belonging to the person that is another matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I started it, and after many-good advices, here is my suggestion, and let's please vote on it. Support or oppose.

• Alabi has married to Soji Alabi, a studio engineer and producer, in 2000,Alabi Biography Alabi Interview Question #4, line 5 and they have two daughters.19

Take up the actual language at the article talk page, not here. That is not the function of this noticeboard. "Voting" is not the way things work. Fladrif (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"By any sane definition of "reliable", the subject's own statement are a reliable source for who her husband and children are." Well, WP:RS talks of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which seems pretty sane to me, and then goes on to say "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, so long as: 1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); ...". Now a claim to be married to a third party is certainly a claim about that party. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the consensus here is that the names of third parties are best kept out unless there is a better source - and then of course there should be a reason as per WP:NOTE. I agree, as also already mentioned, that it not good to use such a source for self serving material. Of course if there are other sources to back things up, notability doubts, or doubts about the authenticity of the website, that is all another matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to use this source 20 as a statement that "The bags are produced in Italy" for Belen Echandia in the Products section. The specific text mentioning Italy comes from a quote from the founder of the company. Is that statement properly backed up by the source? AuroraHcky (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Vogue is a reliable source. Is there some reason why you might think it wouldn't be? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I phrased my question wrong. Is the quote in the article "Our bags are all hand-made by artisans in a small Italian atelier using old-world methods." a reliable source for "The bags are produced in Italy". So I guess I'm not questioning Vogue's reliability, but more the reliability of a quote by the founder of a company in the Vogue article for a statement about the product of the company. A similar statement was removed before in the article, so I want to make sure it can be properly supported before adding it in again. AuroraHcky (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just attribute it to the source. "According to the company's founder, all its bags are produced in Italy". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What Jayjg said. AQFK (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have used this document: 21 submitted by the plaintiff in a legal dispute as a source of biographical detail about said plaintiff.

The source is used to cite four items of biographical detail only, and the legal dispute is not referenced to it; the four items are:

• the museums he has worked with/in
• the fact that he spent 37 years photographing butterflies in the Natural History Museum
• the number of images and species he has photographed
• that he has described over 100 new species and subspecies and several new genera

It seems to me that court documents submitted by someone constitue a WP:SPS, and should be considered in that context. For example if a document is submitted to a court by John Smith saying 'I, John James Smith, born January 1st 1952 in Aruba' then that is a reliable source for that biographical information for the Wikipedia article about that John Smith.

I have suggested that court-submitted documents are perhaps more reliable than other self-published sources - for instance an ageing popstar might claim to be 35 on his website, whereas in court he is unlikely to lie if he is in fact 43. Whether they are more reliable or not is perhaps unimportant - the issue is they should at least be considered a perfectly good WP:SPS for an article. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty unequivocal about this: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm not talking about 'assertions'.

If I make a court submission saying 'I, John James Smith, was attacked by Fred Jones', then it would clearly be wrong to cite 'Fred Jones attacked John Smith' to that submission, because it's an unproven assertion.

What I am talking about here is uncontroversial biographical detail - for example the fact that John Smith's middle name is James. I do not believe such things fall under the category of 'assertions', nor indeed do my examples above.

And right below WP:BLPPRIMARY it's acknowledged that it *is* ok to use primary sources in some circumstances about the subject of the source.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No. What someone says about themselves in a court document would not be considered a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So if I write it on my webpage it's reliable about me, but if I say it about myself in a court document it's not? Would you care to explain your logic? Sumbuddi (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"So if I write it on my webpage it's reliable about me" No, not necessarily. As for explaining my 'logic' - I'm not using any convoluted 'logic' that needs explaining, rather, I am simply reading the simple, plain, clear-cut language of the relevant policies. Dlabtot (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The policy, as written, does not differentiate in the manner you describe, in part because what to you is uncontroversial may in fact be disputed by those on the other side of the court case. The section about self-published sources that you describe does not include court documents, which, as Nomoskedasticity, are excluded as sources in BLP. If it is important information about the man, then it will have been published by a secondary source. --Slp1 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, someone's name and date of birth may be precisely what is in dispute, as in the case of the Tichborne Claimant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Court documents are primary sources. If the case has been covered in published secondary sources, then you can use the court documents for additional detail. One exception being accusations against another person; we would need a secondary source to mention those allegations before we could pull them from a primary.

