Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

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

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Is Astrodatabank reliable?

In 2011, there was a discussion whether Astro-Databank (ADB) was a reliable source, see here. I want to clarify (as an editor of ADB), that the project claims reliability for the birth data section, i.e. birth date, birth time and location. Each entry is rated with the Rodden Rating system, and each entry contains precise source notes naming the source of the birth data information. Many entries carry the AA rating, which means that an original birth record or birth certificate was either in the hands of the editor, or quoted by another data collector of high reputation.

The astrological charts shown in ADB are reliably computed.

Other information found on an ADB page, for example biography text and category classifications reflects the personal knowledge and opinion of the respective author/editor. For newer entries, biography information is often copied from Wikipedia. These parts of ADB claim no special reliability.

Brad DeLong blog RS?

Bringing this here now because this has come up repeatedly at Robert P. Murphy as not RS for BLP. It was discussed at Talk:Robert_P._Murphy#Krugman:Misunderstanding_of_WP:BLOGS and at a WP:BLPN where no involved editors responded. However, it was removed and seemed settled as DeLong's blog not being RS, especially since better sources came up in the WP:BLPN discussion. A few hours after I got around to adding those better sources to the talk page discussion and inferred intention to properly rewrite the section, an involved editor put back the rejected info at this diff.

In short Paul Krugman has mentioned Murphy explicitly a couple times in his NY Times blog (January 19, 2011 and December 31, 2012). However, the added Krugman blog entry does not mention Murphy and says: Brad DeLong vents his spleen on one example, a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same. There are then two is a long descriptions of DeLong's criticism of Murphy from two different DeLong blog entries. (See diff.) Seems like tortuous synthesis using a questionable source to me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Later note: Just left notice of this at WP:BLPN since obviously relevant. Should have done so immediately. (Note to self for future reference.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Brad DeLong is a UC Berkeley economist. He is RS as far as economics is concerned. Murphy's blog is used to establish all the facts about his predictions (which is permissible per WP:Aboutself); DeLong and Krugman are only used to assess those predictions (not establish facts). Krugman links to DeLong's discussion of Murphy, and it's absurd to suggest that he isn't talking about Murphy in the quoted text. Steeletrap (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Krugman himself says "Brad DeLong vents his spleen" shows this is a personal blog rant and not a reliable source. Editors can read details at the DeLong Blog entry. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Brad DeLong more than meets the recognized expert criteria of RS. Experts are allowed to use informal language like that now and again. Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

DeLong is an expert on economics, writing on his blog. Reliable, with the caveat that this is talking about an ongoing disagreement within the field. The fact that Krugman mentions the post is a point in its favour, but not absolutely necessary. Krugman links to DeLong's blog post so it's clear that Murphy is the subject. Reliable but you will have to decide how much weight to give to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's personal blog. We should never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert. See WP:SPS. It's unreliable and a WP:BLP violation to boot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

DeLong is a recognized expert in economics and his blog is a reliable and usable source, per policy, for his claims and views and ideas regarding the area of his expertise, economics, as long as they are properly identified as his claims, views, and ideas. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not if it's being used a third-party source about a living person. This is official Wikipedia policy. If you don't believe me, please read WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of these policies that you've already linked to previously, but thanks for the reminder regarding what we're already discussing. However, the claims in question aren't claims about a living person. They are claims about economic theories. Gamaliel (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the diff in question.[1]

"University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong sharply criticized Murphy's reaction to the bet. Citing data indicating that CPI never reached 3% (well short of the 10% Murphy needed to win the bet), DeLong criticized Murphy for 'refusing to rethink or modify any of his analytical' positions in spite of (what DeLong perceives to be) overwhelming evidence against them."

This is a clear violation of two key content policies, WP:BLP and WP:V. It should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (emphasis NOT mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I might reword or remove material where DeLong criticizes Murphy and not his theories, but the core dispute is one of economics and economic theories. I see no claims about Murphy himself, only claims regarding DeLong's opinions about matters in his area of expertise. DeLong is a recognized expert (I won't bother quoting and highlighting the relevant RS policy regarding that, as I'm sure you are aware of it.) and the content is relevant and permissible under all those policies you've been citing, all the more so because this content is cited by a Nobel laureate in an unimpeachable RS, the New York Times. Gamaliel (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's completely inappropriate for a WP:BLP. Even if somehow this content were salvageable (completely removing all references to Murphy), at best it belongs in an article in article about DeLong. For serious academic topics such as economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. There shouldn't be a need to resort to personal blogs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that "For serious academic topics such as economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." But that's not the issue we have here. This is an article about an economist who is obscure in professional terms but has been heavily promoted and published within the walled garden of Misenean think tanks so that he manages to become notable, but because of that most of the available sources will be not of the first tier of preferability. An expert like DeLong, the author of numerous academic peer-reviewed publications, will not publish an academic peer-reviewed publication on views of a figure who is relatively obscure professionally, but will address them in his blog if they receive some media attention. So we have to deal with the sources that we have, and it would be irresponsible of us to have an article about an obscure economist and ignore the viewpoint of a significant economist, likely the only expert, academic attention that the ideas of this obscure economist will likely ever receive. Obviously, these sources should be used with caution, and any claims regarding Murphy himself should not be used. But DeLong's professional, expert opinion about Murphy's economic ideas are not claims regarding Murphy himself. Gamaliel (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, policy is extremely clear: Never (emphasis NOT mine) use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. I have no idea what part of "never" you find ambiguous, nor do I care. The fact is that the WP:BURDEN of proof is on you to justify why these edits are acceptable. You can either gain consensus for these edits or not. And you are certainly entitled to disagree with official Wikipedia policies, but again, the onus is on you to get them changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of WP burden, but it is irrelevant here as this is a noticeboard regarding WP:RS and not a discussion about article consensus. Wikipedia policy is quite clear, as is what I have been saying, and I'm not quite sure why you are misunderstanding it or are unwilling to discuss that beyond repeatedly invoking policies you well know we are both aware of. An opinion about economic matters is not a claim about a living individual, no matter how many times you invoke Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no WP:RS issue here. There's simply no such issue with this content or the sources. Wrong place for any concerns about this. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I worry about the use of blogs. Usually blogs are "thinking out loud," tentative thoughts, or presentation of ideas for feedback. They may not be the final position of the author's viewpoint. Is there a general policy about blogs here on Wikipedia. I'm sure this has been discussed. Any pointers? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:BLOGS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is an important consideration when evaluating RS. So, is the personal blog simply commentary on economic questions or does it contain information about living third parties. If the commentary is confined to economic issues, then fine, use it. But once it, the blog, strays into a discussion about someone then BLP and SPS factors must be considered. "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Is this info worth repeating? Assuming it is, who has done so elsewhere? – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

But these are issues of WP:UNDUE content or BM's WP:NOTABILITY, not RS board stuff. No reason to open this thread instead of using the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors are discussing the material and citing RS policy. Also, as Steeletrap is defending the blog on the basis of RS ("restoring RS coverage of inflation prediction...." in the edit summary & above), this noticeboard is an appropriate location. – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nah. If you believe these are not RS citations, please give specific words in the policy which support that view. @Steeletrap: is just affirming what we all know. It's like when you recite the Pledge of Allegiance. We all know it's the flag, but we affirm it. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Much of what I said above are direct quotes from official Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It always makes for interesting (if not humorous) reading when somebody claims that direct quotes from Wikipedia policy are wrong or aren't Wikipedia policy. In any case, you asked and you shall receive: " Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (emphasis NOT mine). Are we happy now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

QfK, we don't use any blogs for sources about living people. Murphy himself establishes all the facts about his failed prediction (which he can, per WP:Aboutself). DeLong and Krugman offer their opinions on these facts, but don't add any new information about Murphy. It is frustrating how many times I have had to explain this to you over the last few months. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifico (and Steeletrap) seems to be saying that WP policy permits SPS commentary about third persons because the material "is just affirming what we all know." Is this what you mean? – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

DeLong and Krugman offer their opinions on these facts, but don't add any new information about Murphy. Since there is lots of quoting going on, I thought I would quote your relevant summation of the issue, since there's a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert P. Murphy is not an economic theory, he's a person. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, indeed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The URL name, which may have been the original title of the blog entry, makes it clear it's not encyclopedic and is vs. BLP: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/12/when-will-robert-murphy-conclude-that-he-just-does-not-know-what-he-is-doing.html. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with those who say DeLong's blog can not be used in this context. He is not just criticizing Murphy's theories... he is criticizing Murhpy himself. What is interesting is that, if DeLong had published the same criticism of Murphy in an economic journal, or even in an op-ed piece in a major news paper... we could report on his criticism. But, Policy is clear... we can not use his personal blog for such criticism.

