Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134

Archive 130

←

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

→

Archive 140

The Pirate Bay is said in wiki-voice that it is an commercial website

Claim 0. The pirate bay is an commercial website. (written in the infobox). The current source to support that claim is this quote: "The ruling, which was harsher than many expected here, including the four who were convicted, stated that The Pirate Bay (TPB) founders were guilty of "extensive infringement of copyright law … in a commercial and organized form," said Thomas Nordström, chairman of the Stockholm district court". The quality of the source has been disputed for several days of discussion.

Today, additional sourced was provided: abcnews, law.com, and huffingtonpost.com. They state (in a identical copied section in each article): "Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling. The defendants have denied any commercial motives behind the site.".

Those sources looks verifiable about Judge Tomas Norstrom statement of how the court worked out the sentence, but is it enough as an source for the claimed text that says authoritivly that the site run today commercially? I am avoiding include the whole discussion from the talk page of the pirate bay article into here, but a insight of the reliability of the sources above would be interesting for the discussion and could help find a working solution to the dispute. Belorn (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A widely-reported court finding that the website is "commercially driven" appears to be a reliable source for such a claim. The site owners' denial of this needs to be taken with a fair amount of salt given its adverse legal implications for them. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Transparency is a major problem. TPB operators said the site was non-commercial but Swedish authorities discovered that Carl Lundström was channelling profits overseas to avoid honest accounting.^[1] They also solicited revenue from businesses that gained an unfair advantage by promoting their services on a popular website that distributed copyrighted works for free. The defense collapsed under careful examination of personal records and e-mails.^[2] We have no solid information who maintains TPB today or exactly where the site is hosted, yet Peter Sunde remains oddly confident that TPB will remain the worlds most resilient filesharing website that authorities will never be able to stop.I agree it would not be sensible to give both sides equal weight. — ThePowerofX 12:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So is the claim that "the pirate bay is an commercial website" (with no attribution to whom said it) verifiable and supported by those 3 sources? yes? no? Belorn (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Addtionally, if people have time, the following claims and sources would be interesting to hear an opinion on if they qualify as an reliable sources for the said claims. The above sources are closer to the heart of the dispute, but the below ones could also help in finding a solution.

Claim 1: The pirate bay has been described as an non-profit torrent sites.

"The Pirate Bay is the largest of several torrent sites that operate on a nonprofit basis and do not provide copyright materials, but provide means to find them." - dailytech.com published 2008.

"Adoption of this approach would make it easier for the record industry to sue music file sharers and for officials to shut down non-commercial BitTorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay." - [http://w.networkinsight.org/verve/_resources/Record_CPRF08.pdf#page=372 ISBN 978-0-9804344-1-5 ] published 2008.

"A clause in the agreement(ACTA) allows governments to shut down websites associated with non-commercial copyright infringement, which was termed “the Pirate Bay killer” in the media has allegedly been removed." - independentsentinel.com published 2012.

"The ACTA is a paragraph which clearly stated that the 'non-profit' facilitation of copyrighted material on the Internet now punishable allowed. The Pirate Bay fits this description, as well as many other torrent sites." - pcmweb.nl, translated, published 2012.

All of the Claim 1 claims were made prior to the court ruling and were based upon the claims of the now convicted operators of the site as they were the only primary source.74.108.115.191 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Claim 2: The pirate bay claims that today the site is run by an organisation rather than individuals, though as a non-profit. The organisation is registered in the Seychelles.

"Today the site is run by an organisation rather than individuals, though as a non-profit. The organisation is registered in the Seychelles and can be contacted using the contact form. Using the site is free of charge for individuals however there are some restrictions." - The pirate bay about page , and copyred verbatim by sourcedigit.com

Article dedicated wholly to the question of the validity of pirate bay's claim. - arstechnica.com, published 209.

"Operated by an organization registered in the Seychelles, The Pirate Bay bills itself as the "world's largest tracker of BitTorrent files." " - cnn.com

"The owners of The Pirate Bay are unknown – but courts in the UK and other jurisdictions have moved against the site in spite of this. A Seychelles firm called Reservella Ltd has been claimed to be behind the site, according to the high court judgment handed down by Mr Justice Arnold on Monday, but this is disputed." - The Guardian.

Every single one of those sources has been disputed as not an reliable source for their claim. Belorn (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All of the primary sources for Claim 2 are anonymous. Anonymous is not a reliable resource.74.108.115.191 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The guardian is not Anonymous. The claim is about what the pirate bay has said, not the truth of the statement. Belorn (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact is that there was a dispute over commerciality of the site. But, there was a trial, two appeals, an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court, and all appeals failed. Appeals have been exhausted. There is no longer a legal dispute and it makes no sense to make the claim that commerciality is disputed. The state decides what is and is not commercial, the state made its ruling and there is no cite to suggest that they have reversed the finding. Anonymous sources and defendants sentenced to prison make poor sources. With respect, 74.108.115.191 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The trial was of the individuals concerned. Do you have any evidence that the court made a determination as to whether TPB was a commercial concern or not, or indeed that it was asked to do so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Copying what is posted at the beginning, there is this CNN article which says: "Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was 'commercially driven' when it made the ruling." The "site" would mean the "TPB site," I guess. Of course, TPB could argue today's site, run by a new organization, is different from the one that was earlier run by the convicted individuals. We should probably report their claim as a claim. The court did make a finding the TPB of the past was a commercial concern. Churn and change (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no reliable primary source that the defendants do not continue to own TPB. They have made innumerable false claims about the operation and location of the site in the past, and indeed all testified that they never had much to do with the original site at their trial, and those claims have been repeated by numerous other sites. The court didn't believe them. All statements from TPB are now anonymous; which makes for a poor source. Further, Sweden has not revised its finding that the site is commercial. The court decision stands.74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read this entire section. As quoted above by ABC News "Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A statement that "Pirate Bay claims it is a non-profit" can be cited to their own website. There isn't a WP:RS issue with that, but there could well be a WP:UNDUE issue. A statement that "Pirate Bay is a non-profit" requires far stronger sourcing, especially considering the court ruling. Churn and change (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems sensible to place a much greater emphasis on the findings of the court rather than what the site/it's owners claim about themselves (especially as they'd want to deny commercial motivations in order to minimize legal problems). Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a source that actually says that the court made any such 'finding', or 'court ruling', in any legal sense. The individuals were apparently tried as individuals, and it doesn't appear that the legal status of TPB was actually an issue. In any case, as I previously commented during the discussion at WP:NPOVN, it isn't up to Wikipedia to determine the 'truth' of the matter - where something like this is disputed, we should make this clear, rather than 'determining' one way or another. Incidentally, I'd like to put on record that I have some doubts about the appropriateness of using a source with elipses ("...") in the middle of a quotation for a citation regarding such an important issue. It is not entirely unreasonable to ask what was said between "extensive infringement of copyright law" and "in a commercial and organized form". In most circumstances, one can probably trust a reliable source like the CSM not to distort meanings through such omission, but when one is relying on the quote for assertions of fact in Wikipedia's voice - as the source was being cited for in relation to an infobox statement - it is perhaps better to avoid using such material if possible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

We have a direct quote by Judge Tomas Norström, reported by CNET (no ellipses). — ThePowerofX 08:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean this one? ""The crime has been committed in a commercial and organized form," Judge Tomas Norström said in a Web broadcast from a press conference in Stockholm. ". (ref). Those are ellipses. Belorn (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The wiki-voice claim that "Pirate Bay is a non-profit" is for me as bad as to say that "The pirate bay is for-profit". Same as Andy talks about above, if an reliable source deem that a statement require elipses and inline attribution ("Judge Tomas Norstrom said"), it sound unappropriate for us to remove them and create what was an citation about what a person said to a statement of fact. To that point, is claim 0 then supported by it's sources? second, is claim 1 (even if it only refer to the past) stray to close to the borderline to be supported by it's sources? The best thing I would like to be identified here is what claims of the #0-2 can be verified by their sources, as that would help move the discussion past the "The pirate bay lies!, The court didn't believe them! All statements from TPB are anonymous!, The court decision is only one that matter!" stage of discussion and into the end stage of finding a solution everyone (or at least most) can agree on.. Belorn (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay and its owners/managers aren't reliable sources about themselves on a topic such as this as they're hardly likely to own up to what basically amounts to deliberate and sustained criminality. If the judge ruled that this was a commercial website (under whatever the applicable laws are) as part of the trial and her or his decision hasn't been over-turned on appeal, that opinion has to be accorded a lot of weight (eg, as it's been proven factual in court). If experts in this field (and not random journalists) have commented on the matter their views are also worth discussing in the article. If it's not possible to summarize a contested issue into an infobox field, leave it out. This might be getting beyond the scope of this board, however, and may be better suited to WP:DRN. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"If the judge ruled that this was a commercial website..."? This is the point I've been trying to get over, that some people simply fail to understand. I've seen no source that actually states that the judge was asked to make any such ruling. A ruling is a formal legal statement, in regard to a specific case which requires such a ruling. A comment made by a judge in relation to another issue isn't a ruling. The individuals were tried as individuals. The judge was (as far as the sources cited show) neither required to rule on the commercial status of TPB, nor in any position to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The judge ruled on it because it affected the sentences. In fact, the court appointed a special master to audit the books of TPB. Indeed, the judge specifically stated “that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling.” So, the ruling was dependent on the question of commerciality.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Then show us the source that states that the judge made such a ruling. And no, a statement by a judge isn't in itself a 'ruling' - a judge can only 'rule' on things within the remit of the trial, and nothing we have been shown so far indicates that the judge was asked to rule on the legal commercial status of TPB. If he wasn't asked to, he couldn't have done so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are claiming that a judge cannot look at motive in sentence determination, I don't think you'll get much support for that viewpoint. Profit is clearly a motive. (Clarification edit: was speaking about motives in general, not specific to this case.) In any case, it is for the defense to raise objections in appeal. The defense failed in all appeals. The judge said the site was commercial and the judge in a trial would appear to be a highly reliable source, particularly given that appeals have been exhausted.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

At Copyright you will find a 24 page doc put out by the Swedish Ministry of Justice that briefly describes Swedish copyright. It does not go into full detail. But, it summarizes with the following statement:

“Piracy, i.e. unauthorised copying of protected works and productions on a commercial scale, is a significant problem in many countries, mainly because new technology makes it easier and less expensive to copy music, videos, computer programs, books, etc. For this reason, many countries have increased the penalty for such piracy and have provided customs authorities with greater powers to take action against the import of pirated material.”

That is, the commercial aspect goes into sentencing. Hence the need for the judge to examine the question of commerciality.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. We don't base articles on the opinions of contributors. No source has been provided which states that the judge made any formal legal ruling regarding the commercial status of TPB. Without one his opinions regarding the matter are in no way 'rulings' - and it appears that what he is reported to have said on the matter was said outside of court anyway, where he would be unlikely to 'rule' on anything. Your relentless efforts to twist words to mean things they don't is getting tendentious. Either provide a source that directly states that the courts have made a formal legal ruling regarding the commercial status of TPB, or drop the matter. We aren't going to use imaginary 'rulings' as a basis for article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation that I am twisting words is a violation of [WP:CIV] and ridiculous. And this is clearly not a case of [WP:OR]. The judge in the trial stated that the site was commercial. That is a reliable source that the site was commercial. Here is yet another source from a Swedish newspaper that states “The District Court in Stockholm said the punishment was decided with regards to the fact that the complicity of the defendants had entailed an extensive accessibility-making of other people’s rights. The fact that the activity has been commercial and organised was also taken into account.” The article also quotes passages in the trial on the subject of commerciality. Again, commercialty was, in fact, a part of the trial despite your suggestion that it could not have been.74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ruling is the wrong word. Rather, it was the judgment of the court, based upon the evidence, that TPB had been operating commercially. A judgement was made, a verdict was announced, and the ruling is that they each face a prison sentence and fine. That is sufficient. — ThePowerofX 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Judgement is OK with me.74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That source cited doesn't state that a court ruled that TPB was a commercial enterprise either. It says (if the translation is correct) that individuals had been involved in "commercial and organised" activities. I can't see any objection to Wikipedia saying that in a judgement, the individuals concerned were stated to have been involved in "commercial and organised" behaviour - but we can't cite a source for something it doesn't say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling. (Pardon my use of the word ruling. This is a quote from the USA Today cite.74.108.115.191 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What 'USA Today cite'? Where is this linked - I can't see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's what the Associated Press reported following sentencing.^[3] — ThePowerofX 20:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

'The ruling' was clearly a ruling that the individuals on trial were guilty of contravening Swedish copyright law. It wasn't a ruling that TPB was in itself a commercial organisation. Anyway, I think we've established well enough that the correct way to handle this is to make no assertions in Wikipedia's voice regarding TPB's commercial status, but instead to indicate that opinions differ, and to cite the significant opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Anon IP is correct. It was indeed a finding of the court that TPB was commercially driven. — ThePowerofX 22:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not a 'correction' it is an unsourced assertion, base apparently on your own WP:OR reading of a primary source. WP:PRIMARY is absolutely clear regarding this "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the RS board, as far as I understand, is to determine whether or not a source is reliable under the WP !rules. Reliable sources, to put it very briefly, are sources with a good reputation that are verifiable and on point. You seem to reject every single source. If WP had a time machine and a teleporter, it could enjoy 100% reliability. And there would be no need of an RS Noticeboard. But, we are only human. We have been provided with quite a number of cites now on the assertion that TPB is commercial. The sources are mainstream, reliable resources. We have also seen the Swedish Justice Ministry paper that provides the need for a determination of commerciality in penalty construction in piracy cases, countering your suggestion that the judge had no business in determining commerciality. The actual judge in the case, in a news conference about the case, quoted by mainstream news sources, stated that TPB was commercial. Not the people, the site itself. A long stream of appeals by the defendants all failed. They were sentenced to prison, and the judge stated, and was quoted by numerous sources, as saying the decision was based upon commercial nature.

The crux of this discussion is the commerciality of TPB. The claim is that it is in dispute. All of the onus has been placed on those that simply wish to use the judgment of the state of Sweden rendered by its court system. And, only in the infobox. The prose of the related WP articles already contain dozens of references to the protestations of innocence by the convicted. No demands have been made on those that claim TPB is non-profit. Is there one single, reasonable source, outside of TPB itself or those that echoed TPBs claims prior to the ruling, that supports the claim that TPB was non-profit? An auditor? An accountant? A certificate or declaration of non-profit status? An expert in Swedish non-profit law? A court judgment? Other than the self-serving claim, rejected by the court, is there one single piece of evidence of non-profit status? If not, what is the dispute?

Everything is disputed by somebody, including existence itself. I’m trying to be nice, but if we were to follow your concept of RS, WP would be empty.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Go away and read the policy material I have linked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Conclusions

For clearing up what the consensus is from the above conclusion, please confirm this. (please keep the answer simple so an yes/no can be clearly identified):

Is verifiable: Claim 0: The pirate bay is an commercial website. verifiable by the sources abcnews, cnet, law.com, and huffingtonpost.com.

Is not verifiable: Claim 1: The pirate bay has been described as an non-profit torrent site. dailytech.com, ISBN 978-0-9804344-1-5, independentsentinel.com, and pcmweb.nl.

Is not verifiable: Claim 2: The pirate bay claims that today the site is run by an organisation rather than individuals, though as a non-profit. The organisation is registered in the Seychelles.. The pirate bay about page, sourcedigit.com, cnn.com, and The Guardian.

thanks, Belorn (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

1. It's improper to label Conclusion. Proposed conclusion, non bolded, would have been more appropriate.
2. The bald assertion that "Full Wikivoice" was used to make an assertion is false: the source was cited, therefore it's not the voice of Wikipedia, it's the voice of the source. If one didn't like the cited source, pick another one. Pretty easy, really. If it had not been cited, then it would have been "in wikivoice".
3. Anyways, Claims 0 and 1 (modified with date and attribution) are both unambiguously verifiable by RS, and I think are usable in the prose if properly attributed and put in time context. Claim 2 is not RS V, and needs more concrete assertions in RS, such as "non-profit" or "non-commercial", which I didn't see in the news articles proper.

   Example: "TPB defendants claimed in 2008 (or insert whichever RS sourced year) that it operated as a non-profit(ref)(ref)." The (year) court ruling which (year) appeals court upheld included, according to the judge, "commercial" operation.(ref)(ref) This is a crap example, only to demonstrate attribution and time context.

4. Leave the Commercial= parameter blank in the infobox, since it is intended for completely uncontroversial and unlikely to be contested status only.