The idea expressed above that a court document, handled by judges and attorneys and sworn under the pains and penalties of purjury, is somehow less reliable than an off-the-cuff remark made on Twitter, is a pretty bizarre one. I understand the reason for BLPPRIMARY, and I know that we don't want Wikipedians looking up things in public-record databases that may not be the same person and so forth.

It seems to me that the crux of this is whether a secondary source reported on the case. If that's so, then we'll know this is the right person and it's a proper use of primary sources. If no secondary sources reported on the case, then we're just fishing through raw data and BLPPRIMARY applies. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The general thrust of this is correct but the issue is more than just the correct identification of the person involved. Yes, a secondary source about the case is an important criteria. However, just because the case has been mentioned by a secondary source, doesn't mean that the court documents suddenly become fully usable for pretty much anything. The policy is much more cautious, noting that the material needs to have been discussed for the primary source to augment it. From BLP: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies".--Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's best to avoid court documents, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. And frankly, if secondary sources haven't reported on it, it's not clear that Wikipedia needs to list someone's middle name either. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@Slp1, I would say that when an RS mentions the case, the filing of the case is the material. Something like "I, Mr. P, a plumber from Peoria, am seeking damages of X for torts Y and Z." should be OK to use in an article if the case is mentioned in a secondary source. Whether that extends to every exhibit in the case and the testimony of every witness is less likely and needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Also, I would suggest that an individual's court filing is both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. The sorts of things that would be allowable under SPS, like basic biographical details, would still be allowed. Filing something in a court of law does not make it less reliable than filing it on Facebook. Of course, some parts of a court claim would be too contentious to meet WP:ABOUTSELF, and that information would have to satisfy BLPPRIMARY. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we are fairly close to holding similar views in some things. A secondary source mentioning a court case would like be summarizing the reason for the case, so yes, your plumber comment would likely be useable. However, I think WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty clear that we should only augment what is in the secondary sources, not trawl through the exhibits and testimony of the case for information that has not been published elsewhere.

As always, it is easier to deal with specific cases. The questioner above wanted to know if a filing by the subject of a BLP could be used in that person's article. As there is no secondary source mentioning the court case, it appears that the court filing fails BLP policy, so the answer is no. But even if there were a secondary source mentioning the case, we should not be using the material. In this case the very practical reason that we should not is that the filer is literally making a case about what an eminent butterfly photographer he is (and thus why he should win the case). We need somebody else to make this point.

BTW, nobody has suggested that Facebook or Twitter are reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• There has historically been some confusion on this by certain editors, but I agree wholeheartedly with Squid. Other views tend to miss by a wide margin the goal of the guidelines, and just seek to apply their understanding of the language of the guidelines without sufficient attention to the guidelines' purpose. As stated by Squid, when an RS mentions the case, the filing of the case is the material, and court filings (especially those that have been sworn to; something we rarely see even in an RS) should be OK to use in an article (though case-by-case analysis may in certain circumstances yield a different result).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the BLP policy is to require editors to give the "greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research" in BLP articles. It is precisely because of potential and observed problems with OR, NPOV, V etc that there is very little support (including above) for the view that the mere mention of a court case in a secondary source means that the court filings etc "should be OK to use in an article" as you put it- though I acknowledge you note exceptions. Even Squidfryerchef, above, indicates that using the filings etc is "less likely". Indeed, when you argued from this perspective at the BLP talkpage, including the affidavits and filings used in a BLP you had heavily edited,22, you had one supporter, while other editors and even an arbitrator disagreed with your views, citing policy concerns. However, assuming I and these others do indeed "miss by a wide margin the goal of the guidelines" (policy actually), then please suggest a change to the BLP policy to clarify the issue for all concerned. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is indeed a good treatment of the issue, including the rationale underlying it.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Question has arisen at Talk:Jamie Sorrentini about using this as a source. Consensus in the past at Scientology-related talkpages has been that it is not an acceptable source and fails WP:RS. As the issue is now revisited again at this particular WP:BLP talkpage, essentially using the attempted argument "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS", I thought it prudent to ask the community, here at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The diff in question is this edit. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable. Self-published; absence of recognised expertise; no editorial oversight. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, can you provide links to past discussions which show the consensus you say exists about this source? Not that I doubt you, but I am fresh to this and it might be helpful for us not to go over old ground. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It was disputed in several locations and there was not consensus for usage of the website. Here is one example, from 2007, relating to another BLP: Talk:Catherine_Bell/Archive_1#Request_for_Comments_-_Use_of_the_.22truthaboutscientology.22_website. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no indication that the site is reliable. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I read over the discussion you linked to and there does not appear to be consensus either to use or not use the source in BLPs. I guess your statement "there was not consensus for usage" is therefore accurate, but that seems at odds with your earlier strong statements about consensus. I note that you supported the use of the source in that discussion and you have subsequently added to other articles (including BLPs) to show that individuals are Scientologists. I am a bit taken aback that within minutes of my adding it to an article that you created, you have removed it, started this discussion, and notified involved wikiprojects. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

