Misplaced Pages

OK, to simplify matters, let's discuss one source at a time.

• Lets start with the images in the article that claim that they are refugee camps built for the people who use to live in Sheylanli. Where is the sources for that. The image says that it was taken by the articles creator. I think this is a clear case of self publishing and original research. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  Where does it claim that they are refugee camps built for the people who use to live in Sheylanli? Please reread the caption, it says Takhta Korpu Lachin winter pastures . If you wish to see the location on the Google Earth, here are the coordinates: 40°07′65″N 47°35′20″E / 40.13472°N 47.58889°E / 40.13472; 47.58889 Coordinates: latitude seconds >= 60
  {{#coordinates:}}: invalid latitude. Please make sure to look at refugee camps in the same area as well, coordinates of some refugee camps are 40°05′38″N 47°31′52″E / 40.09389°N 47.53111°E / 40.09389; 47.53111, 40°07′80″N 47°31′04″E / 40.13889°N 47.51778°E / 40.13889; 47.51778 Coordinates: latitude seconds >= 60
  {{#coordinates:}}: invalid latitude (note the wight long "building" which is in the first image). Most of refugees from Lachin have been settled in winter pastures in that area which are not officially referred as refugee camps but graves of live people. I hope this will help to clear up things. Gülməmməd 16:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To ask a more abstract question about original images. How could we verify that this picture isn't just taken in my back yard? Merzul (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That is very easy, who wants to make sure can come to see your back yard if you don't mind:). On serious notes, this discussion hasn't been opened on those images as you can see above and actually those images don't give so much importance to the article. But as a uploader of those images I convince you that they are not fake. They are accepted images in Google Earth and can be found here 40°07′65″N 47°35′20″E / 40.13472°N 47.58889°E / 40.13472; 47.58889 Coordinates: latitude seconds >= 60
{{#coordinates:}}: invalid latitude. Gülməmməd 19:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus that the images should be removed from the article as "trust me they're not fake" generally doesn't constitute a reliably sourced image? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do they violate neutrality of the article or what? By reliable sources for images what do you mean? Do these have sources which you are after? I'd stress on the first image which clearly made in photoshop and pushed into article as a historical image. There are thousands of similar images that one can mention.
If you wish, let us move on to discuss other issues related to the article. Gülməmməd 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid response to an unsourced image. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, you guys could wait until someone looks into this. Unfortunately, this disputes seems a bit too complicated for me; hopefully someone will look into this soon enough. Until then, stay cool... meanwhile I'll check my back yard to make sure those pictures weren't taken there. ;) Merzul (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Various sources have been questioned simultaneously. I have looked at the article and cannot see that any of them are reliable. The burden is on the person who wants the material to be included to show that the source is reliable. We can comment here source by source. Which one should we deal with first? "Propaganda sites" may not be an adequate description but "advocacy sites" are unlikely to be suitable sources in this case. The Guardian clearly is a reliable source, but it does not seem to have said anything at all about the subject of this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian says: "...Armenian forces occupied the mountainous region within Azerbaijan..." which clearly supports the given fact because Lachin is in that mountainous region so is the village. Gülməmməd 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the entire Caucasus is mountainous. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the article get temporarily stubbed and that we discuss here each source for inclusion one at a time before adding it to the article.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm questioning whether the article could even be stubbed as it's difficult to find anything reliable that this village even exists. This is all that a google search can yield. Would an AFD be appropriate in this situation? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Before going ahead please first answer all my questions those I addressed above.

1. Where does it claim that they are refugee camps built for the people who use to live in Sheylanli?
2. And important one about images.
   Then continue the discussion with questions those you opened RSN for the article. Gülməmməd 01:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Do you even have a single reliable source that this village even exists? We're not even getting into whether or not it is notable for inclusion in wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes the village exists (or existed). It is mentioned in Karapetian's book "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the region of Karabagh" as a Kurdish village which has lost its historical name and whose inhabitants, along with the inhabitants of a nearby village (Katos), spoke Kurdish when he visited the place in 1985. The "several historical, cultural and architectural monuments" are a ruined Armenian monastery near Katos and its medieval graveyard which was destroyed between 1989 and 1992 when under Azeri occupation. Meowy 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Meowy, you are right the village existed since it was destroyed during the NK war. I have also read Karapetian's book and there the author introduces new names, Armenian version of all names of villages in Lachin. The author approximates the name of village Katos to be something in Armenian language like Gutuz. However, according to kurdish historian Shamil Askerov and many other Azerbaijani scholars who did research on the names of kurdish villages in Azerbaijan (published in Azerbaijani), the name Katos doesn't have any relation with what is said to be Gutuz. The name Katos in Kurmanji means Land of potatoes. The story behind is that in the late 18th century people from Sheylanli realized that there was a land close by Sheylanli (about 15 km to the southeast of the village) which was very productive for potatoes and a couple of families decided to settle in that place which later named as Katos -- Land of potatoes. That was the starting point of the history of Katos referred as historical Gutuz by Armenians.
Regarding the Armenian monasteries in Azerbaijan, before Islam in Caucasian Albania, where is now modern Azerbaijan, the religion was Christianity. Since later the religion in Azerbaijan was changed to Islam, now Christian Armenians claim everything that has sign of Christianity, historically to be belong them which is obviously not true as one you mentioned above ...Armenian monastery near Katos....
And the last part of your comment, Lachin, and so villages in Lachin, was Azerbaijani region and occupied by Armenian. Above you are saying "under Azeri occupation" which is obviously propaganda according to the followings:

Is "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the region of Karabagh" a reliable source (not a rhetorical question)? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. But since both Azerbaijani sources (sited by Gulmammad) and Armenian sources (sited by Meowy and also those included in the article such as this: ) agree that the village of Sheylanli exists and it used to have a Kurdish population, I don't see what the problem is here. Is it actually disputed that the village exists or what? And also, we have many sources that Armenia is occupying the region. So what is actually the problem here? What is being disputed? Grandmaster (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the sources are unreliable but we should accept them anyway? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From where you understand this? Point to it by bringing quotation. Gülməmməd 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added dubious and fact tags to all the unreliably sourced passages in this article. I'll give it some time for the author(s) to properly source these passages, after which they will be removed if they are not properly sourced. No need to keep beating a dead horse, either there are reliable sources for the passages or there aren't. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't "ruin" the articles. We can't provide one reference for each word that we use in the article. The references are more than article itself. You are judging the articles from your personal point of view as you did here. You need to consider the point of view of the whole community not only your own point of view. Besides, what do you suggest to improve them? You keep saying delete. Whether you believe or not both articles are notable and well sourced. Gülməmməd 11:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You should provide proper sources. If you've taken a picture of something that looks like a shed in someones backyard and you are claiming it is a home of a former Sheylanite then you should provide evidence for this. Anything that is not properly sited will be removed. Let me know how much time you require. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately wikipedia doesn't operated according your wishes. Your disruptive point of view about the articles is very clear from here: Currently 9 users says keep with rational reasons, one says weak delete and another strong delete without any reasonable reason. Gülməmməd 05:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

According to you then, starting an AFD where you get more keeps than deletes is in your definition being disruptive. The fact that you would respond to my request for reliable sources this way indicates that you are just stonewalling. The pictures come off because you don't have sources for them. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco, you are trying to get ride of these both articles by any means. If it hadn't been so, it wouldn't have been this. Please give up these attempts and do some other useful edits. Those articles are not my property and I don't have to defend them from your attacks. They are notable enough and so deserve to be on Misplaced Pages. Gülməmməd 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No consensus on an AFD means that there is no consensus to keep or delete. It doesn't mean that the sources in the article are OK. Seriously instead of reverting back in unreliably sourced information, why don't you get images that are sourced and use some of the sources that are reliable? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Related but different article Sheylan, more reinsertion of unreliable sources

In a related article please see Sheylan (not to be confused with Sheylanli). user:Gulmammad has just reinserted a blog as a source. I'm really finding all of this incredibly frustrating. So much time and energy needs to be expended just to ensure that reliable sources need to be used. It is very frustrating that admins will tar both sides in this dispute with the same brush regardless of whether one side is tendentiously adding unreliable sources and the other is trying to build an encyclopedia with reliable sources. The way that this should be dealt with is that readdition of unreliable sources should be treated like vandalism. Sorry for the rant but I'm finding this really frustrating. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we would all be best served by focusing the discussion on A: What sources are available, and B: How reliable are they? Could both sides here please respond below, listing the sources they know to exist and their views on why those sources are or are not reliable? I think for now it would be best if we would forego engaging in debate, that can come later, let's first get a good synopsis of where things stand. Seraphimblade 03:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is just quick response to Pocopocopocopoco's last comment. It appears that you are just edit warring on these articles because I have been working on them. Here I clearly pointed out that there is an article that has only one source which is a blog. If you are not edit warring and trying to build an encyclopedia with reliable sources why didn't you mention it here?

I completely agree with Seraphimblade but since you are one who is unsatisfied with sources, please first point out clearly why do you think sources are not reliable for a given fact. Then I'll respond. Gülməmməd 04:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To Answer Seraphims question above. I did a google search for both Sheylanli and for Seylanli (possibly the Azerbaijani spelling of the village if the village even exists) and could not find a single reliable source. I found some maplandia.com type user created maps I also found blogs and the advocacy/propaganda sites that Gulmammad has been using. These are not reliable sources because they don't undergo any type of verification or editorial review and might also be considered extremist sources. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that the article starts with "Sheylanli (Azerbaijani: Şeylanlı)". For Şeylanlı Google gives 499 results one of which is this. Now do you believe that village is exist? Gülməmməd 04:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful if you discuss the notability question first. Why not try and bring in some editors who are interested in improving the coverage of Geography topics? The purpose of this noticeboard is to advise on sources. Unless the questions are rephrased the only answer you are likely to have from this noticeboard is that The Guardian is reliable and the other sources mentioned do not seem to be. If someone would like to propose another source for more detailed consideration then I am sure that editors here will be pleased to discuss it. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a source that the village is occupied by Armenia? It is pretty obvious. CIA World Factbook says: Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan; over 800,000 mostly ethnic Azerbaijanis were driven from the occupied lands and Armenia; Lachin district of Azerbaijan, where the village is located, is one of those regions occupied by Armenia. I don't see here any issue that is worth lengthy discussion, the fact is pretty obvious. --Grandmaster (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You need a source for most things. CIA World Factbook is a good one but from what you have said above it does not explictly say that this district is one of the ones occupied. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need sources for obvious facts. Just take a look at the map, Lachin is right between Armenia and Karabakh, and Azeri and Kurdish populated areas in between are all occupied. But if the source is needed, please see below:

Karabakh Armenian forces broke through to Armenia at the Azerbaijani town of Lachin, creating the so-called Lachin corridor. At Lachin, roughly ten kilometers separates Armenia from Karabakh

Human Rights Watch. Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. 1994. ISBN:1564321428

Grandmaster (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Another one:

The biggest wave of IDPs came in 1993 as Armenian forces from Nagorno-Karabakh, with support from the Republic of Armenia, forced out the Azeri civilian population successively from seven provinces (Lachin, Kelbajar, Agdam, Fizuli, Jibrail, Qubatli and Zangelan) adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Roberta Cohen, Francis Mading Deng. The Forsaken People: Case Studies of the Internally Displaced. 1998. ISBN:0815715145

This one lists all the districts of Azerbaijan, occupied by Armenian forces. I hope this resolves the problem. Grandmaster (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is useless since I have responded all his previous claims and he always appeared with new ones. This user is edit warrior and does all these because he wasn't able to push unrealistic materials into the article. Above he claims that he doesn't believe that the village exist, if it is so, then I invite you to see this edit. I am questioning; A person who doesn't believe that the village is exist would does the following edit "...and serves as part of the crucial Lachin corridor that connects Armenia with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic "?
This shows he is an edit warrior and rationally proves what I said above.
It's very frustrating to deal with claims of this user and suggest to close the discussion as it appears to be useless. Gülməmməd 15:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, I think the best way is for Sheylanli and Sheylan to be stubbed and for the sources to be discussed in this noticeboard before adding them. I'm sure that a discussion of notability would also be prudent but right now the article contains only unreliable sources and I presume we don't want that in wikipedia so they should be removed. I also believe the article should be edit protected after stubbing and that new material be added using the edit protected request template (I forget the official name of it). Thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I still am having a difficult time following this discussion, as, I imagine, are many here. Might it be possible for both of you to restrict your comments to content matters, such as sources and article material, and refrain from commenting on one another? Seraphimblade 01:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim, to summarize the discussion above. Sheylanli has 3 sources that could be considered reliable (guardian.co.uk,iwpr.net,state.gov) but they do not refer directly to the subject matter and they also do not back up what is being written in the article. The rest of the sources in Sheylanli are unreliable. Sheylan has no reliable sources. Both articles make heavy use of newsgroup forums and blogs for their information. Sheylanli also has a couple photos that were taken by the author of the article and there is no way to determine if the photos are what they claim to be. The author of the article simply says "Trust me, it's not fake". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion on one format which you have started with in the very beginning and please don't try to change it once your question answered. Before moving on, I want to make clear two points about your question right above my previous comment; There, you asked you didn't believe that the village did exist and I answered. Now do you believe that it does exist? And a contraversal question: Assume I believe you wanted to build encyclopedia with reliable sources and needed reliable source to believe the village did exist. Then what was your source when you did one of your very early edits to the article saying "...and serves as part of the crucial Lachin corridor that connects Armenia with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic "?
Regarding your other questions, please address them in a clear way such as first give the facts which have been "pushed" into the article and "unreliable" sources which support them and why do you think they are unreliable sources from the point of view of the fact.
Also, you have been questioning for the sources of images. You might have been right in that but I asked you to let me know if these images have sources which you are after? I'd stress on the first image which clearly made in photoshop and pushed into many articles as a historical image. Clearly mentioned images don't make any difference with one. There are thousands of similar images that one can mention. However, as I already told you above, these are accepted images in Google Earth 40°07′65″N 47°35′20″E / 40.13472°N 47.58889°E / 40.13472; 47.58889 Coordinates: latitude seconds >= 60
{{#coordinates:}}: invalid latitude. Please respond to my entire comment before moving on. Thank you. Gülməmməd 02:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion with the author of the articles is obviously a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with regard to reliable sources. I ask the admins following this thread to act on my proposal to stub and protect the article and we can add later expand the article by discussing sources on this noticeboard. If anyone has any other suggestions please post them. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point you completely confused me; please can you bring a complete quote from here WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that best fits this situation and supports your point of view? I'd also would like to ask Seraphimblade related to this as I might misunderstood it. Please continue discussion and answer my questions above as they arose while answering your questions. Otherwise tags should be lifted from the articles.Gülməmməd 04:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim asked that we discuss the article and not each other but since you asked, basically I see you as stonewalling on the issue of reliable sources. Many people have said that the article doesn't have reliable source but you keep bringing up irrelevant stuff in response such as pictures of Armenians from centuries ago and images of Toronto from a century ago and some African article. How is any of that relevant to reliable sources of the articles in question? If the sources are unreliable they should and will be removed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered any of my questions, instead when question was asked you changed the topic. You said you didn't believe those images to be realistic, because they didn't have reliable sources.Then I brought many counter examples to show you that this practice is widely accepted in Misplaced Pages and your claims are not constructive which based on violation of NPOV as could be seen from your edits to the article 1 and 2 without any sources. Once you couldn't place those unrealistic (because the village is very far from what is called Lachin corridor not as you said "crucial part of LC") information in the article and your "puppets", anons and Sevan79, have been disabled by semi-protection of the article, you brought discussion here and claimed that village didn't exist. This is why, I don't think any reliable source can make you happy on this issue. Gülməmməd 13:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough, please discuss the issue of reliable sources in the article. Sheylan has two quotes, one of them is a blog, the other is "Esseys on the study of Kurdish culture" which is not a reliable source. Do you have a reliable source for this article? If not, I am going to put it up for deletion. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Sheylanli tribe (né Sheylan) for deletion. If you wish to participate in the deletion debate please post here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Request verification of new sources in the above articles

Could someone confirm whether these sources are reliable and whether they say what they claim to say in the article:

• Sovetskaya Etnografiya ("Soviet Ethnography"), No. 5-6: 1932, pp. 125-135. There is a claim that they are referred to as Шейланы (Sheylany) in this article and there is a claim that there are pictures from the Sheylanli village in that journal
• Alesker Alekperov’s Studies in Archaeology and Ethnography of Azerbaijan (a monograph in Russian; Baku, 1960), there is a claim that this article lists the Sheylanli among other Kurdish clans such as Babaly, Sultanly, Kullukhchi, etc (p. 143).
• Tatiana Aristova in her Transcaucasian Kurds (also in Russian; Moscow, 1966) there is a claim that this article lists Sheylanli among the poorest Kurdish communities of Azerbaijan and places it, along with Zerty and Minkend, in the Lachin district (p. 54). There is a claim that there is also a list of the Kurdish family names found in Sheylanli there (ibid, p. 48). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See this or check the article. If you don't believe, then on the right side of the screen there is a link saying "Find this book in a library" click there and go to see the book in the closest library to you. Is this okay for you? I won't waste my time to search instead of you regarding two other sources -- please do by yourself. Here is the link. Gülməmməd 07:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the article. The journal is avalable in most of libraries as a microfilm. If you wan't, I can send you images of pages. Since I don't know the copyright status, I can't upload them here. Gülməmməd 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

1932 is too early a source to be reliable in my opinion. It reminds me of the way that ethnographic writing from the British Raj is sometimes used to back claims about present-day Indian social groups. The 1960s is different, as the Soviet Union was known for scholarly classification of ethnic groups. Obviously all three sources you mention would be very hard to obtain and verify, and they are in Russian, when English-language sources are preferred. Was there an overview of ethnic groups published in the 1970s or 1980s, or anything in the post-Soviet period? What about reports from international human rights organisations? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any rule that too early sources are not reliable? Here might help you to get answers for your questions. Gülməmməd 04:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK Gulmammad, you've shown that works with these titles exist. Now who can verify that the above claims are made in these works? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Web video as source?