Most important: context and proper attribution is crucial to put the words in the sources mouth, not ours. Reported in RS media outlets? Relevant to the dispute? Disputed in public? We can report it here. --Lexein (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it the bold text of the claims, or the bold title? Feel free to modify my above post if anyone want, as my intention is only to get a feel for the discussion consensus, so to figure out if I should drop the discussion, ask if a compromise is acceptable based on what is found here, or ask DNR to sort it all out. as a lingering question, is there anyone who object to what Lexein said above? Belorn (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. The proposed conclusion is realized, in fact, by the status quo. Therefore, I see no reason for any change in the article. Commerciality was deemed important by the editor that originally added the claim that the site was non-profit based on the declarations of the operators. It is just as important now that it has been judged commercial by the courts and the operators sentenced, and therefore, the infobox should continue to say Commercial:Yes as was the consensus long ago. We have seen sources that are mainstream quoting the judge in the trial itself giving his statement that commerciality was a part of the decision in the case, that it applied to the site, and we have seen the document by the Swedish Ministry of Justice attesting to the importance of commerciality in piracy cases. Reliability is strong, and importance is significant. The article already includes many claims by the defense that contradict the finding of guilt. Actually, an unusually large number of such references, probably well above WP:UNDUE acceptability. But, that’s another story. My compliments to the editors that have maintained an article on a highly charged subject.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't work like that. Infoboxes are for uncontroversial assertions of fact. This isn't an uncontroversial 'fact' at all. And please stop citing your own irrelevant [[WP:SYN|synthesis. Anyway, we don't have a reliable source that actually states that the courts have judged TPB 'commercial' so far. All we have is references to a court case concerning individuals infringing copyright - with no mention of any formal decision regarding the commercial status of TPB at all. Unsurprising, since this wasn't what the court was asked to do. Courts only make rulings on the case before them, as far as I'm aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been given the reliable sources several times that contradict both these claims. If you do not consider the judge handling the case and an official document published by the Swedish Ministry of Justice as reliable sources, I see no more reason to bother responding to you.74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Go away and read the policy links I have given you. We don't cite sources for things they don't say. The Swedish courts have made no formal judgement on the commercial nature of TPB, as far as the sources so far presented have shown. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

How about what the judge later said about the ruling, in public, as I (tried to) exemplify above? --Lexein (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Best Things On Earth Request For Comment

Archived discussion is copied here along with additional content and comment

Archived discussion:

This is a request for comment on using the website 'Best Things On Earth' (www.btoe.com) on these pages: Colin Larkin (writer) I wish to include a link in the 'infobox' section of the article. Since it states in the lead section that: Colin Larkin is a British entrepreneur and writer. He was the editor and founder of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, described by The Times as "the standard against which all others must be judged". He is the CEO and editor-in-chief of 'Best Things On Earth' an online multi-media rating site. This fact can be verified at www.btoe.com in the 'About Us' section. All Time Top 1000 Albums I wish to include a link to the "How It Works" section of btoe.com (www.btoe.com/how-it-works) in the article All Time Top 1000 Albums since it states in the Colin Larkin (writer) article that: By 2007, Larkin had begun work on a new website whose original inspiration had come from the All Time Top 1000 Albums, called 1000Greatest.com. This would later become the multi-media rating site and app, Best Things On Earth. In addition, details of how the book All Time Top 1000 Albums and the above website, share a common 'how it works' history are included in the All Time Top 1000 Albums article, since it states that: In 1998, the second edition published by Virgin Books used the continuing votes received over the previous four years. As a result of the publicity garnered by the encyclopaedia and the first edition, Larkin was able to ask for votes during his numerous radio broadcasts for BBC GLR, now BBC London 94.9. He collected 100,000 votes and the 2nd edition sold 38,000 copies. In 1999 Virgin published a smaller pocket edition, followed by a 3rd edition published in 2000, by which time the ongoing poll had reached over 200,000 votes cast....By 2005 the book had run its course and the large number of websites using the Virgin All Time Top 1000 Albums' lists demonstrated that the Internet reflected current opinion more rapidly than any printed book could. In 2008 Larkin co-founded a company to launch a website '1000Greatest.com', which invited the public to express their opinions on Albums, Movies, Novels and Singles. This later became "Best Things On Earth" (or Btoe.com), which would allow users to suggest any topic and vote for the best example of that topic. This can also be verified in the 'About Us' section of www.btoe.com and the 'How It Works Section'. Thanks for your consideration. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment Note that said link is currently blacklisted for spam abuse and that requester writes for the site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New Evidence and Comment

Hi Jamie, I only posted the link where I thought it was relevant. This is a request for whitelisting. Here is further evidence that the above mentioned source is reliable. The website in question is referenced and linked to the named Colin Larkin in this current BBC Entertainment News article published 7.10.12 Chart attack: The Beatles' rivals in 1962. Thanks for your help Pamela Gardiner (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just titling the header as a request for comment...doesn't make it one. And this is not the place to do so. Please make an actual RFC at the Village pump. This noticeboard cannot delist a blacklisted link. That would be an admin or office action, not a matter of consenus from what I understand. If I am incorrect I trust someone will make it clear.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeated request Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_133

Aside from the obvious Spam abuse which resulted in blacklisting and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pamela Gardiner/Archive

• btoe.com Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”

• Wikipedia is not a vehicle to drive traffic to polls

--Hu12 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

== Sorry if this post was in the wrong place, I thought because there was a note on the whitelist page saying request for comment hadn't reached consensus and I was supposed to discuss it here. If that's a mistake I apologise, please advise me where to take the discussion. This wasnt a request to use the above mentioned website anywhere except on the pages concerning its co-founder, ie it is a specific whitelist request. The link I just posted here from the BBC verifies that Colin Larkin is the website founder. This is just a whitelist request to place that website on Colin Larkin's page, because I don't think anything else will describe it better. Not sure how that would count as trying to drive traffic to polls? The website is not a 'self-published source', not sure why anyone would think so. It is a rating site. Thanks Pamela Gardiner (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 18:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

YoungJusticeLegacy.com

I was wondering if www.youngjusticelegacy.com is a valid source of citation for Young Justice (TV series). It has something of a slick look to it, but there doesn't appear to be editorial oversight. As well, the information therein appears to have little provenance or background. I am not sure how to proceed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that you've answered your own question :) It the site doesn't have any editorial oversight, and its unclear what supports its content then its not a reliable source. The website appears to be related to a computer game based on the TV series, but it's unclear it its an official or unofficial site. Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If you click on the "corporate" button at the bottom of the site toward the middle, you can see the site belongs to a company called "Little Orbit" which sells a video game based on the series. The company is a startup (from 2010) and isn't really top-tier (one way to check is to look at the list of investors and see whether there are well-known names there; another is to check the qualifications of the management team). They are probably legit in the sense of having the right licenses etc., but definitely a promotional and non-neutral source, and not a notable one at that. Churn and change (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, although I believe they only have the license for use of one particular subject in their disclaimer.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

ARXIV.ORG paper

ARXIV.ORG paper [4] is used to make the following claim [5].Though apparently the paper is written by scholar there are several problems with this source

1. ARXIV.ORG is preprint archive i.e its not peer reviewed

1. The claim that made by the paper is WP:REDFLAG claim as it clearly goes against mainstream scholarship.For example this paper [6] or this summary[7] by expert in the field.

I think to use those claims in Wikipedia to the very least it should be printed in peer-reviewed journal.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Arxiv has some oversight in that there is a system of weeding out utter junk and only accepting papers from researchers in the field, but, yes, it has no true peer review. Note that even a paper in a source like Nature making this claim can be objected to on the grounds of its being a recent primary source and possibly a one-off result, or its being not interpreted by us non-experts correctly. A controversial paper from arxiv is not a quality source. If this is an article about this specific scholar himself, the paper can, with a lot of care, be included to support a statement that so-and-so said such-and-such. In an article on Ashkenazi Jews, where mentions in reliable secondary sources are plentiful, this, per me, fails both WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Churn and change (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. A single, recent paper, published on a preprint archive with minimal oversight, is not a weighty source. If it becomes published by an established journal and has been evaluated by the larger community, then it might be suitable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Same, there are cases where citing an arXiv preprint may be appropriate, but this is clearly not one of them. a13ean (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Not peer-reviewed. And one gets the impression that the proposed paragraph is based entirely on the article abstract - has the person who wrote it even read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The argument being made above by everyone makes sense. See WP:REDFLAG. In some cases pre-prints are notable enough, or written by someone with enough reputation for reliability or notability, that we could consider a counter argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable people too have their biases, do make mistakes, and need their funding and hence have agendas to push. Preprints at arxiv suffer from these problems even when from Nobel laureates (after all, some Nobel laureates have pushed fringe views sometimes in their own fields of expertise). Peer review and editorial oversight fix some of these issues. Notability alone doesn't mean reliability because of non-technical, political issues which affect everybody including scientists. Still another reason to use secondary sources more. Churn and change (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In general, the type of coverage by reliable sources and citations of the self published source can give an idea of its reliability. (I'm speaking more generally, it doesn't apply in this case due to the red flags) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say the coverage has to be in secondary sources for arxiv papers to be useful except when attributed. Trouble with citations, especially for a preprint from a notable author, may be that the citations might just be refuting the paper (think of a paper on ESP; yes, notable psychologists have published such even in peer-reviewed journals, and drawn rebuttals; the citation count is misleading there). Citation counts also vary with the field, with humanities and non-psychology social sciences less focused on the metric. Also if a paper has been on arxiv long enough for it to garner lots of citations, there is the question of why it wasn't published in the interim. There are some special cases, such as scientists who believe in the arxiv model only, but these may not be numerous. Churn and change (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Funding Universe

I am looking for feedback on the website Funding Universe. Specifically this link was removed from Frank L. VanderSloot's page: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/melaleuca-inc-history/. The website appears to satisfy RS requirements. The articles for E-Trade, Rainforest Cafe, Meade Instruments, Columbia House, and others also have references to that website.

Your citation should really refer to the International Directory of Company Histories, which is where the material is from. That is a good source, with links hosted for example at the Harvard Business School library and Stanford GSB library. You could provide your website as a convenience link (that is in the url= part of the citation). Churn and change (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no indication at FundingUniverse.com that the proprietors of that site are experts in company histories, or even if they are, that they exert editorial oversight, including a reliable fact-checking process. Better to go to to the source as sleuthed out by Churn and change, which does have that kind of expertise and rep for editorial quality. See WP:RS and WP:V. EMP (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pavelić Unmasked - Pavelic bez maske

This is a documentary heavily referenced (21 times) in the Ante Pavelić article. The documentary is actually a filmed pro-Ustashe blog about Pavelić without any credibility. It offers only a polished narrative story about that psychopath and terrorist which way Wikipedia gets plunged indirectly into a backward political propaganda. Posted on YouTube as Pavelić bez maske. It belongs to a cheap entertainment genre which, per se, cannot be used as a credible reference. About the documentary values speaks the fact that there were just 265 viewers who wasted some time watching it out of which only one likes it and five dislike. --Juraj Budak (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Without judging the publisher and actual content I would note that the very name suggests the blatant unreliability of the source. The "unmasked" cliché (as well as "real" or "true" clichés, which are essentially identical) is abused by tabloids and other cheap sensation-oriented press, and for that reason is consistently avoided elsewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There was a thread on the talkpage of the article regarding the reliability of the source. I have posted there to direct to this discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the source is being discussed there already, where it has been questioned from a WP:V perspective. I have no view other than those given on the article talk page, but I note that how many people watch a video on YouTube and how many like it is completely irrelevant to its reliability, as is the wording used in the title. The opinions here should be based on credible reviews of the documentary and its scholarly credentials. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, voice of people is voice of God. Not a single credible review was referenced before introducing and using this 'documentary' as a reference. It's at a level of many Ustashe blogs we could find on the Internet. Moreover, scholars are not wasting their time on reviewing 'documentaries' of this type. The 'documentary' is worth of its price - zero.--Juraj Budak (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I must say this is the first time I have seen God cited for reliability (on Wikipedia anyway). So barring divine intervention, it's your unsourced opinion then? Let me make this clear, I don't like the source myself, but I'm stuffed if anything that has been posted here so far qualifies as a reason why the thing isn't reliable. I'll put some actual effort into looking into it, but there is little I can do if the reference is not in English. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have identified a possible lead on this documentary. The Australian Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), which is effectively a multicultural state broadcaster, appears to have podcast or broadcast this film at some stage, but I lack the language skills to follow it up. Here is the link [8] or [9] which appears to be an interview with Sedlar regarding the film by an SBS journalist. Could someone with the language skills try to see what if anything SBS said about it? Thanks. I'll keep looking. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• What appears to be an article about films made about the NDH here [10] mentions Sedlar a couple of times. Needs language skills. Also this one which appears scholarly (not historical scholarly, but media scholarly). [11] (needs external source help to get access). Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This source describes Sedlar's work "Four by Four" as a "barefaced... promotion of ethnophobia". [12]. This one is not particularly complementary. [13]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

History Commons

I've been gnoming on references at Yasin al-Qadi and found a number of citations to History Commons. The site purports to be open-content but "All submissions are peer-reviewed by other users before being published." I could not discover information on contributors or reviewers of content on the site, despite its CC-BY-NC-SA license. Frankly, it looks unreliable to me, but I'd like others' opinions here as a sanity check before I take further action. alanyst 07:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The peer reviewers are "Content Editors" who have been vetted previously. The qualifications and selection process aren't listed, and since these are volunteers it is hard to see how they would attract all that many experts willing in to put in time to do fact checking. Moreover, whatever they report must already be available in other reliable sources, so we should cite those sources directly. The site would be useful for article research. Churn and change (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yasin al-Qadi's biography is full of extraordinary claims due to the relationship between him and the United States. Extraordinary claims should not be cited to History Commons regardless of its reliability or unreliability for other matters, as History Commons is not an extraordinarily good source. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. alanyst 20:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Daily Mail a reliable source for Lord Ahmed's views?

I want to use a Daily Mail article Grooming of girls by Asian gangs fuelled by unhappy arranged marriages to cousins claims Muslim peer by someone called "Abdul Taher" as a source to support this statement:

Lord Ahmed of Rotherham has suggested that cousin marriages among British Pakistanis may be a reason for such sex crimes. A large number of young British Pakistanis get forced into marrying their cousins from abroad, and Ahmed suggests that the resultant unhappy marriage drives them towards vulnerable teens.

in the article Rochdale sex trafficking gang. The reliability of DM has been questioned at Talk:Rochdale sex trafficking gang#Lord Ahmed. Is the given source a reliable source for the given statement?OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That newspaper is known and indeed knocked for its attitude towards immigrants to Britain and to the Asian diaspora within the country. Its editorial position is dubious, it often does present a narrow, cherry-picked position and I seem to recall that it has lost even more court cases for libel etc than The Sun. I wouldn't use it, despite its large circulation etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A better question would have been 'Is Daily Mail a reliable source for Lord Ahmed's views as represented by this edit [14]', but given the DM's reputation for sensationalism, the question is probably moot anyway. A simple search for 'Lord Ahmed' on their website [15] reveal such shit-stirring drivel as the headline "Accusations against Lord Ahmed merely highlight a vile anti-British career". Regarding Lord Ahmed, the DM is about as useless a source as they come... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• The Daily Fail is not a reliable source for anything. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DM will generally accurately quote people - but where the material is not presented with a quote, there have been times the DM has chosen the most "interesting" view of the words. In short - using the DM for quotes is generally fine. Using it for non-controversial claims is fine (in fact, it does very well in many areas - but "Page Six" stuff is not one of their finest areas.) And for straightforward facts - it is generally fine as well. It has not, by the way, been sued more than other newspapers, nor lost more cases (even The Times has been sued many times), and the "libel tourist" phenomenon is notable in the UK. Collect (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact here is that the Daily Mail has repeatedly gone out of its way to trash Lord Ahmed's reputation, and we shouldn't use it as a source here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

My view is reliability is a continuum based on what is cited, author, publication and article context, with few publications at 0 or infinity. My opinion is the Daily Mail is really low on that continuum whatever be the other elements; you may use it as a source for some obscure, uncontroversial quote but for pretty much nothing else. It is a tabloid, known not to be neutral (though that itself may not affect reliability of reportage), and viewed as sensationalist. Churn and change (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly hesitiate to use the Daily Mail for anything, though that is not to say that one should never use their sources. If what they write is of consequence, it will also appear in the quality press. If it does not appear there, then ask yourself why it has not appeared. If there is a good reason the source has all the other hallmarks of being reasonable then use it with caution. Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It meets rs, but we are supposed to use the best sources available, and we need to establish that the lord's comments are significant. TFD (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes they need to be WP:notable. But also I think what some people are suggesting is that it is possible to argue that we should not use a source for other reasons. There is an old discussion about how to best word the policy pages, and in a nutshell I think the point is that just because something is an RS, we do not need to use it. The consensus is that accepting a source, or rejecting a source, require different types of consideration. For removing a source, WP:Neutral is one of the most important things to keep in mind. But removing an RS because it is in conflict with other RS's is not an unreasonable argument, especially if it is not an extremely widely discussed source, and this would be up to editors of an article to discuss. Just to take a simple example, even the best sources contain obvious typos and errors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, I recall a recent incident (the Amanda Knox appeal) in which they published a story in 'advance' and included fake quotes. When news outlets start publishing fake stories and quotes I think you have to draw the line. If these are indeed Lord Ahmed's views I am sure they have been published elsewhere, given that this is such a high profile story in the UK. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8291361/Asian-men-who-groom-young-girls-frustrated-by-arranged-marriages-peer-warns.html, So rather then slagging mof the Daily mail for inacuracey, at least try to see it it's inaccurate.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, comparison to other British papers seems a reasonable idea for example, at least if anyone is really strongly defending inclusion of this in our article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

there is also the issue of WP:SYN which appears pretty rampant in the article. the original DM article places the Ahmed quote specifically in relation to incidents in three locales, none of which is Rocheford (my geography is bad, so I dont know if Rocheford is a known subset of "Derby, Blackburn and Lord Ahmed’s home town of Rotherham ), and was made prior to this trial, was this incident in the public at the time the quote was made? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis, at least the way we normally discuss it here, is not a problem at all for our sources, as long as they are reliable. We expect them synthesize for us. That is what makes some of them "secondary". Where we normally try to avoid synthesis is in our justifications for INCLUDING information in WP. But, whether sythesis may be used in order to argue for NOT including something is a finer point, and it can be a valid argument in some cases, particularly if the source is not of the highest reputation, and also if the story involves relatively minor details of living people's lives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahmed's comments are appropriate for inclusion in the article ONLY if we know he was specifically speaking about the event in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has gone past us a bit, but relevance is perhaps an important point which I hope will be considered.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the Daily Telegraph report as far as applies to Ahmed appears to be a rehash of the Daily Mail report and published a day after. Neither paper specifically reports Ahmed directly as using the word "cousins". Emeraude (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I see this more as a weight thing than as a reliability thing. The Mail interviewed Ahmed, and they don't misquote him otherwise he would have complained. However. They have added a lot of their own spin, which we would have to disregard completely, especially the cousins aspect. If he didn't mention cousin marriage at all and they have gone so far as to put it in the headline, that doesn't look good for them. And they add a point about health concerns in first cousin marriage, which although it's been reported elsewhere, has nothing to do with this story at all. Look, I'd be surprised if Lord Ahmed's views on this were notable enough to include. He isn't an expert, and his comments weren't widely reported. Also, his view is out of line with mainstream research-based thinking on sexual violence - he sees it as arising from sexual frustration, whereas actually it's about power. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their kind attention and informative comments. I am agreeable to disregarding any spin that DM might have put on Lord Ahmed's views, however we can do better. Thanks to Slatersteven, we now have the Telegraph source. I concede hands down that the Telegraph is a much better source and should be used. It does seem to include comments from Lord Ahmed which mention cousin marriage. I have explained on the article talk page why including a discussion of cousin marriage is essential. I hope it is OK to use the Telegraph source for the "cousin marriage" point? Again, thanks and regards to everyone. You guys are the best!!!OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. This is the reliable sources noticeboard. The question asked was whether the Daily Mail was a reliable source for the material proposed. It has made clear that it isn't. That is all that has been decided here. As Itsmejudith makes clear above, there is a question of weight too - particularly in regard to an article about particular individuals, none of which are stated to have been married to cousins. How can it possibly be 'essential' to discuss something which may well be entirely irrelevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The question now is whether that particular DT story is reliable for the proposed statement. I would say no. For one thing, the article derives from the interview that Lord Ahmed gave to the DM. That implies that the DM should be our source, even though generally the DT is a more serious newspaper than the DM. The next main question is whether Lord Ahmed's views are relevant to this topic. I don't think so. What expertise does he have? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And again - the quotes themselves should be allowed in any case - it is only any possible editorial spin which is not proper from the DM. In the case at hand, it certainly appears that the sources are solid at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is reliable for lots of things, and the Mail for some things. Here, we have an interview with Lord Ahmed. Why are we interested in his speculation? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, are we certain that his speculations were about the subject topic of the article or merely something kind of close and that his thoughts being used in a manner that is inappropriate speculation on our part. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems likely the DM was correct - see BBC [16], [17] also seems to have an interesting view of the gentleman. Collect (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, don't be a complete imbecile - the 'dawn' article is repeating material that even the Daily Mail had to correct after reporting [18]. (see also what the BBC had to say on the subject [19])AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And while you are at it, read what the BBC report you cite actually says (though I'm not sure whether the 'Mr Ahmed' they quote might be a typo, from the context)... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the overall conclusion is that DM can be used as an RS for things like quotes and such. If not, I would say that we are out of touch with the world around us. If a source like Telegraph regards DM as reliable for quotes, why won't we? The relevance and weight issues probably don't belong to this page and should be discussed on the article talk page..OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a predilection for seeing 'overall conclusions' your way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

