Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations • Spam • Proposed mergers User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring (3RR) • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board

Shortcuts: WP:RSN WP:RS/N WP:V/N

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Please post new topics in a new section.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

Contents 1 Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here 2 Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section 3 Examiner.com 4 Wisegeek 5 Webhosting.info 6 ISHA books and other circular references 7 Drowned in Sound 8 Is celebritywonder.com a WP:RS? 9 Google Streetview in road articles 10 Mercator, Independence Cymru and HighBeam Research Inc 11 Website about a living person 12 clarification 13 Using Wikipedia software notices to confirm that high traffic to Michael Jackson's article caused server upsets 14 Family attorney and human genetics on E1b1b 15 TMZ 16 Genetically modified food controversies 17 Gawker.com 18 When a reliable source clearly is not 19 Request to reopen discussion on examiner.com 19.1 What's the best way of notifying the community about The Examiner? 20 Margaret Anne Marshall OBE, Hon MusD 21 Pajhwok Afghan News 22 G. Raghava Reddy 23 Are these reliable sources for the claim that Michael Jackson's pet chimpanzee Bubbles attempted to commit suicide? 24 LewRockwell.com 25 MusicMight 26 GameSpot video game strategy guide 27 Billy Mays house price 28 Patents that contradict other sources 29 Slashdot 30 Christian debate on persecution and toleration 31 Talk:British National Party 32 Query 33 Google News Archive and advertisements 34 The Times of London 35 Tucker Max 36 Norfolk Mills 37 Self-published source on De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium 38 Compass Direct 39 World Net Daily 40 Sonoran News 41 New York Times, Associated Press, etc. as sources on legal questions 42 Jack Livesey 43 Tom Goldstein and SCOTUSblog as sources for Supreme Court articles 44 Second opinions requested

[edit] Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here

[edit] Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Trust Is All You Need

My and Roux think a TV show can not be used as a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section as that would a form of original research but Trust Is All You Need thinks a TV show can be used as a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section. So is a TV show a reliable source or is it a form of original research? Powergate92Talk 17:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, I said should not'; I imagine sometimes it is unavoidable. We should rely on secondary sources for plots else we are watching the show and deciding what s important, the very definition of OR. //roux   17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not only me, see the majority of TV show, Film articles, literature articles or other articles that contains a plot section, they do not reference the plot section!. See the majority of the FA and GA articles, they all share on commonality, they don't reference the plot section. See Lost (FA), Stargate (GA), Star Wars (GA), Doctor Who (FA), The Wire (FA) and Carnivàle (FA) among other FA and GA content we have on wikipedia. This is not only a commonality in films and TV shows, but also literature among others. I think we should follow the majority of our best content and the best are FA and FL's, none of them reference plot section because the series is a reference for itself. This is has become common, look through the different FA, FL and GA's and you'll see the majority don't reference the plot section.

Its a good reason why we don't reference a plot section in a film or a tv show, we don't need to use the Cite episode template to say that we got the source for the plot from the episode itself. It goes against what Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy stands for, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

See Wikipedia:Plot summaries#How to cite, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article#Plot_section and Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. These are three of plenty of other guidelines that agree with me. --TIAYN (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plot summaries is a Wikipedia essay, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article is the style guidelines for WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section is a link to this discussion. So that is 1 Wikipedia essay, 1 WikiProject style guideline and 1 link to this discussion not three of plenty of other guidelines that agree with you. Powergate92Talk 18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ment this link: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources which states that "motion pictures [...] and television programs" can reference itself. Yes i know they are essays and style guidelines, but its proof, proof that the majority don't include references to plot sections and that the episodes, films, literature works among others can reference itselfm the wikipedia policy even sais it. --TIAYN (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many poorly cited articles on Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely; that there are other poorly cited articles is no excuse for you to do so, TIAYN. //roux   18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Trust Is All You Need do not edit others users comments without their permission as you did with my comment in this edit per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. Powergate92Talk 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, tried to fix my own mistake with my own comment just above your one, sorry..... sorry it won't happen again. --TIAYN (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You may cite a TV episode itself as a primary source in an article, for basic facts about who the characters are, what happens in the plot, etc, though you need at least some secondary sources in the article to establish notability. Most secondary sources, ie articles written by critics, are actually rather poor references for basic plot information, so we need both the secondary and primary sources. Deciding what is important however is not original research. There's a lot of misconceptions about original research floating around on talk pages, but original research simply means that WP should not contain facts that are citable only to Wikipedia. It doesn't have anything to do with how the article is organized, etc, those are editorial decisions. Citing the episode to say "Mr. X did action Y at place Z" in the plot is not original research. If editors go further and add their own speculation on Mr. X's motives that is original research. It looks like another part of the question is about whether inline cites are required. For very general summaries like in our article on "Lost" above I agree we don't need inline cites. If it's for something more specific then we can use a citation template. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A wikipedia policy sais you can cite a plot summary with the article itself, thats not saying the article is not referenced. The article is the reference. I agree with Squidfryerchef above me, see Gregory House (GA), Cameron Mitchell (GA), Jack O'Neill and James Wilson (GA) among others. These articles uses a combination between webpage references (and books) and episode references. They do this for a reason, not many or very few reliable sources write a detailed biography for a fictional character in a fictional universe, this is were the show comes in, we can reference the characters biography with the episodes themself. --TIAYN (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's a 10,000-foot view like in the article on Lost ( a six-line synopsis of an entire television season, which is expanded in subarticles for each season ), then it makes sense not to do inline references. If it's anything more complicated than that, i.e. keeping track of a character's arc in the Sopranos series, we should either say, this happened in episode XYZ or use the citation template. Just keep in mind WP:PLOTS to avoid excessive detail. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we should per WP:RS require reliable non-primary sources for what happens in TV shows, etc. Interpreting it from having watched the show is unacceptable WP:SYNTHESIS. If no reliable independent sources hae nontrivially mentioned the info then it's ntot reliable and shouldn't be included anyway. Some people here seem to think that Wikipedia should be a fan site, but we're WP:NOT. A number of people have claimed that we don't need sources for this info, but there are violating several core principles of this project. If they really want a place to put that info they should start their own wiki. A fervent desire to include something is not a reason to pull out WP:IAR and add junk to articles. DreamGuy (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done some research and this is what I've come up with so far. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question. An exception to this rule may be shows containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources." Per WP:V, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." So, to answer your question, no, it's a not WP:RS but a WP:RS isn't required unless someone challenges the material. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just see this wikipedia policy its states: "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." --TIAYN (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Primary sources are allowed but articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. I am also still waiting for TIAYN to explain precisely how refusing to use reliable secondary sources improves Wikipedia. //roux   21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

When have i said that we should refuse using secondary sources? I use them all the time, just not in plot section, see Stargate Atlantis, i've been working on that page for a while. At the reference section you'll see that i have nothing against secondary sources. I just don't think we should include them in plot sections. --TIAYN (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What you have yet to explain is why not. Many, many people have explained to you why we should. You are maintaining the opposite, and have yet to say anything relevant on why we should not be using secondary sources for the plot summary. While it may be true that one doesn't have to, you are saying we must not, and you must therefore explain exactly why. Which you have not done. You are also not explaining how on earth not including secondary sources improves the encyclopedia. Please do so. My experience of discussions like this is that when people refuse to actually explain why they want something, it's simply because they like it that way and have no real reasons. I would like to believe you are the exception to this, so please provide the explanations that have been requested of you. //roux   21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

First of secondary sources from newspapers and magazines among others usually don't write an the whole plot for a series in any details, leaving it with two to three lines. The show itself does not need to be references when it comes down to basic facts in the plot overview of the work. The story arc for a character or film/series/book is never written in any detailed by secondary sources since they don't usually write a whole biography for fictional character or show in a fictional universe. I'm not sayin must not be referenced, but i'm saying it must not been referenced if the plot summary goes through basic story elements included in the show/film/books among others. As i said before, we should reference plot sections if it goes down in details with a reference from that episode. This is what's usually done in fictional character articles. We can of course include secondary sources for the character biography, but it won't go down in so much details as the episodes or film does itself.

I'm not saying must not include secondary sources but must not include sources for plot sections if it does not go through the plot in fully detail, an example of a fully detailed plot synoposis is this, but since the wikipedia community does not want and support these kind this is not the problem. A basic detail of a plot are these for example, see Lost_(TV_series)#Season synopses, Stargate SG-1#Series overview and Heroes (TV series)#Synopsis. These synopsis/plots goes through basic events of the series, without ever going in with fully detailed of what happen in each scene. As said by an above user "Most secondary sources, i.e. articles written by critics (and journalists (my com.), are actually rather poor references for basic plot information, so we need both the secondary and primary sources." If we don't go into dept of what happens in each individual episode or include un-notable plot happenings we don't need to add secondary sources.

For a general summary (as seen on the links to the articles i gave you) we don't need need inline cites. If we go further to dept we should use citation templates and secondary sources. We can't always use secondary sources, for an easy reason to. Not all shows or films get major secondary publishing behind their back. Take a look at the Stargate franchise, a big hit but not very popular with the media (big newspapers and magazines).

We don't have to must not, but we don't need to add inline citations/references if we give a general plot summary of the topic. --TIAYN (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered why no secondary sources is better. I suspect you can't, because there is no good reason. //roux   23:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have WP:RS for the plot summary, then by all means, use them. If not, they're not required. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that is not what he is saying. He is saying we should not use them. There is absolutely no good reason for that, see here. Fact is, writing our own plot summaries is WP:SYN and WP:OR and should therefore be avoided at all costs. //roux   21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're preaching to the choir on this one. If it were up to me, everything would require a WP:RS. But that's not what Wikipedia policies and guidelines actually require. I don't think you can force another editor to use a WP:RS in a situation where they don't have to. In any case, I believe that the original question has been answered. You should take this back to the article's talk page or you can try Wikipedia Dispute Resolution. Good luck! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed and valuable for plot summaries, descriptions of characters, and so on. Writing based on your own viewing of the media is not original research or synthesis, as long as it does not stray from what a reasonable person's objective interpretation of the source would be. To put it another way, there's nothing especially reliable about textual sources as compared to other forms of media. Nevertheless, an article on fiction that only uses primary sources is in danger of failing to demonstrate its subject's relevance in the real world, which is what the writing about fiction guideline is all about. Dcoetzee 20:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone has made this point (don't have the energy today to scale the walls of text ;) ), but it is my understanding that plot summaries are excluded from citation. In place of that citability, we tend to opt for a consensus view of the plot - what the plot actually is to the largest group of contributors. this excludes the esoteric information being unduly foisted on the article from nutjobinexperienced or socially awkward contributors. Such is to be considered concise and free of bloat. What am I missing in this argument? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters you shouldn't be referring to other editors as nutjobs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem with using the work itself as a reference for a descriptive plot summary. While the work is a first-party or primary source, it is still a reliable source for the events that happen within the work. What one cannot do is include analysis, interpretations, etc. into the summary. This has been settled policy for some time, though it does occasionally become a minor point of contention. You can reference previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 29#Descriptive plot summeries and primary sources, Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive30#Fiction in Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 32#How does "no original research" fit with plot summaries?, Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 38#Original research in plot summaries, and Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 44#Constructing a fictional character's biography from only primary source - OR/SYN or not?. If an editor thinks that a particular plot summary is not descriptive, then they should either rewrite it, bring it to the attention of another editor, or discuss what points that may be interpretive or analysis on the talk page. However, whole sell deletion should only be used as a last resort when the summary is entirely analytical or interpretive. --Farix (Talk) 04:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course a television show can be the source for its own plot and basic character information. Primary sources are not forbidden when used to describe itself! They are used for films, television series, books, anime/manga, comics, etc. This has been long standing consensus across these topical areas for a long time, and is reflected in our many featured articles and featured episode lists (all episode summaries in which are "cited" to the episodes themselves), as well as featured chapter, character, and novel lists. As Farix notes, adding analysis, interpretations, etc is what would be OR, not pure plot summary as anyone can refer to the original work to check the summary. Simply summarizing the plot itself is not OR anymore than what we do with ALL reliable sources, which is summarize the salient points in articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary work is fine as long as it is limited to the facts and not analysis. FE, a martial arts film doesn't need a secondary soruce to state that that there's fighting in it, who does it, who wins and loses, etc. It does need a secondary source for describing a character as the strongest, fastest, etc. unless you can quote a phrase from the film itself where a character, narrator or narrative mechanism (such as being crowned "Strongest martial artist") directly says this.陣内_Jinnai 04:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I trust that a book is a sufficient source for a book article, a movie is a sufficient source and a television show is a sufficient source for a television show. (Changing this will also have little to no effect on the amount of factual errors in Wikipedia.) –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those questions which leads me to seriously wonder about the health of Wikipedia. An editor should be discouraged from directly using a primary source to write a summary of it? No matter how this issue is expressed, it still comes over as a rule which is so silly that not only should it be ignored, but drawn, quartered, burnt at the stake & dump the ashes into some polluted river. But instead of ranting over this example of wikilawyering gone toxic -- & my risking being penalized for making personal attacks, let me apply some common sense to this problem & give a reasonable answer.

1. Is the plot summary non-controversial? If so, insisting on a source is being as disruptive as insisting that a source be provided for such non-controversial statements like "Barak Obama is president of the United States" or "France is located in Europe." People who insist on sources for statements like these usually find themselves in trouble for disruption for making an unnecessary point.
2. Can the plot summary be verified easily enough? Someone above mentioned Lost (television) as an example: practically anyone can verify if a summary of the plot of a given episode is accurate. On the other hand, some episodes of television series (for example, television shows from the 1950s may no longer exist) are hard to obtain in order to verify directly if the plot summary is accurate, so a secondary source should be used.
3. Is the plot summary truly a summary of the plot? I suspect this is what the real disagreement is about. We Wikipedians have a tendency to provide too much detail about certain topics, & I wouldn't be surprised if some television shows with 30-minute runtimes have articles which exceed several tens of thousands of words. The point of a plot summary is to provide a brief overview of the television episode, an aide-mémoire to a reader who has seen the show. So a few sentences or a paragraph is all that is needed, & that much doesn't need a citation; but if the plot summary has grown much longer, then maybe the account needs to be sourced. (And maybe this will fight the tendency to write excessively long summaries.)