An editor on an article on which I'm working has identified a web video of a news report as a possible source. However, it seems to be a pirate copy (or at least there is no indication that it's an authorised copy), it's in a language I don't speak - although the uploader has added a translation as subtitles - and there's no indication of when it was broadcast. This obviously means I can't verify for myself whether the translation is accurate; it's clearly been edited by the uploader, given the addition of subtitles; and we couldn't link to it anyway because of its likely copyvio status. Does anyone think this is likely to be a reliable source? My instinct says no but I thought I would ask for some independent views. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please would you let us know which article is that and where is the video, then relatively it could be easier to tell whether or not if it is reliable source. Thank you. Gülməmməd 00:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It also might be of assistance if you could at least tell us what language it might be. This would prevent editors from wasting time if they do not speak the language and would prompt multi-lingual editors that are proficient to examine it. Agungsatu (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image for Portal:Discrimination

There has been an ongoing discussion about inclusion of an image (Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5) in Portal:Discrimination. I would like some opinion as to whether the sources listed in the image caption are reliable enough that we can label the image as an example of discrimination. Apologies in advance for anyone who reads the whole discussion, it's been going on for a while. Kevin (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that image is a useful example of discrimination. And, as far as I can tell, only one of the sources (some of which are questionable themselves, as they are opinion pieces) call it discrimination, and that one is not a scholary opinion, but again an opinion piece. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is not hard to publish one's opinions in mainstream newspapers. Anyone can do it by sending a letter to the editor. Editorials are also not hard to publish: Hamas has published them in LA Times(), New York Times(), and Washington Post (). I don't anyone is about to claim that Hamas is a reliable source just because they publish opinion pieces in America's mainstream newspapers.Bless sins (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamas is not reliable, but their opinion, if presented in mainstream newspapers, is notable and therefore would have a right to be included in certian articles. That doesn't have any relevance to this issue. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does. We won't use Hamas for fact, right? We may use them for opinion, but that' s a different issue. The op-eds mentioned are being to used to say that discrimination in Mecca is a fact.Bless sins (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which dispute all of Hamas' claims, and that is why we don't use them for fact. No reliable source disputes the Mecca law being discrimination. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You're half right: indeed if a source is dispute by a more reliable one, it is not reliable. However, just because a source isn't disputed by others, doesn't mean its necessarily reliable. The source still has to meet the WP:RS criteria.Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And in this case, it does. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have lost track about which source in particular you are talking now. But an editorial is almost never acceptable as a source for a statement of fact. Editorials are opinion pieces, usually credited to one single author, and represent only this author's opinion. Unless he or she is independently established as an authority in the field in questions, this is not enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wolfgang Schreyer‎

A quote about aerial bombing, circling the internet and attributed to East German author Wolfgang Schreyer‎, is used as source in several articles like Bombing of Frampol, Area bombardment. Its recent addition to Strategic bombing during World War II led to editwarring. Is this author, and especially "Augen am Himmel: Eine Piratenchronik" (aka "Eyes from the sky"), a reliable source? Can the quote be sourced in any way at all? -- Matthead  Discuß   09:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the book in question fiction, not fact? In any case, bombing of Frampol is mentioned in other sources (, ), so there should be little problem with using a more reliable ref if this is questionable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Schreyer apparently wrote only fiction. Also, the quote contains obvious Germanisms like "from second side" which surely was "andererseits" in German, which is usually translated to "on the other hand". This means the translation is amateurish, and taken out of context. Besides, Google Books does not know any "bombing of frampol", the simpler bombing frampol yields countless hits for a short story "The Little Shoemakers" by Isaac Bashevis Singer ((Abba) believes that the day of the Messiah is near and actually does mistake Nazi planes bombing Frampol for His arrival), while bombing frampol 1939 yields only some Polish works. So a lot of storytelling, but no RS yet. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Polish sources confirm that bombing took place and obliterated a defenseless town. We seem to lack any good English sources, though.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This query is about whether the works of Wolfgang Schreyer are considered a Reliable source for Misplaced Pages or not. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that they are. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How could fictional works be a reliable source? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

United World Chart and aCharts.us

Is United World Chart remain reliable despite being deleted? How about aCharts.us? --Efe (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is still alive in here: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song). Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, being notable enough to be on Misplaced Pages is not a requirement for a reliable source, so the deletion issue is moot. I have looked at both sites (briefly), and they are both horrible from a design point of view. United World Chart really is a hot contender for ugliest site ever. It is allegedly produced and hosted by a German company called "Media Traffic", but it does not follow the most basic rules for web sites in Germany (which requires you to at the very least have a designated agent responsible for the content). There is no evidence on what they do or how they do it, and a quick Google search on the company turned up no evidence that it is widely used or trusted. So I have my doubts. From my point of view, aCharts.us looks better. They seem to be a mere aggregator. Even so, they warn against possible errors in their charts here, so it might be better to go to the original sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Im convinced now of United World Chart; the site really has no links that supports or states how they do or make those charts and countings. Anyway, thanks for the researh. Ahm, please check the usage of the source in the article, down in the chart table. Is that "permittable"? --Efe (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs

Hi,

I recently got changes I made to Wiki undone because I link to this website - www.urbanreview.co.uk - I maintain that while it is in Blog format, it has now evolved into a full music website. it gives reliable information which has been sourced & backed up, so I fail to understand why it cannot be regarded as a good source of information, it is one of the biggest Urban music sites in the UK?

Also, I have seen other sites, which are clearly in blog format & contain opinion, used as references & they remain intact (www.concreteloop.com - www.rap-up.com). I wonder if this could be explained to me?

I am not trying to change the world, just get some closure?

Thanks to anyone who helps me out.

Pulsetech (talk)

That website does not meet any of the criteria listed in Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources. If you see similar sites being used as references, you should remove them. Corpx (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Be cautious in removing references, even poor references. (Incorrect references are another matter). This is a tactic all too often used by editors who want to delete an article without following due process. It works like this:

• • Find a notable, referenced article that you don't like. Popular or Outsider culture from the pre-Web era is best.
  • Claim the references are "unreliable". You don't need to defend this, it becomes the citer's problem to prove that they are.
  • Delete the "unreliable" references.
  • Tag the article as unreferenced.
  • Tag the article as non-verifiable (because you've removed the refs that verified it)
  • Tag the article as non-notable, because notability without verifiability is hard to demonstrate.
  • Delete the article

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with due process. If a reference doesn't meet WP:V no editor is under any obligation to leave it intact. Any reference that doesn't meet wikipedia's requirements should be removed immediately because it gives a false impression that information or an article have reliability when they don't. Your assumption of bad faith is disturbing.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this should linked to the above talk Urban Review Agungsatu (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Book available only to 'cult' members

Before it was stubified, a new editor was editing Sukyo Mahikari using "Holy Words: Goseigen by Yoshikazu Okada ISBN 0971486301 / 9780971486300 / 0-9714863-0-1 Publisher Bishop of North American Region of Sukyo Mahikari Language". He says "it is available only to members" but that he can use it because he has a copy and it might be possible to buy it in a used book store -- "f you can find a used book I'm sure you can verify the statements". Or maybe a library but he admits not many might carry it. I think this means that the book is to all intents and purposes unverifiable by Misplaced Pages readers and can't be used, however valuable a source it might be for the article. Although 'demonstrably findable' doesn't seem explicit policy (yet), I think it is implicit in the policy and this book fails it. But I would like comment on this. Thanks. --Doug Weller (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the book passes any of the criteria listed in WP:BK. It is up to the new editor to prove that the book is a reliable source. Corpx (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it does turn out to be available. There are two copies in the Library of Congress. Notability as in WP:BK is not at issue, because it is not intended to have an article about this book, only about the new religious movement (or perhaps cult) that published the book. I also think it is an appropriate source for the article, since it contains the movement's own statements about what it believes. In the same way that Vatican statements are excellent sources for articles about Roman Catholicism. What I don't the book to be used for is statements of the tone "See! They believe a load of nonsense! They said so themselves!". But that is for the article talk page. Many thanks, Doug, for your effort, even if I am now demurring on this point. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, notability is not an issue. I just don't know what the threshold is for verifiability. I agree it is an appropriate source if used correctly. Thanks for finding it in the LoC. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Itsmejudith's efforts to verify that this in fact is a legitimate source, despite DougWeller's persistent efforts to discredit my postings. Verbatim statements of Okada's teachings *should* be allowed from the Goseigen as they are verifiable--despite the other editors feelings about other content within my contributions. Showing Sukyo Mahikari's true statements in their teachings is factual information, and for people who are thinking of joining this cult, at least they will be able to read the cult's true beliefs instead of believing the recruiting brochures which lure unsuspecting members under false pretenses. Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy that you had said you appreciated my efforts had you not then attacked Doug Weller. Please go and carefully read WP policies, especially WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. We simply cannot operate as a collaborative encyclopedia without them. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's another copy available at the University of California - Santa Barbara, as per here, which might be easier for someone to get ahold of. I'm not entirely sure how to find someone to look in that library, though. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's on hold for a class, it should be available via a standard interlibrary loan. Due to its rarity, the owner library may prefer to provide scans or photocopies of sections. Ask a local main branch or university librarian if they can acquire the book and/or partial copies of its contents. Vassyana (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fatimah

Hi. I restored a paragraph here to the article Fatimah that two editors, User:Itaqallah and User:MezzoMezzo, seem determined to keep off Misplaced Pages, most probably y tbecause of the nature of the section as one of the main Shi'a-Sunni differences.

The section is supposed the represent the point of view of both Sunnis and Shias, and the paragraph starts with "There are two distinct views on the manner of her death between the Shias and Sunnis. Shias maintain" The Shi'a point of view was both poorly represented and poorly sourced. User:Itaqallah, then User:MezzoMezzo kept reverting the edit contending that al-islam.org and Sistani's al-shia.com are polemical, unreliable and represent the Shi'a point of view (I later pointed out, referring to the beginning of the paragraph, that this is precisely what they're supposed to do), despite the fact that both are the main Shia websites on the internet, with the latter being run by the foremost authority in Shi'a Islam and the former being cited by the Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress.

Again, the section is supposed the represent the Shi'a point of view so even if the websites were polemical, which they are not, they represent the Shi'a point of view which should be properly represented in the article. I personally think this just a case of POV-pushing by a couple of editors who want what's written in the article to comply with their beliefs. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I should note that of the 16 sources I provided, three are linked to al-islam.org and al-shia.com and the rest are mainly historical books, namely Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Lisan al-Mizan by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Sharh Nahj al Balagha, all of which are written, ironically, by Sunni scholars but User:Itaqallah and User:MezzoMezzo keep removing the whole paragraph with all the sources provided, and avoid discussing the other sources. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Few people on this encyclopedia have a better knowledge of reliable sourcing in Islam-related articles than user:Itaqallah. It is definitely worth listening to what he says, although there is obviously still room for disagreement. What it boils down to is: what is the most definitive secondary source for the beliefs of Shi'a Islam. The Encyclopedia of Islam is one idea suggested by Itaqallah, and on the face of it it does sound better than a website, no matter how popular. Could you ask for more ideas at the Islam wikiproject? Sa.vakilian is a good editor of Shi'a faith, but I note he has withdrawn from GA reviewing on this article because of potential COI. User:Aminz is another excellent editor from the Shi'a tradition and I know he has often worked successfully with Itaqallah in the past. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing Neutrality's position is inconsistent as he readily accepts websites like ansar.org or d-sunnah.org as unreliable, polemical, sectarian etc. but insists that websites of the opposite skew like answering-ansar.org, al-islam.org etc. are reliable. Other websites used include "duas.org", "aljaafaria.com", "forums.mpacuk.com". All of the websites are of sectarian and polemical flavour. While the directory entries and reviews above give a summary of al-islam.org's content (it is a notable website) - they make no mention of its reliability as a scholarly reference. Indeed, one of the al-islam.org citations used in the article is a page from the Peshawar Nights - a publication reporting a religious debate between a Sunni and Shia, the historicity of which is disputed.

The article should reflect what's been written in the reliable scholarly sources about the topic - and the associated views. I am quite sure there's no shortage of descriptive accounts from the Shi'i perspective in the academic sources.

Secondly, some of the sources used are primary. These citations too are actually taken from the same websites, so there is an issue with using them if are relayed unreliable sources (WP:CITE#Say where you found it). Often such websites will use narratives of the opposing sect to try and prove themselves right (i.e. "you books prove our belief", if you will). The fundamental lack in any sort of reliable peer review or verification process leads to unprofessional mistakes. Lisan al-Mizan of Ibn Hajar, for instance, is a dictionary of hadith narrators, not a historical account. ITAQALLAH 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Having initially sat this one out and watched, I have to completely agree with what Itaqallah is saying here. And i'm not saying that because i'm some fanboy of his, this is the conclusion I reached after observing before I got involved. I'll give an example, answering-ansar.org is a Shi'a site and one of the sources Enforcing Neutrality has inserted; that website was literally created as a response to the Sunni site ansar.org; they're exactly the same in regard to lack of balance, the only difference is they represent the two separate views. The same goes for sources such as al-islam.org, a prominent Shi'a website; Enforcing Neutrality referred to SunniPath, a similar website but for the Sunni point of view, as a hate site yet has no problem with al-islam.org. Even the print sources, as was mentioned above, are all taken from these same biased and unreliable sites. He recently admitted himself on the article's talk page that he doesn't actually own copies of any of these books. He doesn't seem like a bad guy and please forgive me if this seemed directed at him personally, but I just find it confusing that he begins the discussion here by claiming that the two off us are determined to keep this material off of Misplaced Pages because of the sensitive nature of the topic, rather than having good faith and assuming we simply disagree over the reliability of the sources. That sort of seems like a case of Pot calling the kettle black. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing Neutrality, many of your sources (the non-online ones) are medieval sources, that don't satisfy the criteria for RS (e.g. the criterion of being peer-reviewed). Such medieval sources are also routinely accused of politico-religious bias. Can you find some modern reliable sources?Bless sins (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wasted hours of my time searching for the books online and locating the passages to find that I didn't have to and every source al-islam.org referred to is correct. Now please don't undermine my efforts and stop wasting anymore of my time. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-islam.org, like most polemical websites, has a tendency to quote things out of context and misrepresent (or omit) relevant commentary by the respective authors. The lack of an independent peer review or verification process means these things often go unchecked. I don't doubt you had a look for yourself, but I'd like to see some evidence of verification. A lot of the medieval sources are also primary, so we shouldn't assert their significance to the topic at hand without a secondary source. ITAQALLAH 16:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC

Itaqallah, I don't really care what you would like to see. Maybe you should spend hours of your own time by finding the books and try to prove me wrong because this has gone way too far. It is very disturbing to see Misplaced Pages allow this kind of behavior to go unpunished. I've done my job and if you think the sources are misquoted, check them yourself. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I want to get this over with. I can see you speak Arabic, so you'll have no problem reading the sources. Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari's Tarikh is downloadable here. The text is located in the fourth word document. It reads:حدثنا ابن حميد ، قال : حدثنا جرير ، عن مغيرة ، عن زياد بن كليب ، قال : أتى عمر بن الخطاب منزل علي وفيه طلحة والزبير ورجال من المهاجرين ، فقال : والله .لأحرقن عليكم أو لنخرجن إلى البيعة . فخرج عليه الزبير مصلتا بالسيف ، فعثر فسقط السيف من يده ، فوثبوا عليه فأخذوه In english: Ibn Hamid told us: Jarir told us, from Mughirah, from Ziad ibn Kulaib: Umar ibn al Khattab came to the house of Ali and in it were Talha and Zubair and men of the Muhajirin. He said: By God I will burn it on you or you come out and swear allegiance. Zubair came out with his sword, he tripped and the sword fell from his hand, so they jumped on him and took him.