... so do you.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check whether the claim the DM did get the quotes right for this one was correct or not; I see strong objections. Doesn't matter. Not being 100% unreliable isn't the criteria for reliability. For WP we should start with the best sources possible and work our way down if material is unavailable, not start with the bottom rung and then go up. For British newspapers that is the Times. Then there are others. And others. And more others. And after still more others there is the Daily Mail. Churn and change (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% that we should be using the best available source. I think it would be the Telegraph article in the present case. One advantage of using the Telegraph article would be that we can trust the Telegraph to have filtered out any spin which DM may have put on Lord Ahmed's comments.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are changing your mind yet again? One minute you say use the DM, the next you say use the Telegraph - and meanwhile you have failed to notice that the BBC seems to be quoting more recent statements by Lord Ahmed, where he apparently says that "Nobody knows the reason..." for the involvement of individuals in these cases. In any case, there is no consensus here that 'we should' use any source at all - that is an issue of weight, and not an issue for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. This is drifting off-topic and since the person who originally queried seems now to accept that the DM should not be used, well, I think we can close this thread. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not say DM should not be used. I said superior sources should be used when available. I mean to use the Telegraph preferentially, and DM for quotes only, and only when the same quotes are unavailable in Telegraph article.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am neutral on closing this discussion for other reasons, but please don't close it saying discussion is done. What OrangesRyellow is saying, that DM can be used for quotes not picked up by others, is not an undisputed conclusion on this thread. Typically it wouldn't be the words that are the concern (though I see even that seems to be contested); it is the context in which the words are presented (digging up old quotes after new events, for example) and selective quoting to present a non-neutral point of view. DM has been guilty of such in the past. Churn and change (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion can be closed. There is a new source on the article talk page which indicates that Lord Ahmed may have diluted his position on the issue. I no longer want to use Lord Ahmed as a proponent.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Aryn Baker War Propaganda

On Syrian civil war#Sectarianism, there are two sentences from an article where Aryn Baker based her history of grafit eyewitness on a anonymous testimony. The author, Aryn Baker has raputation of conflict of interest.[20][21] [22] It looks like a war propaganda. Dafranca (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Aryn Baker is the Middle East Bureau Chief for Time and before that Associate Editor for Time Asia, based in Hong Kong. See [23]. Time is a strong source for recent political events. I notice she is cited in many articles, and not just for the two sentences you mention. The criticism you mention is in publications like Observer, Nation, and Firedoglake. Those publications aren't reliable enough to challenge a story in an established magazine like Time. You will need better sources to challenge her credibility. Churn and change (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Patt: GAN vetting

The article on jazz-guitarist Ralph Patt cites

1. Death Record (one of several websites providing the USA's Social-Security death registry on-line) for the date/location of birth and death (2010). (For $1500 USD, you can buy the SS database and verify it yourself.)
2. a death notice in a Yahoo newsgroup for jazz-guitarists for the cause of death (kidney cancer) and as a secondary source for the death date. It is also cited as a secondary source for Patt's having authored an on-line book for musicians. It is used a few times also as a supplementary (secondary) source for a few facts with RSes.

Reader Drmies has commented that these seem unlikely to be challenged, and their use is limited, but suggested that I ask for second opinions here.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Patt's website published his Vanilla book, which contains the chord progressions for four hundred jazz standards, from "After you've gone" to "Zing! went the strings". Its title refers to "Just play the vanilla changes", Lester Young's advice to aspiring pianists. It was updated in 2008.
Having been diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2007, Ralph Oliver Patt died at the age of 80 on 6 October 2010 in Canby, Oregon.

A death record can be used to establish date of death if you can indisputably link the person to the subject of the article. That is a bit problematic here since you are taking both date of birth and date of death from that source. Your linkage is then based on the name, year of birth, and location (near Portland), all of which are, in turn, linked to the subject of the article by other sources. I have no position on the issue. You should cite the Oregon death record database as your source, with the weblink you have added as a convenience link. The Yahoo-groups posting is user-generated content, and we have no way of even verifying who that user is. It is not an RS; anybody can join any group and post there. Churn and change (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Two days earlier, editor Drmies discussed these issues on his talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have other sources which mention his social security number so you can tie the death record to him directly? That would help. The linkage via name, year of birth, and location (near Portland) is, I think passable, but if somebody disputes it, I will have to say the objection is reasonable. For the Yahoo newsgroup, neutrality is not the issue here; there is the problem of accuracy. People frequently post what they heard from others there. There isn't a single obituary for the subject? Can you find out the exact place where he died? If possible the name of the local newspaper? I can see if an archive of their articles is accessible. Churn and change (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A new reference notes a memorial scholarship to a jazz music summer-camp in Oregon, after he died of cancer in 2010. This is not Billboard, but it is signed and it appears to be a regular non-laughable Oregon periodical.

I've Googled a few times, and didn't find anything. But it appears that more Patt information is indexed by Google every time I check. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you should probably use that resource for reason of death. Newspaper archives are typically not indexed by Google. The idea is if one knows the place of death and date of death, then one can expect an obituary in the local rag the next day or a few days later. Just by looking at a few archived issues, one should be able to hit something. For a GA-nominated article standards are high, whatever policy and guidelines say. Churn and change (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There was at least one other site (for genealogists) that dumped the SS data.

I shall look some more for Oregon newspapers. High beam didn't have anything. Update: Alas The Oregonian and its link to a database of Pacific (and USA) obituaries had nothing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Beatles source

Hello everyone, I'd like to confirm with you that Pollack's Beatles song analyses are a reliable source: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml. I need some backup on this, because I want to use it in a featured article and there's an editor who's not yet convinced it's legit. Details are here on the archive page. Who's with me? Thanks, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking through your earlier discussion, seems like the only objection, a mild one, was to the website, not to Pollack's analyses? Since the Pollack analyses are hosted elsewhere (the moderated rec.music.beatles newsgroup), is this an issue? I notice http:///www.icce.rug.nl has only some stuff on the C++ programming language, so the site's music credibility can be questioned. Pollack, once an instructor of music and composition at Yale, is a subject expert, and this is self-published information from an expert. If editors agree, such information can be used, and in this case, best I can make out, there seems to be general agreement his Beatle notes are credible. From WP:RS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As to the website, why use it when a better one is available? Churn and change (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

While Pollack may meet the SPS qualifications as a reliable source, it is hardly difficut to find Beatles song commentary in other equally reliable sources. The question is why would we specifically want Pollack's commentary from these particular places.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive replies!

@Churn and change, you are of course right about rec.music.beatles -- it just hadn't occured to me, my apologies. Would you source directly from the newsgroup or from their web mirror http://www.recmusicbeatles.com?

@TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, good question! I want to quote Pollack specifically for his statements on Paul's singing and range in Hey Jude; the analysis Pollack gives would make a good addition to the Paul McCartney article section about his vocal abilities, in my opinion. As to the source for Pollack's analyses, I will be happy to follow Churn and change's advice and take rec.music.beatles instead.

Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think directly linking to Google groups, example, is better. No reason not to. Churn and change (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Per the "Details are here . . ." link Georgepauljohnringo provides, the source is used for attributed statements such as "Pollack, the musicologist, sees Beatle's xyz song as such-and-such." I am not sure whether there is an "official" site holding the notes, but the moderated rec.music.beatles newsgroup seems the best option. It is true the soundscape site is used in the FA article on Hey Jude but the citations for that article are in bad shape (one "Notes" entry does not point to anything in "References" and many "References" entries are orphaned); its major contributors all have long since stopped editing the article. Churn and change (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I feel WP:BOLD enough to take this back to the PaulMcCartney FA now :-) I'll try to change the Pollack quotes in the "Hey Jude" FA as well so they point to the more reliable rec.music.beatles newsgroup. --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I take that one back. Churn and change, what about the caveat that Pollack's work in the relevant field has not been previously published by reliable third-party publications? At least, I can't find such publications of Pollack's work pre-Beatles. Don't you think my original argument is more watertight; namely that Pollack's work has been legitimised by subsequent references from reliable sources (Kenneth Womack's "Long and winding roads" for Continuum Publishing, see here for Pollack reference, and Russell Reising's "Speak to me" for Ashgate Publishing, see here for Pollack reference)? Let me know what you think, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, being an instructor at Yale's school of music and composition does, I think, fulfill the spirit of the criterion, though not its exact wording. Even an adjunct lecturer would have had some earlier publications. Later notability cannot stamp an earlier publication as credible. The science paper a Nobel laureate published in an undergrad-level magazine (say psi chi) isn't necessarily a reliable source. In this case you might argue we are talking of the same piece of work being quoted by Womack and Reising. However this work seems to have taken decades to finish, and it would be difficult to establish their quotes are from the years before the sentences you cite. Churn and change (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute and Taybeh

Is this piece by an unknown journalist in a think tank a reliable source for the views of Christian residents of a Palestinian town towards Muslims in neighboring villages? nableezy - 16:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What are the arguments of editors who believe in the credibility of an institute whose front page, as of this moment, features "The Qatari takeover of France" (not humorously, not as a reference to popularity of some cuisine, but as a serious legal proposition)? Churn and change (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Using Auction/Classified sites as sources - legit or no?

I deleted a number of citations for the Wheeler Dealers article citing the WP:Advert rules since the sites were of auction sites and classified ads. An anonymous editor insists they are valid and has put them back in twice from the links provided. I've looked over the pages for citations and I find no justification for the valid usage of these links in any article. So I have to ask if my reasoning is right or did I miss something that says such links are valid?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, anon's logic seems to be badly cited material (sourced to a primary source) is better than totally uncited material. Do you have better citations? If not, one option is to remove the material. Practically, for start-class articles, unless there are BLP or COPYVIO issues, it is better to leave lower-quality and primary-source citations in, helping future editors research the issue. Churn and change (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue I see other than the advert violation is that much of the source for the text will be the actual episodes themselves, which in a sense,so I don't see the use of keeping in this material that is ambiguous at best (note many of the links don't cite Wheeler Dealers specifically and could be a blatant Wikipedia:OR issue as well).--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

iSahitya as a RS?

I'm writing because I want to get another opinion on this source: [24] The article appears to be well-written, but I'm not sure that it's usable as a reliable source. It's written by an admin, but if the site itself isn't a RS then I know that it won't be reliable regardless of who writes it. It would really go a long way towards helping out with an AfD for author Rashmi Singh, so I wanted to get a second opinion on it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The author/interviewer is a senior mechanical-engineering undergrad. The piece starts with sentences like "The Fallen Love, another fiction work released in March 2012." Yes, that is a full sentence in the original. The main site is shot with errors in article usage, parallel construction and the like ("we are growing company . . "). This is no RS for an article on an English-language novelist. Churn and change (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the British tabloid newspaper "The Sun" a reliable source?

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Savile some editors are stating that the British tabloid newspaper is not a reliable source for wikipedia articles. In fact the article on Jimmy Savile currently quotes the fact that The Sun was one of the very few British media organisations which made an effort to report on his questionable activities while he was alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile ""In March 2008, Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun newspaper which had, wrongly he claimed, linked him in several articles to the child abuse scandal at the Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne." Some editors on this article which is about a very fast moving current news story feel that The Sun should not be used as a source and there have been some efforts to remove information sourced to that newspaper. I feel this should proceed on a better basis than the personal feelings of one or two active editors on that page and would like to know what the wider community thinks. Thank you. Smeat75 (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

general note it is unrealible with questionable news articles in teh past, but with any soure there is not a source that is completely unrelaible and no soruce 100% reliable each is determined on wha tthe article it is getting used on and in what context the source is getitng used forAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If that particular The Sun wrote "Today's issue is printed on the cheapest yellow newsprint available." I'd still want corroborating independent sources. Some other newspapers of fine repute are burdened in that they share a similar name, but most of these distinguish their names somehow, such as the Vancouver Sun or the Chicago Sun-Times. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good source at all - that said if the info is accurate it should easily be found at other locations (may sources).Moxy (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the point really - the Sun is a downmarket tabloid with a reputation for sensationalism, and is generally considered a less-than-ideal source. But, as always, such questions can only be answered if it is made clear what the Sun is being cited for - and given the current media interest in the developing story, it would seem likely that better sources could be found for the most significant details. Per WP:NOTNEWS, there is no rush to cover every last detail immediately, and anything of enduring significance that the Sun prints which other, more trustworthy, sources confirm would be better cited to the latter. That the Sun had the courage to print the story on Haut de la Garenne while other media outlets shied away is to their credit, but it doesn't materially affect their general reliability as a source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This story involves living individuals, as well as Savile himself, and we need to consider WP:BLP policy carefully in as much as such individuals are concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a very fast-moving story, but look at WP:RECENT. We shouldn't aim to cover every twist and turn. The notable developments will be in all the papers. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

for Biographical articles I cannot ever see any reason why you would want to use The Sun. Ever. There is never going to be anything in there worth reporting on that isnt better covered in some source with mountains more credibility. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty sensible approach. a13ean (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; we are not into "scoops." Sun is one of those publications the BLP policy was written for. Churn and change (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources"The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." As a tabloid they are sensationlists and rely heavily on rumor. I wouldn't call it RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case, though, the Sun is being cited not for rumours, but for an incident in its own history. What's more, the last thing British newspapers usually do is to admit they weren't there first, so it is much less likely, in this case, that other newspapers would readily report this interesting item. We should at least be prepared to mention the Sun's assertion with inline attribution. It would be wrong of us to censor the Sun out of the history. Andrew Dalby 09:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's about The Sun's history shouldn't we be looking for a secondary source that isn't The Sun? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And even if "the last thing British newspapers usually do is to admit they weren't there first, so it is much less likely, in this case, that other newspapers would readily report this interesting item." we can wait for books or other sources to cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-tabloids-bbc-allegations in the Guardian. Then I think per WP:PST the Sun source can go in alongside it. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good find. Notice, in support of my risky generalization just above, that this is a blog piece (but it's good for us to cite, I'm sure) -- meanwhile, in the Guardian newspaper's report of Savile's link to the Jersey scandal, the Sun is not mentioned. Andrew Dalby 15:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. If I had a choice between trusting a compulsive liar locked in a straitjacket in a padded cell scrawling his inane ramblings about how the lizard people secretly run the world through an extensive mind control programme on the wall of said cell with his own faeces and trusting what is written in The Sun, I'd flip a coin because they truly are about equivalent in reliability. It's about as far away from a reliable source as you can possibly get. It's a tabloid rag filled with sensationalistic bullshit and made-up nonsense. It has about as justifiable role in an encyclopedia as Jimmy Savile does in the dormitory of a girl's boarding school. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll put you down for a "maybe." Zad68 18:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with Tom's point here - in general the Redtop tabloids are chasing readers rather than 'the truth' as their general principle. I strongly dislike the way everyone (inc. Tom) appears to be taking JS's guilt as fact, but I'm also a believer in 'innocent until proven guilty'. --AlisonW (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Raja Shivachhatrapati by Babasaheb Purandare in the article Shivaji (Indian history bio)

The following book is the source for no less than 29 footnotes in the article Shivaji (the founder of the Maratha Empire in 17th century India). I'm not easily able to specify exactly what is being cited, because it's huge portions of the article, and the claimed source doesn't seem readily available online.

Babasaheb Purandare (August 2003). Raja Shivachhatrapati (Marathi: राजा शिवछत्रपती) (15 ed.). Pune: Purandare Prakashan.

This one is a little sticky since we don't have a clear online version of this book, and from what I understand of the footnote they're citing the edition in the Marathi language. That said, I'd like to address Purandare as a non-RS based on critical mention of him in books by reliable academics. It is my contention that Purandare is a "pop historian" and historical novelist, who should not be considered an authoritative source on Indian history. This is an important issue to Shivaji both since the book is cited so heavily there, and due to serious concerns about the author's POV. The following are critical comments about Purandare's work, particularly that covering Shivaji, and indications of the Reliability of persons making said comments:

• He, further, finds the noted historian Babasaheb Purandare's treatment of history as steeped in encomium and idol-worship and in the tradition of such chroniclers of Maratha history as Sabhasad. Chitragupta, and Chitnees.
  • El. Es Deśapāṇḍe (2005). Narhar Kurundkar. Sahitya Akademi. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-81-260-2039-3.
  • (note Sahitya Akademi is India's "National Academy of Letters", so publication by them says good things for RS of the criticiser Desapande)
• Still one will say that Babasaheb Purandare should not be on the committee. The reasons for that lie not in the fact that Purandare is a Brahmin, but because Purandare's presentation of Shivaji is through and through communal.
  • Ram Puniyani (2010). Communal Threat to Secular Democracy. Gyan Publishing House. pp. 302–. ISBN 978-81-7835-861-1.
  • Gyan is not a great publisher, but assuming they're quoting Puniyani accurately, he appears to be a reputable human rights advocate
• Maratha Seva Sangh leader Shrimant Kokate... and blames the popular Brahmin writer Babsaheb Purandare for fostering these misconceptions through his books, plays, novels, and films...
  • Matthew N. Schmalz; Peter Gottschalk (6 May 2011). Engaging South Asian Religions: Boundaries, Appropriations, and Resistances. SUNY Press. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-1-4384-3323-3.
• In consideration of B. M. Purandare's work, writer [Laine] says that fictional enrichment is the speciality of Babasaheb Purandare . And pointed out the aim of Babasaheb Purandare is, "veneration of the hero Shivaji through the retelling of his epic...
  • Anant V. Darwatkar (2005). Shivaji Maharaja: Maratha Chhatrapati In Bharat-varsha : Shivaji : Hindu king in Islamic India" by J.W. Laine/2003 : false and fluid one. Shree Shambhu Prerana Pakashan.
  • This one's a bit sticky, because the publication is one criticising author James Laine (widely hated by some Marathas for "busting their bubble" for "defaming" Shivaji in his historical presentations), but the gist is that Laine called Purandare a hack. James Laine, for what it's worth, is a professor of Religion at MacAlester college, so in a scuffle betwen Laine way over in the UK with a Phd and a popular novelist who happens to live in the home region of the subject of his works, I'd assume Laine is both the more professional and the more neutral party.