See above. There is not consensus now, there was not consensus then, and I have not added links to that website in quite some time. -- Cirt (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I do not understand your sentence above which states "Consensus in the past at Scientology-related talkpages has been that it is not an acceptable source and fails WP:RS". Perhaps you can explain the apparent contradiction? If there actually is no consensus on this source, I will restore the disputed edits at Jamie Sorrentini until this discussion completes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of past discussions, consensus above does not support the usage of the website. -- Cirt (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Despite above comments by myself, and Fifelfoo (talk · contribs) and Becritical (talk · contribs), that the website fails WP:RS and should not be used on BLP pages, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) has gone against above consensus and violated BLP by adding back this site, see diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is beginning to become farcical, Cirt. You yourself just stated that "There is not consensus now,..." but minutes later claim I am going against "consensus". I hope that a consensus is in due time reached here about the use of the source, bu until then I fail to see how it is a violation of WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is now reverting against consensus and adding back in a questionable source to a WP:BLP page, adding controversial info to the BLP page, from a website that violates WP:RS, where 3 editors above have consensus not to use the source, and where only one editor, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), has advocated repeatedly to use this source, with no explanation yet as to why. Please, undo this edit, now. -- Cirt (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, again, see diff link. Per the 3:1 consensus, above, and per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, please do not add it back. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I am hardly "advocating" the use of that particular source. I merely made the mistake of adding it to an article that you created. It is currently used in other BLPs. I have already provided two diffs where you added it to articles as recently as August of 2009. If it is fine for you to add such information to articles -- using the exact same source -- why is it suddenly a crisis if I do the same? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) seems to be willfully ignoring comments against usage of the source website by the three editors, above in this subsection itself. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I am hopeful that this discussion will end in some kind of consensus about the use of the source. I honestly don't care what it is, but I will follow it. I am not willing, however, to be cowed by your ridiculous hyperbole about the situation. The source is currently used in other BLPs (in part because you added it), if there is a genuine BLP issue with it, I'm sure that someone other than yourself will simply remove it from the article. I don't see how this is any different from any other case here and why it can't be resolved similarly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already stated I ceased that practice myself, and support removal of the website as a source, as do two editors above, aside from yourself. -- Cirt (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Deprecate source and remove from all articles. I'm not sure how reliable the source posting is, but there's another problem. Internet chatter (from unreliable sources) suggests that Sorrentini may be an ex-Scientologist. Now, my problem with truthaboutscientology.com is two-fold. It doesn't appear to be updated, and it certainly isn't dated. That means what we have is the claim that Sorrentini WAS a Scientologist at the time the data was compiled, but we don't know if that's current (it doesn't seem updated) and we can't say "as of" (because the material isn't dated). If we use the source to call someone a Scientologist, we may make a false claim, since the source is not testifying to their CURRENT relationship to the Church.--Scott Mac 09:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Scott Mac. Maybe as an act of good faith User:Cirt can remove this source in all the various locations he placed it prior the time he says he has stopped using it. Cirt I'm sure you know better than anyone else where you have used this source. In the future, it would be nice if you did this kind of thing at the time you realize the source is no longer considered an RS. Letting non-RS sources linger in BLP entries is not good practice at all. Thanks and cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE -- I should have checked Cirt's edit history. He has already done this. Now, next time please don't let such sources linger. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Scott, as I understand it, Sorrentini has broken from the Church of Scientology, but still considers themselves a "Scientologist". I was not aware that there were schismatics in Scientology, but it seems to be possible. It is a moot point if no reliable sources are available, and I agree that the source under discussion appears not to be reliable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There are, at least so far as I can remember, at least four or five groups which have broken away from the Church of Scientology while still practicing and following some of the core principles of Scientology. There is a reasonable question what to call them, as I don't think there is necessarily an easily-identifiable umbrella term (like "Christian") available for such groups and related individuals. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo and Becritical are correct here, there's no indication this website meets the requirements of WP:RS, and in particular it should not be used for information regarding living people. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP Problems remain in two entries