Well, now that I've been rude to all of you, I'm going to bed. Either I applied the clue-by-four properly here -- or I'll log into tomorrow to find myself blocked from editting. -- llywrch (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

THis has been discussed before, both here and with the FILM community. The consensus has generally been that so long as the information being cited to the episode is objective facts (e.g., Buffy and Angel break up and Angel moves to Los Angeles), then there is no probably citing the episode as the source. TV shows are published sources just like anything else. It's no different then citing a video documentary. Now, it is not ok to cite an episode for some subjective interpretation (e.g., In Gilligan's Island, Ginger is shown to be very shallow and self-centered.). Subjective interpretation of characters must be sourced to either reliable third-parties, or in the least to the creators/writers/actors that work on these fictional characters. The same is said for just writing a plot summary of a TV episode (or a film's plot). So long as you are only listing the objective facts (e.g., Jason kills all of the teenagers when he returns to Crystal Lake), and not subjective information (e.g., Jason was furious with Trish and Tommy), then viewing the episode/film is a reliable enough source. You are not necessarily going to get a third-party source actually describing enough of the plot to write a comprehensive (but still terse) summary of the events of the episode or film. There have been some, but you are not guaranteed one for all of them. So, as has been the consensus in the past, so long as it's objective facts it is perfectly fine to use the source as the reference.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. I understand and have for months grudgingly accepted that real sourcing isn't required for plot summaries and information about characters. The point that everyone is missing is that what TIAYN is saying is that we must not use proper sources for them, which is a far cry from not required. Can someone explain exactly how that improves the reliability of this project? //roux   16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Roux, I think you're too close to this issue to see that you are getting yourself lost in needless complications of policy/guidelines. The original episode is a proper source for a plot summary, unless the episode itself is not available -- say, most of the first season of The Avengers -- in which case, another source needs to be provided. However, as Bignole pointed out, this summary is limited to a recounting of what happens, not an explanation of why things happen. (Although if the reasons are obvious enough to be noncontroversial, as in the case of Hamlet seeking to avenge his father, I wouldn't insist on a citation.) As TIAYN, from what he has written above he's not saying "must not use" (see his comment at 22:14, 22 June 2009), but that adding tags asking for a source -- & insisting that they be to secondary sources -- is likely to be disruptive. If you think that adding the information helps the project, then do it; but don't demand that other people do it by adding the tags. -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Too close...? I stay the hell away from anything involving movies or TV shows for the most part, due to intense ownership by fans who e.g. refuse to accept that secondary sources are good. But the thing is.. how is an episode of e.g. Pokemon available to someone with a crap internet connection in e.g. Tashkent? There is a breathtaking display of systemic bias here. Furthermore, you say that something like The Avengers is now unavailable.. so what happens as other TV shows become unavailable even to the media-saturated West? Sources will be required. So why not put them in now? I flatly disagree with your notion that adding cn/secondary sources tags to such articles is disruptive; they serve the dual purpose of prodding editors and readers to at least attempt to find such sources, as well as pointing out to readers that the material contained therein may not be completely reflective of the show, may reflect undue weight on particular plot points, etc. See, the problem is this: to accurately and neautrally describe the plot of your average TV show or movie would require a dry sports-style play-by-play. But we're summarising here, which means that someone is deciding what is and is not important in the plot. Sure, for the most part that's close enough for jazz, but not infrequently do people blow up plot points involving their favourite characters (for example) while eliding arguably more important points. This is obviously unacceptable from the point of view of WP:OR. //roux   18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Most scholarly journals are much harder to get than TV shows. Also, even when using secondary sources, you're still summmarizing. Summarizing secondary sources is just as frought with danger as summarizing primary sources. Anyways, you're line of thinking has come up numerous times at the WP:FICT talk page over the years, if you want to read multi-page discussions on the issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Roux. Powergate92Talk 18:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're free to lobby to have WP:V, WP:WikiProject_Television/Style_guidelines and WP:FICT changed. In fact, you can be bold and change them right now. Let us know how it goes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really seeing why WP:V would need to be changed in any way, since what I am saying only supports WP:V. The Television Wikiproject style guidelines is a red herring; they are and must be subservient to actual policy. But this is all so much farting in the wind.. as is usual for Wikipedia, entrenched silliness that runs contrary to actual policy is regarded as sacrosanct because people like it that way. //roux   19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most of WP:V would have be rewritten. For starters, it says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." You would need to change it to "All material must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The sections on Questionable sources, Self-published sources (online and paper) and Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would probably need to be rewritten or ripped from the policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more of an issue that people do not apply common sense, especially for feature articles requiring that statements like "A rubber ball has no corners." to be verified because someone, somewhere could challenge it.陣内_Jinnai 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:No original research says "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented" so if TV shows are reliable sources for there own plot summarys and characters sections then users should not say the show is the source, they should cite the show as the source. Powergate92Talk 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's generally assumed that a plot summary will always be referenced to the original work, so the need the cite the original work is purely a style issue instead of WP:V, WP:NOR, and even WP:RS. If, however, a plot summary did not come for a source other than the original work, then that source should be cited. As for Roux's question as to why one should use the original source to write a summary over a third-party source. For starters, the third-party source may introduce errors or inaccuracies that get passed on to Wikipedia. When it comes to summarizing material, it is always best to go with the source that is closes to the original as possible, if not the original source itself. --Farix (Talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would very much like to see a upgrading of our standards to provide for more exact quotation in this respect. It is important to know where in a work a plot element is described on discussed. I don't think it has to be the exact frame, or get ever instance, but there should be enough information that someone can find it in the source with reasonable effort. I'm not suggesting this as a requirement, but a standard to work towards. DGG (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's beyond our requirements at this point, but I think one of the templates allows us to specify the time into an episode that an event happens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It does, but requiring it would not work for interactive works like video games.陣内_Jinnai 22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Examiner.com

I was wondering if we had a stance on the use of this site. Is it considered to be a blog network or does the "expert status" of the individuals take preference? Guest9999 (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is more of a blog network Unomi (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the discussion from the last time this came up.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not even close to reliable. It's doubtful any person on examiner.com has an legitimate "expert status". They're just bloggers selected based upon applying for a certain topic in a certain city. No actual expertise at all is required to be demonstrated to get a position there, just a desire to blog and drive traffic for advertising dollars. There's also no oversight to speak of. The site is no better than some random personal blog picked at random. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, is there any progress in getting this blacklisted? Was someone working on that? What do we have to do to make that happen? DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I cross posted at the Spam talk page[2]], but there was no response, and I still don't know what that means. There's been another 136 links added (which I didn't check very closely this time), but the website is clearly being used frequently as a reliable source and the articles are clearly user-generated articles by non-experts and little to no editorial oversight. I don't know the solution, but 1,200 links is soon going to be double that. Flowanda | Talk 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe we need to demonstrate that it's actually being spammed instead of just being unreliable in order to get the spam people to take notice. Considering there are a lot more potential people that could be spamming (every blogger there could list their own articles) it migh be hard to track down, but I bet there are people systematically linking to all their stuff. I've got a lot of cleaning up after chronic problem edits going on already right now, but maybe I'll try to tackle this soon. Silly red tape. DreamGuy (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider asking for an XLinkBot, which reverts blog-type links often added by new users, instead of a full blacklist. Blacklisting should only be used as a last resort. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, let's hold on for just a moment. I think that the original link to the RS noticeboard seems to be rife with errors of cherry-picked references. People getting paid to write makes them unreliable? Really? So, we can exclude anyone who writes for a living, like speech writers, newspaper reporters, etc? I imagine the wiki will get a lot more sparse from culling every article of references written by people doing so for a paycheck. As Examiner has editorial oversight, I am unclear as to the real issue here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, in its current form, examiner.com doesn't seem to have editorial oversight anymore. San Francisco and Washington, which have print versions of the Examiner newspaper may be different, but other cities covered don't, and they seem to be nothing more than hosting sites. oknazevad (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wisegeek

Wisegeek.com has come up previously here, but there was no real discussion about its reliability as a source. I see that it is cited in quite a few articles: [3]. My particular attention to it came up in relation to the Hot stain article, but I am interested in comment on wisegeek in general. Gigs (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

wisegeek.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

The website appears to be professionally written with editorial oversight[4], but the website appears to be an encyclopedia (tertiary source), which may limit its use as a reliable source. I've come across it before as a supplemental link, but I don't think it could be used to support controversial info or an entire article. Flowanda | Talk 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I ran across it recently and decided to remove it as unreliable. It doesn't strike me as being particularly authoritative. It has oversight, but is that editorial control reliable for encyclopedic coverage of the topics covered? I'm not seeing any reason to think it is. The abot page doesn't seem to argue for any topic matter expertise; just looks like random people who happen to write. DreamGuy (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It has oversight, and I would say reliable source. However I agree with Flowanda in that it's a tertiary source and we shouldn't base an antire article on it. Ideally it would be used, along with many other sources, to fill in any "missing pieces" in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Webhosting.info

Is http://Webhosting.info a reliable enough source so that I can say it reports that Dreamhost is in the top 10 web hosting companies worldwide by number of domains hosted? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, as that list is for registrars, not web hosting companies. That's not number of domains hosted with a website, that's number of names bought through them. Hosting and registration are separate, though a lot of them can do both. I don't know whether it is reliable for name registrations info, but if you're only interested in the hosting end of it then it's moot anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, unless I'm looking at the wrong thing... If you have a web host specific one can you give a direct link? DreamGuy (talk)

[edit] ISHA books and other circular references

I recently encountered a problem with a group of books published in Delhi, India under the imprint ISHA books. It seems they are another circular reference source like ICON Group International.

The problem cropped up when a copyright violation was reported for the article Jallianwala Bagh massacre as being copied or visa versa from this volume of books published in November 2008 A review shows the book is a compilation of Wikipedia articles. For example, I examined the history of the article Home Rule Movement which is also duplicated in the book. The opening sentence was started in the WP article All India Home Rule League on November 9 2005 and by November 24 2005 was developed into the entire article now appearing in the book. Editing in the WP article shows that it was developed over time through various edits by a variety editors.

This isn't the only book by ISHA books which is a Wikipedia copy. The book by Om Gupta, Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, ISHA books was published in June 2006. A review of a few entries shows it was copied from Wikipedia in the Spring of 2006.

For example: the article Tajuddin Ahmad appears in the book in a version that was already substantially written in Wikipediaby October 2005. The article in the book was copied from this WP version (including the miscapitalization of the word "Was" in the first sentence. The book's entry for Qissa Khwani bazaar massacre has almost the exact wording from the inital WP article here on July 4 2005. The book copies this WP version from March 31 2006. Thebook's version even includes the misspelled word "skecth".

The problem is that these books are being used more and more as sources in articles, and the WP articles can be falsely reported as copyright violations of these books. Is there a place in Wikipedia for creating a list of circular reference sources which should not be used? If there isn't, there should be. I've been looking around and have not found one yet. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate list of circular references, they should all just be here, so anyone searching archives to see if the sources are valid only have one place to search instead of going multiple places. DreamGuy (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The very problem is that these discussions get buried in the archived pages and are soon forgotten. Take ICON Group International, for example. That issue was raised here only a couple of months ago, yet a quick search reveals citations to ICON have crept back into articles -- including this Featured List with BLP issues. It seems editors who edit featured articles aren't aware that these sources are invalid -- probably because there is no centralized area to check. It would be much better to build a list so that editors can keep track of them. It shouldn't be that hard to begin a page with a list of known unreliable sources. Circular references are difficult to determine once they have taken root in WP articles and as more books are being written and sold of copied Wikipedia articles, this problem is only increasing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize, but, honestly, anywhere we'd put it would get buried in archives soon enough. The problems with circular references are the same problems with unreliable sources: taking root, increasing, etc. The number of bad sources out there could fill an ocean. If it's all in one place at least there's a reasonable expectation someone trying to look it up could find it. The more spread out everything is the less likelihood anyone will know all the places to look... or bother to take the time to try. We should find a way to get people used to using the search for the archives more regularly before adding any new sources. Maybe add that to some welcome guide, or some template when we warn people, or something. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Great catch! A couple of points:

• Google Books lists the publisher of Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and Freedom Fighters of India as "Gyan Publishing House". Is this just another name for ISHA, or are they re-printers ?
• Are there any other problematic titles by this publisher besides the two ?
• I think it is most useful to let the related wikiproject know about such wikipedia sourced books and publishers, since many project members who are most likely to come across such references are unlikely to have RSN watchlisted. (User:CactusWriter has already posted at WT:INB).

Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several other books from Gyan Publishing House used as references on wikipedia. I looked at one at random: Prison Management by M.B. Manaworker; I haven't checked if it too is copied from wikipedia, or if it factually incorrect; but the writing itself is horrible with broken and ungrammatical sentences like, "Now the global forces are towards the abolition of prisons.", "Chapter 1 contains the institution of prison and imprisonment is universally found in all the sovereign states and confined up to modern state system".
I wonder if it is a self-publishing business ? Abecedare (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the Gyan imprint. I have started to look at the other ISHA book titles. Off hand, I found another by Om Gupta titled Media Society and Culture was published in January 2006 and is copied from Wikipedia in Fall 2005. At this point, I would be wary of any titles from that imprint -- but I am not sure whether or not many of the titles are legitimate books. I have yet to find the website for ISHA books to determine if they are a vanity press. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A practical way of preserving this information in accessible form is to write an article on the publisher. But we might want to do a checklist in WP space not just of WP mirrors, but of WP print reproductions DGG (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the checklist idea is preferable. (For one, I haven't been able to dig up any information about ISHA books which would allow for an article. And, secondly, after reviewing more of their titles, I believe their WP copied books might be only a few isolated instances.) A checklist as a subpage of RS could be started with the titles and publishers we currently know, expanded over time and would provide a centralized resource. It could be linked as a "see also" from WP:CIRCULAR and WP:RS. It could also instruct editors on performing a generalized search of WP archives for any discussions of about titles and publishers, but I would hope there would be less need of that as these books became listed. And as Abecedare mentioned, it could also instruct editors to notify appropriate projects when a new questionable source was found. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've searched inside many more of the titles by Gyan and ISHA. Gyan books appears to be a well-established publishing house with reputable authors. Although I haven't found a website for ISHA, I haven't found any more books which are copies from WP -- and that includes some other titles by Om Gupta. I no longer think this is a case like ICON Group International where all the titles are suspect but rather these books will have to be treated on an individual basis. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Drowned in Sound

Does anyone have an opinion on DoS music reviewing site as a reliable source? I'm not 100% sure how it works, but I think that literally anyone can post there, making it not very reliable. In particular, do you think it's a valid source for a quote on the article about Jon Courtney, which references a dubious DoS editor named "Septic Clit", who has a history of vitriolic and pointlessly agressive reviews, and no credibility as far as I can tell. If anyone agrees with me that this quote should be deleted, please can you reverse the recent edit to Jon Courtney's page that keeps it in. Thanks!Thedarkfourth (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think DiS has as much credibility as many of the other sources used on the page, eg Myspace, Progsheet, Disorder and, in fact other DiS references. I believe the problem is that you disagree with the reviewer in this case and that it adds balance to the somewhat biased views that you have appropriated for this artist. The nature of music reviews is to sometimes shock, and this should not be mistaken for vitriol. Best wishes Rightphone (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • anyone else?Thedarkfourth (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like a reliable source. If others aren't reliable either they should all be removed. Cherry picking sources for POV should not be a tactic, no should accusations of same be used as a tactic. If something is unreliable it all goes. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is celebritywonder.com a WP:RS?

Is celebritywonder.com a reliable source for non-controversial biographical information? Specifically, is the following article[5] a reliable source for actress Jamie Chung's birthdate? Celebritywonder.com is owned by UGO Entertainment (a division of Hearst Corporation) whose 1up.com website is generally considered to be a reliable source. Celebritywonder.com does have a Contact Us page with a physical address, but it redirects to Ugo's main Contact Us web page. They appear to have a professional editorial staff but again it redirects to Ugo's main editorial staff[6]. It's currently referenced by about 110 Wikipedia articles.[7] It doesn't appear to be cited by very many established reliable sources. Opinions? Comments? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that as a source for anything. No sign that anyone takes the site seriously, and it's a pretty hard site to take seriously on the face of it. It probably doesn't purposely give out false information, but there's no reputation for fact checking that I'm aware of.—Kww(talk) 13:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Google Streetview in road articles

I have been putting work into Wisconsin Highway 119 and possibly brig it to GAN in the near future. However I am curious if Google Street view can be considered reliable enough to prove a sign exists in a certain spot. For instance This image shows that Interstate 894 is also signed at the roads origin. So I have mentioned within Wisconsin Highway 119 that I-890 is also signed at that particular exit and cited google maps as a source. Would this be acceptable. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just put I-894 in the main column, as I-94 to I-894 west – Milwaukee, Chicago? Exit lists in general are a sort of "gray area" where we're not actually claiming that signs have the exact wording shown. --NE2 01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm interesting, I like that proposal in fact I will go do your recommendation now. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mercator, Independence Cymru and HighBeam Research Inc

Anyone have an opinion as to whether the Mercator site, in general, or the Working Papers 21 document, in particular, are "reliable" sources? The Working Papers 21 document has been used as the source for the quote:

“

Giles Coren, in The Times, August 13th, 1999: "I hate the Cornish. I hate their poxy language which they make such a fuss about. I hate their fancy foreign food - like clotted cream - which makes the place stink, and I hate their fatuous demands to be treated as a nation."

”

on Cornish people#Negative portrayals of the Cornish. I've been unable locate any other reliable source (the quote also appears on Cornish forums). May I also have your opinion regarding the two citations given for the following quote on the same article please?