Ibn Abed Rabboh's al-Iqd ul-fareed is read here. It reads:فأما عليّ والعباس والزبير فقعدوا في بيت فاطمة حتى بَعث إليهم أبو بكر عمرَ ابن الخطاب ليُخرِجهم من بيت فاطمة وقال له‏:‏ إِن أبوا فقاتِلْهم ‏.‏فأقبل بقَبس من نار على أن يُضرم عليهم الدار فلقيته فاطمةُ فقالت‏:‏ يا بن الخطاب أجئت لتُحرق دارنا قال‏:‏ نعم أو تدخلوا فيمادخلتْ فيه الأمة In english As for Ali, Abbas and Zubair, they stayed in the house of Fatima until Abu Bakr sent Umar to get them out of Fatima's house and told him: if they refuse, fight them. He took a torch to burn the house and Fatima met him and told him: are you here to burn our house? He said: yes, or you enter what the Ummah has entered (i.e swear allegiance).

Al-Shahrastani's Al-Milal wa al-Nihal is read here. It reads: فقال‏:‏ إن عمر ضرب بطن فاطمة يوم البيعة حتى ألقت الجنين من بطنها وكان يصيح‏:‏ أحرقوا دارها بمن فيها وما كان في الدار غير علي وفاطمة والحسن والحسين In english: And he said: Umar kicked Fatima's stomach on the day of allegiance until she she miscarried and he yelled: Burn her house and whoever is in it except Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's Lisan al Mizan is read here. It reads on page 268: أن عمر رفس فاطمة حتى أسقطت بمحسن. In English: Umar kicked Fatima until she miscarried Muhsin.

Al-Baladhuri's Genealogies of the Nobles is read here. It reads: أن أبا بكر أرسل إلى عليّ يريد البيعة، فلم يبايع. فجاء عمر، ومعه قبس فتلقته فاطمةُ على الباب، فقالت فاطمة: يا بن الخطاب، أتراك محرّقاً علي بابي؟ قال: نعم، وذلك أقوى فيما جاء به أبوك. In english: Abu Bakr sent for Ali demanding allegiance, but he didn't give gim allegiance. Umar came with a torch and was met by Fatima at the door, she told him: Ibn al-Khattab, are you here at my door to burn the house(?)? He said: Yes, this is stronger than what your father has ever done.

Al-Safadi's al-Wafi bil-Wafiyyat is accessible here. It reads in the sixth volume, page 15: إنّ عمر ضرب بطن فاطمة (عليها السلام) يوم البيعة حتّى ألقت المحسن من بطنها In english: Umar kicked Fatima's stomach on the day of allegiance until she miscarried Muhsin.

Yusuf ibn Abd-al-Barr's al-Isti'ab is downloadable here and Ibn al-Athir's the Complete History is downloadable here. I didn't locate the texts because I already wasted too much time working on the others. Hopefully you wouldn't mind working on these to prove me wrong.

As for Ibn Qutaybah's Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa and al-Mas'udi's Ithbat ul-Wasiyyah, I couldn't find them on the internet so I will to a bookstore check if they're correct, but a Salafi quotes Mas'udi in his book accessible here as having said in his book Ithbat ul-Wasiyya: فهجموا عليه وأحرقوا بابه ، واستخرجوه كرها وضغطوا سيدة النساء بالباب حتى أسقطت محسنا or they attacked him (Ali), burned his door and took him out by force and pressed against the door until she miscarried Muhsin and calls him a Rafidi immediately after quoting him, so I doubt the source is misquoted.

Finally, I hope this can put an end to this dispute and I hope we could be on good terms after. Regards, Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Most if not all of these seem to be medieval sources, i.e. from the point of view of Misplaced Pages they are primary sources. Interpreting old primary sources very often is original research. Interpreting them in the proper context requires extensive expert knowledge. Thus, modern scholarly sources are much preferable, and, for such a major topic, should be easily available, e.g. in any decent university library. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. In an article like this, all we can get and all we need are medieval sources. No one has called Sahih Bukhari original research. These are modern sources: The Historians' History of the World (1909), p.146; Josef W. Meri's Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia (2006), p.249; Simon Ockley's History of the Saracens (1857), p.83; Moojan Momen's An Introduction to Shi’I Islam (1985), p.19; George Christopher Molesworth Birdwood's SVA (1915), p.162; William Muir 's Annals of the Early Caliphate (1883), p.6. But it seems this is never going to end. Whatever. I'm too tired, I'm leaving. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Enforcing Neutrality‎ in many cases and don't want to support every sources he's used, but I'm really sorry that Itaqallah says Al-islam.org, like most polemical websites, has a tendency to quote things out of context and misrepresent (or omit) relevant commentary by the respective authors. I hope he tries to check it better. There are many sources in that site which are not polemical. Is there anybody who thinks that Nasr's works such as and are polemical. Do you really think that Allameh Tabatabaei's work is polemical just because it's collected by al-Islam.org. I hope we judge about the cases without sectarian tendencies.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through all of the sources but I will pick up on Lisan al-Mizan again, which I mentioned earlier, because this is the clearest example. Yes, that sentence you quote is in the source. But it has been stripped of the context of Ibn Hajar's discussion. Like I said, Lisan al-Mizan is a dictionary of narrators, not a work on history. From what I can see, he is merely relating some of the narratives promulgated by a narrator by the name of "Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Siri b. Yahya ... ... al-Kufi al-Rafidhi al-Kadhdhab" (among which is this Umar/Fatimah one, another is about Pharoah and Abu Bakr/Aisha/Hafsa). Note that Ibn Hajar calls him a liar/fabricator, and clearly does not consider him trustworthy. Why source something like this when the author himself discredits the narrator? And why source it to a work which is clearly not about history??

Seyyed, why do you believe we should trust such websites which clearly have no independent peer review or authentication process? Talking about the books it hosts is a distraction (the books should be judged on their own merit), I'm talking about its own generated content - which clearly cannot be deemed reliable. ITAQALLAH 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not talking about its own generated content. I don't consider it as a reliable source, but we can rely on it whenever it hosts reliable sources. Thus we shouldn't say Al-islam.org is a polemical websites. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though other websites like answering-islam host books too which may themselves be reliable (i.e. Muir), the website itself is still polemical. Hence we should see if such books can be accessed without reliance upon such websites. ITAQALLAH 14:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that Shia and Sunnis have very different narrations of certain events and the distinction should be clearly specified. Technically speaking, Itaqallah is correct in removing material that are not sufficiently sourced, but I doubt that he is ignorant about the factuality of some of the sentences he is removing. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Raw Story

Are articles posted on the Raw Story a Reliable source? Are they reliable enough to be used in biographies on living people?Counteraction (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

perhaps you could provide a link to make it easier for us to form an opinion. Agungsatu (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDB

I'm almost certain that this has been brought up before, but www.imdb.com - surely this is not a reliable source? IMDB (an open source website) republish information from anonymous users that is often wrong, and they don't cite their sources. I believe it is difficult, if not impossible, to get such errors in IMDB corrected.

Is there a specific guideline about this? The only thing I can find is here. I keep seeing www.imdb.com, and so think we need clearer guidance on its suitability. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't go into the entire website, but my previous experiences with the biography sections were bad. The information is user contributed and blindly taken from other websites, without there being a reliable publication process in place. If there is a specific article, can you provide something like a link or diff? Species8473 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many articles that use this. It was this change that prompted me to raise the question here. I think we need some kind of (foot)note, essay or guideline specifically about IMDB to raise awareness about its unreliability. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

, , and . Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted this in the IMDB discussion down below but it worth repeating here. Please see the Zachary Jaydon hoax for a great example of the perils of sourcing to IMDB. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Latin American Briton population estimates

We've got a discussion going on at the Latin American Britons talk page about the use of population estimates that are described by the source as "guesstimates". For me, there are two issues: firstly, are guesstimates suitable for inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article if they're labelled as such; and secondly, is the source reliable? Given that the estimates are so far off the 2001 Census figures, I'm doubtful about whether they're reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Census figure is the one to quote up front. It's OK to add groups up to make a total, but don't carry out any other calculations. Demography is an exact and complex science. I'd say the guesstimate and source are OK if very clearly attributed. "According to the Census there are ... . OECD figures show ... However, a historian, X, writing in Y, estimated that there are as many as ...". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Do you think that the guesstimate should go in the infobox as well as the main article? Also, is there any general guidance on the validity of guesstimates as sources on Misplaced Pages? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, only an official figure should go in the infobox. Census figures have many well-acknowledged limitations but they are what we use in infoboxes because we are aiming for verifiability. I don't know of general guidance on guesstimates. I think it depends on the state of knowledge in the particular field and the level of accuracy that specialists in that field usually work to. You can measure the length of a mobile phone case to the nearest millimetre, but if you state the length of a building to the nearest millimetre it will be a case of spurious accuracy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian only sources used in New Chronology (Fomenko-Nosovsky) (no human history before 800 AD)

This is a WP:REDFLAG article, claiming that all ancient history took place in the Middle Ages and that no history goes back beyond 800 AD. So "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" should apply. However, despite some of Fomenko's publications being in English, there are a number of references to works by Fomenko with the references entirely in Russian, so I have no idea what is being referenced and have no way of knowing what the actual text says or where the claim is vague, what the specifics are. It's my opinion what when the claim would so clearlyy "significantly alter mainstream assumptions" that Fomenko's claims should all be referenced by English language translations of his works. Doug Weller (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

English-language sources only. There are enough for an article. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "english-language sources only" has never been policy. English language sources are preferred only if they are of the same quality and breadth. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Of course, in this particular case of a complete crank, I don't see the need to reference Fomenko extensively. We don't need to repeat every detail of his nonsense. This should be an article about his theory, not one promoting it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How about 'Exceptional claims require exceptional sources' though? Doesn't that apply and suggest that sources that only a small minority of English readers can verify shouldn't be used? Doug Weller (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that applies. Aren't Russian sources more exceptional than English ones on en.wikipedia? ;-). Seriously, as I wrote above: If you need extensive sourcing from the original work on this topic, the article has other problems. This is completely WP:FRINGE. We need to talk about it, not present it as if it had a shred of reliable evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree. What I don't want is fringe claims backed only by sources few people can read to see if they are even reported accurately, or reported with such meager detail that they can't be discussed. The article is bad and needs work. I'm not sure where to start. Does WP:UNDUE apply here? Doug Weller (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

More input needed

At Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Particular_attribution_POV A number of changes are being discussed that involve NPOV and it needs more heads to look into the arguments and come up with good consensus. Ward20 (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Soy milk

There is currently a dispute at soy milk on whether or not a controversial claim made in a commercial advertisement is encyclopedic material. There is currently a RfC under progress concerning this issue among others. Please help resolve this dispute. Thank you. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it makes an substantial controversy makes an impact on those who are accustom to making purchases of a particular product. and therefore I believe it should be included. while soy milk may not determine the course of nations, it is related to the health movement and important enough to a large group of people. Agungsatu (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime Jump

Is Anime Jump a reliable source? They review stuff and interview people. -Malkinann (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say they are decently reliable with their reviews and interviews. They have been around for about 10 years, too. ···日本穣 07:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

babylon jewry heritage center - babylonjewry.org.il

I wish to inquire about the potential usage of citations from babylonjewry.org.il and in particular nahardea, the organization's magazine. babylonjewry is the most prominent NGO dealing with the history and heritage of iraqi jews, containing several of the most comprehensive archives on related subjects. furthermore, its research branch is staffed by several academic figures of expertise on the subject (such as prof. shmuel moreh and dr. yehuda zvi) and publishes its own academic journal as well. the problem is that the magazine is not peer reviewed (while the academic journal is) and that most of the material is in hebrew.

now, the questions:

• can i refer to hebrew articles? referring only to english-translated ones would limit the usefulness of the source, and there aren't good replacements in english as far as i know.
• can i cite from both the magazine and the journal, or the journal only? can i cite only academic experts from the magazine, or all writers (as long as it's obviously on subject and not op-ed etc)?

MiS-Saath (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:V is core to the project. If material is only available in Hebrew, then it should not be presented in the EN. (Hebrew speakers, after all, will expect these details to be documented far better in the WP:HEB). And this web-site is bound to be suspect, since it appears to exclude the substantial number of Iraqi Jews who feel (or felt) that their community was sacrificed to the needs of Israel. It may be RS for individual testimonies or documents, but it should be used with extreme care for "historical facts". PR 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As for your first concern, i find a lack of resources with comparable depth in english, otherwise the question would never have popped up. As for your second concern, decidedly anti-zionist figures such as the late Samir Naqqash were also members of the organization and took part in organized activities. The center is fully aware of competing narratives and relates to them in an academic fashion (you will find references and rebukes to the claims made by Yehouda Shenhav, for example.) Furthermore, the personalities involved are distinguished researchers and cannot be ruled out on the basis of political affiliation. The debate to the prevalance of the Narrative used by publications and researchers is a public and open process. Although there's no hiding that it does have a zionist slant in most of its articles. Just like you the Journal of palestine studies is slanted against zionism, which doesn't rule it out as a source. MiS-Saath (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually you can add Sasson Somekh and Sami Michael to that list. i think that makes your second point quite moot. I was actually hoping one could provide an english alternative source... but sources are in dearth, indeed. MiS-Saath (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• While English-language sources are preferred to foreign-language sources, PR is incorrect to say that "f material is only available in Hebrew, then it should not be presented in the EN. (Hebrew speakers, after all, will expect these details to be documented far better in the WP:HEB)." First of all, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English sources, which is policy, states that "editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality ...." However, if no such equal-quality sources are available in English, foreign language sources can be used as indicated in that policy. Secondly, the fact that Hebrew speakers would be able to find these details better documented in the Hebrew Misplaced Pages is irrelevant. The original poster is trying to write English-language articles in the English Misplaced Pages so that English-speaking people can read about the topics they are working on. Most English-speaking people cannot read Hebrew and so it would do them no good to refer them to the Hebrew Misplaced Pages if they want to read about Iraqi Jews. As to the second question, I would allow use of both the journal and the magazine, although of course that does not mean we can deem either publication a source of absolute truth on contentious issues. Rather, the exact extent to which each publication should be used will need to be determined on a case by case basis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as a source is otherwise reliable, it is fine to refer to it whether it is in Hebrew or any other language (OK, not Linear A / Eteocretan). If there is something as good or better in English, of course use that instead, but that doesn't seem to be the case, or it's hard to find. Basically, use common sense and reasonable good faith on both sides. If someone challenges something, provide a reasonable amount of the original and a translation. There are plenty of people who can read Hebrew here, who can check translations. Sounds like it is reasonably reliable, so there should be no problem if the material isn't contentious. The more contentious it is, the more it would be desirable to use the peer reviewed or written-by-academics material, and the more scrutiny, translation, explanation, attribution, qualification and neutralization would be necessary. If something has a decided Zionist (or opposing) slant, make that clear, try to neutralize it or try to balance it with another source. That it encompasses and debates a wide range of viewpoints, including, it seems, that of "the substantial number of Iraqi Jews who feel (or felt) that their community was sacrificed to the needs of Israel" in PR's words - like Samir Naqqash, argues well for its reliability. Everybody has a POV, MiS-Saath's Journal of Palestine Studies comparison is a good one. What is important is whether or not they selectively publish crap designed to push it. If they avoid this as much as the JPS does - cf its article - they're fine.John Z (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Minor Obit