The Krugman blog is different... that is a professional blog, published under the auspices of the NY Times. It is the on-line equivalent of an op-ed piece that is published in the dead-tree paper version of the Times. That is OK, as long as we attribute the opinion to Krugman. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that the policy on using the blog on a BLP as quoted above rules out the use of DeLong's blog, but not Krugman's commentary on DeLong's criticism of Murphy. I think this makes for a gap in the sourcing policy in relation to people such as Murphy that are of marginal notability in academia but promoted by advocacy affiliated publications--in this case, Libertarian, Miseian.

The problem is that outside of the context of Krugman's NYT blog, there is not going to be any response from prominent authorities in the field because that just serves to add credibility to the dubious "predictions" and the like being advocated. And that means it is harder for Wikipedians to convey the actual state of affairs to the reader in such cases.
I see that user Itsmejudith has voiced support for its reliability, which I am in favor of, so maybe this is a case where WP:IAR can be invoked. DeLong mentions "ideological beliefs" in that short post, which seems to be most relevant. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:11, 19:18 24 January 2014 (UTC)

New version; Still Brad DeLong blog in BLP issue

RS version of Krugman views. At this diff I put in material from the two Krugman blog entries which actually mention Murphy by name. I only link to Murphy's replies at this point; only one of them is a personal blog entry and the only direct reply to the second Krugman blog entry. Such self-defensive personal blog entries usually are given a bit more slack under WP:RS. In the second Krugman entry he links to the whole DeLong-Murphy SPS blog debate and people who want to get into that level of nitty gritty nitpicking and name-calling among economists on their personal blogs can just follow Krugman's links. Thus the paragraph in question can be removed. I also here put an Unreliable tag on the whole paragraph in question and noted in text that Krugman did NOT explicitly name Murphy in this blog entry, as he did specifically name him in the other two.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. WP:NEWSBLOG authored pieces are fine, even for BLPs. I also agree that attributing is essential in this case. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the article talk page concerning this edit. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

At this final diff of editor's rewrite of my two paragraphs: Now it becomes a matter of Murphy's self-published blog mentioned first, DeLong's self-published blog second, and then Krugman commenting on them, with a link to Murphy's reply last. That's really building a POV argument misusing SPS in a BLP, IMHO.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There was a request at wp:ver for outside input. This looks like a later stage of a complex discussion, and there is no clear pointer to / statement of what text is in question. Could somebody provide that? North8000 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Steeletrap revert at this diff is latest version and has same problem as above: Murphy's self-published blog mentioned first, DeLong's self-published blog second, and then Krugman commenting on them both. It looks to me like building a POV argument on SPS, which is not a proper use of sources. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@North8000: has asked a simple and proper question. Your response is unintelligible. Could you please re-read North's question and state a complete, self-contained, answer so that editors can comment on your concern? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be that the is no answer because the text keeps changing, but maybe I can "gel" one: The "Double-digit inflation predictions" section of the Murphy article as of the moment of my signature here. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello my North friend. You understand, I was asking @Carolmooredc: for a response to your query? I don't see a clear question in this entire thread. That's why these Noticeboard threads are such a sump. They need to pose clear questions, otherwise all we get is crosstalk. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, and mostly agree. But I was viewing Carolmooredc as just someone who volunteered to try to answer my question. I'm also guessing that there is no single answer (because the text keeps changing) and thought that if I could propose something it might provide a concrete basis for a conversation. And if not that, then at least something that I could respond to the request at wp:ver on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Tweaks to the text not that relevant. What is relevant, as several editor have pointed out, is that self-published blogs cannot be used to diss BLPs. Krugman's WP:RS pointing out there's a nasty blog food fight does not make it WP:RS to quote the food fight, especially when Krugman clearly links to the food fight, allowing those who care to go there. SPECIFICO may not understand policy and thus ends up muddying the waters, but the policy remains quite clear. Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (Empahsis in the original.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@North8000: Yes, there are three sources involved, and the text keeps changing. So, if may summarize what consensus appears to be heading towards, it's this:

• Brad DeLong blog[2] - unreliable for the Robert P. Murphy article. Self-published sources can't be used as third-party sources about living people even if the author is an expert.
• Paul Krugman New York Times blog[3][4] - Reliable for Krugman's opinion. Use in-text attribution.
• Robert P. Murphy writings[5][6] - Reliable for the Robert P. Murphy article with all the usual qualifications of WP:SPS.

Assuming that this hasn't already been done, I suggest the editors of the article rewrite the text based on that, and then come back, tell us what you came up with, and we can take another look. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The diff that led this section off does what you recommend, though it only mentions that Murphy replies and links to replies, something which can be worked on later. It was immediately changed to the version I've been complaining about that leads with SPS. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have slightly reworked your material, Carol, after reverting the BLP-violating changes by Steeletrap. I agree with A Quest For Knowledge regarding the three sources: DeLong, Krugman and Murphy himself. DeLong cannot be used at all. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that one thing that is very clear is that the BLP policy clearly prohibits using the DeLong self-published blog as a source on Murphy, and so it also prohibits any text on Murphy that is dependent on that source. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet: Excellent at this diff. That's a properly written two paragraphs and if it had been written that way originally, within policy, there would never have been hours and hours of debate on it.

North8000: This [Krugman] is well within what a high quality WP:RS can comment on from a self-published blog. Now if Krugman had written "DeLong thinks Murphy is a $&#*, $YOQQ, &^#&* and I agree" we'd probably leave it out. Unless other high quality sources decided to comment saying something like "Krugman and Delong are just so unprofessional...blah blah blah." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

CarolmooreDC, are you referring to Krugman? Because, just clarifying, I didn't comment on Krugman. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, getting tired this PM. Specified Krugman above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is also a potential pitfall when using primary sources (e.g. Murphy's blog on himself) because wikipedia editor selection from such can easily create certain impressions. For example, the Wikipedia editor could select only wrong predictions by the BLP subject to cover and leave out correct predictions by the BLP subject. I don't know whether or not something like that has occurred, but I'd suggest at playing it safe with respect to the spirit of the primary sources restrictions. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that could be a problem and frankly I've been too exhausted from the other issue to see if that first paragraph reflects well. Also, there needs to be a few words of substantive reply from Murphy to Krugman, but something else haven't had energy to deal with yet. Still a work in progress! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider the salience of the facts reported: Paul Krugman noted that DeLong criticized Murphy's reaction to his [Murphy's] bet about CPI. It sounds like Murphy's bet is a salient fact because it's received some attention from prominent credible experts, even if only in blogs. But describing the commentary on the commentary might be beyond the limits of salience. Reliability is not the whole issue; if these comments and metacomments were themselves important, encyclopedia-worthy events, they would probably get published in something more weighty than a blog. See WP:BALASPS. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

DeLong's blog is posted on the website he uses to disseminate course information and curricula related information to his students, or so it would seem, so that would seem to make it marginally--at least--a "professional blog", though I'm not sure how that is defined here.

There are two other salient points.

First, as Krugman notes on his blog, the predictions of Murphy related to inflation are so contradictory (either to the facts or with respect to Bernake) that he even refuses to debate Murphy, because Krugman doesn't want to indirectly give credibility to the theory that DeLong appears to describe as being related to "ideological beliefs". The fact that Krugman cites DeLong in that context would definitely seem to make DeLong notable insofar as it supports Krugmans refusal to provide a platform for airing what DeLong characterizes as intransigent "analytical positions and ideological beliefs". ::::Second, the reason that criticism of Murphy is not made in more prominent publications is because it is not deemed to be worthy even of such a degree of attention, as testified to by these "blog" posts by two very prominent economists. Murphy is not in their league by any stretch of the imagination, and it is probably only because he is getting air time in other media outlets that they feel compelled to debunk his "predictions".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Accordingly, I'd be inclined to see it as RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything that you write above is the kind of stretch that is the definition of "WP:SYNTH". Just to review we are talking about the (already) WP:Undue section Robert_P._Murphy#Double-digit_inflation_predictions. It starts with cherry picked Murphy quotes, has Krugman bash Murphy and mention DeLong, and does not even yet have a substantive reply from Murphy, though he has made them. So adding DeLong's WP:SPS would just exacerbate the BLP problems. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I continue to argue that the ban on SPS is clearly intended for statements of facts about a BLP, not (expert) opinions regarding the work of that BLP. The idea is to prevent us from spreading false or dubious information about a living person; the DeLong source does not do this, as it simply represents his opinion about Murphy's economic predictions. Steeletrap (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like the correct reading of the intent of the policy, and I support the use of the statements from the DeLong blog as RS. That rule is not serving the purpose of building the encyclopedia, but as a loophole that is being used to allow an individual that basically has been characterized as an ideologue to fly under the radar of RS and NPOV, so to speak, and instead be presented as a mainstream scholar, without that important critique being aired in the article.