This is just an introductory stab, but are folks so far agreeing that Purandare is a novelist, not a historian, and should not be the go-to source (29 footnotes!) for a high-profile article, particularly when this topic is covered exhaustively by any number of PhD authors? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but why does the Times of India refer to him as "noted history scholar Babasaheb Purandare"? [25]--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Because ToI isn't any kind of authority on academic credentials. Equally importantly, along the lines of "show, don't tell", they don't bother to give any kind of information whatsoever as to what makes him a "noted history scholar". Phd? Books published by universities? Respected international lecturer? Nope, he's just a guy who really, really, really likes Shivaji and has written a lot of popular books. If you have any evidence that anyone outside of India takes him seriously as an author academic historian, please do provide it. Best as I can tell, the main people who hold him in such veneration are other people who really, really, really like Shivaji. I'm sure Purandare writes some great vivid accounts and makes history come alive and all that, but a cracking good read does not an RS make. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. A news source mention in many articles is not a qualification in itself. And I do not find a biography showing any actual credentials. As far as I can see there is no reference to him in any formal manner like this: [26]--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left neutrally-phrased notifications of this RSN post at Talk:Babasaheb Purandare, Talk:Shivaji, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_India, and on the talk pages of all registered users (barring those blocked/banned) from the last two months of edits on Shivaji and as far back as April 2012 on Talk:Shivaji. I'd really like to get a strong consensus on this, so as to be able to remove those 29 flawed footnotes without getting into an edit war. I've already removed 20 or so sources that were clearly non-RS, including 16 individual citations to a costume-drama TV serial (!), and Purandare is the most significant remaining shaky source. Shivaji is #72 on the list of Most popular India-related pages on WP, with over 100,000 hits per month, so this is an article worth cleaning up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• The page has a large number of references, but I'm a little concerned that this is the only one in Marathi, and the topic is clearly of interest to Marathi speakers. I suggest that the article could be improved by (a) moving the source from the references into the 'Depiction in popular culture' section; (b) considering whether there are other Marathi sources that could be used and (c) adding Marathi-language further reading (or viewing) to the 'Depiction in popular culture'. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely no objections to Purandare's book being listed in "Depictions". So far as using Marathi sources, while on technical merits I'd have no objections against using Marathi sources by qualified academic historians, we have both the issue that only a limited number of editors at en.wiki would be able to read/verify Marathi sources, and also that I would imagine that the most serious historical works on Shivaji are either available in English translation, or are written in English or Hindi so as to reach a wider academic audience. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I'd venture to guess that there are a lot of popular works on Shivaji in Marathi, and academic works on him, by Marathi, other Indian, and non-Indian academics, in English. All things being equal, it would be best to have Marathi sources and further reading on mr.wiki and English ones on en.wiki where practical. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly encourage editors to read WP:HISTRS and consider this author (and his publisher) in the context of that advice. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but it is only the advice of one or more editors in the form of an essay and not considered guidline.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I encourage reading of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) in conjunction with WP:CRYSTAL, because taken together they remove the need consult with non peer-review sources completely. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason why many of us wrote HISTRS was that we kept answering the same kind of questions in the same kinds of way on RS/N :) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable. MV has provided a decent analysis, which my own ferreting around supports. The man is a "historian" only in the loosest sense and he is a communal writer. Please bear in mind that "communal" in the Indian sense does not mean "collegial" etc - it means sectarian, caste-ist. As with James Tod and Rajasthan, he is much admired for his dubious scholarship in the state most associated with his subject matter (Maharashtra) but has little support throughout the other 99% of the world. Stick him in "Popular culture" as a regional folk-lorist and sectarian who holds non-mainstream, sometimes actually fringe, views.

BTW, one of the problems with Marathi history articles is the propensity for socking, especially by Mrpontiac1 and Dewan357. Bearing in mind the constraints of WP:NOENG, any Marathi-language sources will require careful review by experienced editors and the likelihood of edit warring is considerable. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Matthew, I have friends who have B.M. Purandare's books. Let me have a look at them and get back to the group. As I wrote sometime before, BM should be regarded as popular historian because that is how he described himself in a meeting in UK 24 years ago.

Lokmanya Tilak, the early Indian Nationalist leader was the first to popularize Shivaji, the legend. He could have chosen Bajirao I, the actual builder of the Maratha empire who also happened to belong to the same brahmin sub-caste as Tilak. However, Shivaji had a broader appeal across the Marathi castes and beyond. BM has continued this tradition of building up Shivaji, the National hero of Marathi People and of Hindu people. Anyhow, before get carried away let me stop and get back to the group shortly. By Jonathansammy (couldn't get the digital signature)

Matthew V, After doing some research, Here are my comments on using Bm Purandare as a reliable reference: 1. BM is a novel writer whose stories are based mostly on the life and times of Shivaji. 2. He relies on published research on Shivaji and more importantly, stories transmitted orally over generations by Marathi families about Shivaji to help write his stories. I am sure the second point would disqualify him as RS. In my opinion, BM definitely has a place in an article on Shivaji but only in a section titled "Shivaji in contemporary arts and literature". Thanks Jonathansammy (once again the website is not allowing me to place my digital signature)

Thanks for looking into it Jonathan. I think we're pretty much on the same page here: he's a successful popular writer, and while he may be channeling the mythos in the popular culture, he's not an actual "go to the Delhi archives and read Persian records" actual academic kind of historian. Definitely agree he should be listed in the "Literature" section as a very Notable writer on the subject, but not actually used as a source. I'll wait until the end of this week just to see if anyone else has objections, but failing that I'll remove the Purandare cites in the body of the article and replace them with academics. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The decreasing references on page Shivaji led to this discussion here. The page is ranked #212 and not #72 as mentioned incorrectly. Not to mention weasel words like "It is my contention", "my own ferreting around supports", etc.

There are many incorrect assertions on the discussions that I would like to address here:

1. "(note Sahitya Akademi is India's "National Academy of Letters", so publication by them says good things for RS of the criticiser Desapande)"- by which rule or is it hearsay? Sahitya Academy publishes many things and to say such a thing as a random observation means that people do not know much really.
2. About Ram Punyani - his academic credentials are not stellar, he is mainly into some Human rights org. Rather one should avoid such references other than any need of human rights or Hindu terrorism that his views are about.
3. The academic credential of Maratha Seva Sangh leader Shrimant Kokate is mentioned in the link as well which is not more than one webpage. How he is mentioned in a book published by "SUNY series in Hindu Studies" is surprising considering his one web page academic credential is suspect. All in all a very poor citation.
4. Anant V. Darwatkar - how academic is he? Is he a political writer? Not clear here - again a very poor choice to mention.
5. About Laine author, a critique link, the Author and Oxford Publishing come out terribly as far as credential go. Examples in the article are "shoddy polemics", "re-examine its commissioning policy", "as no evidence has been adduced or offered", "Laine is an anti-Hindu hypocrite", "Laine exposes his agenda", "lacked a modern sense of identity", "Hindus of the era cannot be ceded to have had a sense of 'Hindu' identity.", "it did not once mention Shivaji's famed ambition to establish a Hindu Pad Padshahi", "strange omission", "most notable omission is of the poet Bhushan", "juvenile", "subscribes to the secularist school of historiography that decrees that Hindus must forget the evil done to them, a phenomenon Dr. Koenraad Elst calls negationism.", and so on and on. Meaning another motivated author who omits as per his views. Not to mention controversy around the book he wrote that was banned and then the ban was lifted etc - which does not add to his credentials in any way.

As such this discussion does not deserve to continue.111.91.75.146 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

By "doesn't deserve to continue", are you claiming that we should consider Purandare as an RS? If that's the case, you've proved absolutely nothing of the sort. We've found a few mentions of Purandare online, generally negative, and though you've made some cogent criticisms or the anti-Purandare sourcing, you've given nothing whatsoever supporting Purandare. We don't necessarily need negative evidence against Purandare, though it helps, but the thus-far lack of positive reporting on Purandare's historical accuracy is not encouraging. I'll note that the article Shivaji previously cited a serial drama sixteen times, so I think it's totally legitimate to take a hard look at its sourcing.

As far as the criticism of Laine you cite, given how astute you've been in picking apart the cites given here I find it quite inconsistent that you cite a Hindutva organisation as making Laine and Oxford University Press "come out terribly as far as credentials go." I doubt neutral editors would consider a sectarian politico-religious outfit as a serious critic of books published by one of the planet's most prestigious universities. Yet more inconsistent, you knock Puniyani for being just a human rights advocate, but the author of the review, Dr. Sandhya Jain, is listed as a "Social Development Consultant and Columnist" (not a historian) and is an editorialist for the conservative Pioneer newspaper.

Thus far, you have minor counter-criticisms, and your counter-criticisms are generally from less-reliable sources than the criticisms presented in the first place. Again, as far as anyone here can tell, Purandare is a writer of "popular history", not a historian, and thus appears to have no validity as an RS on the topic of Shivaji, particularly since we have so many other authors available, and he should be removed from the footnotes but remain as an important author of the "Legacy" section. If you have any evidence that Purandare is authoritative, please present it, but such should be positive review from serious academics, not accolades from the reading public and politicians in Shivaji's home state. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think his writings qualify as reliable sources for historical facts. From what I can gather, he is a popular historian and dramatist and does not publish in peer reviewed journals or journals with academic credentials. I don't, for example, see any article by him on JSTOR. References in published works to Purandare allude to his role in pushing the "cult of Shivaji" rather than to his scholarship (fanatical follower of Shivaji. Purandare can and should probably be quoted and referred to in an article or section about the cult of Shivaji in Maharashtra, but not for historical facts. --regentspark (comment) 02:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been two weeks with one single drive-by objection which was not followed up on, and several experienced editors concurring that Purandare is not a WP:RS for historical topics. Accordingly, I have removed all 28 Purandare cites in Shivaji. Thanks for everyone's participation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources needed to confirm that the documentary film 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' by Peter Joseph helped inspire the 'Zeitgeist Movement' founded by Peter Joseph

I have been asked to provide sources to confirm that the documentary film Zeitgeist: The Movie by Peter Joseph helped inspire The Zeitgeist Movement founded by him. I have provided the two sources. Firstly I cited a Huffington Post blog (already treated as WP:RS for much else in the article) which states that "The movement's founder, Peter Joseph, came to notoriety with his 2007 internet film sensation, Zeitgeist, and it's 2008 successor, Zeitgeist: Addendum. While many people may find it hard to digest the idea of a world without currency, Joseph's argument that our economic system is the source of our greatest social problems was supported with valuable evidence", and goes on to explain in depth how Joseph's ideas have been developed by the movement. This citation was objected to on rather vague grounds [27]. I have subsequently cited a second source - TZM's own FAQ, which states: [28]

"While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society.

While it is clear that we shouldn't use TZM material for claims about third parties, or for other controversial material, it seems perfectly reasonable to cite them for something that should be blindingly-obvious anyway - that Joseph's films have helped inspire the movement. Can I ask for confirmation here that either or both sources can be cited for the connection between the two? And If it is agred that TZM cannot be cited for this, can I ask whether it will be appropriate (as I assume it would be) to remove other material from the article which is cited to their own websites etc? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Huffington Post blogs are not RS and cannot be used to reference facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The claim that edit summary was vague seems to be innacurate: "source was checked, and did not contain the cited material. the only reference to the movie was "Peter Joseph, came to notoriety with his 2007 internet film". A different source is requested for this false claim.)"--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The official webpage can be used to makes claims about the subject as long as the are directly supportive of the material.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If the Huffington Post isn't RS, the article is going to need substantial trimming - it is cited multiple times, and is arguably the best source we have in terms of a broad outlook on TZM... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It probably is, but what is needed is to check the author and make sure the blog posts are being made by a reputable journalist and that the reference is attributed to both the author (if credentialed) and the publication, such as - "According to Huffington Post journalist "X"....."--Amadscientist (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for this discussion to better improve wikipedia, Amadscientist. May I point out that if AndyTheGrump had control over the article in question this is what he would change it to: [29] AndyTheGrump provided the following edit description: "Since nobody else gives a fuck about sourcing for this article..." Is there a way to block vandals from further disruptions? Is there a policy that prohibits moderators from vandalizing? Thank you once again for your input regarding this article. Zgoutreach (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the blog on Huffington Post. I see no evidence of expertise on the part of Travis Donovan to justify weighting their opinion in the slightest. I see no reason to believe that an op-ed blog by a non-expert was subject to editorial conditions that make is useable for political fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he is an executive editor at HP. Exactly what field would he be required to hold for use here? This is less about politics and more about a social movement based on a film in my opinion, but I would like to hear more from Fifelfoo as he may have a better point to make. The author isn't making any contentious claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is a Blog post (an op-ed) I'd expect him to hold a suitable position to comment on social movements: past social movement expert activist, social movement think tanker, sociologist, anthropologist, historian of relevant field, established social critique in news magazines. His editorial position (a journalistic skill) relates to products, not to social movements. If this were a news item my opinion would be different, it would be a journalist noting news in an apparently edited forum, but it is a blog post and an op-ed. Why should we care (WEIGHT) what a product editor thinks? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is heavily-reliant on two Hebrew-language sources, for which no translations are given for the relevant sections, as Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources would seem to suggest (or require for direct quotations). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Non English sources are not a violation of RS unless there are other sources in English of the same quality. I do not believe Wikipedia requires a translation persay, although it is recommended.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That is true per the letter of the policy. But don't you wonder why Hebrew (and Russian) sources are required for an English film made and released in America by an American director? That applies to the Huffington Post too; why is it that more established newspapers and magazines haven't covered it (after all, one Pulitzer doesn't a paper make)? Why is it that we need an article this long if higher-quality sources are just ignoring it? Churn and change (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly....I am not that interested to wonder, but perhaps it is because of an international angle. Isn't the movement widespread? I often wonder why HP is used so extensively, but as long as it has the required criteria, why not. I wouldsay a lot of these publications like HP are rather partisan and that always gives me pause.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that last sentence, and is the crux of my issue with HP. Churn and change (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Isn't the movement widespread?" If you believe TZM, yes. Objectively, what little evidence there is suggests that if it is spread wide, it is also spread very thinly - hence the almost complete lack of coverage in mainstream sources, and the reliance of the article on blogs and non-English sources for material giving any in-depth coverage. With regard to the Hebrew-language sources, I suspect that it was early accusations of antisemitism (unfounded, as far as I am aware) that initially led to interest in the movement from at least one of these sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Other Reliable Sources questions for this page

(note that this subheading was added after much of the material below was posted - hence the confusion over exactly what it was that was being discussed) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for wikipedia: HollywoodToday.net covers the Zeitgeist Movement Festival with articles here, here, and here. These sources were removed by "AndyTheGrump" with the edit summary: "revert unencyclopeadic puffery sourced to TZM" as seen on the page comparison here. Thank you for any input, since i'm not sure if HollywoodToday.net is reliable or not. Keep up the great work. Zgoutreach (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(Oh, and for information about HollywoodToday.net it can be found here About Us. That page includes the full list of dozens of editors, demographics and achievements "...Hollywood Today stories make the front page of Google News and often rank #1 in the entertainment section there, above stories from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywood Today headlines are read by more than 58 million readers through Google News...") Zgoutreach (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well...yes and no. The site appears to be a notable news source for Hollywood news [30] with what appears to be an appropriate level of editorial oversite....but as for the author of the HT Zeitgeist article itself, Bruce Lyons, I have my doubts to their being a journalist and this may actually be a film review. Harder to define in that context.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The claim that the material for the section 'Annual Zeitgeist Media Festival' added by Zgoutreach and deleted by me was sourced to HollywoodToday.net is simply false, regardless of the validity of that particular source - it was almost entirely sourced to TZMs own websites, as is self-evident from the diff: [31]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The main issue for me is the authorship as Mr. Lyons is a screenwriter and not a journalist from what I am finding. This may weaken the source quite a bit.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the much appreciated feedback, the first article is indeed by Bruce Lyons, the other articles are by Casey Kehoe, & Geoffrey Maingart respectively. The articles cover the August 5th, 2012 Media Festival, however and do not review a film. Is there a way to find out if these articles can be referenced, in order to state that a Medial Festival has taken place? (since all edits to state there was a media festival have been immediately reverted due to improper sourcing). Furthermore an Oct. 9th, 2012 article has been written here could this also be sourced if relevant to the wikipedia article? Thank you. Zgoutreach (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would handle Lyons as a review and attribute his claims to both him and the publication. It could be argued he has expertise in the subject. I have not looked at the other articles but check the authorship as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say no on Casey Kehoe as being non notable as an author. Kehoe is a cameraman.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? What is Bruce Lyons supposed to have 'expertise' on? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Film production would be a reasonable expertise.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And what has 'expertise in film production' got to do with our article on The Zeitgeist Movement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement holds annual film and media productions/festivals. (and as you stated, the movement is also inspired by films) Zgoutreach (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was asking Amadscientist the question. Our article is about a controversial political movement. It isn't about film festivals, and it certainly isn't about 'film production'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Expertise in producing a film does not translate into expertise on the subject of the film. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said it is a weak source, but it also has an author with some expertise on film prduction in a number of fields. Indeed, as Zgoutreach points out we are speaking specifically about a movement as inspired by the film. This could be used with consensus as attributed to the author and publication. (sorry so late on this. Went out to dinner) This is very much like OWS and we do not require OWS experts to reference, nor do we require Zeitgeist Movement "experts". There are a number of different subjects mixed here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

From the article: "The movement was originally inspired by Peter Joseph's films Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008)." This is not a spontaneous movement. It has it's origins in a film production.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't about films, it is about a political movement. How hard is that to understand? Bruce Lyons has no apparent expertise in political movements. Neither is he writing for a publication which has any regular coverage of political movements. It is ridiculous to suggest that he can have any sort of 'expertise' on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the talkpage Grump. As I said, the claim it is being used to support does not require experts on the movement. A film expert can make this claim and it is reasonable to use. Whether it can be used in the article is a matter of local consensus. The political movement is pretty well known as having been inspired by the film.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Which claim is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The one the thread is about. It is repeated 4 posts up.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see - you have obviously not noticed that Zgoutreach changed the subject entirely - he asked whether hollywoodtoday.net was RS for a section he had introduced into the article on the 'Zeitgeist Movement Festival' - which, as I have already pointed out, is in fact mostly sourced to TZM themselves. And then he asked whether another article by Bruce Lyons could be used to source who-know-what - at which point you seemed to be indicating that because he was a film producer, he was some sort of expert. Extremely confusing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I said "it could be argued", and it can. Also you have called this a "political movement". Where is the source for this claim? I did a quick search and I don't think this can be called a political movement. [32] They do not refer to themselves in this manner. It may, in fact be OR to call them such. --Amadscientist (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The sky is blue. TZM's objective is to fundamentally change the global political and economic system. TZM is a political Movement.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll trust that you know more about the movement than I do.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is clear that there was a mutual misunderstanding here, caused initially by Zgoutreach's introduction of another sourcing question entirely, that renders this section of the discussion useless for determining the validity of HollywoodToday.net and of other material by Bruce Lyons to the article. If this is to be determined here, it will need a new thread, with a clear indication of what is being cited for what. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As for what is being cited for what: I request the article to simple state that an annual Zeitgeist Medial Festival has taken place, and state the date, and location(s). All past attempts to include this have been deleted due to a claim of improper sourcing. If the hollywoodtoday.net article by Lyons in question is acceptable to state the date and location of the festival then I'll include it, if not, I will not include it. Thank you once again for your help in this matter. And sorry if this has distracted from answers to your original question, Andy Zgoutreach (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Given your earlier false claim that the section you added was sourced only to hollywoodtoday.net article (which it self-evidently wasn't, as the diff shows [33]), can you make clear what exactly it is you wish to cite hollywoodtoday.net for - please provide the proposed text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I never claimed HollywoodToday.net was the only source delted from the article, agreed I also used additional sourcing which was likewise removed by you. Where did I make a false claim or state it was the ONLY source deleted?