There is a local well-established newspaper serving a community of about 500,000 which sometimes (re-)publishes obits from major newspapers in other cities. My question is do I cite the local paper or do I cite the byline of the major paper listed with the obit even though I cannot provide details of issue or page if I use the latter ? Low Sea (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone asks, the local republished "far away" obits are for people with some sort of historical connections to the local community (relatives, schools, whatever). I am not attempting to establish such a conection, only the biographical facts from the original obit itself. Low Sea (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the guideline at Misplaced Pages:CITE#Say where you found the material covers this. It appears that you should cite the obituary to the publication you actually had access to, not the publication where it originally appeared. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's good to know. One last question... If I list the local newspaper as the "where I found it" then what is the best way that I should attribute the source newpaper it mentions? Perhaps list the SacramentoBee/NYTimes/ChicagoTribune/etc byline as author? Low Sea (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried searching the website fo the original paper for the original obit. If you can provide an online link to the original article (which should at least give you the original publication date), the page number isn't so important. David Underdown (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try that but in my experience few newspapers publish their obits online. Low Sea (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A better practice than citing the source you got it from is probably to cite both. Cite the original obit, followed by reprinted in "My Local Paper" on "This date", or something like that. I just seems to me you should actually credit the original publisher, and this makes it easier for someone to track down a copy. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Project

Is Joshua project a reliable source to indicate population figures as it seemed to have been used in some articles. It is usful because some of the data is not available from national census figures as these ethnic groups are not recognized by some national governments for various reasons. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Project is not involved in primary ethnic peoples research. Rather Joshua Project seeks to compile and integrate ethnic peoples information from various global, regional and national researchers and workers into a composite whole. We are deeply grateful to the sources below who have provided data to Joshua Project.Data Sources Taprobanus (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Source for a religious group's beliefs

What is the best source for the religious beliefs of a particular group (WHAT they believe, not the validity of those beliefs)? Is a website produced by the group an acceptable source to be used as a reference? Rev107 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the type of the group. For some religions there is a wealth of academic sources, arising from a long history of theological study. If there is only a website, then that is what should be used. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably also want to ensure that the website is operated by the group itself, as opposed to a specific member of the group, who might be presenting his own ideas, rather than those of the group as a whole. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's dangerous anyways, as groups like Scientology blatantly lie to the public about their belief system (possibly even for "good" theological reasons - "they can't handle the truth"). Third-party sources are usually preferable.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com

Can I use commercial sites such as amazon.com to source a page like The Simpsons DVDs‎? --Maitch (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You can use Amazon to show that a DVD exists and is on the market. Reviews that they commission from named reviewers are acceptable too. Reviews by the public aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Robert C. Fuller

Is Dr. Robert C. Fuller of Bradley University considered a reliable source on American religion topics? Are there any cautions in using his work for citations? Low Sea (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that all the works listed on the page linked to probably qualify as RS. Comments made by the subject in newspapers, provided they're about American religion, probably would as well. But if he were presenting an idea which hasn't met with consensus from the academic community, WP:FRINGE and WP:Undue weight could be applicable. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in his work,why not write an article on him also--he would certainly seem to qualify for notability under WP:PROF--given his 11 books from excellent publishers. DGG (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I might just do that when time permits. Thanks for the suggestion. Low Sea (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Manga Murder

I just came across Manga Murder and am wondering if it really has reliable sources. At first glance, the answer appears to be a resounding "YES", however, of the 9 references this article lists, 7 refer right back to the same article, which I belive is a violation of WP:EL, 1 (ref link # 4) appears to be ok, it links to the animenewsnetwork.com, 1 final one ( link # 7) appears to link to a Flemmish magazine, with no translation given, however a still from the manga mentioned appears in this article. Without a translation it's hard to tell. I believe a translation is required according to policy. If I pare down the article to only the cited reference I know to be good (# 4) that leaves only one reference and one heck of a stubby article. I figured I should get some more eyes on this before I even attempt something that BOLD :), so..check the article and see if I'm on target or not. Thanks Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "refer right back to the same article"? They are refs to newspapers. Clicking on the number in front takes you to the place where they are cited in the article, as is proper. Only #7 has an web link, but references need not be to the web. There are no EL's in the article, so WP:EL doesn't apply. Some of the newspaper refs could be clearer, and it would be nice if they had links to the stories if they are online, but that is not required. Before asking for translation, you should make clear what you think is iffy and might need translation. You might want to look at the web cites with google or another online translator. Discussing things with the other editors of the article should clear things up. There doesn't seem to be any real reliability or other problem here, so paring down the article would probably not be a good idea.John Z (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ref #4 links to animenewsnetwork.com, but, ref #1 links to a footnote with two links back to the same article, following those two links (which the author calls "a" and "b", those two links go right back to themselves. In text (not linked) it gives the name of the article he / she's referring to, following that, there's a link that names the magazine, but links back to a wikipedia entry about that magazine, he / she dates this, and the date's also a link , but that link also goes back to Misplaced Pages for an entry on that date. There's no link to the actual resource for this. Only 4, 5 and 7 are actual links. My understanding (and I may be wrong)is that when you place a footnote at the bottom which links directly to the source of the information used for the article) is that when you place a link into an article, you link directly to the source of your information. If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know.

Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the wiki software that assigns the letters a and b and takes us back to the place in the article where the reference is cited. What is done here is perfectly standard. Again, there is no requirement that our sources are on the web, that there are external links to them at all. If we are given a reasonable identification of them, the way they might appear in a book on the subject, that is enough. We are given dates and names of newspaper articles we could look up in a library subscribing to that newspaper - that is fine. It would be nice if a link to an online resource were provided, if it existed, but that is not required. The links to the names of the magazines and the date links are just marginally helpful conveniences, not necessary. This has nothing to do with reliability, which is whether the source used is in fact good enough to cite. This has to do with (very) easy accessibility of sources, which is not required. Cheers,John Z (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

leadership gurus

I am posting this to determine if a site that ranks professionals who have guru status by "he criteria for judging the TOP 30 focused on: Originality of ideas, practicality of ideas, presentation style, international outlook, impact of ideas, quality of publications and writings, dispersion of publications and writings, public opinion, guru factor."

there are 2 things that are wrong with the site. one, it has google ads, and 2 part of the ranking is done by the public.

the question is: since most of the gurus ranked on the site are also on wikipedia, should there guru awards be a part of their biographies?

there are 2 categories, leadership and communication

please refer to http://www.leadershipgurus.net and http://communicationgurus.net

Hotmarcie (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some backstory to the question can be seen here. –xenocidic (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had to deal with this issue as well on several occasions. The links tend to get spammed across a series of pages, but the sites don't appear to warrant inclusion. --Ckatz_spy 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My boss was part of this survey last year, and he is pretty credible as the MD on Nestle Malaysia. Personally I find the site ok, not a great design but seems to have credible content specifically with the gurus list and my personal encounter with the original research. I also believe that would be the main draw. The rest seems like filler.

on another note, I cannot help but notice that Ckatz is not following the Wiki-guidelines of "assume good intentions", and has already labled this a "spamming" - perhaps a bit more objectivity would be in order. Agungsatu (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolute Egyptology website - ok or not? (and link to UK universities' guide on web resources)

This is the website of an amateur Egyptologist. I really don't know if it qualifies as a reliable source or not. In trying to decide I ran into INTUTE "is a free online service providing you with access to the very best Web resources for education and research. The service is created by a network of UK universities and partners. Subject specialists select and evaluate the websites in our database and write high quality descriptions of the resources." Now that looks really useful as a guide. But, for this site, it says "Absolute Egyptology is a site that is focussed on ancient Egyptian history. It contains sections with articles about the different dynasties and kings of ancient Egypt. The articles are fairly extensive and illustrated with images and drawings. There is a virtual tour of the mastaba at Beit Khallaf in Middle Egypt. Although the site is hosted by a commercial company that designs websites it is obviously a labour of love by the Swedish amateur Egyptologist Ottar Vendel. The site is easy to navigate and pleasant to look at and although the articles have no references the information is balanced and to the point. This site is a good introduction to Egyptology and especially ancient Egyptian history for students and anyone interested in the subject." It sounds like a nice site to me, but maybe not really good enough for Misplaced Pages. I'd like other people's opinions. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

this is obviously someone who has done their research, and done it well. The site seem to be filled with very useful and interesting information and I personally think it is a very credible source. Agungsatu (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Did a little checking of it a while ago, but didn't see much beyond Doug's research. It would be nice if it gave references, but the INTUTE description is a real plus. It doesn't seem to say anything controversial or contentious, and as they say, seems to be a good introduction. So I'd say it is good enough for many purposes. Maybe not for something contentious, unclear or hard to understand, and not for BLP (Biography of Living Pharaohs) purposes.John Z (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Vedda.org

Is Vedda org a reliable source for articles about Vedda people ?. It is run by Living Heritage Trust. Associated people are

• Patrick Harrigan
• Dr. Wiveca Stegeborn an anthropologists. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes. This University of Texas book cites it, along with a couple of travel books. This chapter in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, an "illustrated reference volume is both accessible to the nonspecialist and written by leading scholars" is written by Stegeborn.John Z (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Moonlight Information Archive

I am trying to get an article (No Such Thing as Vampires) to FA status, but one user said that I had an unreliable ref. The site, Moonlight Information Archive, is a fan site for the show Moonlight, so it is not considered to be reliable, but what I am sourcing is an interview. The interview is with the series creator, and is one of the best interviews out there. I think that an interview is an interview, and even though the interview was with an unreliable website, the series creator still said those words. Thanks for your help - Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone there??? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

??? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Living Stream Ministries

There are several sources and external links on the above page about which I am dubious. These include:

• ReligionsNewsBlog, currently used as a reference
• Contending for the Faith, currently an external link whose ownsership seems to be "a project to defend and confirm the New Testament ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and the practices of the local churches", and
• Accusations Against LSM, operated by the same group as Contending for the Faith above.
  

Do the rest of you think that these pages meet the qualifications for RS and External links or not? John Carter (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Mensans

At the List of Mensans, I've provided what I believe are three very solid reliable sources: an article from the online version of the Sydney Morning Herald , a reprint of an Orlando Sentinel article (from the American Mensa website, noted there are a reprint and credited) , and an entertainment section article from CBS News online . These sources all state that Jodie Foster is a member of Mensa. However, another editor insists that another source overrides all of these. This is a (mostly) Italian-language video from RAI, in which Foster apparently states that she isn't a member of Mensa . The interview is almost entirely in Italian; Foster does speak in English for much of it, however this is mixed way down and an Italian language overdub obscures it. The video is extremely long and there is no specific indication of exactly when she makes this statement. So, are the first three references considered reliable and do they satisfy WP:V? And does the RAI source also satisfy the requirement and trump the first three? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From your description, I'd say Yes, are generally considered RS; Yes, satisfy; No, probably not considered reliable (though it might be if Foster's remark can be isolated (by timestamp?) and verified; No, does not trump the others, but should be reported alongside conflicting sources if verifiable (e.g., these generally reliable sources report, but she denies.). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2008

I listened to the RAI clip, and the Mensa question comes up about 20% into the clip, following an exchange about whether she was a child prodigy. The entire Foster interview takes up less than the first half of the clip. The interviewer brings it up and she replies, "no, people say that but it's not true", and "no, it's not true". During the translation, she says something like "I looked online for Mensa, ...", but at that point her audio is mixed down to inaudibility. The final sentence at Jodie Foster#Personal life could be cloned as a remark in the Foster entry in List of Mensans. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

a couple of clarifications regarding the reporting user's claims: 1. the 'orlando sentinel' "reprint" is unfortunately unverifiable. it claims to be a reprint, and it may be, but the site this ostensible reprint is published upon is not a RS. it is not, as claimed, 'the American Mensa website', it is a subpage for a local chapter of mensa. conflating this apparently user-maintained site with the American Mensa website is faulty. it barely rises above a blog in reliability. the video of jodie foster stating that jodie foster is not a member of mensa seems entirely incontrovertible to me. absent a genuinely reliable source - that being the American Mensa organization either confirming or denying her membership, rather than entertainment/celebrity news sites doing little more than mimicking what they likely read right here on wikipedia; and absent some evidence that would suggest that ms. foster is lying - i believe video evidence of the party in question stating that the party in question is not a member certainly trumps these other, less reliable sources. if someone can find the actual orlando sentinel article, that would help, though that article really barely rises above a commentary piece in its own right - it provides no establishing evidence other than that writer's claim. Anastrophe (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The only question which comes to mind to me is the timing of the various sources. If it somehow could be the case that the Italian interview (which I, not knowing Italian, can't really understand) is older than the other sources, then it could be the case that she joined after the interview. John Carter (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

the interview took place only within the last couple of months or so. the orlando sentinel reprint claims it's from 2005. Anastrophe (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so lets forget the Orlando Sentinel article altogether for a second. What about the Sydney Morning Herald or CBS News? These are directly from their own websites. Now, taking the Sentinel article back into consideration, we frequently (and accurately) cite hardcopy news articles. What if I had just cited the Sentinel article as hardcopy rather than as a reprint from a different website? It seems the cruz of the matter here is regarding the fact that the Sentinel article was reprinted on a Mensa webpage, but is not taking into consideration that that article had to have come from the newspaper at one time and that we have two other directly-sourced references? (The Sydney Morning Herald article is from June 4th of this year, FYI). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this qualifies, but I'm a member of Mensa, and I just logged in to their membership-only area and queried their complete member directory. There's lots of Fosters but Jodie is not among them. Would their own membership directory be considered a reliable source? It does not appear that members may ask not to be listed. They state: "As per the Constitution of Mensa, members must 'permit their names and addresses to be published in duly authorized listings.' Mensa International, Ltd. defines name and address to include name, city and state for listing purposes." Antandrus (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The directory is only for current members. Maybe she had stopped her membership by the time of the italian interview --Enric Naval (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

shortly after she says "it's not true" that she's a member of mensa, she says that she went online to the mensa site and looked at the test they provide, and couldn't answer any of the questions. that would seem to suggest that she's never been a member. Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. Here we have the subject herself clearly saying she is not a member of Mensa (at 4m 23s) and we can't even use that because it is supposedly inaudible or in a foreign language? She's speaking in English and you can clearly hear what she says. A user has even provided a transcription on the Jodie Foster Talk page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, it is insane. we have "news sources" (which have become notably lazy about vetting facts in the internet age) parroting what they've read online - probably, what they read at Jodie Foster. this creates faux WP:V instances on the net. never mind that they're entertainment/gossip pages, which for the most part are not considered WP:RS. the original citation that started this is the "reprint" of an article from the orlando sentinel. unfortunately - and for reasons that seem obscure to me - that article, published only three years ago - is not available at the orlando sentinel website, but is 'helpfully' available at a user-managed site for a mensa subchapter. that has no WP:V, as a user managed site is equivalent to a blog in reliability, and blogs are disallowed as sources for the most part. Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

i've emailed mensa asking them to make a clear statement on the matter. unfortunately, regardless of what they email back, it won't qualify as reliable, not until they publish something formally.Anastrophe (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you persist in stating that these are not reliable sources? At least one person above has said they are. In any case, to avoid the continuing dramahz, I will remove her entirely from the list. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources at Taekwondo--Heo, Cook References.