“

Western Daily Press (Bristol) 28th November 2007 - South West Columnist of the Year, Chris Rundle wrote an article entitled "Saints alive! Pasty eaters demand new bank holiday" and goes on to describe his contempt for the "pasty eaters", their Cornish indigenous language, Saint Piran's day and describes Cornwall as "one of the most depressing places one can find oneself, with an economy barely more buoyant than that of Romania". The article begins with the question "When is someone going to put the Cornish in their place?" and describes the Cornish language as sounding "like someone speaking Urdu with a mouth full of nails".

”

The references are from Independence Cymru and from HighBeam Research Inc. I'm guessing that HighBeam Research Inc is "reliable", in itself. The question here really, is: can we use "pay" sites as references, as general readers/editors would be unable to check the references? Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can use generally available "pay sites", just like we allow generally available books, even if they are not free. Free online sources are great if available, but not a requirement. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help with verification. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is also that pay sites are not automatically ruled out. The reference as such is to The Times, and most people in the UK at least will have access to archives or back issues via their local library. Indeed, I can verify that he indeed write that, but on the other hand, the quote seems to have been taken out of context, and if you read the whole column, it easy to see he didn't mean a word of it, the first 5 paras of the column are apparently entirely anti-Cornish, but they are followed by "Salubrious, isn't it? But then, you see, I want to be a proper writer one day. And you can't unless you occasionally tempt people to wonder whether you are a loony racist." and as you read on through the article it becomes clear that he was tryign to make apoint about various (possibly) racist comments made a short while before by Jeffrey Archer. The WDP article appears to be absolutely serious though. David Underdown (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

HighBeam is in any case not a source, just an electronic service that aggregates the content of various newspapers and magazines and makes them available for a fee. In many cases, the same material may be available without a fee from other sources (as it is for much of The Times). In a great many other cases, it is available from one or another of the multiple competing aggregators that most public and academic libraries subscribe to--the only way of knowing what may be available through them is to try, or ask a librarian who knows the local availability. HighBeam more than the others has managed to get itself prominent on the Googles, but it is almost never the only source. And of course essentially all of the content of such aggregators is available in the original paper also. As David U shows, the key problem in using the snippets that some of these services make available free, is that the snippet may be out of context. DGG (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to each of you for taking the time and trouble to respond. @ Stephan Schulz: A good point, and well made. I'll check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. @ David Underdown: I am very pleased to hear that the Giles Coren quote is out of context. I was surprised to see that he had written such things, which was why I wanted to read the whole piece myself. I couldn't find it, so came here. May I ask how you accessed the whole piece? Do you use a pay site? Thanks for checking the WDP piece too. @ DGG: Thanks for info on HiBeam. @ you all: Do you consider Mercator to be a "reliable" source generally, or does it always depend on context? Daicaregos (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to my job I have free access to The Times archives online back to the very earliest editions, via my local libary membership I also have free online access to NewsUK which is one of the other aggregation services DGG refers to which gave me access to the WDP article-and potentially many other national and regional papers across the UK back to some point in the 90s, the exact date varies from paper to paper (even if I didn't have it via work, if I actually went into one of the local libraries I'd have access to the same Times archvie material). Check your lcoal council website for the onlie resources offered by your local library, I believe there's some sort of national deal which means virtually everyone in teh UK can have access to the online editions of Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford English Dictionary, Grove Dictionary of Music, Grove Art and various other OUP publications and assorted other things. Once you have a library card, it's usually just a matter of following the links from your library service's website and entering your library card number at the relevant login prompt. It's a great boon when writing wiki articles. David Underdown (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys---- I have re-edited the Coren comment and I do include the fact that it was meant as a parody, however it does not change the fact that it DID cause offence, he did pick on traditional stereotypes, and conversely defines such stereotypes as being racist. Coren is well-known for being controversial so it is up to the reader to decide whether it was meant or not and draw their own conclusions. As for the Mercator site, well it is an EU supported network set up following a European Commission project with centres in various parts of Europe... again I don't think it is a dubious source in itself, in fact I have found it very useful for discussion of minority languages. Thanks for going into the subject and it's always useful to evaluate the sources. Brythonek (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice David Underdown, I will look into that. Any thoughts on Mercator folks? Daicaregos (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Website about a living person

Judyth Vary Baker was taken to AfD by myself, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker. The subject of the article claims to have been Lee Harvey Oswald's lover and to have been involved in clandestine cancer research in an anti-Castro plot. An issue is finding reliable sources, and an editor has found a website that critically examines her claims:[8]. It is written by John McAdams, an Association Professor of American Politics at Marquette University.[9] As this subject is within his area of expertise, does this website count as a reliable source? Fences&Windows 15:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The website/author looks reliable: academic, cited as an expert by other sources, etc. Would be reliable as far a giving his opinions and for non-controversial facts. Controversial alleged facts might have to be labeled and sourced for other (non-WP:FRINGE views). And as a single source it wouldn't be enough by itself to keep an article up for deletion on notability grounds. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] clarification

This question has come up several times:

There is some clarification needed on whether (and if so under what circumstances) can twitter and facebook be used as primary sources for a bio entry. e.g. regarding Iran's presidential conflict, Mirhosein Mousavi and Zahra Rahnavard have limited access to the media, and have been releasing statements to their supporters (it is said) via facebook/twiter.

Can the info appearing there be used in articles?--Zereshk (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, twitter and facebook are not considered reliable, however Mousavi and Rahnavard would probably qualify for the "expert" exemtion. It would have to be clearly established that Mousavi or Rahnavard authored the message... and I would probably limit use to SPS (attributed) statements about themselves (ie we should not use their comments about other candidates or general conditions in Iran). Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Is there a way to really be sure that it is indeed them who is using the twitter/facebook account ? For example, has one or more reliable mainstream media source (BBC, CNN, NYT ...) connected them to the account as a fact ? If so they may be narrowly used as self-published sources. Alternatively, if a reliable media source quotes a post they made on the twitter/facebook page, we can use the secondary source, keeping WP:BLP and WP:DUE in mind. Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How about if we use the word "attributed" in the texts, like CNN has here? Otherwise, I dont know of a way to be sure the statements are really coming from him, but the media has surely commented on the facebook/twitter events: [10] and last paragraph here. There seem to be direct links available as well e.g.[11].--Zereshk (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article says that the Facebook account is "created for Mir Hossein Mousavi". My guess is that nobody is really sure that this is indeed an account controlled by him personally. I think it would be best not to use the facebook or twitter posts directly, even as a SPS. On the other hand using secondary sources like CNN etc, that quote posts on these sites should be okay as long as we attribute the statements properly and carefully. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If Bloomberg says the account was created for somebody, that's good enough. The only difference between "created for" versus "controlled by" would be which adjectives we use when attributing the quote. I would say go ahead and use the quote if you have a permalink for it; I'm a little more leery of Facebook because of its closed nature. Good practice would be, after quoting Bloomberg to establish the blog as relevant, to cite statements both to a secondary source and to the blog so our readers can see both. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Using Wikipedia software notices to confirm that high traffic to Michael Jackson's article caused server upsets

Per this discussion Talk:Michael Jackson#News "broke the internet", Wikipedia has entered reliable sources to say that news about Jackson's death almost broke the internet. I'm a believer in going to the absolute best authority of a reliable source, which in this case would be this link and this one, both Wikimedia technical boards. Tips? Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a RS, not good for the claim, and arguably (but that's a different issue for elsewhere) not really notable. The CNN article is a RS for heavy load and crashes on some popular services. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Family attorney and human genetics on E1b1b

There is currently a dispute on the article haplogroup E1b1b regarding certain comments made by Ellen Levy Coffman in a recent publication. Ellen Levy Coffman is an attorney specializing in family law. In her personal capacity or just as hobby, she is a member of Journal of Genetic Genealogy (JOGG), which is a Genealogical society that incorporates information on human genetics. She recently published an article called A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE for JOGG.

The controversy is that she is not a geneticist but an attorney so she doesn’t meet the WP:PROF test for genetics even though she has published a paper for JOGG. Furthermore JOGG specifically states that it would accept papers that wouldn’t meet the standard required for publication in established scientific journals. [12]. In short JOGG provides an avenue for non-scientists to do their own independent research. In some instances, JOGG serves as a useful tertiary source compiling information from scientific journals, so per WP:PSTS, some information from the website is useful. However when a non-scientist author makes an assumption or hypothesis, should it qualify as a reliable source? There is a discussion at Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Coffman_citation_yet_again. There was a previous discussion also at Talk:Khazars#DNA_Evidence. Pashalamu (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TMZ

Despite the dismissal of TMZ as a supposedly unreliable source, seems to me like they had this story right on the money. They were among the first, maybe the first, to break the story, and everyone picked up on it, and it turned out to be true. Was this a case of the blind squirrel finding the occasional acorn? Or should they be re-evaluated as to their worthiness as a source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A singular event is not something that can earn a site approval as a reliable source. The question here is whether TMZ is viewed to be accurate and reliable. Sure, they got this one right, however if they report many rumours that turn out to be false, then they would have to be considered unreliable for our purposes. Resolute 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ seems pretty reliable to me. When they report rumors they generally make it pretty clear that it's just a rumor. For example when they supposedly saw 2Pac in a club the article about it said something along the lines of "we believe we saw 2Pac". They also pretty much always have pictures to support their claims. Even with the 2Pac thing they had pictures of a man that did look very similar to 2Pac. You make it sound as if this is the first time they've had reliable information. A few somewhat recent things I can think of that they reported correctly include the ShamWow guy beating up a hooker and Chris Brown beating up Rihanna.  Anonymous  ^{Talk  Contribs} 06:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course they get things right, and not infrequently. There could be circumstances in which we could use them as a source. But in general they are a gossip site and TV show, and are not committed to high-quality journalism, rather to sensational scoops that may or may not have been fact checked. Unfortunately there are a lot of newspapers and television networks which are not committed to high-quality journalism either, but that's another topic. In general I do not think TMZ should be considered a reliable source, certainly for something as critical as the supposed death of a living person. I was not at all surprised that they knew what was going on with MJ before everyone else and I figured they were probably right in what they were reporting, but I would never source a claim of someone's death to them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about TMZ one way or another, but it would be interesting to see if someone has done any study to see how accurate their reporting is compared with the "reliable" sources. Being a gossip site does not mean they're getting it wrong. It doesn't mean they're getting it right, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Even if they have a reputation for accuracy in juicy celebrity gossip, WP:SOURCE tells us that "Questionable sources . . . include websites and publications expressing views . . . which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." When push comes to shove, I think it's far better to use a reliable news source instead; in the case of Michael Jackson's death, for instance, many editors were of the opinion that the announcement by CNN was the moment of reliable verification. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If a source is proven to be reliable when reporting facts, and assuming they make it clear when something is a fact vs. a rumor, they are by definition a "reliable" source. It would be interesting to see if TMZ just happened to get this one right, or if they have a good track record where facts are concerned. As the MJ story started to make the rounds, TMZ was the first thing that came up on Google. Then a number of standard reliable sources started parroting the TMZ story, with the caveat "reportedly". When the exaggerated rumors about Cronkite were circulating last weekend (and I have no idea what TMZ had to say about that) I was reminded ironically of the careful way he covered the JFK assassination. There were all kinds of bits and pieces and rumors and facts coming in, and he hedged on all of them - until he got the "apparently official" word - when it became real, and only then did he almost lose it on the air. As a seasoned reporter, he knew how to separate fact from rumor. Presumably, rumors connected with up-to-the-moment news stories belong more in wikinews (which, ironically, still said "reportedly" for awhile even after it was confirmed here) and wikipedia articles should be more restrictive, to confirmed or official facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• To outline it from a more pragmatic point of view:

• If something notable and encyclopedic is covered by TMZ, chances are it will also be covered by several other news outlets which are superior to TMZ both in the quality of authorship and in the lack of lurid sensationalism and ethically-murky-at-best disregard for the privacy of human beings in a madcap drive to tickle the fantasy of the most wretched and lowest of the wretched lowest common denominator.
• If something is only covered by TMZ - with no alternate sourcing options - the overwhelming odds are that it is either completely non-notable (List of restaurants Celle McBrity ate at in March 2008), or embarrassingly tangential to the scope of a notable individual's career (Michael Jordan's favorite flavor of tea and his weekly NFL picks).
• In the extremely far-fetched hypothetical scenario where TMZ is truly the only outlet for a notable concept or useful addition (i.e., imagine it's the only site which listed Model Von Modelstein's height, weight, and true birthdate), Ignore All Rules remains a possibility.
• Disallowing TMZ is not only a good choice from both a journalistic and a journalistic ethics perspective, but also had the side-benefit of discouraging the addition of the sort of minutae that would only be cited by TMZ - it's a lot more elegant a process to remove User:Gnarly Newbie's tea-flavor edit on grounds that TMZ is not a Reliable Source™ than it is to bicker with Mr. Gnarly Newbie about why favorite flavors of tea have no place in an encyclopedia article about a basketball player. It also provides a gentle point in the right direction for all editors - rather than lecturing about what is and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia until we're blue in the User:, newbies can potentially figure out, individually and introspectively, what is and is not encyclopedic on the basis of what is and what is not sourcable. In general, "why"s are much better learned on one's own than directly taught by another - as I'm sure anybody who's spent time in the sometimes-infuriating company of a two-year-old can surely understand!

• Ergo, we are a lot better off - for multiple reasons - considering TMZ "guilty until Ignore All Rules proves innocent (that is to say, 'necessary')", and invoking IAR in whatever isolated situations where it is needed; than we are opening the floodgates to Wikipedia's Celebrity BLPs becoming WiGossipedia, the Free Tabloid that Anybody Can Edit, and wasting countless man-hours trying to explain when TMZ-sourced information is and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. In short - the tl;dr version of the above: The TMZ business is ethically bankrupt, the quality of journalism sucks, and 99.9% of TMZ-sourced and only-TMZ-sourceable information is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Easier to have the 99.9% fall under a "default ____" blanket, and spend our time evaluating the remaining 0.1%, than it is to deal with the alternative. Badger Drink (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that using the claim that TMZ is not reliable, as a way of weeding out minutia (hey, maybe I want to know where Celle McBrity has lunch, even though I don't know who Celle McBrity is), is rather dishonest. Practical, I understand. But not very honest or ethical - more like the "lazy way" of handling the fact that redlinks and IP's and even regular users might think something trivial is something important. What color pajamas MJ is wearing qualifies as trivial. But a story that he's been rushed to a hospital following cardiac arrest is most assuredly not trivial. Ah, but what if he's revived and goes home and everything's fine? Does the story go back to being trivial? I'm not sure. What say you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite like Badger Drink's reasoning (and their username, incidentally). I think that inherent in the consideration of whether a source is reliable is whether it's encyclopedic. Juicy celebrity gossip sites by their very nature aren't encyclopedic. Also by their very nature juicy celebrity gossip sites rely on rumours and personal opinion. A good test is to ask oneself: would this source be considered appropriate for a paper submitted for credit in a university course or in an article in a scholarly journal? TMZ as a source about itself probably would. But as a source about the death of a public figure? A known, reliable news source like CNN, the New York Times, the BBC or similar would be much more appropriate. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So-called "reliable sources" are also filled with stuff that's non-encyclopedic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...like the weather reports and horoscopes. But that's not their primary stock in trade. Celebrity gossip is by its nature unencyclopedic; it just happened that the gossip TMZ was reporting yesterday was notable, because it regarded the sudden death of a very famous person. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What are saying? That horoscopes are not reliable? Next thing, you'll be telling me there's no such thing as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a smart Blonde. (How's that for an oldie?) However, you've hit upon the inherent flaw in the concept of the so-called "reliable source" - basically attacking the nature of the source rather than the specific fact. Maybe that's just not practical. Maybe the next time they come out with so-and-so rushed to the hospital and apparently at death's door, it will turn out to be only a severe hangnail. It seems like the lazy way - but I recognize that it could be a practical necessity, or there would be an even greater amount of time spent debating reliability of specific facts. I don't inherently agree with that approach, but I understand it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Far be it from me to crush anyone's fondly cherished delusions :) Anyway, that's the nature of scholarly writing: sources are evaluated partly on what they are. Even now online sources in general are widely considered a little unscholarly, and manuscripts that rely on them too heavily may be criticized. It's still considered better to get the information from an academic work. An online academic journal will probably be considered appropriate, more so if it's peer reviewed, and the online edition of a respected newspaper or news source will probably be considered appropriate too. An academic journal (say, the Journal of Developmental Psychology) will always trump a lay magazine like Psychology Today. Information about celebrities is by its nature less likely to be found in scholarly sources, but truly notable facts about them can be found in slightly more journalistically respectable places than celebrity gossip sites. Despite the unencyclopedic minutia some users insist on inserting into every article, Wikipedia is supposed to be a scholarly endeavour. Exploding Boy (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Genetically modified food controversies

Is the organisation Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology a reliable source for this edit and this edit? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• About us
• Article cited.

