Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:26, 20 September 2009

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

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

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

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Fox News on Lawrence Solomon

I am being told by an experienced editor that the following article here cannot be used to establish that the environmentalist, Lawrence Solomon, is in fact an environmentalist. I do not understand why this article would not qualify as a reliable secondary source. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one the article does not look like a very good source to me, but rather like a collection of tidbits used as a teaser. But more importantly, it does not say that Solomon is an environmentalist. So I can fully understand the concern. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is, in broad terms, considered a reliable source ... The problem is that, in this instance, the source does not support the statement. That means that this specific Fox News report is not a reliable source for the specific statement it is being used to support. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply ignore a source that does not support what you need it to, and look toward G Books where several sources refer to him as an environmentaist. Then there's Washington Times, Nashua Telegraph and Boston Globe which all call him environmentaist. Heck, the Outlook even calls him an "internationally acclaimed environmentalist". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Michael, it looks like it may be easier to find this stuff than I thought, and your refs look better. Meanwhile, for my own humble Wiki-education, I am still unable to understand the concern and would appreciate a response from uninvolved editors. The article states: "A former adviser to President Carter's global environment task force and one of Canada's leading environmentalists is disputing the claim that there is a scientific consensus about the human origins of global warming. Lawrence Solomon writes ..." What is the problem here? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source. We've been through this in many different cases. Find a better non-partisan source.Camelbinky (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's fair and balanced! Seriously, though, where has it ever been determined, by consensus, that it is "not a reliable source"? My search through pages and pages of matching archives shows it, time and time again, being defended as a reliable source. I don't watch it (and don't like it), but that's because of its editorial slant, not because of any inherent bent towards factual inaccuracy. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox is a reliable source. They have a right wing slant, but that doesn't take away their RSness. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources that pass WP:RS for one fact or in one context often fail under different circumstances. Trying to get a definitive answer about whether something is a reliable source in every case is an exercise in frustration. In this case, if other sources support it as well, I'd just cite it to several and move along to the next project :) -Pete (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fox news is reliable under our guidelines. That doesn't mean it is preferred as a source for cases like this. Just like cnn's website wouldn't be preferred, fox's 'print' side isn't great. That's without taking into account their slant. Protonk (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

@Michael - every single one of your sources are opinions (Op-Ed's, letters to the editor etc.). The trouble is that so far no one has been able to come up with a sufficiently reliable source to the effect of calling Mr Solomon an environmentalist. And that is the problem in this case. The insertion has historically on the article been controversial (several edit-wars), and thus it requires a reliable reference - which is all that is being asked for, before insertion. For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that he is/or has been an environmentalist - but that is neither here nor there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Alex... the problem here is in the writing at the fox news article (caused by the fact that they created the print report by simply transcribing the vocals on a TV report). The way they wrote it up, there a paragraph break in the middle of what you are citing. A new paragraph indicates that there is a clear separation between the two sentences ... that

• Canada's leading enviromentalist (unnamed) is disputing something... and
• Someone named Lawrence Solomon has written something.

For the citation to support the contention that the leading environmentalist actually is Lawrence Solomon, it would have to read something like ... "

• A former adviser to President Carter's global environment task force and one of Canada's leading environmentalists, Lawrence Solomon, is disputing the claim that there is a scientific consensus about the human origins of global warming.

Hope that helps clarify why that particular article doesn't work. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ah. this is a critical distinction. I didn't even read that closely. Thanks, blueboar. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Geez, I don't think there's any doubt that the sentence is referring to Solomon, and a lot of newspaper-style articles introduce a subject in this way. If it's not referring to Solomon, then who else is it referring to? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. FOX still has an obvious POV to push here. They have every incentive (and a history of doing so) to pump up the prominence of anti global warming claims. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And that is why FOX news is not and will not ever ever ever EVER be considered a reliable source for anything that is remotely political in nature. It has been repeatedly stated and verified in other actually reliable news sources regarding their bias. Do I have to seriously write an essay "Dont use FOX News!" to get the point across? It seems we go over this question once a month. It is my period apparently because it happens like clock-work and I get cranky everytime it occurs. How about a hatnote at the top of this page- if you have a question regarding using Fox News, dont bother asking, the answer is "probably best to find a better source".Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is great. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, we've described The Nation as a reliable source here at WP:RSN. Are you really going to argue that Fox News is so much more biased than The Nation as to make it an unacceptable source? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Worldnet Daily is more biased than The Nation is. Not after seeing the last time it was brought up in RSN.. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who responded; we have opted not to use this source but appreciate the feedback. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sites providing reviews/critiques of comic books

I need to know if the following sites are considered journalistically reliable to rely on for providing critical reaction information on comic book articles, not in the matter of including information about the reviews, but on general reaction as a whole to a given book or series, and more generally, regarding reaction to Jeph Loeb's work as in general, particularly with regard to this section in Loeb's aritcle. Does relying on these violate WP:SYNTH? I really would appreciate that as many experts in RS's chime in here as possible, because this is extremely important. I've included the authors of the reviews as well as the names of the sites in the links:

• Brent Hibbard. iFanboy.com
• Andrew C. Murphy and Ben Berger. Weekly Comic Book Review (Source not only for reviews of Ultimatum #1 but reaction to Loeb's work as a whole.)
• Augie De Blieck Jr. Comic Book Resources
• James Hunt. Comic Book Resources
• Jesse Schedeen. IGN
• Jesse Schedeen. IGN
• Richard George. IGN
• Kevin Fuller. IGN
• Z. Julian Cenac. ComixFan (This is an interview with Loeb in which he is asked about the reaction of some fans to the content of Loeb's Hulk work. If the interview is authentic, I'd imagine that it's reliable, since Loeb himself is responding to the matter, but I'd still like to know your thoughts on this.)
• JasonKerouac. Panels on Pages
• Brendan Kachel. The Examiner
• David Wallace. Comics Bulletin
• Rokk Krinn. Comic Book Revolution
• ComixUp (The fact that the reviewer only gives his first name leads me to wonder if this would be seen as an RS.)
• Big Shiny Robot (Again, this review provides only a username.) Nightscream (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, this is kinda a big question for one post. Anyways, without actually looking at any specific link, and understanding it may be dependent on the author and what you want to cite, here goes.
    • Comic book resources and IGN are generally reliable. No forum posts or fan edits, obviously. The Examiner is not reliable, unless they've got a heck of an author, and then it's only based on the author. Interviews are different from normal articles, but we need to believe that the site would transcribe the interview correctly. Look for info on the interviewer or on the site itself. Are there sources on Google news that cite the interviewer or site? (For instance). The rest I've never heard of, and I work on comic stuff, so there will have to be a good reason to think they're reliable which you should look for. Look at about pages for editors and reporters and whatnot. Hope that helps. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you tell me why the Examiner is not reliable? Nightscream (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a user submitted site. There's discussion in the archives (and recently) I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Big Shiny Robot! seems to be a reliable source. They're often quoted by CBR and Newsarama, and even the top news link on www.starwars.com leads to an article of theirs at the moment. They have user names, but the editors have real names and a way to give them feedback.

It doesn't look good from its about page. If it was owned by a media conglomerate, I might look more closely, but as it is it's not a RS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's absurd to assert that a news source is unreliable if it isn't owned by a media conglomerate. It's run by a prominent media figure and Huffington Post columnist. User:98.202.184.225 (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2009

See my explanation below. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How does posting here work? Are the respondents on this board supposed to be those who are experts in Reliability, or at least make it one of the aspects of Misplaced Pages on which they work on frequently? Why are there unsigned posts from an anonymous IP?

And how binding are the responses here? Nightscream (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have another site: Neil Shyminsky. ComicBoards.com Nightscream (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I mention a media conglomerate, is that there a lot of sites that are run like newspapers, but call their writers bloggers. If it's "run by a prominent media figure and Huffington Post columnist." it may be one of those. Huff Post is considered borderline here, though (it's one of those blogs run like a newspaper, although it depends on the particular article too.) Being quoted is a good sign. The other thing about media companies, is it means there's someone with money to sue if they commit libel. That adds to reliability.

The people here are sort of experts on RS stuff. Anyone who wants to do it can, of course. I've probably answered roughly 100 questions here. It's not binding, anymore than any other discussion on WP. The more clear cut the case, and the more people who respond, the stronger the conensus, I guess.

For the comicsboard.com review. Is Neil Shyminsky an expert? Otherwise it looks like that site allows anyone to post, making it not reliable. They may be reliable for interviews, although I don't think that's what this source is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what 'expert' means in this context - I'm Neil, though, and I've taught comics to undergraduate university students and published academic writing on the X-Men. I figure that's worth something, right? (I found this discussion when I Googled my name.) As for Comicboards, they solicit, review, and edit unpaid reviews - and reject them, too. One could disagree with their standards, but they certainly don't allow just anyone to post to their review page.

1. If it's not binding, then what are the criteria by which I can add or remove material in articles that cite them? This is important. Can I remove information sourced by these sources and cite this discussion as a rationale? If I do, can others revert it?
2. How can I get more experts to respond to this discussion?
3. If I can't find anything on Google in reference to that interview, what then? The only things I can find on Google are the site where the interview is, the Misplaced Pages article itself, and some other sites that are forums, message boards or other sites whose reliability themselves I can't figure out.
4. Regarding the others you never heard of, you said, "there will have to be a good reason to think they're reliable which you should look for." Well, I don't know what reasons there are, or how to look for them. I usually just come here for RS matters. What do I do? Nightscream (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Got another source. Is this interview with Jeph Loeb reliable? In it, he talks about his involvement with the upcoming series Day One. Nightscream (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Other than arbcom, there isn't much binding here at WP. Comments here can be good ammo, but if the disagreement is too big, we usually just recommend (our crappy) dispute resolution.

2. You get what you get. Your first mistake was listing a ton of sources, and asking about them in a group. What you want to do, is figure out the ones you can yourself, and then only ask about 1 (or maybe 2) here. There's a thing at the top of this page that kinda tells you what to do. Basically, ask about one source, and include what article it would go in, what you would like to say, and what the source says. That makes it easy for people here, and they're more likely to reply.

3. For interviews, I generally say use them, if they aren't saying something controversial. If another editor disagrees, then more discussion is probably warranted.

4. The best things to look at are the sites about page (or whatever they call it), and whether sites on google news reference them. If the about page talks about editors and writers, that's a good sign. If it talks about submitting your own articles, that's a bad sign. With google news, if other reliable sources say "according to site x..." that's a good sign. If sites on google news don't mention it, your forced to look for other signs of reliability. Another good thing to do is google the writer. If they're an expert, then they're OK. To check expert status look at other things they've written. Do they have their writing in google books or google news, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I neglected to notice the protocol up top. Nightscream (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material

Well right now there is a small discussion going on at This Is Us (Backstreet Boys album) as to whether or not Amazon.com is a reliable source regarding the tracklisting. There has been no mention of any track listings on the Backstreet Boys' official website, or their Record Label's website, yet it is on Amazon.com. Should Amazon.com be used? PopMusicBuff 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think so. Amazon is a retailer, not a publisher. The material on their site is intended to sell things, not to inform. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say wait until October on this one unless you can corroborate the list with a source independent of Amazon. The lack of mention at the official label websites would sometimes indicate that the track list might not be finalized, but with just over a month until release I doubt that that is the case here. If they mention any song titles in promotional interviews and the like, then those could be mentioned. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. There are articles purporting to have a track list (www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00026793.html), but these don't claim to be from press releases. Might be listings assembled from web forums. Seems to have been some leaking issues on this album. Cool Hand Luke 18:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case of WP:CRYSTAL... We don't need to "scoop" anyone by including the latest rumor. It won't hurt the project one iota to wait until the album actually comes out before we say what songs are on it. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I now changed it, as everyone says no so far, in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RSN#Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material, WP:NALBUM, WP:N, WP:NRVE, WP:RS, WP:SBST and WP:GNG. PopMusicBuff 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If the general consensus is that Amazon is not an accurate source then we can revert the article back to its former version. However all i would like to say in Amazon's defence is that since i began editing articles over 1 year ago amazon has only ever been wrong once and this was with Keri Hilson's debut album where one song was removed from the final pressing of the album. I would say that i have edited over 100 articles and must have used amazon as a source for maybe 1 quarter of them. I have like i said only found Amazon to be wrong once. I assumed that because it is the second largest retailer behind iTunes that it would be seen as more credible than blog sites etc. I can see everyone's point though about how the album is not released till october but Amazon have posted a tracklisting over 1 month in advance and this could constitute a WP:crystal. i agree to the track listing being removed and only being added should an independent source be found to validate the information. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

Accuracy is only part of it - specifically, what we call on Misplaced Pages reliable sources, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and are independent of the subject. It's not just about perceived accuracy. As a retailer, not an independent publisher, Amazon is never independent of the subject. Dlabtot (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"It won't hurt the project one iota" – I think your statement may have consensus, but I think a reader visiting the page and looking for the info is ever so slightly "hurt" by not finding it.

"Amazon is never independent of the subject" – I don't think independence matters (that's a NOTE thing, not an RS thing). Whick leads me to...

Our assumption is that all retailers can't have a rep for fact checking and whatnot. I think this may not be true. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if these were not independent from the publisher, it would be a more reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite it with attribution. Amazon may be a primary source, but it is reliable. Perhaps remove it from the song listing but in the prose have something like "Amazon.com reports an additional song entitled XYZ", which protects us from the slight possibility of the listing being in error. I looked into CRYSTAL, but unless we want to delete the whole article, it wouldn't be appropriate to use CRYSTAL to delete one song that's going to appear on the album with the others. Gut feeling is that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article; it's these hard-to-find nuggets of information that I rely on WP for, well, if I cared about the Backstreet Boys. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My question is always: can't you find an independent news source that contains the same information, and not a retailer? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice, but it isn't necessary. It's pretty unlikely that Rolling Stone is going to mention a B-side track on a Backstreet Boys album. Album reviews in general don't always list every song, just whatever caught the author's fancy at the time. We'll need to use a primary source for the time being. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not wait for a secondary source to emerge? WesleyDodds (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have a source, why wait? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook

Is the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook

1. a reliable source to show that cold fusion has gained mainstream acceptance?
2. a peer-reviewed source?
3. a WP:SECONDARY source?