We're having a lot of issues with reliable sources at Talk:Taekwondo. I'd like to get an opinion on some I feel aren't reliable and later will ask about some I feel are reliable.

In Uk Heo: I've been arguing that this isn't a reliable source as no one has been able to identify whether it refers to an article, book, essay, etc., and if the paragraph given there is an abstract, review, summary, etc. Currently only what appears in that web link is being used as the source--not the underlying document. See Talk:Taekwondo#Footnote_.237_.28In_Uk_Heo.29 for more discussion.

A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo, In Uk Heo

• Name : A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo
• Author : In Uk Heo
• Date : 2004
• Publisher : Korea Society for History of Physical Education, Sport, and Dance Homepage
• Publishing Info : Academic Journal of physical education. Vol.9, 79 page
• Keyword : Taekwondo

David Cook: I've also argued that Cook, Doug (2006), "Chapter 3: The Formative Years of Taekwondo", Traditional Taekwondo: Core Techniques, History and Philosophy. Boston: YMAA Publication Center, p. 19. ISBN 978-1594390661 , is not a reliable source on TKD history as it's a photo book of TKD techniques by a TKD instructor without apparent academic training. See Talk:Taekwondo#Traditional_Taekwondo:_Core_Techniques.2C_History_and_Philosophy for more links, excerpts, and discussion.

There are also several TKD web sites being used as TKD history sources despitethe fact that they conflict with independent sources (see the most recent Talk archive there), and I hope to discuss those later. Any help would be appreciated. JJL (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

An academic journal of physical education from the Korean Society for (the) History of Physical Education, Sport and Dance would seem to be RS. Ideally the source would be in English, but it may not be a problem so long as Korean-speaking editors can check that it is summarised and used correctly. Any text that is not identifiable as belonging to a magazine, journal, book or fact-checked web resource is not RS. Then the Cook book. One would expect that statements about the history of Taekwondo would be sourced to someone with some background in history, although it is also relevant that the author knows the practice and presumably also some of the theory relating to this martial art. The quality of the publisher is relevant - is this a respected academic publisher? A photo book is unlikely to be reliable. A similar issue arose in relation to a Dorling Kindersley guide to homeopathy used in the article on Arsenicum album. It was a good enough source to say that the substance was used by homeopaths, but no good for any statement as to the science or efficacy. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo, In Uk Heo" this academic journal is published by 'Academic Journal of physical education. Vol.9, 79 page'. Text is belonging to Academic journal. Manacpowers (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources at Taekwondo--Burdick, Capener, Dohrenwend, Henning References.

I've been arguing at Talk:Taekwondo that the following are highly reliable sources, at least in comparison to other available sources which in comparison lack independence and peer-review, and that these should be given relatively greater weight. I'd appreciate feedback on that. See Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Sources_on_Japanese_origins and other parts of that page for further discussion and details.

Capener: Steven D. Capener, Ph.D. (formerly a professor at Ewha Womans University, Korea), "Problems in the Identity and Philosophy of T'aegwondo and Their Historical Causes"; in the (peer-reviewed, ISI--indexed) Korea Journal (Winter 1995 ) , also available here . The article was written while he was completing his doctoral studies.

Burdick: Dakin Burdick, M.A., "People & Events of Taekwondo's Formative Years," volume 6, number 1 (1997) , in the respected, peer-reviewed Journal of Asian Martial Arts. The article contains a great deal of additional information. For more on JAMA see here , including the Library Journal recommendation of it. Expanded version of the article here .

Dohrenwend: Robert Dohrenwend, Ph.D., "The Truth about Taekwondo (Parts 1,2)", Dragon Times #22-23 (continued in Classical Fighting Arts #1,2 ); excerpt here . Dragon Times and its replacement Classical Fighting Arts are well-respected, serious magazines with academically-trained editorial boards. Classical Fighting Arts is endorsed by the The Library Journal .

Henning: Stanley Henning, M.A., "Traditional Korean Martial Arts", Journal of Asian Martial Arts Vol. 9, No. 1, (2000): On Prof. Henning's credentials and the regard in which his work is held see , , .

JJL (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:RS says,

• "extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
• "fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), should only be used as sources about themselves"

by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources. It should only be used as sources. JJL's sources must remain as a sources.(not in article) It must not contain In main body article.

According to WP:V says,

• Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties.

by the WP:V, Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources.

Point is... "Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources." "fringe theories should only be used as sources about themselves" Manacpowers (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My Answer is Here. Here is not suitable place for discuss this topic. Manacpowers (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Last, These sources are already used as source in main Article. so, it is worthless discuss at here.

At first sight all four sources appear to be scholarly. I don't see how any of them could possibly be extremist. If someone wants to argue that one or more are not scholarly then they will have to argue on the basis of standards of scholarship, i.e. showing that one of the authors has been discredited in some way or that a journal is known not to maintain proper peer review. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand what reliable sources are. A source may have a particular point of view and still be reliable. If there is another notable viewpoint, then that other viewpoint should also be presented and cited to reliable sources. You will not find a book published by an academic press or an article in a scientific journal that says that the USA is in Africa. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I already proved various counterpart sources by an academic press or an article in a scientific journal.

i already said, "However, These fringe sources are ALREADY USED as source in main Article. so, This is worthless discussion." reliable or non-reliable... this is not important. those sources are ALREADY USED IN ARTICLE. so, there is no need discussion about this.

problem is.... JJL continually rv. various user's edit. and he keep claim that ONLY his sources are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. OTHER SOURCES ARE ABSOLUTELY INACCURATE. He keep a this stance, and he keep opposed counterpart academic sources.Manacpowers (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

this discussion is no need. JJL is a only one person who make this complain. Manacpowers (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You haven't said why you think that the sources the other user wishes to use are "fringe". A source can have a very strong point of view and not be fringe at all. The sources he mentioned appeared to be academic in nature - is that not your impression? Copying this exchange to the RS noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:RS says,

fringe is views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field

Well... His source have a serious POV problem.

Many users already mediate this topic. After that, we make conclude that it must remain as a reader's choice.

finally, We make conclusion like this,

"Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that based upon Traditional Korean martial arts Taekkyon, Subak. Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were almost entirely based upon Japanese karate. Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were based upon various martial arts Taekkyon, Kungfu, karate."

I still disagree this expression. However, this is limit of moderated edit. there is no need further change.

However, JJL try to keep a 'My source are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. others are NOT' stance. i don't understand why we need discuss this? I think this discuss is no need. Manacpowers (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Since my edits were brought into it, I would like to point out that both users were removing sources then deleting the supported text as unsourced, effectively whole sale reverts by parts. I was trying to get neutral editors involved so felt that removal of any source, that was not obviously promotional, was not the best idea. I do not read or speak Korean so cannot judge the quality of the source, if someone from the Korean or translation projects or could have a look it might be beneficial, I'll put a link on the project pages, to here. --Nate1481(/_c) 12:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Manacpowers: please listen to what people are saying. It is not a fringe theory that TKD was strongly influenced by Japanese martial arts, most significantly Karate (which is if you didn't know Okwanawan in origin with strong Chinese influances). That this is often officaly denied is also know, for example both views will be common knowlage to the majority of any general martial arts forum regardless of which is true. That the theory exists is NOT in debate, so please stop implying that JJL came up with it all by himslef. While his original edits (saying that TKD was entierly Japanese and that all Korean arts died out during the occupation) overstated the case supported by the sources, they do clearly show that people hold a view that was hevely influanced by Karate, and as an encyclopia should report it. Currenly you are arguing for you view of the truth, and JJL has (while no here) been synthasing a view form multiple sources. --Nate1481(/_c) 14:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

well. you mistake me. I do not boycott his sources. even sources are not neutral. JJL boycott my sources. this is problem. OK? however, here is not a good debate place. here is the only discuss about sources are reliabe or not. so, this debate is end.

According to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories says,

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Misplaced Pages; all significant views are represented fairly and without bias.

Identifying fringe theories

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

1. No TKD orginization admit it. Karate POV.

for example, Authors are karate affiliated.

2. No scientific data. it is assumption and personal opinion.

3. That is not mainstream history.

4. still dispute it accurate in many way.

5. No encyclopedia say, TKD is Karate.

6. That is the very difference from Various non karate source.

I already proved that various counterpart academic source. by various sources and public trusted encyclopedia, His edit of original research by his favorites sources are identified as a depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view,conspiracy theories, no scientific data. and you must not forget, My edits supported by the various academic sources, too.Manacpowers (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not main stream in who's view? TKD practitioners? or Korean nationals? or Martial arts partitioners? or Invisible Pink Unicorn's? JUST LISTEN AND STOP QUOTING THE SAME COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT POINTS People hold an opposing view (as sourced) and it should be mentioned, this explicelty dose not mean it is the only view or even true, but never the less a significant number of people hold it.

p.s. Just read this WP:Truth

/rant --Nate1481(/_c) 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, be Civil. On the contrary, You think this can be a main stream view? fact is NO. any evidecen that "TKD is karate. This is no debate at all"? NO. please show me source. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT? what? Please read WP:CIVIL. JJL dislike any sources except the ones that JJL use to support his own position. But actually I'm not. My stance is neutral. I accepted this moderated edit version, but Only JJL try to change this situation.

If you think it can be main stream view, Please bring me ANY public trusted encyclopedia source. what public trusted encyclopedia say TKD is karate? In fact, There is no encyclopedia say TKD is karate. This is a common sense. (We don't need Karate affiliated sources & no scientific data.) I can prove that my point of view is a mainstream. Manacpowers (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. could you please actually read what I wrote or if you are not sure you have understood correctly pleas ask someone else who has a better level of English. I have NEVER said that TKD is Karate, I have repeatedly said that there in existence are people who believe that, however I am not one of them. There is evidence that people believe TKD was strongly influenced by karate etc. and as there are sources that people believe this, so the fact that they exist should be included. I am explicelty NOT saying that we should include "TKD = Karate" as a fact. I am specificaly saying we should report that these views exist. --Nate1481(/_c) 09:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

According to another mediator Omnedon said, "JJL seem now to be arguing simply about what sources should be allowed to be cited in the article; but it already includes the essence of your position as one possibility. However, not everyone agrees with you on that, and not all sources support your position; so it is not stated as incontrovertible fact, and other positions are also described." Manacpowers (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This discuss still going on Talk:Taekwondo. so, here is not a suitable debate place.Manacpowers (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Guysen News International

I'm wondering about the reliability of a mostly French-language website (with some English articles), Guysen News International. Has anyone heard of it before? A handful of Misplaced Pages articles link to it . As far as I can make out, it seems to be a French-language, Middle East-focused equivalent of WorldNetDaily or FrontPage Magazine, i.e. essentially an outlet for commentary and opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a rather important Israeli Press Agency of French langage : .

It is considered to be pro-Israeli.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Can anyone tell if Daily Mail RS or not? May I use this paper as a RS for the article Durga Vahini? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that this article is published in the Daily Mail of Islamabad, and not the UK newspaper linked above. There is an editor in chief, per this., but I am finding it difficult to find independent sources about this newspaper to help judge its reliability.--Slp1 (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Daily Mail appears to be a mainstream newspaper in Pakistan, editor-in-chief is Makhdoom Babar and its headquarters is located at Shahbaz Centre in Islamabad . My only confusion is whether I can use that particular piece for the said article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

I would like to know if the following site: is a reliable source. Thank you. JayJ47 (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You might get more responses if you put up a descriptive title. Then again, maybe not. I find that source really hard to decipher, and you should let us know what you're using it for. II | (t - c) 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am using it to source information in this article. JayJ47 (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TV Tonight

Would you say that this site, http://www.tvtonight.com.au/, is a reliable one? I know it is a blog, but note that it is "Australia's Leading TV Blog", (lol) and it does seem to be quite reliable. I am using it to source most of the information here: Underbelly (TV series), and this issue is stopping it from becoming a GA. Please help! Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)‎

From a brief look at the article, it seems that the TV series was a very important one and it had an impact on public discussion in Australia. In these circumstances it is quite problematic sourcing most of the article to a blog even if it "seems" to be reliable. There should be better sources available. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew I shouldn't have said "seems", lol. Do you think that it would be okay if I could leave some of the links? I will try to find alternate sources, but if I can't, can I use the TV Tonight link if there is no possible alternative? Remember, if you have nothing positive to say, it is better to not say it at all. :-) Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I clicked on one of the links to tvtonight and it said at the foot of the page "Source Herald Sun". Check out as far as you can where the info on tvtonight comes from. It must have come from somewhere! Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

YAY!!! Good news. That will make my job much, much easier. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Futon Critic

Is The Futon Critic considered to be reliable? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have two links, http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=7279 and http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=7318, this is for Moonlight, and it states the source websites, but I cannot find the original info. Any ideas? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You could search on the futoncritic site, but how reliable is that site anyway? Its news seems to be of the "breaking news" variety that is written up from the press releases of (in this case) TV production companies. It might quite often be right, but if a story is important it will be picked up later by the mainstream press. Take care not to use pure gossip ("friends said"... "an insider revealed"...) stories off such a website. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's just that I'm using those sites to source some information here No Such Thing as Vampires. Can you please check the information out, the first paragraph of the production section, to see if the sources are okay? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 06:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is reliable for uncontroversial facts. There are people here with more expertise on good sourcing for media-related articles who may be able to help. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that some people consider it reliable, and others do not. I haven't seen anything that declares it totally reliable or unreliable yet. It's one of the many facets of the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability and Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction). You might ask there if you want definitive answers on the matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked through some of the cites to FC in the Moonlight article, and they seem fine to me. As far as notability, we're not using a mention in FC to establish notability for the episode ( the article has dozens of footnotes to a wide variety of sources ), but to reference some details about the production of the show. FC seems to be a very fine source for that sort of thing ( as well as reviews ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

request clarification re verifying of references

It seems to me that a source that can't be verified by current editors should be removed or perhaps placed on the talk page with a request for verification.

I'm posting this to request clarification. This is a general question, not about a particular instance.

What's the recommended way to handle references that are difficult or impossible to verify?

This can come about in various ways. Examples:

• an out of print book that's not scanned in Google Books and is rare or otherwise hard to find
• scholarly studies that have URLs, but only to abstracts and require payment for the full text
• newspaper or magazine articles that are too old or too obscure to be archived online and might or might not be available in libraries

When a source like those is added by a current editor, the editor can provide a quote on the talk page or other assurance that it's been verified. If the editor is trusted, that resolves the concern.

But what about situations where the un-verifiable source was added long ago by an editor who is not currently active? Should we be using sources that we are not able to confirm? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The three examples that you give are difficult to verify, but not impossible. For the first you can search to see if the book is in the Library of Congress or the British Library. If so, then you can potentially have a copy sent to your local university library for a fee. Scholarly studies are similarly available in university libraries. Many newspapers and magazines are also archived somewhere, perhaps on microfilm or microfiche. The first thing to do in a case like this is to ask on the talk page if anyone editing has access to the source. After that it might be worth posting a message on the relevant wikiproject. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proving notability of an event through latimes.com link

I'm involved in a discussion at Talk:Boing_Boing#Violet_Blue_Controversy. The issue is the already notable and wikified Violet Blue seems to have been expunged from the records at Boing Boing. While this initially kicked up a flurry of posts in the blogosphere about the matter, the issue was picked up at latimes.com (albeit in their Opinion / Blog section) and was even on their front page most of yesterday.

The other editors are putting up the rather perplexing argument that sources are only notable if they are "in print". Please see the last comment by BenBurch at the Talk:Page, where he says "Yeago, respectfully, I didn't make the "in print" rule, Norquist didn't make the "in print" rule. That rule was made here long ago and underpins this whole project." I haven't read anything asserting this in my 5 years here and I'm surprised that its made so casually from someone who's been here for 4 years, BenBurch.