Please note that problems with this editor's contributions are also being discussed at the NOR noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gawker.com

I was wondering if there was an established position on using this as a source, for facts or the opinions of the writers. Guest9999 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are the mentions of it on this board.[13] It sounds like it isn't considered reliable, although that may depend on what it's being used for, and who the writer is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Guest9999 (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] When a reliable source clearly is not

Over on the ACN Inc. article, which is about an MLM company and thus it would seem inherently controversial, an editor is wish to add claims using this article from New America Media (NAM). New America Media would seem to be a reliable source, and I have no idea as to the veracity of the actual claims User:TheEditor22 is wanting to add using NAM as a source - however ... reading the article it is so clearly full of false information that I can possibly consider it to be a reliable source. For example, it refers to those working with an MLM company as "employees", when even those with a modicum of knowledge know they are not - they're agents,reps, distributors, that kind of thing. The article refers to the FTC investigation of Amway, launched in 1975 and claims it was about Amway making more money from "motivational materials" than from sale of product. The FTC case had nothing to do with motivational materials, as is clear to anyone who cares to read it. Even then, Amway doesn't sell "motivational materials", criticism of Amway in this area is to do with 3rd party companies that offer products and services to Amway reps. The article also refers to allegations made in a class action lawsuit against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. in 2002 but fails to mention the suit was dismissed. The article also claims about MLM that it’s perfectly legal for them to earn money based solely on start-up fees - this is completely false, that would make them pyramid schemes. Anyway, hopefully you see the problem. NAM would appear to be a serious media outlet, but this particular article is so clearly full of errors that I don't think it could be considered a "reliable source" for anything much. Thoughts? --Insider201283 (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion we've been having. Also look at his youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/user/insider201283

He is a promoter of multilevel marketing and is doing his utmost to bias the article and add pro-mlm propaganda. He has twisted the truth regarding the NAM article in order to discredit it. It is a very reputable source. Second to which, the aspects of the article that I have quoted arent even related to the aspects of the article that he is defaming.

I'm trying my utmost to keep the ACN Inc wikipedia article impartial. --TheEditor22 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not the one adding anything, and I haven't twisted anything about the NAM article. I posted to RS/N to encourage others, hopefully with a NPOV, to read it, check out the facts, and make an impartial judgement. Why would I do that if I was trying to "twist the truth"? You however have continued with a number of falsehoods on the talk page, including, bizarrely, continuing to maintain FTC vs Amway was about "motivational products", and persisting in spreading lies about me personally despite my categorically telling you it was false. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

All I ask is that you all read into the user Insider201283. Do your own research and you'll come to the same conclusions that I have. He is NOT an impartial editor of the ACN article. --TheEditor22 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, so that's why you don't consider the FTC vs Amway to be a good source about FTC vs Amway ... because I suggested you read it! Clearly NAM is a much better source than ... the source. Now it all makes sense .... :/ --Insider201283 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I read it, and I expect everybody else to as well. What are you trying to prove here? I didnt even mention the FTC vs Amway bit of the article in wikipedia. The part that I referenced was a documented conversation with a former ACN. That in and of itself is a very credible source, particulary seeing as it's in an article by the reputable New America Media. Stop mentioned the FTC Vs Amway part because not only is it accurate, but it has nothing to do with what i cited from the article. --TheEditor22 (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

---

--TheEditor22 (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

he FTC vs Amway part is just one very obvious example that shows the lack of fact checking on the part of the journalist and yourself. It's not the only one. If there are so many errors we know of, how can one consider it to be a "reliable source", particularly when even then it is just for one opinion. How about we say something like - in an article riddled with factual errors, NAM reported that a former ACN agent (whom NAM incorrectly called an employee) claimed that "the real money is made in recruiting". --Insider201283 (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already told you that "employed" in the article was not used in the context of an employee. My time can be employed, but that does not necessarily make me an employee. Stop using wordplay...--TheEditor22 (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain which other words in the article were used differently than normal usage? Doesn't this issue alone make the source somewhat unreliable, as we have to guess what the author means? Could you also please still explain how FTC v Amway was about motivational materials, which the author - and you - have asserted numerous times. What word or words are actually meant to be interpreted as "motivational materials", since they're never actual mentioned. "soap" perhaps? :/--Insider201283 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're paid to promote ACN and AMWAY.... anybody looking through your history will notice that. You're a discrace to the wikipedia community. This is not a Multileval marketing brochure, and you are trying so hard to promote these companies that it just blows my mind. You're a communist... --TheEditor22 (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone who'se employed to promote private companies is a "communist"?? Is this debate actually intelligable to anyone other than you two? Paul B (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty damn funny. Well, it would be except it's not true on either count - I'm neither paid to promote ACN or Amway, nor am I communist. TheEditor22, I've asked you to stop making such false accusations here, if you continue to do so I'll have to take more formal action. Paul - the simple issue is the article in question has a large number of factual errors, easily confirmed through other sources. I think that makes it clearly unreliable as a source for anything. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I'm getting really frustrated with Insider. I think you'd have to see all the chat history, but, basicaly he's really trying to control the ACN.inc article. Doing his utmost to prevent any negative information being presented in the article. He will come up with any excuse to avoid negative information, however shows no concern over pro-acn information that is not sourced correctly. Some help would be greatly appreciated! --TheEditor22 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ahhh, the irony. I read this straight I've just been putting in "fact" tags requesting better citations for the non-controversial stuff, and added a better reference and more info on some of the "negative" stuff. What I'm "trying" to do, TheEditor22, is have a well written well sourced article. You appear to be trying to squeeze in anything "negative" you can find, sourcing be damned, and falsely accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a paid editor. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You do appear to live in the British Virgin Islands, Insider. http://www.youtube.com/user/insider201283 I could be wrong but, your wikipedia page says that you're an Australian living in Europe. I totally love the Amway proganda material you have on your website by the way!!--TheEditor22 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me to quote some random unknown woman in a news article who says "it's a fantastic company". I quoted the notable people, and that inluded one of the ACN lawyers. You should read up on wikipedia notability rules. --TheEditor22 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And you also cited some random essentially unknown people in from the NAM article. I personally don't think either of those sources should be considered. I'm endeavouring to try and get some consensus with you based on your approach to the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request to reopen discussion on examiner.com

Hi, I do not normally edit here at reliable sources, but I missed the discussion about examiner.com and I would like to have the opportunity to contribute. The archived discussion is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#examiner.com_.3D_paid_blogging.2C_no_editorial_oversight

Below are some comments that I have prepared on criticisms from the archive. However, the most pertinent point is this: the examiner.com company uses Internet technology to harness the efforts of hundreds of writers, just like Wikipedia, and has credibility issues, just like Wikipedia. I think it is a big mistake to throw out examiner.com on the basis of the criticism I have read thus far without also criticizing Wikipedia identically.

The quality and qualifications of examiner.com writers is all over the map, just like Wikipedia's. Quality contributions bubble to the top here, and so do they at examiner.com. I am not suggesting that the entire site should be accepted unquestioningly, but it seems very much an overreaction to condemn the entire site based on a few ill-conceived perceptions and a couple of bad apples. It always strikes me as unjust when such happens to Wikipedia, and I think the same justice should apply when deciding the fate of examiner.com.

My specific comments on the archive criticism:

• examiner.com masquerades as a newspaper - examiner.com is owned by a publishing company, but I can't find any evidence of any deceptive statements or practices.

• examiner.com consists of "blog pages" - Perhaps we need a definition of "blog pages", because the same could be said about virtually any newspaper website: Thomas L. Friedman--NYTimes.

• examiner.com writers "passed a very brief initial test" - First, I would like to see where Wikipedia specifies the hiring process of individual news sources or publishing houses in its hierarchy of verifiability. That is an editorial policy decision and outside of (or perhaps assumed by) the purview of Wikipedia’s reliability determinations. For example, what are the criteria to be hired at the Idaho Statesman? Further, the "very brief initial test" consists of submission of writing samples that prove writing skill and subject area knowledge, and are evaluated by professional editors…much the same way I imagine the process to be at the Idaho Statesman. Examiner.com conducts background checks before hiring. Finally, the examiner.com hiring and editorial process differs in no way that I can see from that of Huffington Post (except for the background check), another author “blog site” that appears not to have the credibility questions that examiner.com has here.

• No editorial oversight - Each major section has at least one professional editor. Editorial guidelines are provided to authors. Monthly editorial guidance is provided. Editors provide scheduled conference calls several times a week for authors. Most editors use newsgroups to post editorial guidance and provide feedback, example from an editor here: http://groups.google.com/group/newspolitics/msg/536b8571b1521737?hl=en. Huffington Post provides none of this supervision and services to its writers.

• Articles are published that do not receive editorial oversight - I am sure this is true, however I do not know if it is also true at the Idaho Statesman. I will point out the numerous scandals at national papers and magazines were stories were published with completely ficticious facts. All examiner.com pages have a "report" button at the top, where any story can be flagged by anybody for examination by an editor. I have been told that examiner.com editors take these flags very seriously.

• "Examiner FAQs from examiner.com, showing that they recruit locals based upon certain topic areas a bit vague on the details and written to promote themselves, but it's clear these are not employees of any newspaper (and if you pop over to a list of them, you'll see a huge mass of them on specific little topics just in a local area)" - I don't understand how this is a disqualification. What qualifies the local newspaper restaurant reviews over someone else in the community who is either more qualified or a better writer? The view that the first is more qualified by working for a newspaper is quite a strange requirement coming from a Wikipedia editor.

• "Bloggers wanted for Examiner (Fort Worth metro)" info from Craigslist "writing gigs" post -- note "Pay is up to you and your ability to self-promote your material and increase page views" - I know for a fact that many perhaps all reporters perform marketing activities to get their own page views up, and newspapers have entire marketing campaigns that do the same. Further, many examiner.com writers are also reporters at newspapers. They use their marketing expertise to drive traffic to their real employers, who don't care as long as pageviews go up.

• ""Writer Admits She Spun Crazy-Ass Nonsense For Examiner.com -- And Didn't Get Caught Until Lawyers' Letters Showed Up" sfweekly.com with examples of just how the process works in practice... no editorial oversight whatsoever, no reliability, and basically spamming links" - Et tu, Wikipedia. It happens here all the time, someone posting nonsense and then publishing some big mainstream story about how long it took for someone to catch it. What childish BS. We eventually catch the vandals, but they are hard to catch because they are good writers who are trying to stay hidden. I suspect that few examiner.com writers are in this category. Assume good faith.

• Credibility of examiner.com writers - Many examiner.com writers are published authors and have extensive expertise in the fields they cover. There are many, but a couple of quick examples:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner

http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner

In addition, there are more than a few examiner.com writers who are also current or former writers for Huffington Post.

• "The "new" Examiner.com is a user-generated site, as DreamGuy says, and its writers' dependence on page views for income makes Wikipedia a potential target for abuse" - I agree with this criticism wholeheartedly and it goes the opposite direction as well. A Wikipedia author could get a job at examiner.com then write his or her own references. This type of abuse should be watched for closely. By the way, the exact same criticism is true of Huffington Post.

That’s it for now. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.Jarhed (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Et tu, Wikipedia. It happens here all the time" - which is why Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia follows encyclopedia standards, are you actually asserting that Wikipedia has no reliability *whatsoever*?Jarhed (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No I am saying that per Wikipedia guidelines and policies (specifically Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability) Wikipedia should not be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. Specifically Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia states "Wikipedia itself is self-published. Therefore articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources.". Guest9999 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but I don't see how you get from "someone posting nonsense and then publishing some big mainstream story about how long it took for someone to catch it" to "which is why Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia." It seems that you are asserting that since Wikipedia references are not allowed on Wikipedia, then it follows that examiner.com is therefore not allowed. I don't understand your logic. Could you please elaborate?Jarhed (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If the argument is "I think it is a big mistake to throw out examiner.com on the basis of the criticism I have read thus far without also criticizing Wikipedia identically." then you have no argument. We do criticize Wikipedia equally, and Wikipedia content (either here or other language editions or on sites mirroring our content) explicitly is NOT allowed a reliable source. And, considering whereas Wikipedia at least has the opportunity for others to check end edit the work and examiner.com does not, uif there were a hierarchy of unreliable sources, examiner.com is less reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I am not arguing anything, I am asking all interested editors to reopen discussion on a source because I believe that I have new information. Examiner.com has a professional staff that provides editorial oversight. Considering the volume, I doubt that every single post is edited, but professional guidelines are certainly provided and adhered to. In addition, every single examiner.com has a "report" button that allows anyone to alert section editors to objectionable content. In addition to readers, examiner.com authors have a vested interest in the reliability of their medium, making the site essentially self-policing, in much the same way Wikipedia is. And remember, many examiner.com writers are professionals. This self-policing is in addition to the editorial staff.

Perhaps what I am suggesting is that editors at ‘reliable sources’ are losing sight of the changes that are occurring in the newspaper publishing industry. It is in flux, and innovative publishers are seeking out new business models. Examiner.com may be a bust, or it may be on the vanguard of a new business model for journalism. None of us knows, and I think that Wikipedia editors, especially Wikipedia editors, should be more deliberative and proactive about such potential sources, rather than simply throwing them out because they don’t fit in an existing reliability category. It just seems so curmudgeonly for a site that itself is such an innovator.Jarhed (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jarhed, You seem to be arguing that wikipedia shares many of flaws of examiner.com. We all agree and consider neither of them to be reliable sources in general. Can you make a positive argument as to why you think examiner.com has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ? Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that examiner.com is not reliable in general but I believe it can be easily demonstrated that it meets reliability requirements in specific. I would understand if Wikipedia disallowed examiner.com as a source because of the overhead of checking the reliability of a particular article, but really, that seems to go against ‘reliable sources’ practice. Isn’t an article’s talk page the proper place to dispute a reference? How do ‘reliable sources’ editors justify taking those decisions away from individual editors?Jarhed (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jarhed, you say that "it can be easily demonstrated that it meets reliability requirements in specific" instances. Can you do so for any particular case that is currently of interest and under dispute ? Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is easy. I have followed many reference disputes on talk pages. I am not an expert on this particular subject matter, but just picking at random, this article and author appear authoritative on the specific subject of the article:

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m6d25-Student-strip-search-unjustified-says-US-Supreme-Court

At the very least, if someone disputes the reliability of this author or article, it is worthy of discussion.Jarhed (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 (page does not exist) on that link. DreamGuy (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Tried three times, as soon as I posted that it started working again. Let me take a look. DreamGuy (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK: No indication that the source is an expert in any way or considered authoritative per our standards, and certainly any article here about this particle topic would find far, far better sources. It's just a well known news story rewording/summarized by some blogger. And while reloading I got another 404 error and then a "page not published yet - wait 15 minutes" error, which seems odd for an article on something that is already old news. DreamGuy (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which standards you are talking about, would you mind providing a pointer?Jarhed (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is a blog. Per WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