It seems that the wording of the policy may place more stringent constraints on the use of blogs, though. Maybe you could propose some revisions to the text of that policy. ::::::There does not appear to be a definitive consent that the blog is not RS and cannot be used, so maybe the Arbcom case will lead to some further opinions on this issue being voiced.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Self-published sources reads: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. If you want to propose those policy changes go to the policy page. But don't try to create new policy on WP:RSN. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note the specific language of SPS... "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people"... It does not say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about the theories of a living person". In other words... we should not use expert SPS sources for an opinion about the living person himself/herself (we should not, for example, say: "In his blog, expert Fred says that Joe is an idiot <cite Fred's blog>")... However, we CAN use expert SPS blogs to comment upon the expert's views about the living person's theories (we CAN say: "In his blog, expert Fred debunked Joe's theory, calling it idiotic<cite Fred's blog>"). The theory is not the person... and as long as we stick to commenting on the theory and not the person, expert SPS viewpoints are fine. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a helpful and important distinction. How would you characterize the comments of DeLong's statement?

The most terrifying thing of all is that being completely, comprehensively, unmistakably, fundamentally, fatally, totally wrong has not led Robert Murphy to rethink or modify any of his analytical positions or ideological beliefs by even one iota.

Krugman mentions "...people who stick with their ideology..." and concludes that it represents a refusal to learn, but his columns are not SPS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

To Blueboar who says about the SPS ban for BLPs" It does not say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about the theories of a living person". That is not a valid distinction. What an SPS says about the ideas of a person, reflects directly on the person and is a statement about him/her. Whether a SPS says person A is racist or that Person A's ideas are racist are a distinction without merit. Iselilja (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit... My inclination would be to say the quotes you give are comments about the person and not comments about the theories... and so would not be allowed per WP:SPS and WP:BLP. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Blueboar... OK, thanks. Iselilja has a point, too. It seems that it will take some work to figure out how to deal with cases such as this, where there is a fringe<-->mainstream opposition and publicity (as well as politics) at stake. Since Krugman has basically covered what DeLong said and linked to his blog, that should suffice for the present. For this case, the policy has basically been sufficient, i.e., if a topic is worth writing about some RS will have published a statement on it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Springer are reliable publisher?

And Book like this:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=bae3LP4tfP4C Bladesmulti (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Springer publishes many scholarly journals. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, Thanks, need some suggestions about "Heart of Albion", and Inner Traditions / Bear & Co(example). Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to explain what kind of suggestion you're looking for if you're connecting a scholarly work concerning astronomical atlases with a book about New Age beliefs entitled Microchakras: InnerTuning for Psychological Well-being. Please try to include all three of 1. Source, 2. Article, and 3. Content when you ask about the reliability of a source, as this would probably not be considered a useful source for supporting the verifiability of spiritual claims. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Major criteria are, if these publishers are reliable. Not sources really, for now. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not divide publishers into inherently 'reliable' and 'unreliable'. As the notice at the top of this page makes entirely clear, if you want meaningful answers regarding reliability, you need to be specific. Which text, in which publication is being used to source what material? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite true. WP:VERIFY says:

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: university-level textbooks books published by respected publishing houses magazines journals mainstream newspapers. Springer is a respected publishing house, it would be rare that you couldn't use a source from them for an article about the subject of the source. But of course it does depend on what you mean do use it for. Inner Traditions/Bear & Co is New Age/fringe etc but it might be possible to use material published by them to show a particular pov or idea held - but again, that's just a general comment, not a statement that you can use any book published by them for such a purpose. On the other hand, I'd argue that you could not use Inner Traditions published books often for factual statements or to represent a mainstream position. - Dougweller

The publisher('s reputation) is one of many criteria that can be used to establish reliability of a source. But note often more than one criteria might be needed to establish reliability (others are for instance reputation of the author, being a peer reviewed publication, sanity check of source's content and most importantly (scholarly) reviews of the source itself). Springer is mainstream publisher and actually one of the largest academic/scholarly publisher in the world (afaik 2nd biggest after elsevier). Hence his scholarly textbooks or journals can usually be considered as reliable. As far as the linked book is concerned in addition to being published by Springer the author seems to be an established academic, so as long as there are no explicit rather negative reviews of that book pointing out errors/unreliability, I'd consider it a reliable source (at first glance)--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What about "Heart of Albion" ? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not in the same category as Springer at all. There it would depend a lot on the author. Eg Continuity Of Worldviews In Anglo-Saxon England by Bob Trubshaw wouldn't be an RS as he has no qualifications or recognized expertise in the field. And what is happening with sinebot? Didn't sign for me above but signed when I moved a talkpage post from the top to the bottom without adding any text. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For argument sake, what evidence would be required to suggest that a book from an academic publisher like Springer, is not reliable? --Iantresman (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For argument's sake, it would be if you used an otherwise reliable source to support a claim that wasn't well-covered by the source, such as using a physics book that had an anecdote about a celebrity as a source for the celebrity's biography, or using a history book as the only support for a claim about sociological or economic theory, or etc. It wouldn't mean the source wouldn't be a reliable source for other claims, but it wouldn't be a reliable source for some specific claims. It's why a high school yearbook might be considered a perfectly reliable source if the only claim is about whether a person attended a specific high school, or if they wore a hat in their photo, but would be an awful source for just about anything else. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

And as far as specifically "disproving" a specific reliable source for all purposes...? I don't think you can ever really prove certain kinds of negatives, but a source may somehow fail to gain a consensus of editors. Sources are never "proven" reliable, but some are more easily accepted by enough editors to form a consensus (and that consensus can change over time). A generally reliable publisher would have to lose the faith of enough editors, that's all. An author's scandal, enough mediocre books, new evidence, a changing of academic fashion, those are reasons. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, no source should be considered inherently "reliable" just "more reliable than others for certain kinds of claims", as people make mistakes from time to time. Which AndyTheGrump said earlier and I still can't see anything wrong with what he said, but it's all good.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Of note is that even generally 'reliable' publishers occasionally 'leak'. Springer publishes, for instance, Biological Information: New Perspectives: a collection of papers on creationism. It probably snuck into their publishing stream because the authors/editors of the book got it reviewed by Springer's Engineering and Applied Science editors rather than by their biology experts (who would have been more likely to catch the context of what was being submitted: [7]).