As for the proposed text: "The 2nd Annual Zeitgeist Media Festival was held during the weekend of August 5th 2012 with the main event being held in Los Angeles, CA." I'm also up for other ways of wording it, if you like it worded differently I'm sure yours would be fine too. Thank you very much all, for all your consideration. Zgoutreach (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify which HollywoodToday.net article you are citing this to? You seem to have linked to three different articles above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The information would be referenced to the following HollywoodToday.net aricle by Bruce Lyons. The information can also be found on other HollywoodToday.net articles here, and here. In addition, the official website of the Zeitgeist Media Festival contains the information here. I have not searched for other sources yet, as I trust one of these may do. Thank you very much for any outside input.Zgoutreach (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you start searching for sources - the article you link is a long fawning (two part) interview with Peter Joseph, rather than any sort of objective journalism (see the long list of TZM links at the end of this HollywoodToday.net article [34] for evidence of their lack of journalistic standards). It looks to be little more than a blog anyway. And why do you think we would consider using TZM as a source on their own Festival? Nobody has given the slightest indication that this would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Andy, we already know you disapprove of these sources, that is why we are here in the first place to get another opinion. Please allow other input. Thank you Zgoutreach (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, Andy, your clear vandalism to this article here, and again here, (where you deleted the entirety of the article, and replaced it with a vulgar rant), makes your non-NPOV towards this wikipedia article clear. Your continued reverting of changes has brought us here to look to outside opinion. I'm not convinced you should be allowed to further disrupt the editing of this article due to your history of vandalism on this page. AndyTheGrump, I ask that you please allow outside input at least to your citation concerns. Thank you kindly for your co-operation, Zgoutreach (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have any concerns over my behaviour, raise them elsewhere (though you will discover that the issue of that edit has already been raised, and dealt with - notably by topic-banning the individual most responsible for escalating the problem in the first place). And as for NPOV, I'm not the one trying to fill the article with poorly-sourced hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefuly others can help decide if it is "poorly-sourced" or not. Perhaps Amadscientist, or another respectable user would be so kind! :) (I've made the proposed text and references in bold above.) Thanks, Zgoutreach (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This one mention is not enough to establish notability for this festival. Amazing to see how little coverage it got in mainstream news sources. Compare with any ordinary minor local arts festival anywhere. Honestly. Choose a small town in any English speaking country. Google the town's name with "festival". See how the local press proudly covers the event(s). See how that's missing in this case. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

From browsing the zeitgeist article: the Z media festival is also mentioned a couple of times in the RT television interview, [35], which is a reliable source. Furthermore, towards the end of the interview, the TV screen is full of screen shots from the website of the Z media festival. best wishes, WinterWithFools (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of screenshots. Are you suggesting that a screenshot on a valid reliable source itself becomes valid in some way? That is an odd proposition to make. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And regarding the RT TV piece, it dates from September 2011. It cannot be a RS for the 2012 festival. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Red Carpet News TV and The Showbiz 411

I was considering using video interviews conducted by Red Carpet News TV (http://www.redcarpetnewstv.com/) and its corresponding Youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/RedCarpetNewsTV) and The Showbiz 411 youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/itn) on the Downton Abbey topic. I don't have any particular statements in mind -- I haven't even listened to these interviews yet and don't even know if there's anything useful -- but I'd like to know if they're RS beforehand.

The interviews by Red Carpet News TV are done by the site's staff members. Credentials at the site's about page say that founder Russell Nelson "is the UK correspondent for international film publication KinoPark magazine." I can't turn anything up on that, but as far as I can tell, it's Russian. I have no idea if [www.kinopark.kz/ KinoPark Multiplex Cinemas] is related as I cannot read Russian. I really didn't get anywhere on that. It appears he did work for Leicester Square TV (as claimed). He did camera work for Black Swan Press Conference, interviewed Ewen Bremner at the Perfect Sense premiere, a search turns up potentially more. Leicester Square TV, according to their very brief about us, is a part of PrimeTime International Ltd. The connection is also suggested by the PrimeTime logo linking to http://www.primetimeinternational.co.uk/ in the upper right of the site. I'm not entirely sure if this helps establish anything for the site, but there's something to consider.

The Showbiz 411 channel links to the Entertainment portion of ITN. That section in turn links to the ShowBiz 411 twitter feed, which links to the Youtube channel. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should waste your time. These sites are unlikely to reveal anything useful. However, if you do find something on them you think is essential for our article, then come back here with a more specific query. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Kalmyk & Yakut

I have questions about two seprate sources, and whether they fall under reliable sources. The first is the lone reference given for the article Yakut American.

• ЯКУТЫ РУССКОЙ АМЕРИКИ

The linked content appears to speak about the history of Russians in North America, but only mentions the word "Sakha" once. Is this a reliable source?

The second is one of two references in the article Kalmyk American.

• Kalmyk American Society

The linked content appears to be an organization that may are may not be notable in its own right, and used to verify that the subject exists. Is it a reliable source? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliablity of any source is dependent on the text it is being used to support. Can you include the text. [36] wouldn't count for notability as it's a WP:SPS, but that's a different question. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Yakut American article, the text being "verified" is:

Yakut first appeared in North America in the 19 century. They were mostly fishermen, hunters, carpenters. They now live mostly in Alaska, Oregon, and California. There are also some Yakut Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta as well as the Yukon territory

Not knowing how to read Russian, I am not sure if it is a reliable source. The text appears to only cover the ethnicities history in the Americas.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't directly answer your question but there is some useful information on Kalmyks here. That book is from Rutgers University Press and is effectively a New Jersey State Government publication. You will find facts there. However, for things like controversies about the group, you will have to look elsewhere. This link also is an RS: an article from a member of the Mongolia Academy of Sciences. It is hosted at Indiana University. Churn and change (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Felix Baumgartner

I am hoping, and yes, IF, only if it happens, may I please use this source as a record for the article 2012, about this Felix Baumgartner diving into the earth with his own suit to break the sound barrier, an example source here from the Huffington Post, and here if possible whenever he does the performance, I hope to report this stunt for the record hopefully notably if requested.--GoShow (............................) 02:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If it goes ahead it will be notable enough to include. It will be reported in all the major news media. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As of now this is just sensationalist reporting, and should not be included, unless there are established newspapers reporting it. Churn and change (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been reported everywhere, as a possible event. And not in always in a sensationalist way. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. If there are established newspapers reporting it, we should cite those sources. On WP we should use the best-quality sources available, and, in this case, I see the New York Times reporting it. The example source, Huffington Post, should not be used. Churn and change (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I meant other sources Drmies such as a Daily Newspaper or a book of records though, administrator.--GoShow (............................) 20:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RS for Filler (animal food)

1. I came directly here without first posting on the Filler (animal food) talk page, because that page seems inactive. Is 1800Petmeds an RS for the article? Specifically, the following paragraph from this website: "Various ingredients that provide little to no nutritional value, but are added in for dietary fiber. Common fillers found in pet food include corn bran, rice bran, oat hulls, cereal by-products, feathers, soybean hulls, cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, rice hulls, wheat mill run, citrus pulp, modified corn starch, weeds, and straw. Many foods also have corn, corn gluten, brewers rice, wheat gluten, soybean meal and rice protein. These ingredients are often used as plant-based sources of protein–cheaper sources of protein when compared to meat or fish. They are often given the name "filler" because they are used by pet food companies (instead of meat or fish) to "fill" up the bag of food with cheaper protein. The term filler is a misnomer, however, if filler is defined as a non-nutritive fiber source, because some of them do provide value. It is usually best to look for a pet food that is free of any fillers or cheaper sources of protein."

2. More generally, I'm having a hard time finding RS for the article. I tried (a) the website of the American Veterinary Association, (b) a general Google search, and (c) a search on Google Scholar, all without success. Admittedly I spent only about one hour in total on this and I may have found reliable sources if I would have spent more time, but I was hoping somebody here (a Veterinarian perhaps?) might have suggestions that may save me time. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not RS. And there may not actually be good sources for this content, so merger or deletion would be the only option. Articles on pet food should cover the contents of pet food. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Their website says: "Expert Ratings are created by a panel of experienced veterinarians, including renowned, board-certified Veterinary Internal Medicine Specialists." The one bio on their site is credible. The company is legit, though may not meet NPOV per what I see on the site. If you had invested in them in early 2000, your money would have gone up ten-fold by now. So, despite that large "Controversies" section in the Wikipedia article, they do have credibility; stock investors bolt at even a whiff of quackery. I realize Wikipedia guidelines say nothing of checking the stock market to vet a company but it nonetheless works well. As to the quoted material, seems straightforward and noncontroversial; is there a concrete objection to its accuracy? Again, no such objection is needed to object to the RS status itself, but still asking . . . Churn and change (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Judith, it seems merger and deletion were discussed on the article talk page and apparently the decision was to keep, among other reasons because this is an article on all animals and not only pets. (However, that discussion is more than 5 years old.) And thank you Churn for the feedback. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion went stale a long time ago, and the article's problems haven't been solved since then. My concern with this source is that a manufacturer has a vested interest in presenting a particular view of what to put in pet food. And the result is a mess. The reader has no way of deciding whether vegetable elements in pet food are useless and cynically added bulk, or necessary fibre. It must surely be very different for cat food and dog food, yet the article does not even go into that. Why do we think that this is a notable topic in its own right, separate from the content of pet food in general? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking the same question. It's a bit like having an article on Inert ingredients. You'll find lots of mentions, but very few sources treating the subject comprehensively. Furthermore, the line between "supplements" and "fillers" is very murky. Plus I agree that the source is not reliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll make an effort to visit my local public library sometime next week in an attempt to find further information in books on Veterinary Medicine. Judging by the comments here, it seems this may be an even more complex issue than I originally anticipated. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

trowelandsword.org.au

Is this source [37] reliable for this contested statement "The ACL states it has three main functions: Supporting politicians who uphold Christian values, lobbying and thirdly informing, educating and activating Christians." on the article, Australian Christian Lobby. The source has been contested several times by a user, recently on the grounds that the source is biased and too promotional (as you can see, at the bottom of the article is says **For more information on the Australian Christian Lobby, or to become a supporter, head to ..." Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

T&S appears to be much more of a "newsletter of puff piece opinions and promotions " without any fact checking and not "journalism" or peer review of any kind. But is there any reason to doubt that the T&S is misquoting the ACL's purposes? Why wouldnt you use the ACL's own website as a source for their functions? Are there other sources that describe the functions of the ACL differently? If so the article should present them all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

T&S certainly wouldn't be my first choice of reference for anything, but I have no reason to believe they are misquoting the ACL, so I was just going to let it slide. A third editor is the only one that has a problem with it. They have now removed it at least four times, firstly giving no reason at all, then citing NPOV (without being any more specific than that), and now by saying the reference shouldn't be used because the source is biased and promotional. It's getting a bit frustrating, hence getting another opinion here. Freikorp (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Jozo Tomasevich

Can someone with JSTOR (or other) access to Slavic Review, check what should be the main source of that article, specifically JSTOR 2501227? The wiki article is very short, but my impression is that a lot of misrepresentation went in. Some of the weird stuff was removed already, but some vague and misleading statements persist. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Link sent. Next time, ask at WP:RX. Churn and change (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Jagjit Singh article

Source - http://www.desiblitz.com/content/special-tribute-to-jagjit-singh

Article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagjit_Singh

Content -

Jagjit Singh an eminent Indian Ghazal Singer, lyricist and musician sadly passed away on 10th October 2011, aged 70.

.

I would like to use this link within the wiki for Jagjit Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran Rama (talk • contribs) 02:10, 15 October 2012‎ (UTC)

See also User talk:Jeff G.#Jagjit_Singh.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried a search on google.co.in for Jagjit Singh Ghazal and found a bunch of references and obituaries from last year, on online versions of print newspapers. Why do you need to use this source? Churn and change (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This page has a video interview included within it and was probably the last interview that Jagjit Singh ever did before he passed away, it also includes references to his life and childhood and is a whole lot more professional than some of the other links that are being used as references on his wiki page.

from their "about us" page "providing you with a unique experience of News, Gossip and Gupshup all with a Desi twist" - a source that boasts about providing gossip is probably not one that we want to use.

"ATV China's mystery files" and other sources at Hidden character stone

I've already removed text sourced to two travel guides. Quite a bit of this is sourced to a tv series called ATV China's mystery files but I can't find much about it. There is also a fringe web site [38] which is used quite a bit. This[]http://www.dongtaiwang.com/dm/UGgC/o5.FRPeRgPuVaN.pBz/arjf/11/05/03/402546.html[ seems to be a news aggregator and I'm pretty sure is copyvio. I can't find out who the author "Kim Zhishen" is or what the original source (the "New Aspect Times") is. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There are loads of Chinese-language reports about this—way more than what you raised above—but none of the sources are sound enough to establish a credible archeological explanation for this phenomenon. Lots of Chinese government sites claim that a bunch of nationally recognized archeologists and geologists have investigated and found no evidence of human involvement[39]. I can't find information on any independent investigations (that is, from parties with no possible political or commercial motivation).

The real story here is not that these are these anomalous writings. It's the fight over their meaning. Whatever their origin, these characters do exist in a park in Guizhou, and there is a heavily politicized battle around them. The officially sanctioned story is that the stone has five characters endorsing the Communist Party, and the dissident version is that it's six characters foretelling the party's demise (pretty clear from all the video footage and images—even the ones on government sites—that the dissidents have it right). This is becoming a holy site for Communist Party members to make pilgrimages and restore their oaths[40]. For dissidents, it's proof that the party lacks the mandate of heaven (or something). That's what the article should focus on. TheBlueCanoe (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, but I think it needs someone who can read the Chinese sources to do it. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a time frame in mind? Google translate is pretty good, and maybe I could try helping sometime. The editor below me also seems to have it right. I'm surprise no one has commented on the irony of a supernatural communist shrine, especially given the CCP's dogmatic obsession with science!TheBlueCanoe (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the sources (aside from citation 11) are either dissident political pundits or government controlled news websites, yet the article topic is about a supposed natural/archaeological formation. IMO you can't really find more unreliable sources than that. Citation 11 contains no information about the hidden stone, yet it is invoked as WP:SYN to make one side's POV stronger. My suggestion is just erase the entire article into a stub about a popular Communist shrine and hope somebody can find an actual archaeological/geological research source that can prove that this is a real natural/archaeological site in the first place. Jim101 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive

I am ready to use the primary and secondary sources as it is shown on current events of Wikipedia, as well, on my sandbox edits, to use on the 2012 article archives as it is shown WP:Primary sources and WP:Secondary sources. The new source.