At best, Examiner.com can only be used as a self-published source and only if the author is an established expert on the topic whose work in the same field has been published by a reliable third-party publication. On the whole, The Examiner is not a WP:RS but it's possible that there might be specific articles by specific authors that can be used as SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:V, blogs hosted by newspapers may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. "Hosted by newspapers" may be a hoary requirement, since I see very little difference between the qualifications between the average print reporter and the average writer at Huffington Post, or much of a difference between their editorial oversight. Further, there are print newspapers that have moved their entire operations to websites, for example, http://www.indenvertimes.com/. It seems to me that the distinction between print and online news sources is being blurred and will need to be examined more thoroughly, although the issue may not yet be ripe for Wikipedia.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think that it would be fair to say that Huffington Post is usually a questionable source, especially for facts, and that if better sources are available, they should be used instead. What I also think would be fair is that examiner.com be considered of similiar reliability, based on similiar qualities of the average authors and editorial oversight.Jarhed (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blogs as sources might be of interest, although it isn't a policy or guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com isn't a newspaper. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither is Huffington Post.Jarhed (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The last few times the Huffington Post came up, opinions were mixed, but the majority of editors did not view it as a reliable source for statements of fact. [14] [15] [16] [17] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The writers at examiner.com clearly are not professionals and their blogs are not anything close to subject to the newspaper's full editorial control... the newspapers owned by the same parent company doesn't even enter into it and there is no editorial control to speak of. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "clearly are not professionals" because I have gone to some effort to show that is not the case. Also, maybe we should come to some agreement about what "full editorial control" means. Finally, I don't understand how you can assert that "being owned by the same parent company doesn't even enter into it." Examiner.com is owned by a company that publishes newspapers. Do you have any evidence that they are not attempting to establish a bonafide online operation? Jarhed (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You did not even attempt to show that the bloggers there are professional writers, you just pointed out three examples (out of thousands of bloggers on the site) that you claim are pros... and those three clearly aren't professionals either. On top of that, being a professional writer doesn't indicate reliability for the topics they are writing on, and there's no evidence that there's any attempt to ensure that they are true experts on the topics... and lots of contrary evidence. As far as evidence that they aren't attempting to establish bonafied online expert system, this has already been covered above, and you already replied to those posts. You seem to just ignore anything you don't want to admit. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jarhed, arguments like examiner.com is not any worse than wikipedia (as you said in your earlier posts) or huffingtonpost.com (as you are arguing now) are not the way to establish that a source is reliable. To judge reliability we need to show that examiner.com has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I searched for analysis of its accuracy and the only somewhat relevant link I found is this article which gives qualified praise to its pro-am model. Do you know of any other or more detailed analysis ?
Secondly, at RSN we rarely (if ever) pronounce a source to be always or never reliable and it would be a mistake to do so in this instance; for example, examiner.com can perhaps be used as a source for its contributors' biographical articles on wikipedia, just like any SPS.
Thirdly, we should always endeavor to use the best available source and not the source that just-about-clears some imaginary "reliability bar". In general (as I said before) examiner.com will be very down on the totem pole of reliable sources (for all the reasons listed above, including in your original post) and whether it can be used at all will depend upon the wikipedia article, availability of alternate sources, author and form of the examiner.com article, and the statement that is to be cited. If you have an actual (rather than hypothetical) dispute on the use of the website in a particular wikipedia article, please feel free to bring it up here, now or later. Cheer. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your substantive reply. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but at present examiner.com cannot be added as a reference on Wikipedia. I believe that it would be fair and consistent if the ban were lifted and the source could be added as a reference and discussed on article talk pages in the same manner as Huffington Post. I see no reason why this should not be done.Jarhed (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any "newspaper" that would promote a guy who thinks the LCROSS moon mission will mean war with aliens and doesn't put a parody tag or something on the page should really not even be close to a reliable source. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You just can't see the truth due to "Cognitive disonance". :-) Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This one's even better.[18]. The author manages to cross 9/11 conspiracy theories with aliens from another dimension. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point. Wikipedia has articles on all of those subjects. Are you saying that impeaches the credibility of Wikipedia? Examiner.com is obviously trying to draw readers. That is not a goal for Wikipedia, but it is for any commercial enterprise. It is a business model, and I don't see how their business model is relevant in a discussion of their reliability.Jarhed (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not sure of your point." The point is that they publish obvious nonsense.

"Wikipedia has articles on all of those subjects." Perhaps, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to advocate fringe theories. Articles on alien abduction, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. should contain thorough debunking per WP:NPOV.

"It is a business model, and I don't see how their business model is relevant in a discussion of their reliability." Nobody said anything about its business model except you. If you don't think their business model is relevant, why do you keep bringing it up?

Do you have anything else you would like us to consider that you haven't mentioned already? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why you keep going back to comparing that site to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for articles on Wikipedia, precisely for that reason. Examiner just looks like a portal for people to publish their thoughts with very little (if any) fact checking or editorial oversight. This is no different than opening up a blog at blogspot Corpx (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is I who doesn't understand why "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for articles on Wikipedia" is relevant to examiner.com being a reliable source for articles on Wikipedia. It makes sense to compare examiner.com to Wikipedia in many instances, for example, Wikipedia has many editors who are authorities in their specialties. What is missing from Wikipedia is personal accountability and editorial oversite, which examiner.com has. Blogspot does not require employment applications or background checks; examiner.com does. It would be easy for examiner.com to assemble a group of writers that are far more qualified in their niches than any average newspaper reporter. I don't think it is either fair or beneficial to Wikipedia to ban examiner.com outright. Sources such as it and Huffington Post should have a position in the hierarchy of citation reliability that is somewhere higher than zero.Jarhed (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at this in some detail now, I consider examiner.com an unreliable source in most instances, and it should be used with caution only in exceptional circumstances when a positive argument for the reliability of a particular article can be made. Note also, that its FAQ says:

Our most successful Examiners spend time marketing their content to their social and business networks using tools like Twitter, Digg, Email lists, message boards, and good old-fashioned word-of-mouth. If all of this sounds new, Examiner.com provides the resources you need to learn and use these tools to master online marketing.

and we should be wary of wikipedia being used to spam examiner.com links. Note that the website is linked from over 1000 wikipedia pages including several BLPs, and each of these mainspace link needs to be reexamined. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to see who inserted these links? I'd imagine that there's a lot of COI involved with the insertion of these links Corpx (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that; perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam would be able to help. Currently we don't have any evidence that there is a concerted effort to spam wikipedia with examiner.com links, and we need to AGF while keeping our eyes open. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of those cites might be innocent mistakes. What's the best way of notifying the community to not use The Examiner? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already mentioned the possiblity for abuse and I don't want that either. I just would like to see that goal accomplished without an outright ban. Would it be helpful to see if examiner.com would instruct its writers that Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for advertising?Jarhed (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, no writer at examiner.com would care about a normal citation being added to a normal Wikipedia article, and I think that concern is way overblown. The income from that link would be miniscule. Any abuse comming from examiner.com would be an attempt to generate lots of hits, and would be an obvious ploy.Jarhed (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the issue of spam links is not unique to examiner.com. Any newspaper reporter has a vested interest in increasing hits on his blog and articles. How is that potential for abuse different from this?Jarhed (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the issue, as I see it: Examiner.com is obviously working to drive hits to its member pages, which are advertising supported. It would appear (judging from some of the pages pointed out above) that if you can write and have a hook they think would drive hits, you'll be accepted to write for them. This means you get a mix of professionals who are serious about it, wanna-be pros who can string sentences together, and whackadoos. I could write them and say that I wanted to do something on leading-edge science topics, they'd probably say 'okay!' and give me a page. I could then wander off and write a treatise on how it's possible to break the speed of light through oral application of caffeine-added sugar syrup to a ferret on a miniature treadmill, and, if we considered examiner.com as a reliable source, it could conceivably be citeable on caffeine, ferret and speed of light. This is why we don't allow blogs except in certain cases, and why any links from examiner.com must be examined very closely before they're okayed. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand all of that and I agree 100%. What I don't agree with is the total ban. I don't think it is fair or beneficial to Wikipedia.Jarhed (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What's the best way of notifying the community about The Examiner?

Given:

• As stated above, Examiner.com is a blog and can only be used as a self-published source if the author is an established expert on the topic whose work in the field has been published by a reliable third-party publication. Even then, caution should be exercised. On the whole, The Examiner is not a WP:RS but it's possible that there might be specific articles by specific authors that can be used as a SPS.
• External Links returns 1,264 uses of www.examiner.com[19] as of this writing and is likely to increase.

What's the best way of notifying the community that The Examiner is not a reliable source unless the author is an established expert per the above definition? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, any reasonable interpretation of the guidelines at WP:RS would show that it is mostly not reliable. You have to use your own judgement and talk to other editors as you are doing here. Also see others use sources, especially in WP:Good articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that when I first brought this up as a problem just a short time ago there were only about 300 or so links to examiner.com and now there are apparently more than 1,200 there has to be spamming involved for it to have jumped by that much in that short amount of time. I submitted a request for the XLinkBot to remove the links (any admin want to go add it to the list, please?), but we could be needed a total spamblock soon. This is insane. DreamGuy (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A substantial amount (probably most) of those links aren't in articlespace. II | (t - c) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick look shows nothing close to being most. Many on that last page are non-article links (but probably not a majority) but the earlier pages (1-1,000 of the 1,270+ links) are very heavily article space links, and none of the ones I've looked at are anything close to appropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose adding it to XLinkBot Agree to adding it to XLinkBot The Examiner is a company. What is publishes has some level of editorial oversight - the company can pull the stories (has it ever?). Like all media companies, it's looking for traffic, but it also has a basic reputation to maintain. The people who work for it writing articles can be considered part-time journalists, and they do use their real names. It might be on par with a small-town newspaper - in some cases worse, in some cases better. Anyway, can't agree to blocking the domain. Editors can decide on a case-by-case basis whether articles from it make sense. Spamming from it could be a problem, but that's a problem we have with a lot of things. See updated thoughts a couple responses below. II | (t - c) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We clearly have a serious problem here. How do we address it? Is there a bot that can automatically insert a {verify credibility} tag anytime someone adds a cite to Examiner.com? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding it to XlinkBot but not the blacklist, the same as we do with many blogging sites. I've seen a few Examiner pieces that were pretty good, for example this one about the recent auto warranty telemarketing problem [20], where I learned quite a bit about how auto registrations were available to marketers until the mid-1990s. At least with XlinkBot if editors really want an Examiner article they can revert it. The blacklist on the other hand is highly unweildly and involves persuading the powers that be to whitelist each and every time you want a link, even as a primary source in an article about the site. I've had trouble myself editing the article on Lulu Press which was somehow swept onto the blacklist with a bunch of other sites and very little discussion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again and thinking about it, and particularly seeing this story on alien abductions, I agree that it should be added to XLinkBot but not the blacklist. II | (t - c) 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A review of the examiner.com links shows that virtually all of them are to local articles. It is quite possible that the reference being linked to is not available anywhere else. Once again, especially for local niches, it is easily possible that the local writer is more authoritative in a niche than the average newspaper reporter. I don't know what LinkBotX is, but whatever is done should also be done to Huffington Post, which by this definition is also a blog. I know for a fact that examiner.com has pulled stories and fired writers; virtually all firing has been for plagiarism.Jarhed (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Examiner, and most blogs is that they are never a primary source to reporting an event. Almost never will you see these kind of bloggers get any kind of press credentials or be present at the scene of the story. What they do is read columns written by real journalists, and then proceed to rehash the story while interjecting their POV. These kind of sources should not be used in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I would not oppose removing all the examiner links, as the worthwhile ones could be readded. Jarhead, I'm just wondering if you have any connections to the website in question (if you write for them or work for them). Corpx (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how any reporter can avoid POV, but at least at examiner.com, the POV is clearly labeled. For example, I don't see why a reference by the writer for the LA Clippers should be automatically excluded because POV is the LA Clippers. I have no relationship with examiner.com, I just think it is a brilliant idea, I think it could be harmed by an outright ban by Wikipedia, and I only want that to happen if it is really fair and neccessary, not just an arbitrary bias.Jarhed (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't WP:NPOV; it's WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, because I was responding to a point by Corpx about NPOV. Guys, I said in the very first sentence of this section that I am not an expert on Wikipedia sources like you are. I would appreciate a little bit of consideration for my inexperience. Ordinarily I could not care less about sources and standards other than to follow them. This is the first and probably the last issue I will ever bring up.Jarhed (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The first story in the above link deals with a rumor that he picked up from another blog (ClipsNation) and he just rehashes the rumor while adding his thoughts ("I figured I'd give my two cents on this idea"). This cannot be considered as a reliable source to reference material from. There is no editorial oversight to verify the rumor and John is no different than any other Clippers fan who opens up a blog at blogspot.com. I highly doubt that the Clippers organization gives him any sort of credentials, or if he has any connections to the players or management. Just watching Clippers' games on TV and reading media articles about the team (and other blogs) does not make him an expert, or a reliable source, to warrant inclusion of his thoughts to Wikipedia Corpx (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That was just a random example of POA, there are hundreds of writers on the site, many of whom are published authors and reporters. We have already agreed that examiner.com is a questionable source for facts.Jarhed (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Clippers example is the same situation as Huffington Post or umpteen political blogs we don't blacklist either, where people simply watch debates and then post their opinions all over the net. On the other hand, there will be some articles of local or specialized interest where the Examiner writer actually will have firsthand experience with the subject matter, and it may be appropriate to cite an Examiner article for noncontroversial information. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But only if they're established experts whose work in the relevent field has been published by third-party, reliable sources and even then they should be used with caution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need for needing a qualification standard for reliable sources. However, I have pointed out several times that in many cases there is little difference between the qualifications of the average newspaper reporter and the average examiner.com writer. Merely being a reporter at a newspaper does not make a writer an established expert on the subject being reported, nor does it necessarily make one a good writer. It is not necessarily the case that the quality of reporting is going to be the same from the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal as it is from the The New York Times. I am merely saying that it can be possible for examiner.com to meet or exceed Lubbock Avalanche-Journal quality.Jarhed (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Squidfryerchef) But why should we trust anything examiner.com publishes, when there does not seem to be any editorial oversight or quality control (as evidenced by straight-faced reporting of the kidnapping of a billion humans by aliens) ? Lets say they report that Michigan State University defeated University of Michigan in a lacrosse game and the article is written by a graduate student. Should we trust even such an non-controversial report ? Is an unknown student suddenly a "local expert" ? Would we allow a blogspot blog to source that information ? The answer in both cases is no as per WP:RS, since neither sources have any reputation for trustworthiness, and we cannot simply go by what "looks ok to me". I may personally believe the report (just as I enjoy reading many blogs), but its use on wikipedia is a distinct issue.