At any rate, does http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/06/violet-blue-scr.html do the job of presenting this issue as notable enough and worthy of mention in the related articles?Yeago (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably as Boing Boing has put up an explanation today you can use that in the Boing Boing article? Would that solve the problem? Doug Weller (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Is the Quackwatch website a reliable source for the numbers of advisers to the organisation? More eyes on sourcing generally on this article and helping to call a stop to edit warring would be very welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to look at WP:Undue on this issue. Few articles at WP tout "numbers of advisors to the organisation" unless it's to diminish or bolster the rep of the organization to resolve a content dispute between editors. It could be important to address the question directly in such disputes, but self reported numbers for such info on a webpage arguably would have less credibility than self reports in sworn testimony, for example. Attribute these numbers and you've covered it more adequately. "The Quackwatch website reports they have such and such" for example. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com

Are these considered reliable sources? seresin ( ¡? ) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, in general in terms of the blog content, not a RS, so it depends on the claim and the nature of the article cited on those sources. The partisan nature of the material could be a factor to consider as well. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The parts of About.com that mirror Misplaced Pages and the parts where netizens answer questions are definitely not RS. Huffington Post is fine for its own opinions and non-contentious facts (though these latter are likely to have better sources). - Eldereft (cont.) 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write for about.com and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight; it depends on whether the author meets WP:SPS as an expert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is largely a self-published thing with no editorial oversight. It may be that some of the authors are notable, but it grants no more reliability than the author's view would have anywhere else. Treat it as a WP:SPS. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I took another look, and , to my surprise, I think they are all 3 usable, with reservations, for most purposes. the Huffington Post is in my opinion as reliable for its signed stories as any conventionally published political newspaper or magazine. They are not contributed by just whoever wants to, like Wikinews. These are editorially selected, & include major essays by major writers. Arianna Huffington herself is an important political commentator, and what she writes can be cited --attributed to her of course. The commentary that miscellaneous people put in afterwards, that's another matter--that is not usable unless it happens to be from someone reliable. About.com has various parts. Some of the content from Misplaced Pages, but the other principle articles are made or at least screened by a selected list of contributors, who they claim to screen for expertise--read the article on it. It s furthermore published under the control of an undoubtedly reliable publisher, the NYT company--it's not a bunch of unscreened amateurs like here, though one does not know their actual standards. I would not automatically reject such content. I wouldn't use it for negative BLP, but that part does have editorial control and is therefore usable. Again, the stuff the readers write in as responses are another matter entirely. I havce been assuming its unreliable, but I think we need to take another look there. Gawker is a little trickier because of its subject specialization in celebrity gossip. But here again, the main items are under editorial control. The comments on the articles are like any other such comments. Using anything on a site like this for negative BLP is like using a tabloid. I'm not sure its worse than conventional tabloids, though. DGG (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with DGG. The level of ignorance as to these sources is surprising. Please try to do basic research before commenting. About.com selects for experts on all the publications that I've seen from it. I happen to read their economics blog a fair bit, written by an MBA school professor / economics consultant. The Huffington Post usually has tons of major names writing for them, and it would be perverse to assume that there is no editorial oversight -- when a news publication, especially a massively notable/influential one, publishes something, they try to keep a decent reputation up. Since they have expert columnists, they may give a fair amount of leeway. It really depends on the columnist -- the nice thing about the Huffington Post is that there is more emphasis on the columnists than you might see in your average newspaper, or especially the AP. For example, a glance at their recent Business posts shows a Wharton grad/former commodities trader, a VP of an investment fund, the executive director of the Sierra Club, and economics Nobel Laureate Gary Becker. Gawker is less reliabie, as you'd expect, and I expect the major things in there get repeated in more reputable publications. It's more like a tabloid (in the pejorative, rather than the format, sense). II 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Seresin, thanks for the followup query. Yes there is some ignorance (and attitude along with some alarming demonstrations of that throughout this page lately). See WP:SOURCES for some general applicable wording to help you understand that the reliability of a source can't be generalized the way some queries are framed on this page; specifically you haven't said what you want to cite or which specific page of about.com you want to use to cite it.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.

It would be far more helpful if you posted the specific about.com pages you want to cite, and what article and text you want to cite to about.com. The problems with the responses you've gotten to about.com generalize to three things:

1. Reliability of a source is not a cut-and-dried, black-and-white issue. A source isn't either reliable or not, it depends on what text you're citing, context, and I'm not going to use a special ed housewife mom who about.com calls a published "expert" (because she writes Hallmark cards and food and wine cookbooks and received a BA in Literature) to cite an article about Tourette syndrome, just because "they" consider her an "expert" in something (food and wine, I guess?)
2. As shown in my example above (I can give you many others) another key here is in how they define "expert" in relation to our standards, for example, at WP:SPS. They've decided housewife mom is a "published expert" in something, but about.com has a lot of inaccurate info for example on TS, so what makes her a reliable source for our Tourette syndrome article? Again, it would depend on text cited, but for most medical info, housewife mom is not a reliable source.
3. As others explained, there are different areas of about.com and different writers. Some of their writers may meet our standards, for example, WP:SPS, for some text being cited and some purposes, others may not. Just because ImperfectlyInformed "happen(s) to read their economics blog a fair bit, written by an MBA school professor / economics consultant" doesn't mean he can declare across the board that about.com is "reliable" for all purposes or that special ed mom who writes Hallmark Cards and cook books should be cited in a medical article. Generally, about.com is a very iffy source since, as I've shown you, their definition of "recognized experts" doesn't necessarily lend itself to our standards. Further, if the about.com economics blogging expert is really so "expert", the content will likely be published elsewhere and verifiable to higher-quality sources.

You'll get a better answer if you post an example of what you want to cite and what page you want to cite it to; perhaps you've hit on one of the few "true" experts at about.com. Depending on the area, it's easy to sign up to "be a guide" at about.com, and their standards are not high, as in the example I've shown you. Depending on what article and text you're citing, and unless the particular about.com writer meets our standards of published experts, I'd be surprised if you couldn't find a better source. In any conversation about reliable sources, btw, be concerned about absolute answers; the answer as to whether a source is reliable almost always depends on context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it depends (use common sense?). When I've seen people ask these real general questions about sources here, my first response has been "what is the context"? As far as the mother, she did write a book related to the subject, and some areas might lend themselves to a "mother's perspective". Apologies; I was inaccurate with regards to About.com: their information should be looked at as basically a SPS, since they basically give you a section and let you do what you want. The Huffington Post appears to be basically like a newspaper: they syndicate columnists and publish news; they have an editorial board, ect. II 06:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another fine example; she wrote a book about sensory integration disorder, which isn't related to TS and for which a lot of application and common knowledge borders on quackery, so ... again ... what is an "expert" according to about.com? What is her training in SID, considering her BA in literature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another question I like to ask is, "Is a better source available?" In the case of About.com, the answer is almost always yes. --Laser brain (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)a

Quite right. II | (t - c) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Kenrockwell.com

This site seems to be used as a reference in many articles. This quote "Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No mater how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day." from the about page suggests it is not reliable. I am inclined to remove all of these links when used as factual references. Kevin (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

National Post

Is the National Post considered a "tabloid"? It's a Canadian daily published in Toronto, and my impression is that it is a reliable media source, but I was wondering what others thought. ATren (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• It should be considered generally reliable in my opinion. As far as I know, it's a mainstream newspaper. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be kept in mind that it has a specific declared ideological bias. DGG (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It also has a horrible track record on at least one politically sensitive scientific topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Google Book Search snippets

At Talk:Plymouth#The_History_section_and_summary_style, User:Bsrboy has stated that he thinks that the snippets provided by Google Book Search can be considered reliable sources. I disagree, for the simple reason that there's insufficient context. I haven't found any discussion where a consensus opinion has emerged on this, so for the record I ask: Are Google Book Search snippet views (like these) reliable sources? Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The snippet is not, or only in very rare cases. Google Books Search is good for locating sources, but you still need to reference and check the book, not the online snippet. Note that most books are available cheaply via Interlibrary loan. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the book, more properly speaking, is still the reliable source. The snippet is simply what one easily has of it. Whether it is usable for wikipedia depends entirely on the subject, what Almighty Google, in its infinite wisdom sees fit to grant us, the type of information given, etc. These can be so variable that it is not surprising that no consensus has formed concerning a subject about which it almost impossible to make valid generalizations. If it say, gives someone's date and place of birth, as I myself have recently used a google books snippet for, what could be wrong with that? By searching for the words at the beginning or end of the quotes given, one can sometimes extend the snippet. See Crime of Apartheid and Talk:Crime of apartheid , last section for an example where several editors, one quite skeptical, corrected and nailed down a quote using google books snippets. It is hard for me to see what the snippets given above could possibly be used for, though. Here, even more than usual, what context it is being used in is all. In any case, the simple and easy course is clear. If you want to use a snippet to say something, convince everybody else that there is no other reasonable interpretation of the snippet, then use it. If you can't, if the other side has rational arguments and alternative readings, don't. Of course, one may have to serously reedit the text that the cite should support in order to arrive at a consensus, just like any other edit.John Z (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting comments. Here's another problem with snippets: when I click on the Google books link to the date of birth reference that you added to Michel G. Malti, I see a two-column snippet, the first column of which begins with "Yankee Doodles (1943)" and the second column starts with "MALTZ Maxwell: Plastic Reconstructive Surgeon; b. N. Y. C. Mar. 10. 1899; s. Joseph and Tobey Maltz; ed Columbia Univ" etc. The second occurrence of "Maltz" is highlighted in yellow - I assume it's an OCR misread for "Malti". So I'm obviously being shown a different snippet to what you (John Z) saw. Can someone else check this link and let us know what you see?  —SMALLJIM  18:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it was my error. I copied and pasted the wrong URL.. Thanks for pointing it out. That's what you get when you search for Michel Malti in that book, rather than all books. The problem is that the snippet sometimes (usually) isn't what you want, and is different and worse than the short preview sub-snippet that google gives along with the link when you do a search over all books. I fixed it, and now it shows his date and place of birth when you click on it, and is consistent with other sources' info. Again, this emphasizes care and context being absolutely vital when doing this.John Z (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I now see text in the first "hit" on your new link that states Malti's DOB. The problem I can see with this is that this is a type of Google search result, and if Google later scans another book about a different Michel Malti (or re-scans this book, or changes its search parameters, or no doubt several other possibilities), it's entirely possible that the displayed links will change. I'm pretty sure that Google search results are not considered to be reliable sources on WP, probably for this reason. I'd say that for Google Book Search snippets to be useful sources, what's needed is a way to provide a permanent link to the relevant graphical snippet, i.e. the image of the part of the page containing the correct text (to remove the possibility of OCR errors). And as far as I'm aware, that doesn't seem to be possible.  —SMALLJIM  19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the context for it:

During the English Civil War Plymouth sided with the Parliamentarians and so was isolated from the surrounding regions of Devon and Cornwall which were held by Royalist sympathisers. The town was besieged for almost four years until the Royalists were defeated. Various skirmishes and confrontations occurred, including the battle of St Budeaux and the rout of Royalist cavalry along Lipson Ridge.

1. Gill, Crispin (1979). Plymouth, a New History. David & Charles. ISBN 0715376179. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
2. "Siege". The BBC. 2003-01-06. Retrieved 2008-07-06.
3. Parker, John William (1841). The Saturday Magazine. University of Wisconsin-Madison. p. 22. Retrieved 2008-07-06.

bsrboy (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to tell us what snippet you are using to support what statement, and what the dispute is about if one exists. I couldn't tell very much from the talk page. Have you read the book? An otherwise insufficient snippet might be OK if you can get the page number from it, and you remember the passage.John Z (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no dispute over content as such. Let me clarify: my enquiry is about the general validity of using these snippets as reliable sources. I became aware yesterday that some of the references that bsrboy (and therefore probably other editors) had been citing were to these snippet views, without having seen the book (or more of it on-line) to understand the context, and also (importantly) without clearly stating in the citation that it was only the three or four line snippet that he had seen – to me that smacks of misrepresentation.  —SMALLJIM  11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that people should be clear about snippet usage. As long as the URL's are provided, people can check that only the snippet is seen. Of course one should never wildly but plausibly speculate on the basis of a snippet, and give an unlinked book ref.John Z (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the "snippet". Some of the books on Google let you see pages and pages at a time, and its fairly unlikely that a thesis would go on for twenty pages and then say "ha-ha, _not_". It would be preferable to read the physical book but I dont see a problem with using Google. The citation, of course, would be a regular book citation with an optional convenience link, not any of this "retrieved on" business citing the web site. On the other hand, sometimes Google only lets you see a couple lines at a time, and those can be more problematic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added another reference to it from the BBC. bsrboy (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And now another reference to a book with a preview available. bsrboy (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding further references isn't helpful; that's not what this issue is about. It might be useful for this discussion to provide the exact URL of the snippets from Gill's book that you saw.  —SMALLJIM  11:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

here. bsrboy (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Smalljim is right about not using snippets " without having seen the book (or more of it on-line) to understand the context." My point is that once in a while a google snippet and knowledge of the subject provide enough information to understand the context beyond reasonable objections. For the given snippet, at best I think one can extract "young Sir Francis Drake (he succeeded his father in 1641) raised a regiment called the Plymouth Horse. Sir Ralph Hopton commanded Cornwall for the King. In November he advanced on Exeter, but finding it too strong..." and "..the main force of the garrison stood with their left flank resting on Lipson Fort. The Royalists held the Mount Gould peninsula, any retreat by the defenders would mean the attack would be behind the fortified line" at unspecified times. This would probably not be useful, unless one had substantial other information from other sources, and this miraculously helped patch up a tiny detail. (e.g. you had "R. Hopton commanded ..." but not his first name). In particular, it doesn't seem to support anything in the text given above aside from Cornwall being held by the Royalists, which is probably supported by something else. It makes the book a good candidate for being in Further Reading, not as a reference. Smalljim seems to me to be very sensible and careful; if you (Bsrboy) have a good argument that a snippet supports something, I am sure he will listen. A skeptical and reasonable listener is the best guarantee that you will arrive at accurate material with solid support. John Z (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added other references, but one of them didn't mention Lipsom Fort. The google snippet does, so it helps to patch that bit up. bsrboy (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Vevmo

Hi. Is vevmo a reliable source for news pertaining to The Real World? I relied on this page for info on the cast for The Real World: Hollywood before mtv.com had any info on that cast, and almost everything about the entire cast turned out to be correct, right down to the identity of the two cast members who left the series close to the end of it, and the two new ones that replaced them. They even had headshots of the cast members. (To be fair, the hometowns of six of the nine cast members is different from the ones now given by mtv.com.) Someone even created a vevmo article, though it is currently the focus of an AfD discussion. While AfD pertains to notability, this page is for reliability. What do you think? Nightscream (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, it is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles. It is an "entertainment community" with various forums about different shows. It does not have the kind of editorial oversight required for articles in WP, see WP:SPS. And since living persons are involved here, this site absolutely must not be used.--Slp1 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not asking if information from anonymous participants in the forums be used. I wouldn't want to. I was referring to information posted by the administrators of the site, such as this example I linked to above, which had the names, occupations, headshots, and even in-season departure/replacement information about the cast, all of which turned out to be dead-on true, which would indicate that he is (or has) a reliable inside source regarding the production. Are you saying that that would be unusable too? (I just want to make sure I understand you, and that you looked closely at that info and its author.) Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my opinion would be that the entire site is unusable as a reliable source, even posts by administrators (who are anonymous themselves, in fact). They may have been an accurate source in the past, as you note, but that still doesn't mean they meet the criteria for being a reliable source, which requires the editorial oversight, fact checking etc that comes from more mainstream media etc. And WP:SPS is clear that these criteria must be very stringently applied here because there are living people involved. Slp1 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Journal of Religion & Psychical Research a RS on comparative religion

A Journal of Religion & Psychical Research review on World Scripture (a comparative anthology of scriptural quotes) is being used in the article on the book's author, Andrew Wilson (theologian). JoR&PR (now The Journal of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies) is published by the Academy of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies, Inc. and contains such articles as "Are Organ Transplants Metaphysically Contraindicated", "Posthumous Personality, Reincarnation and Liberation", & "Report about the Teleportation of a Living Person" (sample cover can be found here). Should it be considered a RS in this context? Hrafn_Stalk 06:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think it depends. I have looked at the web site that you give and even read the two full-text articles posted as samples. It is evident that, although they try to give this journal the look of a scholarly journal (editorial board, use of academic titles, etc), this is nothing like a scholarly journal. If World Scripture is being touted as a serious work (as I know it is being done in the Wilson article), then I don't think that JRPR is a RS. It could perhaps be considered a RS, though, if one were to look to establish the notability of some subject under WP:Fringe. --Crusio (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Journal is certainly not a real academic journal and not a reliable source on any external topic. It might be useful for opinions of named authors and editors in some rare circumstances. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's what EBSCOhost (link may not work due to subscription requirements) says about it:

Title: Journal of Religion & Psychical Research

ISSN: 0731-2148

Publisher Information: Academy of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies, Inc.