At a more granular level, even individual books of generally good quality and reliability can (indeed, will) contain errors and ambiguities. For any contentious statement, we should rely on a single book only with extreme caution; multiple sources would be far batter, and the conscientious editor is encouraged to go back to the book author's primary sources (follow the footnotes!) to verify that assertions really are based on accurate data. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Could we claim that a book published by Springer is unreliable, because the author (a) supports homeopathy (b) is a creation scientist? (c) believes in the Lock Ness Monster (d) is thought to be wrong by some scientists? --Iantresman (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The book may be both reliable and unreliable. It is reliable for the authors statements and beliefs, and possibly as a representative viewpoint of the wider fringe community. It is less (or not) reliable for statements of objective fact, particularly where those facts disagree with the mainstream view. It would be better to be evaluating a particular statement or type of statement that is attempting to be included using this citation to make a determinationGaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would someone like Springer publish such a book. Surely if there was an issue of reliability, they wouldn't publish it, as they have their reputation to think about? --Iantresman (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Springer in general is a reliable publisher, however, that does not mean that everything they have published is guaranteed acceptable for all purposes. And yes, not only the publisher, but the author impact the status of whether content is generally acceptable and yes, the fact that the author "(a) supports homeopathy (b) is a creation scientist? (c) believes in the Lock Ness Monster (d) is thought to be wrong by some scientists" is incredibly valid rationale to bump the book from "presumed reliable" into the "use only with extreme caution and in limited circumstances". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So unqualified anonymous Wikipedia editors get to decide this, and it trumps a publisher's own due diligence? How is this not WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? For example, Einstein supported the Pole shift hypothesis, categorised as pseudoscience. Does this mean he is no longer "presumed reliable"? Common sense would suggest otherwise. --Iantresman (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your own example (Einstein) shows that a source can be considered reliable for some claims and unreliable for other claims. At this point Einstein is a reliable source for his own assertions about Pole shift, but a preponderance of other reliable sources would advise against taking him as a reliable source for the likelihood of it being the best description of what could happen. And it's the preponderance of reliable sources that suggest he's the best of reliable sources for certain other descriptions of how things work. It's not "unqualified anonymous Wikipedia editors" in a vacuum. If most reliable sources repudiated a certain book from even the most responsible of publishers, it should probably not be taken as unquestionably reliable. But certain groups of sources can be considered generally reliable, most of the time.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If I've understood you correctly, you're suggesting that "a preponderance of other reliable sources" will help us determine whether a source or an author is satisfactory. So if I find some book reviews, they would help determine whether a book by Springer is OK, and some peer-reviewed articles will help us determine whether an author is OK? --Iantresman (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, book reviews are good, but of course no one criterion or source is going to decide reliability in every case. The goal is to reflect contemporary, mainstream scholarship in the field. One can always find people who oppose the mainstream, mistakes in otherwise credible sources, giants in one field who make mistakes outside their expertise and even within their expertise, etc. It always depends on the specifics of the topic and the sources. Please have a look at WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The key issue for me, is who decides. Do anonymous unqualified editors take precedence over independent sources? For example, consider a book published by Springer. If I have three book reviews which give no hint that the book is unreliable, and the book is also used as a source by several peer reviewed papers. Is this outweighed by editors who say that it is unreliable, but have no sources whatsoever that back up this position? --Iantresman (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Too many hypotheticals, this is really getting off track. The answer is it depends. Give us a real example of this happening and we can discuss it. Otherwise all we are doing is speculating. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Dougweller. Springer is generally considered a publisher of reliable academic material, but as has been pointed out, there is no such thing as a publisher all of whose works will be considered reliable for everything. Springer is a HUGE publishing house and not everything they publish is reliable, see the example TenOfAllTrades provided for an example. We don't know what your specific source, article, and proposed content is, and without that, no specific article content change can be said to be supported by this discussion. Zad68 14:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Education-related PhD thesis: School uniform "study"

The information would go in School uniform.

This is described as a "study" in the popular media, but it is an Education Leadership PhD thesis by Virginia Draa.

• "School Uniforms in Urban Public High Schools." (Archive) Youngstown State University. November 2005.

Compared to a peer-reviewed academic journal article is this reliable? Should this study be mentioned on school uniforms? There is some discussion about its reliability here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education#Locating_pro-school_uniform_studies

The articles discussing the uniform debate in the United States use this PhD thesis as evidence for the "pro-uniforms" side and call it a "study"

A group of related documents:

• "Study says school uniforms might help attendance, graduation rates." (Archive) Associated Press at 19 Action News. 2006.
• Weiss, Jennifer. "Do Clothes Make the Student?" The New York Times. September 16, 2006.
• "YSU professor studies school uniforms." (Archive) Youngstown State University. January 11, 2006.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, of course this is a reliable source. Four members of her committee reviewed her dissertation and that certainly satisfies any elements of peer review.

As is almost always the case, the more interesting questions revolve around undue weight and whether the source should be used at all regardless of its reliability. That's beyond the purview of this noticeboard but I can't imagine anyone saying that this study - and why you slander the author by using scare quotes around the word "study" is beyond me - hasn't received prominent attention when the Grey Lady mentioned the study and quoted its author as an expert in this subject.

A minor point: I am guessing that the degree in question is an EdD and not a PhD since the title page of the dissertation says it's for a "Doctor of Education" degree and not a "Doctor of Philosophy" degree. But that has no impact on the question you've raised.

ElKevbo (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it would count as a study in the same way if it was a PhD thesis, and Zarlan argued it wasn't a study in that way. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying. What working definition of "study" are you using? ElKevbo (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is: my interpretation of Zarlan's argument was that the PhD thesis could not be a study, and that only a peer reviewed journal article could truly be a study, and I had the impression his argument was correct and/or widely held on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Doctoral dissertations, whether Ed.D. or Ph.D., get a lot of editorial oversight, often from leading experts in the field, who even sign their names indicating their approval. They usually report research findings, so they count as studies in the sense used in the article. They're also usually extremely thorough, both in their research and in their review of pre-existing research. This one is no exception. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been through this, and no, this is not true across the board. Yes, the thesis will have been reviewed by the advisory committee and a good committee will be critical but others will be more looking at the scientific process rather than the claims of the results. As such, by default, thesis should be considered unreliable. But that said - if the committee includes a known expert in the field that might be a reason to assume reliability. And in many places, publication in peer-reviewed journals (which might become part of the thesis) is a necessary requirement, so finding a thesis of a topic of interest, one should seek out papers by that person that were part of the thesis. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I argue that we have to accept doctoral thesis as reliable because the process is designed to produce reliable studies. The requirement for a PhD is usually original research that is publishable in a professional journal. We should accept these as reliable. Reliable doesn't mean infallible. This article shows the problem [8] with much of the research that is published in academic journals. It would be preferable if one could find research that has made it into textbooks on the subject, generally several textbooks. But we have to defer to the experts despite the alarming rate of errors. (edit conflict with above) Jason from nyc (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Just as we don't consider a peer-reviewed journal article reliable just because it's peer-reviewed, a doctoral dissertation doesn't get a free pass, either. But this one is certainly a study. The new research that it reports on is WP:PRIMARY and therefore questionable, while the literature review is WP:SECONDARY and probably of high quality. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a certain degree of cherry-picking going on as I don't see that this study is all that heavily cited, and some of the references I have found seem to come to conflicting conclusions. Mangoe (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I just took a look, and it doesn't look to me like cherry-picking. It appears that WhisperToMe is trying to put together a neutral summary of the literature supporting and opposing school uniforms. It also appears that the article is falling into the quagmire of "So-and-so argued 'quotation' and so-and-so said 'quotation'" rather than a thoughtful summary of the main facts and ideas. That might be OK—sometimes you have to make a mess before you can clean it up—but there might be an easier way. Recommendation: If possible, find a source that reviews the leading literature and summarize that. Such a source will make clear what are the most important facts and opposing ideas, along with their significance. Not only does this keep you away from WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY sources, often summarizing such a source is pretty straightforward: you just plod through it from beginning to end, note the highlights, and write 'em up concisely. For many topics, such sources are hard to find, but the literature summary in the above-discussed dissertation might provide just what you need. It won't include the dissertation's own research or more-recent research, but it could give you a huge running start in making this a good article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to account for all of the literature on school uniforms. A lot of proponents of school uniforms in the US have used Draa's study as proof aiding their side (you can see it if you do a google search "Draa uniform study") so I think the section has to address it somehow. Also her literature review mentions Long Beach USD's adoption of uniforms as being influential in the spread of uniforms. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Good luck on the article! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I found a page in an earlier review http://books.google.com/books?id=eUlOtatZgmEC&pg=PA29 by one of the people who argued that the school uniform research was inconclusive. But it's from 2004 or so. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

PhD theses are rs, that is written in policy. That is a totally separate issue from whether the opinions expressed are notable. This appears to be an issue of weight. TFD (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD, that isn't what our policy says. PhD theses are not automatically reliable. WP:VERIFY says:

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

I've certainly seen at least one PhD theses which is as unreliable as you can get (and really, really bad - but it was passed by an eastern European university for, I presume, 'political' reasons). Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that is the exception that proves the rule. In general PhD theses go through a process of review, There are however unaccredited colleges and degree mills, but in most western countries do not allow them. This PhD thesis is from an accredited university, was reviewed by academics and is publicly available. TFD (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should be wary of using PhD theses as academic sources. If nothing hangs on it and no one objects, it should be okay, but for anything contentious it's worth bearing in mind that there's a big variation in quality between mainstream universities, and even within the same university between different departments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do I detect cherry-picking here? yes. And,,, should we be spending time discussing the 1 in a million PhD thesis that was passed through for political - or any other - reasons? No. Why not? Well, for the same reason that we don't allow a single dissenting example to steer the course of an article, namely, Undue weight. It boils down to this: a Master's, PhD's, etc. dissertation meets WP:RS by default, and as such is reliable unless it can be unequivocally proven that it does not meet RS. "Unequivocally proven" implies the presentation of evidence that shows, not just beyond the quincentennial "reasonable doubt" acid test, but via clear and convincing evidence to the contrary to any reasonably prudent person. "Unequivocally proven" means that the conviction that the dissertation is not RS is arrived at, not via the "preponderance of the evidence" but, again, via demonstrating thru clear and convincing evidence to any reasonably prudent person that the dissertation is not RS.