On the other hand, lets say Richard Dawkins files a report for examiner.com on a science conference he attended; using that as a source is allowable since Dawkins' public reputation is at stake on the article being basically factual. In short, we should treat examiner.com just as any other WP:SPS, and use it cautiously under narrow circumstances, when the expertise of the writer is clear (i.e., not just a self proclaimed local or niche expert), the fact is non-controversial, there are no better sources, and no BLP concerns. Unless all these conditions are met, the website should not be used as a source on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the precautions. I must not be seeing what you guys are seeing regarding the qualifications of examiner.com writers, because everywhere I look I find many that appear to be tremendously qualified in their niches, at least based on my understanding of what you are looking for. For example: A. Lawrence Chickering. He seems to be authoritative in any venue, not just the low-standard newspaper one I discussed above.Jarhed (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:Jarhed, do you have a WP:COI we should know about concerning Examiner.com? DreamGuy (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I invite anyone to review my contributions and make their own determination.Jarhed (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It was in reviewing your aggressive comments here that prompted me to ask the question. If you know the WP:COI rules and are following them then that's all that needs to be said. DreamGuy (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We could ask the same of you in regards to articles on JTR. Maybe stop the cheap shots. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the action, the dialogue between/about/among Arcayne and DreamGuy needs to stop given their recent unsolved ongoing acrimonious exchanges. Please...there is enough going on with this discussion without having to referee. Arcayne, I'm asking you to step back and work with an admin to champion your concerns. Please. I have no issues with you or DreamGuy, but this has been an issue he's been vocal about. Again, please. Flowanda | Talk 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Dialogue" and "exchanges" are only appropriate descriptions when there is a back and forth. Arcayne's actions here have been decidely one-sided. When I get attacked out of the blue it's distressing to see someone come along and tell me to stop. DreamGuy (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the comment was intended for Arcayne, and I should have taken it up on his talk page, not here. Flowanda | Talk 17:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not per his comment of 05:41 UTC [21] 86.44.40.87 (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see that one buried in there. Thanks for the pointer. DreamGuy (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Would posting a notice at the Village Pump be a good idea/appropriate? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and placed the following notice at the Village Pump: [22]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Anne Marshall OBE, Hon MusD

This article was drafted & posted by Editor PeterADBrown after consultation with, & varification & approval by, Margaret Marshall. Confirmation of her award of Hon MusD (St.Andrews University) is here: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/Title,34847,en.html

The article has been cleaned up and unsourced information removed. Sections deriving from unnamed sources have been edited - these would need to have explicit references to Reliable Sources (such as books) to be included.Martinlc (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pajhwok Afghan News

Pajhwok Afghan News is cited through the encyclopedia ([23]). Is this a reliable source? How about for non-negative information about living persons? Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it should be treated with caution as it may not meet the standards of the most reliable media sources such as the BBC, The Times, The New York Times. Mind you, those organisations are not 100% reliable - few are. It is always good to cross check with other sources wherever possible. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The about page makes it look like it's probably reliable, but it's a bit vague. It says " It is staffed, managed, and led entirely by Afghan leaders in local media who are not affiliated with political parties or figures, or commercial enterprises", for what it's worth. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the information in question was also confirmed by Michael Yon. The major news agencies haven't picked up the story yet. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, are you asking for a retropsective reexamination of how the David S. Rohde case was dealt with ? If so, wouldn't it be more honest to mention that upfront instead of phrasing your inquiry in present tense ("haven't picked up the story yet") ? My apologies in advance, if I have misread the situation, and you do have a current dispute in mind. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for using the people who responded already as test subjects. Obviously, I am. Given that the pre-alert responders were perfectly clear that it was, on it's face, reliable, that pretty much wraps things up for me. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I too agree (as I wrote below) that the source is perhaps reliable in general, but I am disappointed in how you approached this issue. You should have trusted the RSN responders to provide their honest opinion, even when they know all the facts of the particular case. Anyway, let bygones be bygones; however I have removed the "resolved reliable" tag that you placed since I believe that label is simplistic and does not represent the responders' opinion. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

20/20 hindsight proves the source is reliable. Only a hypothetical forward-look provides a fair review - anyone with today's information looking back can state with absolute certainty "The source is substantially more reliable than the New York Times with respect to kidnappings in the Middle East. Use without question." Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are confusing "being correct" with "being reliable". Pajhwok was certainly correct in this instance as was Yon; however that does not make them more reliable than NYT as far as wikipedia is concerned. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In that I disagree. On the subject of "Kidnappings of Journalists", The NYTimes fails a prime test. They lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," as it is well known that they will choose not to report on things that they would otherwise report on (contrast to their reputation for accuracy on the subject of "Kidnappings of Soldiers" or "Kidnappings of White Women"). Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the New York Times falsely reported something or that they didn't report something? These are entirely two separate issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree but since this discussion seems to be getting ideological, and is not relevant to any current wikipedia issue, I'll bow out. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

AFP, The Guardian and Foxnews have cited its stories + its content is indexed by Lexis-Nexis. This would suggest that it would be usable in general. There may be exceptions when there are redflag or BLP concerns in which case it could be used with attribution (as in the Foxnews article), or not at all depending upon the specifics of the case. Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo says it's not a reliable source. I'm not sure if he meant that in a WP:RS sort of way. I'm glad no one took this to this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I have not cast any aspersions (nor praise) upon this source in general. The question of reliability in sourcing is not a binary one with a simple on/off switch. It depends in any given case on the full context of knowledge.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, are you saying that the NYTimes misquoted you when they said you said "We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source... I would have had a really hard time with it if it had." It appeared at [24]. This source was removed from the article here and here. Given that the source in question is far more reliable regarding kidnapping issues than the New York Times, which will distort it's reporting to defend it's employees, I think it's reasonably clear you must have been misquoted or misinformed. Hipocrite (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was neither misquoted nor misinformed, that's not my point. My point is that reliability in sourcing is not a binary one with a simple on/off switch. It depends in any given case on the full context of knowledge. If there is one report, from a lesser known outlet, from a difficult area for reporting, where there are many contradictory reports all the time, and it is not followed up on by other reliable sources at all, then it is reasonable to suppose there must have been an error and to treat the source as unreliable in that context. That's how it generally works. Also take note that the reliability of sources depends critically on context in many many other areas. An article in Reader's Digest outlining a new theory of physics is not a reliable source. An article in the same publication on an issue more within their domain of reliability could be. To say that a publication is not a reliable source in some context, is not to cast aspersions on them generally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are aware, now, however, that Pajhwok Afghan News is a reliable source on Middle Eastern Kidnappings, right? A far more reliable source than pretty much any other? In fact, with 20/20 hindsight, you are aware that when you were calling Pajhwok Afghan News an unreliable source regarding Middle Eastern Kidnappings in the New York Times, an unreliable source on Middle Eastern Kidnappings, Pajhwok Afghan News was considered far more reliable than pretty much any other source? I just wonder how you can justify your statement at the time you made it. Perhaps you meant to include a temporality statement, or a statement that it was just the limited minority who actually looked at the article who thought it wasn't reliable - since the consenus of editors now, obviously, would find it extremely reliable, and probably if the anonymous informed railroaded editor had raised his complaint, the community would have found it reliable. By the way, have you apologized for the behavior of your handpicked adminstrators to the anon contributor who was just trying to "create ... a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," whilst your handpicked adminstrators had a slightly different (and possibly equally or more noble) goal of procting the public from getting information that, if the public knew, would be harmful. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion is now somewhat moot. I've completely rewritten the article, and Pajhwok is now used only as a source for what Pajhwok did at the time. It's obviously a reliable source for a statement about its own activities, though I wouldn't care to use it as a source for anything else. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be moot if this was the only time the freelancer, Shahpur Arab, or Pajhwok was used but given Pajhwok is linked to from a number of articles related to this region then this suggests that we would have to go through and tag those as unreliable. That sounds bizarre. For Pajhwok to be unreliable it must either use unreliable sources or add its own spin in a systemic way that makes what it is reporting untrustworthy. I don't think this is the case. The Reuters sponsored AlertNet here presents Pajhwok in good light "Another good site is Pajhwok Afghan News, the country's largest local news service. The news is broad-based and some of the reporters benefit from a wealth of local contacts, but inaccuracies sometimes pop up. Note that you have to pay for access to some of the material. The service runs stories in Dari, English and Pashto.". Now it does say that "but inaccuracies sometimes pop up" which is true for ALL media but it doesn't call it "unreliable" or intimate it is a poor source. Calling a news source or a reporter unreliable is a fairly damaging accusation. The area this agency and their freelancers operate in is pretty shitty so I'd expect inaccuracies to sometimes pop up but unreliable means systemic problems and AlertNet doesn't highlight this as a concern.

The freelancer that Pajhwok was citing, Shahpur Arab, for instance reported on the 13th August last year that 4 workers of the IRC were killed including 3 women and the IRC confirmed this was true here. Oddly enough that same freelancer is under threat too e.g. see here.

Please show support for your claims about this newsagency because I have highlighted that a reliable source calls that same newsagency a "good site". Yes, I wouldn't expect them to report the Indy500 with any great depth but I suspect that what they publish from this area then they are reliable and, more importantly, I can show a reliable source that says this. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, let's please reject the binary "on/off" model of reliability, as it fails to do justice to the complexity of proper editorial judgment. There is no reason to go around questioning the validity of this reporters work, and indeed, this incident has surely and quite properly elevated the credibility of his work substantially. You have it exactly right when you argue that although we might in some cases reject a particular story as being a valid source (due to, for example, it making claims that are not picked up elsewhere), this is not a reason to cast aspersions on the reporter more generally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's. The New York Times might be reliable for many things, but for Middle Eastern Kidnappings, they are depreciated. We should rely on sources that don't color the news for their own ends, like Pajhwok Afghan News for Middle Eastern Kidnappings. Hipocrite (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Jimbo is arguing against the principles of WP:RS that have been being applied on this noticeboard. If the reliability of a source depends on whether we believe what it says at that moment on a specific topic, we have no criteria to judge it. I and others have been arguing that the policy logically defines RS as such, so that we would decide "Reader's Digest is not an RS" or "BBC News website is an RS" once and for all, based on the editorial process etc that was applied. Are we wrong?Martinlc (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your understanding is incorrect. The reliability of source always depends upon the context i.e., what it is being used to support. This is completely consistent with policy and how it has always been interpreted on this noticeboard. See WP:RS, "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." (emphasis in original) A source can be considered reliable for one subject or statement, and not reliable for another. See for example:

• WP:MEDRS, which lays down pointers on how to judge reliability of sources for medical articles, and deprecates sources that would be considered reliable in some other fields.
• WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP areas demand an even higher level of sourcing.

Hope that helps. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that this source for this claim was reliable. We say that a source is reliable for a claim when it is sufficiently trustworthy for supporting the claim, as described at RS (roughly, authors are reputed to be accurate in the domain at hand and the publication is OK, this is the case here), and this is independent of extraneous factors like whether other news outlets have reported this too. In this case, the "multiple" factor comes in, essential for the evaluation of notability for example, but most of the time not required for specific claims in articles, though always preferred. We have countless of statements sourced to only one RS, with no other RS which could do so, most of the time it's OK, not because of reliability considerations, but verifiability considerations. Verifiability, contrary to reliability, is an editorial judgment, and depends on the circumstances, for which the 'multiple' RS is a factor. That source was reliable for this claim as we define it at RS, but was it enough to assure verifiability ? The lack of other reliable sources reporting this is essential in this evaluation of verifiability. So in short, I believe that the reliability of the source for this claim is assured, and it was a mistake to say it was not, however whether it was sufficient to make the claim verifiable is another story. And it may very well not be, in the circumstances of media blackout. So if we were to defend those actions, the lack of verifiability would be the point to make, but not the lack of reliability. Cenarium (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

While I wouldn't use the terminology in precisely the way you do, I agree with the essence of your point. If, in some future case, we have this same source reporting on a kidnapping, and no other sources picking up the story, I would still argue that this is not sufficient to include it. The lack of confirmation from other sources is a confounding factor, and in my mind, confounding enough to argue against inclusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Related to the David Rohde discussion, though not to the reliability of Pajhwok Afghan News, I have made a draft proposal at Wikipedia:News suppression. The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this also simply be a valid use of Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT ? Why didn't NYT use Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight like everyone else ? Heck anyone can use oversight. Something like that allows suitable admins to redact without people having to make silly claims to support their reverts. In this case admins got lucky because the only reason it didn't stick in Wikipedia wasn't due to WP:RS (i.e. not as in “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,”) but some naive IP based editor who didn't follow or know WP policies on establishing sources. As an aside I have updated the article on the Pajhwok Afghan News showing it's original formation, funding and the internationally known awards that its director and deputy-director have won, just so that in future people will be less likely to doubt what it publishes. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I believed at the time, and believe now, that this was not a proper time to use OVERSIGHT for a number of reasons. It is not clear to me that the information presented would meet the normal standards for oversight. And therefore, the use of it might have drawn unnecessary attention. It was very important to me that we try to do the ethical thing while simultaneously following policy. I think we did.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We talk often about systematic bias in articles, but it strikes me that the same applies to sources. It is clear that the Afghan Agency does not have the same international standing of Reuters or AP, or the fierce independence and reliability of the BBC, Pajhwok is (as has been proven itself in the Rohde case and before), reliable. Having been asked by the NYT to suppress the story merely confirms the reliability, and should have stopped the officially-sanctioned removal of this news. While Jimbo may believe he acted in a responsible and ethical manner, I feel that he was merely conniving with the conflict of interest of same. Objectively, there is no proof either way that Rohde would have seen freedom any quicker (or slower) because the article had been censored. By the same token, it can never be proven (without being in the heads of the abductors), now or in the future, that exposure of such news would hasten (or slow down) a captive's demise under those circumstances. Now, it's all over the papers that WP censored the news. The Foundation can spin it as a humanitarian gesture, but I think it sends out the wrong message: Wikipedia censors reporter kidnapping - Founder Jimmy Wales authorises cover-up. The only positive side is that no financial motivation was apparently involved for Jimmy or the foundation. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This stuff is way beyond the scope of this noticeboard. I'm not sure where the conversation is, but it's probably raging somewhere as we speak. If someone knows where, a link here would be nice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is at the WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Censorship_at_David_Rohde. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pray, tell - in what way is systematic bias not an issue here? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we just say that it's a reliable source, and that, as always, care should be taken with BLP and other extraordinary claims, like all RSs? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] G. Raghava Reddy

The BLP article G. Raghava Reddy uses the sources Raghava, G. (2005), As an officer, http://www.gongidi.com/officer.html, retrieved on 2009-06-29  and Raghava, G. (2005), Raghava Reddy Gongidi, http://gongidi.com, retrieved on 2009-06-29  as two of its main sources. They appear to be self-published, but they fail the "not unduly self-serving" criterion. I'm wondering if these sources can be used as-is or should be used in a more limited scope. If so, what is that scope?

This is my first post on the RS Noticeboard, so feedback on applicability, presentation, style, &c. are appreciated on my talk page. Thanks—C45207 | Talk 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are these reliable sources for the claim that Michael Jackson's pet chimpanzee Bubbles attempted to commit suicide?

Our article on Michael Jackson's pet chimpanzee, Bubbles, claims that this chimpanzee attempted suicide but was rushed to the hospital and saved. The cited sources are The Times of India and The Telegraph. While these sources are generally considered reliable, I was skeptical. How would a chimpanzeee even try to commit suicide? Slit its wrists? Overdose on medication? A gunshot wound to its head? Anyway, I posted the question "Can a chimpanzee really commit suicide?" on the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. Of those who took the question seriously, none thought it was likely and one chaulked it up to sloppy journalism. I added a {dubious} tag to the article on the grounds that a suicidal chimpanzee seems like an exceptional claim and that these are just reporters writing entertainment articles and probably don't have a background in primatology and therefore aren't qualified to make this claim. The discussion can be found at WP:Talk:Bubbles_(chimpanzee)#Suicide. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, treat with extreme scepticism . Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of stating it as fact, say who said it. I could imagine a chimp banging its head against a wall or something. I doubt it took too many pills or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it, but I don't believe it. Those are two good newspapers. Anyway the Telegraph article went into more detail about the chimpanzee and said it was "according to reports in 2003". Maybe we can start searching for stories on Bubbles from that timeframe and see where this came from. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A chimpanzee who knows what death is, that he will die, and that certain actions on his part can bring on death. I'm not buying it. And what's wrong with the AfD process that this chimp has an article about him anyway?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] LewRockwell.com