Perhaps this should be taken to the BLP/N, but two of the entries Cirt purged the source from (thanks for that) have BLP issues that remain. These are Lee Baca and Harry Palmer (author). The Lee Baca entry contains a section called "Connection to Scientology" which is filled with non-notable facts about Lee that tenuously connect Lee to the Church of Scientology, like once speaking at one of their events. Harold Palmer is perhaps worse in that it contains a large section called "Scientology background" which is not completely unsourced. The previous sources for the section were comprised of the one Cirt removed and three court documents, which for a BLP are a distinct NO NO. I'm hoping Cirt can fix these issues now while we're discussing this so that a BLP/N thread does not need opening.Griswaldo (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo (talk · contribs), I thank you very much for the above assumption of good faith, and for noting above that I have already gone and removed the website as a source across multiple pages. I was not the editor who had initially added the website as a source to all of those pages, but nevertheless have removed it. We can move discussion of the two remaining individual pages, to their respective talk pages. -- Cirt (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have gone ahead and removed the poorly sourced sects in question from both pages of Lee Baca and Harry Palmer (author). Okay? ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the existing thread at ANI to point out some issues that were introduced by Cirt's removal of this source. See here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello I have been trying to source the airdates for List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes but do not know of a reliable source for them. Someone on the talk page is saying that tv.com is okay, does it pass WP: Reliable sources? I would post this in a wikiproject but most are dead that have to do with this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This has come up a couple times before.2324 Some sections are user-editable which are not reliable. But there is another section of tv.com that is written by staff writers. They generally have a URL in the form of tv.com/story/####.html. (This is assuming that they haven't reorganized their website since the last time we looked into it.) So it depends on which article you want to reference. Is it written by the staff or by the users? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In the article Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines), the following source is cited numerous times: Society of Catholic Social Scientists Philippines (2005). "A National Perfidy" (PDF). Catholic Social Science Review. 10. Society of Catholic Social Scientists: 325–338.

This is clearly a position paper, but is used in the article (reference #11) in such a way as to appear to be factual, because the principal author is a university professor (although this is clearly not a scholarly work). On Talk:Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines), the opposition is saying "He's a professor, and its a journal, and that's good enough." I think it is important that each time this source is cited, it is made clear that these "facts" are merely the opinions of the authors, and have not been independently verified. I think the source is a good example of the opposition's claims, but it must be stressed that these claims are opinions. What are the opinions of the RS Noticeboard watchers? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What section of the Table of Contents of the journal is the text in? Is the journal peer reviewed? On the website for 2005, the text is filed as a "Position Paper" marking it in that ordering as opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to challenge as not WP:Reliable the source for three specific statements in the Sentence spacing article.  Since the previous posting here did not get a response, I'm not listing the two additional sentences from the article, in order to clarify the decision. 

Searches for previous discussion about webword.com have revealed one case.  This case is relevant in that an unverified report on webword.com was the original source of a previous Wikipedia faux pas See "one single reference".

Let me note an objective for the Article, "the standard of reliability will be held to a higher level than normally seen on Wikipedia" (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sentence_spacing/archive2).

1. A full citation of the source in question.

Rhodes, John S. (13 April 1999). "One Versus Two Spaces After a Period". Webword.com. http://www.webword.com/reports/period.html. Retrieved 21 March 2010.

2. A link to the source in question.

http://www.webword.com/reports/period.html

The quote from the source being used as the reference:

Many people told me about the various rules and style guides they follow...Apparently, the vast majority of these guides tell writers to use a single space.

3. The article in which it is being used.

Sentence spacing

4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.

47 Soon after the turn of the century, the majority of style guides indicated that only one word space was proper between sentences.47

52 The majority of style guides prescribe the use of a single space after terminal punctuation in final written works and publications.52

85 Most style guides indicate that single sentence spacing is proper for final or published work today,85

5. Links to relevant talk page discussion.

webword.com does not satisfy WP:SPS, WP:SOURCES, and WP:RS

This diff analyzes that the quote from the source being used as the reference is unverifiable research.