How is this done? Well, first, let's consider that the publishing of a noncompleted (unsigned) thesis is very, very, very rare for two reasons: (1) An noncompleted thesis is useless (if it hasn't been signed off by the thesis committee it is as good as a draft), and (2) the publishing of a noncompleted thesis is a self-published work (again making it useless to the academic world at large). With that said, completed dissertations are all RS unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. What does "clear and convincing evidence" mean? It means that hard evidence is available showing the thesis is not reliable. For example, a Wikipedia's claim that a thesis is not reliable (such as the "it didn't go thru a high enough level of peer review rigor" and the "it's not valid because I think it was passed thru by an eastern European university for, I presume, political reasons") is not "clear and convincing" evidence. That is, the bar to disqualify an academic thesis is set far higher than just making a claim, and far higher than just coming up with some presumption, and even far higher than just coming up with real, hard evidence, yet evidence that does not directly support the claim that the thesis is not reliable. "Clear and convincing" evidence means, for example, that a third, independent authority has concluded that the thesis was a fraud, or that it was completed without following the minimum standards of academic scholarship. The opinions of Wikipedians are, in the end, irrelevant; what is valuable in categorizing a thesis as not reliable is that other sources say so.

Additionally, if there is such and such WP policy that says such and such, well, that's beautiful. But there is also a WP policy, established as a far more fundamental policy than all the other policies, and which says ignore everything else and just go ahead and use common sense. We oftentimes seem to forget about using common sense.

Lastly, call it what you will, but a thesis, a dissertatiton, a study, or what have you, are all examples of the same thing - peer-reviewed academic documents that are the bread and butter of Wikipedia's preferred sources because of their reliability, credibility and neutrality. Mercy11 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's still not that simple. Another issue that can determine whether we use any peer-reviewed study is whether or not it's gained traction in academic circles. Eg one-off study on DNA 8 years ago that has been completely ignored since shouldn't be used as a source, even if it was a PhD, published paper, etc. There simply is no hard and fast rule that we can apply. And the idea that all peer-reviewed material is neutral simply is wrong. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing rs and weight. The thesis is a reliable secondary source for the development of school uniforms, the arguments offered for and against them, and the academic literature on them, which is the subject of the first 50 pages. It is also a reliable primary source for the study carried out and the author's conclusions. Whether or not they should be reported depends on the degree of acceptance they have. Generally we should avoid using primary sources for articles. If a study has become influential, then secondary sources will explain that.

Certainly, PhD theses will vary in quality and like any sources may contain errors. But does anyone think that a PhD thesis from a reputable university is any less reliable than an article by a journalist on the same subject?

Incidentally, peer-reviewed literature is rarely neutral, since the whole point of most academic writing is to argue for different positions. But being neutral and getting one's facts right are two different things. Neutrality is a requirement for Wikipedia articles not for sources. TFD (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't confusing rs and weight - I was commenting on using peer-reviewed studies, not whether they were RS - I guess I wasn't specific enough with my wording but I thought the point was important to make here. But I agree with everything else you've said here. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrés Segovia - linking to article that possibly involves copyright violation

The article on Andrés Segovia includes a link to an interview that is hosted on a website which appears to be run by a single person. The interview was conducted by a person (Austin Prichard-Levy) different than the website owner (Ron Payne). There is evidence suggesting that the interview was originally published in a print magazine in the early 1990s; however, I do not know whether the owner of the website has acquired the rights to the interview from the original publication. Although the interview is not an essential source for the Segovia article, it does appear to include valuable information, so it would be preferable to keep the link if possible. My concern is based on WP:ELNEVER, and on WP:LINKVIO, which says, "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" (my emphasis).
(Not sure where to report the problem. I tried posting to the Copyright Problems talk page to ask in September last year, but received no replies. The external links noticeboard says that "Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard".) Dezastru (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you cite the original source, the Australian Guitar Journal, (getting the citation right may in itself take some research), and do not link to the website if you suspect there may be a copyright problem. Otherwise, this may be a better page to link to. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to sound a note of caution about using this, as it seems it would have the very same copyright issue as the other private lesson guitar teacher with the text of the article on their site. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it wasn't a long lasting journal. The article you link to has the cover of the journal and the image file is named 1990. I can't read the specific issue number off of the cover myself. But the issue is available at one of the libraries listed here. If someone wanted to have a clean citation, they could phone or drop by one of the libraries, but otherwise I'd use the citation here so that people can see that it points to a physical holding somewhere that can be examined. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your replies. Part of my question is whether it is permissible under Wikipedia policies to keep the current link. If we remove the link and simply cite the Australian Guitar Journal, most readers won't have access to that source and won't be able to see precisely what is was that John Williams, who is being interviewed in the article, actually said. Readers will just see the very brief summary provided in this article. What he said in the interview offers a deeper understanding of what he meant about his relationship with Segovia. Dezastru (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I poked around a bit more and I think Justlettersandnumbers found the better pick. [this] lists Ron Payne] as the editor/publisher of the defunct magazine, so at least he's related, and I hadn't noticed the direct connection to the project. I'd still put a citation to the original print magazine, based on the library source, and then keep a link to the text with a note. Good luck. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So listed at LinkedIn as well. Dezastru (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Global Vision Pub House - Are reliable?

Book link. Not sure who is the author of this book though, but it has some good theories about Buddhism, which can be used for further extending the articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You aren't going to get useful answers without including what text or claim (and what specific article) you want to use the source for. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueta, right now it is Page 952, chapter called "Wheel of life", for Dharmachakra. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you give the relevant quotes? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"In the Dharmic religions, (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) the wheel of life or dharmachakra(sanskrit:tibetan chos kyi 'khor lo;' see also the names section below) is a mandala or symbolic representation of samsara, the continuous cycle of birth, life, death. One is liberated from this endless cycle of rebirth when bodhi, englightenment, nirvana, moksha or samadhi is reached." Page 952. Similar theories backed by other sources,[9], [10], [11].Bladesmulti (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "Dharmic religions" makes me cautious. Also the heaping together of bodhi etc. makes me cautious. "bodhi" and "enlightenment" can equated, but are not the same as "Nirvana". Sach ("Everythin Book") is not a good source in this context; there are enough books by top-scholars. Same for Weeks ("Philosophy in Minutes"): "Many different religions [...] now collectively known as Hinduism." - ahum. Buddhism = Hinduism? Wouldn't trust this one too much. Brown ("Dvaravati Wheel") is published by BRILL; absolutely reliable! Page XXV ff? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So the first book, "Oriental Philosophy and Religion", and Publisher : "Global Vision Pub House", can be regarded as reliable? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Global Vision Publishing House is an extensive republisher of Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi#Global_Vision_Publishing_House_.28publisher.29 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Potentially_a_big_problem_with_circular_references.2C_mirroring_.26c The advice given is "Do not presume that any book from this publishing house is a reliable source". It's also a good idea to search the archives here before asking. It's used in a lot of our articles and really should be added as a cleanup above. I'm annoyed with myself because someone (one of the Paul's here I think) gave a couple of other names that are basically the same outfit. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. I knew I'd seen that publisher before, but I didn't check the archives ... Andrew Dalby 09:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

gun control study, and popular media coverage thereof.

doi:10.7326/M13-1301 is a meta-analysis from the Annals of Internal Medicine that looks at risks of completed suicide or homicide on the basis of access to guns. I dont think there is any disagreement that this is a WP:RS, which states the conclusion that "Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide." however, the study (on my reading) does not quantify the level of additional risk directly (IE X times greater risk, or additional X suicides per Y guns). It does quite often state the Odds ratio (OR) which does describe the statistical strength of the association.

Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated, although published adjusted estimates were preferentially used. Summary effects were estimated using random- and fixed-effects models. Potential methodological reasons for differences in effects through subgroup analyses were explored. Data were pooled from 15 observational studies that assessed the odds of suicide or homicide, yielding pooled ORs of 3.24 (95% CI, 2.41 to 4.40) and 1.94 (CI, 1.44 to 2.93), respectively. When only studies that used interviews to determine firearm accessibility were considered, the pooled OR for suicide was 3.14 (CI, 2.29 to 4.43).