There is a dispute at Talk:Tom G. Palmer# "Criticism" about sources used for criticism. The subject is a living person who is involved with the Cato Institute and is also a prominent blogger. Two sources of criticism have been proposed: Justin Raimondo writing in Antiwar.com,[25] and Lew Rockwell, writing in LewRockwell.com (LRC).[26] The latter is a web magazine and Rockwell is its editor-in-chief. The "About" page also lists a publisher and two staff copyeditors. LRC was previously discussed here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20#lewrockwell.com. Is Lew Rockwell writing on LRC a suitable source for criticism of a living person? (And while we're here, any thoughts on Antiwar.com?)  Will Beback  talk  23:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Will Beback frames the question fairly above. I am an editor who has advocated inclusion of an LRC article as a verifiable source demonstrating that Palmer's activities regarding Middle East policy have been criticized by other notable individuals who are notable, in part anyway, for commentary on such topics. LRC's original articles (not to be confused with the blog postings at the LewRockwell.com blog) are almost always opinion-editorial articles. For this reason, I wouldn't argue that LRC would be broadly useful as a reliable source for the assertion of controversial facts. This is not the sort of usage that is at issue at the Tom G. Palmer article. As I said at that article's talk page, My understanding of the process for publication is that it involves selection by Rockwell (or his occasional replacements at LRC's helm, like Thomas DiLorenzo), substantive copyediting (presumably by the copyeditors listed here), layout, proofing, and publication.... Given the fact that LewRockwell.com is not a one-man band with sporadically published editorials by Lew Rockwell, but rather a notable libertarian news and commentary site with a regular publication schedule, hundreds of contributors, and editorial review process, it isn't obvious to me that this is what that section of WP:V is written to avoid. The quoted text from the Rockwell article was selected to simply demonstrate that Palmer's positions on Iraqi policy have been notably criticized by other libertarians, not to suggest that Rockwell's criticism was sound or unsound. My use of the source is intended to support the assertion that such critiques exist. I would tend to agree with the comments by User:Carolmooredc here: I just put together a listing of source and issue discussion archives from this noticeboard which I will announce shortly. However, I didn't notice a LewRockwell.Com discussion and since that site is often used (including by me) or debated on talk pages, I thought I'd summarize what I consider its reliability to be. Correct me where and if wrong: Reliable source for reprints of articles from noncontroversial reliable sources; Articles they publish written by academics, experts, ex-government officials/researchers/agents and others usually considered reliable sources with good fact checking are OK for opinions and, depending on the issue, facts in their area of expertise, including on WP:BLP; Opinion pieces by less well known individuals usually considered reliable sources for opinions about their own activities or those of organizations they represent.... I hope that these points are useful in the continuing RSN discussion. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use either Web site as a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of its authors. I haven't studied WP:BIO enough to offer an opinion on this part of your question. BTW, a very quick glance at the sourcing seems to indicate that the article based primarily on primary sources. Articles are supposed to be based primarily on third-party, reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI. There is another discussion of Lew Rockwell.com here. Obviously it depends on who says it and what they say. An academic making a serious criticism would seem WP:RS. A pundit with a snide comment would not. A pundit with a serious criticism would be the hard one to decide on. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that the dispute in question has not been covered by any reliable sources that are independent of the disputants (i.e. a publication not affiliated with lewrockwell.com, antiwar.com, or Palmer's blog). It seems to me that this makes it extremely difficult to write about the dispute in a manner that's consistent with NPOV--depending on where your sympathies lie (full disclosure: my sympathies lie with Palmer) you'll have a different perspective on which parts of the dispute are worth focusing on. It seems to me that the whole dispute should be left out of the article unless and until a neutral third party has written about it. Binarybits (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MusicMight

Musicmight is a reliable source? Thanks. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Ok, how do we check? Go to the site. First thing I see on the left is

Join the MusicMight community to add information REGISTER HERE

Oh dear not looking good, anyone can add information by merely registering it seems. Then I check out the About us link:

About MusicMight: Musicmight is a Rock database established online by Garry Sharpe-Young in 2001. Want to add information to this database? Just register - it's simple!

You can add as much or as little information as you'd like. We are actively seeking potential "Guardians", those dedicated fans that have enthusiasm, knowledge and commitment to oversee key areas of the database. If you think you're the person to look after all NWOBHM acts, Finnish Death Metal bands, all Californian AOR bands or whatever - get in touch with us!

Fairly straightforward, isn't it? Not a reliable source as it does not meet any of the criteria suggested at WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not quite as straightforward as that. The content of the site is edited by Garry Sharpe-Young, who has published something like a dozen musical reference books and biographical works through commercial, third-party organisations (I have three on a shelf in front of me published through Cherry Red). The MusicMight website (Rockdetector as was) was originally a web-based version of the content of several of these books, which leads to the slightly unusual situation that the content is certainly reliable if one quotes from the book, but might be deemed unreliable (despite being word-for-word identical) if published on the website. The second problem is that of user-editing (a recent change to the site); it all rather depends on whether Sharpe-Young (who is a verifiable authority on the subject) is individually editing all content additions/changes (which would make it pass WP:RS) or whether it is now a free for all (in which case it most certainly would not). In any case, the situation is certainly not an open and shut one as suggested above. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the current site and its current content, the fact that users can add content and no editorial checking is mentioned menas that it is not an RS.Martinlc (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, we are talking about the website here, not a published book.. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely fair enough. A couple of final points: the books obviously pass WP:RS. I'm also assuming a webcached version of Rockdetector (pre user submissions) is also still an RS. My question is, given the contributors to the current MusicMight site are listed to the right of any given article, are those uniquely attributed to Garry Sharpe-Young (an extremely well-established rock and metal journalist) still acceptable? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having looked into it (by signing up to the site myself), it appears that there is editorial checking [27]. I assume this means Sharpe-Young or one of his appointed team. Not sure whether that changes anything. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And then, I can use this site as a reliable source? (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

[edit] GameSpot video game strategy guide

I have a query regarding a certain source that is being used to cite a video game character's death in-article. This is the source in question. Keep in mind that it's being used not to describe gameplay in said video game, but to confirm a character's death, after a consensus has already been made about said character's death. Thanks. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection? Per WP:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources, GameSpot.com is generally considered to be a WP:RS. What about this article leads you to question whether this source is unreliable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, it's a video game guide. The prose can be... Difficult. I'm not questioning Gamespot's credibility as a whole, just this guide. For one thing, there is no author given. For another, the proposed text that indicates a character's death seems misinterpreted: "Once Wesker is down, get ready to pull both triggers during the cutscene to finish him off once and for all." To me, it seems to indicate finishing off the boss once and for all, but not the actual killing and eliminating of the character from the story altogether. Generally, I would just rather stick to news posts, headlines, etc, to confirm a character's actual death, rather than a writer writing what he sees. I guess I don't understand how an online video game strategy guide is a reliable source. I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts here... --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not a reliable source since you cannot verify it's from a staff member. I brought this issue up on WP:VG's sources talk page to move the source to the more appropriately labeled "situational sources" per its description of use.陣内_Jinnai 01:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says it's by André Segers, a Gamespot editor. 208.103.75.16 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I tried looking at any relevant pages and can't find his name anywhere.陣内_Jinnai 02:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6205799/index.html 208.103.75.16 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, actually WP:V doesn't have to do with verifying who the author of an article is, it's the policy that all information in WP has to be traceable to a cited source. V is the parent policy of the RS guideline. V says information has to be cited to a source; RS debates whether it is a good source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Daymeeee's got a point that the author of the article IS listed (trying to be sneaky or what, Daymeeee?), but I still wonder about the practicality of citing a video game strategy guide as a source. The prose is absolutely atrocious is some cases, and that makes it easy to misinterpret. It also shows bias. It says, "Resident Evil 4 is considered by many to be one of the best games ever made." Should we cite that as well? Or do we cherry pick what information is reliable? I was always under the impression that either a source is reliable or it isn't, not certain things from it are or aren't. I just think that it's obvious that these weren't written to be cited :P Also, Squidfryerchef, would you mind explaining how what you just said is relevant? The question is of the reliability of a source to verify the death of an in-game character. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky? What the hell are you talking about? He (nor you) could find the author so I went and pointed it out. I'll refrain from helping in the future. 208.103.75.16 (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that wasn't exactly a relevant response. I was referring to your use of your IP, rather than your account, though. Thank you for helping us find the author, though, I do appreciate it :) --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So then this is indeed reliable? I don't believe a definitive answer was given. Everyone just stated their opinion and left :\ --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Guy, that was at Jinnai. His "verify" was a wikilink to the WP:V policy. While in some situations it can be important to verify that something was written by a particular staff member, for instance in a blog section where staff and public comments are mixed, V is basically the policy on citing your facts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Mays house price

This in support of "Mays resided in Florida in a $1.8 million home which was built in 2005." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source. We don't know if the "Billy Mays" of our article is the "MAYS WILLIAM D" recorded as the owner. [Though I now see it's pretty certainly him.] We don't know how the prices are estimated (in my jurisdiction they use an arcane formula that assesses values unrelated to "market price"). The value of real estate has changed substantially in the past year, so values may be out of date. The source contains many pieces of information, so it's difficult to decide which are noteworthy, or which would present a skewed picture. Etc. If this is used it should be carefully attributed and summarized. Something like, "Mays' home was purchased vacant for $254,500 and appraised at $1,803,943 in 2009."

But should it be used? I'd say it shouldn't, if the price is found alone in a primary source. Thousands of "facts" can be found in primary sources, but most of them aren't notable. Secondary sources provide an important filter. If the value of his home hasn't come up in secondary sources then it should be left out. If this is all we have then leave it out. If there are secondary sources then we should given no more than an appropriate weight. FYI, a $1 million house isn't anything special, and even $2million houses are common in Florida nowadays, especially near big cities.   Will Beback  talk  07:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not notable unless reported by third parties.Martinlc (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's not Wikipedia's place to be unearthing government paperwork about people to reference their encyclopedia articles. That's the job of a journalist, a historian, or some other professional doing original research, who knows how to process the results. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be investigative in nature, they should be summaries of what secondary sources have reported. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Patents that contradict other sources

RE Cold Fusion. We have an unquestionalbly source that states the patent office does not grant a type of patent. Someone has found a patent that, while it does not use the exact language that the patent office says they do not allow "cold fusion," does grant a patent on a method of generating energy by repeating the steps that "cold fusion" entails (dipping metal in water and running a current through it.) The patent is located at [28]. How do we deal with this? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In this context the patent is a Primary Source. You need an independent WP:RS which says that there is a discrepancy. Until then you are doing Original Research by synthesis based on your interpretation of the patent, the process, and the patent office policy.Martinlc (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we see what the debate was? You could maybe use it to say something like "while the USPTO has not accepted cold fusion patents since XYZ year, it has accepted patents for related technologies such as electrodes." But you'd have to word it very carefully so as to not introduce any original research that isn't in the sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdot

is it a reliable source for articles such as LokiTorrent? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, pleas try reading WP:RS. This is a blog, and nothing about it makes it reliable, Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I read WP:RS, which is why I am asking for clarifications here. Slashdot says "It features user-submitted and editor-evaluated current affairs news " - so I though it satisfy the requirement that the source have editorial oversight. I am quite willing to accept that it is not a reliable source. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk)`

How about the other source used prominently in that article - afterdawn.com ? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You could argue that Slashdot has editorial oversight. Many, many stories are submitted to Slashdot in a given day, but only a handful are picked by a board to be posted. Of course, that does not apply to the hundreds of comments that appear after a story. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What about afterdawn.com ? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Afterdawn looks reliable within its subject area. But watch out for BLP issues. The WP article has a lot of weakly-sourced speculation about what people involved with the site were doing, and we shouldnt have accusations like that on Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Slashdot links [29] and [30] provide much illumination here. (Basically they point to the speculation about the fate of the site which was occuring elsewhere on the web). Here we have one unreliable source providing a summary of other unreliable sources. The Slashdot postings did give a pointer to Google News, which eventually yields a link to a a Washington Post report which seems not to be in the article yet. I suggest that it be added. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Christian debate on persecution and toleration

The other involved editor went with this to ANI, but I think this is rather a reliable sources issue. When I need a lead and had to summarize 2 millennia of a debate within Christianity, I went for this version:

This article gives an overview about historical cases of persecution by Christians, also taking a look at cases of religious warfare and religious violence. Important Christian theologians had, during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, advocated religious persecution to various extents. However, Early modern Europe witnessed the turning point in the Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration, and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension."(ref: Coffey 2000: 206.)

Coffey's book was the first introductory textbook on the topic that I could find. What has provoked strong opposition by (at least) one particular editor is the last part of the paragraph, that "all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration." I think that Coffey is quite explicit on this, the whole quote can be found on the article talk page, but to take concern about this into account, I reworded it to something more verbatim. But, the disagreement continues, because the other editor thinks that other sources would disagree. I could completely grand this point, under one condition. He needs to bring the reliable sources that do this forward on the talk page (or simply add them to the article) which so far simply hasn't happened. Those sources that he brought forward simply aren't good enough. Currently it appears as if this hasn't been made obvious enough, so I would appreciate it if someone from this noticeboard could look at the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right place for this, and if it's being handled elsewhere it's probably best to handle it there. (But the claim that "all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration." is just a POV of that editor and cannot be used to overrule what reliable sources say, provided they are reliably cited. DreamGuy (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:British National Party

A dispute has a risen over two areas. They both revolve around wiither or not a ource is accurate if it attributes to anotehr source something that source does not claim. The first is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299533096&oldid=299532753 The dailey Express article claims that the BNP constutution bans membership to those not native after 1066. The current constiution makes no such claim. Indead the user who posted the comment even seems to admit that this is true. However http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299653734&oldid=299653388. Though he does not provide that source (IE the constitution he has seen). The second instance is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299532753&oldid=299301330. Here the situation is less clear cut. The EHRC letter does say that "Failure to do so may result in the Commission issuing an application for a legal injunction against the BNP." but does not state that it will. As such to claim that it has been considerd cannot be verified by the source. It cannot even be demonstrated that they have actualy discused it (as no decision seems to have been made). Nor is the letter clear that any breach of the law has occured, so again it makes it hard to demonstrate that there is any clear posibility of legal action. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A similar question arose recently here. If you scroll down a bit there, you will find advice from user:Jennavecia that I consider pertinent, useful and authoritative.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are accusations permisable if reliably sourced? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299682602&oldid=299682360.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I see… in this case it is not immediately apparent to me that the secondary source is wrong. For example, is it possible that the text of the BNP "constitution" has changed and that the media reported on an earlier version which did indeed contain that statement? If we do not know this then we may not be able to say with certainty that the secondary source is wrong, hence it cannot be excluded for being uncontrovertably false. This is not a black or white situation. However, if the secondary source with the "pre-1066" claim is included, care should be taken to determine wether other secondary sources exist that say otherwise and if so these should likewise be included.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But surley the only constitution that matters is the one currently inforce, not one that is no longer is in force. Using the same argument a source that says that the USA allows slavery within its constitution is a true statment because at one time the US constitution did allow slavery. Moreover the constitution is question was writen in 2005 http://bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf the article that is in dispute four years latter http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/109619/BNP-leader-face-jail-for-ban-on-non-whites-. Nor does this article make it clear that this must refer to an out of date constitution (at least four years old) indead the tone implies it is the current ruling. In addition the disputed article is about the Equality and Human Rights Commission leter, which makes no mention of 1066. Nor does the letter state (as the article claims) that this is against the law as the letter is refering to the current constutution of the BNP, not earlier ones. Moreover this seems to be the only major news outlet that makes the claim. This does not look like sterling fact checking to me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Use http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8114619.stm the BBC as a source instead. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Query

A quick query regarding Texas Tech University and asking for a few more eyes on the subject: What do we do if reliable sources are wrong? Not-so-hypothetical question: 2 normally reliable sources claim something, but simple observation of the object in question shows these sources to be wrong, but no one has published anything else in another reliable source to "prove" otherwise. WP:V seems to indicate we should only include the "reliable" source information, but policies aren't a suicide pact and Jimbo Wales stated "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". Seeing as it is misleading information, how should we address it? Remove it altogether? Note that it is a campus legend? Note that it is a campus legend and it is false? Cite WP:IAR and just fix it? etc?

I have no issue with the other people involved; we're just trying to reach a consensus and appropriately annotate the legend. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See the section above for the link to advice by user:Jennavecia:

If you know for certain that the information is inaccurate, do not include it. Verifiability not truth is good and well, but we don't intentionally publish false information about living people just because the sources that disprove it are not considered reliable by our standards. If there's no RS correcting the error, then just don't include the information at all.