PO Box 614

Bloomfield Connecticut 06002

United States of America

Title History: Journal of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies (2006 - present)

Journal of Religion & Psychical Research (1990 - 2006)

Changed to: Journal of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies

Bibliographic Records: 01/01/1990 to present

Full Text: 01/01/1990 to present

Link to this Publication: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&jid=G77&site=ehost-live

Publication Type: Academic Journal

Subjects: Psychology & Psychiatry; Religion & Theology

Description: Contains academic articles, correspondence and book reviews in the area where religion and psychial research interface.

Publisher URL: http://www.lightlink.com/arpr/index.htm

Frequency: 4

Peer Reviewed: Yes

It's claimed by an independent third party, who specializes in the collection of academic journals, to be a peer reviewed publication, albeit in a niche field which does not require the rigors of the scientific method. On what basis is it not a reliable source? WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any indication that EBSCOhost performs checks on peer review process? More likely they merely take self-reporting at face value. There are a large number of (often far WP:FRINGE) publications that claim "peer review", without anything substantive to back it up (Michael Behe was once caught out claiming "peer review" of a book of his by a 'reviewer' who had never even read it -- merely discussed the idea of the book with a then-potential publisher). And thank you for that "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" crack -- it gives editors a very good indication as to where sympathies lie (and your willingness to uphold WP:AGF). Hrafn_Stalk 06:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no more information on EBSCOhost's process than I do on the New York Times'. Here, I expect, is a good spot to get other Misplaced Pages editors' take on the whole topic, not limited to your perspective or mine. You're expressing unrelenting skepticism, which is your right, but not a position that is helpful to consensus building. Rather than say that a rhetorical WP:IDONTLIKEIT presumes that I'm not assuming good faith, why don't you articulate your objection to EBSCOhost's process? Absent any evidence to the contrary, I don't see why their assessment should be deemed unreliable. You differ. Why? Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewed != reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The journal may well be peer reviewed by editors with a serious axe to grind, or complete idiots (yes, you can academic credentials and still be one). I am not accusing this source of anything of the kind, but the point, J, is that the reliability of a source can itself always open to discussion, dispute, consensus, and discretion; a mere listing with little context does not settle the issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not an expert on JRPR; I'd never heard of it before this. I'm just looking for non-biased third parties to take a look at it.

Process Question Is it acceptable to solicit folks from affected wikiprojects, such as the Paranormal, Spirituality, or Religion wikiprojects, to participat in this RS/N discussion? Given that at least one editor has expressed concern that the entire topic is WP:FRINGE, might it not be appropriate to solicit editors who are committed to the serious study of such areas as academic disciplines? Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS says that Google Scholar is a good way to judge hits. this search string Yields ~500 references to articles. Rabia Clark's review doesn't appear to be one of them, and she only gets 3 Google Scholar hits herself. Can someone with more experience in RS/N tell me whether this is good, bad, or ugly, given what EBSCOhost claims above? Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Further, it appears that most of the 498 articles from JRPR referenced from Google Scholar are purchasable from British Library Direct. A Yahoo search yields twelve references to articles in JRPR. MSN Live seems to find many of the same references. The journal is accessible at The University of Washington, which seems to rely on EBSCOhost for electronic copies.

Absent any reliable source which actually says that JRPR is not peer reviewed or taken less seriously than other publications on the same topic, the evidence presents it as a peer-reviewed academic journal in an area which garners little respect. Does anyone disagree? Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Emphatically disagree: (i) no substantive evidence has been presented that it is "peer reviewed" (ii) "not ... taken less seriously than other publications on the same topic" is a ridiculously low bar. Further, the outside opinions already stated above contradict your conclusion. Hrafn_Stalk 07:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of the three posts beside yours or mine, two were made before any evidence had been presented of its reliability, and one after the first of three posts detailing reliability had been made--and that post doesn't take a position at all. Thus, all the no !votes were made before the presentation of any evidence. Now that the evidence is presented, I'd like to see more discussion from interested parties. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the alleged academic journal has no connections to academia, and thus the statement that it is an "academic journal" is suspect. The Academy of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies, Inc., the publisher, does not seem to be either an independent, objective source on the subject, or, for that matter, necessarily even a regular academic institution, as per its own website here. On the basis of that information, and the comparative lack of indications that the journal is one which is seen as being reliable as per the comparative lack of ghits, I would come to the conclusion that there has not been sufficient evidence presented to support the article being seen as a reliable source. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you comment on the use of a review from the journal in context? Hrafn is contesting the inclusion of a review of a religious book from this source in a footnote to Andrew Wilson (theologian). I believe that the use of a review in a non-mainstream religious publication to document the reception of a religious book is an appropriately limited use of this source. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The question as to whether the source meets the policy of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Reliable sources standards takes priority over trying to include information from as many viewpoints as possible. Based on the information that I have seen, there is no clear reason to believe that the source in question meets RS standards, which would seem to disqualify it from inclusion for any reason. As per the page cited by me here, "Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page (WP:V) and that one (WP:RS), this page has priority." John Carter (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what, that really helped: The issue was really not whether this was a questionable source or not, but whether it could be used in this context, despite its status. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: I've tried to find out more about the journal. It still raises several red flags with me. It's not included in the ISI Web of Science. Google Scholar lists it, but not one of the articles from the journal have any citations listed with them. The publisher is extremely suspect, and the topic is inherently unscientific. So I won't use it for anything but the opinion of an author. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Further sources on this subject

• The article also cites a review from "Bruce Schuman, founder of United Communities of Spirit" (I could however find no indication that Schuman is the founder of UCoS) here. I could find no indication that either Schuman or UCoS is prominent. Should this review be considered a RS?
• This may be slightly off-topic, but are generalised comments about a list of "12 volumes" that contains this book a 'reliable' characterisation of this one book (out of the twelve) specifically? (The citation is to Booklist, but no accessible online link has been given.)

Hrafn_Stalk 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think you're actually challenging the notability of these, rather than their accuracy or verifiability. Not sure this is the proper venue to do so, but I could be wrong. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• No. I am (i) challenging whether some random web designer (with no apparent expertise in comparative religion, as you accidentally established in this link to his resume) is a RS for a book review of this type and (ii) challenging whether comments made about a list of 12 books are RS for a single book in that list. Hrafn_Stalk 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(i) I never said he was a reliable source for anything other than what he said. That may sound circular, but that's what WP:SPS can be used for. I also never made any attempt to conceal his secular career--I'd been preferring neutral and independent sources, but couldn't find one in response to your tagging that position--as he was never asserted to be an expert in comparative religion. At any rate, my sincere apologies--had I known you hadn't found that before you first challenged his applicability as a source, I would have linked to it earlier; if any accident was involved, it was that. At any rate, I think the whole assertion is moot, given the current version of the article, which doesn't refer to him by name, just as one of a variety of folks from different religious traditions who have praised World Scripture.

(ii)Are you really challenging Booklist as a WP:RS? Or, instead, are you arguing that the mention in the RS is trivial? I sincerely believe it's actually the latter, in which case the reliability of Booklist is not really at issue. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(i) Please read WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves" -- you are not using Schuman as a source about himself, but as a source on World Scripture. If you do not "assert to be an expert in comparative religion", then there is no reason to include his opinion. He is not a RS on comparative religion, so we have no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to his inexpert view (any more than the view of any other random person who decided to put an opinion up on a website). (ii) This can be framed as an RS question (is a generalised comment about a list a RS on a list-member), and there seems to be no forum that is more appropriate for discussing it (it seemed too small a point to be worth raising a WP:RFC over). Hrafn_Stalk 05:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We can take this back to the talk page now. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

End run around RS/N consensus

Jclemens has stated his intention to ignore this consensus in this thread, on the flimsy basis that these sources are not being used "about" Wilson's book, but rather "about" what they said, and thus "about themselves" (per WP:SELFPUB). I have pointed out to him that this line of argument is tendentious. Hrafn_Stalk 06:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not agree with this characterization of my actions, but I do not believe this is the proper forum in which to discuss it. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You were the one who raised WP:SPS on this forum, as a rationale for using these unreliable sources anyway. You can therefore hardly complain when your interpretation of the intimately-related WP:SELFPUB is brought to this forum's attention. Hrafn_Stalk 02:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDb - is there any common result if IMDb is reliable or not?

IMDb - is there any common result if IMDb is reliable or not?

Hello! 1. Is there any stable information anywhere on Misplaced Pages that has established if IMDb is a reliable source for Bios of Living Persons or if it is not?

2. If there is no established result, is then there any stable and established guideline anywhere on Misplaced Pages if a not finally discussed source like IMDb could be used for such Bios?

Please give links to Misplaced Pages-pages for question 1 and 2, if you say there are any final established results!

I posted this on the discussion page of Biographies of living persons, where this specific topic is better located, but there noone answered so far.

Greetings

IMDB is a very commonly debated source, although I'd rather not go hunting through the archives to look for them. There is Misplaced Pages:Citing IMDb, a failed proposal for a guideline on the matter. In summary, the common outcome of debates is that IMDB is reliable for raw facts about movies (cast/crew, release dates, run time), but not for its user generated content. I'm not sure about IMDB biographies though, as I have not personally witnessed a claim on that matter before. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to chime in with a resounding NO, no IMDB is not a reliable source. Please check out the Zachary Jaydon hoax for a great example of the perils of sourcing to IMDB. Anybody can add their name to an IMDB article and then come claim that they were in the movie or tv sho. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is weird since it isn't the situation I encountered .To add information about a possible new movie for Sarah Michelle Gellar IMDB wanted proof of sources mentioning it ( and Variety did ) and they still wouldn't list it immediately and when they did she was listed as rumored .Garda40 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDB biographies are written by IMDB registered users. Why would they be more reliable than registered Misplaced Pages users? For example, the same IMDB user, freemca, rewrote the IMDB biographies of a bunch of African-American actors like Will Smith, Jada Pinkett, Regina Hall, etc. and included "of both African American and Native American descent" in all of them (Is that true beyond the wishful thinking of this person? Who knows? It's certainly not verifiable in any reliable source). Then, Misplaced Pages user Mcelite went around and added "of both African American and Native American" descent to these same actors' Misplaced Pages entries, citing either the IMDB or random websites that copied the IMDB's bio. Neat. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

American Chronicle

This is something I thought would have been discussed before now & my apologies if a definitive answer has been given. (Attempting to search Misplaced Pages for the answer has brought up nothing on this.)

Is the website American Chronicle a reliable source? I ask this for two reasons: one is how an article from this site has been used in the article Ogaden National Liberation Front to introduce some information that I find definitely "iffy", writing from my experience in the area. (Had it appeared in another source, especially one I trusted, I would have given it the benefit of the doubt.) The other is that after studying the website, I find the following disclaimer:

The American Chronicle and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here.

The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content.

In addition, the views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the American Chronicle or its affiliates.

So I could write an article about how I got cheated out of the 1938 Nobel Prize for medicine, & they'd publish it with that qualification? I'd assume that an undeniable requirement to be a reliable source is that it takes responsibility for what it prints. Any thoughts? -- llywrch (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They claim to have an incredible number of writers, but also to have an editorial staff. Given what you stated above, it would seem that staff does not claim responsibility for what it "reviews." I'm not really sure a reliable source can have it both ways, and I too am suspicious of any source with such a disclaimer. I would say that if you see it publish anything suspicious or contentious that's not backed up by obvious RS's it's safe to call it unreliable, and it would take a positive outside review to convince me of the opposite. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My experience with the American Chronicle is that they don't have much in the way of standards for what they'll publish. Occasionally it will be something good, much of the time its error-ridden, ignorant drek. Hrafn_Stalk 14:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Abd al-Karim Qasim

An IP address editor has been deleting a series of website sources from the above article on the grounds that they are unreliable. One of the sources is directly copied from Saddam Hussein where presumably it was considered acceptable on a high profile article. The websites with the sources quote reputable newspapers/news agencies verbatim, but as they date from pre-internet days I can't find any first hand quotes and the subject is not extensively covered in readily available books. Could I have comments about whether these sources could be considered Reliable Sources. Ironically after deleting the sourced comments, the IP editor put up a notice about the lack of sources in the article. Dabbler (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian, the New York Times and Reuters are reliable sources. Whether they are used in other WP articles is not relevant. From what you say you have not accessed the actual reports in these media but have read them or excerpts from them on websites. These websites may be acceptable as convenience links. It is much better if they include a whole article rather than an excerpt as there is then less scope for cherry-picking. Please try to avoid labelling other editors' contributions as POV. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The articles in question are quoted in full on the disputed websites, not excerpted; so I understand that these would normally be aceptable? You will note that I have merely tried to "report the controversy", not claimed this as the truth. Dabbler (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, explain that you want to use them as convenience links and ask if anyone thinks that they might not have hosted the documents reliably (i.e. the websites have interfered with the documents' content). It is often possible to agree on convenience links. You may find it useful to note that we do not have to include an internet link to sources. So long as a paper copy is available in a library then that should be OK. All these three are generally reliable for facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but the editor involved does not accept it and persists in deleting the references etc. Dabbler (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Play party

Once again, an editor is adding content to Play party based on his own personal experiences rather than any kind of reliable sources. Sources have been asked for for this content for years, and they just never emerge... and various editors seem to just re-add it or remove {{fact}} tags endlessly. per WP:V the burden is on people wanting to restore content to find sources... they've literally had years here yet still it's restored without sources again and again despite being challenged. --Rividian (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mania.com

Is http://www.mania.com/ reliable? I'm not sure... Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 03:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

IRNA

Hi, I'm wondering if IRNA, the Islamic Republic News Agency, is considered a reliable source for news items outside of Iran. I believe that it is Iran's state-run media organization, so I'm unsure of how neutral it can be expected to be as a source. The specific article I'm looking at is here, though the question is a general one regarding its reliability as a news source for events outside of Iran. Thanks. ← George 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• The particular article you are citing was apparently derived almost entirely from a Los Angeles Times article. If so, it would be much better to find and cite the original L.A. Times article instead of the secondary source at IRNA. (I should note that despite my misgivings about the use of IRNA as a reliable source, it can be useful in some circumstances. For example, as indicated at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, some people don't believe Ahmadinejad said Israel should be "wiped off the map". It certainly seems relevant to note that this IRNA article says, "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Monday that the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map.") --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine topics

Editors remove requests for sources from Ukrainization‎ and Ukraine‎ arguing that opinions for which sources were asked are "common knowledge" or "discouraging Russian is evidenced by the banning of Russian". What the correct action should be? --windyhead (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You put too many tags on. Everything needs referencing but one reference per sentence is usually sufficient. Avoid mid-sentence fact-tags. It is time now for a full discussion on the talk page. You are right to say that everything needs a source; "common knowledge" is not good enough. There are many academic books and journal articles in English about post-Soviet society and they should be your starting point. Or look for feature articles in the online archives of the main English-language newspapers and news magazines. Avoid a revert war, instead try and bring in uninvolved editors by a message posted at a relevant Wikiproject, tagging for an expert, request for a third opinion or request for comment. If a revert war does ensue then you can ask for the page to be protected temporarily in order to bring editors to the talk page, but I hope you don't get to that stage. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Wall of China

I believe the Great Wall of China Forum is a reliable source. It represents information, photos, and maps I have personally collected on-site at numerous Great Wall of China locations over the years as well as through research via the many books shown on the site. Just because I have chosen to present this information on a site that is a forum is not a good reason to exclude it from links sections. I have found that many of the Great Wall of China pages on Misplaced Pages (there are many) contain external links to sites that have incorrect information and those links remain while the Great Wall Forum has been deleted. There is a lot of misinformation on the Great Wall of China and not much high-quality information in English language available on the Internet. The site is non-profit, non-commercial, and advertising-free. It has information, maps, and other material that is not available anywhere else. Thanks, Bryanfeldman (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

While it is quite likely that your page is very useful and correct, it is not a reliable source that Misplaced Pages can use. Misplaced Pages forbids original research and allows self-published sources only in very limited circumstances. The purpose of using sources is to be able to ensure verifiability. Misplaced Pages editors are not usually qualified to evaluate primary sources directly. Even if they are, we have no way of knowing that they are. Therefore we rely on external criteria, like reputation of the author, reputation of the publisher, process of publication, and so on. So unless you are an acknowledged expert on the Great Wall, we cannot use your site. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ReligiousTolerance.Org

Why are we relying on what is essentially a one-person consulting business, especially since that person has neither scholarly nor journalistic credentials?