As our article on OR states, the OR is confusing, and prone to misrepresentation/exaggeration Odds_ratio#Confusion_and_exaggeration

Popular media have picked up on the study [12] for example, with statements such as "Having guns in the home triples the risk of suicide and doubles the risk of homicide, researchers reported on Monday."

I believe this to be a clear case of the confusion and exaggeration issue described in our OR article, as the study does not ever state Relative Risk (and indeed as our articles on the two types of statistics note, it is often impossible to generate such statistics, a situation which I believe applies as the study is specifically identified as involving Case-control_study ) And surely a 2-3x risk result would be prominently placed in their abstract or conclusions.

The two other major ways of quantifying association are the risk ratio (″RR″) and the absolute risk reduction (″ARR″). In clinical studies and many other settings, the parameter of greatest interest is often actually the RR, which is determined in a way that is similar to the one just described for the OR, except using probabilities instead of odds. Frequently, however, the available data only allows the computation of the OR; notably, this is so in the case of case-control studies, as explained below.

Question : Are the popular media sources reliable for statements of analysis of the study such as "Having guns in the home triples the risk of suicide and doubles the risk of homicide" Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Since Gaijin has already cited one NBC report on this, I am providing these in addition for reference:

• "http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/"
• "http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/20/study-finds-people-with-guns-more-at-risk-for-suicide-and-homicide.html"
• "http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121,0,1179362.story#axzz2r3SVOM6o"
• "http://www.philly.com/philly/health/topics/HealthDay684000_20140120_Easy_Access_to_Guns_Tied_to_Higher_Risk_of_Suicide__Homicide.html"
• "http://nation.time.com/2014/01/20/study-guns-in-home-raise-risk-of-suicide-murder/"
• "http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/easy-access-to-guns-tied-to-higher-risk-of-suicide-homicide"

The just-started discussion that prompted this notice is here on the talk page of this currently edit-protected article. Also, I'm having trouble formulating a response to the question, the first half of which is general and the second half is specific. All the media sources listed are reliable sources, so the question is... What? Lightbreather (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Source may be reliable in one context but not in another. The question is are these sources reliable for accurate analysis and interpretation of medical/scientific studies. Per WP:MEDRS#Popular_press the answer is quite often no.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That helps me understand your question better. If it is "Are popular media sources reliable for accurate analysis and interpretation of medical/scientific studies?" could you re-word it that way (above)? But that sounds like an overly broad question. It's almost like we have to make a decision about each source, though there are at least seven of them. I've never participated on this noticeboard before, so I guess I'll stand back and observe now. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Crown Metal Products Locomotive Roster Reliability

There is disagreement on the reliability of the following source: http://www.trainweb.org/crownmetalproducts/roster.html. In sum, this website provides a table of locomotives made for small railroads located in amusement parks and theme parks, primarily in the United States, and is based on a compilation of historical essays made by a former amusement park employee found on the same website at this link: http://www.trainweb.org/parktrains/Builders/Crown%20Metals.html. An official verification of this website's reliability will be helpful. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Context please? Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is being cited in various amusement park and railroad articles. Here are some examples: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. The web site, trainweb.org, has listed correspondence with a former amusement park employee as its source. This correspondence – or as the web site states, "historical essays" – isn't published anywhere else, as far as I can tell. I found it suspect on the basis that anyone can start a personal website to publish personal email correspondence. Without proper editorial oversight, I don't see how we can deem this reliable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

TrainWeb sites are as a rule self-published. We might make an exception for someone generally acknowledged as knowledgeable but by the default this should be considered fan-published material. Mangoe (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A source's source doesn't have to be publicly accessible. For example, the source for newspaper stories is often in-person conversation. We evaluate only the care taken by the source we cite to make sure the information is correct. I just took a look at http://trainweb.org and while it appears to be a site for self-publication (see WP:SPS), the section on Crown Metals indicates editorial oversight and considerable care taken in gathering their facts and getting them right. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it appears to me that this source is OK for the kinds of facts being cited: rail gauges, characteristics of park trains, and the like. As Mangoe said, it's basically fan-published material, but within its scope, it's probably more reliable than a typical newspaper article. Since it's produced by amateur writers and an amateur editor rather than professionals, a source that's gone through more ordinary editorial channels should be preferred when one is available. My only real concern would be using it to give undue weight to trivia, but that's a problem with professionally published sources, too. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Political Review RS for economics book review?

Better late than never getting to this issue on my long list, dealing with two stalled talk page discussions:

• At Walter Block, editor removed at this diff, this text: "An article in the undergraduate magazine, Harvard Political Review, found the book "refreshingly consistent in its efforts on behalf of sexual, pharmaceutical, ecological, financial and other scapegoats" but noted that the book was "likely to elicit mixed responses." (Ref:Harvard Political Review, Volumes 4-7, 1976, p. 46.)

Edit summary reads: rmv review from undergraduate publication. (Harvard students are better than most, but they still have no degree apart from H.S. diploma, and are not qualified to review econ book)

• At Block's book in question article, Defending the Undefendable, at this diff], this text: "An article in the undergraduate magazine the Harvard Political Review, the official publication of the Harvard Institute of Politics, found the book "refreshingly consistent in its efforts on behalf of sexual, pharmaceutical, ecological, financial and other scapegoats"." (Ref: Harvard Political Review, Volumes 4-7, 1976, p. 46 - same as above)

Edit summary reads: rmv article from undergraduate magazine. Undergraduates, whose maximal educational attainment is a high school diploma, are not qualified to review an economics book. (even if they are among the best undergraduates in U.S., as H enrollement would indicate)

Thoughts as to whether the source is RS for these uses? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If this book is worth mentioning as a work of economics or political theory, there must be some mention, review, or citations in RS references. An undergraduate magazine and a cable news pundit don't seem commensurate with discussion of a book of presumably encyclopedic noteworthiness. If RS discussion about the book cannot be found, I suggest creating a separate article for the book and listing it with a wikilink in the publications list of this article. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

An undergraduate magazine is not RS for economics, no matter how prestigious the university. (As a college student, Al Gore founded and was the chief editor of HPR; is/was he an RS for economic?) Steeletrap (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is an RS or not, but I'm not sure the opinions of undergraduates are encyclopedic. For a 38 year old book of the significance claimed by the article, surely we can find reviews from more significant publications. Gamaliel (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I should have mentioned the only reason I put it in was because I frequently have seen reports, book reviews and even opinion pieces from less prestigious universities' student newspapers used in articles. And now I just remembered (duh) this has been discussed at WP:RSN with the reliability of the specific publication being the decisive factor. See 2012Harvard Crimson discussion; 2010 discussion, [2009] general discussion, 2008 discussion (re: Daily Bruin); another 2008 general discussion. Did I forget to mention that Harvard Political Review is the official publication of the Harvard Institute of Politics? (Created as a memorial to JFK, one may remember.) It seems like a one sentence book review on a popular book on economics is well within their capability and the opposition to them are just as baseless as the opposition to inclusion of the Hayek material below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, the article on the Review says it's "official", the article on the Institute says it's "home to and publishes" the Review. Those two claims aren't synonymous ("home to" is a good meaningless Wikipedia phrase). Maybe we should cite a source for the Review's exact relationship to the Institute. Anyway, it's still a student magazine, edited by students. I wouldn't consider its articles notable unless that particular article has been cited by reliable sources, or, possibly, if that particular writer has become notable later. Otherwise, if not notable, not worth quoting as an opinion on a book. That's my view. Andrew Dalby 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're using book reviews from the Crimson. The Crimson and HPR might be reliable sources for the intellectual and social goings-on of Harvard U. But they are not RS for economics. Their authors may be Harvard students, but they are also teenagers and barely-twenties whose highest educational attainment is a HS diploma. Not even close to RS. Steeletrap (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek info RS for same two articles?

@Gamaliel: 's question, and a look at the talk page, reminded me that I got too busy to deal with opposition to including two WP:RS about Nobel Prize winner Freidrich Hayek's comments' on Block's book. Rather than start a separate thread, might as well ask here.