Regarding the talk page discussion, I don't quite know how WP:NORULES applies when the "standard of reliability will be held to a higher level than normally seen on Wikipedia," but this position represents the opinion of at least a key author and possibly also the FA committee.

It is the point of this noticeboard submission that there is no relevant WP:Reliable statement based on this unverifiable research by this self-published author, that can improve the encyclopedia (WP:NORULES).  A key author of this Article believes that there can be a "consensus among writing styles" (see the comment in bold in "average visitor".), but a "consensus among writing styles" is, I would say, a WP:SYNTH.  Another WP:SYNTH is the relevance of such a "consensus" to the general-population/average-visitor.  Neither this "consensus" nor it's relevance for the general population seems to draw the attention of secondary reliable references.  Fladrif here notes, "When reliable sources aren't convenient, convenient sources start to look like they're reliable."

In contrast, here is what a secondary reliable reference says, "most publishers' guidelines for preparing electronic manuscripts ask authors to type only the spaces that are to appear in print <i.e., one space>...As a practical matter, however, there is nothing wrong with using two spaces after concluding punctuation marks unless an instructor or editor requests that you do otherwise." MLA FAQ3.  So compared with webword advising about "these guides" and "writers"; MLA talks about "publishers' guides", and "authors" and "electronic manuscripts."  MLA goes yet further to "practical" considerations.  RB  66.217.117.162 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the cited piece at winword.com is not reliable (in our sense) and doesn't claim to be, but it is written by an intelligent observer. So, either the reference should be retained and the information should be included in the article as a straight quote, attributed to the author at winword.com; or else a different source should be found, one that cites the style guides about which a generalization is being made. Andrew Dalby 12:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add information to some pages. I found two sources. One is a website for biography of people - Hollywood Auditions.com and other is a CD - Spoken Word CD. Are they reliable? Novice7 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone, please.. It's really important. Novice7 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

At a glance, Hollywood Auditions is not reliable. The public-library site is probably reliable for discographic information on the CD but do you mean you want to use the CD itself as a source?

To enable us to make a better judgement can you tell us what assertions you want to back up with these two sources? Barnabypage (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have the CD and it is an unauthorized biography of Jessica Simpson. I don't think it has anything else. As Wikipedia allows usage of Books (including Biographies) for sourcing articles, I really hope this can be used too. It's the same, but an audiobook. About hollywoodauditions, it has many quotes, so I thought I could use it. Novice7 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see in principle why an audiobook should be any less reliable than a printed book. Is there a printed version - I presume so? Of course, its reliability still depends on the author and publisher - some celebrity biographies are notoriously inaccurate.

The trouble with Hollywood Auditions is that it seems to basically be a service for aspiring actors - it's very unlikely that there is any editorial oversight of what goes on the site in terms of accuracy. Maybe you could try Googling for the quotes you want to use and see if you can also find them in a more reliable source? They may well have appeared in a magazine or newspaper before Hollywood Auditions picked up on them. Barnabypage (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually have another book, and when I compare these two (both are of different authors), I don't hear any exaggerated information on the audiobook. About Hollywood Auditions, I will try not to use it. Thank you. Novice7 | Talk 13:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Novice, you asked on my Talk page how to cite the audiobook. The short answer is I don't know if there's a precedent for this, but I'd be surprised if there isn't. A quick search suggests this is probably the solution you need: Template:Cite_audio. Incidentally, it's generally better to ask questions like this on the appropriate Noticeboard rather than on an individual editor's Talk page, because putting the query on the Noticeboard means many more people, one of whom may have the answer, will see it. Barnabypage (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all,
First question here - please be patient with me if this isn't appropriate. I've just added a reference to Allies_of_World_War_II#France citing Le Monde diplomatique as source but with context from mondediplo.com, as if they were one and the same. Referenced at

The Battle of France in May–June 1940, which resulted in the defeat of the French Army, the fall of the French Third Republic and the creation of the rump state Vichy France which received diplomatic recognition by the major part of the international community, including the government of the United States.