• Felix Baumgartner breaks the world human ascent by balloon record before space diving out of the Red Bull Stratos helium-filled balloon over Roswell, New Mexico. (CNN)
• NYDaily News:Red Bull Stratos
• "Felix Baumgartner's jump from space's edge watched by millions". The Associated Press. 15 October 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2012.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• Please sign your posts. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• The NY Times has reported this; the BBC has reported this; so has the Washington Post, Forbes, The London Times . . . Those are the RSes you should use; please don't pick up the first few results from a Google search. Churn and change (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A defector's claim to be used in Biography of a political figure

Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A defector to the current Iranian regime claimed the supreme leader of Iran likes vulgar jokes as a means to cure his depression and this claim has been reflected in Huffington post and the telegraph. The question is whether mentioning it in the biography of the leader is against WP:BLP.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Huff Post is sourcing it to the Telegraph, who in turn describe it all as 'claims' by an unnamed defector - not really a way to inspire confidence. We certainly shouldn't assert any of it as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No, don't include. And not just because of the dubious nature of the claim, but because it serves no purpose. TheBlueCanoe (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Source is dubious. Churn and change (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

House of Commons formal/long-form title

This edit cites a blogpost that mentions a long-form name for the House of Lords and this broken link as evidence for the inclusion of the long-form name "The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled" as the heading for the infobox for the UK House of Commons. Are either reliable sources for the claim that this is an implicitly official long-form name that we should include in this way? N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The blog posting is not a reliable source for the issue... the blogger does appear to be a professional historian (I think it is this David Silbey, but I don't think his specialty is the British Parliament. Does the broken link refer to (this page? Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you can also create an article on "Baronness Finlay of Llandaff" and "the lack-of-a-cat problem in the Lords Spiritual," all topics with significant coverage in this reliable secondary source. Churn and change (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks x2. The blogger is an academic but, as noted, UK parliamentary nomenclature is not, AFAIK, his field. Also, his use of the phrase on that blog post says or explains nothing about the status of the phrase. I think the truncated link was to this, which is merely an example of a petition to parliament. The page linked above - which I myself linked to originally on the talk page, and which has not been cited by the person trying to include this info - is more explicit and explanatory in terms of describing the use of the formulation, but still does not assert that this is the definitive formal name, which we should use at the head of our infobox. It describes it as a form of address for petitions - which also requires the use of the words "sheweth" and "wherefore" - and says anyway that there is an equally valid modern alternative. N-HH talk/edits 08:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That particular posting of his is a joke. Kind of like an April Fool's day thing. He is satirizing the pomp and vanity of the House of Lords. If the House had a longer name, you can be sure there will be any number of established sources reporting it. Churn and change (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Aljazeera regarding Syria Civil War RS

Under Talk:Syrian civil war#Aljazeera Neutrality there are a debate over the neutrality of the news channel on the Syrian Civil War context. Several sources, including Bloomberg,CBS andThe Guardian compromises the credibility towards the Qatar Emir influence over the channel. The Director-general is Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim al-Thani which is a member of the Qatari royal family with no background in journalism. Jewish News One As for the reason(if needed), the $10 billions Iran-Iraq-Syria “pipelineistan” is a competitor of the Qatari-proposed “pipelineistan”.321 Energy"Asian Times" Furthermore, on the Telaviv Notes Volume 6, Number 17 September 10, 2012, present the news channel as a tool of the Qatar government which is ruled by Qatar foreign policy.Telaviv Notes The matter I am bringing is not a question if Al Jazeera is a trustful source in its whole entity, however, Al Jazeera fail under Qatar influence, which publicly declares support for the opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafranca (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a mainstream news source and normally highly reliable. Please come back if you have a specific enquiry, giving us the reference and statement it is meant to support. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the page history and it's unclear what article the original poster is referring to. There's not any reason to blanket distrust AJ's reporting any more than we would distrust the WSJ's reporting simply based on who owns it. Absent any specific concern there's not much we can do here. a13ean (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera's coverage of Syria has been criticized by a number of outlets for being abjectly partisan (eg foreignpolicy.com). A former Beirut based correspondent resigned over what he called its biased and unprofessional reporting on Syria ([41]). That alone doesnt disqualify the source, but in my view al-Jazeera (at least the Arabic outlet, and to a lesser extent AJE), in its coverage of both Syria and Bahrain, has come very close to being an arm of the Qatari Foreign Ministry and not much better than a propaganda outlet. The same is true, to an even greater extent, of al-Arabiya. And I say this as somebody who, personally, opposes the al-Assad regime. But on Wikipedia, I suppose it remains a nominally reliable source. nableezy - 21:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Only Al ajzeera Arabic has a slant towards pro Qatari positions because they are in fact Qataris themselves. Al Jazeera English however just reports on whatever CNN or the AFP would report on if they were in Al jazeera's position. Keep in mind that Al jazeera is supposed to be an Arab news channel, so its going to seem like an "arm of qatar" no matter what because Qatar is an arab country. So I would be carefully when using the Pro-assad nasserist Al akbar, which almost always sides with Hezabollah's opinions.Sopher99 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Im not using al-Akhbar as a source for anything other than one of al-Jazeera's reporters having resigned due to what he called their biased and unprofessional reporting on Syria. Being an Arab(ic) news channel does not mean that it is required to parrot whatever its host state's foreign policy establishment would like to be the "news". Or at least, it shouldnt mean that, though I admit the record for Arab(ic) news organizations is a bit weak in that regard. nableezy - 22:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not defending AJ here, but the correspondent who said that is former Hezbollah run al-Manar TV journalist whose new channel almayadeen is hardly any better. Still, I´d differ between AJA and AJE. AJA is hardly neutral, AJE so far manages to do at least good reports from their correspondents on the ground and in their discussion studios also invites Damascus university pro-Assad officials/professors etc. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

All that is critique of the Al ajzeera Arabic channel, not English. Furthermore the thoughts of the owner doesn't decide reliability, its the conduct and checking of the new reporters and writers that counts. Sopher99 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In the 2000s, the network was praised by the Index on Censorship for circumventing censorship and contributing to the free exchange of information in the Arab world, and by the Webby Awards, who nominated it as one of the five best news web sites, along with BBC News, National Geographic and The Smoking Gun. It was also voted by brandchannel.com readers as the fifth most influential global brand behind Apple, Google, Ikea and Starbucks. In 2011 Salon.com noted Al Jazeera's coverage of the 2011 Egyptian protests as superior to that of the American news media, while U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also opined that the network's news coverage was more informative, and less opinion-driven than American journalism Sopher99 (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And since you love extensively quoting sources <extended quote from copyrighted source removed> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/10/10/60minutes/main314278.shtml

Sopher99 (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment The guidelines of WP:RS are not the same as saying a news source is completely without bias. There may be a slant in some of the networks' coverage, in fact, I am almost sure of it, HOWEVER, it, like Fox or NBC or the Daily Mail or ...... still clearly is what WP considers Notable and WP:RS. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, please be specific in what are concerned that it might not be an RS for... a13ean (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sopher and Dafranca, please familiarize yourself with WP:COPYVIO and then remove the excessively long quotes from copyrighted sources. But Sopher, reports from a decade ago arent really going to change my mind on the network and its coverage of Syria today. But please see the last sentence of my first reply here, the one that says al-Jazeera is a nominally reliable source. nableezy - 00:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Follows below:

• On article description: "and soldiers were ordered to open fire on civilians"[42]
• On Revolt and escalating protests: "On 16 March, some 200 people gathered in front of the Interior Ministry, calling for the release of political prisoners. Thousands of protesters gathered in al-Hasakah, Daraa, Deir ez-Zor, and Hama. There were some clashes with security, according to reports from dissident groups. In Damascus, a smaller group of 200 men grew spontaneously to about 1,500 men. Damascus has not seen such uprising since the 1980s"[43][44]
• On Defections: "However, in response to the use of lethal force against unarmed protesters, many soldiers and low-level officers began to desert from the Syrian Army. Many soldiers who refused to open fire against civilians were summarily executed by the army" and "The number of defections would increase during the following months, as army deserters began to group together to form fighting units".[45] Dafranca (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your post with 4 " ~ "s. I see nothing wrong with those two paragraphs. Sopher99 (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of that can be sourced to a number of other sources. So for these, I dont see any issue. Not exactly the best writing, but not a problem using these sources for that content that I can see. nableezy - 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

TV episode reviews by the website Assignment X for critical reception material

Is this website, Assignment X, reliable for material on Critical reception in articles of South Park episodes? Nightscream (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The About page shows an editorial staff. But: it's not associated with a larger news organization, and I can't find news, magazine, or book articles about the site, or any citations of the magazine, except in non-notable blogs. The claim "From the co-creator of IF magazine" about Editor-in-chief Anthony C. Ferrante appears to be true. Ferrante has written or co-written several films, and done makeup and creature effects. Ferrante's page (archive) is oddly now a dead link - wtf? The webmag is a bit promotional of Ferrante projects. The website was created, according to trektoday.com "from the rubble of fandom", a merging of four different small-scale sci-fi publications and fan groups. I'd say "AX" is not proven to be a reliable source per WP:RS, but further research could reverse this. But I wouldn't delete an AssignmentX review from a small == External links == section. --Lexein (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Top 100 List (Japanese)

I have been in a content dispute with another user, particularly on this article Bow Wow for a long time over the inclusion of a Rolling Stone Top 100 list into the article. A quick summary, the other user is inputting the following type of sentence into at least 100 or more articles, "Rolling Stone ranked this band in their top 100 list" using a 3rd party website as a reference for the magazine. To begin with I don't think this belongs on the wikipedia as it is not an award, achievement or anything of notable merit (the other user claims it is a notable achievement) and it also doesn't provide any information about the topic, it is fancruft nonsense. However I decided to check out the reference myself, and according to Rolling Stone Magazine who made the list, it is arbitrary and biased and they even made special note of that on the cover of the issue which can be seen here. http://www.amazon.co.jp/Rolling-Stone-ローリング・ストーン-2007年-09月号/dp/B000UCGUXY/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt

On the cover, above where it says Best 100, in the green writing it says the following sentence 独断と偏見で選んだ which means "selected arbitrarily and with bias". The magazine is making it perfectly clear (even before you buy the thing) that the article is not written with serious intent and that it was not written by a noted music critic, it is just a random top 100 list by a journalist. Now a content dispute went unsuccessful because no one else contributed and so it was closed. However given the above information I have provided, I believe the reference itself is not reliable (as it is biased and random in nature) and therefore it is not acceptable to be on the wikipedia.27.33.143.93 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pamela Geller blog

Yay, another ridiculous question I'm forced to ask! Is anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller's blog, atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com, sufficiently reliable that it can be included in any article? While one would presume that it verifiably represents her own personal feelings, I argue that it falls so far short of WP:RS that it should not be used in articles on other subjects on which Ms. Geller might happen to express an opinion - for instance, Srebrenica massacre, where it is currently being inserted in spite of talkpage consensus not to include it. I have asked that users interested in including her opinion produce reliable sources to show that it belongs in the article, but no luck. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The only relevant question regarding reliable sources, Pamela Geller and the Srebrenica Massacre article is this: "Can a person's blog be used to show what that person's opinion is?". The answer is yes. Fairview360

Absolutely not reliable for anything other than her opinion. And only third party coverage of her opinion would indicate that her opinion might be worthy of inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Current usage for interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If her opinion is notable enough WP:RS should cite her on those matters.Her blog should be used only as primary source.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with TheRedPenOfDoom and Shrike. Geller's blog opinions should only be used on Wikipedia as far as they are mentioned in reliable third party sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not really a matter of whether or not its "reliable" - its a matter of WP:UNDUE space being given to a fringe viewpoint by bringing it up at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good source for facts, or as a convenience link for sources she copies. Can be used to cite her own opinions, where editorial consensus is they are notable. Churn and change (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

<-I guess its use in Ron Coleman (legal scholar) to support the statement "Other reported blogger clients include Pamela Geller"[46] is probably a BLP violation and needs replacing. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

removed until we have third party or reciprical sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Geller is certainly Notable, but strictly an opinion writer. She does not have a history of even-handed treatment of facts, but certainly often includes facts not reported on widely in other sources. Is her blog GENERALLY a WP:RS? Obviously no. Can it be referred to in appropriate ways in Articles as opinion? Obviously yes. As to whether any INDIVIDUAL (that is the sticking point for me in responding) inclusion passes WP:RS or WP:UNDUE is a separate issue, and needs separate posting, as per WP:RS Noticeboard guidelines. Looking over your reversions, I would generally agree they are individually justified, but am not going to endorse a blanket ban on Geller references, though they should only be used with extreme caution. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There are very few blanket bans on sources. Even the current community consensus that Huffington Post is not reliable for facts is slowly changing as the publication changes. But I would dispute her being "notable" for our definition on Wikipedia. She is certainly controversial, but does that make her blog notable enough to ignore the current polciy against blog sites being used? Anyone can write a blog. Anyone can create an internet site. But we simple don't use self published blogs of this nature WP:BLOGS.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese has misrepresented the true nature of the situation in the talkpage of the Srebrenica Massacre. There is NOT concensus on the talkpage and Roscelese knows that. Furthermore, no editor wants to use Geller's blog as a reference for anything other than showing her own opinion. Meanwhile, all editors agree that her blog is an accurate reflection of her own opinion. After misrepresenting the situation among editors on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage, Roscelese is now taking this discussion and presenting the opinions of the editors here such as The Red Pen of Doom and claiming that there is consensus that under no circumstances should Geller's blog be used as a reference. In other words Roscelese is lying. There is not consensus here that Geller's blog should not be used under any conditions. The consensus here is that the blog can not be used as a reliable source, as The Red Pen of Doom says, "for anything than her own opinion." So how is that Roscelese can take this discussion and present it as supporting his position when it does not? And how is it that Roscelese can claim consensus on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage when it clearly and obviously does not exist? It appears that Roscelese is working the system here. Furthermore, it would behoove Roscelese to inform all the other involved editors when he starts a discussion here. Instead, he instigated a discussion here without informing others, twisted the results of this discussion and manipulated the situation on the Srebrenica Massacre page such that his preferred edits have been locked in place. This is not what wikipedia envisioned when setting up these systems. They are not meant to be gamed but rather assist good faith discussion, something Roscelese has avoided constantly misrepresenting other editors both here and on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage. What is not clear is what his actual agenda is and why he is objecting to an example of opposition to the description of genocide being given in a section titled Opposition to the description genocide. Two reliable sources -- The Guardian and the Southern Poverty Law Center -- have been cited showing that her opinion is notable whiel her own blog has been used solely for the purpose of showing her opinion, something most editors here have explicitly approved. What is going on here? Fairview360

Quoting Geller at Srebrenica massacre is undue emphasis on a minor viewpoint. If Geller's viewpoint was important, another commentator in a reliable source would have discussed it. If you want to bring Geller's opinion into the article you should use third party comments, not Geller's blog. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source, The Guardian, HAS discussed Geller's viewpoint on Serbian war crimes. Perhaps Binksternet could read the reliable sources in question and then offer his opinion. Fairview360

Geller's status as a historian or political analyst or pretty much anything is WAY on the fringe. The only time her opinions should even be considered for inclusion on any article would be if there were significant third party commentary on Geller's opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

While editors such as Fairview360 and The Red Pen of Doom both agree that Geller's views are WAY on the fringe and perhaps both Fairvew and The Red Pen wish we lived in a world where people with such views were not given mainstream credibility and notability, with Geller, that is not the case. Reliable sources have stated that she is notable. In fact, the Guardian specifically refers to how counter-intuitive that may be: This strange performance might suggest that Geller is a figure consigned to the margins of the widening and increasingly heated debate about the role of Muslims in America. Far from it. The flamboyant New Yorker, who appears on her own website pictured in a tight fitting Superman uniform, has emerged as a leading force in a growing and ever more alarmist campaign against the supposed threat of an Islamic takeover at home and global jihad abroad http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-america The fact is reliable sources are stating that Pamela Geller is notable. Hence, wikieditors and administrators need to acknowledge that. Fairview360

In the Srebrenica Massacre article and the talkpage, two reliable sources have been provided showing that Pamela Geller is notable, including an article in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-america where she is described as having "aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe including the English Defence League in Britain, white supremacists in South Africa and Serbian war criminals." The Southern Poverty Law Center states "Geller's incendiary rhetoric and readiness to deny civil freedoms and the presumption of innocence to Muslims hasn't prevented her from gaining a measure of mainstream acceptability. In late March 2011, she was even invited by the Alaska House of Representatives to testify on a proposed anti-Shariah bill." http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller Meanwhile the Daily News New York http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-25/local/28647400_1_islamic-center-anti-islamic-pamela-geller considers both the Southern Poverty Law Center and Pamela Geller are notable. Hence, significant third party commentary has been provided by The Guardian, The Daily News New York and the Southern Poverty Law Center. So, on what grounds, does Roscelese continue to post on wikipedia that there are no reliable sources demonstrating that Pamela Geller is notable. Roscelese knows of these sources. He has been presented with them repeatedly. Still he ignores them, ignores the actual response of the editors here, and posts on the Srebrenica Massacre article that there is consensus supporting his position that Geller is not notable and that her blog can never be used not even to show her own opinions. There is no consensus supporting Roscelese and yet he succeeds in claiming that all the editors here agree with his position thereby getting the administrator Ckatz to lock the article into deleting the reference to Pamela Geller. There remains the question why Roscelese would put so much effort into getting an example of opposition to the description of genocide deleted from a section titled Opposition to the description genocide. (?) Does it not make sense that wikieditors would contribute examples of opposition to the description of genocide by notable people to a section titled Opposition to the description genocide?Fairview360

No, those independent sources do not say anything about Geller's blog posts about Srebrenica. You cannot use them to synthesize a position that Geller's opinion on Srebrenica has been noticed. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, half of the examples given in the said section of the Srebrenica Massacre article would need be deleted. If understood correctly, Binksternet is affirming that a) Geller is a notable person, b) she does oppose the description of the Srebrenica Massacre as genocide, c) her opinion does provide an example of a notable person opposing the description of the Srebrenica Massacre as genocide, but it does not belong in the section. If one visits the genocide denial article, one will see multiple examples given of genocide denial by notable people. In the writing on gencodie denial in general, several opinions are offered from notable people. But there is no reliable source stating that that specific opinion is notable. How can wikieditors refer to the opinions of notable people if they can do so only when a reliable source states that that particular opinion is notable to that particular topic? If wikipedia were to hold to such a standard, the opinions of George Orwell writing about the mechanism of denial would be deleted from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_denial because no third party stated that Orwell's specific opinion given was notable in relation to the specific topic. Fairview360

George Orwell's viewpoint on nationalism and atrocities has been widely discussed in biographies and scholarly works. Your example falls down on that point. Geller's viewpoint has not been discussed. Sorry, but pointing to other parts of the article will not help Geller be noticed. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the New York Times also considers Pamela Geller to be notable: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10geller.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Fairview360

But not on Srebrenica massacre--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What have we learned here? If the New York Times article says nothing about the article topic then it cannot be used. Stop trying to prop up a synthesis of several sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Do all editors agree that a) a person's blog can be used as a reliable reference to show that person's opinion (and for that purpose only) and b) that Geller is a notable person? Then we can move onto the question of synthesis. Fairview360