Thank you. 99.55.163.178 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear at the moment. The description of the book's contents imply that it contains significant new theories and evidence, but it is a collection of conference papers (which typically, may summarise work in progress but do not provide definitive data). To answer your questions-

1. it will show mainstream acceptance when it is reviewed seriously by respected mainstream scientific journals; until then, no
2. the editorial process may have involved editor or peer-review, or not. Unless the book says explicitly that its contents were peer-reviewed, treat with caution - most conference paper volumes allow the speaker to say what they wish
3. not a secondary source (it would appear), since each paper will reflect the view of the speaker; if some papers comment on/review others, they would be secondary. But a good secondary source would be reviews, critiques and third-party references to the volume as a whole or individual papers.Martinlc (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's published by OEP (OUP, I was confusing it with the journal Oxford Economic Papers). Whatever complaints one might have about how marginal the views expressed in it are, it's a reliable source per WP:RS. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree it is an WP:RS for the views of authros. I don't agree that it can be used to demonstrate that the topic has 'gained mainstream acceptance' - to me that means acceptance by others in the academic community, and that would require a mainstream publication reviewing it respectfully (which they may well do). The decision by OUP to publish a collection of papers from a conference does not, in my opinion, demosntarte that.Martinlc (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then frankly your opinion doesn't comport with the reliable source guideline. Publication by one of the preeminent academic publishing houses in the world is more than sufficient for WP:RS. Whether those views are mainstream, whether the data support the conclusions, whether the material is being used to push a view rather than present science is a more nuanced discussion that needs to happen in an RfC or on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are other fora more suitable venues for discussing those aspects of reliability? 99.35.129.22 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they principally aren't aspects of reliability. I think cold fusion is a sham, but no one knows me from Adam and it isn't really my business to say that even though the OUP published some conference proceedings on it that the contents are probably hokum. Likewise I have no idea what the conference admission requirements were or what stage the research was in when it was presented. I'm also not competent to evaluate their data (even if they had presented it along with the papers) so I can't decide that research presented without all underlying data is immediately suspect just in this field (where I might accept it elsewhere). Protonk (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book, generously donated to me by Oxford University Press, and much has been written about it here which is not true. Protonk, thanks. You are correct, as far as you go, except about "conference proceedings." --Abd (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As to the book itself, it was published under peer review. It is not a collection of conference papers. Conference papers are published in the proceedings of conferences, and papers previously published were excluded, with one exception, a very significant conference paper by Fleischmann. (And we already have a link to that paper whitelisted, should anyone want to use it. It was usable before because of Fleischmann's notability, but, now, there is the additional factor of being republished by the ACS in a peer-reviewed compilation.) From the Foreword, "As a rule, only original research papers and original review papers are included in the volumes." Editors may have been confused by the fact that some of the research has been previously described, but, for example, Vyosotskii wrote an original review of his previously published work, from 1996 on, which was accepted. I'd still consider this primary source, because he is reviewing his own work, but with an edge of notability. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I thought this was conference proceedings - my mistake. I do (as I said above) accept this as RS. Notability isn't at issue here. In reply to the question 'who are the experts?' - the question is more 'what do non-specialist academics think?' There was a time when only those involved in cold fusion believed in it - if the point has been reached where others do, then, yes, that's mainstream. Martinlc (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review, it's been clear that the cold fusion evidence is convincing to at least many mainstream academics, and you can infer more from the review than that, for the division between the chemists and materials scientists (generally positive) and nuclear physicists (generally negative) is clear in the individual reports. Martinlc, it was never true that only those involved in cold fusion "believed in it," there was always plenty of opinion to the contrary, including more than one or two Nobel prize-winners, and, what is even more the real issue ("belief" is a red herring, many of the so-called believers are skeptics by habit), there have always been peer reviewers willing to pass papers on cold fusion when asked. Are these "believers?" Certain "mainstream" publications stopped submitting papers for peer review. We have RS on that. But others continued. The first question we need to answer is "Is research into cold fusion legitimate, recognized by the mainstream?" It was recommended by both DoE reviews. In fact, however, after 1989, attempts were made to request funding for research that was exactly as described in the report, by experienced researchers, and it was denied. Huizenga's influence was very strong, and in 1989, the mollifying language was only there because a NP winner threatened to resign as co-chair if it wasn't included, whereas in 2004, it represented a real consensus. The science is mainstream now, not just among cold fusion researchers, but the conclusions (nuclear or not?) remain very controversial, there was substantial opinion for "nuclear" in 2004, with a two-thirds majority unconvinced, and there is now more conclusive evidence published, but I'd have to infer "mainstream" only from the fact that reviewers at mainstream publications are accepting the papers. That means they believe the science is solid, which doesn't imply acceptance of the conclusions. For conclusions, we need peer-reviewed secondary source, and, in fact, the subject book provides that. I still advise caution. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to rain in your parade, sorry.

Cold fusion is considered a pathological science. After the debacle in 1989, only a group of researchers kept researching, with most scientists abandoning the field as failed. Their presence in the APS meetings was helped by Robert Park because he thought that it was science, even if it was bad science (from his What's new column, I can't find the link), and in the ACS because the "Gopal Coimbatore, program chair of the ACS's division of environmental chemistry, felt that unless a forum was provided, the subject might never get discussed; and 'with the world facing an energy crisis, it is worth exploring all possibilities'. "

Also, "The ACS Symposium Series contains high-quality, peer-reviewed books developed from the ACS technical divisions' symposia. Each chapter is carefully authored by an expert in the field, and the collection of chapters edited by an internationally recognized leader in the field.". The author is Steven Krivit, who has no scientific studies, and who has been publishing during six years a newletter called New Energy Times supporting cold fusion.

Krivit made a presentation at the latest ACS congress to defend that Cold Fusion was real and that its pariah status was all product of a terrible mistake back in 1989:

"I realize that for some of you, sitting here in this room about ... cold fusion , it may seem something like entering into the Twilight Zone, cos we have for many years. Well, I reassure that there was once upon a time, I was very surprised to find out that there was research six years ago, and I was working in the Information Technology bussiness around that time and I was very surprised that the research was still going on, and I started looking into it (...) It took me about three years (...) before accepting the possibility that there might be some real science (...)" 00:53-01:49

The papers of a few Cold fusion conferences were also published by university presses of Cambridge and others.

I'll also say that OUP has also published

• "Voodoo science: the road from foolishness to fraud" in 2002
• "A Field Guide for Science Writers, Volum 11" from 1998 reprinted in 2006 ,
• "Responsible Conduct of Research"
• "The undergrowth of science: delusion, self-deception, and human frailty" in 2000

And other university presses have published

• "Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science" Chicago UP in 1995
• "Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line" Chicago in 1999 .
• "Undead science" Rutdgers in 2002
• Fusion: the search for endless energy" Cambridge 1990 .
• "Uncertain Knowledge: An Image of Science for a Changing World" Cambridge in 2002
• And a lot more UP books saying about the same thing Google Books search

All of them say that cold fusion's reputation was killed in 1989 apart from a small group of researchers, and some speak of how the opinions of CF researchers are not shared at all by the mainstream. Krivit is one of those researchers a journalist that advocates for cold fusion (fixed per Abd's comment).

All together, the presence of the sourcebook can't be reasonably taken as evidence that cold fusion has suddenly become mainstream. Taking the book in isolation is disingenuous, and I'm tired of CF advocates trying to push it as a RS.

The CF advocates have the sensation that the field is getting more acceptation however that's a far shot from CF being accepted as mainstream or as valid, and far from CF papers being accepted as something other than papers from a fringe field that is still alive for some reason. I'll note that one of the 13 papers in volume 1 is about Biological transmutation, which is also not accepted by mainstream. As Martinlc says, this shouldn't be taken for anything other than sourcing what CF researchers think, and never as an expression of mainstream science. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is a rant from an editor who has spent too much time trying to prove that the field of condensed matter nuclear science (misnamed "cold fusion," it may not involve fusion at all) is "pathological science." He can source that opinion, but not from any peer reviewed reviews of the field; it's been in editorials, popular books, and the like, or off-hand mentions in sources he cites from long ago. Krivit isn't a cold fusion researcher, he's a journalist who has long covered the field, who is recognized in reliable source as an expert in that sense. He has another review that just appeared, preprint. RS by our standards. "Mainstream"? Well, that is actually not part of RS, unless there is a contradiction of sources, where relative journal quality may arise. What counts is independent publisher and, for science, peer review. How we use RS is for editorial consensus to determine, i.e., is material from these sources reported as fact, or as attributed claim or opinion? But these are peer-reviewed secondary sources, and outright rejection of them, which is what Enric Naval has done in the past, is beyond the pale. The field is clearly alive, with ongoing publication in scientific journals, including the very high quality Naturwissenschaften. --Abd (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE for fields that don't have good mainstream sources because they have been abandoned by mainstream. (Nature and a few top research labs published a few negative reports declaring the whole thing dead and buried, but a small group of researchers have continued to publish positive reports, with mainstream scientists not bothering to reply to them. That is why there are only positive papers in the last few years, they are all by cold fusion advocates, while nobody is bothering to replicate them. So, from mainstream you are getting neither positive nor negative papers)

I notice that Krivit has published his article in a journal about "Cutting-Edge Research on Environmental Processes & Impacts", not a journal on established Physics or Chemistry. I suppose that this was included because of being a " in Chemical Science" (fourth point in the bolded list) Mind you, Krivit makes a sensible point:

"Twenty years later, some people who had dismissed the field in its entirety are considering the validity of at least some of the reported experimental phenomena. As well, some researchers in the field are wondering whether the underlying phenomena may be not a fusion process but a neutron capture/absorption process."

I have been searching for some RS to source that some scientists think that some experimental results are real and that CF is caused by some small real phenomena that remains undiscovered, and that this is why it's being given more leeway lately. Still looking for some third-party independent source that says this. A mainstream one, not one from a CF researcher or CF advocate. If this shift has really happened, then it's been in the last few years since 2004, and it seems that it's still too soon to get a good source covering it. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

2004, the DoE review, one third of 18 experts, presumably a neutral sample or even skeptically biased, found the evidence for nuclear origin "somewhat convincing." One half-found the excess heat evidence "convincing." That's mainstream opinion, as of 2004, the best information we have about it, and it is a massive shift from 1989-1990 already. The "mainstream" you talk about as having conclusively rejected cold fusion is the large body of scientists who have not reviewed the evidence. This is all a red herring. The journal Krivit published in is mainstream, published by the Royal Chemical Society; chemists are far more likely to be accepting of LENR than physicists, because they know the experimental work that led to the nuclear hypothesis was sound. That is, the heat part, not the radiation measurements, which everyone accepts as bogus. The physicists remember the radiation errors and consider rejection of them proof of artifact and pathological science. Enric, you aren't following RS and NPOV guidelines. What you have is a circular argument: if the author approves of cold fusion, the author is fringe and therefore it's not mainstream. It's the publisher that counts, unless the publisher is explicit that this is a fringe view that they are allowing for freedom of speech or something like that. The ACS has put its mark on the Sourcebook and is issuing another this year. Don't you think that they would choose someone familiar with the field to edit it? Who else is going to write an article or paper? Huizenga? Park? One of the other anti fanatics, described in RS as such? The theory that there are no negative papers because the mainstream has abandoned the field is interesting, except that there were lots of negative papers published after the major positive ones, and none of them established a clear reason for rejection, most ignored the positive results, even early ones. Very isolated exceptions, a handful, and with only a little of the positive. And there are some very important results now. You can't pop the "off-topic journal" claim on Naturwissenschaften, and you know it.

What you and others have done is to reject peer-reviewed secondary source based on nothing other than your own opinion and a persistence of vision from long ago. In science, later publication trumps earlier, later secondary source trumps earlier, because, presumably, it's aware of the earlier work and incorporates it. Follow the guidelines, they are quite good. We don't reject peer-reviewed secondary source, independently published. If it's wrong, we balance it with source of equal or better quality. Because you don't have that source, you want to keep this information out, but with nothing to stand on. That's why it's a losing position, in the long run, it's impossible to keep reliably sourced information out of Misplaced Pages, and the effort causes nothing but disruption. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2004 DOE report said that their conclusions were the same as those of the 1989 DOE report (no federal funding for a cold fusion program, only recommendation for individual experiments), and the reviewers pointed out several flaws in the evidence, including lack of replication.

And I point you to the list of UP books in my comment (all of them being full books, and the Krivit book being a compilation of papers in a OUP collection dedicated to publishing those compilations), and to the comment made by the ACS guy about why they allowed cold fusion into the ACS meeting. (Indeed, the ACS thing was covered by Nature in 2007 and BBC in 2009 , I suggest that people read these two articles to see the actual state of the art of CF). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 2004 DoE report says that, and, in this context, that statement is highly misleading. The conclusions that are "the same" are the recommended funding and the recommendation of further research. Underneath that hood, the reports were vastly different, and it's obvious, so that Enric keeps bringing this "conclusions" thing up is an example of how to mislead with true facts. I found nothing of great interest in those articles cited (but one I couldn't read, behind a pay wall), merely a few reported individual opinions. There seems to be nothing there about the really significant "ACS thing," which would be the greatly expanded seminar in 2009, the press release giving it a high profile, and the Sourcebook publication, which is being followed by another this year. Enric Naval is suggesting that we ignore peer-reviewed secondary sources in favor of off-hand, off-the-cuff comments? It's like he's trying to hold back the tide by sticking his finger in the dike, having to feel around underwater to find the hole. It's typical, and I'm grateful I won't have to deal with this any more. --Abd (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that people here should look at some of the university press books that I listed above, and to the Nature and BBC articles, and see by themselves if secondary sources say that cold fusion is currently accepted by mainstream. This is a collection of papers versus a lot of books about science, bad science, philosophy of science, history of science, etc. The author of the book himself sort of recognizes this lack of acceptance and says that the assistants to the 2009 ACS session must be feeling like they were in The Twilight Zone (source in one of my comments above). WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG apply here, and reports written by cold fusion advocates should be taken with a huge grain of salt (from the description of the ACS Symposium Series, I notice that it was Krivit himself who made the editor work and decided what papers were reliable enough to be included in the book, and it was probably him who chose the peer reviewers?).

P.D.: Throwing statements about me trying to stop some tide is unhelpful. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. When some mainstream RS reports independently that the situation has changed, then I won't have any problem with the article saying so, and I won't lose any face for doing so. Refusing to acknowledge all the sources listed above is very unhelpful and runs directly against WP:V. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Enric Naval has misrepresented the sources he listed. I do not "refuse to acknowledge all the sources listed above," that is a direct and blatant distortion of my position, rather, those sources should all be used, as exactly what they are (though several of the sources are so weak that they would have no use, such as the guide for science writers). I have not claimed that "cold fusion is currently accepted by the mainstream," but neither can we say that it is currently "considered pathological science," which is what Enric wrote as if it were a continuing fact. There is no "mainstream" as some monolithic body of opinion. However, if we limit ourselves to those relatively informed about the whole body of research, instead of those relying on judgments made twenty years ago, clearly the trend is strongly toward acceptance. Of the 18 reviewers on the 2004 DoE panel, only one took a hard-line approach similar to the almost unanimous opinion of the 1989 panel. Anyway, not my problem any more, I'm now working with the actual researchers. --Abd (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard

Source in question

• Self, Jane (November 1992). 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard: How America's Top Rated Television Show Was Used in an Attempt to Destroy a Man Who Was Making A Difference. Breakthru Publishing. ISBN 0942540239.

This book is being put forth as a source by those that support the controversial training programs Landmark Education and Erhard Seminars Training developed by Werner Erhard. It was removed as a source, but this was disputed , , , . The book should not be used as a source on Misplaced Pages: it fails WP:RS as it comes from a non-notable publisher, lacks coverage in reliable sources, lacks editorial review, and both the publisher and author have a bias as being associated with Erhard himself and his controversial trainings. The book's publisher has acted as Werner Erhard's attorney.

Rationale

1. The book is biased: the author self-admits in the book to being involved with Erhard's training for several years prior to writing the book.

   Jane Self describes her association with Erhard's trainings as such: In 1988, I started a lifelong relationship with Landmark Education, a corporation designed for ongoing personal growth and development (it was called Werner Erhard and Associates when I started).

2. The publisher is biased: The publishing company is associated with an individual named "Walter Maksym", who has acted directly as the attorney for Werner Erhard when Erhard sued individuals discussed in the book itself.

   • The publishing company "Breakthru Publishing" publishes the same books as company "Walter Maksym Publishing". Compare this: About Walter Maksym: Publisher of Perfect Pleasure: Beyond the One Hour Orgasm, The New York Times Best Seller Diets Don't Work!, with this list of books published by Breakthru Publishing = the series of "Diets Don't Work" books.
   • Walter Maksym represented Werner Erhard as his attorney, when Erhard sued 20 different defendants after a critical broadcast of CBS News 60 Minutes where Erhard's daughters and business associates made controversial claims against him. See San Jose Mercury News article, which states: Erhard's attorney, Walter Maksym of Illinois, could not be reached for comment.

3. "Breakthru Publishing" is not regarded as a publishing company respected for editorial review, and has no standing within any of the fields related to this book's subject, such as journalism, psychology, or religion.

   • When attempting to check if their website lists any form of editorial review - it appears that the website is itself abandoned .
   • A listing of other books published by Breakthru Publishing yields only "Diet's Don't Work" and other series of marketing/sales to self-help clientele - nothing related to investigative journalism, see .