• SPECIFICO's Removal of Hayek's positive quote here because it might be against BLP and with his recommendation I take it to RSN. A better reference is the "Commentary by F.A. Hayek" p 24 in the 2012 edition of Defending the Undefendable published by Laissez-Faire Books.
• In John Gray's, Hayek on Liberty (Ed 3, Taylor & Francis, 2002), Gray writes in a discussion of “Hayek’s conception of the natural selection of competing social rules” the following: In some areas, recognition of the vital functions of these scapegoat occupations and practices may prompt demands for the revision of law and of customary morality so as to accord them a greater measure of legitimacy and social approval. It is in this spirit that Mandeville himself wrote, and in which Hayek endorsed a recent Mandevillean work by the economist Walter Block, “Defending the Undefendable”, in which the social functions of such figures as the pimp, scab and the crooked cop are vigorously expounded.” (Note: the google page is no longer available but full context still searchable in an earlier version at Amazon.com)

SPECIFICO objected at this diff that we can't write about "Hayek's state of mind"?!?

So does any uninvolved editor see a problem with using both those Hayek-related materials in both articles? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek's view is clearly notable and it would be weird to leave it out. John Gray likewise, with the adjective Mandevillean and the description of the book's content, even if he is only noting Hayek's opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, both views are notable and worth including. Andrew Dalby 09:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What's the source of the Commentary? -- never mind that it's attributed to Hayek. Is it well-sourced and the context clear? It's an undated unsourced insertion of what appears to be promotional content. Was it a collegial letter to Block's publisher? A deathbed confession? SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks to be RS to me. I don't think it is particularly notable or clear, however. The meaning of "endorse" is vague; does he endorse Block's economics? His ethics? His writing style? There may also be verification issues. All in all, this doesnt' belong on RSN. Steeletrap (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

To address only the RS issue, Gray uses as his ref for "endorsed" an undated Fleet Press' version of the book; Fleet press was the original publisher and can be assumed to have fact checked that Hayek wrote the letter. This description of the 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute edition of the book does note that Hayek had written "the author". All of this can be added to the references if necessary. It also lists a number of other quotes of Praise including by Robert Nozick and Tom G. Palmer; the original sources of some of them surely can be tracked down. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be painting a picture of solicited endorsements sourced from a number of "likely suspects" by the publisher, eager to promote the book. Now that you've provided the context I think it's hard to claim this is encyclopedia-worthy content. What is "Fleet Press?" SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal letters (or emails) from a prominent economist are not reliable sources. If they were, anyone could create a Wikipedia page for herself if she compiled enough friendly or flattering emails, Facebook messages or chat room flirtations, from prominent academics. Doc. Block was a young buck back then; maybe Hayek was just trying to be friendly or supportive, in what he thought was private personal correspondence? Also, since the book was published in 1976, TGP (whose wiki says he was born in 1956) was presumably a *teenager* (or barely 20), without a college degree, when he wrote that review. Steeletrap (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A few of the above comments by Specifico and Steeletrap were worth making, but the majority of them are infantile. Gray's book is a reliable source. The fact that Gray cites Hayek is, in itself, sufficient for us, but it's better to be able to add a quote from the primary source, which is the text of Block's book, including the full Hayek endorsement, as published originally by Fleet Press and reprinted by Laissez-Faire. The status of these publishers has nothing to do with it. The material is notable, and Gray, as RS, makes it usable. So let's use it. Andrew Dalby 13:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

[Added later:] Unless I missed something, neither at Walter Block nor at Defending the Undefendable do we have any quotations from people who criticized this book. We surely need that too. I've just found the review by D. J. Enright, Times Literary Supplement, July 02, 1976, p. 817. Some good quotes there. Andrew Dalby 13:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have said the Gray source is RS. I have not said that the reviews from Mises.org -- which includes Hayek's personal letter to Block -- are RS. We can say something like: "Gray notes Hayek endorsed Block's book." We cannot quote the excerpt from the alleged personal letter posted on Mises.org. Steeletrap (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hypejar as a source for release dates for future video games, TV series, movies and gadget releases

I'm bringing this issue here because I would like to use Hypejar's (hypejar.com) collection of release date information for Wikipedia articles that contain information about future release dates. I've read the reliability guideline, but I would like to clarify that while hypejar.com is a crowd-sourced site, all information is verified by Hypejar staff before it is presented on the site. The release date information cannot appear on the site unless it is verified by Hypejar staff.

Recently I wanted to reference the release date for the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Steel_(film)#Sequel from the Hypejar page (http://www.hypejar.com/Batman-vs-Superman), however, it was deemed an unreliable source. However, I think the editor believed the information from Hypejar to be from anyone. I'd like to simply clarify that the information is carefully examined before it is posted online by a team of Hypejar staff.

Can you please allow Hypejar to be used as a reliable source as I would like to reference release dates onto the Wikipedia. Also, it seems that a site without release date verifications, Hypebadger.com is being approved by Wikipedia currently. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z:_Battle_of_Z#cite_note-1

Thank you.--Gqgy (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If the staff is able to verify the information provided by users, that means we should be able to find the sources they are using to verify that information and avoid the "middle man' of Hypejar. You can use Hypejar to go "Okay, they believe X will come out on Y", and then use those bits of information to search for the reliable source to confirm that, but otherwise, this is like IMDB - users can submit info, there is some editorial control, but the chain of validity is hard to check. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. So if I understand correctly, if the Hypejar.com's release date is verified by a reference which is deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards, then the release date can be reference on Wikipedia? Second question is, would it be possible to know how Hypebadger is used as a reliable source on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z:_Battle_of_Z#cite_note-1)? --Gqgy (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't make hasty assumptions -- perhaps it isn't reliable :) I can't comment further because my browser can't open any Hypebadger pages. Andrew Dalby 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that again, if the Hypejar.com's release date is verified by a reference which is deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards, then the release date can be reference on Wikipedia?--Gqgy (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the reference give is an reliable source, we can source that reference for the release date, yes. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Now would it be possible to get an answer as to how Hypebadger.com is able to source on Wikipedia?--Gqgy (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

When you say Hypebadger "sources on Wikipedia", that means to me that a wikipedian has used Hypebadger as source, rightly or wrongly. You're a wikipedian too, so if you think Hypebadger is not a reliable source, by the standards discussed on this page, you can raise the issue at the talk page where Hypebadger is used. If anyone there disagrees, you can certainly bring the problem here.

As I said above, I can't comment on the detail because I can't see Hypebadger pages, and you haven't explained yet what makes it a reliable or unreliable source. Andrew Dalby 09:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Are Billboard awards appropriate sources for genres

Is Rihanna Sweeps R&B Categories At Billboard Music Awards: The singer wins three R&B awards and Top Radio Songs Artist sufficient sourcing to add R&B to the infobox of the album's article page. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If the industry recognizes her as fitting into that category, then yes, it's enough to be nominated. Winning is overkill. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So, do you think that if the album, Unapologetic, won a Billboard award in 2013 for Top R&B Album, that an editor could add R&B to the infobox of the Wikipedia article, Unapologetic? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Subjective interpretations of creative works should be attributed to professional critiques, interpretations held by notable individuals, etc. (WP:SUBJECTIVE) That is the case in Unapologetic's Music and lyrics section. Anonymous voters in "the industry" would not be up to the standard you have requested in the past ("musicologist"?), so I'm surprised you're pursuing this. Dan56 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you comparing a blurb in The Miami Herald to winning three Billboard awards? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you comparing a journalist's written prose to a music industry umbrella term? If readers wanted to know how the industry categorizes their music releases, they can visit iTunes. Again, I cited a guideline--WP:SUBJECTIVE. It should mean at least something. Dan56 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute about whether a pop album can't also be an R&B album? Is it a mutual exclusivity thing? Because it seems like there's multiple RS (including, funnily enough, RS that put it in both genres. And I think the noble cause of keeping R&B "pure" of any ambiguity or overlap with other genres became moot a while ago. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Restaurant Stakeout, Reality Blurred and TheAshleys

There was a brief discussion about the use in Restaurant Stakeout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)] of Realityblurred before[13] with just one response saying it shouldn't be used. The contested material was removed in November and replaced two days ago. I removed it again with an edit summary saying the sources weren't reliable and to go to RSN if the editor though they were, but I was reverted with the edit summary "The sources clearly provide ample fodder to question the legitimacy of the program. How is this contested? The word allegded was used." The relevant text is:

The show has come under fire for allegedly being staged. Former show participants have come clean to the press that indeed producers have hired actors, told employees how to behave, edited the time in a false manner, as well as explain to cast members how they'll be portrayed.[14] Other former show participants allege that they were asked to sign and give releases, meaning they understood the show was potentially being staged.[15] Further evidence to support the claim is that the program has had casting calls, soliciting actors to portray wait staff.[16]

I don't think that just adding 'alleged' is enough, although I will say that HuffPost uses realityblurred[17] as a source but without adding anything. It also seems to me that this is a WP:BLP issue as it reflects on William Jack "Willie" Degel who hosts the show. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to say I don't see theashleysrealityroundup.com as a source we should use here either. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue resolved, editor removed the section. Happy ending. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Internet Pinball Database (ipdb.org) as a reliable source

I would like to add a bunch of pages for pinball machines that do not currently exist. After adding my first one and using ipdb.org as a source, I was told this site is not a reliable source as it is an online wiki. I would like to state that the site is run and edited by a small group of experts in their field. They have published books. You can submit data but it is verified by expert staff before they accept it. They also require reference material and it is cited on each page. Is there a way to get a site approved as a reliable source? Thanks.