Note, she wrote "know for certain", not "think you know". I take that to mean that John Q. Public will review the evidence and agree with you. I don't have the time to research whether this is indeed the case for the statue on campus but it seems you have made a strong case for it. Also note that in the example I quote above, the article was a bio of a living person which requires us to be even more diligent than usual about not republishing false information from a "reliable" source, whereas in the case of a statue there is no special urgency to get it right immediately. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Google News Archive and advertisements

Google News is now indexing advertisements. This is extremely useful for academic research purposes in general, but not so good for us. It adds a lot of noise for using it to find news articles to use as reliable sources. See, for example my search to see if there were any decent sources for "color-net" a real estate sales network, [31], which turned up such items as [32]. We already know there is pure PR in there, so everything has to be screened anyway, but this certainly makes using raw counts from it absurd. I use GN archive a lot for finding book reviews--now I'll have all the advertisements to sort out as well. DGG (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yea it sucks now. They've really lowered their admission standards for material. I've seen a bunch of blogs on there too, so this is no surprise Corpx (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

They also allow opinion pieces, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just checked and they index examiner.com too (discussion about that site above) Corpx (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Raw Google counts were abusrd as an argument for inclusion even before this, so it shouldn't change anything. Blogs and press releases and entertainment and parody sites have all already been in those links for a long time. In fact, this newest change might even help us by forcing the people who use bad sources on a regular basis to more readily realize that the links found there can be totally useless for our purposes. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Times of London

The Times of London published an article about Lyndon LaRouche's AIDS initiative, California Proposition 64 (1986). It includes a report on verbal harassment of a local minister and his mother by LaRouche supporters. The excerpted text is at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources#1986 2nd half (search for "minister"). An editor has asserted that the source is simply wrong, but he hasn't offered any source that disputes the reporting. This concerns a draft, at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS, intended to replace the material currently at Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS. (While we're here, the editor has also complained about using similar reporting from the Frederick Post.) So the question is: are these two mainstream newspapers reliable sources for reporting these incidents?   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a comment that the text as excerpted by Will from the the Times article probably contains a simple journalistic error. The excerpt reads: In the middle-class community of Ventura, LaRouche supporters have set up tables outside post offices and supermarkets with their petitions denouncing homosexuals. One local minister who refused to sign was called 'a queer' and his mother a 'lesbian'. The title of the article is "California extremist whips up Aids crusade / US public health debate stirred up by controversial politician Lyndon LaRouche." LaRouche is not from California, and the AIDS initiative was not a "petition denouncing homosexuals," Despite the otherwise sterling reputation of the Times as a reliable source, the possibility that the Times sent a stringer to Ventura and found that the petitioners there were circulating something other than the well-known ballot initiative seems remote to me.

The point, however, is moot; I am not disputing the reliability of the Times, or, for that matter, of the Frederick Post. I am contending that Will is using material from these sources to defend his own unpublished theory about the "views of Lyndon LaRouche" in violation of WP:SYNTH. If there is an Original Research Noticeboard, that will be the appropriate venue for this discussion. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're agreeing that both newspapers are reliable sources for this material?   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Both sources are reliable and usable in the article. If there is a dispute over whether the newspaper articles are reliable sources for a specific statement, we can handle it here. Other noticeboards such as WP:NORN, WP:POVN or the (hot off the press!) WP:CNB, may also be relevant depending upon the exact nature of the dispute. Happy forum shopping! ← is in jest :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. to address Leatherstocking's assertoin that the sources are reliable bu the summary is an improper synthesis I've followed Abecedare's advice and started a fresh thread at WP:NORN#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tucker Max

Hi, I recently edited the Tucker Max article and stated that he appeared on Sirius Radio, referencing his own website as a source. This was quickly reverted and McJeff kindly told me that I needed third party sources. After searching the net, I found that his radio appearance is on YouTube and it is mentioned on another website with a biography about him, as well as being referenced to in a couple forums (links at the bottom). My question is this: are these reliable enough sources to prove his radio appearance?

I would greatly appreciate any feedback as I am still new and would like to know how to contribute more to Wikipedia.

Sources:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1w5ZOBQF8
Biography: http://en.allexperts.com/e/t/tu/tucker_max.htm
Forums: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=39677 and http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=443270
Not to mention his own website.

Articles should be based primarily on third-party reliable sources. However, self-published sources are allowed in articles about themselves. As long as there is no controversy about the claim (Tucker Max appeared on Sirius Radio), his official web site (not a fansite) is acceptable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Norfolk Mills

An editor has questioned the reliability of the Norfolk Mills website. I've opened a discussion at the Mills WikiProject and would appreciate input on the question there. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Self-published source on De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium

I am seeking assistance in resolving a dispute on the talk page of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. The sources cited in the article for two lists whose accuracy has been disputed is this book and this archived copy of a page formerly carried on the author's personal web-site. Since the book was printed by Xulon press, which produces and distributes books at their authors' expense, it would appear to be a self-published source. While the author, Olivier Thill, seems to be an enthusiatic, erudite and well-read amateur historian, he does not appear to be recognised as an established expert on the history of science. On the back cover of his book, he describes himself as "a computer engineer and specialist of the European Renaissance", and here he describes himself as a "Computer programmer, amateur historian of Copernicus, Descartes, and Peiresc."

Since the editor who cited these sources says "I don't think this list appears in the book" he apparently has not actually checked it. So until somebody does so, the web page is really the only source we have as supposed support for the cited lists.

I would appreciate any opinions on whether either the web-site or the book can be regarded as reliable sources.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

They'd only be reliable for that person's opinions, which do not seem notable enough to be cited in an encyclopedia. The background alone isn't enough to disqualify him (as lots of amateurs do good work and eventually get recognized for it), but seeing as how he's not been recognized as reliable by others in the field he is writing about we cannot recognize him as reliable either. DreamGuy (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence that Thill is regarded as a recognized scholar on Copernicus's work by other recognized scholars in the field, his opinions or conclusions do not warrant mention in Wikipedia. His self-published book and self-published web site plainly are not reliable sources under our standards. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that Thill's translation of Gassendi's biography is reliable. Finell (Talk) 22:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a recognised 'expert' on the De revolutionibus, if only a very minor one, and an amateur historian of science, albeit a professionally trained one, and I find the lists from Oliver Thill less than helpful. Not knowing his book and having never come across references to it I have bought a copy via the intertubes and await delivery. However I don't think that reading his book will change my opinion that the lists should be removed.Thony C. (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Compass Direct

How reliable is compassdirect.org for news? Can it be trusted on articles about living people? Cheers.VR _talk 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like an advocacy website/organization than a news source. See for example, their tagline, "News from the frontlines of persecution" or their self-description: "Compass Direct is a Christian news service dedicated to providing exclusive news, penetrating reports, moving interviews and insightful analyses of situations and events facing Christians persecuted for their faith."

Ironically, the first link when searching for Compass Direct on Google News is another unreliable source, WND (see discussion below). No mainstream news source seems to have written about or cited Compass Direct as far as I can see. In short, there is no indication that it has a reputation for trustworthiness, and it should not be used on wikipedia especially in a BLP. Abecedare (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks.VR _talk 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] World Net Daily

How reliable is WorldNetDaily (http://www.wnd.com). Can they be trusted to represent facts as fact and to represent opinions as opinion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WND has been discussed several times on this board and has been determined to be unreliable. See, for example, here, here, here and here. Abecedare (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sonoran News

The Sonoran News is a Weekly newspaper published in Cave Creek, Arizona (near Phoenix). Their website says

Sonoran News is published weekly by Conestoga Merchants, Inc. dba Sonoran News, and distributed free of charge to 43,000+ homes and businesses throughout the Cave Creek, Carefree, Desert Hills, New River, Tatum Ranch, Rio Verde, N. Phoenix and N. Scottsdale areas including Desert Mountain, Terravita, Legend Trail, Winfield, Troon, The Boulders and Pinnacle Peak, all of Zip Codes 85331, 85327, 85377, 85255, 85262 and 85266

Their website lists about 50 Arizona Newspapers Association Awards in various areas, going back to 1996[33]. I have had an editor remark of them, "Maybe I should have bolded the words reliable sources when I was asking for examples. That hardly qualifies as such." Are they considered a reliable source? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

IIRC the source has been previously discussed at the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎ page. IMO it is not a reliable source, and some factors to consider while evaluating the source are:

• It clearly has a POV, advertising itself as The conservative voice of Arizona and Community watchdog
• It has no paid circulation and is distributed for free
• The awards you mentioned are given out by a local state trade group and are not high profile or notable journalistic awards like the Pulitzers. Many of the awards are of the type, Best Color Ad, Best Headline etc. To see how many such awards are handed out see this list. It hasn't won any notable journalistic awards as far as I can see.
• Finally and most importantly, the weekly's articles simply do not stand up to scrutiny, either in terms of factual accuracy or neutrality. See for example, this article, in which the writer repeatedly refers to Barack Obama as Barry Soetoro; or this article, which concludes, "So, as the evidence piles high to indicate Obama is unqualified to hold the office of President of the United States, the Electoral College, regardless of warnings, either voted purposefully in disregard of the Constitution, voted blindly or to avoid a $1,000 fine, elected Obama on Monday.". Redflags all around.

In summary, not a suitable source for a BLP, especially when the topic is so well covered by far better sources. Disclosure: I have been involved in editing the concerned article, so other further scrutiny by uninvolved editors is also invited. Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This paper bills itself as "The Conservative Voice of Arizona", and it is and has long been an aggressively muckraking publication--here's a New Times article from 2001 describing the paper's attitudes and tactics.[34]. On the Obama issues, specifically, this paper has run a lot of stuff that "respectable" conservative papers have not, including lots of articles promoting and supporting the "birther" cases. This doesn't mean that what the paper reports is automatically wrong, but it does suggest that on subjects of political controversy, its factual reporting should be reviewed with some skepticism. This is all the more so for its reporting on national issues, because this is not a paper with national reporting expertise or capabilities--it's fundamentally a local paper whose strength is opinionated coverage of development controversies in the ritzy suburbs north of Phoenix.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times, Associated Press, etc. as sources on legal questions

A little matter of contention over on 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis: Are the New York Times and the Associated Press reliable sources concerning legal questions? We have one user claiming that because such newspapers and services called what transpired a coup d'etat, we should also because they are reliable sources. I contend that they are not reliable in this context, in that legal scholars and specialists in Honduran law are neither reading nor checking the articles. Which is correct? Bkalafut (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at any point of time we should use the most authoritative available sources on a topic, assuming that these sources at least meet the minimal threshold set by WP:RS. NYT and WP certainly do that, and at the moment they may be the best available sources - although we should also check what official organizations like UN, OAS etc call the recent events and add (rather than replace) that to the "coup" label that seems to have been universally adopted by mainstream media. Of course, if in a few months/year time historians and legal scholars finally determine that this was something-other-than-a-coup, we should prefer their terminology.

Btw, do you have an alternate label in mind that is backed up by other reliable sources ? If so, that can also be mentioned in the article. Abecedare (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Following up on my own suggestion:

The Thirty-Seventh Special Session of the OAS General Assembly adopted a resolution strongly condemning the coup d’Etat in Honduras and demanded the immediate and unconditional return of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales to his constitutional duties.OAS News

The General Assembly today condemned this weekend’s coup d’état in Honduras, calling for the restoration of the democratically-elected President and constitutional Government. UN News

Abecedare (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

But we have the Supreme Court of Honduras, also an RS, and many of the major Honduran news sources insisting that it is not a coup. At best, then, RSes are in conflict--OAS and Honduran Supreme Court disagree--and calling it a coup would then be NPOV, right?Bkalafut (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the Honduras Supreme Court is an actor in these events (just as Zelaya is), and neither is a neutral third-party source. As such, while their opinions and characterizations of the events are certainly noteworthy and worth mentioning in the article, neither should be necessarily adopted by wikipedia. As WP:RS says, "articles should be based primarily on third-party sources" and therefore we should currently rely on sources like NYT, AP, Reuters, etc, and later down the line use more academic sources once they are written. Abecedare (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Q: Since when is Coup d'Etat a particularly legal term? Yes, NYT and AP are RS for such a claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress are treating this as a legal removal (with possibly illegal irregularities) of a President in violation of their Constituion and who defied Supreme Court rulings. Whether or not what transpired is a coup d'etat hinges on whether or not they are correct, which is a legal question. As far as I can tell, NYT and AP are not set up to address that legal question and are using "coup" as a sort of slang term for what happened. Bkalafut (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my reaction—this characterization doesn't seem like a question of law. At any rate, Abecedare is correct. The Honduras Supreme Court is an actor, so it's not a reliable independent source, although their opinions are quite noteworthy. The New York Times is reliable in this context. Cool Hand Luke 08:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also note that Bkalafut's characterization that "one user" claims that NYT, AP (they left out UN general assembly, OAS, EU, etc...) are RS on this question is simply wrong, as any random sampling of Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis will show. So wrong that it really stretches my WP:AGF, though not quite past the breaking point. Homunq (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Livesey

He's kinda turned out not to be telling the whole truth about himself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8130351.stm

However we use his books as refs in a few plages eg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=Jack+Livesey+Armoured+Fighting+Vehicles+of+World+Wars+I+and+II&fulltext=Search&ns0=1

Is this likely to be a problem?©Geni 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Goldstein and SCOTUSblog as sources for Supreme Court articles

Tom Goldstein is a notable and highly respected Supreme Court practitioner and court watcher. His blog, SCOTUSblog, is also notable and highly respected. Both are regarded as reliable sources by the media. E.g. [35][36][37][38][39] Is a post by Goldstein at SCOTUSblog about a justice of the Supreme Court a reliable source for purposes of that Justice's Wikipedia article?

Although blogs are troublesome as sources at Wikipedia, they are not entirely banned. WP:SPS allows that "[s]elf-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article," as Goldstein is, if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," as Goldstein's has been (e.g. [40]; indeed, he was wheeled out as a court expert on The News Hour tonight!).

Furthermore, WP:GAME and WP:WL are explicit that the language of a policy should give way to the policy's purpose. Even if the text of WP:SPS seemed to rule out SCOTUSblog as a source (it does not, as we have seen), the purpose of the policy supports inclusion. The concern underlying WP:SPS is explicitly-stated: that "[a]nyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason," emphasis added, self-published sources such as blogs are frowned upon as sources. But it would be ludicrous to pretend that a court expert (indeed, practitioner) as esteemed and established as Goldstein is not an expert in the relevant field, viz. the court.

Goldstein posted an assesment of the term just concluded, and made some remarks about Justice Clarence Thomas. Since Goldstein is an expert on the court, his assesment of Thomas might be thought to have some weight, a fortiori to the extent it is an admission against partisan interest (Goldstein has made it quite clear that he disagrees strongly with Thomas, but his assesment was complimentary):

“

No other member of the Court is so independent in his thinking [as Thomas]. The irony of course is that there remains a public perception, rooted in ignorance, that he is the handmaiden of other conservative Justices, particularly Justice Scalia. I disagree profoundly with Justice Thomas’s views on many questions, but if you believe that Supreme Court decisionmaking should be a contest of ideas rather than power, so that the measure of a Justice’s greatness is his contribution of new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate, then Justice Thomas is now our greatest Justice."

”

I therefore added it to the section of Thomas' article about his recent years on the court.[41] user:RafaelRGarcia has now removed it twice on the pretext that it is "irrelevant to section, non-notable, blog, entirely opinion, undue weight."[42][43] Argument has ensued.[44] It seems clear to me that SCOTUSblog generally and Goldstein particularly are reliable sources for articles about the Supreme Court and its members. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate having some more pairs of eyes on this one in case I'm the one being the WP:DICK. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Scotusblog is reasonably reliable, even for BLP's, with attribution, see its article for its notability and reputation.. That particular post and quote can also be cited to The New Republic, at [45], so discussion of Scotusblog is not strictly necessary here, though the common publication also helps suggest Scotusblog's reliability. Of course it is more an (interesting) opinion than fact, and the question is more one of editorial judgment. Maybe the using whole quote is too much?John Z (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinions requested

The site exampleproblems.com is linked to from several articles[46]. As the site violates WP:EL (it's a wiki and not a reliable source per our normal standards) I was going to nuke these links but they appear to have been added by established user Tbsmith (talk · contribs). So, rather than cause a potential conflict with this user I'd like a few second opinions on this. Am I being too strict here or should I nuke these? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You could try discussing this with the other editor and perhaps at WP:Wikiproject Mathematics. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)