4. There are no independent reliable secondary sources that significantly discuss the book.

   • The wiki article about the book was deleted essentially for this very reason: (AfD discussion).
   • Search in books show it is not cited as a resource .

I present this issue here to see if previously uninvolved editors can help make a determination if this book is an independent reliable secondary source. Than you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, so I can't speak to the actual quality of the writing (although if you say its subpar, I'll believe you). But given the close relationship of the publisher and Erhard, the type of fare the publisher usually puts out and the fact that the book has not apparently been reviewed or analysed by any reputable entity I'd say that any mention of the source in a Misplaced Pages article, and especially wrt claims about a living person, should require at least a couple of sentences describing its background and doubtful reliability. Without such caveats I don't think it would be an appropriate source for any article except one about the book or the author. Nathan 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such caveats in prior sentences before the source would then itself be WP:OR in article mainspace, as such, the source should probably not be used/mentioned in article mainspace at all. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the book is basically a WP:SELFPUB source. If the person's view is already shown to be notable then it could be used as a source for what his opinions are, but the book cannot demonstrate notability or be used to support facts. DreamGuy (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That the book itself is not notable is not relevant to the question of its reliability, but does make it harder for us to accurately judge its reliability.

We no longer have an article on Breakthru Publishing, because of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Breakthru Publishing. Editors there noted that the article described the press as a vanity press, and none of them found reason to disagree with the article. That is a reason to conclude that the book is not independent of its author. Accordingly, the book should be treated as a self published source. The next question then is whether Jane Snee has previous work in the relevant field that is published by reliable third-party publications. I note DGG's opinion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jane Self that she has "one unimportant book, and nothing else". DGG usually looks hard for opportunity to include articles, and if he found nothing else I'm willing to rely on his conclusion. So I conclude that this is not the variety of self-published source that can be used in articles about subjects other than the author of the source. GRBerry 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We shouldnt play both sides against the middle. If the book was written and published by people associated with the group, then SPS specifically allows it as a source in articles about the group. Its opinions may be cited with attribution; I would recommend mentioning not only the title of the book but the publisher, which lets readers know it came from a specialized source. Language about the author's and publisher's association with the group, far from being original research, should be included if citable to reliable sources. In fact, the deleted articles could have been resolved as a merge/redirect to the article about the group. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy (talk · contribs) commented above: If the person's view is already shown to be notable then it could be used as a source for what his opinions are - the community determined that the author's viewpoint is actually not notable, thus there is no reason to include commentary from a non-notable individual. GRBerry (talk · contribs) concluded that: this is not the variety of self-published source that can be used in articles about subjects other than the author of the source. As the community came to a consensus to delete the article about the author, the source should not be used. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If Breakthru Publishing is run by the group's attorney, then the source would be citable as a press release from the group. I would also suggest looking into a deletion review to create a merge-redirect for the deleted articles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The source cannot be properly attributed as such, which would be WP:OR on a main-article space page but plainly obvious as demonstrated above. Thus, the source should not be used. As there is a lack of independent reliable secondary sources on the book and on the author, there is no sourced material to merge, thus delete was the proper outcome. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's plain that the book can't be used as an independent reference about Erhard; it may seem contradictory, but I think the association is too close to use as an independent source and not direct enough to qualify as a self-published source. Even if the book were published by Landmark itself, it would be subject to these limitations (quoted from WP:SPS):

1. The material is not unduly self-serving;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

The title itself violates these limitations, so it seems clear that the book is not suitable as a reference under any circumstances. Nathan 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• We've concluded, and I see no reason to revisit that, that it is effectively a self-published source by the group. What we haven't yet done here, is examine its use to support specific claims in specific articles. In part, that is because the query raised here was quite broad and didn't list specific claims for review. But digging into what I can find, I see the following specific issues:
  1. Whether the book itself can be listed in Werner Erhard#Other books. (Formerly, it was in a "Related publications" sub-section. That header is no longer is used.) In that section, the claim effectively is that "This is a book about Ernhard." This is not resolved by determining whether this book is a reliable source, and arguments that the book is/is not a reliable source are not relevant to the decision to list it. What is relevant is if a reliable source can be found to assert that the book is a significant one about him. That would be a question about a different source, not yet presented here. Editors looking for such a source should be looking for one that is not self-published.
  2. Whether the book can be used to support two claims removed here in Scientology and Werner Erhard. In this article, these are claims about Scientologists/whatever the official name of the Scientology thingy is. Since this book is a self-published source, it should not be used in this article.
  3. In Landmark Education I don't find that it is used or in dispute at all, so there is nothing to comment on currently.
  4. Whether the book itself can be listed in Erhard Seminars Training#Related publications (the "Books" subsection). The claim effectively is that "This is a book related to Erhard Seminars Training." Again, this is not resolved by determining whether the book is a reliable source, and arguments that the book is/is not a reliable source aren't relevant. What is relevant is if a reliable source can be found to assert that the book is a significant one about E.S.T. That would be a question about a different source, not yet presented here. Editors looking for such a source should be looking for one that is not self-published.
  5. If there is any other claim at issue, I failed to find it. Feel free to ping me again if another specific claim is identified. GRBerry 15:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ahram

This has come up a number of times. Some editors have argued that Al-Ahram is not a reliable source, alleging, among other things, that there is no such thing as a free press in Egypt and the paper publishes things that are anti-Semitic. These claims are generally made without resort to sources that support these positions.

Can we hear some editors views regarding whether or not Al-Ahram is a reliable source? Disclosure: The particular Misplaced Pages article this pertains to at the moment is Aftonbladet-Israel controversy and the article in question is Horrid beyond words by Khalid Amayreh. The talk page discussion on the issue is here. Tiamut 14:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to very leery of any source that has as its byline "from occupied Jerusalem." That said the Ahram article is chock full of innuendo, unattributed quotes and an attempt to characterize an arrest for selling 1 kidney (and a 7 year old accusation of smuggling organs from Eastern Europe that was reported to but never investigated by the FBI) as a massive IDF organ harvesting conspiracy. Even the author of the Aftonbladet article admits he has no basis for the accusation other than "wanting to see it investigated." So, I would look for better sources than Al-Ahram. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

East Jerusalem, from where Amayreh is writing is part of the Israeli-occupied territories. The UN calls it occupied. Are they an unreliable source?

Also, the question is not is the material in the article WP:TRUTH, but whether or not Khalid Amayreh and Al-Ahram are reliable sources for their opinions and/or those of others for the purposes of the Misplaced Pages. Tiamut 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

However... for an attributed statement of opinion such as "According to the Egyptian news paper Al-Ahram, 'Israel is bad bad bad'<cite to Al-Ahram>" it would be a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are reliable for what they claim they are saying, but that's missing the point. There are two aspects to reliable sources: 1) is what they say true or probably bullshit? 2) are they reliable in the sense of - are they mainstream and not WP:FRINGE? Sources that are WP:FRINGE are not inclusion worthy even if they are being used just to say what they are saying. AL-Ahram clearly fails both tests. And especially applied to this scenairo, where they are trying to perpetuate a blood libel.

BlueBoar: We've went through this before. Your stance, which allows everything into WP because we believe the unreliable source that they said what they claim to have said, is an extreme stance. It is not in line with Wiki-policy and fails the letter of the law and the spirit of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Respectfully, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two aspects to reliable sources: 1) is what they say true or probably bullshit? No, no, no, no. We don't let editors decide that sources are unreliable because they print "bullshit" instead of what the editor believes is "The Truth™ ". In fact is inconceivable to me that someone could actually arrive at that conclusion following a good faith reading of the reliable source guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood, Dlabtot. There's no argument being made that there are unreliable because what they said in this specific instance is bullshit. The point being made here is that they are unreliable because they are renown for publishing bullshit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to back that statement up? nableezy - 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This particular article could easily have come from a western newspaper (including the claim that Jerusalem is occupied, in no respectable dispute). Whatever other faults there are in this newspaper, the "rigorous treatment" and testing it should be getting on this page is laughably absent. If an Israeli paper was getting such treatment, the cries of antisemitism would be deafening - this case makes Misplaced Pages (even in its control mechanisms, let alone amongst its editors) look Islamophobic.

It is particularly disturbing that, according to the complainant, this failure to present any evidence has happened on every occasion, as if both Wikipedian editors and experts flaunt bigotry. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This template must be substituted.

That warning has been applied by BrewCrew, who must be following me around. I don't wish to bring a different issue to this page, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Recent_edits and my Warnings Page (accusations of vandalism) for the locus of this problem. Please advise what I'm supposed to do, if not ask the people concerned directly, quoting from the Book of Rules. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting that aside for a moment so that we stay focused on the issue at hand ... the material being cited to Khalid Amayreh and Al-Ahram is here. I just restored it after it was deleted by Brewcrewer User:Rm125 . If people could comment on whether or not Al-Ahram is a reliable source for this information, as phrased or phrased differently, it would be much appreciated. I would note that Al-Ahram is the Arabic equivalent of the New York Times and the The London Times is terms of circulation and the way its viewed by the Arabic speaking world. As this is the world's encyclopedia, and not the West's alone, I hope people will take other perspectives into consideration when making their comments. Tiamut 10:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And that is the key... This is a WP:NPOV issue not an RS one. Yes, Al-Arham disagrees with western POV, and yes it is biased... but we still have to account for Al-Arham's POV. As far as WP:RS goes, it is a respected news outlet with a significant circulation in the Arab world. It passes our test for reliablility.

That said... no source is "always" reliable... context is very important and reliability depends greatly on the statement it is being used to support (even the New York Times can be unreliable for some statements)... and being reliable does not mean a source must be used in any specific article. There are a host of other policies and guidelines that might limit or bar the use of a source in a specific article. But, in general terms, most of the time, in most articles, Al-Arham is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the question here is not reliability but notability. While Al-Ahram may not be reliable, it is the mouthpiece of the Egyptian state, and this makes its position notable. -- Nudve (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ahram has a circulation slightly lower than the NYTimes, is read throughout the Middle East and by Arabs around the world, and is the biggest paper in the largest country in the Middle East. How do you expect to have a world view of topics by not using such a source and only using Israeli, European and American sources? What about WP:RS#News organizations is not met? Mainstream? 1 mil+ readers, seems mainstream to me. What exactly is objectionable to using al-Ahram? The BBC was used by the British government in attempt to instigate a coup in Iran. The NYTimes has printed disinformation fed directly from the Bush administration. For some reason their reliability remains unquestioned. nableezy - 15:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Dlabtot (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Its statements like these, Blueboar, that result in allowing the inclusion of statements of unreliable sources because they are believed to say what they say they are saying. The editors that are pushing for the inclusion here are not pushing for its inclusion because they want to use the unreliable source to show what the Arab media are saying. They want to use the unreliable source for the truthfullness of its statements.

We wind up with these ridiculous statements that Government-controlled-Holocaust-denying-hoax-spreading-antisemitic publications are equal to the New York Times and the BBC because these great media outlets have also sinned in the past.

The fact that lots of readers read that newspaper, means nada. The Pravda and Der Stürmer had a huge readership, but we don't use the former for the truthfulness of any analysis regarding capitalism v. socialism and we don't use the latter for the truthfulness of anything regarding Jews. Similarly we don't use Holocaust-denying-hoax-spreading-anti-Israel publications for anything that pertains to Israel. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Nazi-baiting your fallback response in any RS/N discussion not going your way? How is it you are comparing al-Ahram to Der Sturmer? How does al-Ahram not meet the requirements of WP:RS, specifically WP:RS#News organizations? nableezy - 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't use any sources for the truthfulness of anything. Period. Verifiability, not truth. Dlabtot (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not understanding what's going here, Dlabtot. WP:RS is a condition of WP:V. Full stop. Al-Ahram is not a RS because they are goverment controlled and have a history of perpetuating anti-Israel and anti-Jewish lies. Full stop. Nevertheless, some editors here are arguing for an exception to the WP:RS/WP:V requirements, claiming that Al-Ahram unreliability is not pertinent if we are not using their content for the truthfullness of their content,. They claim that since we are quoting Al-Ahram to show what they are saying, their unreliability is a non-factor. I hope this clears everything up for you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what al-Ahram is being used for. This is the passage the source is being used for in the article:

Khalid Amayreh reports in an article in Al-Ahram that prior accusations of organ harvesting had been made by representatives of the Palestinian Authority. During a 2002 interview with Al-Jazeera, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat made the accusation, saying, "They murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts. Why is the whole world silent? Israel takes advantage of this silence to escalate its oppression and terror against our people." Amayreh notes that no genuine investigation into the Palestinian allegations has ever been carried out, even though allegations of organ harvesting date back to before the 1990s, as outlined in a report by Saira Soufan on the treatment of Palestinian guerillas. She wrote that, "Upon return of the (Palestinian) soldiers' bodies to their mourning families, the pillage of body parts is discovered during the burial process. The empty cavities have been filled with garbage such as cotton wool, garden hoses, and broom sticks, then sewn up as a result of the so-called autopsy."

It is also used for the following:

Jonathan Cook, a journalist working in Israel / Palestine, says many Western journalists, himself included, have heard such rumors, but none before Bostrom had written of them. Cook also writes that, " the families making the claims were not given a hearing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, during the first Intifada, when most of the reports occurred, and are still being denied the right to voice their concerns today. Israel's sensitivity to the allegation of organ theft appears to trump the genuine concerns of families about possible abuse of their loved ones."

Al-Ahram is being used to source statements from Palestinians about the issue. Nowhere is al-Ahram being used to say that Israel did in fact steal organs from Palestinians. Your idea that because Western media outlets have not given them that attention Misplaced Pages should not is against WP:NPOV, and to do that you are distorting WP:RS into saying something it does not. Again, what about WP:RS#News organizations is not met? What about what al-Ahram is being used to cite is improper to include? You are trying to make it so Palestinian reactions do not appear in the article, an odd thing to do for an article focusing on allegations of stealing Palestinian organs. nableezy - 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Its being used for exactly what WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE was intended to get rid of: The emboldment of crap. There are plenty of mainstream sources that cover the I-P conflict. They all realize that the underlying allegations are a joke and are focusing instead on the free-speech/lack of denouncement aspect of the controversy. The only sources that are willing to discuss the actual underlying nonsense allegations are fringe and unreliable publications. The quoted texts above proved my whole point. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your brushing off of the Palestinian viewpoint on an article about the alleged theft of Palestinian organs is at odds with core policy. And you are distorting both WP:RS and WP:FRINGE to do so. nableezy - 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He's not brushing off the Palestinian viewpoint. He's saying Al-Ahram is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter who's viewpoint they are reporting. They are a government controlled publication. They can not and do not report freely and thus are not a reliable source. I'd also suggest that Khalid Amayreh is not exactly a "reporter" in the sense most English speakers think of one and encourage editors to look up some more of his work before making up their mind about this issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources are not disqualified from use simply because there is an element of government control/funding for the publication in question. I would suggest that you stop wasting people's time trying to disqualify the use of the most widely circulated publications in the Arab world. There are plenty of other newspapers that are government controlled/funded that we use all the time without any objections. Singling out Al-Ahram is not justified. Tiamut 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And what the f does this mean? "...Khalid Amayreh is not exactly a "reporter" in the sense most English speakers think of one..." He writes in English, for English-language newspapers. He's a journalist by any sense of the word. Do you have a source that indicates that he is not a journalist? Or are you just hoping to exploit people's latent racism against Arabs to get what is obviously a reliable source that you do not like persona non grata status at wikipedia? Tiamut 14:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are other newspapers that are government controlled those are not reliable sources either. Funding is not necessarily the same thing. The issue is if someone can dictate what the newspaper writes. If that is the case, then it's not a reliable source, now is it?