It would seem to me that mondediplo.com may well be an editorialised third party reporter of content from Le Monde diplomatique, and thus not a reliable source. (I do admit I have elided questions about whether Le Monde diplomatique is in itself a reliable source.) Your thoughts about this, all?
Thank you! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that mondediplo.com is anything other than what it claims to be - the English-language edition of LMD, which is undoubtedly a reliable source. So it's fine. Barnabypage (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly Agree. Xavier449 (talk)

Also agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes it is. Can you tell us the Wikipedia article you want to use it in, the Orlando Sentinel source you wish to cite and the specific statement its being used to source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a principal source for the article being created on Lawrence Holofcener. There are astonishingly few other sources which I regard as independent. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously the more sources you have for an article, the better. FWIW, I tried find some more sources for this article, and didn't find any that the article wasn't already using. Sorry! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Orlando Sentinel meets the general requirements of WP:RS. It's a well-established newspaper, published since 1876, has won Pulitzer Prizes, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1992, Lawrence Holofcener, wrote a musical play "I Don't Live There Anymore". Is http://www.idlta.com a valid source Lotje ツ (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it looks like it is self-published. Self-published sources aren't supposed to be used for claims about a third-party. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The website appears to be run by Julia Holofcener, the play's producer. It's a WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like an opinion on Dr. Robert_Elsie page on Albania : http://www.albanianhistory.net/ Background is this discussion : This edit that I dispute : 25 and this unfinished discussion User_talk:Mdupont#.22Good.22_source Please tell me what you think about this source, and if any what problems are with it.

see his information here Robert_Elsie.

thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tricky...this is all self-published which should be used with extreme caution, and generally dropped when challenged. The opinions of editors on who he is carries very little weight; what matters is the editorial process involved in publishing that source. First and foremost look for alternative sources - from his bio page, he appears to have many published books. Are any of those sources usable for the edits in question? If not, one needs to ask whether the information is notable if it can only be attributed to a website.

Key issues here: does Dr. Elsie cite his sources for what he puts on the website, or is it only from his own memory? One could assume that he is sitting at his desk with dozens of textbooks at hand writing away, but without citation we don't know that it's still a personal website. Realistically his professional achievements carry some weight, but SPS is still SPS. I looked around, but don't see any mention of peer review or editing help on his website - that means it's all on him. No matter who authored the website, it's better to err on the side of "delete" when it comes to taking one person's word for it. Even a distinguished expert such as Dr. Elsie can make errors, and if those errors are made in a book or journal there is a fact-checking editorial process in place for that reason. When he puts it on his personal website, any accidental mistake he makes would be propagated as fact on this encyclopedia, which is the whole point of WP:IRS guidelines. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, we need to unpick a bit of what is going on here. The order of events is as follows. In 1913 the Bishop of Skopje made a report to the Vatican of ill treatment of Albanians by Serbs. This source was used by "Austrian Social Democrat" Leo Freundlich in his book Albania's Golgotha, published 1913. Then in recent decades, the historian Robert Elsie has used Freudlich's work in his Kosovo: In the Heart of the Powder Keg and his Historical dictionary of Kosovo. Elsie has also translated the original letter and put it on his website alongside many other sources for Albanian history. The solution is to use Elsie's books, as suggested above, as reliable recent academic history. A link to the original letter, reliably translated and hosted on Elsie's website, can be included alongside as a primary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. So the solution will be to cite the book where appropiate. thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that his books should be cited, not his website. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont have the books. please help me here. Someone is trying to remove information about the supposed war crimes. I would like some help on this. first they remove the refs, then they remove the data. There seems to be no checking or thought going into this. James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now gotten pdf files from the books of him. also there is a relevant one here http://www.elsie.de/pdf/B2002GatheringClouds.pdf, THe webpage just quotes existing materials and contains References. It is a real shame what is happening here. I have requested protection of this article, there is alot of work to be done on fixing it up. But the people removing references like this must be stopped. If you look at the bottom of the page of the links they removed you will find citations and sources of the quotes. I will need time to process all these docs, please help. The factual accuracy of the wikipedia are at stake here. James Michael DuPont (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A post to the Surfin' Safari Blog, specifically Full Pass of Acid3, is being used to verify the claim that Safari passes all aspects of the Acid3 test. This blog is written by WebKit and Safari developers about the Safari browsers. An editor claims that this blog is a self-published source and thus is not reliable. I and another editor claim that this source is not self-published and is reliable. -- Schapel (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is about it. Safari software developers post on there own blog to say there own product passes a test. The passing claim is a promotional tool for the software. I believe this is self published material which is self-serving and given there is some doubt to the claim is therefore not a reliable source. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