From the website of "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance:"

• Almost all of the over 4,015 essays and menus on this web site (by 2007-OCT) were written by our main author, and coordinator Bruce A. Robinson. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto, class of 1959, with a BaSc (Bachelor of Applied Science) degree in Engineering Physics. He worked for a large multi-national chemical company for 38 years before taking a "golden handshake" and early retirement during a company downsizing. During his employment, he functioned as a specialist in the development of electronic instrumentation, as a computer programmer working in process computing, and as a group leader. Technical writing formed a major part of his work assignment.

• Bruce was ... motivated to organize the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance in early 1995, after becoming convinced that religious intolerance was responsible for much of the hatred, mass murder and genocide in Bosnia, and in other world hot spots, like Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Cyprus, Macedonia, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Nigeria, the Philippines, etc.

• Many visitors to our web site question our authors' theological credentials. We explain that none of our staff have theological degrees. We feel that a formal theological degree would be counter-productive in our work. It would probably tend to bias our authors' understanding of religious matters in a liberal direction. A Bible school diploma would also be counter-productive as it would bias us in a conservative direction. Either would probably bias our authors in favor of Christianity and against other faith groups.

• Advanced theological training is not needed for our work. We are not theologians or religious innovators. We are simply reporters on religion, spirituality, and ethics.

Comments?--Cberlet (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are we relying on it, Chip? I've only come across it used as a convenience link, hosting a government report. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of places. Try searching Google using

• "ontario consultants" site:en.wikipedia.org
• "tolerance.org" site:en.wikipedia.org

In some cases they hits appear to be copyrighted news articles.  :-( .--Cberlet (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that "www.tolerance.org" is part of the SPLC, a very different outfit. Here's a link to the over 1000 weblinks to "religioustolerance.org". (Some are to tlak pages or user pages). That does seem excessive considering the source's nature. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooops. Sorry, My mistake. Thanks, Will.--Cberlet (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear dear. My impression is that this site can rarely if ever count as RS but I would be interested in reading further comments. I suppose in some cases they will represent a notable viewpoint. But if you are right about the breaches of copyright then they are to be avoided even as a convenience link. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, well, as they admit themselves, they lack academic credentials and so can't really be considered reliable sources on anything. I'd also watch systemic bias. The site appears to have a very heavy focus on US issues. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I note that there was a similar complaint some 18 months. See Talk:Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance#700+ religioustolerance dot org links in Misplaced Pages. It appears nothing was done and it's gotten worse. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that religioustolerance.org does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. It should not be used as a footnote or external link in any articles. It's a self-published website of essays stating the personal opinions of someone who is not a published expert or academic. There are several reasons it's used so much by editors - the articles are easier to find with Google than many more valuable references, and they have full text available that's easy to copy/paste, unlike Google Scholar or Google Books that require more digging, not to mention libraries; and, the opinions of the outspoken author can be tempting to those who might want to convey a particular POV. This has been a concern for quite a while; there's even a whole page about it from 2005-2006 at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org. The site is used so much, it would be a good result of this thread to make a strong statement that could be referenced later when the question comes up again, as it certainly will. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Source clearly does not meet WP:RS standards. Would it be possible to add it to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam list? John Carter (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're kidding. I'm not familiar with this website, but "external links" do not have to meet RS; i.e. wikis with a history of stability are acceptable. If there are copyright issues that's something else. But I certainly don't think this should be wikilawyered onto the spam blacklist. The spam blacklist is supposed to be for spam. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope YOU are kidding. ...external links do not have to meet RS. Where did you get that from? Rumiton (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:EL. Not every outbound link from a Misplaced Pages page is used as a citation for a fact. There's a different policy for the "External Links" section at the bottom, and while those should be kept to just a few that meet the editors' consensus, they are not bound by RS. They're often used to link to other wikis, to directories like Dmoz, or to various important pages about the article topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There still has to be a rationalle for providing the EL. If it's essentially there as "Here is what some random people think about the subject" then it shouldn't really be there. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• They're notable enough for their article to barely survive AfD, and there is some flexibility for external links, and academic or other external credentials aren't needed for representatives of or experts recognized by relevant religions who explain what their religions believe and do, but nonetheless they shouldn't be provided to every organization that happens to have a web site and the ambition to promote itself. This organization doesn't seem to be authorized to speak for or considered reliable by any relevant significant perspective, academic, religious, or otherwise. These links may not be "spam", and I'm willing to assume good faith, but I see no reason for there to be links to this site all over the place. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica and the Issue of Open Sourcing

There is currently a discussion on the Encyclopedia Dramatica talk page regarding the citation of ED's "About Us" page. (Apparently, I am unable to link directly to their site from here).

One editor argues that it is a reliable source because it is described by ED editors themselves. I have some strong reservations about using an open source wiki -- any open source wiki -- to cite anything reliable for Misplaced Pages purposes. I notice the "About Us" page can be edited by anyone. To my mind, that invites instability to our own pages in the long-run, not to mention the issue of what exactly we should be citing on the "About Us" page (but that's a separate matter).

Originally, we cited the much more reliable New York Times description of ED. That is still in the article (I hope), but the issue of what to do about the ED open source is still pressing. What do uninvolved editors here think? I look forward to reading your comments. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would an acceptable solution be to sample their self-description at two or three dates and to make sure that the reference says "version of .... (date)" ? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a wiki and not usable as citation. Anyone can change it at any time and taking a static version in the form of a diff introduces editor bias to supporting anyone version. The long and short of it is that it shouldn't be used as a citation period.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet Fora re Mankind Project

I would like an external and disinterested opinion on three sites as they regard WP:RS and the reasons for and against

* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ex_mkp/
* http://forum.rickross.com/list.php?4
* http://www.houstonpress.com/
* http://wthrockmorton.com/
* http://adayinthelifeofalcoholanddrugrecovery.blogspot.com

Thank you in advance for any help that you may be. Rorybowman (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Houston Press, published by the Village Voice group, seems to be generally reliable. The others seem to be internet fora or blogs and therefore not RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Billboard Turkey chart (cut from WP:RS)

A user has been adding Turkey entries in many song-related articles using this site. Is the source reliable and is it the official chart of Turkey? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a reliable source. Turkey has a few charts, with the Billboard one being probably the best. Fribbler (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it the official chart of Turkey? --Efe (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Astrology reliable source?

I've been wondering if Astrology-online.com is enough of a reliable source per the requirements of Misplaced Pages, as it seems it often contradicts itself in its articles. I am asking this as there is some issue with an editor adding contradicting information from the website to the Misplaced Pages article, Aquarius (astrology). Could you guys take a look?

The article uses this source: http://www.astrology-online.com/aquarius.htm

Thanks, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the source is demonstrably self-contradicting, what else do you really need to say it's unreliable? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of riots and civil unrest in Calgary, Alberta

I would appreciate other editors reviewing this edit and the sources. I don't question the publishers reliability per se. I just don't see how the sources relate to what the Misplaced Pages article says. I've tried to explain myself on the talk page. --Rob (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The book seems to be a very useful source and my main concern with the edit is that it seems to be taking one point out of context and not using the book to the full. I have another idea that you and the other editor might like to consider. That is that it is not logical to have a timeline of events of a particular type until there is a History of Calgary article. I suggest that you take the history section in the Calgary article and the timeline article and merge them together as a basis for History of Calgary. At first the ethnic unrest might have too much prominence but I'm sure you would quickly attract other editors and the article could be filled out. Then at a later stage you would revisit the question of whether the ethnic unrest merited its own article. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Help!!!

are the following sites reliable? GameFAQs, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, Game Rankings, GameZone. Gamespot has a lot of news on it. Ign, Gamespy/Rankings/Zone all have reviews. Gamefaqs has well written guides that serve as refs. answer on my talk page! Moogle 12 (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The news on those sites is probably reliable, and the reviews are significant viewpoints (which means you can place them in a relevant article with in-text attribution to the site, but do not make it appear as if the reviewer's opinion is a fact). Be wary of the guides, however. Some are professionally written guides, financed or sponsored by the sites, but others are user-generated and probably shouldn't be trusted as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. 151.152.101.44 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia TODAY

Personal blog by Raja Petra Kamaruddin. Is this personal blog reliable for biography for living people? It is a blog run by Malaysia's most famous conspiracy theorist, can this blog be used for reference for biography for living people?

Blogs are not considered reliable sources, especially not for BLP. It may be all right for material about its author but not for articles on other people or other subjects. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the blog can reliably be established as belonging to this individual it can only be used to source facts about himself, that is it.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database Bio Pages

I know that the main pages of movies, shows and creators on imdb are considered reliable, but are the biography pages, like this one, considered reliable? They're based on information supplied by readers, and are often poorly written and organized.

Also, the Jasmin St. Claire article gives her real name as Rhea Alexandria Scarfazzo Calaveras, and gives "USPTO trademark filing # 78463547" as the source. How can this be verified? Is there an online resource for checking trademarks? And how could a trademark establish a birth name? Nightscream (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

PTO applications are publicly available . Although I don't see that birthname anywhere in there. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you use that page to search for it? I can't see a search field on it. Nightscream (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know nothing on IMDB is considered reliable, not even the main page. It is 100% user generated as far as I know including the main page which lists which movies/shows/etc they have been in. IMDB can be linked as further reading, but that is it. Randomly looking up an actress last night I noted many omissions from her front page.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is run on a University of Tennesee website by James Fieser, Ph.D., founder and general editor and Bradley Dowden, Ph.D., general editor. It describes itself as "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a non-profit organization run by the editors. The Encyclopedia receives no funding, and operates through the volunteer work of the editors, authors, and technical advisors." I have seen some good info and some questionable info, so thought I'd get others' opinions before either knocking it as a source or using it as a source. Carol Moore 01:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The two editors are both full Professors, so it's off to a good start. However, despite the front page saying "A Professionally Peer-Reviewed Resource", I can't say it's as reliable as a book published in a academic press or a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal (at least until an explanation can be found for exactly how the peer-review process happens in regards to this site's content). - Merzbow (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'll email and ask them :-) Carol Moore 01:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It is generally well-regarded as an introductory source of information in academic philosophy circles. It's not the most reliable source, but its failings are common to most encyclopedias and other overview or introductory sources. (It often glosses over details or omits some context, rather than any kind of gross inaccuracy). It's good for the basics and it most certainly meets our general model of reliability. That is, it is well-regarded in its field, it is written and maintained by experts, has editorial oversight and is published/endorsed by a reputable university. A similar project that has a slightly better reputation for accuracy, is much more complete and is much better established is The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, though it also has similar limitations/flaws to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vassyana (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Tarmac

The article states that "tar-grouted macadam was also in use well before 1900". This goes against the general view that tarred roads did not really come into use until the turn of the 20th century with the advent of the motor car. Thus, I am challenging this statement.

The article needs more sources and if you know of any perhaps you could add them to the article or leave a message on the article talk page. However, I think it is clear from the article that although such methods were known and sometimes used in the 19th century, they were not introduced on a large scale until the patent of 1901 was granted. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Then, shouldn't we make this clear, that though the technology was known it was little used until the motor car arrived on the scene? 19century (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Alexa.com

Is site information from Alexa a reliable source? Discussion at Talk:Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain#Successors. --Soman (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be OK for site traffic, I don't know. But from what I see at the talk page discussion, that does not seem to be the issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just a repeat of the claims made by the website, not an independently reviewed description. Cite the website directly for the claims it makes (but be cautious to follow WP:SPS). It would be greatly preferable to rely on what reputable independent sources have said about the topic. Vassyana (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Publication as source of information regarding Polish German history  ?

Hi, I have a question regarding a source I encountered in the article Settlement Commission, which is about an institutions that aimed to increase number of Germans in Polish parts of German Empire. Recently a source was added with no date or location of publishing that claimed some of people settled by Comission were native to those territories. The source was only named as : Baron Galéra, Deutsche unter Fremdherrschaft, Band I, p.37

I started to search out of curiosity who that was. After a while it appears that the person involved published books for Nazi regime and was a pro-nazi propagandist.

His works are recorded in "Nazi Collection Research Resources in the Archives and Special Collections Research Center" Under:

Galéra, Karl Siegmar, Baron von. Deutscher Reichsspiegel: Männer und Bewegungen im Kampfe für Reich und Gegenreich. Leipzig: Hesse & Becker Verlag, 1936. Nationalistic survey of Germany’s greatest eras intended to instill pride in the Third Reich. DD89 .G3 1936A

Galéra, Karl Siegmar, Baron von. Österreichs Rückkehr ins Deutsche Reich; von Kaiser Karl zu Adolf Hitler. Leipzig: Nationale Verlags-Gesellschaft, 1938. Attempt to show Hitler as the fulfillment of the Austrian wish to be part of a Greater Germany. DB96 .G3

In Ball State University Library.

He is also mentioned in collection of Nazi Propaganda Literature: in the Library of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research: Source Materials on Modern German Anti-Semitism, National Socialism and the Holocaust

He is named as "antisemtic, pro-Nazi Baron von Galera" in Jewish Currents by : Morning Freiheit Association published in 1956.

I also found the book itself that is used as source. It was published in 1933. Its title is longer and translated as History of robbed German territories. Poles and Balts in their war against German people. Which has obvious bias and indicates POV.

Throughout the book several statements are made praising Nazi movement. Several racist statements are made against Poles for example on page 25 it says Poles hate Germans because Germans are good workers and disciplined while Poles are culturally inferior and unable to create anything.

Page 93 calls Poles barbaric.

On other page the region of Poland is called "more German then Polish"

On page 273 the author states that Nazis want peace with neighbours of Germany.

On page 279 the author states that Nazis thanks to determination found a way to end suffering of Germany.

Several more such statements can be found.

I don't believe the book can be used as reliable source for information about history of German presence in Poland and Polish-German relations, I do have serious doubts if the author wouldn't present the presence of Germans and reduce the importance of state colonisation to support nationalistic claims against Polish territories. This a pro-Nazi, extremist publication. It use as source is unnacceptable. I believe that as Nazi publication the book should be removed as a source and a better one provided. Comments ? --Molobo (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's only usable as an example of Nazi claims and propaganda, not as a source for anything factual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Btw, I'd like to see an article on Karl Siegmar Galéra; we need more articles on Nazi "historians" (like Walter Frank). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The author is cited in the Settlement Commission article not for his views of anything, but for a statistic he surely did not work out by himself: Number and origin of the settlers. The total numbers cited by G. are the same as cited by the other sources (engl and polish) given in the article, so it can be taken for granted that G did not exaggerate. G was used as a source as he does not only give the total, but also the origin of the settlers and the ha size of the bought farmland. I do not see a reason why this particular informations should not be trusted. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there will be a concern if you don't see a reason why Nazi propaganda is not to be trusted. Use other non-Nazi sources.The claims of Nazi propaganda literature that German settlers who were to Germanise Poland were in part native to Poland are not reliable. It's obvious they would claim that. Furthermore we shouldn't encourage people to take Nazi propaganda literature seriously. Why did you used it as a source. Did the fact that the authro praises Hitler and makes racist remarks didn't warn about reliability of the author or did you not know who he is ? --Molobo (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)