As for Khalid Amayreh, as I said, I encourage other editors to read some of his work and decide what they think for themselves. Your thoughts about people's "latent racism against Arabs" and whatever other insecurities you may have really don't interest me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps NMMNG is referring unkindly to Amayreh's male pattern baldness (i.e. western journalists usually have more hair nowadays) or possibly that he's been imprisoned both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities. Either way, is this RS/N question about Al-Ahram or Amayreh or both ? What's the pass criteria ? Government controlled seems like an odd way to talk about Amayreh. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. I said Amayreh is government controlled. Funny and clever as always, Sean. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that you said that but do you see what I mean ? Is the problem the paper or the journalist or both ? It's not clear here because both are being challenged for different reasons. If government control is the issue I would have thought that for an editor of a government controlled paper he would be pretty near the bottom of the list of journalists likely to do as he's told. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying Amayreh is the editor of al-Ahram?

The editor of al-Ahram is appointed by the Egyptian government. He works for them. That's not exactly RS material. Or at least for anything other than what the Egyptian government thinks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

..and some more verbiage just to be polite and answer. No, I just meant for example that if I were an editor I wouldn't choose Amayreh as a journalist to write pieces on the basis that he could be easily controlled as a spokesman for an official government line. He's not that kind of journalist IMHO. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor at al-Ahram wouldn't need to "control" him. He'd just not publish something that wasn't in line with government policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of verbiage posted above, but Al-Ahram is definitely a citable source. It doesn't matter if it's an official news agency of a country, by that logic then the VoA, BBC, and many other national broadcasters would be out. It would be a primary source on topics where the government or its allies or foes is the subject of debate, and some of its stories would require qualifiers and attribution, but you still may cite it, and it's likely the opinion of a national broadcaster is important enough to mention in an article.

But that's pretty much moot, because theyre being cited for an interview with Arafat, not their own opinion. Whatever their political leanings, I'm pretty sure theyre reliable enough to conduct the interview. And whatever you think about Arafat, because of his position, his opinion is important enough to include in the article.

Anyway it looks like the article resolved all this days ago, with careful attribution: During a 2002 interview with Al-Jazeera, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat made the accusation, as well as finding an independent news agency who also conducted an interview. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to find the Al-Jazeera interview with Arafat online, but failed. So the only source for the interview with Arafat is Al-Ahram. Ulner (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the whole quote but its mentioned here too. Tiamut 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Nableezy has a good point. Al-Ahram can be trusted for this information, regardless of their overall status as an RS. --Jonund (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above arguments which note that although one can argue that Al-Ahram is a biased source, by our standards, it is well-respected newspaper, and therefore it is a reliable source. LK (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Jake Tapper ABC News White House Correspondent's Blog

An editor keeps removing content sourced from him, but Jake Tapper is ABC News's Senior White House Correspondent, and his blog is on ABC News's website so I would assume it's just as credible as any other article published by ABC News. I think this is already settled but this other person doesn't think so, any input would be appreciated.

Examples:

Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policies aren't as clear as I would like, but this language (from WP:BLP) is helpful: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I don't think there's any reason to distinguish between newspapers and broadcast TV network news organizations here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I might be the editor to whom Dougie WII refers. In response to above, so far, no one has been able to cite any evidence that the blog has the newspaper's full editorial control. Even worse, WP:V states that "where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed." No one has shown any evidence that the news organization claims responsibility for the opinions. Finally, it should also be noted that (assuming I am the editor to whom Dougie WII refers) this is about controversial information about a biography of a living person where we are supposed to insist on high quality sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

From ABC News - " contributes regularly to "Good Morning America," "Nightline," "World News with Charles Gibson," and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," as well as ABC News' digital properties, including ABCNews.com and ABC News Now."

He is the "ABC News senior White House correspondent" whose blog underwent a "rigorous editorial process," according to an ABC spokeswoman.

It's a reliable source; this has already been explained to you at Talk:Van Jones. Echoing what I said on the Jones talk page, Tapper's blog is used 138 times in articles such as Presidency of Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Michelle Obama, Inauguration of Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, etc. (closely monitored articles) His blog is referenced by mainstream news organizations all the time. APK is a GLEEk 16:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, web writings of senior full-time journalists hosted by the publication they work for may be called 'blogs', but are in reality are more like old fashioned newspaper articles on a fast update. They can (with some care) be considered reliable sources. LK (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument about other pages using them doesn't mean much since WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. Also, are they being used for statements of opinions or statements of facts? There's a difference between the two. Thank you for this link ABC spokeswoman. Unless I missed it, this is the first time anyone (besides me) mentioned the need for editorial review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. We've explained several times why it's a reliable source. You're the only one continuing to question the blog's credibility. APK say that you love me 19:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you've just talked without listening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan

According to WP:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources, Buchanan's book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War is not a reliable source for a historical claim if Buchanan is either "extremist" or "fringe". The book has over 1300 endnotes but the reliable source policy does not appear to allow for ANYTHING that might save an otherwise "fringe" source. So the question seems to simply be, is Pat Buchanan mainstream or not?Bdell555 (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source because Buchanan is not a historian (he is a politician and educated as a journalist), because Crown is not an academic publisher, and because the book has not been received well by historians. The number of end notes is, at best, a crude heuristic, but not a guarantee for reliability. Not a WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've got pretty exacting standards because I once tried to cite the Chair of the History Dept at the University of Dallas and you didn't think that guy was reliable either, not even when the US Senate published the same claims at issue and other claims of this academic historian were cited by the Historical Adviser for the Royal Archives and George VI's official biographer.Bdell555 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I might add that excluding Crown Publishing means excluding the world's largest publisher, and well known PhDs like Thomas Fleming have called Buchanan's book "wonderful".Bdell555 (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Buchanan does not strike me as a reliable source as an historian. (Whether he's reliable as a political commentator is a different matter.) If his book has extensive endnotes, however, then presumably he gives citations to other sources which may be more respected and reliable. As with most questions of reliability, the answer really depends on exactly what facts you are trying to verify; my expectation is that if you really can't find any other sources to use then Buchanan's original research is fringe. Rvcx (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's debatable whether Buchanan is "extremist", and because the book is not self-published, he doesn't have to meet all the SPS caveats about being a recognized authority on the topic. We have to watch our political biases here. Not everybody to the right of Reagan is on the "fringe".

It's likely his point of view is notable enough to mention, depending on which article wants to use a cite from his book. Just attribute it as "conservative political commentator Pat Buchanan wrote..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure Buchanan's opinions are notable on the topic. Sounds like WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to me. We have reliable sources that say he has an opinion, but nothing to indicate that his opinion is important on this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The OP didn't say which article was planning to cite Buchanan's book. We'd have to see which article, how long the quote was relative to the article, and whether this was an extraodinary claim or just filling in fine detail. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the question was about history then it's almost certainly undue weight to reference what Buchanan said, as that's not his area of expertise. DreamGuy (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless the article is "Pat Buchanan's views on history". :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he's fringe. He hasn't claimed that space aliens convinced Churchill to resist good ole peace loving Adolf. He's not quite extremist, though if you follow the line of logic he is basically arguing that Europe would be better off had the Holocaust been left to finish (obviously there are some problems with that contention, namely that no western power entered the war because of the Holocaust, but that is neither here nor there). He's wrong so it behooves us to bookend his claims with claims from real historians. In other words, he is a voice in the history of WWII. He's not a very important one, but he is a voice. We should include his claims where appropriate and take pains to ensure that we don't mislead the reader by qualifying them appropriately. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that Buchanan has ever argued that "the Holocaust should have been left to finish". Buchanan's view is rather that the greatest evil of war is the breakdown in the norms of human behaviour that come with it, and hence the magnitude of the Holocaust was a consequence of war that might have been mitigated had the war, or its scale (originally localized to Poland) been limited. Buchanan also argues that the Red Army committed a number of large scale atrocities and denied the liberty of many Europeans and that this was aided and abetted by Churchill and FDR's alliance with Stalin.Bdell555 (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Buchanan extremist or fringe, however, he's not a professional historian. His opinion might be notable, I'm not sure. Which article are we talking about? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of Buchanan's work parallels with or draws from that of Robert Nisbet. According to the Wiki article for Nisbet, he was a "first rate 20th century sociologist". A professional sociologist is not a professional historian. Is Nisbet a reliable source? Does Nisbet become more or less reliable if Buchanan cites him? For examples for the type of particular cites at issue here, it would be to cite to Buchanan historical claims like "In Hungary, it was hard to find a women or girl over 10 who had not been raped by the “liberators” of the Red Army" or "at Teheran in 1943, when FDR moved into the Soviet embassy compound and assured Stalin he would not object to his keeping the half of Poland and the Baltic states Hitler had ceded to Stalin in their infamous pact....FDR asked only that word of his concession not leak out before the 1944 elections".Bdell555 (talk)

I'm not familiar with Robert Nisbet, but I want to point out a careful distinction. No person is a WP:RS. Only published works are. (And of course, not all published works are WP:RS, only those with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking are.) Keep in mind that academic and peer-reviewed publications are considered the most reliable sources. For a topic such as World War II, there should be plenty of such sources. So, no I would not be citing Pat Buchanan for those claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pat Buchan is not a noted historian and therefore his books are not a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Quest and Four Deuces. The Hungary claim in particular is clearly rhetorical (ie it is unlikely to be literally true), so it doesn't provide us with useful information or pass the verifiabilty test. Even if it were attributed, claims made by PB would not be notable in the context. --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Buchanan's book is a reliable source for an attributed statement as to Buchanan's opinion on WWII. Whether his opinion on WWII is worth mentioning in a specific article is another matter (see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE)Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Which article would this be going in? If it's the main article on WWII, the book might not be appropriate to mention. If it's in an article about specific views on WWII, it may well be. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles where the specific examples would go in would be Tehran Conference or Soviet war crimes. Other Buchanan material would be applicable to Winston Churchill.Bdell555 (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, academic and peer-reviewed publications are considered the most reliable sources. For a topics related to World War II, there should be plenty of such sources. So, no I would not be citing Pat Buchanan for those claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tehran Conference would have to be expanded quite a bit to use Buchanan without creating an undue weight issue. Right now there aren't any reactions or alternative views sections. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Whois

Is the result of a whois query a reliable source for an article on a website? --John (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, imho. The results of a dynamic query are by definition not a published source. Dlabtot (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. A HTML query is dynamic, too. However this would be a good time to use the "retreived on" field in the citation, and in the article body have something like "As of 2009, whois lists the site owner as..."

If it's for uncontroversial information like the location of a website to fill out an infobox, that's fine. But if it's for something likely to be challenged, such as the owner of a controversial website, you would want a source that's verifiable to an archive somewhere.

You also want to consider whether the information is relevant to the article. For instance, in an article about an underground press organization, the location might be important to show that it's beyond the reach of the authorities in the countries it covers. However, is the location of the registrar important, or is the location of the server ( try something like Netcraft, which shows the netblock owner ) important? Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not likely to be relevant to the article, but that isn't the query here. Very time sensitive, websites can change hosts quite readily, and the sorts of websites where this question would produce data relevant to the article are especially likely to change sites - so any reference should be date specific, not merely year specific. However, how would using this not be original research, probably via synthesis? Even accepting the result as reliable, you can't engage in synthesis. GRBerry 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a statement of the form "on date X, website Y was registered by Z" could be considered synthesis. I have trouble with verifiability (whois only answers questions of the form "who has registered website Y now". On the other hand, this is public knowledge - it's even built into the infrastructure of the Internet. On the third hand, if the fact is notable, there should be a third-party RS for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Whois data is not published anywhere so how could it possibly be considered a published source? Dlabtot (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... not sure about that. Isn't Whois data published every time someone accesses the site and runs a querry? It isn't published in the same way a dead tree source is published, but it is "disseminated to the public" which is essentially the same thing (just as the airing of a TV program is equated with publishing). Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to take this as a qualified "yes" to my question above which was what I thought. A whois query is a reliable source for the location of the registration for a website, with the usual qualifications about access date etc. --John (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There's still a question of whether it's relevant to an article (besides the lingering concerns about verifiability). For example, which jurisdiction the registrar or the physical server is located in would be appropriate in articles about Indymedia or the Pirate Bay. Registry creation dates might be important to other articles. But for most websites, unless we're about to start adding hosting details to an infobox, it would just be trivia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Source for Michael Moore's birthplace

The birth place of Michael Moore is a topic of dispute, particularly as it pertains to his critics, who assert that he was not born in the blue-collar town of Flint, Michigan, as Moore has often asserted, but in the more affluent Flint suburb of Davison. Among them are David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke, who assert Davison as his birthplace in their 2004 book, Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man, and provide this as their source. Is it reliable? Normally, one would just cite Hardy and Clarke's book, but since this is a controversial point, the sources provided in such controversies is more relevant, I think. Nightscream (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd need more than an online faq to dispute someone's birthplace. Do they have a copy of the long form birth certificate? ;) Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think both claims are incorrect. The cited reference for Moore's birthplace being Flint is his movie Pets or Meat: The Return To Flint, wherein Moore states that he was born at St. Joseph's Hospital in Flint. But St. Joseph's (now Genesys East Flint Campus) is actually located in the suburb of Burton, at 1460 Center Rd. Burton, MI 48509-1429. So he was born in Burton, Michigan, raised in Davison, Michigan but both are suburbs of Flint, Michigan. L0b0t (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Working from the current location of a hospital is original research, as the physical campus can relocate. I don't know whether or not this one has. GRBerry 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

According to editor Flintmichigan, St. Joseph Hospital was located in Flint. The new hospital is located in Grand Blanc. Dynablaster (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The main Genesys location is Grand Blanc. There is also a Genesys East Flint Campus at the former St. Joe's in Burton. L0b0t (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My initial inclination is to doubt the reliability of both sources in this case. This issue has been discussed many times before. I looked through the archives of Talk:Michael Moore. I found two linked to sources that are unquestionably reliable by our standards: the New York Times biography of him, and the encyclopedia Encarta. The New York Times lists in its header "Birthplace: Flint, Michigan, USA" but in its text says "Michael Moore was born in 1954 in Davison, MI, a suburb of Flint". Encarta says "Moore was born in Davison, a suburb of Flint, Michigan.". Absent a reputable historian that has examined the birth certificate and published his findings, the article should probably reflect these sources. It may not be necessary to mention the dispute at all; Davidson is indeed a suburb of Flint and it is common to reference nearby large cities in saying where one is from. A geneaologist insists on precision in birthplaces, ordinary discourse does not. GRBerry 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I take your point but disagree about the originality of my research. All I did was refer to Flint, Michigan, which tells us that St. Joseph's Hospital is now part of the Genesys Health System and called Genesys East Flint Campus (the address for which is readily available through any number of means). Regardless, you have cited two great sources that say Davison. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a little late but I should point out that "birthplace" in vital statistics usually means the town where one's parents were resident at the time of birth, not the town the hospital was located in. If there's any doubt, you could say someone was "born in year X to Mr and Mrs Y of Shelbyville, a suburb of Capital City", and if there was an interest in the hospital, say if the hospital was located someplace distant, interesting, or it was part of a question of citizenship, then "at Springfield Hospital, Springfield" could be included. And let's not create a false dichotomy around "Flint". In the US ( except California for some reason ) it's common for people to say theyre from the nearest large city. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Village Voice Editorial "Swift Boat Swill"

The article Winter Soldier Investigation cites and quotes an editorial from the Village Voice entitled "Swift Boat Swill." Doesn't this article violate the NPOV criteria? It certainly contains misleading information, leaving out highly relevant information from the primary sources it claims to research (specifically, that the interviewees were unwilling or unable to provide corroborating information except in one case out of 46). Gustnado (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard, where we engage in discussions about the reliability of sources. This is not the NPOV noticeboard, where they engage in discussions about the application of WP:NPOV in articles. I doubt that anyone would dispute that the Village Voice editorial page is a reliable source for reporting on the editorial opinion of the Village Voice. Dlabtot (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is my (limited) understanding that WP:NPOVN contains only discussions about NPOV issues on Misplaced Pages pages, and not about sources. Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. WP:NPOV is a policy on Misplaced Pages. It helps guide us as to how to write Misplaced Pages articles. It is not in any way relevant in judging whether a source is considered reliable for a particular citation. In fact we expect sources to express, not a neutral point of view, but a 'single' point of view, and it is by describing those points of view, where significant and verifiable, that we write a good article. Dlabtot (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If the only source has a 'single' POV that is a strong POV, how does one achieve accuracy?