From the discussion below about the Google Chrome Releases blog, it looks like the Surfin' Safari Blog is also not self-published and not self-serving, but is a primary source. -- Schapel (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can self-published articles on a site such as Mexidata.info (http://mexidata.info/id2684.html here's an example) be considered reliable, or does this run afoul of WP:BLOG. Grsz 11 19:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable for what statement(s) in which article(s)? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer on the About Us page states:

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by columnists in MexiData.info are those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of MexiData.info. Please note that each author retains copyright to his/her own work. MexiData.info does not control, and is not responsible for, any third-party site to which the Web site links.

So, there's no editorial oversight, and the website disclaims responsibility for the contents. It is, in effect, a group blog; see WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is ASCAP 26 a reliable source for Lawrence Holofcener? Presumably the picture itself would be a copyvio? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would depend on what you wish to use that source for. Use of the picture there would be a violation, but I think you could use that source to say that he is a lyricist and sculptor. I do not think you could use it for much, since I believe the artists manage their own information, so it's one variant of a self-pulished source. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:ANI#Creation of articles from leaked classified documents → Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative

Specifically, is Business Insider reliable in terms of this publication? It's being used as a reference for the list of information, which is just a factual list. Does it matter that Business Insider is considered a "blog" in this case? Silverseren^C 21:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition: I'd also like to add this publication in too as a question. Would this count as a reliable source for referencing some of the items on the list? Silverseren^C 04:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As you know I'm not very neutral on this issue ;) and the Wikipedia article might exaggerate the degree to which they are cited; even so the first reference it gives²⁷ is in fact a case in which the New York Times cites them - though, true, that too is a blog. Wnt (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(Leading) publications, the U.S. government, cite us all the time, and that doesn't make Wikipedia reliable. B.I. very well may be, I'm just saying I don't think that's a good indicator. Grsz 11 05:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But do you have an opinion on whether that article would or would not be reliable? Silverseren^C 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Business Insider and the article you cite, qualify as reliable sources. It has editorial overright.28 It's been cited by other reliable sources such as New York Daily News,29 The San Francisco Chronicle,30 Bloomburg,31 and Reuters32 which indicates that it has a reputation for accuracy and fat-checking. It's been cited by as many as 377 articles33 which indicates that many other editors in the community find it reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cool. What about this, which is an Armenian based news service? Silverseren^C 21:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is good reason to doubt its credentials, I'd say it's fine at least for Armenia-related matters - by its own account it is independent, written by professional journalists and has editorial oversight - see http://news.am/eng/about/. Barnabypage (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Another user had questioned the validity of both of those on the talk page, which is why I brought it here. Thanks for the help, both of you. Silverseren^C 22:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• The three lede paragraphs are reliable. The body of the article is a republication without emendation of a (for wikipedia's purposes) PRIMARY source and isn't reliable. The slide show is the addition of graphical data, and appears to have undergone editorial scrutiny, but it is hard to see what it would be reliable for. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the above user is highly involved, just like Wnt. Please see the side-linked discussions in order to show that. Silverseren^C 02:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? Care to substantiate that? Or do you mean that commenting, "The cables are PRIMARY. Articles written from PRIMARY sources are SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Warn the editors; Speedy or AFD the articles depending on current deletions policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)" as an outside editor at AN/I makes me "highly involved." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any user involved in the linked discussions is highly involved. I'm trying to get the opinion of users who have had nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. We need fresh eyes on it. Silverseren^C 02:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like forum shopping and an assumption of bad faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it forum shopping? Elonka said that she wasn't sure if the Business Insider source was reliable. If there is a dispute between two users about whether a source is reliable, you take the discussion to RSN. That's how it works. The purpose of RSN is to have users who have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion put in their opinion on whether the source is reliable or not. And i'm not assuming bad faith. We already know the opinion of everyone involved in the linked discussions. The purpose of this one is to get the opinion of outside users. Silverseren^C 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Fifelfoo's response is illuminating. Business Insider is a reliable source - except for the thing he doesn't want in the article. Does WP:RS/N even have that resolution option? The way I see it, Silverseren asked whether Business Insider is reliable and Fifelfoo's answer is a Yes vote! Wnt (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_83
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.

---