Gellar meets minimum notability requirements for an article about her in the encyclopedia. That does not mean her opinion on any topic that she happens to discuss on her self published blog is notable for inclusion in that particular topic's article. Seems like a fairly open and shut case. Is there anyone here supporting Fairview's position other than Fairview? Dlv999 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article specifically refers to Geller "aligning herself with Serbian war criminals", specifically refers to her having "vigorously defended Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian president who died while on trial at The Hague for war crimes." Those war crimes include the Srebrenica Massacre, the topic of the article in question. It is as if a reliable source says that someone's opinion on Nazi war crimes is notable but because the source does not explicitly mention Auschwitz, it can not be included in an article about Auschwitz. This kind of overly legalistic hairsplitting is a disservice to wikipedia. It benefits the reader to see the various contemporary sources of opposition to describing the Srebrenica Massacre as a genocide. Reliable sources have shown that Pamela Geller is a notable person. Reliable sources have asserted that her opinions relevant to this article are notable. Her own blog leaves no doubt that what The Guardian considers notable -- her support of Serbian war criminals, her defense of Slobodan Milosevic and denial of Serbian war crimes -- includes denying the Srebrenica Massacre. In an article with 23,627 words, Pamela Geller's opinions were described for less than one half of one percent of the article and yet the stewards of wikipedia insist that the entry should be deleted, that it is not relevant, that it is not noteworthy, that it was being given undue weight. Fairview360

• Point of order It is clear that discussion is no longer related to the ORIGINAL filing, which was a request for GENERAL guidelines on using Geller material. While unusual for WP:RS noticeboard filings, it nevertheless generated good GENERAL comments.(and no, it is not necessary to inform other editors; WP:RS is to get outside opinions) SPECIFIC determination if a specific Geller column can be in a specific article should be restated, if that is what Roscelese wanted, together with diffs and narrative on the individual case. Fairview might note that WP:UNDUE concerns might not be addressed in a WP:RS discussion.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Fairview360 agrees that the original question here was whether reliable sources were being used appropriately at the Srebrenica Massacre. Fairview360 agrees that the only question here should be related to WP:RSN, not WP:UNDUE nor WP:SYNTH, just WP:RSN. Fairview360 agrees that the editors here should give a clear up or down indication whether reliable sources are being used appropriately and move all other commentary/discussion to the appropriate forum. Lastly, yes, the effort here is geared towards outside opinions. Meanwhile, it helps if those outside opinions can be based on relevant material which often comes from those most familiar with the content in question. Fairview360

Uh, NO. The original question was whether a Pam Geller blog entry could be GENERALLY used on WP. If you want to change the discussion to a specific instance, I would highly encourage you to start a SPECIFIC WP:RS post. However, though the original post did not include difs and specific points, entirely reasonable due to its general nature, a post on a SPECIFIC question needs to restrict itself to well-sourced, well-laid-out and objective evidence that it either IS or IS NOT a WP:RS in the context that it is being used, and that context needs to be explained in specific. Just FYI, in case you decide to go forward; you may want to change the style of argument you use, particularly being more succinct and using fewer colorful analogies; the WP:RS page lends itself more to factual debate. (PS - completely unrelated to anything, it would help other editors if you signed posts by using four tildes, instead of pasting your user address directly. It is hard to tell what order posts are in, and the standard signing process always puts a time stamp on the post, even multiple posts within a single edit). Good luck whichever you decide. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(Re: four tildes: It had been some time since I last edited on wikipedia before this latest round. In the past, there was a button that automatically added the four tildes. Now I do not see it and I do not know how to produce tildes with this Bosnian keyboard. So how can I insert the tildes or find that button that once upon a time appeared below this text box? Fairview360 )

Perhaps a helpful cue to what your arguments need, to convince editors that the specific Geller blog entries are WP:RS in the specific case you cite. The NYT article you cite (as Shrike correctly states) proves that people know who Geller is, but has no mention of her opinions on Srebrenica. I don't think anyone is arguing that Geller is completely obscure, neither are movie stars, but they also are not WP:RS in this case. The other articles you cite (Guardian, SPLC, etc.) actually DO help your case, as they do MENTION that she has opinions, arguably relevant; they just don't discuss those opinions or even really say what those opinions are. A newspaper or other third-party source discussing the Geller opinions themselves, or even publishing an attributed quote on the subject of denial of the genocide is really what editors are looking for.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In general. No. Personal blogs cannot be used as RS. I think we might include a blog entry together with the news-item of a RS (like the Guardian) that is covering that blog entry. That can show that the RS is not quoting the blog out of context. But in the Srebrenica Massacre-case, I believe that other Wikipedians already pointed out that Geller's opinion was given undue weight in that article. So unless Geller was fighting alongside Mladic in '95 (quod non), I'd recommend to keep the Geller-part out of the article.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think if you check the discussion at he Srebrenica article, you'll see that Fairview360 has carefully shown how Geller's views are not given undue weight in the article. They're not given undue weight even in the subsection in which they're included. Opbeith (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

...And I think not. The discussion there and the discussion here involves several editors pointing out the critical issue of the shallowness of the coverage of Geller's opinion specifically about Srebrenica. None of the sources describes the specifics of Geller's blog entries on Srebrenica. It is too much weight for the article to bring her opinion to bear if her opinion is not part of the media discussion. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

First have to note that WP:UNDUE and WP:RS are very different criteria, before saying that in the context of that article, Opibeith has a point, and WP:UNDUE would not be valid, but only if there were an argument that Geller's blogs were WP:RS, and could be included in the first place. The article itself is extremely long, and the section is clearly labeled a collection of minority views, and even though appropriate to that article, it is still a substantial section. WP:UNDUE always relates to how extensive treatment of other aspects of a subject are. It of course, does not matter, until you breach the WP:RS hurdle. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, questions of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH should be addressed at a different noticeboard and that here, we are only addressing WP:RS. Is that correct?

If a) the Guardian article is being used to establish that Geller is notable and her opinions are relevant to Serbian war crimes and b) Geller's blog is being used to establish what her own views are, it seems that the reliable sources are being used appropriately, that the objections stated here are not actually based upon WP:RS but rather WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and WP:NORN. If this is true, then shouldn't this discussion be taken to a different noticeboard? Fairview360

Her blog could be only used in the article about herself.As she is not reliable source.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shrike. There is no indication from anywhere that PG should be regarded as a reliable source on the Srebrenica massacre. To include her opinion you would need some indication that an RS has reported her opinion as notable and relevant to the topic. The Guardian article does not provide that. The brief mention of her opinions on Milosevic are in the context of "her sympathies with extremist groups across the globe." That is, the Guardian mentions these opinions because they shed light on the character of Pamela Geller, not because they have any relevance or significance to a meaningful discussion of Serbian War crimes. Dlv999 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we in heated agreement here? It appears that all editors agree that her blog is a reliable source only for showing her own point of view. Her blog was used to demonstrate her own point of view. How many other ways shall we say this? Is Shrike agreeing that her blog is a reliable source for her own point of view or not? What does Shrike's entry "she is not a reliable source" mean? Shrike, keep it simple. Is Geller's blog a reliable source for demonstrating Geller's views? Yes or no? Fairview360

You have gotten a wide range of users giving you the same answer. Yes, Geller's blog is a reliable source for Geller's opinions. That should be obvious, my personal blog is a reliable source for my personal opinions. That is a tautology, but it is also a red herring. Geller's blog is not however reliable for anything other than her views, and since those views themselves arent a reliable source for what she is writing about they cant be used in articles outside of Pamela Geller. So for what matters here, you cant use that source in the article Srebrenica massacre. The end. Incessantly arguing over this wont change the answer. nableezy - 18:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"since those views themselves arent a reliable source for what she is writing about they cant be used in articles outside of Pamela Geller" Really? The entire Holocaust Denial article is full of the views of people and organizations that are not considered reliable sources on what actually happened during the Holocaust. Are you going to say that since their views themselves aren't reliable sources for what they are writing about, they can not be in the Holocaust Denial article? Are you going to dismember the entire Holocaust Denial article and restrict whatever those people and organizations are stating only to wiki articles about those organizations and people? No. Why? Because their opinions on the Holocaust -- however unreliable as sources of accurate information -- have been deemed relevant and significant. If Pamela Geller's views on the Srebrenica Massacre were deemed relevant and significant, then her views -- however unreliable as a source of accurate information -- would belong in that section of the Srebrenica Massacre article that deals with denial. I am not looking to change opposition to including her opinions in the article. I am looking for a clear acknowledgement that the opposition is based upon WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Rather than taking the time to throw out a red herring that the issue is whether she is a reliable source of accurate information -- it is not -- clarify what the issue here is. Is it WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR or WP:RS? Fairview360

If there are poor sources in the Holocaust Denial article the answer is to remove those sources, not add other crap sources to other articles. Pamela Geller's views on nearly every subject are not significant in any way, and the attempt to backdoor the RS requirement by saying "oh the source is just used for her opinion" is, in my view, one of the more blatant examples of what is wrong with this place. No serious source would, in an article on the Srebrenica massacre, quote Ms Geller. Wikipedia aspires to be, last I checked, a serious source. So use serious sources, not whatever crap some person puts on their blog. nableezy - 21:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You do not seem to be getting my point. The views described on the Holocaust Denial article are poor sources of accurate information but you can not remove them because they are the very topic of the article. If you are writing an article or a subsection of an article on people who are denying what is known to be true, then, by definition, their views are not reliable sources of accurate information. So your assertion above "since those views themselves arent a reliable source for what she is writing about they cant be used in articles outside of Pamela Geller" is not true. Every view denying the Holocaust is not a reliable source for what they are writing about. That is why they call it denial.

The reason given by editors here for rejecting Geller is not that her views are obviously false, but that her specific views on Srebrenica have not been explicitly shown to be relevant or significant enough. The objections have not been that the references used were used inappropriately. One reference was used to say who she is (The Guardian article). One reference was used to show what she says which is an example of denying the Srebrenica Massacre(Atlas Shrugs blog). The Geller blog was used appropriately, in other words, only to show what Geller says. Rather, the objections have been that there are not sufficient references to establish the relevance and significance of her specific views on Srebrenica. Hence, the objections here have not been WP:RS but rather WP:UNDUE (including her opinion is giving it undue weight); WP:SYNTH ( a)The Guardian article considers her opinions denying Serbian war crimes notable. b) Serbian war crimes included the Srebrenica Massacre. Therefore c) her opinions on the Srebrenica Massacre are notable.) and WP:OR (wikieditors asserting that she is representative of an element within the American political arena that denies the Srebrenia Massacre without the RS to back it up). So be it. Simply wanted to see you either acknowledge that it is not WP:RS or explain how it is.

Most likely, even though there is an element within the American political arena of which Geller is an example that denies the Srebrenica Massacre, it is not going to get extensive attention by reliable sources since the Srebrenica Massacre is passing into history without the kind of attention that the Holocaust received. Hence, given the bar set here, it will not, for better or for worse, be included in the article. So it goes. Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you. Fairview360

I havent looked at the Holocaust Denial article, I am using your description of the sources. But no, if there are opinion pieces or blogs by unqualified people used as sources, even for their own opinion, in that article then they should be removed. Secondary sources discussing those sources should be used. It isnt that Geller's views are obviously false, its that no serious source takes her views seriously. So, please try to be serious in how edit an encyclopedia article. You got your answer here, several times. Geller's blog is a reliable source for her own views. That does not mean Geller's blog may be used in an encyclopedia article. Any person shouting from the hilltop is a reliable source for his views. You cant however use that in the article end time to include nableezy says the world will end on 12/12/12. nableezy - 01:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, my take then is that along with WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR objections, there is also a WP:RS objection that says one can never use Geller's blog as a reference, that text from her blog could only be entered if a reliable source had quoted that text. Fairview360

nableezy, I'd agree with you, there are quite a few editors giving similar answers, ebbing, flowing and mingling as they are challenged and refuted, but that is not the same as a wide range of editors.

It's interesting that none of the editors involved had ever shown the slightest interest in the Srebrenica article before they all came along one after the other with common cause to remove Pamela Geller's views. It happens that following events last year Pamela Geller's views on sensitive subjects have become an embarrassment to herself and to some of her supporters. Whether these two factors are connected who's to know for certain.

What I can say here, where I discover that the argument has been moved from the Srebrenica article without a clear warning that might have attracted my attention , is that when the proponents of removing Geller's opinion at the Srebrenica article Talk Page are opposed with evidence refuting their statements, they readily drop their initial arguments and move on to another, generally citing reference to such and such a different policy being applicable. When confronted with what appears to be the relevant wording of the policy that does not substantiate their claims and asked to provide the wording of the policy they claim to rely on, they disappear, shift their ground or make an assertion that ignores the issue.

The device of bringing the discussion here in a wider form and then using this forum to construct a an alternative consensus may well be successful, but I find it hard to believe that what will be achieved is the affirmation of important principles or an enhancement of the quality of the article. If this "consensus" succeeds the only real beneficiary will be an aspect of Geller's public profile.

When Binksternet asserts at the Srebrenica article that a consensus has been established here with the implication that it that must prevail, he is hardly unaware that he has completely failed to answer the points put to him, and the same goes for the other members of the so-called consensus who have chosen to move away to this forum. If there is special interest involved, as suggested by the peregrinations of some of those involved around other Wikipedia articles, that would be fairly shaming for Wikipedia but sadly nothing unexpected. Whatever, I'd still like to remind everyone that all the questions left unanswered at the article Talk Page are still waiting to be dealt with. Opbeith (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pathologist's reports

Would it be possible to clarify the status of pathologist's reports, as per the recent discussion here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The "status" of primary sources (such as a pathologist's report) depends on the context in which you are using them. Could you give us more details... what article? What section? What sentence? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I linked the discussion? The point at contention seems to be whether the second shot was to the back of Codling's head or was (as the police report currently suggests) to his face. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more like a NPOV dispute than a reliability dispute... a typical case of two sources saying different things... We usually resolve such disputes by the disagreement (without saying which is "correct"). Something like: "According to the pathologists report the second shot was to the back of Codling's head, while according to the police report the shot was to his face." Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a big problem. But the pathologist's report is not in the public domain and so cannot be supported with a ref. That's why I came here to ask. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If the pathologist's report hasn't been published, it cannot be used as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Some participants in the discussion seem to be confusing "public domain" - which is a copyright status, and "published" - reproduced in some or other form and made available to the public. Roger (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of those participants is me. The informant, who says she is a family member, has access to the report, but says that it has not been published. I was hoping to ascertian whether such reports were ever published. Perhaps we could then move on to the question of copyright status. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If it hasn't been published, it can't be cited as a source (as for whether pathologist's reports are ever published, I don't know).. Copyright status is irrelevant - we'd be citing it, not reproducing it. 14:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the basis for our conclusion, that a pathologist's reports are not published, or at least that this one has not been, is the Talk Page contribution of the anon ip who claims to be related to the victim. Again, this is why I raised the question here. I had a suspicion that someone else might have already faced this question with another article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

We have dealt with similar questions before... Sounds like someone needs to do some research, and find out whether the report has been published, or not. (Published in this case means: "made available to the public". If it is on file somewhere, and a member of the public can either view the original or obtain a copy - regardless of how much cost, effort, or red tape it takes to view or obtain it - then it qualifies as being "published". If it is in a sealed file, and members of the public can not access it, then it has not been "published"). Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be no other way. Good luck to any editor who volunteers to research this matter "regardless of how much cost, effort, or red tape" is involved... although a quick email to the office of the local (or perhaps this particular) pathologist might save some effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Clear this cannot be used. I cast no aspersions on the word of Codling's daughter that the Pathology report said what she says it said, but unless other WP editors can verify, it cannot be used. If published, it would have to be used with caution as a primary source. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are probably right. But what do you mean by "other WP editors verifying"? That just sounds a bit like WP:OR to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

WP gives great deference to fact, at least in theory. WP:OR is not allowed on Article space, but fact checking on Talk space IS allowed, my problem is that there is nothing to fact check. That is what I meant by "other editors" being able to verify. Still no WP:RS secondary source, but if you are going to make the case that an exception needs to be made, or that a secondary source not usually allowed should be used, based on clear evidence in primary sources, other editors need access to the primary sources. Let me be clear. You would need BOTH a borderline secondary source, and uncontestable primary sources that the secondary source is correct--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be clear. So - is the pathologist report an "uncontestable primary source"? If not, then what is exactly? Surely, if the GMP changes its website account, that's just a single secondary source (the one we currently use), but we'd just update the article to go along with that!? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if unclear. Pathologist report is a Primary Source. "Uncontestable" refers to whether a reasonable person could possibly read the report in a different way, and can be a high bar.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

if there was discrepancy between the pathologists report and the police report, reliable sources would be talking about it and we could quote them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there almost certainly is a discrepancy. I cannot imagine that Katherine Codling could have any other motivation coming here than to highlight this. And I see no reasom why such a discrepancy would ever come to light unless deliberately investigated by someone. It really does not affect the tragic outcome, after all. With all due respect to GMP, even though a coroner's report seems to be unusable here, I would certainly see it as inherently more reliable than an account on the GMP website. But, as noted on the article Talk Page, it seems that Katherine is now taking the matter up directly with the GMP. So we'll see what happens, if anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

no matter what the motivation Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to bring such information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to show information that we know is incorrect. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The New American usable as a RS?

I'm in the midst of an AfD that's slightly heated at times, with the author having told several of his followers to come in and weigh in on the debate. This wouldn't automatically be bad, except that the vast majority have no idea how notability on Wikipedia works and are using arguments along the lines of "I like it" and are giving random sources from various websites that are dubious in notability. The AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse. The source in question is a review on the New American, but it looks to be the sort of site where anyone can sort of contribute and the review isn't done by a staff member or any of the people on the contributor page. Anyone want to weigh in on this? Here's the source: [47] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• In general, could I have some help with explaining reliable sources on this AfD? I've gone into detail about why the sources given are unusable for showing notability, but in their mind I'm the "Big Bad Editor" that deletes articles for fun and they're not listening to me. (sighs)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The author of the review doesn't show up on TMA's masthead at all, either as staff or as a contributor. Googling for him returns an ELCA bishop (not at all likely, and certainly out his area of expertise) and a lawyer; but it's a pretty common name. Given the content on TMA I would tend to the view that they would routinely review a book such as this. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• But would it be considered a reliable source, though? Even if it is the type of thing they talk about, would that make this a reliable source? I'm kind of leaning towards no since it looks to be reviewed by a random site member.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty overtly an affiliate of the John Birch Society, so at minimum it should be seen as POV (Christian and Republican in nature). Handle with care. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

per RS#Questionable sources "Questionable sources ... include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist,.... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." The JBS' views are frequently seen as "extremist". And specifically related to this use, the in the case of a book reviews, neither the JBS nor The New American is widely regarded as having any expertise in that area. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

World Gazetteer

I would like to know if the gazetteer World Gazetter is a reliable source for the city population parameter; specifically, on the "Largest cities" wikipedia templates. The WG website indicates that it uses official data sources. Where unavailable, secondary sources such as yearbooks, encyclopedias, atlases etc. are used [48]. It's also a resource used by the US government (c.f. [49]), and seems to be featured throughout Wikipedia for this purpose (e.g. Template:Largest cities of Pakistan). Middayexpress (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Midday, thanks for bringing this here. I would like to specify the question (as far as I am concerned at least): is it a reliable source if the underlying information is not given or verifiable... For those, who want more background information, see Template_talk:Largest_cities_of_Somalia... L.tak (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope - not a reliable source:

"What are the data sources of the World Gazetteer?