It appears the paragraph in question is the second to last of the subsection "Verification of participants' credibility", which begins "According to Army reports compiled by the Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and later reported by the Village Voice following declassification,...". The citation is actually to the fifth paragraph on the second page of the article , so a link to the second page should be used, not a link to the first page. The two page thingy is described as a "Feature" in the "News" section, not as an editorial. So this is not a source for the Village Voice's editorial opinion; it either is or is not a reliable source for facts. The author is "Nicholas Turse", who wrote exactly one other feature for VV.. So he is not a regular writer for them. At the end of the other 2004 article he was described as "a doctoral candidate at the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and a regular contributor to the Nation Institute's tomdispatch.com.". Initially, there is no reason to believe that a doctoral candidate in a school of Public Health is an expert historical scholar. Yet it would appear that he is this fellow (self-published bio) biomedexperts publication analysis. So despite pursuing his PhD degree in a school of public health, he holds himself out to the public as an expert on U.S. war crimes. Your mileage may vary, but I'd tend to think of him as marginally reliable. It may be possible to find a superior source that discusses those documents, in which case use the better source. GRBerry 13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Village Voice does have editorial oversight and they found him reliable as an expert on that topic, and plenty of other sources find the Village Voice reliable. Certainly someone can be an expert on a topic other than what they get a degree in, and I think that someone with a doctorate from the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health could very reasonably have studied war crimes, as the History and Ethics part is spot on and Public Health certainly overlaps the area in question. Different people can all be experts on the same topic despite having taken different routes toward knowledge. History of crimes, war or otherwise, can be picked up through history, criminology, sociology, a journalism focus on that area and so forth. I don't see any reason to doubt this individual's reliability. DreamGuy (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(Note, I indented the responses above for formatting reasons) Does Village Voice's "editorial oversight" extend to validating strongly POV articles, or just straight reporting. Is this an NPOV article by a reporter, or, more likely, a POV article by a partisan? Although this is a "feature article," the pejorative nature of the title is clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, which leaves the remainder of the article suspect (regardless of whether one agrees with the sentiment expressed).

There are at least two reasons to doubt the reliability in the relevant area: strongly POV title of the article, which is not a hallmark of a reliable source; and, the content of primary source documents. Photocopies of CID primary source documents exist which call the reliability of this article, in the relevant section, into question. Specifically, my counting of the results in the individual documents shows that of the 46 investigated, 6 could not be located, 25 refused to provide information, 10 backtracked on or renounced their claims, 6 caused subsequent investigations which found no corroboration, and 1 provided information which resulted in an ongoing investigation and eventual validation. Editors are welcome to go to the source link and read the photocopies, as I did. They are summarized here for convenience.

However, the primary documents exist (online) only as photocopies on a partisan site (WinterSoldier.com), referenced by a WinterSoldier.com produced summary page. I believe this leaves two possibilities: (1) the photocopies have been altered (this would be easy to detect and is hence unlikely); (2) the photocopies show the Village Voice article, in the relevant area, to be insufficiently complete at best and strongly POV at worst - in either case, not reliable for this issue. Note that the original documents should be available by FOIA but it isn't clear how physical possession of such documents would be helpful in this on-line world Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You overlooked the 3rd possibility: (3) wintersoldier.com, a propaganda site that does not meet Misplaced Pages's standards as a reliable source, has created "summaries" of those government files that are subtly inaccurate. Therefore, the partisan-produced summaries of the government documents conflict with the findings of the Village Voice article based upon those same documents, which is presumed to have some degree of accuracy. I don't believe an eye-grabbing headline (a trademark of VV) throws the news article into disrepute. As strictly a matter of reliable sourcing by Misplaced Pages's standards, The Village Voice qualifies and the "wintersoldier.com" website does not. As a matter of accuracy (beyond the scope of this noticeboard), a brief cursory glance at your partisan non-RS website shows me numerous misrepresentations contained in their summaries. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The VV article looks reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of the documents was related only to the photocopies on wintersoldier.com, not their summary. Each item in the summary provides a link to the document itself. Editors can judge for themselves, not whether the documents sustain wintersoldier.com's summaries, but rather facts that are contradictory to the summary in the VV. The document show that only one of those investigated was willing or able to provide information which led to verification of claims (the documents show further investigation warranted, history shows that investigation substantiated the allegations); that many refused to cooperate with the congressionally ordered investigation; and, that some had made claims at WSI that were more extreme than what they made in interviews described in the documents (such as claiming knowledge that was actually hearsay). The link is above. Gustnado (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quack Dlabtot (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago-style pizza

This source "How to Eat Like a Chicagoan," by a professional restaurant critic and published at Chicago's Restaurant Guide keeps getting removed from the Chicago-style pizza by an anonymous editor. Could more people take a look at it. The issue is the claim that some people in Chicago refer to thin-crust pizza as flat, which is supported in the article, as opposed to the counter claim that the phrase is never used. Shsilver (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The original URL www.chicagorestaurant.com has become a redirect to a site that at first glance is different. Without digging into the history of the changes, I can't use the current site to validate reliability. I'm tentatively inclined to consider it reliable, however I don't see how it supports the claim. The page says "You can get plenty of thin-crust, flat pizza here, but Chicagoans treat that as a type of canapé ..." and "Some misguided old South Siders may try to kid you that the “real” pizza of Chicago is greasy flat stuff with a cardboardlike crust, but the true Chicago-style pizza began ...". Both are in the second/third paragraph, the last one before individual restaurant listings begin. The page does not use the word flat anywhere else. I don't see any way this paragraph, can support an article claim "There is also a thin-crust pizza unique to Chicago, generally described as such, but sometimes referred to as "flat" pizza", no matter how reliable the source is. It says nothing about the thin-crust pizza being in anyway unique to Chicago (and square cut is not a sign of uniqueness, I've seen it in restaurants copying specific Italian regions and in generic restaurants elsewhere. Assuming for the moment that the source is reliable, it doesn't support the claim that you were trying to support with it. GRBerry 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you except for the placement of the comma. Coming before the word "here" it would support your reading, but coming after the word here, it turns, "flat pizza here" into a single clause (as in, "called flat pizza here." The comma is placed where it was in the original non-electronic printing (which I have sitting next to me and, although it isn't sourceable, the same author does make the argument that it is called "flat pizza" on the talk page under her wikipedia handle.Shsilver (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree because of placement of a more important comma. "Thin-crust" and "flat" have a comma between them. If "flat pizza" were a name/noun phrase, there should not be a comma after "thin-crust". There is, and there is no excuse for it if thin-crust is an adjective describing the thing known as "flat pizza", because a comma should never separate a final adjective from a noun or noun phrase. However, two coordinate adjectives, when used before a noun, are supposed to have a comma between them. (See The Chicago Manual of Style, this detailed explanation, or even Comma#Between adjectives, as well as plenty of online manual of style explanations.) The comma between "thin-crust" and "flat" indicates "flat pizza" is not being used as a name, flat is just one of two coordinate adjectives modifying "pizza", and thus that "flat, thin-crust pizza" would have been equally valid in that sentence. If you want to claim that the entirety is a naming phrase, then your equivalent phrase would be "called thin-crust, flat pizza here", and that can't support a claim of "called flat pizza" in our article. From this source the second use of the word flat is in the phrase "greasy flat stuff" - arguing from it you might conclude that it is called "flat stuff" (because as two adjectives to not have a comma the phrase probably should be in the order "flat greasy stuff", since flat describes shape and greasy describes condition and cumulative adjectices are usually in the order size, shape, condition/age, color, origin, material), but you can't get to called "flat pizza" from "flat stuff". You need better sourcing. GRBerry 04:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with GRBerry. At best, the sources used are at best ambiguous... What is needed is a source that clearly uses the word "flat" as a name for this pizza style. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thirded. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Geographic map of Israel

The geographical map of Israel of this article is misleading and it should be replaced as it includes the West Bank and the Golan Heights as part of Israel. This is contrary to the international law as those territories were acquired by war.

This principle was stated in the UN resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 which states: “...the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...”.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement

The presented map should be changed with a new one showing the Golan Heights and West Bank as foreign occupied territories as correcly indicated for the Gaza Strip.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giacintomodena (talk • contribs)

Which article are your referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This query is the first contribution of the querying account. At this time, there is nothing to do here. GRBerry 15:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The user making this request has replied on their user page. The article referred to is Migdal, Israel, and the map in question is File:Israel_outline_north_haifa.png. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops...yes he has a point. The West Bank has been absorbed and it's being used in many pages. I'll drop a note at WP:IPCOLL. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ok. The image is a split image at two map scales. The image is used in 33 articles, including this one. The left hand panel uses three colors for land, a white for Isreal, a pale yellow for the West Bank and the Golan Heights, and grey for other countries. The white/pale yellow difference can be hard to see, depending on monitor settings (very washed out on my default settings), but is definitely there when examined. There is also a thin grey line between the two. There is no text in the left panel.

The right hand panel is a larger scale of just the northern portion. It has the same color differentiation and also includes the label "Golan Heights" (in a font more prominent than that used for towns/cities) across the Golan Heights region. A label for the West Bank would be at least 90% off this map, and thus is reasonably omitted.

I conclude that the requester's desired change is already largely present in the map, as there are color differences and a label. It might be better to use colors that are easier to see the difference between, but I know my monitor settings are different from most peoples so I don't know if this is a significant issue.

It might be a good idea to standardize colors somewhere, somehow. If we have ever had a centralized discussion somewhere about what color means what and what should be used in maps, I personally would not be aware of it, the maps I see day to day around here don't show evidence of standardized colors, the examples at Template:Location map/doc don't use standardized colors. I conclude that we don't today have standardized colors with standardized meanings. If such a task were to be tackled, it would be a major project. I can't even recommend who to talk with that might be interested in such a project, so I don't know where to recommend that Giacintomodena go next. Since many of the maps are over at Commons, it is likely to be somewhere there. Perhaps the author of this particular map might be of help, his Commons talk page is here, while his local talk page is here. GRBerry 18:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so...we dont have maps showing a country's territory if the territory was gained through war....ok, so California can only be shown on a map of Mexico and not the United States then. Israel is the only soveriegn state over the Golan Heights, "West Bank" (which is not the official term for that territory btw), and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority is not a state. It administers it in a similar way in which Greenland has self-rule within being a part of Denmark. You win something in war its yours. When did the US decide to give Spain back Guam or Puerto Rico? When did the UK give Gibraltar back to Spain? More recently when has China given back territory won from India in the early 1970s? I'm sorry, maybe I missed the part about "we dont show maps that show territory won by Jews in a war", which is what this proposal on here is really about. After 1948 maps everywhere showed the "west bank" as an integral part of Jordan (formerly Transjordan) and the Gaza Strip as part of Egypt. Those nations lost, and both have renounced their claims on those territories, claims that were in fact legitimate at that time, they have both signed treaties with Israel. No other nation claim those territories. They are not in dispute with a legitimate recognized state. They are within the borders of what is defended by the State of Israel. Treat the maps as such and do not bow down to the anti-semites who find their way here and try one thing after another to push down Jews and their state.Camelbinky (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already posted a note at the IPCOLL article issues page. It must be changed to clearly differentiate between internationally recognised Israeli, Palestinian and Syrian territories. I'm sure it will be dealt with in due course. This is a no brainer. Misplaced Pages can't use maps like this that either accidentally or deliberately present a position that doesn't comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV unless they are in articles where they are specifically used to illustrate the opinion of the vanishingly small, fringe minority who holds these views (which doesn't include either the Supreme Court of Israel(HCJ) or the majority of Israelis let alone the international community etc). Sean.hoyland - talk 08:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fringe", ha! Um, the Golan Heights, as opposed to the "west bank" and Gaza Strip have in fact been ANNEXED by the State of Israel and are an integral part of the nation. This is not fringe theory thank you. The "west bank" and Gaza Strip are not claimed by any other nation. The PLO and Palestinian Authority and Hamas are not states, they are not sovereign, the agreements Israel signed giving the PA authority over the territories made that explicitly clear that Israel still has defence rights over that territory. If you are going to insist on this ridiculous claim that Misplaced Pages must not show one view over another on maps of territory, I expect you to support me now as I go to every single country's pages and demand that their maps be neutral as well. The Kuril Islands now can not be shown as being Russia's instead of Japan's even though since 1945 Russia has administered it, Japan still claims it. Gibraltar can not be shown as UK territory, The Amur River can not be shown as the border between China and Russia as neither recognizes it and both claim land on both sides. Border between Vietnam and China has to be shown as not determined because both nations claim different borders. Most of at least one province of India can not be shown as India's because since 1970's China has occupied the territory by force. Goa was conquered by India in the 1970's, similar in situation to Israel's war that lead to it gaining the west bank and Gaza, so why is it ok that India gets to occupy land gotten in war, but Israel cant even get that land shown on a map? Oh, yea, because Israel is a state created for Jews. I keep forgetting that double standard in world history applies here on Misplaced Pages too. I'll stop posting on this subject because just as in the UN and other organizations, Jews are outnumbered and majority decisions can be influenced by anti-semites and pro-Arab/Muslim individuals. Just remember one thing- the reason the UN has anti-Israeli "occupied territory" rulings is because of blatant anti-Jewish/Zionist positions by the Soviet Union and the over 50 Arab/Muslim countries, just as they were able to get rammed through at an international woman's rights summit in China about a decade ago an official statement declaring Zionism to be one of the most dangerous things in the world facing women's rights. Just because a large number of countries dont like a border it doesnt effect the situation on the ground and who won the war (or in this case won every single one of the many wars, if you lose then dont cry about you losing and get the territory back because you suck at war but are good at propaganda and terrorism. Misplaced Pages caving into showing maps of the land as something it isnt, is only encouraging the propoganda of the Palestinian side it isnt being neutral to show maps declaring their side to be accurate.Camelbinky (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad nobody ever sticks up for Israel on the Misplaced Pages. head.. desk. But that said it's appropriate to mark disputed territories such as Kashmir in a separate color, while the boundaries themselves should show the current reality. Remember that part of being a country is that other countries recognize you as a separate state and send diplomats to you. If some countries don't recognize Israel and/or send envoys to the Palestinian Territories instead that can be reflected on our maps, but in terms of color, not lines. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the aviation web site a reliable source for the history of WWII?

Some editor used the site to draw a conclusion on independence or non-independence of certain countries during WWII. Can that site be used as a reliable source for general (non related to aviation) WWII history?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say no. After all, we don't know what they are basing their claims on.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears you are referencing the discussion at Talk:Allies of World War II#Tuva removed. The claim in question is not stated in prose, but appears through reading the article section headers to be a claim that "Tuva was an independent country and joined the Allies of World War II on 25 June 1941." I'd refuse to draw a conclusion based on that source, as it doesn't seem sufficiently reliable to conclude, but between that source and Tuvan People's Republic (itself with sub-par sourcing), there is certainly room to doubt the claim as expressed in prose. I'd say that the {{fact}} tag the other editor wants in the article is appropriate until better sourcing turns up. It also quite possible when reasonable sourcing turns up that the conclusion will be that Tuva was not an independent state in 1941. The issue is functionally parallel to that for Mongolia - the real question is whether it was an independent state or not. (I note that editors at Participants in World War II have chosen to discuss Mongolia but not to even mention Tuva. Current status would seem inconsistent between these two articles.) GRBerry 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Another problematic entry is Free France]. Free France was not a country and it should be removed form the list. France is already listed as an original Allie. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Butch-femme.com

At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Slut Night (2nd nomination) there's a question of whether Butch-femme.com is a reliable source for Slut Night which it promotes and seems to have founded. My first reaction to the question was "Just look at it," but that might be viewed as impolite, so I thought I'd ask you folks. Smallbones (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an independent source so it doesn't apply for purposes of determining notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The primary issue with reliability sources is claim specific - is a source X reliable for claim Y in article Z. Undoubtedly, the site is reliable for some claims in some articles. (Whether it should be used in those articles is not our specialty here.) There are parts of the site that are definitely not reliable for this topic - e.g. the forums, personals, shopping pages, and chat areas. Other pages may be, so we have to review page by page and supported claim by claim.