Internet Pinball Database

About IPDB

Through consensus here, the site could be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Although this is not a source with professional editorial oversight, those that run it are apparently experts within the industry, and therefore it should be considered reliable when used appropriately. Others will likely weigh in, but that's my opinion anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hollywood Gossip

What exactly is the policy on gossip websites? Specifically, I'm wondering about thehollywoodgossip.com [18]. I don't want to use it as a news source, but rather, am thinking about citing it's opinion of a musical performance. --Jpcase (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response if the reviewer has been a professional reviewer on a major site/had their reviews previously published in a book or as a standard "expert" on major network shows, then probably usable. If the reviewer is pseudonymous random blogger from a blog that is not even itself notable, then no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

http://guerillabookworm.com

Dear source experts: An article (David Reddish) that I was looking at (rather dubiously) had a source entry which led to the above web site. The source was supposed to be a book review. When I clicked on it, the web page asked me to install software to see the review. I didn't want to do that. Has anyone heard of this web site, and if so is it a repository of book reviews? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

no evidence of professional level review or notability of the site itself. The film project has a nice assessment of what to use Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response. this site fails. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Simon Digby

The main dispute is on Persecution of Hindus, where a user claims that "historians dispute it" while citing a single writer(not historian) named Simon Digby, and that he who disputed the "80 million" figure. So he should be added. While this figure remains largely accepted by number of historians.

And he keeps edit warring about it, without providing any secondary source that refer to his "dispute". Considering that here, Digby dispute(comment at most) is being used as secondary, so he must be recognized by other reliable source, before it is being recognized here? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lal's book and Digby's review are probably both safely RS. If we can find other reviews of Lal's book, that would be good too.

There are a couple of corrections to be made. (1) Lal's book doesn't (so far as I can see) say that 80 million Hindus were killed under Muslim rule. He estimates that the population of India decreased by 75 million during the period (1000-1500). They are not the same thing at all. (2) Digby's review throws general doubt on Lal's estimates and the methods Lal used, but he doesn't question this particular figure (see second paragraph on p. 177). (3) Our footnote 3 gives some text in quote marks, not by Lal (because they mention Lal), and with no quoted source. Those words need to be sourced or removed.

Given these observations, I don't think Lal's claim or Digby's doubts are relevant enough to go in the introductory medieval paragraph, where they are now. Instead, somewhere lower down in the text, I'd mention Lal's estimate (but as an estimate of decrease in population, not an estimate of deaths of one religious community) and I'd also mention Digby's review because it makes us question Lal's methods, and that's quite a reasonable thing to do.

I can't read Lal's book, only the review. If anyone else can read Lal's book, so much the better. But if he really does give this 80 million figure for "Hindus killed", I'll eat my hat :) Andrew Dalby 16:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well Andrew Dalby, you should also clear that if it is appropriate to even mention Digby or not(since he is not mentioned by any other sources for this so called "dispute"), and also that if he is historian(since he is just a writer). There are number of reliable sources, that regarded these 80 million figure to be decreased by population during those 500 years, Such as [19], [20]. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As per Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, it has been cited, that the estimates by K.S. Lal refers to the 80 million death of Hindus though.[21]. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But i somewhat agree with:-

1. Digby is not disputing the figures.
2. Figures might be related to whole Indian population, not hindus just.

Now that makes such whole content to be unrelated. Right? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Digby is questioning the figures and methods of Lal in a peer reviewed journal, and it is notable enough to mention his critique of Lal's methods since he's a British Scholar (and not a mere "writer" - last time I checked only scholars got their pieces published in academic journals). Given that you've stated before numerous times that "Digby does not exist" and that it is a "fabricated source" what you seem to be implying is that Digby warrants no mention and is unworthy of inclusion. You are trying to represent that as a world view, "80 million Hindus died" when Lal doesn't even claim that. Digby's critique is in a peer reviewed journal. The usual nutty sources seem to take Lal's words out of context (Koenrad isn't even reliable since he's right wing, and represents a biased viewpoint). I suspect that you're one of those Hindu fanatics who can't seem to able to distinguish fact from fiction given how hard you're trying to negate Digby's position (witness: " [is it] appropriate to even mention Digby or not(since he is not mentioned by any other sources for this so called "dispute""). StuffandTruth (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the reference that is proof that Digby is a historian from the Indian Express. [22]. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a re-print. Obviously you fabricate the source since it is neither secondary, nor it is disputing the figures. Sweta Dutta who wrote the article is not a reliable source. Digby is not a historian, I bet you regard everyone as historian who you think to be supporting your isolated view. But interestingly not everyone is historian. He is only a writer. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Blade, Andrew's already answering your question on whether or not Digby should be included: "I'd also mention Digby's review because it makes us question Lal's methods, and that's quite a reasonable thing to do." Why are you asking him again? StuffandTruth (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Who the fuck cares if it's a "reprint" - it's held by and published by Cambridge University. Again you're laughably claiming it is "fabricated"? How is someone this stupid? For fuck's sake it's a secondary source since it's published in a peer reviewed article. After giving you a source that says Digby is a historian (again it's here since you're too blind to see), you STILL ignore it. I'm reporting this to an administrator. You're behaviour is getting very disruptive.

1. Obviously a historian (Indian Express Obituary).
2. Digby, Simon (1975). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London. Vol. 38, No. 1. (1975), pp. 176–177.

StuffandTruth (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Brad Steiger book

• Steiger, Brad & Sherry (15 January 2006). Conspiracies and Secret Societies. Visible Ink Press. p. 95. ISBN 1-57859-174-0. There are legitimate reasons to dispense chemical in this manner: crop dusting ... cloud seeding ... firefighting ... and smoke trails in air shows ... The chemtrails that have caused great concern are none of these ...

• Chemtrail conspiracy theory

• used to support:

• a definition of chemtrails that does't fit the mainstream definition
• the presence of chentrails in the 1970s. Other sources says that they were started by two guys in 1990s. Steiger does not report the 1990s origin, despite being well documented in the internet Skeptical Inquirer, skeptical blog.

This book reads very sloppy, and it contains sensationalistic sentences that are not substantiated later.

He contradicts himself, first he says that sulphur dioxide was used in contrails, then says that some scientists proposed using it. He also makes scary comments about how this substance causes acid rain (note the use of "causes" instead of "would cause")

He also says that a certain laboratory "began shooting huge amounts of porous-walled glass microspheres into the stratosphere." but it only proposed doing so in one paper[23]. It's obvious he didn't check any of the original sources.

Note the negative reviews:

• a Fortean review or other of his books: "My own sixth sense, gut instinct says to avoid this book. There’s some gold here, but there’s also an awful lot of sensational idiocy." [24]

• a scholar book on Pagan studies: ""These accounts were generally sensationalistic and conflated Paganism with the New Age, "the occult," or Satanism. In the United States, such books were produced by Hans Holzer, Susan Roberts, and Brad Steiger."[25] p. 204

This source doesn't look reliable at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Involved editor) Probably reliable for Brad Steiger's view - whether they're worthy of inclusion is another question ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Involved editor) It does not look like it would be useful here. Though, as noted for the views of Mr. Steiger, sure, but not for the Chemtrail article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Involved editor) I suggest checking this editor's use of sources in general. I suspect there is some OR going on here. Note that he has subpages with lots of content. Check the sources used there. He is currently blocked (again) and I have had to ban him from my talk page for his aggressive behavior. Here are convenience links:

• Johnvr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.47.124.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Brangifer (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)