If possible, official data sources are used. In many cases however no official figures are available. In that case, secondary sources such as year books, encyclopediae, atlases etc. are used. I have also received data from other stats lovers". [50]

AndyTheGrump (talk)

World Gazetteer does actually use official data sources according to Princeton University, which recommends it [51]. WG is apparently owned by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), a US government agency now known as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA):

"The World Gazetteer's Web site is owned by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency which maintains a database of foreign geographic feature names. It also gets information from the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (US BGN). This database is updated regularly as new information is received. However, there are many countries with old information. The date of the latest data update is given against the country name. In order to check the accuracy of the data, the author checked information gathered from this Web site with printed material sources put out by the same agency. The Web site was found to be very accurate. This Web site is user-friendly except when the user tries the query about the various features options; that selection is a bit complex. The site has hyperlink user manual options after every selection, and also provides the option of sending feedback to the Webmaster. All the hyperlinks are well placed and logically arranged. Because of this, the site is easy to use. This Web site is graphically well-designed. There is no doubt that this Web site is the best source on the Internet for getting location information of any place in the world. It can be grouped as a "very good" Web site."

Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to specify: a personal webpage of a Princeton-employee last updated in 1998 (!) recommends it.... Hardly an in-depth evaluation (and no indication about the specific case we are talking about) L.tak (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the website you link to self-evidently isn't "owned by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency" - this is nothing more than an example of two different websites using the same name to describe themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that since the US Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that NIMA is the originator of World Gazetteer on its Gazetteer Quick Reference [52]. World Gazetteer also indicates that it uses official data with regard to population specifically [53]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this helps (gazetteer-info):

My name is Stefan Helders and I am webmaster, site owner and content manager/owner of the World Gazetteer, so this project is currently a 'one-man show'. I was born in 1970 and live in Leverkusen, Germany, a suburb of Cologne. I am married to an Indonesian lady and have three children born in 1996, 1998 and 2000.

I don't think that establishes that it is part of a government.... L.tak (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Princeton University site is that of the GIS librarian there and is credible. However the World Gazetter it talks of is a site owned by NIMA, and the link there is dead. That site is obviously reliable if you can locate it. As to the World Gazetter site you found, if you click on "info/help" at the top, then "general" and then "Who's responsible for the project" you see this is a site maintained by a single non-expert hobbyist (I see L.tak has already posted on this). It is not a reliable source for citing; it looks useful for research. Some information on the NIMA World Gazetter is here. Churn and change (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. What about the GeoNames geographical database? It's widely used on Wikipedia for these templates and cited by some governmental agencies like the USGS (e.g. [54]). It also apparently has a global team of ambassadors that gathers its data, including some academics (c.f. [55]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

They have a core database and a wiki where they let registered users edit things. If the information you are citing is based on the core database looks like it should be considered reliable, based on the mentions I am seeing in the foremost scientific journal out there and by USGS. They actually don't have the qualifications of their ambassadors listed, nor exactly which sources they use for various countries, but the sources referring to them, implicitly lending them credibility, are top notch. Anything that includes the wiki part would be user-generated content and not reliable for our purposes. I don't know whether they keep the two parts separate. Churn and change (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Geonames actually does give info on the underlying data. I guess we can trust them to copy-paste data well; but for the reliability, we ll have to evaluate on a case by case base based on these sources (e.g. the World Gazetteer s sources discussed here were the basis for the Somalia info...) L.tak (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

They seem to use World Gazetteer for population data. I guess we should be able to find other sources for population data of regions. Note that data are not unreliable just because it is from the World Gazetteer (which looks a good-quality site, though not an RS); if Geonames is vetting the data, cross-checking against other sources and accepting only validated information, then even data from the Gazetteer they include should be usable. The USGS and Nature mentions seem to indicate they are doing credible vetting (federal bureaucracies do not easily implicitly endorse an outside entity; Nature is not just a top journal, it is the top journal). As to giving the source, do they "cite" the parts of the data people download, telling them which part is from where? Churn and change (talk)

Churn, I think we agree. The fact that the data are from World Gazetteer, does not make them bad; and they seem to be a good data repository. This kind of info (here for Canada) should help decide on a case by case (country by country basis. It is not a great way to cite, but clearly indicates where the data come from (in the case of Canada: the 2011 census, which is ok)... L.tak (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson at John Harvard statue

I created the page John Harvard statue yesterday and over night another editor deleted over a third of the article including sources because they do not believe the sources are fully fact checking the material. This mostly revolves around The Harvard Crimson articles stating that traditions associated with the statue (the entire section was removed). Is the Harvard Crimson a reliable source in this instance? I have included the now deleted section below that is a large part of the material that the other editor feels is not cited well enough below:

"The John Harvard Statue has two main traditions, one for tourists and one for students. Tourists, when touring the university and taking pictures with the statue, touch John Harvard's left foot for good luck. Students, on the other hand, have developed a tradition of urinating on the statue late at night. When asked about this tradition by The Harvard Crimson, a senior who lived in the Quincy House dormitory confessed, "Well, I peed on him last weekend." In 2002, Harvard chemistry tutor Stephen J. Haggarty, FM, took swabs of the statue and incubated them. He found that despite the statue's use as a pissoir, the bacteria living on it are benign and "are the kinds of species you might find on the metal railings outside University Hall".

The John Harvard statue is also a magnet for vandalism. According to Harvard's Manager of Administrative Operations the statue is vandalized roughly once a week, even more during football season." --Found5dollar (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Woops! the refs did not show up here. here is a dif of the deleted section. [56] --Found5dollar (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson, the university's student newspaper, is reliable, but what they report isn't necessarily encyclopedic. This seems a classic case of what not to include from a student-run newspaper of a major university. That last sentence should probably be it. I notice the objections on the talk page to the edits aren't to the source but to their being campus legends; I would also add notability to the list. Also, the official newspaper of the University is the Harvard Gazette. Churn and change (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the Gazette and the Crimson can be regarded as WP:RS on events at Harvard, though care must be exercised due to the sometimes spotty editorial supervision to be expected at any student newspaper. Would not necessarily agree that spore testing of the statue is WP:NOTABLE or WP:UNDUE, though student traditions reported in the Crimson could be included. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that the Harvard Crimson is now drawing attention to the information the Wikipedia article is missing: [57] AndreasKolbe JN466 00:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this really a primary source?

I requested a paper at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_29#JSTOR paper, namely JSTOR 3614249. I used it as a source for the statement regarding the prime 3511 that "another proof of it being a Wieferich prime was published in 1965 by Guy" (see Wieferich prime#History and search status). Another user at Resource Exchange said the paper were a primary source. I am a bit confused. I guess the paper received a peer-review and I thought this would make it a non-primary source. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people have the mistaken idea that we are not allowed to use primary sources. This is not true. We can use them... we just have to use them appropriately.

I don't think it matters whether it is primary or not... Because even if it is primary, you are using it appropriately. You are making a descriptive statement about the source (that it contains a proof). In that exact context, not only is the source reliable, it is the most reliable source possible (for a statement about what is said in a document, you can not get more reliable than the document itself). Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I often formulate statements that way because that makes clear that I took a statement from a source and the article simply repeats what the source states, without claiming that the statement is correct or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I am being consistent with Blueboar, but adding to it, by saying that whether academic peer reviewed articles are primary is not always clear in each case. In many cases they are a bit primary and a bit secondary. Unfortunately the world of publications does not always sit in nice categories for us on this point. In 99% of cases I think it is easier to discuss articles in terms of other reliability factors than primary/secondary/tertiary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't good for the encyclopaedia. Of what encyclopaedic value is, "Robert Conquest says the NKVD organised a special network in the population (Great Purge, Pelican rev ed 1971, 381) or "Janos Kendai says a plumbers little sister could be admitted to a better school (Do it yourself, 1981)"? The value to secondary sources is that they make reliable contextualised analytical, evaluative and normative claims about encyclopaedic objects. Conquest doesn't just tell us what the NKVD did, he tells us why it was important and what that meant. Kendai doesn't just tell us about plumber's sisters, but about a network of social corruption in late socialist Hungary replacing the formal market of labour and goods. Please do read more secondary sources, it'll make you encyclopaedic work of a greater value—you'll be able to make encyclopaedic claims that things are correct or not. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition, there becomes a concern that by stringing primary sources together in particular ways, or placing them in particular contexts, editors are creating WP:SYN problems by implying connections, conclusions etc that have not specifically been been made by reliable sources. Yes that primary source establishes "published in 1965 by Guy" - but how and why Guy's 65 publication is important (or not) would need be made through and because some other source had talked about Guy's proof. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go against the grain and say that this source could be absolutely fine if the statement is non-controversial. However, per Fifelfoo and others, it tells you that a proof was produced; it gives you no indication about what significance finding the proof had. Make sure that what you write is consistent with what historians of mathematics are saying, and then you can use the primary sources to supplement the secondary ones. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You are misquoting me, the "another user who said ..." Here is my original statement: "There is a proof for 3511 but that is not useable here; pure primary source." I said the proof cannot be used. Papers aren't primary sources or secondary sources; what you cite from them may be primary or secondary sourced. You can say "another proof was published by . . ." and source that to the paper, but WP:UNDUE is an issue. This is a proof for one particular number: 3511. To be notable, one has to show the proof generalizes. Somebody who is an expert can figure that out; others cannot. Being peer-reviewed is not what makes a source secondary. Peer review makes a source reliable, however it doesn't address the issues of incomprehensibility to the non-expert, cutting-edge research being not necessarily mainstream opinion (not an issue in this case), lack of notability from proof being very specific, and cherry picking. Churn and change (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what WP:UNDUE has to do with the case at hand at all. A proof published in a peer-reviewed paper (what I believe Guy's proof of 3511 is) is not a minority viewpoint, as the publication in a journal means other experts have seen the proof and that it survived peer-review suggests to me that the proof was accepted by the mathematical community. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:UNDUE talks of the prominence of each viewpoint. Is this a prominent proof? If it is a specific proof for just a single number, it is probably not prominent; if it is a general proof extendable to more numbers, it probably is. Difficult for non-experts to make out, highlighting one of the problems with primary sources. Also, in the future, please quote me directly, without paraphrasing. Churn and change (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point. I agree that if there were like 50 proofs for 3511, then we definitely shouldn't mention them all in the article. However, in the case of 3511, there are only two proofs I am aware of, that of Beeger and that of Guy. Since I believe there are no others (at least none that have been published), I think it is okay to mention both. As it stands, there are now two mentioned proofs for 1093 and two for 3511, which I think is a comprehensive (probably complete) overview of the existing proofs. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sound like acceptable practice to me. Citing peer reviewed papers for their notable results happens a lot on WP, and is widely accepted for many types of information. And this is not just blind tradition but something often argued about carefully by experienced editors thinking carefully about the aims of WP. The basic problem is that to do otherwise would mean a more minimalist WP, which is simply not what we are doing at this time. (And every attempt to make a stricter encyclopedia has failed.) Anyway, I do not think the secondary/primary distinction is always helpful for such cases, and people insisting that we have to think this way are not dealing with reality. It does apply to things like birth certificates (another subject which comes up here often).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to give a bit more explanation: In many scientific fields, if we must prefer "obvious" secondary sources this means things like textbooks, and these are poor sources, not good sources. You can sometimes go 10 years back and find very little in the way of articles (let along books) that are purely reviews. The problem is that not every field bothers with writing lots of reviews, in the special format of a review. Instead, what the authors in some faster moving fields tend to do is publish articles which combine secondary and primary traits. With a bit of new data, they also offer a new review of the field. And that these are often considered to have a reputation for reliability is something we can check because these reviews are cited by others. So, in conclusion, if we try too unrealistically hard to stick to the standards of Fifelfoo's preferred fields, where the academics tend to have a different format of career and publication, we would definitely make WP worse in many areas. There are many important fields such as genetics where we would almost have to consider making policies to forbid trying to report them at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The introduction part of papers in fields like psychology often give an overview of prior results, and can be used as a secondary source. Everything after that—method, results and the like—would be primary sources, except for meta analyses and review papers. Primary sources are indeed bad in fields like genetics because they can be cherry-picked, can be interpreted wrongly by lay people, may be statistical flukes, or may contain implicit assumptions known only to those in the field. Churn and change (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable corrective to my field specific interests Andrew, I agree with your concern that some fields confirm the importance or meaning of primary findings in one way, and others in another. If anyone had been unduly influenced by my comments (or reads this in the archive) I draw their attention to my support of Andrew's discussion of articles in fields that combine primary and secondary traits, and the importance of reading the difference where it matters. My concern was with "X says, "Y"" type encyclopaedic writing which can be unduly encouraged by only reading "primary" sources. However, I do agree with your instinct about citing notable papers for their findings, but I would suggest that we remember to establish notability of the finding separately, for instance as Churn and change notes by notice in the literatures; in some fields this could be citation counts, but in other fields this could be literature review sections of primary papers, or specific reviews. Obviously I agree that we should avoid poor quality secondary sources regarding notability—undergraduate textbooks are not the best works for seating findings in their scholarly context. I mainly responded as an editor with excellent instincts seemed to be advocating "X says, "Y"" writing instead of the far superior "Y is true" cited against X a source of unimpeachable quality for the claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I agree with the last two posts also. I think the above exchange should be helpful in showing how different sourcing situations can be handled. As is often being stated on this forum: reliability is context dependent. That is why we always keep asking people to post information about what a source is being used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Franklin Steiner as an authority on presidential religion

For a long time the article which is now Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States relied upon a pamphlet by one Franklin Steiner titled The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents: From Washington to F.D.R.. Steiner was apparently a secular humanist of some sort (biographical detail is largely lacking), and there's a strong cast of deprecating presidential religion in his work. He also didn't seem to have much of a grasp of the shift in American religion brought about by the Second Great Awakening.

I have tended to prefer the reports of the Miller Center at the University of Virginia where they discuss religion; it is also now the case that there have been several new studies of presidential religion, perhaps due to the way attacks upon Obama's affiliation have brought the matter to the fore. The foreword to one of these cites Steiner as one of the "armchair historians, political ideologues, and extremist pro-Christian and pro-separationist advocates have until just recently written much of the literature on the topic." (Espinosa, Gaston, ed. (2009). Religion and the American Presidency: George Washington to George W. Bush with Commentary and Primary Sources. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 18, 43.) Steiner is used as an authority in a couple of other articles, mostly having to do with the Gano baptism legend as well as on George Washington and religion; we don't need to rely on him for these articles.

I would like to suppress use of Steiner as a source, but I thought this should be put before others before we went down this road. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Replacing an amateurish source with scholarly ones should be uncontroversial. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree... Steiner should be considered an amateur... and while there are some amateurs who qualify as "expert", I don't think he is one of them. There are much more reliable scholarly sources (people who really are experts) that can be relied on instead. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Political Graveyard

Another user is removing Political Graveyard as a reference. He is allowing the facts garnered from PG to remain but removing PG as a source. Is there any evidence that PG is unreliable, other than typos that exist in every reference work? If it is an unreliable source we should remove them globally and not ad hoc. Here are examples of the removal: Frederick Skene where the deleter says: "Political Graveyard is not a reliable source" and John A. Bensel where the deleter says "political graveyard is full of mistakes, and generally unreliable". Here again Frank M. Williams where the deleter writes: "political graveyard is not a reliable source, as the double entry clearly shows". The double entry the deleter refers to, are two entries, one for each term in office. The facts match what is in the obituaries. Here again at Wheeler H. Bristol where he says: "not a reliable source".

I would like a decision. I can either restore the entries if we agree PG is reliable. If we decide it is unreliable then it should be blacklisted and every reference in Wikipedia should be deleted. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Source reliability doesn't work that way Richard. Each fact, article, source, author and publisher come together in a moment of reliability. Could you please supply the specific fact, the specific source within the compiled work in relation to articles. Asking people to click three or four steps deep does not enamour them of answering complex reliability questions. Kestenbaum may have an appropriate degree to qualify for a an EXPERT exemption, but our biography of him does not describe at what level his study in "historic preservation" was. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the WP source for Kestenbaum's Cornell education is this. I don't think he obtained a PhD from Cornell (never heard of politicians hiding their degrees). Even if he did, that still won't be enough; we will need faculty position in a major university or publications in the field. His official site lists largely positions in minor universities, and that too as adjunct faculty and staff. Seems to have a user page here. Churn and change (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

He's an officeholder (actual working politician). However: he does accept some information from the subjects of the listings (no, you don't have to be dead; I'm in there). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, county clerk. Even aside from policy and guideline, I don't see how just one person could possibly guarantee reliability of such a huge database; there isn't any formal (or even informal, as far I can see) editorial supervision. Editing mistakes, uploading mistakes, synthesizing mistakes . . . Churn and change (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

PG is used in over 5,000 articles as a source. I stopped counting after 10 pages of 500. No source is 100% reliable that is why when we find contradictory information we explain what the two sources say and explain why one is more reliable than another. We do this when birth dates disagree or when spellings of names differ in sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

But if two sources disagree, and one of them is just plain unreliable, we simply discard the source that is unreliable. And how often Wikipedians use a source is irrelevant. Just as repeating a falsehood many times doesn't make it true, using a source a lot doesn't make it reliable. If you can show that outside sources, sources whose reliability is not in dispute, routinely use Political Graveyard as a source of information, then that might be something. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What I am taking away from your comments is that there is no evidence that Political Graveyard is an unreliable source en toto other than typos and small errors found in every other reliable source such as the New York Times, and there is no effort to have it blacklisted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment on best practice. It is not normally a good idea to delete mention of where information came from, even if the reliability of the source is being disputed. There are tags which indicate that a better source should be found for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone who recently took issue with the use of Political Graveyard as a source, I think it really comes down to context. It is an impressive web site that clearly involves much care and attention to detail in its content, but at its core it still apparently functions largely as a personal web site. It may be useful in a supporting role sometimes. For instance, used to help an uncontroversial, thoroughly plausible statement meet WP:V, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. As the only source for an extraordinary claim, I'd definitely reject it. Rivertorch (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)