However, you are raising this in the context of an AFD. So even before we get to the specific RS issues, I have to highlight the issue of independence that has already been mentioned therein. If the website and the concept/event are not independent, then even if the sourcing is reliable it will do nothing to show notability. So for the purpose of the AFD, editors need it to be both reliable and independent.

I'll list the individual pages used in the article in current order.

1 is used to support the claim "Slut Night is the name for butch-femme social gatherings—mainly for self-identified dykes". This post-header text of the webpage begins "Hints to help you carry on the Slut Night tradition... plus tips on advertising your event on this web site." A purpose of the page is to drive usage of the website, which ranks it pretty darn low on the reliability scale. In addition, the closest it comes to supporting this claim is "The premise of traditional Slut Night involves Femmes dressing up (or over-dressing or under-dressing) in their most risque, daring, diva drag." This page is not a reliable source for this claim, and is not a good source for anything.

2a is used to support the claim "online networking which has brought on the "the golden age for Butch-Femme culture."" The page says "Because of computers, today is the golden age for Butch-Femme culture." The quote is accurate. The site is probably a reasonable source for claiming that, but it is a quotation that should be attributed in the article text.

2b (same page) is also used to support the claim "In 1995, Texas-based Butch-Femme.com was created becoming "home to the first Butch-Femme-specific personals" and a few years later the first registered domain dedicated to butches and femmes." For this claim, this page is a self-published source. The page could be used in an article about butch-femme.com, but not about an independent subject. Even then it shouldn't be used for self-promoting claims such as "first". For this article, for this claim, either A) this is not an independent but not reliable source or B) this is a non-independent source that doesn't demonstrate notability and doesn't support peacock terms like "first".

3 is used to support the claim that SN was born at social started by the website. Again, for AFD purposes this is a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't situation. I'd tend to credit the source as reliable for the author of the page believing it, and thus for a claim about it being their opinion, but also as definitively not independent. Which means that it doesn't show notability.

4 is used to support the claim that "Slut Nights are usually informally called for and in regular rotation with Femmes and Butches United (FABU) chapters organizing them as needed to "bridge the chasm of cyberspace."" It is not a reliable source for this claim, as the phrasings "informally called for" and "regular rotation" both can't be supported. The quotation is from the lead sentence "One of the most special aspects of an online community is the way in which its members find to bridge the chasm of cyberspace and meet "in real time."". This sentence is not at all supported by this page regardless of whether the page is reliable.

5 is used to support the claim that "The original San Francisco/Oakland outing was quickly followed by Slut Night events in New York City and Portland, Oregon." I'd say that the page is reliable enough to support a claim that "There was a Slut Night in Portland, Oregon." (The page only supports a date for when planning began, not for when it happened.) It doesn't support any of the rest of the current sentence, so can't be used to support that sentence regardless of whether the page is reliable.

All in all, in three (1, 4, 5) of the six usages the page does not support the claim it is attached to, so the question of reliability of the source is not reached. In two (2b and 3) the page is either not independent or not reliable, so it doesn't support the article at AFD. In only one (2a) is the page clearly reliable, though slightly misused, and that is for the claim that computers/online networking caused/brought on "the golden age for Butch-Femme culture." That claim has nothing to do with Slut Night. As far as supporting the article to survive AFD goes, this source fails completely. If it can be kept solely because of other sources, 2b and 3 might be useful if and only if SN is not independent of the site. GRBerry 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

'Viewpoint' section of European Journal of Public Health: RS or opinion?

A question has been raised, can this article (entitled "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?") appearing in the 'viewpoint' section of the European Journal of Public Health be considered a RS or is it better considered an opinion piece and RS only for the purposes of establishing the opinion of the author? Editors wish to use this to establish encyclopaedically the meaning of the term "denialism" as used in "climate change denialism", "AIDS denialism", "denialism" generally, and so forth. See Talk:climate change denial. Thanks for your attention. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like opinion to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's the expert opinion of Martin McKee, who is basing the paper on his own views and those of many other published papers on denialism in respect to climate, AIDS, the Holocaust, tobacco, and so on. It's also published in a peer reviewed journal of some standing. Denialism is a concept much used in the modern world, with >100K Google hits, although it has not made it into most dictionaries, even if it is in the Wiktionary. ► RATEL ◄ 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, I also believe that it would only be RS for establishing the opinion of the author, and the article itself should state, "According to expert McKee, ...". Ratel is, of course, the other editor involved in the dispute and I did ask very nicely if we could leave our disagreement at the Talk:climate change denial, but no... anyway... any other views? (By the way, 100K hits is nothing, Ratel; try 'Paris Hilton'). Alex Harvey (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would I do a web search for a hotel? ► RATEL ◄ 11:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it illegal to use this?

Currently trying to expand the Damien Rice article and have been gathering sources. But I have run into this problem, one article in particular would allow me to verify alot of history about his early years, but unfortunatley it's behind a paywall here and so unacceptable. However I have found a copy of the article here though it's obviously just been copied across by someone who had access. Just wondering would it be wrong to use this secondary website as a source considering it probably shouldn't have these interviews posted on their website?
Regards, --RavensFists (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You are free to use a pay article if it helps and is a reliable source. Add (fee for article) before the </ref> ending.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, --RavensFists (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Third party materials on rickross.com

A debate on talk: Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse is centring around whether or not newspaper articles not available on line (through age), but cited in full on rickross.com can be trusted as genuine. Obviously, if they can, the newspaper article itself can be the citation, not rickross.com. For example: here.

As I pointed out on the talk page there, a couple of books published by an academic publishing house refer to his website as a cult information website and use it as an RS source. This book describes him as "an internationally recognized cult expert", again by an academic imprint (John Wiley and sons).

Is this enough to consider the articles genuine?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought this had been discusssed before and that we don't use ross's site as a reliable source. He clearly has an anti cult position and unless we can find the articles elsewhere then they are unsupported.There are also plenty of citations where ross's credentials as "an internationally recognized cult expert" are disputed.Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, you say the articles on Ross's site are cited in full and with accuracy. How can we know that? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the citations for the article are heavily reliant on the ross archives, apart from that there is little to support verifiability or notability. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Just use LexisNexis, Newsbank, Westlaw, Infotrac, Google News, or any other research database archive, and cite the source itself. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea. agreed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And remember that things do not need to be on the internet to be reliable or verifiable... If these old newspaper articles are from standard newspapers, then they are probably available at any large public library... either in hard copy or archived on microfilm. If so, then they are verifiable. You can cite the newspaper article directly without linking to rickross.com. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cirt - if you open the link I gave to the article, you'll see it's British and won't come up on the American search engines you gave and that I can access. In any case, as I wrote, the problem is that the article (and others like it) is not available on the internet at the newspaper's site, as it's before the paper went on-line. Off2riorob - the whole point of posting here is to ask for opinions about whether the rick ross website can be trusted as a repository of third party sources, so I don't understand the point you're making.

Blueboar, I appreciate your answer. I am in no position to check the newspaper article, as I am about 8000 miles from the nearest British public library, and am not going to lie and claim I checked it. The question is, can I just go ahead and cite the newspaper article, presuming the rick ross institute won't have faked it?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• You can cite the newspaper article directly without linking to rickross.com. Off2riorob, is this an acceptable compromise?? -o0pandora0o (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

@VsevolodKrolikov (talk · contribs) - Other libraries near you may have access to these articles. Just ask your friendly local librarian. :) Cirt (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I live in Japan. I doubt they take the Daily Express in a library near me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they have access to databases that do. Have you tried? Cirt (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but I *seriously* have grave doubts they would, and I don't fancy the three hours it might take finding out they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VsevolodKrolikov (talk • contribs)

Well, perhaps you can find a friendly fellow Wikipedian who lives in England who would be willing to check the source for you. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is well established that sources not available online can be used. So if an editor has physical copies of the articles that they know are complete and accurate, and can produce full citations then the sources can be used. (Incidentally, {{cite news}} is an excellent tool for formatting a full citation.) Because the posting editor has used the actual original source, the citation is to the original source. If there is also an online copy that the editor has verified is the same, then a convenience link can also be added. The link is then for the convenience of readers and other editors. In this case, the reliability of the site hosting the copy is not at issue, because they are not the source of the edit. However, there is another rule that applies - we do not link to copyright violations. The disclaimer page at rickross.com basically states flat out that they don't have copyright rights for much of what they are hosting copies of, and that copyright holders can request removal. On this basis, we shouldn't use convenience links to rickross.com copies of reliable source news articles. But the original news articles will remain reliable, and an editor that has looked at them can cite them with no link anywhere, or a link to an article behind a paywall. GRBerry 02:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, this is very helpful. I have attempted to use convenience links in a proposed edit on the talk page. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Links have been added

Please have a look and comment if the way the links have been inserted is correct for wikipedia. The cites link to ross's site claiming that that site is a internet archive? The actual article has still not been referenced or seen. The ross site is still the actual reference point. Please see and comment, the page is hereThanks Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've just scanned most of one article from the actual physical newspaper for comparison. From "Lives Crippled in God's Name" on Rick Ross, we have: The top of the newspaper and beginning of articles, showing date and name of newspaper. Moving down, for continuity, and the beginning of the article. Bottom of this page of the article. Continued.. Continued upper left Continued upper right Continued lower left Continued lower right Sorry it's all chopped up like that, but that last bit extended across the entire page and my scanner isn't that big. Oh wait, there's more! It goes onto another page... Shall I scan that in, as well? It's across the entire page as well and will be chopped up again.. - o0pandora0o (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to scan them... just check to see if the original is identical to what is posted at rickross.com... if so, then you can cite the original, and link to the copy at rickross.com as a convenience link ... the citation would go something like this: <ref>News Article Title, Newspaper Name, Date, Page. (convenince link at: )</ref> Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that the editor above who complained that "the actual article has still not been referenced or seen" still claims this despite scans being linked to one article (so far) on the talk page. Another technique for a separate article (which is accessing a subscription newspaper through its snippet search results for sample checking of accuracy (several separate chunks, which come out 100% accurate)) is also rejected out of hand by the same user. What should be done in such a situation?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob has been a thorn in the side of this article and is moving for deletion based on the idea that the articles at Rick Ross aren't genuine because Ross' site is anti-cult. I had to scan at least one article to prove that they are. Please see the discussion page for the article. I had similar convenience links, but Rob took them all out. I feel like Sisyphus or something. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement for anybody here to be scanning articles. If the source is cited, then the onus is now on the person who doesn't like the cite to get to a library. I also second the idea of looking for excerpts in news archive searches, and sometimes those results make good convenience links even if theyre to a paywall.

As far as providing convenience or archive links to a third party website there's a couple things we need to look at. The big one is copyright; is it likely that the articles were reprinted with permission? For example a corporation's "in the news page" with a reprint of a news article is probably done with permission, and is OK to link to. A news article pasted into an online forum is probably not. Neither would be a fansite with a collection of articles under an overbroad pronouncement of "fair use" or "if you're the copyright owner you can contact me to take these down".

I can't seem to reach the site in question, but unless it's using language similar to described above, it sounds like a professional's site and similar to a corporation, it's likely that permission was obtained to reprint. The other issue of course is accuracy, but the author and site have reputation and have been cited in academic journals. If this was an individual making a claim the moon landings were fake then there would be a question, but this looks fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohio State Sentinel for pokemon article

This source in support of this statement "In a The Ohio State Sentinel point-counterpoint, Matthew Thomas Gross felt that Charmander is superior to Bulbasaur, saying Bulbasaur has "shown evidence of sloth and laziness," and has lower speed rating than Charmander. In contrast, Clark Helmsley feels that Bulbasaur is superior, noting that it is higher in four of the six main Pokemon statistics (HP, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense). Helmsley also feels that Bulbasaur's loyalty is more important than Charmander's ability to evolve into the powerful Charizard." It has been pointed out they have satire articles, which have been categorized as commentary sometimes. See . Is the pokemon article reliable for an article on Bulbasaur? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They also have regular news articles, and commentary articles that are pretty normal.. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Pokemon, but this article reads like one of those satires that say outrageous things in purpose to anger people without a sense of humour?? At most a joke article full of inside jokes that I can't catch, or a parody of those fans who have endless in-universe discussions about which is the better pokemon.

Things like (in page 2) "(...) everybody knows that HP is the most important statistical category we have for evaluating Pokemon" or "my data comes from the National Pokedex, not from one of the lesser regional Pokedexes. The National Pokedex is recognized as the most authoritative source of information on Pokemon" or (in page 1) "Bulbasaur have a shown evidence of sloth and laziness. The official speed rating for Bulbasaur is 45, which is below average, (...) Bulbasaur, you see, is too lazy to move at a reasonable speed. (...) 'Bulbasaur can be seen napping in bright sunlight.' It goes without saying that any Pokemon who sleeps during the day is hardly dependable." or "Just last week, I completed a full thesis on the virtues of Bulbasaur versus Squirtle, and now I have to do it all over again, but with stupid Charmander." --Enric Naval (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is written in a tounge in cheek type of way. The only untruth I think is the thesis part, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Pokémon/Bulbasaur, right? If the editors in the pokemon wikiproject have independently checked that they got all the facts right, then I suppose that there is no problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what they say, since I'm not a Pokemon expert. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard

At Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, there are some hearsay statements of one of her accused kidnappers, Nancy Garrido, being woven into the article. The statements are second or third hand and border on sensationalism in my view. In particular, regardless of how reliable a media source is, I don't think controversial statements by her against her husband - a co-defendant - are really to be considered "reliable". There's some discussion on the talk page, and an accusation of 3RR against me (which may not apply because of WP:BLP). Policy-based input would be appreciated; probably the best place is at the article's talk page.  Frank  |  talk  14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues are outside the scope of this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

religionandspirituality.com

This site takes articles from anyone who cares to email them in (see http://religionandspirituality.com/write_for_us/) but has been used as a key source site for several articles including biographical pages. In particular:

• Sananda (New Age) uses this site as its only source,
• Anita Revel uses this site twice,
• Joshua David Stone uses this site as a key reference.

Due to the lack of clear editorial control over article submissions and consequent website publication, I do not believe this site meets the requirements of WP:BLP or more generally WP:RS and would like some third party confirmation or rejection of my view before removing it as a source from these articles.

The relevant terms of the website are under http://religionandspirituality.com/terms/ where it states "You understand that R&S does not control and is not responsible for any Postings on the website". —Ash (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction was to say that this was not reliable.... but looking deeper this is another case of "it depends"... where we need to look at specifics and not make broad sweeping statements. The key here is that the policies of the website mean that the various essays posted on it can be considered self-published. We allow self-published material in BLPs when the material is self-published by the subject of the article (for example, we would allow a citation to the subject's own blog). But not when self-published by another. So, for example, since the citation to the website at Anita Revel points to something authored by Anita Revel, it can probably be considered reliable for a statement as to her opinion. On the other hand the article cited on the Sandana and at Stone articles does not seem to be authored by the subject of the article, so I would probably not consider it reliable. In other words... It depends on the author, the connection the author has to the subject of the Wikipeida article in question, and how you word the statement that the citation is being used to support (statement of fact vs statement of opinion). Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps my straightforward rule in this case is to apply WP:SELFPUB where the author is the subject of a BLP, and consider it a failure of WP:RS in all other cases (as I can't think of another exception as to why WP:RS would not guide us to remove such references).—Ash (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand... I will also note that these citations are essentially being used to support trivial stuff like a date of death or membership in an orgainzation. Unless there is controversy over this information, I would say that this is stuff that does not really need to be cited at all. But I think you get the jist of what I was saying ... examine who wrote the article at religionandspirituality.com ... and look at exactly what is being supported by the citation. Then use good judgement, applying all of our policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alger Hiss

Editors regularly contributing to the article on Alger Hiss are currently engaged in a discussion which may require a formal dispute resolution. I have been asked to suggest reliable sources for research on Hiss.

I consider the following persons to be reliable sources on the Hiss controversy:

• Kai Bird, Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian.
• Svetlana Chervonnaya, historian who has collaborated with Kai Bird on research on the Hiss case.
• D.D. Guttenplan, historian and contributor to The Nation magazine.
• Jeff Kisseloff , author and historian.
• Victor Navasky, Columbia University Professor and publisher emeritus of the The Nation magazine.
• Dmitri Volkogonov, Doctor of History, who performed extensive research on the Hiss case with the assistance of General Julius Kobyakov.

Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please move this up to the other Alger Hiss thread, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#sources_for_whether_Alger_Hiss_was_a_spy_or_not. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl

In a content dispute Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl has been removed pr not a WP:RS, WP:Fringe & WP:UNDUE from an article. Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant part of the talk page is Talk:Communist_genocide#Sources_that_failed_verification_or_acceptable_sourcing_standards_for_their_claimsVsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant article is Communist genocide

The full citation is Nathaniel Weyl "Aristocide as a Force in History," Intercollegiate Review 1967: 237-245. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is a very biased source, and any facts where it is used as a source should make it clear that the source is conservative. Taemyr (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see how this can be considered reliable, and I doubt that Weyl of is sufficient importance to be notable enough to include despite his unreliability. Paul B (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Weyl has an article on Misplaced Pages, so the community clearly has found him notable enough for Misplaced Pages purposes. The question is if his opinions can be removed from Misplaced Pages in case he has something to say about the subject?--Termer (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Having an article does not automatically make his opinion notable on any specific subject. Paul B (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I quote, "Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fifelfoo What seems to be the problem? I shouldn't clarify what exactly am I asking? Again, the question is either the removal done by you can be justified pr WP:RS like you did? Comments on Weyl's WP:notability do not answer the question.--Termer (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I quote, "Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way, the reason I'm interested in third opinions only is because I already know what your opinion is. There is no need to repeat it, I got it at the first time when you said it. But in case you insist, and this really bothers you that I ask questions here, feel free to add your opinion once more if you like.--Termer (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is your opinion should not be involved here, and that you are interrogating 3rd parties and putting your opinion to them argumentatively. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weyl appears to be a biased source, and Intercollegiate Review does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, it appears clear the the source is not a Reliable Source in general, although it may be considered reliable as either the viewpoint of Weyl or of Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the body that sponsors Intercollegiate Review. LK (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Peer-reviewed helps, but isn't required. What's being cited is not controversial; most of the citation block is about the well-known purges in Soviet history, and that could be cited to other sources if this general knowledge even needs a citation. Then the citation block could be something like "Author used the term "aristocide" to refer to the various purges..." Really an undue weight issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Church of Satan - churchofsatan.com

This website is used as an unqualified reliable source in a number of articles and BLPs including:

• Jack Donovan
• Theistic Satanism
• Reginald Bretnor
• Giosuè Carducci
• Marc Almond

The site has various documents and guides for members, none of which seems to contain a clear editorial policy or standard terms of use for the website. The site is not an open forum or a blog/wiki but there are processes for members to publish publicly available articles on the site and add links to other (uncontrolled) sites, for example http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SIGARTLST.html and http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SETI.html (two of the special interest groups).

Pages on the site have been quoted in Misplaced Pages articles as if they were reliable sources (not just copies of the text from other reliable sources) or as if the text were an extract from a published Journal (which as original writing for the website they are not). I may have overlooked something here but if the site doesn't make it as a reliable source I would like a clear rationale for removing such references as any source in the area of religious topics is likely to be contentious (with the obvious exception of authors writing about themselves or celebrity interviews; WP:SPS then applies).—Ash (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Jack Donovan, there is only one cite to the CoS, it is this section: Jack Donovan#Affiliation with the Church of Satan. The cite is to a press release from CoS announcing that Donovan (a CoS spokesperson) had resigned from the CoS; the cite to CoS is backed up by a 2nd cite to the subject's website also announcing his resignation from the CoS. No problem with that article. Checking others now. L0b0t (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The link in the reference is to http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html which in fact does not mention Donovan at all, so appears out of date - please read it before declaring it as okay here.—Ash (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And you should read the cite. As is clearly stated on the cite itself, the information is in the "news" section (scroll down the page about half-way) and it a press release announcing Donovan's departure. L0b0t (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, found it eventually. I'd say it was about 15% of the way down the page and entitled "REV. 'JACK MALEBRANCHE' RESIGNS FROM CHURCH OF SATAN" (rather than Donovan), just a bit hard to find from the reference given.—Ash (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Giosuè Carducci contains no mention of CoS, no cite to CoS, and no EL to CoS so I'm not really sure why it is listed here. L0b0t (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/RMCarducci.html in EL.—Ash (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that one. It is an EL and is not germane to this discussion page. L0b0t (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc Almond contains only 1 cite to CoS, a courtesy link to subject's autobiography where subject details his involvement with CoS (subject's book is also cited as a source). L0b0t (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reginald Bretnor contains only 1 cite to CoS, again a courtesy link, to the book The Church Of Satan: A History of the World's Most Notorious Religion (ISBN 978-0962328626) by Blanche Barton, a history of LaVey's organization. L0b0t (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of the reference. This is a web citation, not a book citation. It links to http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/CShistory2MC.html which in turn mentions the book "The Church of Satan" as further reading at the end of the web article. The text of the web article referenced should be the facts under review, not the book which is mentioned in passing.—Ash (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The CoS website section that is cited contains an excerpt from the book itself. You are welcome to change the template to a {{cite book}} if it bothers you that much. L0b0t (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes it bothers me because it is not an extract and was never a simple book citation. The article actually states that it is "condensed from" and "with supplemental material". This makes the text original rather than an extract.—Ash (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So far, all of the articles listed, with the exception of Theistic Satanism, seem to be appropriate uses of the CoS cite. Theistic Satanism however, is a mess. Most of the sources look inappropriate (blogs, opinion pieces, and the like) and could use the attention of some editors more familiar with the subject than I. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Office Open XML support claims

I have an argument about the sourcing of information regarding organizations supporting the Office Open XML file format in the Office Open XML article. An editor keeps removing fully sourced information (at least 20 removals of the information by now) on very obvious supporting organizations like the "Open XML Formats Developer Group" and the "Open XML Community". This is an example of such an removal edit http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=prev&oldid=314061479 This editor current argument for that removal is that the information is not allowed because of WP:SELFPUB sources/references. However WP:SELFPUB does allow reference by organization on themselves provided that those references are providing objective information. And things like the number of members of an organization or the listed goal/mission statement of an organization can be objective read on the site of an organization and referenced as such. It is not unduly serfserving if an organization that is created for supporting development around a file format states on it's site that it does exactly that.

Also the removed information contains quite a few third party references like:

http://blogs.msdn.com/nzisv/archive/2007/06/19/open-xml-community-site.aspx

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/microsoft-says-support-open-xml-growing-036

http://www.infoworld.com/%5Bprimary-term-alias-prefix%5D/%5Bprimary-term%5D/microsoft-escalates-odf-fight-openxml-group-483

http://unweary.com/2006/03/apple-an-openxml-developer.html

http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/development/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=183701603

http://www.macworld.co.uk/procreative/news/index.cfm?newsid=16697&pagtype=allchandate

I have reverted these continouos removal edits quite a few times and have asked for mediation (but no mediator has come forward).

I am really desperate for outside opinion on the issue. Could anyone provide opinion on the sourcing of the material in dispute ? hAl (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Office Open XML#Advice and offer for meditation and Talk:Office Open XML#'Support' by Microsoft-run websites for some background. --Nigelj (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably reliable, but this looks like a contentious debate over what "free" means in free software and what "support" means by vendors. Way to much to sort out here, maybe you should ask an opinion at one of the computing Wikiprojects. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I already tried to ask for mediation on the wikiproject page weeks ago but noone responded. hAl (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dana Press

Would the Dana Foundation Press be a suitable source for medical articles? Would it be a suitable source for commentary from a psychiatrist on a controversial proposed syndrome? I'm thinking of Try to remember by Paul R. McHugh on the satanic ritual abuse and false memory syndrome pages. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike a university press or an entity like SAGE Publications where it's clearly identified as a research and scientific press, this is a private foundation with interests in scientific subjects. I don't know it's reputation, history and reliability. Could I use books published by them as a WP:MEDRS? Can the claims found in books published by them be treated and used as freely as those found in a review article in Scienc? The areas this book discusses are pretty controversial and touch on medical, psychiatric and scientific topics so it'd be nice to know beforehand whether it should be treated with kid gloves or can be used substantially without concern. I'd be happier if it could be used freely, but I'd rather know before doing so in a lot of pages. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is mis-stated. What you should be asking is: "Is Dana Foundation Press" a reputable publisher? We don't really judge reliability based on the publisher, but rather on the individual publication (and to a lesser extent on the reputation of the author) A publisher might publish one book that is solidly reliable, and another that is completely unreliable.

In this case, I see no indication that Dana Foundation Press wouldn't qualify as a reputable publisher. We certainly should not exclude sources simply because they were published by Dana. On the other hand... this is not to say that every thing they publish is reliable. Even reputable publishers can publish unreliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet some press are clearly reliable, correct? If it's a scholarly or university press with a policy of peer review of all publications? I'm asking in the abstract, I had always treated the publisher as the primary source of reliability and university press as sacrosanct. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 10:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Tibor Kozma - is a pamphlet a source?

There’s a small dispute on this article regarding the nationality of this conductor. An editor provided a source, but I don’t agree it can be considered as such. The source is a “Biographical pamphlet of Tibor Kozma at the Tibor Kozma Library at Indiana University” which I think is vague and doesn’t meet the criteria of verifiability. Please visit Talk:Tibor Kozma. Can that be considered a source? Thank you for your time and your help.--Karljoos (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's in the Indiana University library, it's probably reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree - good enough as an RS for a fact.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Math by an undergrad at Tea Party protests

My question: Is this http://www.scribd.com/doc/19743935/The-Real-Number-of-Protesters-Zac-Moilanen considered a legitimate source to provide a counterbalance to other, lower numbers, since no official count of the protesters has been made? The math and the sources look correct to me, but I am being told that I cannot use it. Js2849 (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Scribd document is a self-published source by a non-expert, and hence not acceptable as a a source on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Among the references used for the SPS are "Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum", "President Hussein's 2012 Resignation: A historical Prediction", WorldNetDaily, and YouTube. APK say that you love me 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a RS, and it's quite likely plain wrong - the maths is one thing, but there are so many other assumptions that it's plain worthless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Chaosmatrix.org occult library

This site is used as a reference source in a number of articles relating to the occult and religion and is a personal website (registered to Matthew Ewing) that has been set up as an on-line occult/magic/chaos magick library. Not all the texts have a clear copyright status or attribution or dates or original source attribution and some are copies of informal emails where relevant text has been pasted within them.

Examples of usage:

• Chaos magic
• Illuminates of Thanateros
• Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth

As the site itself makes no warranty for the validity of the copies of texts it makes available and is not currently maintained (based on the home page announcement), it does not appear to be sufficiently independent or reliable to use as a reference site. An independent view would help with the rationale to retain or remove these references.—Ash (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source, so it can't be overused. These are the criteria for a reliable source of this kind:

1. The material cited is not unduly self-serving;

   It doesn't look like it is.

2. It does not involve claims about third parties;

   Haven't investigated but on first glance no.

3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

   Haven't investigated but on first glance no.

4. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity;

   Don't think there is.

5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

   None of your articles appear to be, except maybe Illuminates of Thanateros.

It appears to be a reasonably reliable primary source.--Patton123 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Citing a source that requires payment

This seems questionable. I have to pay to check a reference and if I remove the referenceas unreliable due to payment requirement it's put back with the claim that the guideline is for external links only. Isn't an inline citiation with a link to an offsite webpage external link?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

External links and references are not the same thing. External links are general information pages, put at the bottom of the article. References may often cost money to check - books for example, or subscription journals.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Using a reference that is not available online for free, is not a problem at all. Often the highest quality references (books, academic journals) fall in such a category. It is not ok to remove such references, unless you are confident that they are fraudulent or being misrepresented. If you believe that a particular reference, which you don't have access to, is dubious request the concerned editor for a quote and further details on the talk page, ask at WP:LIBRARY, WP:Refdesk, or even here and someone may be able to look it up. Abecedare (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I actualy just reverted it, so I will self revert it back with an apology, though for clarity, could someone explain the precise difference between a website reference which requires an online payment and a book that has to be purchased. It seems to me that the security risk alone would make it something to disuade, as well as produce a promotional effect to a news organization which requires payment for the full news story. I have an odd since of right and wrong I guess.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• There isn't really a difference between having to buy a book (or journal access) and having to pay for lexis nexis. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Well there really is a difference but if you don't want to discuss it I can understand, this is probably the wrong place for that anyway. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We are not promoting a news source or journal when we link to their website; we are just crediting them for spending resources on the actual reporting and writing that we (as a tertiary source) rely on, and telling the reader where to look in order to find further details. It would be unethical, and arguably illegal, to use their labor without credit, and a disservice to our readers to not provide a link if one is available - even if it requires payment. This is no different from our expecting that people who quote wikipedia articles at least acknowledge the source (as required by CC-BY-SA and GFDL) and ideally link to it. Abecedare (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) What's the difference as far as we are concerned? I'm not sure where you get the impression I don't want to discuss it. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • madsci, are you referring to content that can only be obtained via internet and must be paid for? That might be a problem but is fortunately quite rare. In actual fact, you can verify most content for free by visiting your local library (or using our own WP:LIBRARY). If any source, webware or treeware, is pay-only we would prefer to replace it with a freely available source. Ultimately though, we trust our editors who have paid the money to accurately report what they have read. As noted, you can always ask the editor to provide quotations to back up their assertions on what is in the source. Franamax (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's possible to contact the author(s) of a particular text and ask for confirmation of a quote.  Cs32en  08:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This came up fairly recently. It is customary to add (fee for article) at the end of the ref. Aside from that, there is not much you can do. I've written several FA's about Nixon's early career, and much of that involved LA Times, NY Times, Wash Post articles not available for free online, but certainly available by visiting a library that has the paper on microfilm. A free source would be preferable, but is very often not possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd be unlikely to produce a quality encyclopedia if we limited our sources to those that are available online for free. Dlabtot (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Usually when I cite newspaper articles whose only online copies are behind for-pay barriers I just give the details that I have for the print article and omit any url. On the other hand for academic journal articles I do usually include a link, because that still would allow large numbers of Misplaced Pages readers to find the articles for no additional cost by using their employer's or their local university library's site license for the content. That all seems to me a reasonable balance between properly citing our sources and not promoting for-pay sites, but I'd welcome contrary opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Daily Pioneer / Sandhya Jain

I don't believe that legal commentary by this author is reliable, based on this article:

"Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do. That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy; Mr George W Bush granted the latest extension, and no amendment has been mooted to end this mockery of Black citizenship."

A cursory glance at the Voting Rights Act demonstrates how remarkably out of touch this author is with reality.

The article was published two months ago, and has not yet been corrected. Bhimaji (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Radiantenergy:

• Please read the quote again it only says - "That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy" - this is not a wrong statement. If she had said "George W Bush extended for 10 years then it would have been a wrong statement. In 2006 George W Bush decided to extend this Act for 25 years.
• Secondly there was opposition from the Republicans in 2006 against renewing the 'Voting Rights Act of 1965'. What's this act? This Act outlawed the discriminatory voting practices on African Americans in the United States and its provisions prevented limited voting discriminations in the South. If George Bush didn't extend this act in 2006 it then there would have been discriminatory voting practices in the South. After 25 years there will be another round of debate about this act and it will be up to the President at that time to renew this act again.
• I don't see there is anything wrong in what Sandhya Jain reported above. Whether we agree or not this Act pretty much decides on the voting priviledge rights of the Black Americans living in the South. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The act precludes descriminatory measures on racial grounds. It would equally outlaw discrimination against whites if there were a black majority in a jurisdiction. It does not justify the claim that whites have a legally automatic right, but non-whites do not. Indeed the concept of an "automatic" right for any group is nonsensical. In theory, in the future any law might be passed changing voting rights. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How does this act helps Black Citizens and why is it so important to African Americans?

• The Fifteenth Amendment prevented states from denying citizens the right to vote based on race. However this legislative act prevents states from enforcing discriminatory tactics aimed at preventing minorities fair opportunities to participate in the voting process. Earlier there were variety of ill-conceived tricks. Such was the “grandfather clause.” One had to descend from citizens who had the right to vote, which meant, in most cases, former slaves and their descendants couldn’t vote. Some states continued to disenfranchise blacks by requiring literacy tests.
• This Act protected citizens' right to vote primarily by forbidding covered states from using tests of any kind (like literacy tests) to determine eligibility to vote, by requiring these states to obtain federal approval before enacting any election laws, and by assigning federal officials to monitor the registration process in certain localities. Congress has amended the Act several times since 1965 to include other ethnic groups under its coverage.
• Pretty much this act re-enfranchised black southerners, helping elect African Americans at the local, state, and national levels. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Just a note, the quotation from the Daily Pioneer above is wrong in almost every detail. (1) The United States' black adult citizens do have an automatic right to vote on the same basis as white adult citizens under the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution since 1870. However, the problem was that this right was openly violated by some states and localities until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (2) The Voting Rights Act contains provisions requiring certain states and localities to "pre-clear" changes to their election laws or policies with the Justice Department or a Federal court. These provisions are subject to expiration and renewal, and have been renewed several times, most recently for 25 years (not for 10 years). However, even if they were not renewed, black people would still have the right to vote. Other provisions of the Voting Rights Act are permanent and do not require periodic renewal. (3) The decision to renew the pre-clearance provisions is not made by the president unilaterally; it requires a regular act of Congress. (4) John F. Kennedy was not directly involved in the Voting Rights Act; it passed in 1965, almost two years after he was assassinated. Lyndon Johnson was the president who signed it into law. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient context. What do you want us to do? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This concerns the article Sathya Sai Baba, an Indian guru of disputed respectability. The Pioneer is a source used to include material defending Baba, which some editors want to remove. The source to be included is different from the one quoted here, which is unrelated to the Baba article and which is unly mentioned here to suggest that the journalist Sandhya Jain is not very reliable. Paul B (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, too late at night, forgot to include the link to this article.

I highlighted the voting rights act "confusion" because, quite honestly, I don't think that a source with such non-existent fact checking and editorial control should be part of Misplaced Pages. Bhimaji (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jain's writing is listed under op-ed. It represents her own opinions and the opinions of the Pioneer. It is not a work of factual journalism. It cannot be relied upon for facts outside of Jain's own mind.

Usage a, "However neither Sai Baba nor any organisation associated with him has been charged or implicated for sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly, and that reputable media agencies and independent journalists have not been able to confirm a single instance of sexual abuse linked to Sai Baba or his organisations." is a copyvio of the article quoted. Sandya jain (as the by-line is) in the article "Move to malign Sai Baba fails" is giving editorial opinion, not journalism. Usage a cannot be substantiated. The commentary and copyvio should be removed. Check entire article for copy vios from jain's article.

Usage b is factual, and can't be substantiated from an editorial.

Usage c is acceptable: fact of the matter is jain's commentary.

Usage d is contradictory: a withdrawn suit does not result in trial. Useage d goes to facts. Unacceptable as facts from an editorial.

Usage e is OR fantasy and lies, should be deleted as not substantiated in the source, even though the source is not RS for international law or US law.

Usage f is an incorrect use. Cite directly the papers involved.

Finally, the source is misformatted as a citation and appears incorrectly.

Source is only an RS for the opinion of Pioneer and Sandya jain. Source is not-SR for: facts of the case (its an op-ed), international law. All footnote subletters correct as of 08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) diff read: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=314635012

Comments from Radiantenergy:

Bhimaji, did not present the facts correctly. He started with another article totally unrelated to the Sathya Sai Baba article by Sandhya Jain and about a totally different subject. I would like to clarify on a few things here.

• The Daily Pioneer article used in the Sathya Sai Baba article is this - http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html.
• The 'Daily Pioneer' article is mainly centered around the 'Alaya Rahm case filed in the Superior Court Of California in 2006'.
• This was already discussed in detail in the WP:RS for a week and conclusions were made by reputed wikipedians about the 'Daily PIoneer' article and the 'Alaya Rahm case'. Here's the link to the earlier WP:RS discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question.

• It was a very long discussion between 4 experienced outside wikipedians who looked at the 'Alaya Rahm case covered in the Daily Pioneer article and the BBC documentary' for almost a week.
• It was concluded in that WP:RS discussion that the above 'Daily Pioneer' article related to the 'Alaya Rahm case' is reliable sourced. The above 'Daily Pioneer' has important refutations to 'Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba'.
• It was concluded in the WP:RS that 'The Daily Pioneer' article must be included in the Sathya Sai Baba article and removing it will be a violation of BLP.
• I don't see the point in discussing the same material that has already been discussed in detail for a week in the WP:RS board earlier and on which conclusions were already made. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Pioneer article reported that the Alaya Rahm case was dropped. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. The article stated that there has been no charges of any kind against Sai Baba. This is a fact not an opinion. Most of the article is reporting not opinion.Sbs108 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• This Reliable Source notice board is for finding if a source is reliable or not from other outside wikipedians. In this case this source 'Daily Pioneer' had already been discussed for a week in the WP:RS board by 4 experienced wikipedians. This source was declared as reliable. I think there is no point in continuing this discussion about the same material which has already been dealt in detail. This only causes more confusion to the editors. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I presented an example of factual inaccuracies from this source. Yes, the articles were on different subjects. So what? We're talking about the reliability of the source. I am arguing that Jain is not a reliable source. Articles on different subjects are completely relevant - if Jain is inaccurate about one topic, why should we trust articles on another subject? Bhimaji (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

This bot thing found the website that has the content that I'm using in the article I've created. This is not a copyright infringement, which I can prove IF there warning notice provided some instruction on how to go about doing so!!

Misplaced Pages is unbearably convoluted; although it's a great concept in theory I understand now why it doesn't work in practice. I AM TIRED OF GOING IN CIRCLES.

If there is a way to prove that this is not copyright infringement please tell me. The page I'm referring to is called 'Megaregions'.

Thank you

I'm sorry you had to put up with that. For every dude who posts content that belongs to him (and is even willing to grant liberal permissions for its use), there are like ten thousand others who plagiarize. Anyways, if you can demonstrate that you own the content and are willing to license it under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA), you can email permissions-en wikimedia.org stating so. @harej 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick question www.ar-15.us

Is www.ar-15.us a reliable source? I only want to use it to show the rifling twist rate.--Patton123 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mushgi "reference"

This article is up for deletion. Besides the wikipedia article and a link to it, there are exactly two mentions of this "game" online, one is a youtube video of some drunks in Kentucky yelling at each other, and the other is on a novelist's site. It has been asserted on the afd that the novelist's site is both a reliable source and the one sentence there is enough to establish the game as notable and verifiable enough to merit an article. I do not think so. I find the assertion that one sentence articles can be created/copied from a single random mention online to be disturbing to say the least. I would appreciate it if other people took a look and offered their opinion on the reliability/notability/verifiability of the source and basing an article entirely on that one sentence source. 2005 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source, on the AFD it was pointed out the site was written by an anthropologist with expertise on Mongolia. However, a single source is not enough to justify notability. I suggested at the AFD that the article be redirected to Culture of Mongolia which had a brief and unsourced mention of the game. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

350 (organisation)

I went through this article and removed some of the "references" that did not support the text, self-published sources, blogs, social networking sites, and press releases. I was reverted without comment. I'd appreciate if an uninvolved editor could look at a few of these sources and comment. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinel on Rifqa Bary. She wants to be a prophet

The article in question here is on the topic of Rifqa Bary and all the controversy over her conversion and custody. I have found some sources which contain block buster information. These are the websites of news papers, they are not opinion pieces. One declares Fathima Rifqa Bary: Rifqa's personal writings indicate she wants to be a prophet Rene Stutzman and Amy L. Edwards Sentinel Staff Writers 12:14 a.m. EDT, September 17, 2009. They are not the only ones reporting this. It has been picked up at least by the desert news But they re relying on the reporting of the Sentinel.

My question is should we run with these sources or should we wait? Wait for some kind of independent forensic examination of the writings to be sure they are hers and not written after the fact to make her look batsh_t crazy, loco, cattywampus. Though I would not write that conclusion, what else would the majority of our casual readers conclude? She is a living person after all so WP:BLP rules apply. What say you all?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Neverwinter Nights 2 Vault

Hi- I was wondering if I could get some more input on a number of references used in Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate, before taking it to FAC. Specifically: , , and . My feeling is that most of NWN2Vault is unreliable because it is user-contributed content, but the first of these seems to be an official press release or the like (so it would be a primary source, but not otherwise an unreliable one), and the latter two are interviews with the game's designers which appear to have been conducted by the site's operators or somesuch, but I'm not positive. Here again, what the game designers said is probably primary but reliable. However, before going to FAC and then having this come up, I was wondering if I could get some feedback beforehand. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Source in Oscar Wilde

See Talk:Oscar_Wilde#Maynard for the discussion that led here.

Oscar Wilde has been on my watch list for a long time (both because he is an LGBT writer and because I'm generally a fan of his). I just popped in from a long wikibreak and discovered that an editor's sourced additions to the article were reversed with the comment that "this article is not a reliable source".

I was curious, so I checked out the source in question. It's published in a collection of essays from a very reputable academic press (Blackwell). The article's author is John Maynard. After a quick Google search, I found that Maynard is a professor at NYU with a rather impressive CV in the field of Victorian literature (of which Wilde is a part).

Confused at the dismissive tone of User:Ottava Rima's talk page post, I commented that we shouldn't so blithely condemn the article as "non academic" and I expressed surprise that Ottava Rima would act so disrespectfully to what seems to be a notable academic. You can see the talk page to see how the discussion went (i.e. not well). I made no edits to the actual article, as I felt that would probably just devolve into an unproductive edit war.

The question I want to ask here is this: Ottava Rima seems of the very strong impression that s/he can dismiss this article as reliable based upon disagreeing its content. From what I remember of my tenure here long ago, we cannot simply dismiss such an academic source without referring to other reliable sources which would argue the point. In other words, editors are not allowed to make evaluations of the content of sources that come from reputable, peer reviewed presses.

I have seen piles of utter crap in published articles before, but I always thought that the standard on the Wiki was to counter those articles with other reputable sources which discuss the topic. Editors cannot simply rule on the content of sources by their own fiat (unless, in my opinion, they have some sort of credentials, but even THAT is not policy!). Whatever shape the final article takes, dismissing peer reviewed sources is dangerous at best. --CaveatLector 21:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The source appears fine to me, I'm not sure what ottava rima's problem with this is. I have placed a note on the talk page to say this is being discussed here. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The source lacks references. 2. The source only mentions Wilde in passing. 3. The source presents a fringe point of view. 4. The writer is not an expert in Wilde studies. These four things show that the source cannot be used in the matter attempted (in order to declare that Oscar Wilde was a pederast). As I stated, find the material in an actual Wilde biography by an expert who studied the matter and then it could be added. Otherwise, this source fails the requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, you do this repeatedly, and will argue unrelentingly that an author is not acceptable because you, OR, (OR by initials, OR by nature) think so, rather than because the author is a problem. I see nothing remarkable or problematic in John Maynard's statements. They are simply a summary of established knowledge. That is the nature of companion books of this kind. Established experts contribute. As for the assertion that Oscar Wilde was a pederast, that's hardly in dispute by anyone. I am by profession a Victorianist. Paul B (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Established knowledge? Please, find a source for that. You cannot just make things up. He had no source for his statement. If you can't find it in a Wilde biography, why are you even claiming it is established? Come on, at least pretend to have some intellectual integrity before arguing for the inclusion of a source. There is no legitimate way to claim that -that- source represents common or majority view, and guess what? If it did, you would use the -other- sources. Either way, your argument has no merits and your pushing it is disturbing. "that's hardly in dispute by anyone" That is a pure fabrication and it is disturbing that you would claim such. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

John Maynard's CV looks fairly authoritative to me. What is the issue with citing his opinion in the article? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So, would a physicist be able to speak on engineering simply because they are close? That CV proves that he has -nothing- on Oscar Wilde. At least two of them are collections of essays, which further undermines his statement as an expert. The section is not about opinion furthermore. Plus WP:FRINGE states that only -notable- opinions are included. His opinion is not notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is fine. I do not have to find a source, since this board is about determining the value of specific sources. This specific source is fine. Your arguments are spurious. The absence of footnotes in the source has no bearing on its reliability. Wilde is mentioned in the context of a discussion of the relevant issue. The source does not present a fringe point of view, but a mainstream one. There is in practice no such thing as "Wilde studies"; there are studies of various aspects of nineteenth century culture, including literature, social attitudes etc in which Wilde's life and work are implicated. For example, an expert on Wilde's verse may well be less qualified than an expert on the sexual underworld at the time to comment on his sexual behaviour. Paul B (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW we do not expect a reliable source to "find a source" either. Nor do we accuse them of making things up just because we feel like it. Paul B (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how WP:FRINGE works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you do. BTW, I am a regular contributor to the relevant board. Paul B (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What is fringe about Wilde being homosexual or a pederast?

• "Creating the Sensual Child: Paterian Aesthetics, Pederasty, and Oscar Wilde's Fairy Tales" by Naomi Wood in Marvels & Tales, Volume 16, Number 2, 2002, pp. 156-170
• Michael Matthew Kaylor, Secreted Desires: The Major Uranians: Hopkins, Pater and Wilde (2006)

Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And please don't dismiss legitimate biographers as an "expert on verse". This individual has not proven themself an expert on -any- aspect of Wilde. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has done so. Your misrepresentations are as plain as day. I gave an illustration of a general point about the nature of sourcing and expertise. Paul B (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Maynard is an established expert on Victorian literature and sexuality in the same. That should be good enough for Misplaced Pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If Ottava Rima can produce sources that disagree with Maynard then please do so. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And lets not forget that " thought of himself as in a tradition fostered by Greek pederastic love, expressed guilt for his same-sex acts/desires." is the statement in question. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not how Fringe works. You must prove that it is the dominant view. There are dozens of biographies. You have to prove that the reliable biographies that are recognized by critics do view it as a dominant theme. Maynard is not an established expert on Wilde. He may be an expert on -Browning-, but that does not make him an expert on Wilde. The fact that you would try and claim such shows that you don't understand the field. It is clear that there are three people who aren't respecting the rules. You guys go to push this forward and I will ask AN for blocks for pushing such nonsense. Respect the rules or stop. It is clear that the source for reliable info on Wilde's biography comes from Wilde biographies. The fact that none of you seem willing to stick with them is really telling that you are not here to improve the page. My record in the articles on the field verifies my knowledge. I even have an FA on a biography of a Victorian individual that was related with pederasty. That shows that I know what I am talking about. So stop the nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution