Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Resolved

reopened

In view of this revert by User:RetroS1mone, I'd like to hear opinions on the reliablity of this institute's website as a source for listing Florence Nightingale as someone to be believed to have suffered from ME/CFS, since this ME/CFS research institute was in fact named after her. Of course, there are plenty of other sources that say the same thing (e.g. [1]), but this one seems the most appropriate. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with historical figures we have to be very careful about retrospective diagnoses. Advocacy groups have a vested interest in declaring that famous people of the past had the condition they are promoting awareness of, because it gives them publicity and a kind of heroic pedigree of high achievers to be proud of. ME/CFS is particularly prone to heavily ideological and intransigent advocacy. It is clear that this insititute promotes a specific contested pov (that ME is a clearly medically defined condition) and so has a vested interest in using historical figures to assert the factual reality of the condition. As a specialist in Victorian culture I'd be very very wary of such diagnoses given the significant cultural differences and expectations regarding middle class femininity at the time and a host of other factors (conditions undiagnosable and unknown at the time; paucity of reliable information; medical expectations of the time regarding behaviour). I certainly would not expect Nightingale to be placed in an article which baldly asserts that she is a "notable person with chronic fatigue syndrome". Paul B (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The article correctly only claims that people are 'believed to be', which seems accurate in this case. The institute, as well as other researchers and historians, and most patient organizations, truly believe that she suffered from ME (and hence also CFS as it was longer than 6 months). Whether she really did, we cannot know. Maybe it was lupus. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Geocities and a website that advocates for a more or less unsubstantiated definition of chronic fatigue syndrome are not reliable sources. If published in a real reliable source, OK. The others are self-published and too fringy to be acceptable (the former quite clearly, the latter in my opinion but one I think quite understandable). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source in this case would be a specialist on Nightingale. The "Einstein was dyslexic" meme is a comparable case. Repeatedly debunked by Einstein's biographers it nevertheless still appears unrelentingly in dyslexia-awareness literature, posters, and so on - because the idea that the most famous scientific genius of the modern era had the condition is clearly good for the self-esteem of dyslexics. The phrase "are believed to be" still implies a consensus of experts, and there appears to be no such consensus. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The situation is not comparable, since there is nobody debunking this. Also, like I said twice and to which you have not responded, the article does not claim that she is, but that she is believed to be, which is very obviously true. We could specify this as "believed to be by...", perhaps, but should that not go for the whole list, then? Why would this be a special case? For goodness sake, her birthday is ME awareness day, declared so by a govermental body. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not actually read what I wrote. I did respond to that point. I will repeat it 'The phrase "are believed to be" still implies a consensus of experts, and there appears to be no such consensus'. If some people who are not experts on Nightingale, but have a clear motive for diagnosing her, say that she had the condition then their view is not sufficient. If the phrase "are believed to be" is taken to mean that someone somewhere believes it, it is very problematic. If it does not imply consensus then it is weasel wording, because it allows anyone who is believed by someone to have the condition to be included. I've no idea what should go for the whole list, since we are being asked about Florence Nightingale, not about the whole list.

There may or may not be anyone "debuking" the theory with regard to Nightingale, but her 2008 biographer Mark Bostridge identifies her condition as Brucellosis, a disease that was first identified during the Crimean war in which Nightingale worked as a nurse. Paul B (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed something. I don't see why a governmental body would have a suspicious motive though in this matter. Brucella infections are found in a subset of ME patients, so there is no contradiction. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "governmental body" you are referring to. One soluton would be simply to add the disclaimer to the list that Nightingale has been claimed by some to have had the condition. Brucella may well be identified in a subset of patients, but since I am no medical expert I can't comment on the relevance of that fact. That's one reason why we have the OR and SYN rules, so that we do not "spin" the statements of sources to suit our preferred arguments. Paul B (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Provincial Government of British Columbia, in 1995, by resolution #941109. Adding a disclaimer sounds like a good idea though. I imagine for the whole list, since the CFS article says that there is still no generally accepted way to diagnose the condition. (Btw spinning goes both ways, eg implying that brucella looks like debunking would also be OR, so a disclaimer should be carefully worded.) Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless the provincial Government of Canada has passed a resolution stating as a fact that Florence Nightingale had ME/CFS, I'm not sure what the relevance of "resolution #941109" is to this debate. Even in the unlikely instance that it did, governments to not decide facts of history. Paul B (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see (I could not find a confirmation in a reliable source so far), the PGBC has recognized May 12 as ME day. This date had been proposed (probably not by the Government but by people petitioning for it) because it was the birth day of Nightingale. It is doubtful whether the government did any investigation at all to find if Nightingale actually suffered from ME, and more probably that they accepted the proposal as is without much scrutiny. But I'll gladly accept any evidence to the contrary... Fram (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thank you. It seems that we still need a reliable source (Nightingale expert or non-involved medical professional) who has even suggested this as a possibility. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly they checked the biographic material and found that her symptoms matched. That is by itself not conclusive (ME/CFS has no symptoms that no other disease has, and many diseases mimic it), and no expert really can do anything beyond that so long after her death. One can, and does, believe, however. I would suggest that she is mentionable on the page because of the awareness day, but that it should be made crystal clear that there is no positive diagnosis. How does that sound? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Post-Mortem: Solving History's Great Medical Mysteries by Philip A. Mackowiak, M.D." has a chapter on the cause of death of Nightingale. The conclusion (from my reading of the limited preview, I have not read the full book) seems to be that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, a bipolar personality, brucellosis, and finally Alzheimer.[2] Fram (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No less than four disorders, without a thread of evidence, while the same symptoms can also be explained by one. The lengths people go to... Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on these sources there's not enough of sufficient reliability to support putting in the contention that Nightingale had CFS. Being sarcastic will not change this. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to put in such a contention, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you have apparently read the book, to make such definitive statements? At least the brucellosis is also given by her bioghrapher (mentioned above). The brucellosis and the bipolar disorder are discussed here[3].

Anyway, another biography, which also suggest brucellosis as the probable cause of her illness, gives you the perfect source to include the speculation that it was ME/CFS.page 35. The same book also indicates that she suffered some form of dementia[4], so at leastfor three of the four disorders in the previous source, there are independent sources as well. Fram (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Nightingale complained of spinal pain, insomnia, anorexia, nervousness and depression. Her symptoms often have been attributed to chronic brucellosis. "She may very well have contracted the infection in the Crimean War," Wisner said. "But that illness alone does not account for her severe mood swings, or the fact that she could be so incredibly productive and so sick at the same time.

Mood swings are part of ME, which is a postviral disorder (in the 1930s it was even suggested that brucella caused the condition, but now it is seen as a secondary infection), and so is symptom variability, as are insomnia, significant change in body weight, anxiety and secondary depression. Spinal pain is a symptom of fibromyalgia (which is why they also 'claim' her), a common comorbidity to ME. But speculation is all it is, so I'll use that term. Thanks for your input! Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are not suggesting such a contention be added, and your concern is addressed, I suggest you place the {{resolved}} tag at the top of the section so it can be closed off. If this discussion is an effort to attribute reliability to the Nightingale Research Foundation, we've been through this before and the answer was a negative. Irrespetive, the NRF has been judged insufficient, as is the geocities page.

Based on the links provided by Fram to Nightingale/McDonald, it is now possible to have a discussion on the "notable sufferers" page about Nightingale, but it ultimately depends on a book cited by McDonald, since McDonald herself doesn't discuss at length. That book would be Norman Keen's Florence Nightingale. The discussion is now, is this book sufficient to include FN on the notable sufferers page; as it was published in 1982, is only 38 pages long, and doesn't seem to be cited by much else, that would argue against it in my opinion. Take this new source to the notable sufferers page and make your case there; if there is a discussion about the reliability of Keen's book, start a new section below. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, these are all good points. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I mis-read which footnote to check in McDonald/Nightingale. McDonald doesn't cite Keen, she cites the NRF, which isn't reliable. For clarity, this comment was moved to after GDB's response and addition of the resolved tag WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There go the good points. I suggest that instead this seems to be evidence to support the notability of the NRF. But that is not relevant here, relevant re the NRF here is only that it exists. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the "good points" were all completely wrong (albeit a good faith mistake) it seems odd that you should phrase it this way. At best we have speculation from a body with a vested interest, one that has been noted by McDonald. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing notability of NRF, it was deleted in an AFD. We've discussed if it's website is sufficiently reliable to add FN to the list of notable people w/CFS. I would say the answer is no. McDonald's statement isn't an endorsement, it's barely speculation, and I don't think it establishes anything as the NRF is self-published. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

@Paul: I was reaching out, but as usual it went unappreciated. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an institute can be published, let alone self-published. An insitute's publications are, of course, usually self-published; what of it, and how does this in any way diminish the verifiability of its existence and of what it believes? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The institute publishes the webpage, which is what you believe can be used to cite the idea that FN had CFS. WP:SPS means it can't be used to cite controversial information, and WP:UNDUE means it can't be used to cite the claim since it's neither reliable, nor does it represent a substantial minority within the academic community. Essentially, the opinion of the NRF is of such little notability and impact, that we shouldn't be citing it at all (which is why it can't be used to justify the idea that Florence Nightingale had chronic fatigue syndrome). Verification is only one of wikipedia's content policies, NPOV, of which UNDUE is a part, is another. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 19:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, what I was suggesting instead is to cite it for the existence of a belief, not for its accurateness or reliability, mainstreamness, academicity, neutrality, etc. etc. Meanwhile, we have more and possibly better sources. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE and my reply here. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 19:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather listen to someone without a personal agenda against me. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Such as PaulB who said NRF wasn't an appropriate source for the claim that FN has CFS? The discussion, including in put from an independent party, has come down against the use of the source. It's been judged that NRF isn't sufficiently reliable to cite the claim. The second source, the geocities page, is clearly self-published. So aren't we pretty much done? to keep asking until you get an opinion you like is pretty much forum or opinion shopping. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Again: I am not making such a claim. Please stop attacking views that nobody expresses.

Here is one more secondary source, one that is already used in another CFS article:

• Jason LA, Taylor RR, Plioplys S, Stepanek Z, Shlaes J (2002), "Evaluating attributions for an illness based upon the name: chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalopathy and Florence Nightingale disease", Am J Community Psychol 30(1):133–48, pmid=11928774 Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The American Journal of Community Psychology asserts on its webpage that its job is to evaluate "community psychological interventions at the social neighborhood organizational group and individual levels". I'm guessing that this article is about the impact of choice of name for a condition on the community of people who have been diagnosed. In other words its not likely to be about the reiability of a diagnosis of Nightingale. But since all you have given here is the title, I'm just guessing. We need to know what it says. Paul B (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't have access to the full article, but I found this (not sure if it's accurately worded): "The team found that when groups of medical trainees reviewed case studies of CFS patients that featured three different names for the disease, their perceptions did change depending on the name the illness was given. The names used in the study were: CFS, Florence Nightingale Disease (FN), named for the public health nurse who served during the Crimean War and was believed to have suffered from chronic fatigue; and Myalgic Encephalopathy (ME), the medically based term used to describe the condition." [5] It's not about the reliability of her diagnosis, but it supports the reliability that there exists a belief (something that is common knowledge, but Wikipedia wants sources). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For the last couple of weeks there's been a tedious disagreement at Talk:List of eponymous laws over the inclusion of something called "Poe's law", which has been deleted twice as an article for being non-notable and made up. One particular editor has repeatedly reinserted it into this list article, and has been arguing endlessly for its inclusion, despite not being able to produce a single non-self-published source that meets RS. Also, now another editor, with no previous editing history, has appeared out of nowhere to also strenuously argue for inclusion, on the basis that search engine hits justify inclusion. The discussion is becoming increasingly repetitive, and I'm starting to suspect tag teaming may be going on. Although an article RFC has been filed, little attention has thus far resulted. I would very much appreciate some competent source-policy-aware editors joining the discussion. Thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting a page of actual laws, like Megan's Law --NE2 03:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hah! — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the page and added citations with google books for one. I would say that's not an inarguable inclusion - in each case cited it is actually a poet discussing the apparent law (the more reliable reference turned out to be a quotation of T. S. Eliot rather than a discussion). I would say that it could be an example of undue weight - if it's not discussed extensively in contemporary criticisms and scholarly discussions, it's not a good inclusion. If it is discussed, even by a substantial minority, it should be easy to find prominent contemporary adherents. Google books searches suggests that it's Eliot's opinion [6], and there's a couple throwaway references in other books - [7], but some of those discuss for instance "Poe's law days" and each seems to have a different interpretation of what Poe's law was. I would suggest that there are more reliable sources available than website. I think I'll port this to the RFC as it goes beyond RS questions. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

CESNUR has been the topic of some debate lately on Talk:Scientology. One issue which initially brought up the question as to its reliability recently is some criticism of Stephen A. Kent, a well-known professor of Sociology at the University of Alberta. Some of criticisms in question are here (John Gordon Melton), here (Massimo Introvigne 1), here (Massimo Introvigne 2) and here (Massimo Introvigne 3). The last three were published by Massimo Introvigne, the director and founder of CESNUR. He has also used the domain, cesnur.org, to publish a considerable number of articles authored by himself. Questions of the veracity of CESNUR as a publisher of scholarly content has been raised by some third-party sites (of whose reliability status themselves I cannot ascertain for sure; that's why I'm here). Questions of conflicting interests have been brought up by several sources for John Gordon Melton, the author of the first CESNUR link (see criticism on his Wikipedia page).

The other issue regarding this source is regarding some content about Scientology Sunday services (whether they exist), which I had some trouble corroborating elsewhere with any other reliable sources. That link in question is here: Are the Ceremonies of the Church of Scientology really important?, By Regis Dericquebourg. I couldn't find much outside mention of Dericquebourg, except for a few websites hosted by the Church of Scientology (the list of goes on) itself.

So is CESNUR to be considered a reliable source of information? Also, while I'm here, I might as well ask whether Stephen A. Kent is seen as reliable as well. ←Spidern→ 04:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Both Kent, as in individual scholar, and CESNUR are recognized scholarly sources. Kent represents a significant minority position within NRM studies, CESNUR is more reflective of the academic mainstream.

Background info on CESNUR:

• The CESNUR site is listed as a recommended research source, along with peer-reviewed journals, in this Oxford University Press publication.
• More background on CESNUR is available here.
• Hundreds of scholarly publications cite cesnur.org.
• Coverage in relevant literature: [8].
• Massimo Introvigne is "the author or editor of forty books and of more than a hundred chapters and articles in scholarly journals about the history and sociology of new religious movements. In 2001, he edited the award-winning Encylopedia or Religions in Italy. He is a lecturer at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, Italy.

Re the Scientology ceremonies, other sources mentioning these ceremonies include

• this scholarly description
• this US Army Manual
• An Educator's Classroom Guide to America's Religious Beliefs and Practices, a reference work for teachers and school libraries published by Libraries Unlimited Jayen466 09:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dericquebourg is a professor at the Université Charles de Gaulle in Lille, France. He is widely published, with dozens or journal articles, encyclopedia contributions, etc. Bio data and a list of publications is here (in French). google books. Jayen466 11:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• J. Gordon Melton is Director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion and a Research Specialist with the Dept. of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is the author of such standard reference works as the Encyclopedia of American Religion and the Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, and of such recent works as Religious Leaders of America and the New Age Encyclopedia. Melton also happens to be the second-most prolific contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica. Jayen466 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• As for the other sites you quoted:

• Tilman Hausherr is an unpublished, but notable Internet activist, and software specialist. A scholarly assessment (Højsgaard, Warburg (2005)): "The most typical – and one of the largest – web pages demonizing Scientology is the Tilman Hausherr home page in Berlin, Germany. ... most of this large-scale website is devoted purely to disparaging Scientology ... (there follows a lengthier description). Hausherr's academic credibility in the field of NRM studies is nil.
• Apologetics Index is a notable Christian countercult site run by Anton Hein, whom Rick Ross, a notable anti-cult activist, has characterised as a fugitive sex offender. Here another, more detailed assessment, which also mentions Hausherr and Gonnet (below) in passing. Jayen466 11:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.antisectes.net/ is an anti-Scientology site run by a chap called Roger Gonnet, a French ex-Scientologist. I found only a couple of mentions of antisectes.net in scholarly literature, characterising it as an Internet propaganda site and a dedicated Scientology countermovement. There is no evidence that the author has any academic standing.

However, while academic assessments of these last three sites generally seem to be fairly dim, and their original writing is certainly not part of academic discourse, Kent, whose own stance you'll remember is relatively close to the anti-cult position, in this paper acknowledges that the archives of government and court documents hosted on them have some value as information collections, giving these sites perhaps sufficient credibility to use them as convenience links for documents referred to in our texts. Jayen466 12:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get sucked into this because it's not something I know much about but, as Jayen knows, the CENSUR thing came up over on Osho. This website features some kind of supposed expose on Introvigne, not sure about the background to it, or the credibility of the content, but there does appear to be exchanges between Introvigne and the sites owner about a number of issues including the matter of Introvigne's title's. He is not, by all accounts, a professor or a trained sociologist (the title was bestowed upon him). Remember also that this is Italy, rife with corruption and nepotism, look at its academic reputation in the humanities, and of course this guy is a big fan of the Catholic Church, and has defended it on the point of sexual abuse allegations. He is also allegedly a member of Alleanza Cattolica. CENSUR is an independent organization, and if an academic is invited to publish work it may be a nice little earner, but it doesn't really matter what Introvigne and CENSUR might or might not be up to, you can't prove it, you need to take each publication on its own merits, any bias will be self-evident. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. I post links to dozens of scholarly publications documenting the site's academic standing, and then someone comes with half-baked allegations from a self-published website. Jayen466 12:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, when you say "CESNUR is more reflective of the academic mainstream," what do you base this assertion on? ←Spidern→ 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

On my familiarity with this field of studies, and who the most notable scholars in it are. This page, for example, already linked above, describing the CESNUR conference as the largest such gathering of scholars in the world. Check the descriptions of CESNUR available in reliable sources yourself. I gave lots of links above. Jayen466 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the validity of the Army Manual as a source of information in this context was called into question on Talk:Scientology#Ceremonies by AndroidCat, quoted here:

I'm not sure that military organization guides should be seen as authoritative. They have no particular interest in recognizing or dismissing the beliefs of men and women in their commands. (If it helped morale, they'd don colanders and do noodley touch-assists for the FSM.) Until recently, the US Navy was publishing a Scientology section on their site that was sometimes used as a reference here–except that it was copied from the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance site, and, at least the most recent version, directly written by Scientology. (There was also a frequently overlooked disclaimer on the US Navy site.)

— AndroidCat

←Spidern→ 13:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Spidern, it is a US government publication. Jayen466 13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the US army specialize in studying NRMs? Quoted directly from WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (emphasis added). Not to mention that they copied Scientology's description verbatim. ←Spidern→ 13:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The manual was prepared by the Chaplain's Office, and, as is described in the manual, was the result of an extensive research effort. The United States Army is one of the biggest armed forces in the world. Questions of religion can play a significant part in the operation of an army; I believe the U.S. Army would have spent time, money and expertise to get this right. At any rate, it represents an incomparably greater measure of research and editorial oversight than an individual's self-published webpage. I believe that on any other topic where there were less strong feelings, use of such a source in a similar circumstance would not raise an eyebrow. Jayen466 13:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me the money. I still consider your statement regarding CESNUR generally taking the mainstream academic view to be unfounded. ←Spidern→ 13:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Missed reply above. ←Spidern→ 13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I see now you missed my earlier reply; I had gone to find you another reference. Here for example: CESNUR was established in 1988 by a group of religion scholars from leading universities in Europe and the Americas. Jayen466 13:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In situations like this, the solution is usually to directly attribute who says what in the text of the article. Remember that the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not Truth. That CESNUR comments on scientology is notable in and of itself. It is appropriate that Wikipedia reports on what it says. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that does not address the entire issue. We are talking here about a scholarly paper, published by a renowned academic (Dericquebourg), hosted on cesnur.org. Per WP:RS#Scholarship these are the most reliable sources for us to use. I hope you are not suggesting that we should say, "Professor A says this, but B's self-published website says it's a lot of nonsense". That would be a travesty of both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Jayen466 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely what must be done, in some capacity. Wikipedia, as per NPOV, can not afford to take positions itself, but can only accurately portray the most significant ones. Also taking in to account, of course, the due weight in proportion to a viewpoints prominence in academia. ←Spidern→ 14:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. Self-published websites do not figure in this. Jayen466 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I shomehow missed the "self-published" part and read it as "Professor A" and "Professor B". ←Spidern→ 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In this particular situation the person being quoted on the Talk:Scientology page was the creator of CESNUR himself, Massimo Introvigne, who appeared to be attempting to discredit Stephen A. Kent multiple times. That is why I brought into question the verifiability of CESNUR itself, as a publisher of academic thought. ←Spidern→ 14:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Half baked? yes, but it's well acknowledged within academia that religious studies is a deeply problematic area precisely because it is populated by individuals who not only hold deeply rooted belief based biases, in many instances they are also using the domain of scholarly research to generate an academic body of work which can then be cited in a defense of one particular religion or another. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that, in this specific case, both Introvigne and Kent are notable enough that their views should be discussed. Hence my suggestion that you directly attribute who says what. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The trouble comes when trying to quantify which one deserves more weight. Taking into account, for example, Jayen's belief that CESNUR is more representative of the academic community at large; how and to what extent is one to accurately depict the opposing end of the academic spectrum? ←Spidern→ 14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Kent is a significant scholar, there is absolutely no doubt about that, and his opinions deserve to be reflected, but not to the point of exclusion of other scholars' views. In other words, he is one of the notable scholars whose opinions and publications we have to reflect. His squabbles with Introvigne, Lewis, Shupe etc. in Skeptic (U.S. magazine) (which is not a peer-reviewed journal, btw.) and the personal comments these scholars have made about each other are irrelevant to the Scientology article. Jayen466 14:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither is cesnur.org a peer-reviewed journal. AndroidCat (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you and I are in agreement on that. I never meant to imply that those self-published sources were to be used on the page in any case, they were just pasted here as fodder for discussion. Mainly, I just wanted to confirm that Kent is in fact an RS, as user Bravehartbear suggested that he isn't. ←Spidern→ 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood. The only thing is to make sure we don't give Kent WP:UNDUE weight. Right now for example, we have five mentions of Kent – by name – in our article, along with an explication of his opinions, compared to zero for Eugene V. Gallagher, one for Bryan R. Wilson, zero for Roy Wallis, one for JG Melton (cited for a cherry-picked negative statement about Scientology, when Melton has actually written a fairly sympathetic and conciliatory book about the CoS), zero for Jorgensen, zero for Chryssides, zero for Lewis, one for Bromley, zero for Douglas E. Cowan – each of which is at least as reputable a scholar as Kent. I hope you see what I mean: we are still far from an NPOV representation of scholarly literature. Kent is popular on Internet sites, because of all academics writing on Scientology, he is closest to the anti-Scientology position found in the various anti-Scientology websites, but his preponderance on the Internet is not matched by any similar preponderance in published reliable sources. Jayen466 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just two more things:

1. Introvigne's self-published comments about Kent would be inadmissible even if they were relevant to the article topic, per WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."
2. I noticed that Dericquebourg's paper on cesnur.org is an unpublished conference paper, marked "Preliminary version – do not reproduce or quote without the consent of the author." This means that as is, the paper may not be suitable for citing here (at least not without seeking and registering permission). I don't think we should use this paper right now. Perhaps later, if it gets published. But in the meantime, it may at least be useful background reading for editors. Jayen466 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• From the About page of cesnur.org[9] "The texts of this site, selected because of their scholarly interest, represent the point of view of their authors. CESNUR does not necessarily agree with them." (emp added.)

The contents of the CESNUR site are a grab-bag, ranging from academic articles with solid sources, to personal flames by the owner of the site. There is no indication that articles have to pass an editorial review processes, peer-review, fact-checkers, etc. In the middle there are weak papers with poor references[10] or ones that strangely omit key information about co-authors of a presentation (with sources to be given later) at a CESNUR event [11]

I realize that Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to be judges of academic sources, but neither are we supposed to blindly accept whatever floats in wearing a badge proclaiming "Hi! I'm with the academic mainstream", when there are respectable contrary views. AndroidCat (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This has just been added to Donmeh: "[12]A website revealing the results of studies conducted by anonymous researchers, on donmeh origin of many public figures]" - it doesn't look anything like a RS to me from the description but I can't read the website. Comments? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For your information; I modified the link with a (Turkish) mark at the end, meaning that's a website in Turkish. Regarding reliability, none of the external links in that article fits into the reliable source definition.Lyckey (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed them all except the article in the Jewish Political Studies Review which looks RS. dougweller (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this site a reliable source? Several books have cited it. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be tempted to simply avoid it by citing other sources. I would expect something as simple as the start of a rulers' term would be easy to source. The page does not cite sources and accepts corrections via e-mail. I wouldn't use it if I could avoid it. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 19:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but in Hubert Maga's case it had information that I could not find anywhere else. I am trying to bring this to FA. Is rulers.org so unreliable that it should never be used. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

STS-48: if the core of the information can only be backed up by a video on youtube and if there is no other copy elsewhere, can it be used safely on wikipedia as a source?Lyckey (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it really depends on who uploaded the video. If it's NBC it's likely reliable however if it's some fan you shouldn't be including it. Also please see WP:YOUTUBE as there can also be copyright issues when it is from a fan. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be NASA footage. dougweller (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As said, it's supposed to be a Nasa footage. Not sure but the uploader probably is a "fan" of UFOs, or might be a neutral NASA employee as well. On the other hand, the video speaks for itself, even if it were through, say NBC, nobody in NBC could have verified the originality. Lyckey (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say no to youtube as a source, but it is used everywhere to support everything so it must be me :) --Tom 22:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, youtube is not a reliable source. There is no way to tell if the video has been manipulated from the original. The user who posted it may say it is NASA footage, but we can not verify this. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

However, let's not think the video is not available elsewhere. I have found STS-48 video clips on several sites that have editorial control and do not have the copyright problems often associated with Youtube... for instance Williamson Labs. Just what does your video purport to show? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Little green men, oh course :) --Tom 23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ps williamson-labs.com??? And they are who/what? --Tom 23:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess due to the nature of the subject, a "supposed to be Nasa footage" is beyond any editorial control, which can judge authenticity. I don't see any copyright issue with such a video, as any claim from Nasa would mean the confirmation of authenticity. The version in williamson-labs is obviously the shorter and poor quality one. Who cares their editorial control :)? I've not encountered with any longer and better quality version than the one in youtube. The video purports to show that Nasa has the technology to monitor UFO or ice particle activities. --Lyckey (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well frankly, editorial control is what makes something a reliable source. Uploader Joe is not NASA, and so cannot have the credibility of a NASA video. Find the original. Cool Hand Luke 02:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap! Someone said something on Wikipedia that makes sense! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The original is available for free at most good libraries and can be ordered from NASA. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Then per WP:NF, since the film is available from NASA and "most good libraries", the film itself can be used as a source, even if not available to every editor. So don't cite back to youtube, simply cite to the NASA or library site where it is available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Right -- and also note the claim made for what the video shows better be substantiated by any normal viewer of the NASA footage. Too often I have found a cite does not say what is claimed for it. Collect (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the video was published by NASA and can be referred to as such a publication. Collect's point is extremely important. The conclusion that the video purportedly supports may not be obvious from the video itself; one should be careful to only state what it actually shows. Cool Hand Luke 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this roll of political contributions ok as a source to claim the (deceased) person's political affiliation? The identity of "KRICK, IRVING P DR" and Irving P. Krick is without doubt. NVO (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I am shocked by the number of articles that link to this site. Also, the political affiliations of this meteorologist are not directly relevant to his career and to pull them off this website is a clear case of original synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it. I'd argue that political affiliations are quite relevant even for meteorologists, but in this particular case they should be quite obvious anyway. NVO (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask for clarification of the third party opinion regarding this past request. It seems that a third-party opinion clearly concluded that, I quote: "if the maps come from a blog, and they deal with contested borders, then they are not reliable". Yet now, on the same page, User:Meowy is pushing the same map from a controversial blogger-claiming-to-be-scholar Andrew Andersen [13] and essentially ignoring the third party opinion in his comments. There are dozen other pages, to which these maps made it, and I think they need to be removed from all of them. None of these maps are based on any credible research and only result in edit warring over contested border issues. Thank you in advance. Atabəy (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Either keep them all or remove them all. You can't cherry pick since you and grandmaster have only attacked the author of the maps but never the actual content.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a case where WP:NOR#Original images is apt. Most maps from reliable sources (such as from a respected historical atlas) will not be in the public domain. Thus, if we are to include a map at all, we must either accept a map that may come from a less than reliable source and seems to reflect only one POV (ie Andersen's map), or our editors must self-create a map that is more neutral (perhaps using some sort of cross-hatching to show areas that are in dispute). I think the latter may be the best way to go, since it avoids the entire issue of whether Andersen is reliable or not. Another option is to include two (or more?) maps, side by side, so that the reader can see the differences between all of the various POVs. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no "differences" - the map is not POV and does not deal with contested borders. In Azerbaijan, possession of the map would probably get you a prison sentence - but Wikipedia is not Azerbaijan. However, producing a self-created map would be better because the current map deals with regions that are not relevant to the article (and some of those off-topic regions are not accurately depicted on the map anyway). Here is what I wrote about the accuracy of the map in the article's talk page: Out of interest I compared the Andersen map with the nearest equivalent maps in "Armenia, an Historical Atlas", especially the one on p143 titled "Armenia under Turcoman Domination, 1378-1502". The various "Georgian" kingdoms are roughly in the same position, which is good given that indicating their positions is the main purpose of the Andersen map. A specific border for Kachen/Karabakh is not shown on that map, but is shown on the map on p135 titled "Armenia under the Ilkhanid Domination 1256-1335". Its position is similar to that on the Andersen map - and given that we have a source saying that the Khachen principalities/melikdoms still existed during the Karakoyunlu time there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Andersen map on that point. There are mistakes in the Andersen map though - Bayburt is shown as part of the empire of Trebizond, when by this time it would not have been (if it ever was). Worse still, it shows territory marked "Ottoman Empire" directly to the south of Bayburt, which is a nonsense. The Ottomans captured Trebizond in 1461, then the inland castles of the former empire a decade or so later, and only after that did they begin to extend their rule deeper inland. When the Trebizond Empire was extant the region of Erzincan was not part of the Ottoman empire, it was ruled by independent emirs, and then by the Ak Koyunlu. In other words, the Andersen map seems to be accurate for its titled purpose (showing the Kingdom of Georgia in the 15th century), and for its use here (indicating the position of Khachen), but it is not accurate for the territory at the western end of the map. Meowy 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks Blueboar for recognising the WP:NOR#Original images issue. I had tried to point that out in the earlier discussion, forgive me for quoteing myself again: It should be remembered that what you are wanting removed are images, not sources. The standards for images on Wikipedia are different than for sources. For example, you cannot remove an image of the Parthenon simply because the photograph wasn't taken by a known archaeologist or doesn't show the Parthenon under the best lighting. You have to point out some flaw in the actual image, (like proving it does not actually show the Parthenon but is some other monument), or indicate a flaw in its usage (like finding it being used within a page about Gothic architecture), or get it removed by uploading an even better image of the Parthenon to replace it. You have done none of these things for the Andersen maps. Meowy 03:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that, WP:NOR#Original images points out that the image (in this case a map) should simply illustrate what is stated in the main text of the article (which should be based on reliable sources), and not contain OR in itself... The issue of maps on wikipedia is currently being discussed at WT:NOR... I have raised the issue of editor-created maps there... it seems to be a complicated issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar, the image reinserted by Meowy, edit warring in violation of his parole at Nagorno-Karabakh, is not neutral, because it asserts POV about the existence of some independent fiefdom inside a larger empire, which is false. This POV is not claimed by anyone but Armenian sources, hence is not neutral as it's simply not agreed by the opposite side and no 3rd party sources are offered. Moreover, the images were not made by Meowy but were taken from a blog of Andrew Andersen, who was fired from his job at University of Victoria for racism. These maps are used in several Wikipedia pages only by contributors whose POV they fit. Hence, I think it would be better to remove them and come up with consensus neutral version of maps discussed by several parties and relied upon neutral sources in text. There is a multitude of respected scholars on the subjects of medieval history of the region, and Andrew Andersen is not one of them. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK... I think this comes down to a simple question... is the theory that this independant fiefdom was independant discussed in the article? If this theory is discussed, then a map that depicts where this fiefdom was is appropriate (perhaps with a caveat in the caption along the lines of: "Map depicting X as an independent fiefdom, as theorized by Y"). If the theory is not discussed, then the map is not appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is discussed, but the thing is that those principalities were never independent. They were subordinate to the rulers of neighboring city of Ganja, and later to the khans of Karabakh. The map depicts them as independent states. That's why it would be good if the map came from a real historian, and not someone's personal website. At least we could have ascribed the opinion to some notable scholar, which Andersen is not. Grandmaster (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume that since the issue is discussed, then at least one reliable source disagrees with you, and says that the principalities were independent. If so, then including a map (reguardless of who drew it) to illustrate what that source says is not OR. There may be other issues still to be addressed (WP:NPOV#Undue weight comes to mind)... but it isn't OR. I would also add that any such map would need to be captioned correctly... to make it clear that it is simply illustrating one view point amoung many. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no credible sources which agree with Grandmaster's and Atabek's assertions. Actual sources agree with what the Andersen map shows. I had already quoted one source in the talk page discussion. It is from p143-144 of "Armenia: A Historical Atlas", by Robert H. Hewsen, University Of Chicago Press, 2000. "It was Jahan-Shah [the leader of the Karakoyunlu - my note] who, apprised of the existence of the Armenian princelings of the Siunid house in Karabagh dispossesed by Timur, restored them to their possessions and granted them the title malik, Arabic for king". The same source goes on to say that Jahan-Shah did this to protect his northeastern frontier by bordering it with a territory whose rulers he expected would be loyal to him as well as offer resistance to any invaders. In other words, the reality was exactly as depicted in the Andersen map - the territory was separate from and was independent from Karakoyunlu territory. Meowy 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've never actually edited the article's content, so I did not add the information from that quote into the article. Nor has anyone else, it seems. Once the article is unprotected I will add it in, making the inclusion of the Andersen map even more appropriate. Meowy 21:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But that source does not say that the principalities were independent. There are plenty of sources that confirm the principalities were subordinate to the Ganja khanate, and later Karabakh khanate. Here's for example The History of Karabakh by Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. [14] The online text is in Russian, but there's also English edition by the Armenian scholar George Bournutian. Grandmaster (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote says "restored them to their possessions", indicating a difference between the possessions belonging to the Karakoyunlu and the territory possessed by the Karabagh princes. The fact that in theory they were subordinate to the Karayokunlu is unimportant in relation to the issue here: the map says "principalities of Karabakh" and the map is in the article to indicate the location of those principalities. Meowy 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

These melikdoms were in some periods autonomous, otherwise sovereign, though loyal to the Turkomans (15th century, this period is shown in the map) or the Persians, a fact which latter was recognized by the Russians:

the Russian Empire recognized the sovereign status of the meliks in their domains by a charter of the Emperor Paul dated 2 June 1799.

Robert H. Hewsen, Russian-Armenian relations, 1700-1828. Society of Armenian Studies, N4, Cambridege, Massachusetts, 1984, p 37.

Even when the Persian Empire conquered them and subordinated to the Karabakh Khanate (although this period has no connection with the map in question), these melikdoms could keep their self-government:

The new khanate consisted of the eastern plains between the juncture of the Arak's and Kur (lowland Qarabagh) and the mountainous western half (Highland Qarabagh, ...) inhabited predominantly by Armenians living in five autonomous principalities governed by their own hereditary princes, known as meliks

Robert H. Hewsen, Armenia: A Historical Atlas. The University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 155.

At the same way we should not use a similar map for other historical states, which were dominated by an other state. Btw. Caucasian Albania, which was formally ruled by Persian Marzbans. So far, the removal of the map in question is required only by Azeri users, without any serious argument. IMHO they simply do that to suppress the historical fact, the Nagorno-Karabakh has been inhabited and ruled by Armenians for ages. --Vacio (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your second quote also says that meliks were subordinate to the khans of Karabakh. So why accusing Azerbaijani users? It is a fact that those principalities were not independent states. And again, the rules require using reliable sources, and Andersen is not such. This was also noted by a wiki admin sometime ago: [15] Why can't we get a map by some reliable published third party source to use in the article? Grandmaster (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Karabakh Khanate was established only in 1752. The map of Andersen shows the region in 1450-1515. May be you should look at the map before refusing it?

But you did not reacted on my note: The Albanian state was formally subordinated to a Persian governor, nevertheless there are many maps showing it a distinct state.

It is your POV that they were not independent. You don't even have a source to support this POV. While I have many to support that they were.

The melikdoms of Karabagh have become a legend among the Armenian people as the first rallying centre of modern Armenian nationalism, but their existence was threatened by the jealousies of neighboring Mohammedan rulers and by the suspicions of later Shahs. The melikdoms enjoyed their greatest independence in the 1720's under the Siwnid General David Beg (1674-1728), but after his death they were overrun by the Turks.

Robert H. Hewsen, Russian-Armenian relations, 1700-1828. Society of Armenian Studies, N4, Cambridege, Massachusetts, 1984, p 37.

Also, you refer to a post mikkalai (talk · contribs) (admin?? no I think) who proposed the removal of all maps of Andersen. That means: no one should remove the map of Andersen from the article Nagorno-Karabakh untill there is made such a dicision and all his map are removed from wiki-articles (fr example: [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]). Since I don't think we are going to use double standards in Wikipedia. After all, so far you don't have any serious objection against the map of Andersen in question. --Vacio (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all maps shall be removed and replaced with NPOV based on scholarly sources. There are actually plenty of maps inside publications, not sure why can't we use those or recreate maps based on them, instead of using maps made by blogger accused of racism. Atabəy (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all those maps should go, if there are doubts of their accuracy. After all, I'm not the only one questioning the accuracy of this source, so do even wiki admins. As for Albania, it was an independent state, with its own kings, which is irrelevant to this discussion. And I presented my sources, not agreeing with this map. See Mirza Jamal:

Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку.

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. [46]

Grandmaster (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Atabəy, in order to reach such a decision you must come with some real arguments, not accusations. I only ask you to remove the map of Andersen used in the Nagorno-Karabakh article as the last, as long as you don't have any abjection against itself.

Grandmaster, once more: this map is not showing Safavid Iran. And you still did not react on my question in reference to Caucasian Albania. --Vacio (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster is making claims which he knows aren't true, see above at Vacio's reply. I wonder how long Grandmaster can still refuse to read what others write when others repeat all over again and he closes his ears.

The map represents 1450-1515, the quote he presents speaks of late Safavid, the reign of [Safavid dynasty] was from 1501/1502 to 1722. The second half of their reign was in the 17th century. See how Grandmaster made Beylerbey clickable to it's main page on Wikipedia and has not done so for Safavid. Given that he was corrected previously of the difference of date I hope Grandmaster has just forgotten to do likewise for Safavid which article clearly indicates the date.

It is not the first time Grandmaster has provided sources representing different periods to remove history which is recognized and not denied outside Azerbaijan.

As for Atabek, his continuous attacks on the author of the map rather than addressing what is inaccurate on the map must stop. More particularly is the subject at hand; Atabek was and is currently banned from its main article. Dozens of sources including the authors Grandmaster uses refers to the principalities of Artsakh (Khachen) indicated as Karabakh on the map. Those sources were provided in the two articles from which Atabek was banned from. This is another attempt to game his topic ban and Wokipedia-wide attempt to remove any mention of Armenian past history in NK and the lands of present-day Azerbaijan. - Fedayee (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all just a pointless repeat of the original discussionrequest (and that in turn was a pointless repeat of the article's talk page discussion.) Again Grandmaster / Atabəy don't come up with credible reasons to reject the map, don't address the points made by other editors, and go widely off-topic in an attempt to disguise their weak positions. And again we have disinterest from third-parties. Meowy 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you guys read the source before saying something bad about other editors and failing to assume good faith time after time? The source says that the Armenian principalities in Karabakh never were independent, they were always subordinate to Muslim rulers, initially to the Khans of Ganja, and later, after Ganja khans remained royal to Safavids and did not support Nadir shah, he subordinated their lands to other rulers. For instance, meliks were subordinated to the governor of Iranian Azerbaijan, and that arrangement lasted until Karabakh khanate was created:

Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку. Хотя и до правления покойного Надир шаха среди илатов Джеваншира, Отузики, Баргушата и пр. имелись мелкие ханы, но и все они были подвластны елизаветпольскому беглярбеку. Даже и после того как Надир шах завоевал Тифлисский, Ганджинский, Эриванский, Нахичеванский и Карабагский вилайеты, у жителей и войск Рума, Карабагский вилайет в течение короткого времени оставался под властью елизаветтпосльского беглярбека, а иногда подчинялся азербайджанскому сардару. Среди илатов и в магалах также были ханы и мелики, которые исполняли государственную службу по поручению азербайджанского сардара. Такое положение существовало до 1160 мусульманского года, соотвествующего 1743 христианскому году, когда был убит Надир шах.

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. Even after Nadir shah conquered Tiflis, Ganja, Erivan and Karabakh provinces from the people and army of Rome (Turkey), Karabagh province for a short time remained under the authority of Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey, and sometimes was subordinate to the sardar (governor) of Azerbaijan. There were also khans and meliks among the ilats and in mahals, who performed state duties by the orders of the sardar of Azerbaijan. Such situation existed until 1743, when Nadir shah was killed.

Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. The History of Karabakh.

I have more sources on this, but this discussion is pointless. The main issue is that the map should be made on the basis of a reliable scholarly source, and not be taken from some amateur website. This is what I propose to do, let's find a map from a professional source, who's qualification cannot be questioned. Grandmaster (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you repeating a quote that has already been dismissed as off-topic? It deals with a different period than that shown in the map. The main issue is how accurate the map is. The map is accurate for its purpose - illustrating the location of the Karabakh principalities. True, Shusha did not exist at the period the map ilustrates, but I assume it is there as a sort of place-marker in order to visually link that map with other later maps illustrating the same region (and I don't think there would be any copyright implications if Shusha were to be removed). Meowy 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I scorn mudslinging, but Andersen apparently holds only a Ph.D. in Political Science, that is he isn't a historian or something. The fact he graduated from Moscow State University becoming a political scientist may support the fact he conducts a partisan researches. Consequently, no article in Wiki on him. Among all, if there is any reliable scholar who affirms Andersen's position, I may think of it at least. --Brand спойт 10:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should also scorn talking about things it seems you haven't properly read up on. Did you read the discussion so far? The map is an image, not a source. It is in the article to illustrate textual content within the article. I will repeat in it shout-out-loud capital letters IT IS AN IMAGE! What exactly do you, and Grandmaster, and Atabəy claim is wrong with this specific image? In what way is it inaccurate? Meowy 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate because related reference (16) to "The Principalities of Karabakh (orange), were the last relics of Armenian statehood in the region" belongs to Andersen himself. It's a circulus vitiosus. --Brand спойт 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just a badly written caption. It belongs to the editor who originally wrote it. And it can (and should) be rewritten once the page is unprotected. Again I ask, what is wrong with the actual map? In what way is it inaccurate? Meowy 16:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote says nothing such, it speaks of Nadir's reign and afterwards. And the only thing prior is the following: Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. It relates to the Khans, not the meliks. Clearly it’s two different periods and as Meowy said, the map isn’t making any claims besides showing where the principalities were. Subordinate or not, Karabakh principalities existed making this entire discussion totally worthless. - Fedayee (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that this discussion be continued on the article talk page? It seems clear that if the map in question is simply being used to illustrate information stated (and sourced) in the article text, and is not being used as a source for that information, then there is no WP:RS violation involved. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we do that, it would be good to have some other neutral editors say that it is not a RS issue, just to finally settle it. Meowy 00:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I was alerted to this discussion on the talk page of the Abkhazia WikiProject, and I want to say that already previously I found that the maps that describe the political situation of the region some 2000 years ago (like here, used on Wikipedia e.g. here) seemed improbably accurate, given the paucity of contemporary sources. Of course, I could be wrong. sephia karta | di mi 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maps are diagrams, they are not reality. All good-faith maps are full of accidental errors. Either you exclude every map, or accept the fact that no map is accurate. Maybe in some future date there will be atlases available where you can interogate each marking on a map, click on a line and get an explanation and a full set of sources detailing why the cartographer decided to draw that line at that location rather than 50 miles to the east or west of that location. Anyone who looks at a map showing a distant historical period and reads borderlines like modern borders is fundamentally mistaking what the map shows. Every line is actually a blurry zone full of uncertainty, conjecture, and simplification - a zone that gets wider and more blurry the older the historical period depicted on the map. Meowy 22:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The maps should be made by professionals to be considered reliable, and not by random people who happened to have a website. Grandmaster (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the precise trajectory of a boundary. I am saying that I had and still have serious doubts regarding whether it is at all possible to determine that these particular states were there, and that they included these areas. And if parts of the map are uncertain, this should be indicated on the map (say with a different colour), and a failure to do so disqualifies the cartographer. sephia karta | di mi 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again... the determining factor is whether you are drawing information from the map or not... in other words are you using the map as a source for information or not. If you are using the map as a source, then I agree that the map should be made by a professional. If, on the other hand, you are mearly using the map mearly to illustrate what is said in reliable sources, then that illustration can be created by anyone (including a Wikipedia editor).

To relate this back to the Andersen Maps... The question is: Is the article using the map as a source, or is it using the map as an illustration? If the first, then no it is not a reliable source. If the second, then it might be an acceptable illustration. Whether it is an acceptable illustration or not needs to be determined by consensus back at the article talk page, and not here (as it is not an RS issue). I hope this clarifies things. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is being used as an illustration. The fact of the territory's existence is backed by sources. However, there is a side-effect of your reasoning - if the map were to be redrawn by a Wikipedia editor a source would have to be given for that redrawn map, which would mean using the Andersen map as a source. Meowy 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks for the clarification. In this case I would argue that they suggest more than is sourced and therefore go beyond illustration, but this is a matter for the respective articles, not this discussion. sephia karta | di mi 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, as per WP:OR#Original images a seperate source does not need to be given for an editor drawn image. The key is that any original image (including a map) must accurately illustrate the information discussed in the article, and that information should already be backed by sources. Now, the Andersen maps are not "Editor created"... but the concept is the same. If an image (no matter who created it) is mearly illustrating the text of the article, then the determination of whether to use it or not is purely one of editorial judgement and consensus. It is not an RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ccinsider.com, a blog affiliated with the Comedy Central website. Looking at the list of contributors and the suggestion that people send them tips (a link just below the link tot the list of contributors, I was wondering how reliable a source this should be considered for in depth discussion of plot synopses of Comedy Central shows. Alastairward (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is reliable. 01:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't sign your post. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds fine as a primary source to me. It's published by Comedy Central and they have a regular staff, just like some newspapers have columnist blogs that are still part of the newspaper. Also the suggestion that readers send in tips doesn't impact RS; many of the best newspapers accept tips from the public. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about for speculating on cultural references and the like? Alastairward (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Speculating" is done only on your part here. What you think is OR and therefore, unsuitable for WP discussions, let alone editing. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What I think is OR? What else would a person's thoughts be?! But philosophy to one side, what makes your edits not speculation? And what makes this team suitable to define the writers' intents? Alastairward (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be fine for speculating on cultural references as long as what's being cited is not unduly controversial or self-serving. What it can't be used for is to assert notability because it's published by the subject of the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking back, it was used to support a "cultural reference" in the article on the episode Towelie, but it seemed to go against the actual episode commentary. Alastairward (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then cite them both. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Both are cited, there is no contradiction between the two, yet AlastairWard seems to assert his personal understanding (or the lack thereof) as the end of all things. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I was planning to improve an article on a relatively obscure French Explorer, Cyrille Pierre Théodore Laplace, but I was having trouble finding references. I have managed to dig up a website, one book which I don't have access to, and Laplace's own report, written in French. The website, [47] seems to contain a nice amount of valuable info, but I'm not sure how reliable it is - could you help me out? \ / (⁂) 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I say use it with caution, use the articles there to get an over view and to help find further sources. The sites author says In view of the fact that this is a personal homepage, I would advise anybody doing serious research to cross check subjects by paying a visit to... and provides links to various sites at this page noting that the particluar subject you linked to is sourced from French explorers in the Pacific by John Dunmore, I'd suggest trying to get that book. Gnangarra 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I missed that note at the bottom somehow. It seems a trip to the library is in order - thanks for the help! \ / (⁂) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[I moved this from the talk page since it is appears to be an inquiry intended for the main page. It regards the same source as the inquiry just above this section, but this one was posted and replied prior to the one above, though on the talk page. Additional replies are welcome. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)]

As follow-up from a recent consensus to remove external links from {{Infobox Film}}, a new section in the template's documentation was created to capture the rationale behind the consensus. This was done at least in part so that editors have something to point other editors to in order to reduce the odds of IMDb links inclusion/exclusion becoming another in a long line of perennial proposals. This seems particularly possible because IMDb has been in {{Infobox Film}} for four years, i.e. since the infobox was created. A well-written draft of the rationale was created, but it includes this statement:

Irrespective of the fact that IMDb is not deemed to be a reliable source for verifying content in Wikipedia articles,...

When I asked about it, a couple of editors agreed with this statement made by the editor who wrote it. I also found Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, a failed proposal from July 2007 and found some discussions about IMDb in some FA nominations. So I'm wondering if there a growing sense that IMDb isn't a reliable source? Thanks. 72.244.207.57 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer is - it's both reliable and not reliable as a source. To determine where the line is would take some research on how the site collects its information. Some of the content of the site is provided by users, but some is factual and under control of the site's editors. Considering the widespread use of the site as a source in general, for them to profit from their information, the factual elements need to be accurate. For example, the detail lists of casts and crew, etc, are likely dependable; the main synopsis might be reliable (though that's where more research would be needed into how they come up with those); and the secondary synopsis pages where they accept user edits would be non-reliable, as with any wiki-source.

Regarding the use of IMDb in the infobox, that's a different question than if it's a reliable-source reference. That's more like an external link at the bottom of an article; my view is that I would apply the principles of WP:EL to that kind of use, and in that sense IMDb seems OK to me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jack-A-Roe. The credits, especially for recent productions (last five years) usually come directly from the producers and correspond precisely to screen credits. The cross-referencing makes it very difficult to insert bogus material, which is anyway perused by their sysops before publication. Their core business is a subscription database for professional film/tv industry use. The associated talk sections though should be treated as a blog. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if either of you want to get involved in the discussion I started over at WP:CIMDB on this point, please feel free. I've given up on it as it's degenerated into an "it's all reliable" or "none of it's reliable" shouting match. You may have better luck than me in prompting those editors with IMDb experience to be more forthcoming on where the boundary between reliably-sourced and user-generated content actually lies. GDallimore (Talk) 19:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have IMDb experience, as a longtime user and data contributor. Here are some comments about the less and more reliable sections:

1. The message boards are just message boards which are inherently not reliable.
2. The user comments for each title are also pure user-generated content, and they are not reliable either.
3. Some other sections have been added in the relatively recent past which are wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ at [48]), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control).
4. Newsgroup reviews are archived Usenet postings. I would not consider them reliable unless they were written by an established critic.

In the following sections, there is some editorial control exercised by IMDb. That is, a user cannot just submit something and see it go live on the site. They have to wait for the staff to review the submission.

1. The recommendations are based largely on an algorithm; they are not generated from user contributions but there is no reason we would want to refer to them in Wikipedia.
2. The trivia and goofs sections are based on user submissions; while they are subject to editorial control (and are reviewed by IMDb staff before appearing on the site), there is enough skepticism about them that Wikipedia should avoid using them.
3. Most other sections are based on submissions either by users or by official sources and are reviewed by staff before appearing on site, and can be considered generally reliable. This would include such sections as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.
4. The external reviews are links to other sources, some of which are clearly reliable sources such as mainstream newspapers and magazines or industry publications such as Variety. Other external reviews may or may not be reliable. For all of these, though, IMDb just furnishes a link and the actual source to be used is the original review at the site where it is hosted.
5. The writing credits, if marked with "WGA", are very reliable, as they are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable). Similarly, the MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America, and are also very reliable (as to the MPAA's own evaluation of the film; I am not saying the MPAA is the final word on how "adult" a film's content is).

I hope this helps. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can i ask you for your opinion on bio information? considering WP:BLP and the fact that it has been questioned several times before? --neon white talk 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's something else that may or may not help: Roger Ebert's opinion about IMDb, taken from this October 2008 blog entry:

I often consult IMDb, and considering that it indexes virtually every film, it is correct as [sic] astonishing amount of the time. IMDb cannot maintain a staff large enough to compile the cast, credits, technical specs, etc., of those countless films. It is usually a film's publicist, distributor or even director or producer who supplies them. When an error appears, there is a mechanism for IMDb users to correct it. These corrections are vetted by IMDb. It is usually safe to trust.

Thanks. 72.244.200.30 (talk) (same as 72.244.207.57) 07:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (i.e. the one who instigated this discussion)

• OK, the only thing that would be important here, is IMDb a WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes? Nothing else matters really. The way I see it there are no restrictions pr WP:RS using IMDb as a tertiary source for reference in Wikipedia. That would include anything that's relevant, pointed out by Metropolitan90: the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards etc. Anything that has to do with user comments or any kind of goofs would not be relevant for WP purposes anyway since this is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish any kind of WP:TRIVIA. Now, since this question about IMDb gets raised all the time, and valid references to solid facts get added and then again removed because someone claims IMDb not to be a "reliable source". Therefore I'd encourage everybody to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb so that a some kind consensus for WP:Citing IMDb could be reached. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Southparkstudios.com FAQs seem to be a pretty good source for Southpark plot synopses, the FAQs being answered by the writers or directly on their behalf. Some episodes have been cited with tags from the video clips, from which I've found this; "The FAQs and the tags don't have much to do with each other". So are they a guide for searches or an actual citeable source? Alastairward (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally a fan forum would not be considered reliable. How are we sure that the answers are indeed from somone official such as the writers themselves? Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the site itself is the property of the show's creators and not an affiliate. The writers themselves do seem to have some input into parts of it (if we can believe the typed word), but the tags for video clips do not seem to be one of those parts, if I understand what was said in that link. Alastairward (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be fair, shall we? The complete quote is The FAQs and the tags don't have much to do with each other. A search for Butters in the video clips will give you all the clips they have here with Butters in it. Further more, the quote preceding it is Only the admins and the people who work in the Studios can tag videos here. How's that unreliable? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The full quote just confirms that the tags seem to be there to aid searches, not as a form of FAQ. 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastairward (talk • contribs)

That's your personal understanding. They are generated by the SPStudios' admins and therefore, indisputably reliable. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But there is a dispute, a note on the site itself says they're added to aid searches, not to act as a FAQ. Remember WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor to prove something, not to simply dismiss queries. Alastairward (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Then as an editor, prove that SPStudios are full of $#!+ and you know better than they do. It's the creators' website - whatever the purpose may be (aid searches or anything else), it's still the creators' website! NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor to prove something that has been added to Wikipedia is verifiable, not to simply dismiss queries.

You said yourself, "whatever the purpose may be (aid searches or anything else)", so you at least acknowledge that this is not a form of FAQ. The link I provided confirms this, it seems that the tags are added to aid searches, so the Admins know what people want to look for in association with certain clips. This is not the same as a FAQ, this is simply the reflecting the opinion of those using the site.

Also, please remember to be civil. Alastairward (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you're claiming to know first hand what the Admins think and do ("this is simply the reflecting the opinion of those using the site"). Care to provide a verifiable source for that? Unless you can cite their Admins, it's your own speculation and as such, has no place on Wikipedia.

By the way, WP:BURDEN applies to you as much as it does to me, as you are an editor too. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm making a suggestion and I've provided a cite as to the lack of link between the FAQs and tags. In return you've done nothing to convince me of your own case.

BTW, I'm challenging your addition to Wikipedia, the WP:BURDEN does apply most heavily to you in this case. There's nothing to be gained by simply turning around and demanding that other users address the policy instead of you. Alastairward (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Only the admins and the people who work in the Studios can tag videos here. Basically, you're challenging SPStudios... amusing. As for WP:BURDEN - are you claiming that it doesn't apply to you? You claim that I'm demanding that other users address the policy instead of [me] - no dude, not instead - in addition. You don't have a single privilege over me and don't you forget it. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we please calm down and address the issue, not each other. What exactly is the issue with the tags vs the FAQ? Could someone please link to what is being stated and sourced so we can see what the dispute is about? Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the Francis Frith website a reliable source to use as a reference. Concern has been raised that the site exists primarily to sell photographs, thus qualifying as SPAM. Whilst I agree that the website being used in External Links could fall foul of SPAM, historical photographs that are dated showing buildings in years past should qualify as reliable sources in themselves. This photo shows that Shiremark Mill, Surrey had all four sails intact in 1928, and I used it as a reference for that fact, but another editor removed it as a spamlink. The opinions of other editors as to the validity of the Frith website as a reference would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Margaret F Harker is certainly a reliable source. She's written widely on Frith and other Victorian photographers. The site is probably just using words she has published elsewhere, proably in Victorian and Edwardian Photographers. Paul B (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It was my deletion of a number of Francis Frith external links and references which prompted this. Thanks to Mjroots for engaging in a constructive and civil discussion! My principal objection to the Francis Frith website is that it is a commercial venture setup with the sole purpose of selling historical photographs and books. Francis Frith is obviously a respected individual and Francis Frith books are indeed suitable reference works, but the website itself is not. Using the website as a reference simply drives more clicks to a commercial website and potentially boosts their sales of copyright works. If the photographs can be identified in Francis Frith books then they could and should be used as a reference. --TimTay (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the comments above more carefully than I did earlier, it seems that the particular information that is being used is not about Frith himself, but about a photograph published by his company, which existed long after his death. The photograph dates from the '20s, so is not likely to be discussed in the writings of Harker. The question is whether the website can be relied upon as a source for the statement that this photograph documents a windmill in the 1920s. In reality it is the photograph that is being used as a source, the only question of reliability is whether we can be confident that the company using the website can be trusted to have accurately described it. Frankly, it seems very unlikely that this is false information. We are not using the site for facts or opinions about the Arab-Israeli conflict here. I'd suggest that the issue here is essentially whether it is a reputable company. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before but I can't find the discussion. Take this as an example: Suresh Emre. "Rapid Climate Change 11.5 Thousand Years Ago".. Hardly any references, no indication as to who he is, etc. IMHO Knol should not be used as a reference - how about as an external link?. dougweller (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Knols are listed in WP:SPS as being unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that. Used a lot though. dougweller (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article discussion, I broached the topic of noting the picked up news story regarding Ramsay's affair(s). The initial source is NotW, but the story was then picked up by outlets all over the world, none of them with the stigma of tabloid. As per BLP, the verifiability of the source is there, the reliability of the sourced info is there (and duplicated by other news outlets who likely provide redundant fact-checking), and the notability of both subjects is apparent. As we have a citation (actually, something on the order of a dozen of them), we are well-protected mentioning that at least one woman (a notable person in her own right) has admitted to having an affair with the chef. I am finding some resistance with the article editors, though I haven't tried to add it to the article without giving heads-up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Admitted" is a weasel word. If this story is to appear, it should be in the form "reports appeared in newspapers that Ramsay..." rather than "Ramsay did..."/ Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's given, to be sure. It was going to be something along the lines of blankety-blank reported that X claimed Y. The reliability of the source, and not the format of the inclusion, is what is being questioned. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Would a webzine such as d20zines.com be classed as a reliable secondary source? This reivew[49] is being cited in the article Races of Stone as evidence of notability. I consider this to be a type of self-published source as the format of this website is similar to a web forum. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely leaning towards saying "Not reliable"... but we need to know more about the site and its owners to make a full determination. Notability needs to be established by "reliable sources that are independant of the subject". So we need to ask two questions: a) is it a reliable source? and b) is it independant of the subject?

The review in question is credited to a "staff reporter", which seems to indicate that this is more than just a forum site... that there is some degree of editorial control (which might make it reliable). However, I can not find any "about us" type link to show who the editors who oversee the "staff reporter" might be. Who runs and owns the zine? Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

d20 Zine was owned by Steven Creech, also the owner of Dragonwing Games. It is now owned by Jonathan M. Thompson, owner of Battlefield Press. In the past reviews were handled by the staff of Dragonwing Games. I do not know if they were peer-reviewed internally. I do know that d20 Zines was online since August of 2001 and reviewing d20 content since that time. Web Warlock (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On a related topic pertaining to Dungeons & Dragons articles, Ravenloft (D&D module) is a current FAC, and the reliability of the indexes in this website has been questioned. Any outside input would be great. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We are having a discussion of two charts over in WP:Record charts at Top40-charts.com and Chartblue.com. These are candidates to be added to the WP:BADCHARTS list. For those that don't get involved in the song articles, being listed on WP:BADCHARTS makes all references to that chart in any music article open season for deletion, so a false listing has unpleasant consequences. That's why I'm posting here to get a reasonably broad consensus.—Kww(talk) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of this article's sources is in question. It's currently an FAC, so any help would be great. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is something published by Bounty Books a reliable source? Bounty Books does not appear to be a notable press and I am wondering if it is just a WP:FRINGE press and so the book cited is not reliable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be more than one such publisher. Are you referring to the publisher of Henry Gray, Anatomy, Descriptive and Surgical: A Revised American, from the Fifteenth English, Edition (New York: Bounty Books, 1977)? They were part of Crown Publishers, now part of Random House.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the publisher of [50] although another listing says it is published by Llewellyn which may be this: Llewellyn Worldwide?-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose the addition of the musical key when a song warrants its own article. I was referred here by another editor to help with the establishment of what a reliable sourcing would be for the key of a song. The limited discussion we have had so far can be found at this page. What are some opinions on this, would a key need to be sourced to written literature? Or is the fact that it is recorded and published and competent musicians could establish the key enough to not require other citation? Occidental (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I could see this for some forms of music (say a Mozart violin concerto)... but I am not sure if it would work for all forms of music. For example, is there always a pre-determined key for a hip hop song? What if different artists have recorded the same song in different keys? I would say that noting the key should be optional... and we should only list the key if it has been written down some where (sheet music, or discussed by a reliable source). Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources would vary depending on the song but musician magazines such as American Songwriter, Guitar for the Practicing Musician, Keyboard Magazine, Guitar Player, Guitar World, Songwriter magazine and Mix Magazine would all be good sources to cite as they are prone to discuss more technical aspects of music. They also regularly have/had interviews with musicians, producers, songwriters, and others in the industry who discuss techniques that may shed light on a particular album or piece of music. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to clarify the question. Are we looking for the key that the song was arranged in or the key as performed on the specific recording? The first is simply a question of knowing how to read the notation and to distinguish between major and minor keys. The second is not quite as obvious, but just as unambiguous and reducible to software. LeadSongDog (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I see the editor is asking "when a song warrants its own article" can they add the key, so that implies it would be for a song that has it's own article. Or, "performed on the specific recording" as you have worded. "Wannabe", "You Light Up My Life" and "Jump" would be examples of articles about a song where technical information could be added, although in some cases, such as "You Light Up My Life", there is more than one version discussed. (as opposed to only listed/mentioned such as in the "Wannabe" article). Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it would have to be for the specific recording rather than the arrangement in this circumstance. I think ultimately it would be nice to have the key of the song recorded in the main title table on the right of the page. I do not want to get quite to that as I have seen the massive title table discussions on the music page and would like to be prepared with reliable sourcing agreement prior to the introduction of the idea to add it to the table. As Soundvisions stated, those magazines are decent sources with regards to pop/rock music. Also the published song books, which most popular music have printed, would be a good source as well as the key is stated. Classical music's keys are very well documented and I believe that we can reduce it from this discussion, although jazz would definitely be good to think about sourcing as I am not sure of the sourcing available for it.Occidental (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

based on this statement from the above section:

"[...]When we are lacking academic refs, city's websites are an acceptable temporary solution. [...]" --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also object to have this kind of information as a "temporary" solution. Either one can source one's statement or one can not - one should not give an impression of RS sourced sentences by adding footnotes that turn out to be non-reliable already by definition. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the the city official position is notable it is a perfect source to source some information.If controversy arises and is justified then it can be written that is the statment of the city. Also the thing is that If I write what the position of the city is there is no argument that would deny the fact that the best source for that kind of information would be the city's official page.--Molobo (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would not even go so far. Many cities have histories researched and written by proper historians. Some don't. Web sites, on the other hand, are often written by web experts, and not always with proper input or oversight. As far as I know, the history on the website of my small home-town was written by a retired teacher who researched it as a hobby. This does not necessarily make it wrong, but it does make it unreliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Stephan Schulz from Germany :) Well we have no way of checking that, so I would avoid making personal comparisions. Also the site is still official and can be sources as to the official stance on the issue by the town's authorites.--Molobo (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Windmill World is a reliable source for info on windmill articles. Question is, when it reports on a Weblog discussion, can one take the information quoted therein as coming from a reliable source?

Disclosure - I know the provider of the info provided is an expert molinologist, and have great faith that his info is correct. Question is, can I quote Windmill World as the source of this info for the purposes of Wikipedia? Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It really doesnt matter that the provider is an expert in the field blogs/forumns dont meet the requirements of WP:RS, and you should avoid quoting any person from such discussions. Try contacting the person and asking for an alternative source that covers the information in more detail. Gnangarra 09:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. The person in question edits Wikipedia so I will have to drop him a line. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it could if you report on full context and have only short quotes within that context. This is especially true if an even more WP:RS source finds it something ina webblog notable enough to report on for whatever reason or if someone notable says something in a weblog and then confirms else where (own blog, WP:RS) that they did in fact say something. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I see this is used a lot, over 500 links (a lot to userspace). Is this considered a reliable source and if so in what contexts, eg if someone is listed as an adherent of a faith, can we use it for that? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any copyright info of any kind. That would make me reject it out of hand. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would consider Adherents.com a reliable source, primarily because it is very focused on citing the sources it uses. For example, this page on the site lists Oliver Stone's religious affiliation as "Jewish father; Catholic mother; raised Episcopalian; Tibetan Buddhism (convert)". And if you click on that description, you will see a page containing a long series of quotations from 11 different sources showing where this information came from. That's besides the table of religious adherent statistics, where every single entry has a citation. See this page for an excerpt from the table; the 8th column has bibliographic citations for every statistic, and the 9th column shows the quote supporting the statistic. As to who is responsible for the site, see the site FAQ; the fact that the site doesn't have a copyright notice does not necessarily say anything about its reliability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a reliable source. According to the FAQ: "The Adherents.com website is primarily the work of Preston Hunter" (the webmaster of the website). As such it has to be considered a personal webpage. The only way it could be considered reliable would be if Mr. Hunter was an acknowleged expert in the subject of religion. I don't think he is. As he states in the FAQ... he is computer programmer who works primarily in biomedical and genetic research, with an emphasis on database-based bioinformatics. His accademic credentials consist of a B.S. degree in Conservation Biology, with a minor in linguistics and he is currently working towards a B.S. degree in Computer Science. In short, he is mearly an amature when it comes to religion.

Adherants.com is probably a good site to use for background research (ie our editors could use the adherants page to find reliable sources upon which to base information stated in our articles), but I don't think we should use it as a reliable source on its own. Blueboar (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Adherents.com is used as a source by books published by university presses, which themselves would be considered reliable sources. Examples: Oxford University Press: [51], [52]. Cambridge University Press: [53]. University of California Press: [54], [55]. Harvard University Press: [56]. University of Chicago Press: [57]. If it is good enough for these academic publishers, it ought to be good enough for Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That actually depends on the context of the citations in those books. If adherents.com was cited as an authority, then I agree that these citations probably establish Mr. Hunter as a recognized "expert". If cited in the context of a dismissal of or rebuttal to Mr. Hunter says, then no. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Whenever possible it's best to use the source he uses, where verifiable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carolmooredc. The citations on that website give us a road map of sources that we can check ourselves. I'm sure that Wikipedia has also been cited in reliable sources, but that doesn't make Wikipedia a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor has quoted Hustler magazine [58] (Warning: NSFW) as a reliable source. A word of warning that some of the comments on the page are quite offensive and contain crass sexual innuendo. Is pornography a reliable source for world affairs, this particular article presents a fringe theory on the USS Liberty Incident. Justin talk 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the hustler blog or somesuch. The person who wrote it does seem notable though that he could only get these views published in a blog on Hustler does make you question why he couldn't get them into a peer reviews journal or a reliable paper. NOTE: Not supporting the use of hustler as a source, I think it is inappropiate, just adding details. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Craig Roberts is a well-known writer. Though Roberts was once respectable, his reputation has declined. FWIW, the article is reprinted both on Roberts' VDARE archive,[59] and on David Duke's website.[60] I think it'd be correct to view this as a questionable source. At most, it might be worthwhile to mention his view of the matter with attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that something is published in Hustler really has no impact on its reliability... in such cases we judge by the reputation of the author, not the venue of publication. Ask yourself whether you would consider the article reliable if it appeared in a different magazine. That said... it does not sound like the author is well respected, or considered an expert on world affairs. As such his opinion is questionable. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hustler has editorial oversight, its independent of the subject and the piece is by a recognised author what ever his reputation there is no reason not to consider it as a potential source it meets WP:RS, and WP:V. The problem is there are already 20 sources listed in the EL section(not even used as references) that dispute the official story, this is only another one repeating what those have already said. Under those conditions how does it compare to the similar sources, the Hustler article refers to sources already used in the article. The Hustler article doesnt provide anything that the other sources already do, this article already has too many EL another one isnt going to enchance the article. I'd think that WP:EL, WP:UNDUE are the real issue. Gnangarra 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think if something is relevant, it is likely to have been reported elsewhere, meaning we don't have to cite the porn magazine. If something about a serious topic that is subject to scholarly study only appears in a porn mag, or a celebrity weekly, or a tabloid, then in my view it's not of encyclopedic relevance. Use the most reliable sources available and present views according to their published prominence in the most reliable sources. Jayen466 15:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not the magazine also carries pictures of naked people. It's simply a matter of whether the source is reliable. For example, while researching a different article I discovered that Playboy had some of the strictest editorial policies in the magazine world with extensive fact checking. Though Hustler has had some scoops the worthwhile ones have been mentioned in the mainstream media. The problem here is the combination of a fringe writer and a fringe source. If either were better then the situation would be different. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, just for fun, where would you locate (1) Playboy, (2) a yellow-press tabloid, (3) the NY Times, (4) The New Yorker, (5) a University Press-published book and (6) a peer-reviewed academic history journal, on a reliability scale from 1 to 10, for a historical topic like this? Jayen466 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not the magazine also carries pictures of naked people. It's simply a matter of whether the source is reliable. I have not laughed that loud in a long time... It seems that wikilayering has no limits when it comes to WP:RS discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

One editor has repeatedly told me that no source can be judged as reliable or unreliable without judging the context and use. I've seen folks call the NY Times and LA Times "tabloidesque", so it appears that no source is good enough for some statements, while for other assertions even dubious, self-published sources are sufficient. So let's no make generalties. I think we all agree that for this article and purpose, the Roberts peice published by Hustler is not a reliable source for anything but the writer's opinion. Whether that opinion is worth including in the article is another issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The significance of an article like this rests almost exclusively on the reliability of the author ("Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal and co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions"). If this man's credibility has deteriorated with time (and it can happen), then that might explain why his article is "only" published in Hustler - but there are other explanations too. If he'd really become a Holocaust Denier, or a wife-beater, I'm sure someone would have told us about it here already - since that's not happened, his fact-based articles are probably reliable ("based entirely on documented sources and on interviews with six of the survivors, Capt. Ward Boston, and Bill Knutson").

Perhaps more to the point, Roberts' views are mainstream, eg the 1995 issue of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence says "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel’s assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately". The problem is not what Robert might add to the article, but its severely POV current state. While we treat the dubious author Cristol (cited by almost nobody atall) as authoritative, we're almost completely ignoring much better sources that say Israel actually threatened Washington they'd sink the Liberty if it was not withdrawn! (The US inexplicably attempted to withdraw the Liberty and inexplicably failed). I've not yet investigated which sources claim that President Johnson ordered US aircraft to turn back and not save the Liberty, but some of those claiming there was a cover-up are very, very credible indeed. PR^talk 16:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A discussion is currently going on at talk:1982 Lebanon War, regarding its reliability. While I agree that it's not a perfect source, especially on controversial issues, I'm not sure if it's completely unreliable. It is used relatively often in Wikipedia. Has it been discussed here already? If so, I'd appreciate a link to the discussion. If not, what's the procedure? Thanks in advance, Nudve (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This has come up in the past (the discussion would be somewhere in the archives at WT:RS) and, if I remember correctly, the determination was that it was indeed reliable.

To examine it freshly, I would say it is an excellent tertiary source. It is a collection of articles written by (and clearly attributed to) noted scholars. As such, I would call it reliable. It probably does have a distinct (pro-Israeli) bias, but bias does not make something unreliable. Any bias can be offset by reference other reliable sources that present contrary viewpoints. If there is doubt as to whether a given statement taken from an article in the JVL is "true", remember that the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability and not Truth. We can re-write anything controvercial so as to present the statement as the opinion of its author, as opposed to a statement of an undisputed fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've found this discussion and this one, but they don't explicitly arrive at any conclusion on this particular site. Are they the ones you were referring to? -- Nudve (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No... my vague memory goes back to before we created this noticeboard. Look through the archives of WT:RS (the talk page for the actual guideline). Note... it was a long time ago. I may be mis-remembering. You may also want to check the archives at NPOV.Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember such a discussion, but would have no idea where to look. To the point at hand, as Blueboar said, JVL is an excellent tertiary source, attributed to various noted (and some not so noted) scholars in the field. Particulars at JVL may be disputed, but the site as a whole is reliable. What are the main arguments against its reliability? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In the case at hand, they are this and this. -- Nudve (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those is a valid argument. Being biased does not make a source unreliable, as Blueboar correctly noted. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias is OK - outright falsification and historical denial are not. Mitchell Bard prides himself on updating "Myth and Facts" which should be a clue straightaway. Most of the examples in that 40 year-old screed are strawmen - the recent ones Bard has added are, it would seem to me, falsehoods eg "MYTH - "The delegates of the UN World Conference Against Racism agreed that Zionism is racism". While it is true that that particular part of the resolution wasn't voted on, it was not because the delegates didn't agree on it. The proportion of them agreeing was even higher after the US pulled out in frustration and despair than it had been before!

And the JVL itself is no better - the article on Deir Yassin is denialist, seeking to blame the peaceful and cooperative villagers for the massacre on them. Articles such as this seek to falsify, making it seem as if Albert Einstein was a regular defender of Israel - when he was highly critical of what they were doing, right up to helping wreck Menachem Begin's December 1948 visit to New York by reminding everyone that the leader of the Irgun was a fascist in the fullest meaning of the word. And that they were terrorising the Jews of Palestine as well. There are a number of Palestinian sites much, much better than this which are rejected for consideration as RS. Let's make the project more reliable, not lower our guard in this fashion. PR^talk 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is entirely your opinion. Until you can provide evidence that clearly proves that JVL purposely falsifies facts, the accusations have no merit. Not sure what Palestinian sites you are referring to. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found JVL more problematic than mentioned above. Not all the articles are authored, and some are very out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we may need to distinguish the JVL as a whole from the individual articles that make up the JVL. The site as a whole seems to fit our definition of reliable (There is editorial oversight, the majority of the articles are written by noted scholars, some of them provide sources of their own... etc). Individual articles within the JVL, however, may not be reliable ... This would depend on the reputation of the article's author, the number of clear and obvious errors in the article, whether there are more up to date sources, etc.

(Caveat: When dealing with sources in this topic, we do have to keep in mind that there is often dispute as to whether something is "true" or an "error". We also need to remember that the threashold for inclusion is Verifiability, not Truth. When I use the phrase "clear and obvious errors", I am not including situations where the facts are disputed. That said, where the factual accuracy of a statement in an ariticle hosted on the JVL is disputed, I think it reasonable to limit reliablility ... ie to say that the article is reliable for an attributed statement of opinion, but not for a statement of blunt fact). Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the principle by which we discriminate against, for instance, Holocaust Denial sites, even if some of what they have to say could be useful. One reference to either known falsifications or hate-speech rightly cuts them out of contention - and we link these two behaviors because they march together in real life. The JVL is more than simply biased, there is clear evidence of both denialism and falsification. PR^talk 09:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Blueboar's approach is completely upside-down. If a source is reliable, we would expect all (or most - errors happen everywhere) articles published under its control to be reliable - by the very virtue of being published by a reliable source. On the other hand, an unreliable source can still publish reliable papers - I could collate PLoS Biology and Cooks United, and that would not harm the reliability of PLoS publications - and it would not increase the reliability of the Discovery Institute. The reliability of a source is determined by its own procedures. Of course it is often possible to use links to a not inherently reliable collator as convenience links (as long as we trust them to not falsify the original publication), but in that case we do not use the collator, but the original publication as the source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library is WP:notable, and WP:reliable source. The standard is WP:verify not what some editors thing about the source. This argument is a waste of editor's time. If you like what they say, or not, they are a reliable source. [61][62] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

More of the JVL's propaganda fundamentally unreliable nature can be seen with statements made concerning the attack on the USS Liberty eg "None of Israel's accusers can explain why Israel would deliberately attack an American ship" when the main motive is clearly understood (explanation follows:)- President Johnson wanted Nasser humiliated, and had given Moshe Dayan the green-light to attack Egypt, preventing the UN Security Council agreeing on a mandatory cease-fire. But Moshe Dayan had spent years stealing parts of the Golan Heights under the noses of the UN (as he famously told the Israeli journalist Rami Tal), and was determined to create more of "Greater Israel" while he had the chance. Hence, in defiance of the US and in great secrecy, he moved his armor from the Suez Canal all the way back through the Sinai and through Israel to the Golan Heights, where, long after the ceasefire was fully accepted, he would carry out an attack everyone could see was unprovoked. (Other motives have been alleged - they're complimentary and not contradictory, so perhaps all could be true).

Note that, according to the 1995 issue of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence “all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel’s assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately”, so the JVL really is way, way out on left-field with this denial.

Lastly, I don't understand why editors believing that verifiability trumps reliable source have not been slapped into shape long before they arrive at RSN with their profoundly anti-policy and anti-scholarly ways. PR^talk 11:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Quasi-reliable:

• Is there any evidence that any articles (besides articles produced by other sources this pdf actually are edited (not to mention written) by anyone besides Mitchell Bard??
• Bard articles often are outdated. [The info in this one on the Arab Lobby is very dated, being mostly about the 1950s and 1960s and mentioning only one quote from one of current lobby groups and a general 2004 factoid. Because of its biases it doesn't do a very good job, as opposed to say the articles here on the topic. So I think his articles should be challenged if obviously not up to date.
• Many contained a lot of Bard's opinions which should be identified as such based on his other expertise, not the fact they are in his self-published library. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) Are towns' websites a reliable source for information on the town's history? I am currently involved in a dispute about this question at the Darlowo article, where information was added to the history section sourced by [63]. The website itself does not cite sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(2) Would the website be reliable if it quoted sources? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the website is reliable. It is, however, a primary source, and therefore does not help to establish information about the town's notability. I think that it can be used for sourcing normally, although reliable secondary sources would be preferred. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The official town authorities definetely are notable enough that their information on history should be noted, if controversy arises it is best to mark the information as coming from the town authorities. --Molobo (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy who makes a town's website is a reliable source? I cannot really believe that. Per WP:RS opening sentence: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can one really attribute that to a town's website?

What if the town has a 700+ year history in country A and 60 years ago country B took over, expelled the former population, resettled ethnic country B's and have the town undergo a country B -ization? Is the website then still reliable regarding the history before country B took over? The depicted scenario is the case for the town in question, there are many other towns in Europe where similar scenorios apply. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A official city, state, town authorities are notable information sources to the point that their view on the location they administrate is notable enough for inclusion in the article. Obviously you seem to regard a certain opinioneted view since Darłowo was included in several countries throughout its history and none of it included "700 year history" in any of the countries it existed in, including Poland. Of course you are welcome to add claims as such but do remember WP:Fringe and WP:Undue.--Molobo (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument "What if the town has a 700+ year history in country A and 60 years ago country B took over, expelled the former population, resettled ethnic country B's and have the town undergo a country B -ization? Is the website then still reliable regarding the history before country B took over" can be easly turned into: "What if the country A that has a 1000+ year history of invasions and hostility from country B and 200 years ago country B took over, discriminated its citizens, finally classified the population as below animal status, tried to exterminate it and present its history as belonging to contry and people of country B is being portayed historians from country B. Are publicatons from country B reliable regarding the history before country B took over country A ?" That's quite easy and won't get us into solution. It is best to avoid such argumentation if possible. Only in obvious cases where this relevant that's needed.--Molobo (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A website maintained by a governmental organization is more reliable then a random website maintained by a private, anonymous party. It is of course not as reliable as an academic publication. Still, they are somewhat reliable. See also WP:SPS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS states they are "acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't see any requirement fulfilled.

Websites of municipalities are - at least concerning history - not written by experts, and are not reviewed by experts. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They represented the official statement of the city and its position. Thus they are notable and should be presented.--Molobo (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• No -- is not a "third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Dlabtot (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Town websites are not a "primary source" but the reliability on other than obvious facts might be questioned. Fortunately a lot of towns have had their histories published, and google has indexed a lot of them, so you might have a good shot at getting a ref from such a book. Collect (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if a published academic work is contradicted by city's website, the academic work takes precedence. When we are lacking academic refs, city's websites are an acceptable temporary solution. PS. Care should be taken with regards to NPOV: for example, if a German book contradicts a Polish city's website, it may not be the case of inaccurate website, but of different POVs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

made the replies an own section: see below

• Please note, this entire thread is yet another example of geopolitical irredentism plaguing Eastern European disputes. Contrary to claims made by User:Skäpperöd, there was no formally established country named by him as “A” with a 700+ year history in this case. There was however, multi ethnic presence at the disputed location for almost a thousand years. I wonder when this bickering is going to stop. --Poeticbent talk 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this has nothing to do with "geopolitical irredentism". The current article looks like this:

German historian Werner Bucholz names Dirlovo as town of "Rügenwalde" and claims it received city law in 1270 by the Wizlaw II of the Danish Principality of Rügen, at that time also ruler of the Lands of Schlawe and Stolp. According to him the town however decayed and in 1312 received Lübeck law from the Brandenburg margraves, who then were in charge of the area.[2(RS)]. Authorities of the town, however, provide that the town rights were given by three brothers Jaśko, Piotr and Wawrzyniec Święc [3(website)]. Werner Bucholz claims that after a short rule by Brandenburg, the town passed to the Duchy of Pomerania in 1347[(RS)]

So the RS history book on this area is a German historian who makes claims, and the non-RS website is authorities of the town who provide. This is utterly inacceptable. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not some "website"-this official page of the city itself, and thus quite notable. I would caution against using German history books on Polish cities without criticism. The German history towards Poland is one of Germanisation and eradication of Polish culture which unfortunetely sometimes gives way to some POV in German works-for example the implementation of certain city laws is often wrongly portayed as beginning of the city. However off-topic aside-this seems like limited content dispute which you are unhappy with. The obvious solution is of course to mark the official history by city officials versus version offered by certain German historian. This largly seems to be already implemented in the above text. Your claim that city authority is not reliable in that regards holds no ground.--Molobo (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I edit Lower Silesian towns and run into these problems several times. Sometimes the claims of the city authorities were clearly wrong as every academic work states the opposite (see Jelenia Gora), sometimes they claimed highly unlikely things where neither the old German authorities before '45 nor any old or modern publication knows anything about it (see Szklarska Poręba). Sometimes they are highly biased and overestimate the Polish part of the history (see Zielona Gora (influence of Poles in the 19th century in a city with less than 5% Poles)), often they forget important parts of the history like the Reformation, the Ostsiedlung or the population exchange after 1945 (like Ząbkowice Śląskie, Lubomierz or Złotoryja). Karasek (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Official Town websites can be categorized as "Organizational self-published sites"... as such, they can be considered reliable for attributed statements as to the town's official opinion reguading itself, but should not be considered reliable for an unatributed statement of fact. So... you can cite it for the statement: "According to the town's website, blah blah blah is true", but you should not cite it for the blunt statement: "Blah blah blah is true". Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Karasek-they are not "wrong". They are not just what your German books are writing. That is difference. The German books-and I might remind you that you support using XIX century German books and Nazi Germany books as sources, as far as your past comments in that matter indicate, aren't you ?-are not per definition the ultimate source of objective information. You should accept that the version that the German books present are not the only side of history and Wikipedia has to present several sides. Could you tell me Karasek-why is that you believe modern Polish authorities of cities to be wrong but support using XIX century German books and Nazi era books as sources ? Obviously the modern Polish authorities are of better reliability then XIX century German sources or from 1933-1945 Germany.--Molobo (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Molobo. As far as I remember in said cases I used only very new sources (not more than 10 years old) and sources from the early 20th and 19th century. The source from the early 19th century was an eye-witness account. Until now I never used Nazi sources, which I could since Communist sources for the history of Lower Silesia are accepted here too. I'm all for Polish sources for the history of Lower Silesia, but they should be scientific and not published between 1945 and 1990. The Polish historiography published some outstanding material lately (Teresa Kulak, Katarzyna Stoklosa, Wlodzimierz Borodziej), but strangely these sources don't appear here. Instead we get propaganda from someone like Karol Maleczynski.

And I can tell you why I don't trust Polish city authorities: because many of them "forget" very important parts of their own history (do all those small communities, for example, never wonder why they have two churches but need only one?). If we, on the other hand, trust the statements of the city authorities of Jelenia Gora we have to rewrite the history of both Silesia and Bohemia. All this brings me to the question: who writes these articles and what sources are used? A historian would never forget the Reformation. Some of these articles are so full of holes that most probably a complete layman like the secretary of the mayor or the webmaster wrote it. Karasek (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Poland was never communist, and please don't equalise the the totalitarian genocidal racist state of Nazi Germany with post-war socialist Poland, that of course was sometimes authoritarian but to the extent of party holding power. As to your claims about propaganda-showing Polish history is hardly propaganda. As a person who finished university with major in history and German history, I hardly can accept the claim that history presented by them is 'full of holes'-if anything the holes are more evident in quasi-nationalistic German publications who Germanise Latin names of Polish citizens, give the start of cities as the time they adopted law from Germanic countries, or neglect any mention of Polish population in them. You have to accept that German historians or historians working on German grant for German universitites are only one part of the picture.--Molobo (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, Karasek, Dlabtot, Collect, and Skäpperöd say towns' websites are not a RS for history, Molobo says they are, Drilnoth, Blueboar and Piotrus say they are only under certain conditions, with every one of these editors proposing different conditions (Piotrus: for temporary use, Drilnoth: not for notability, but for everything else; Blueboar: for attributed statements regarding the town's oppinion about itself). Maybe the policy needs to be clarified ? I opened Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Websites_of_towns. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"So far, Karasek, Dlabtot, Collect, and Skäpperöd say towns' websites are not a RS for history"

Neither Dlabtot or Collect make such definitive statement. Only you and Karasek.--Molobo (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you misunderstood me. Towns' websites are not a RS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A town's website is a self-published source... so WP:SPS should apply. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the town's view of its own history notable? Yes. Is this website a reliable source as to what their own view is? Certainly. Line 1 of WP:V:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Whether it is a reliable source of the "true" history is certainly debatable. It is, however, a verifiable and reliable source of the town's view of its own history - so use it as such, and as nothing more. Knepflerle (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you please clarify "the town's view of its own history - so use it as such"? What use exactly do you have in mind? To source statements in a history article/section marked as "the town's view"? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when can a town write about itself? Who is the author? All we have is a website with a history about the town that stops at the year 1941 ... Sciurinæ (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you require clarification, the view's printed on the town's official webspace are referred to as "the town's" for brevity. That they were solicited from a carbon-based lifeform at some point was an unspoken assumption I have now clarified. Knepflerle (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi dear Sciurinae-how did you find this dicussion may I ask ?. "Since when can a town write about itself? "Was there a ban or order against it anytime in history ? Strange question.--Molobo (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A "town" cannot and does not write about itself. The town's current administration has a "human" to write something for its web presence. This human is not a RS. It is not even sure if the website guy ever consulted the town's archive or a book other than a travel guide. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again - you are repeatedly missing a very fundamental point of Wikipedia's sourcing policy. Sources are not rarely "unreliable" or "reliable" per se. They are unreliable or reliable for providing a given piece of information. Read WP:RS#Reliability in specific contexts very carefully.

Is this website a reliable source for the history of the village? Well, it's hard to say without much more knowledge of the writers and historical methodology followed.

However, is it a reliable source for how the town's administration have chosen for their town's history to be portrayed in a public forum? Undoubtedly.

The fact that your historian's views differ from those that the town publically associate with itself is notable and begs questions. We're not here to comment on the merit of these views, we're here to report notable views and who holds them. Tell the reader what each source says and who says it. Knepflerle (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is were inline references come in nicely. A reader can see which facts are referenced to what: an academic publication, or a town website :) Is a town website highly reliable? Probably not. Is it self-published? Close. Is it better than no source at all? Quite so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Are transcripts of the respected Australian current affairs TV show The 7.30 Report (for example this transcript) acceptable as reliable sources? --Surturz (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a solid reliable source to me, on the level of any other major news media. Some content needs more specialized or scholarly sources, but for information that can be sufficiently sourced to news media, I don't see any reason not to use the Lateline transcript. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

They are reliable sources to the extent that any news media can be. Obviously they come behind academic sources in reliability and are not bereft of possible error. It should be noted that the issue motivating this request, though, was not any question about the source but rather how it was used - one can see the entire argument about it on my talk page. Orderinchaos 08:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So it looks like we all concur on the level of reliability of that source. But after reading the discussion on your talk page, the issue is more than about source reliability, it's about how the source is used, and whether or not there is a synthesis in the wording of the article.

There is a significant difference between "preconditions for" and "partly responsible for". A condition may be necessary for something to happen, but that does not imply causality. That's where the synthesis comes in. I suggest that the source is fine to use in the article, but the wording supported by the source needs to be modified to assure that the article does not imply something that was not specifically stated in the source. If on the other hand additional sources are found indicating causality, that would also resolve the issue. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Orderinchaos, I was asking about this transcript, in relation to the Philip Dorling article. Which you would have known if you had clicked the link in my original question. This has nothing to do with Gough Whitlam. Please stop making claims as to my motives. --Surturz (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The question arose, how accurate is the city website of a town, which was started by military take-over in 1945? Google book search shows that by 1945 there was practically no history of Darłowo in Polish or any language. All history written was about Rügenwalde, the name of the city until 1945.

Google Book Search Results:

Darłowo search 1930 = Results: shows the first one with Darłowo ONE Polish book from 1927 (that's after the Treaty of Versailles created the Polish Corridor situation). Polish books with Darłowo only start after 1945 in 1946, 1947 etc.

Rügenwalde search 1930 = Result: Result by 1930 Rügenwalde 761 books

Looks a lot like the Poles upon Soviet Union conquest and Communist Polish take-over of Rügenwalde had ONLY ONE book from 1927 to write about "history of Darłowo", when Rügenwalde was captured.

One would think, normally, that several hundred books over the centuries about Ruegenwalde might contain a bit more history, than the books after 1945 written about Darłowo in Polish during Communist conquest era.

Then again at Wikipedia one comes across the claims, that ONE Communist era book should have priority over several hundred over centuries, for example Talk:Simon Grunau.

An Observer (71.137.196.30 (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Somebody please check the above IP to reveal which of the usual flamers (while in hiding) made the comment about the military conquest (country remains to be determined). - This is so numbingly typical of all Eastern European disputes. Consider also the following extended Google Book Search Results, which shine a light on the above examples:

Darlowo date:0-1945 = Results: 10 plus 4... well before the Communist takeover

(von) Rügenwalde, Deutschland date:0-1930 = Results: → including Deutschland (i.e. German language only): 414 of the above→ plus 241 with "von", also in German, not in English, most of them from the Poland's enslavement era anyways.

Poeticbent talk 20:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

FYI (1): If you go through the results of your search, you will find out that the publishing dates given by Googlebooksearch are not correct. The scans show post-war dates. E.g., the participants of the "Sixth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History" in 1981 would be amused if told the symposium was in 1647 (this date is given by the search engine).

FYI (2): Rügenwalde (Darlowo) was not in partitioned Poland, only in 1945 it became Polish. Then it was renamed Dyrlow, later Darlowo.

Generell question: What is this thread about? What is your RS issue? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering if a Band's official Myspace page is still considered to be an unreliable source? There was much discussion about this previously and I still don't really understand why it wouldn't be considered reliable. Most bands don't even bother with official websites anymore since Myspace pages are free. Any sort of news in regards to a band's recording status, release dates, tour dates, etc. that comes from an official Myspace blog should be considered reliable since more often than not it's coming directly from the band members DX927 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a self-published source, so WP:SPS applies. Dlabtot (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a nonexpert self-published source, and it may be used as primary sources in an article about the band. Just check that the Myspace really is the official site of the band. Also for unknown reasons there's a ban on linking directly to the blog section of a Myspace but it is OK to link to their main profile page. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What if it's an article about a festival/festival tour that the band happens to be on but they aren't sourced on the page for the festival itself? The main issue came up while editing Warped Tour 2008 late last year. Several bands had announced that they were confirmed for the tour through their MySpace pages before they were added on the tour's page. All of those sources were removed and cited as "unreliable." DX927 (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Myspace's policy on usernames is, but I've seen cases where pages using the names of prominent individuals or organizations appears to be controlled by fans rather than the actual subjects. This may be an example: http://www.myspace.com/houstonastrodome. So my concern would be that in the case of bands, the pages may not be controlled by the bands themselves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, many bands have myspace pages controlled by fans. Also, even if the myspace page is controlled by the band, that's not any more or less reliable than any other self-published primary source. If the band is notable, their official website or myspace page could be reliable as a primary source, but it would have to be used carefully, and probably would require attribution.

If a band is playing a major tour like Warped, it should be possible to find secondary source confirmation of that. If there is no secondary source reporting it, then either it's not accurate, or the band is not notable. It's hard to think of a situation where a notable band would be playing a major tour and not one source other than the band's myspace page would list them as part of the tour program. I suppose it's possible the band might be announcing it early, in that case it could be stated as "the band's official myspace page announced they are appearing on the Warped tour." That way, it's not a claim of fact about the tour, just a report of what the band wrote about themselves. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

More often than not, a secondary source on this sort of information is from someone reporting what they saw on the Myspace page in the first place though. So if the page is not reliable then why would someone reporting about what they read there be reliable? DX927 (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, while you could say that "the band announced on their Myspace page that they were appearing on the tour", I would avoid that for a couple of reasons. One of them is that that could be considered a "promotional" use of an SPS, and WP editors may not always be able to trust the Myspace page. Probably the official pages are well-known for superstars, but not for up and coming bands that might open for other acts, and its not impossible that a page could be fake or such an announcement could be a publicity stunt. And we don't want to be in the position of taking press releases from famous bands but refusing them from others. As far as the secondary sources also using this info, we're assuming they also did the fact-checking. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Urban Dictionary a reliable source? I ask, because I notice that the Generation X article relies on it as the fourth citation listed in that article. But that raised a red flag with me, as a rather churlish editor took out his frustrations with me earlier this year by starting an article on UD denigrating me here, and perusing through that site further, I find further such articles on John McCain, apple bottoms, etc. Does any portion of that site, vis a vis the Generation X entry, have editorial control that would deem it reliable? Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is not at all a reliable source; it consists of user-contributed entries which are judged by other users. Skomorokh 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems to come up every couple of months. Maybe we should start compiling a list of previously discussed sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not usually a reliable source. You can sometimes WP:IAR on pop-culture articles but I would use it only as an example of usage of a slang term, and it doesn't establish notablity. You can however use it as an external link if the UD page you're linking to is stable and uncontroversial. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, someone should start a more easily searchable archive of sources, with particular emphasis on popular sites like MySpace, YouTube, etc. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAND criterion #1 states bands are notable if there are several non-trivial articles about them in reliable sources. To me it means that if a band's releases have been reviewed by established music websites dealing with their genre, it's enough to assert notability. (By established music websites I mean websites that have a staff, been around for years, published hundreds of reviews, and are well-known in the genre they are dealing with.) However, I very often meet editors who don't accept these as reliable. Please confirm if the following websites are reliable:

• www.allmusic.com
• www.punkbands.com
• www.roomthirteen.com
• www.punktastic.com
• www.thepunksite.com

• Strummer25 (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

None of these should be used to establish notability, although Allmusic can be used to cite biographical, discography, and chart info. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A substantial Allmusic bio or review should be considered significant coverage in a reliable source - they have some very good professional writers and these are generally of good quality. The discographies in allmusic, however, are not reliable and better sources should be found. Billboard is a better source of US chart details.--Michig (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Of the others, Room 13 and possibly Punkbands.com appear to have professional staff, so could be used as sources as long as they are presenting original articles written by staff (a lot of these webzines regurgitate press releases a lot), though they may not be enough on their own to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So, if a band has been reviewed by Room 13 and punkbands.com, and a lot of other specialist webzines (the likes of punktastic), can that be enough to pass the notability threshold? Strummer25 (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it can be. (Although as I noted in the other place this conversation is happening, punktastic is not exclusive in their reviews: "Punktastic accepts all EPs and albums for review within reason...anything falling under our coverage umbrella (very loosely titled 'punk') is welcome." So, the likes of punktastic may not be useful for establishing notability.) But though this noticeboard can help determine if a source is reliable, it can't set a defining principle of how many of these or which ones meet notability. Consensus determines that on a case-by-case basis. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Genghis spawn (talk · contribs) is making over a dozen edits inserting links to articles from Exclaim.ca. Not knowing anything about Canadian music media, how notable/reliable is this site? In any case, it seems poor practice to randomly add links to references or external links sections, as this user has done, so I'm going to remove their edits, but I was wondering if the site was appropriate as an inline-cited source. --Mosmof (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this talking points memo put out by 6 Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee of the US House in 1995, and cited in the lede of Mininum wage a reliable source? Reliable sources are defined as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"... I don't see how a partisan set of talking points fits this description. (see this revert and this talk page discussion.) Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hell no. I've removed this clear example of POV-pushing. *** Crotalus *** 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't clear that this is a clear example of POV pushing, but I agree with removing the citation to the talking points memo. The talking points memo (NOT a reliable source) cites many studies from economics journals (reliable sources, if they are indeed academic journals--I didn't research it, but they looked good at first glance). Somebody needs to take the citations in the talking points and put them directly into the article. There's a lot of work involved, but it's a way to make a point. Lou Sander (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the whole issue of - if a current or past elected official or government official says something, is it automatically WP:RS and even more WP:RS than something said by, say, an economist in the private sector. An issue that came/comes up a lot in Community Reinvestment Act. A number of things have to be considered:

• things that these people say, if publicized in any way, are notable because they will or potentially could have some effect on government policy and private actions and relevant reports probably can be found in some WP:RS
• being sourced from wp:rs makes them WP:RS, even if avoid being reported on
• even if neither of above, it may still be notable as their opinion, especially in context of historical story where they said someting similar or different before or after. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The memo is unquestionably reliable as a primary source for the opinion of that committee (or that part of the committee); this would take the form of "According to X, Y" such as Dlabtot's reverted edit. The memo is presented as a "survey of the academic research on the minimum wage" which is exactly what Wikipedia seeks to establish a claim of scientific consensus. I see that the introduction of the memo says that "These studies were exhaustively surveyed by the Minimum Wage Study Commission", and perhaps that survey would be more acceptable as a source? I think a big part of the problem is that the statement in the article makes two claims:

1. There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws distort the price mechanism.
2. There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws hurt the very people they are intended to help.

The first statement is clearly correct and is supported, not just by the memo in question, but my numerous other sources cited in the article. The second statement is also clearly correct to an extent and is supported by many other sources, however, as this is worded in the article it may overstate the magnitude of the negative effects. According to the memo, "...a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1% to 3%", making clear that there is a tradeoff. Perhaps the article's wording in the lead can be adjusted to better reflect this tradeoff. Something like "There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws increase unemployment rates, but the degree to which this occurs is disputed, and thus there is no consensus as to whether minimum wage laws represent a net harm to low wage workers."Cmadler (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The memo is unquestionably reliable as a primary source for the opinion of that committee (or that part of the committee) Well, Wikipedia is not really a venue for publishing primary sources of opinion. If the opinion of those six politicians were notable, it would have been noted in a third-party source, such as those described in WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually going to WP:RS and WP:RS good luck figuring out except through common sense the relation of primary/secondary/tertiary and 1st/2nd/3rd party sources. Anyway, primary sources can be used in some places at some times, and in this case I think this is one of them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, this report definitely is a primary source as to the opinion of the six Republican politicians who published it, and could be cited as such where and if appropriate and notable. Dlabtot (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

At Media Awareness Network, an exercise in decontructing a website uses an article about aspartame from http://www.rense.com, which is an anti-semitic site full of nonsense. Can Media Awareness Network in this matter be used as a source to make valid claims on aspartame research? They also claim that the writer of the article is a pseudonym for Betty Martini, which Martini officially denied to be in any way involved with. Nevertheless, Media Awareness Network states it was she who was behind it, without mentioning any proof. (Immortale (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

The MAN is a reliable source. The website rense is not, but the MAN is a reliable source about rense. Verbal chat 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As you, Verbal, are the original poster of this source in the Aspartame controversy article, I have no doubt that you consider it a reliable source. In my opinion a website, may it be a reliable source or not, that uses an article from a website that is obviously not a reliable source, cannot be used as evidence or facts regarding research. If this is allowed, any type of research can be ridiculed or hoaxed on unreliable websites and then used as evidence that the original research is a hoax. I like to hear some unbiased opinions on this. I also like to know Verbal's arguments why Media Awareness Networkis a reliable source. According to Wikipedia's policy, the burden lies on the editor that uses the source, to prove it's reliable. (Immortale (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Incorrect - I am not in any way the original poster of this source. Verbal chat 13:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The page is an exercise in media literacy. The aspartame page it deconstructs is just a convenient example. I suppose it is reliable enough to show that the aspartame controversy was discussed in this way, but it is a very trivial point. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Given its accolades and government funding, the Media Awareness Network looks like a pretty good source... — Scientizzle 18:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that two of the original supporters and re-posters of this source in the Aspartame controversy article, Verbal and Scientizzle, come here to express their opinion, while I was suggested to mention it here, to get an unbiased opinion. Media Awareness Network, was added recently by Scientizzle for Wikipedia to add strength to the idea that they are largely funded by government sources. On their own website they state: "MNet’s programs are funded primarily through the contributions of private sector sponsors and the Government of Canada, with additional support from the annual memberships of individuals, non-profit organizations and small businesses." From their annual year reports, the Canadian Government is only one of 35 major sponsors and contributes little. To clarify the issue a bit more: Can a reliable website quote an article from an extremely unreliable website to make reliable scientific statements? (Immortale (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Shame on me for writing an article about an organization that readily meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Clearly this encyclopedia doesn't benefit from such an article.</sarcasm> "The funding for the Media Awareness Network is largely from government grants" in the Wikipedia article is sourced directly to something reliable. If you can find a source that backs up your original research claims and whetever you think that means to the credibility of the organization, please improve the MAN article. — Scientizzle 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If CNet is incorrect when it says the group is largely funded through government grants, it should not be cited as correct. The organization's own annual statements certainly trump CNet. II | (t - c) 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has shown that the CNet quote is incorrect, let alone that the Canadian government "contributes little". The organization itself states "MNet’s programs are funded primarily through the contributions of private sector sponsors and the Government of Canada, with additional support from the annual memberships of individuals, non-profit organizations and small businesses." This statement is perfectly congruous with "funding for the Media Awareness Network is largely from government grants". However, I'll ammend the statement in the article for greater clarity. — Scientizzle 00:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Immortale's claim is that the annual reports breakdown of funding sources show that the government is not the main source of funding. However, glancing at the annual report I don't see anything obvious which backs that up. Analogously, if the CNET reports some CEO's pay as X, and the audited Form 10-K clearly states that it was Y, we should probably prefer Y over X unless there's a good reason not to. Although executive compensation can be a bit more tricky, so perhaps that's a bad example. II | (t - c) 00:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Immortale's claim is that the government "contributes little", which is a remarkably stronger assertion. I agree that if a better source could state definitvely that "x% of MAN's funding comes from ___" it would be preferable. A news story and the organization itself make it clear that government support is substantive, even if they both use qualitative qualifiers. In any case, I've endeavored to make this clearer in the article. — Scientizzle 01:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that Mnet's own website should be a better source about where they get their funds from than secondary sources. The Canadian government is mentioned as one of their 35 main sponsors. Not even one of the founding sponsors, or gold sponsors (or in older annual reports, not even once mentioned as silver or bronze sponsors). These sponsors are themselves already a minority to the total of the funds they receive. So my conclusion that financial contribution from the Canadian Government is little, isn't far-fetched. It certainly isn't "largely". (Immortale (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

"Can a reliable website quote an article from an extremely unreliable website to make reliable scientific statements?". Of course it can. Reliable historians quote from Mein Kampf to make reliable historical statements about Nazi Germany. That doesn't make Mein Kampf a reliable source. Reliable journalists quote from Bin Laden to make reliable statements about Al Quaeda. That does not make Bin Laden reliable, or the sources who quote him unreliable. Reliable sources quote unreliable sources all the time. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I put this link back after it was removed by accident. I hadn't even looked at it then. Sheesh. Verbal chat 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And that explains the success of propaganda. (Immortale (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Not really. Reliable sources have to discuss what's unreliable in order to criticise it or explain it. Paul B (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was originally skeptical of the source and suggested asking here. It seems reliable enough for the claims that it is making.

However, if a source without undeniable proof says someone did something (especially a bloggish source like MAN or Snopes), and that person denies it, then we should not convey the source's assertion as fact. That's very likely a BLP violation, and it is something that should be fixed in the aspartame controversy article. II | (t - c) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I stated in the Aspartame controversy article several times the claim by Mrs. Martini that she was never involved with the Nancy Markle posts, including the source, but they were removed. (Immortale (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

This has now been resolved. Verbal chat 19:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of a RS/N if almost no uninvolved editors give their outside opinions? MaxPont (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if all of these criticisms of that article are true, at the very least someone should alert "MAN" and see if they take it down. If they do that means in general it's a more reliable source, if not for this article. Uninvolved editor who hates sweetners, but doesn't really care otherwise :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Guides on this

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia."

Although some parts quoted in the main page with a reference as citation needed There are objections on adding the full text of written oaths of the eyewitnesses mainly because the report is self published by an organisation Rachel Corrie Wiki Page

it is referenced as a self published source by a user [64] yet is the selfpublished source or wiki policy page point out self as an individual or does it contain an organisation like Palestinian Human Rights Organisation

"We can't use the organization's own page per WP:SELFPUB. So I guess I object. I don't see the need for it anyway, we have three witness statements as it stands."

this is the only page that contain full written statements of the eyewitnesses

electronic intifada quoted Affidavits [affidavit is a written statement made under oath], from Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 3 July 2003 Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt) The context includes written oaths of eyewitnesses under them taken by lawyer

"I the undersigned, Nicholas James Porter Durie gave this statement concerning the death of Rachel Corrie under oath. Nicholas James Porter Durie

This statement was given before me, Lawyer Raji Sourani in my office in the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and in my presence on the 19th of March 2003, by Nicholas James Porter Durie. After I had given him legal warning to tell the truth, he signed his statement in the full capacity of his free and independent will. Raji Sourani"

"I the undersigned Joseph Carr ... born 25 April, 1981, give this statement under oath for the lawyer Raji Sourani. I, the undersigned lawyer Raji Sourani, have taken this statement on 30 March, 2003."

"I, the undersigned, William George Hewitt, give this statement before the advocate Raji Sourani. signature

This statement has been given before me, lawyer Raji Sourani, in my office at the Palestinian Center For Human Rights (PCHR), and in my presence on March 31, 2003, by William Hewitt. After I had given him legal warning to tell the truth, he signed this statement in the full capacity of his free and independent will. Lawyer signature"

"The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization (registered as a non-profit Ltd. Company) based in Gaza City. The Centre enjoys Consultative Status with the ECOSOC UN Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists-Geneva, the International Federation for Human Rights FIDH 155 human organisations throughout the world – Paris, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network - Copenhagen, Arab Organization for Human Rights – Cairo, and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC)members Stockholm. It is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award given by president of French Republic on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award jury for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists." about page unsigned comment

This is discussed at length at the Rachel Corrie talk page and your unsigned commentary doesn't make it too clear what the issue is, though note per below that self-published sources can be OK if they meet certain standards. A human rights group issuing signed affidavits, especially if reviewed by others, probably would be seen as passing that standard. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about unsigned comment my fault. And thanks for your reply. Can you explain what you exactly mean by review by others.

We discussed very long for the article while 2 user refused and 2 user including myself insisted we should give reference for the eyewitness quotes. The link contains the full text of the eyewitness accounts which we clearly need as a reference. Therefore I tried to take opinion from third party. Actually statements are belong to eyewitnesses who are members of ISM like Rachel Corrie. The written signed statements has been taken under oath by a lawyer who is a member of PCHR at his office, published by PCHR. Some quotes already added to the main page article which marked as citation needed. Yet 2 users objected my giving reference to the unreferenced quotes. I tried to explain the credibility of a Human Rights Organisation is related to its international memberships, acceptance, support and international awards they receive. I tried to point out PCHR has Consultative Status with the ECOSOC of the United Nations, member of various international organisations, awarded by President of French Republic and by Bruno Kreisky Comittee "for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights". Yet one user said even if it would be another organisation he would object likewise because it is against WikiPolicies to give link to a self published report. All organisations, publishers, newspapers self-publishes their works in another term. Yet as far as I understand the self-publishing objection in WP refers to individual's works. Therefore I asked here if it would be against to WikiPolicies to publish a widely accepted Human Rights Organisation's report as a reference for clearing out the issue. Because lots of wikipedia articles contain quotes of individual Human Rights Organisation reports especially on Human Right issues. Any further views from other users also might help for our settlement on the issue.

The format of the eyewitness statements

"I the undersigned, Nicholas James Porter Durie gave this statement concerning the death of Rachel Corrie under oath. Nicholas James Porter Durie

This statement was given before me, Lawyer Raji Sourani in my office in the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and in my presence on the 19th of March 2003, by Nicholas James Porter Durie. After I had given him legal warning to tell the truth, he signed his statement in the full capacity of his free and independent will. Raji Sourani"

The section is titled as ISM eyewitness accounts under Rachel Corrie page with [citation needed] mark. The only and main source to the eyewitness statements is Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt) or same info in Affidavits from eyewitnesses ... Durie, Carr, Hewitt, Palestinian Center for Human Rights and Affidavits from eyewitnesses ... Schnabel, Dale, Purssell, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Tom Dale, Greg Schnabel, Richard Purssell, and Joe Smith, International Solidarity Movement. Kasaalan (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This book in particular, but Lulu.com published books in general. It has an ISBN, and Amazon says "In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com." so it's a bit tricky. It's kind of self published, and kind of not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still WP:SPS. The fact that Amazon sells it, or that it has an ISBN, does not change this at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It still IS or is not. Much as I'd like my forthcoming someday politico-religous book on LuLu to be considered WP:RS, something tells me people might challenge that here. :-) Looking at topic above I was reminded Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources:"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia." Though WP:RS gives a little more flexibility. Assumedly when highly reputable source self-publishes for whatever reason. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulu.com is definitely a self-published source (sounds nicer than "vanity press"). Many similar sources have ISBN and are sold through Amazon. Those two factors have almost no bearing on reliability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-publishing of books is becoming much easier now, with sites like Lulu.com and the Amazon version CreateSpace where books go directly on sale at Amazon from starting with a PDF file. That may be why the idea of "vanity press" no longer quite expresses the process. For our purposes, a self-published book would be no different than a self-published website - generally, not reliable as a source - unless the self-published book is by a recognized notable expert. I've seen a few of those used in articles. But the credentials of the expert would have to be quite strong, and if there's anything controversial, treated as a primary source with attribution. It's hard to make a bright line, but in general, self-published books are more likely than not, to be non-reliable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a similar issue in another case therefore need help. The self publishing criteria in wikipedia applies to individuals and mostly pdf documents as far as I understand. Self publishing as means of Organisations' reports, printed Newspapers or a Paper magazines for non commercial reasons isnt adressed there am I correct. Kasaalan (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I cited this article as a reference. Another editor removed the citation. It was in the controversy section of the ITT Technical Institute article.

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/archives/id/34042/

Veecort (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the Daily Bruin should be seen as an reliable source. But does this source provide anything that the the other sources doesn't? Taemyr (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It states the 1.3 percent figure and quotes a UCLA professor giving his opinion. So do I just put it back then? It also mentions the Indiana lawsuit which is in the other sources but is buried within long financial reports.Veecort (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor who removed the reference wrote: "college newspapers do not pass WP:RS".[65] However I don't see the grounds for that assertion. College papers aren't mentioned specifically in WP:RS. College papers have editorial boards and are accountable for their reporting, just like commercial newspapers. According to our article on it, the Daily Bruin has won a number of awards recently, so it is presumably more reliable than the average college newspaper. However I'll inform the editor who deleted it and see if he has any better reason for the deletion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A college newspaper is no different than any other newspaper. The key is its reputation and circulation. The more local and small town a paper is, the less likely it is that we can treat it as reliable... especially when it comes to news from beyond the local area. A small college's newspaper can be treated similarly. However, the newspaper of a large institution such as UCLA is more equivalent to the newspaper of a medium size city. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I was told in a previous dispute that college newspapers are never considered reliable sources due to lax restrictions on what they will put in their papers. However, there are other reasons for disincluding it. The information stated within is also stated in another, better source. Also, there may be an issue with the neutrality of the source. McJeff (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Blueboar and Will Beback - the Bruin is a reliable source. If it makes an unusual or extreme claim, just as with any source, then look further. But in general, the Bruin is an excellent paper and reliable as a source. Consider the reputation of the journalism department of UCLA and how that supports the reliability of the Bruin. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I've a question. Apparently what I felt was a violation of NPOV wasn't in the Daily Bruin at all, so chalk that argument up to a brainfart on my part. However... the statement that the Bruin was being used as a citation for was one that notes ITT Tech settled a lawsuit for $725,000. That statement has another source, http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/18/itt. Which one of these sources is preferable to use, or should they both be used?

Aside from this question I've no objections to the Bruin being readded based on the discussion here. McJeff (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Would editors consider that these references [66][67][68] [69] are appropriately reliable, and significant enough sources for a claim that this organization has been involving in spamming to get submissions? [70]? Thanks --Slp1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the sources are used for the claim that they are accused of spamming, but aside from that, yes... --fvw* 20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected :-) Yes, are these reliable, significant enough sources for a claim that the organization has been accused of spamming? --Slp1 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

At least N. Christopher Phillips should be considered reliable who is a Professor in the Mathematics Department at the University of Oregon. Some editors go easy way and delete all additions to the article instead editing them properly. By the way wayback link [71] might not be suitable for legal reasons "The original blog entry that appeared on this page, and all follow-up comments posted by the public, have been removed under threat of lawsuit. In May-July 2008, the World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (”WSEAS”), represented by the law office of Charles Lee Mudd Jr. in Chicago, threatened to bring suit for defamation, trade libel, and commercial disparagement because of my public complaints on their marketing practices and institutional culture in 2004–2005. I disagree with all their assessments of the situation, and am disappointed to consider the chilling effect this decision may have on others who have made the same complaints. But as a writer running a small business I am unable to afford the expense and stress of a legal case on such a trivial matter". But you may summarize its content before and after the legal threats. Slashdot might also be considered but not strong as oregon link because the writers there anonymous. Not sure why you added paristech link but university domains are generally accepted. Kasaalan (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Blodget has signed a consent order with the SEC to pay $2-$4 million and stay out of the securities business for (as I understand it) lying to investors. He has become a fairly successful financial journalist, running his own blog and being quoted by NPR or in this case writing a column for the New York Post. As I read it, the column is speculation about investors motives, i.e. "mind reading."

I'm asking for guidance for use on material by Blodget in this article. Blodget's blog has to be considered an unreliable source - how much more can you do to prove that you are unreliable? The New York Post should generally be considered reliable, but I consider the speculation of Blodget on investors' motives to be irrelevant to the topic so have removed the whole paragraph.

Looking forward to your guidance, any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet another case where the source is reliable for a statement as to the opinion of its author, but is probably not reliable for a statement of fact. If Blodget's opinion is included you should phrase it as being Blodget's opinion... something along the lines of: "According to New York Post columnist Henry Blodget, X was motivated by Y" or even "It is the opinion of New York Post columnist Henry Blodget that X was motivated by Y". Blodget's opinions on the securities business are certainly notable (published by a major newspaper)... so the only question is whether Blodget's opinion is relevant in the context of the Madoff article. That is a question that is not within the scope of this guideline, and needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wondering if someone could help me out here: Citations to cityfile.com are being deleted throughout Wikipedia by a bot, allegedly for not meeting the RS requirements, but I don't think this is the case. Can I get someone else's opinion on this? Does this site fit RS requirements?--Jenniferwilder (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note a couple things here; the site in question is on XLinkBot's blacklist. Here is one case where a link to Cityfile.com was removed. This problem was originally reported here, where I advised Jennifer that a discussion here at RSN might help clear Cityfile.com or at least help explain why it shouldn't be included. The site was originally added to the blacklist per this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I've seen some people using the website http://whoswhoinamerica.com for sourcing on a myriad of things, most notably birthdates. The site doesn't guarantee its veracity, nor does it give any indication of how or where it obtains its information, and says in its Terms and Conditions that all material is available "as is".[72] My memory of Who's Who in American Students was that its information was subject submitted. Should this be considered a reliable source? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since entries are submitted by those listed, I think we can consider it to be essentially a self-published source... with the caveats and restrictions that would imply. In other words, it is reliable for some things, but not for others. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine a hypothetical situation in which what it says could meet our standards for reliable sources. It should not be used. DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a curriculum vitae considered a reliable source? A recent edit to the Steve Fuller (sociologist) article uses his CV as a source for claims about his work. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the CV is published, it is reliable only for an attributed statement as to what Mr. Fuller has stated on his CV. Beyond that no. A CV is what we call a self-published source... See:WP:SPS. Blueboar (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

At the Kogan Creek Power Station, Queensland talk page there is a minor issue with the reliability of a source regarding the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are emitted by this and other power stations in the country. Does a database, such as the one Carbon Monitoring for Action has online, become unreliable if they use a statistical model to deduce emission from power stations that do not report figures directly to them? - Shiftchange (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the source does not depend on whether they use statistical modelling or not. If you report an estimated figure, simply say that it is estimated. The reliability depends on the website's authoring organisation and how it is produced. In this case the website belongs to an organisation we describe as "a think tank". It is a dubious case. It would be useful to know whether this website has had independent reviews, particularly from academic writers. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are Australian Government agencies that have reports about the emissions of the power station, like the department of Climate change[73], and National Polutant inventory[74]. The question is why would we use US lobby group that makes estimates base on a model designed from information obtained from US EPA reports on US power stations. When there are actual monitoring reports from Australian sources. The same issue can also be applied to US power stations why use Carma information when there are EPA reports avaiable? Gnangarra 03:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree you should use official sources in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that official sources ought be used if available. Unfortunately neither I nor another user (Shiftchange) can find any actual or estimated figures on emissions of individual power stations from official sources after researching the references provided by Gnangarra. The source has emissions of CO1 but not CO2. The national pollutant inventory does not give CO2 for the power station, only CO1 [75] My searching of [76] similarly did not have a result that indicated it had specific GHG emissions figures for this power station, although I did not open and read every result, just the first one. Having done the research suggested by Gnangarra and finding that it does not provide any actual or estimated figures for CO2 or Greenhouse gas emissions of individual power stations it seems that CARMA is the best available source of estimates of such emissions from individual Australian Power stations. On that basis, given that CARMA [77]clearly has a major database and a disclosed methodology of calculating estimates of sources which have no official estimates (based on actual reported emissions of a large number of sources) I submit that CARMA is an acceptable source for an *estimate* provided it is clear it is an estimate and a reference is given to the source. Individual users can then make as assessment of the reliability. This seems a far more credible approach than not allowing any estimate for emissions. dinghy (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly

What reason do we have to think that CARMA is reliable? On the plus side, it is linked to by the UK Energy Research Centre. Its launch led to positive news items on CNN and US public radio. However, I can't find any review saying "this is a reliable website". I also found a damning critique by some people calling themselves Climate Due Diligence, although this organisation does not seem to have any particular indication of notability or credibility. The critique did on the face of it seem to be sourced. So what are we left with? CARMA's estimate of CO2 emissions is probably the best available. It is only an estimate but then an estimate can be labelled as such. Does the article need to carry a statement about CO2 emissions? No. If there is no official figure and we do not have an impeccable source for an estimate, it should be left out. The article still tells us that it is a coal-fired power station of a certain capacity, so any reader can be sure that it is responsible for emitting "a lot" of CO2? Approximately how much? If a reader wants to know this then they will have to email the company or perhaps the Australian government. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Carma has updated its model since the review by Performeks LLC in 2007, advised to CGD (the self described independent, not-for-profit think tank of which CARMA is an initiative) in December 2007 and published at http://www.climatedataduediligence.org Carma V2.0 was released on 27 August 2008 and the changes are documented at http://carma.org/blog/about/carma-version-tracker/. The board of CGD [78] includes people of the stature and noteworthiness of 1. a former Minister of Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mexico, 2. Former advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, 3. former Treasurer and Managing Director, World Bank, 4. President and Chief Executive Officer of Federal Reserve Board of New York. 5. President and CEO of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (until 2001); former Chairman and CEO of Schroder Wertheim & Co. 6. Former US Treasury Secretary; Chief Executive Officer of the Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative (PRHI). While the original estimates may have been flawed, the estimates that would now be used are from v2 which has not had any criticism made of it by Perforeks LLC. dinghy (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly

I have emailed Itsmejudith as she has not yet responded either here or on her talk page to the information above. Views of other editors/admins would also be welcome. dinghy (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly

Thank you for these posts and for the email, and sorry that I neglected to reply until now - I have only been editing sporadically these last couple of weeks. Given the membership of the CPD board, then I think the estimates can be used. They should be clearly attributed and carry appropriate internal links ("Carbon Monitoring for Action estimates the carbon dioxide emissions to be x per x"). Any available estimates from Australian or international government bodies should go in first. It would be good to get some further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Tim Geithner, board member, of CGD [79], was just named Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, and Larry Summers, board member, was just named Obama’s Chief Economic Advisor dinghy (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly

This is the ref I would like to use. The author has written a bunch of books, but they're about teen parenting, not cannibis.. This reliable sources/notcieboard discussion talks about about.com a bit. The article I want to use it on is Cannabis in Oregon. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "cold facts" in that article appear to come from a DEA report. The DEA has a lot of reports online about what the drug problem is in different regions of the country, so if its those figures you're interested in you should go for the DEA article. On the other hand, if there's an opinion in the About.com article about how cannabis is generally perceived in Oregon then cite her. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll look for the DEA versions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been having problems regarding using a youtube video as a reference in the Land of Confusion article. I have followed the Restrictions on Linking requirement at WP:YOUTUBE and taken due care. In fact, I will show the proof here. Go to Disturbed's official website and click on the Youtube link and it will take you to Disturbed's offical YouTube channel. If you then show all and go to page 2 you can click on the Disturbed version of Land of Confusion.

I have gone to the copyright holder's own webpage followed the links provided there, explained to my fellow editors citing large chucks of wiki guidelines what I am doing and how the link is NOT a violation of copyright and yet the reference has been repeatably yanked with one editor stating "we cannot provide a link to youtube as the source. WP:YOUTUBE forbids it as a copyright violation." after I spent nearly a freaking paragraph explaining how the reference wasn't a copyright violation.

The editors seem to be under the mistaken impression that ANYTHING posted to youtube is automatically a copyright violation even if you can show that the version you are linking to was posted to youtube by the copyright holder. I even went the other way and showed how to get to the link though the copyright holder's own webside and THAT was yanked by User:TheIntersect who stated "Wikipedia is not a Howto guide" and later "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a place to provide people with instructions on how to find a music video or to promote a band's website." So how in blazes are we supposed to use a Youtube reference we can reasonable demonstrate (ie take due care) was posted by the copyright holder?? We really need a policy that if it can reasonably be demonstrated that due care has been take that a youtube reference didn't violate copyright it can't be yanked willy nilly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You should put it in the external links rather than the article body, but it seems to be a valid link. You're lucky there's no rule against linking to bad covers --NE2 11:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There are other problems with YouTube beyond the copywrite issue, although that is the most common. Essentially it comes down to this... while there may be the occasional Youtube video that is not a copywrite violation, and has no problem with all of the other issues layed out in WP:YOUTUBE... these are very rare. Because the vast majority of videos on YouTube don't pass muster, we have declared the entire YouTube website unreliable, and have essentially banned using YouTube as a source on Wikipedia. This means that the few videos that might or do pass muster will end up being tossed out as well. My advice... cite the video without linking to YouTube (either link to some other website that hosts it, or don't link at all... just have a text citation). Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:YOUTUBE? --NE2 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not. Blueboar, you are totally and absolutely wrong about this. Dlabtot (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This this is the type non-reading of the actual policy that I am dealing with. I will quote from WP:YOUTUBE: "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites. There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently - see Restrictions on Linking)." (the copyright part doesn't come into play since it can be shown to be posted by the copyright holder.). The only things Restrictions on Linking) requires is 1) it is not in violation of copyright (already proven) and 2) it is not blacklisted which per WP:YOUTUBE's "no blanket ban on linking to these sites" there isn't for youtube. There are NO OTHER CRITERIA. So let's discuss the merits per the ACTUAL wiki guidelines and not made up garbage.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar is incorrect in his assertion that all of Youtube has been "declared" unsuitable. Per the guidelines that is most definitely not the case. It is obvious by the care in which you have made your case and followed the trail of ownership, that this specific use of Youtube by you is acceptable and does not conflict with WP:YOUTUBE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

D'oh... I am indeed completley wrong in saying that WP:YOUTUBE lays out these other issues. Sorry about that. I mistakenly thought that WP:YOUTUBE was part of the old RS/Faq page, which used to summarize the many discussions that we have had on this topic here on this page, at WP:RS and at other content related policies and guidelines. In that I admit I was mistaken. WP:YOUTUBE just talks about using that and similar sites as an external link. External links and sources are very different things, with very different criteria.

I stand by the rest of my comment however. What I intended to convey is that there is a firm consensus (one that has been clear for a long time): YouTube is not considered a reliable source, and for more than just copywrite reasons... For example, YouTube as a website has significant issues with WP:V in that anyone can post a video, so there is no oversight, no guarentee that what we are looking at in a YouTube video is the same as the original (ie whether it has been manipulated in some way). This means that, even though an individual video may not have such problems, YouTube as a website can not be used as a source for information.

Linking to it under WP:EL, is a very different matter. Blueboar (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You completely failed to read the discussion. This is a video posted by the band or an authorized representative. --NE2 13:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I am not saying that there is a problem with the video... I am saying there is a problem with the host website. The objection isn't about who posted it... it's about where they posted it. The objection is to YouTube. There are enough problem's with YouTube that we consider the entire website to be unreliable and unusable. The exact same video hosted on some other website would probably be considered reliable.

This is similar (although not exactly analogous) to our position on citing articles found on various Wikis... an individual article on a Wiki might be the best write up of a topic in the universe... extremely well written by an expert in the field, highly researched, completely sourced, etc. But, because it is located on a Wiki, it can not be used as a source in Wikipedia. The objection isn't to the individual article, the objection is to the location where that article is to be found.

Note that my comments relate to using a video on YouTube as a source... they do not apply to posting a link to a video on YouTube in the external links section of the article. The standards are different for external links. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You're completely wrong; Youtube is not always considered unreliable, and neither is a wiki. If the source can be verified, then at the very least WP:SPS applies. (In the case of a wiki we'd probably link to the old revision, since the contents may change.) I urge you to think about this and realize that there are no absolutes. --NE2 15:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read Blueboar's posts above more carefully. The video is the source, not its uploading to YouTube. As a parallel, if I find a scientific paper that was printed in a paper journal but is also posted on the internet as a pdf, I cite the paper. I can link to the pdf if I'm sure that there are no copyright problems, but I don't have to. Same here. You can cite the video as a source if you are sure it exists and that it can potentially be accessed for verification. Blueboar's also suggesting that you can include YT as an external link. He's going out of his way to be helpful on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you watched the video on Youtube, it would be dishonest to claim that you didn't, at least if you couldn't be sure if it was the actual video. But in this case we know for sure that it is, and there is nothing at all wrong with using the video on Youtube as the source and giving a convenience link. --NE2 01:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, when you watch the video there is this "Disturbed: Indestructible Official YouTube channel" on the same page showing again the video was posted by the band. As such it would fall under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Judith sums up my advice on this perfectly... citing the video without providing a link to YouTube is fine... linking to the copy of the video that is on YouTube in the external links section is fine.... The only thing we should not do is put a link to YouTube in the citation. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's totally fine to put such a link in the citation; it's called a convenience link. --NE2 14:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and that is the main argument for keeping it in as it can be reasonably demonstrated it was posted by the copyright holder (how many times do I have to say this before it gets through??) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources is quite clear that such things can be used as both links AND references. Here is the reference wiki policy I am using:

"Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
2. it is not unduly self-serving;
3. it does not involve claims about third parties;
4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
6. the article is not based primarily on such sources;
7. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source."

The Youtube video fulfills all these requirements, so let's deal with the actual polices and not these weird misreadings.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a reliable source. Although it's a blog, it's that of Robin Leech for Las Vegas Weekly. So those are good, right? لennavecia 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a little weird. It says it's by Leach, but this one, for instance, talks about Leach in the third person. I'm not sure he's actually writing these. Stuff like "OMG! It’s Joe and Kevin and Nick!" just doesn't sound the Robin Leach I remember. I think he's putting his name on articles written by other people. Whether it's reliable or not, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sustainable packaging includes a statement that “General guidance, metrics, checklists, and scorecards are being published by several groups.” In support of this statement, two citations have been proposed. Using the cite-web format, the Sustainable Packaging Coalition [80] and the Sustainable Packaging Alliance [81] were referenced. One editor challenged these links as citations and also as external links: see talk page. Do you consider these to be reliable sources? If so, should they be in-line citations or external links? Thank you. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

These are reliable sources for that statement if you can find the pages on their websites that demonstrate all points you mention (general guidance AND metrics AND checklists AND scorecards) between these two organisations. I don't think that they both need to have all of them. You should use the cite-web format linking to relevant pages (one page per organisation is sufficient). If you can't find the specific pages then you should reword to something less specific, just mentioning that these organisations are active in the field. They are fine as external links too. I can't see why this should be controversial. The article on Organic food links to the national certification bodies and the article on Fair trade has an extended discussion of certification which you would find interesting. Spam is always a concern on environmentally-related articles, but you should be on safe ground if you stick to major bodies operating in the field and make sure that when there are competing organisations you include all of them. SPC includes some of the world's largest corporations and SPA is backed by an Australian state government and universities. Even so, if there happens to be some published criticism of them, then that should be included too. If I'm missing an important point here, please let me know. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking for further contributions here, as there is a controversy on the article talk page and I really don't get why. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is questioning if they are reliable sources. I think the comment above, "Do you consider these to be reliable sources? If so, should they be in-line citations or external links?" indicates the problem. Simply, there is a lack of understanding of when WP:RS applies, and no distinction between references and external links. As far as I can make out, the links were simply added as examples, and the subsequent discussion seems to argue for inclusion as external links rather than references. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=magibon&btnG=Search+News

http://yearzero.pardon.pl/dyskusja/1443587/amerykanski_wytrzeszcz_jest_wielki_w_japonii

I would like to use info (full name) from this source for a BLP. Is it okay? AuricBlofeld (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Search listings are not sources. The yearzero looks like a blog, so unless this Pepe is an acknowledged authority on internet phenomena then the source is not reliable. It's also a somewhat bad sign that he links our article. Taemyr (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome a reliable source? It was discontinued sometime in 2008 but there're many articles from 2008 and before. [82] Mathityahu (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

See here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The German Federal Archiv Bundesarchiv has recently uploaded several images and is going to do so with about 100.000 pics. Some of them were made in 1933 - 45 and used by Nazi Germany for propaganda purposes. I tried to add a picture of killed civilians at the Bromberg Bloody Sunday, which is a controversial topic even though the incident itself is undisputed. This picture was removed by several editors based on the claim the Bundesarchiv would publish Nazi propaganda ([83]). No sources were provided that the image was "faked", not made in Bromberg or does not show victims of the incident. The removals were simply based on the fact, that pictures were made by Germans in 1939 (e.g. [84]) and as such are propaganda.

The point is how to deal with Bundesarchiv pictures made in 1933 - 45. Are they reliable? How should they be used? I'd like to hear some other editor's POV. Thank you. HerkusMonte (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ekhem. You yourself confirmed that pictures were made by Nazi German propaganda, that the Bundesarchive distributes them doesn't change that fact. Nazi media are per defeault not reliable and can't be presented as objective portayal of reality unless it concerns a clear non-propaganda subject. This however is a propaganda subject The burden of proof in this regard is on the provided of such information. For all we know those can be victims of Operation Tannenberg and titled "german victims".

The proper place for such things is Nazi propaganda article.--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They were used by propaganda does not mean, they are propaganda by themself. If a reliable source would claim these pictures show infact victims of the Op. Tannenberg, it wouldn't be a matter of dispute (off course not). Up to now I havn't seen anykind of such source. If your position is the majority POV, Bundesarchiv should stop to upload images made in 1933 - 45.HerkusMonte (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should Bundesarchiv stop relasing them ? I think besides far right and extremists nobody takes Nazi claims seriously. If anything is true then it can be sourced by non-Nazi sources--Molobo (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not about who took the pictures, it's about proper attribution of the subject: who were these dead? who killed them? were they killed indeed - it could be a staged set? etc. These questions remain unanswered, so the photograph may appear only with a caption with something like Here's a contemporary German interpretation of the event (and be deleted as unnecessary decoration). On less controversial subjects (i.e. portraits of well known public persons) the archive is a fine source as such. But anything that can be interpreted as a staged propaganda piece should, indeed, be left out. NVO (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The incident itself is not disputed, even not by "far right or extremists". The background and the number of victims is disputed, but as I said above, up to now no source was provided, that these pictures show anything else but (undisputed!) victims. HerkusMonte (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to Nazi propaganda the burden of proof falls on the one providing it, not on the people who question it Herkus. Btw;the incident is now considered by modern research to be a German SD operation, we will need to add this to the article.--Molobo (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The question here isn't the photographs... photographs on their own do not make claims as to what they depict, they simply show what was in front of the camera. The question is the caption. Captions are claims as to what the photo is depicting. Captions are text, no less than the text of the main article. So, if there is any question as to the text of the caption, that text must be supported by citation to a reliable source, just like the main text of the article.

In this case, the caption claims that the photo depicts "Victims of the Bloody Sunday" and attributes that claim to Bundesarchiv: "(according to Bundesarchiv)". So can this claim be supported by a reliable source? That is a simple question to answer... does the Bundesarchiv (which is a reliable sourse for its own claims) actualy say somewhere that this picture depicts "Victims of the Boody Sunday"? If so, then the caption is verifiable. We may caption that picture "Victims of the Bloody Sunday (according to Bundesarchiv)" and cite Bundesarchiv as the source. If not, then the caption is not verifiable, and we can not caption the picture that way. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar-I must warn that there is a tactic I observed that is potentiall destructive. One can create whole article using texts as "according to" or with short notice "at least according to nazi propaganda". The end result could be actually a very POV-ed article with lots of pictures and texts that gives an undue weight to certain point by overexposing it. --Molobo (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note-we can't use the picture anyway, there is no clear copyright regarding this source and the debate is ongoing on Wikimedia.--Molobo (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The text caption used by Bundesarchiv is the copy of the Nazi caption as stored in the archives. It is not made by Bundesarchiv.

Bundesarchiv uses name "Signature: "Bild 183-E10612" for the picture itself. It gives full description made by Nazis later. It seems no statement on truth or actual situation is made by the archive itself. --Molobo (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The full title is "Bild 183-E10612: Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des Bromberger Blutsonntags)" ~ Dead bodies of killed Germans (victims of the Bromberg Bloody Sunday)[[85]] HerkusMonte (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv gives signature then archived title of the photo and later the full text from the archive. Somehow I doubt current Bundesarchiv makes claims about "consequences of English blank check to Poland" and "barbarity" and "eternal shame of Poland"-all of which are in the text of the caption.

All in all this is the full caption:

"Bromberg, Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher

Die Massenmorde von Bromberg - die Folgen Englands Blankovollmacht an Polen. Über Bromberg steht der Schatten des Todes. In den Straßen, Parks , Anlagen in Gräben und Hauseingängen, zwischen Hecken und Büschen liegen die Opfer polnischer Grausamkeit, die Leichen vieler hunderter von Volksdeutschen, mit deren Ermordung die Polen ihre Drohung nur zu schrecklich wahr gemacht haben, vor dem Einzug der Deutschen noch Rache zu nehmen. Widerliche bestialische für Menschen kaum denkbare Grausamkeiten sind, bevor die Opfer unter den Bajonetten und Gewehrläufen ihr Leben für Deutschlands Ehre und des Reiches Größe hingaben, an diesen Toten verübt worden. Weinend suchen die Angehörigen ihre Vermißten. Die schmerzgebeugten Frauen selbst hatten für ihre hingeschlachteten Männer und Söhne die Massengräber zu schaufeln begonnen, bis ihnen die einmarschierenden deutschen Soldaten diesen letzten Dienst für die unschuldigen Opfer des Polenhasses abnahmen. Die Geiselmorde von Bromberg, eine Folge der leichtfertigen englischen Blankovollmacht, wird allzeit ein Schandfleck in der Geschichte der polnischen Nation sein. 8.9.1939" So it is obvious that the title is archived name from 8.9.1939 and thus made by Nazis.

--Molobo (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, there is no dispute that ethnic Germans were killed in the war at this point. There also no dispute that the Nazis made the most of this for propaganda purposes. There is also no dispute that the photograph was published as a part of that propaganda. Since that is the case there is no reason to exclude the photographs as long as they are properly labelled to explain this context. Articles should have images where they are appropriate, and there is no reason why these should not be considered to be so. Paul B (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The image's place is Nazi propaganda article. As to your claim killed indicates a crime, and modern research is of the opinion that what happened was a badly gone SD provocation.--Molobo (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. "As to your claim killed indicates a crime" is an unintelligable phrase. The image is about the subject of the article. Virtually every image made of events in the war was used for propaganda by both sides. It irrelevant to the issue of its appropriateness for an article. Paul B (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh Paul Barlow, its been long time since we discussed. I just remembered that we did talked once about if Germans supported extermination of Jews and Poles or "just" expulsion and denial of citizenship[86]) ,nice to see you again.

Anyway; your argument is not convincing: "The image is about the subject of the article" For example propaganda picture of Jews compared to rats conspiring are about Jews but we wouldn't put them in article about Jewish people but in Nazi Propaganda article or Antisemitism. Likewise this picture as it is a propaganda should belong in the article about the subject. Your claim "both sides used propaganda" is a understatement, that dangerously equalises both sides(if not unintentionally)-we should not forget that Nazi regime was totalitarian regime bent on genocide and thus its claims can't be compared to morale boosting attempts by Allies.--Molobo (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and you promoted extremist anti-German Polish nationalist views then, just as you do now (and don't pretend you are just anti-Nazi, the most cursory review of your edits shows that's not true). We would put a photo of Jews compared to rats in the relevant articles, which would be about antisemitism, because that's what the pictures illustrate. Indeed, such pictures are in those very articles. Images are to be placed in the articles that are most relevant to them. Articles should have images if those images are relevant and appropriate. In this case the images are appropriate to this article, since they represent German propaganda about the event. We also have photographs from Nazi Germany in the Holocaust article and many other relevant articles about events in WWII. Paul B (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Yes and you promoted extremist anti-German Polish nationalist views then, just as you do now "

Now ? Rejecting Nazi propaganda imagery is anti-German nationalist view ? I am sorry but your views seem rather extreme and In my book such incivility and extremism can't lead to fruitfull debate nor judge as objective observer. However you yourself noted 'in relevent' article. Such article is Nazi propaganda. However I did note that is a general term. Perhaps Nazi propaganda against Poland is in order. Oh well, even the worst beginnings can't be turned to some good ideas as the debate showed up. Cheers--Molobo (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no incivility and you are not addressing the issue. The relevant article is the article on the event that the photographs are claimed to document, just as we have many photographs taken by Nazis in the Holocaust article. No-one has ever suggested that the inclusuon of such photograps implies a pro-Nazo POV, indeed they have been uploaded and included by undeniably anti-Nazi - and often Jewish - editors. your "argument" is contradicated by all the relevant evidence. Paul B (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What "evidence" and about what ? You presented nothing relavant. And in fact I am not sure what you are talking about. It's obvious that Nazi propaganda claims against Poland deserve their place and such imagery and description. Likewise potential untermensch portayals belong to racism articles or sections about discrimination of Poles, but not in the main article about Poles. I'm afraid for some reason you have a very emotional stance of this issue, perhaps it would be better if you try to distance yourself to such topics.--Molobo (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The general question is, how to deal with Bundesarchiv pictures made in 1933-45, should we use the BA description or is it Nazi propaganda?

As an example: This picture shows (according to BA) US POW's at the Battle of the Bulge. I'd rather say it's showing Germans, dressed in US uniforms and the picture was made for Nazi propaganda. Sources? None, but it's up to you to proof the BA title is true and not a Nazi lie. A picture of a German Nazi general/politician - no it's an actor dressed in a Nazi uniform, and it's your job to proof the opposite. Do we have a Liberum Veto on BA images or should the doubts be sourced? HerkusMonte (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between historical original captions, which are often suspicious, and modern captions added by historians at the Bundesamt, which will usually be as reliable as neutral academic opinion - in fact, academic use and historical research is the main reason why the archive exists. This particular image of US POVs has been recaptioned after 1945, as is obvious from the original German comment, and so in the absence of strong other evidence I would accept that caption. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And who decides, which comment is Nazi propaganda and which one isn't? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is not Nazi-propaganda or not, the question is wether it is a contemporary caption, or a modern informed one. In this case, the language and the content (referring back to the ultimate 1945 defeat of the Nazis) makes it obvious that it is a modern source. This problem exists for all historical pictures, and has to be solved on a case-by-case basis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is the title "Kriegsgefangene amerikanische Soldaten" a "modern informed one"? The comment below is post-war ("faschistische Wehrmacht" - probably a GDR comment), but nobody want's to use the full text comments of BA pictures. As you said above "so in the absence of strong other evidence" - doubts have to be sourced, right? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, as always the onus is on the proponent of the information. Why would you not want to use the full text? Anyways, in this case the heading is effectively repeated in the modern description ("Eine Kolonne gefangengenommener amerikanischer Soldaten") . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And who decides, which comment is Nazi propaganda Herkus, do you believe comments about 'eternal shame of Poland' 'barbarity' 'consequences of English actions', 'disgusting bestiality against German honour" are made by modern Bundesarchiv ? I really think this is not the case. --Molobo (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm only and exclusively referring to the title description. That's why I said, noone want's to use the full text. In fact nobody knows, who made the title description of BA pictures. So the question is, do we have a Liberum veto on BA pictures or not and under which circumstances should such pictures be used. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As the German Federal Archive states: they "often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme". The caption in this case is together with the rest of the propaganda text and thus its obvious it is Nazi propaganda claim. Even you now write that :"nobody knows, who made the title description of BA pictures"-and using even that we can't give a green light to Nazi propaganda claim as factual.--Molobo (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

All that is necessary is that the image be properly labelled as having been used for propaganda purposes at the time. That the image is relevant to the article is undeniable, and that it is properly sourced as an authentic image used for that purpose. It is "authentic" in the sense that a reliable source asserts that it is a genuine photograph of the period used at the time for propaganda purposes. Whether the people shown in it were genuinely victims of a massaacre or not is a wholly separate issue, and not one for this board to determine. Paul B (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As the German Federal Archive states: they "often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme". Have a look at this picture for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R83186,_Eger,_beim_Einr%C3%BCcken_deutscher_Truppen.jpg. It shows Sudeten Germans during the German invasion in 1938. The description says this Hitler salute was forced, the woman cries because of this and because she knows how much she suffered and will suffer under the Nazi rule. This description is bollocks, most probably written directly after the war and now utterly obsolete. So, the description was added after the war, but isn't trustworthy either. Karasek (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A perfect example of how propaganda might use a picture, even though the picture itself is not a propaganda picture. The title is ~ "Eger, on the arrival of German troops", which is quiet factual, only the full text turns it into propaganda. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And as you see the text has to be judged by case to case basis. In the case of Bydgoszcz we have no way knowing who the people are, although as mentioned the most likely answer is the victims of Operation Tannenberg.--Molobo (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you deny, some Germans were killed at Bromberg in early September 1939? I can't see any evidence nor plausibility why the picture should show victims of the Op. Tannenberg. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We know Germans murdered people in Gliwice to portay them as German victims. Now we are dealing with such claims and know that they were fabricated by German Nazi propaganda then I am more to believe that is German Nazi propaganda then believe take it as truth.--Molobo (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear a noninvolved editor on how to use BA images. I added a "(according to Bundesarchiv)" and would like to see any other suggestions. Right now every single image is supposed to be removed without explanation as Molobo prefers the Liberum Veto. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Both Schulz and Karasek are uninvolved, German and they both noted that those are not reliable title quotations. Also it is not "according to Bundesarchiv". Please read:"often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme"--Molobo (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that if a photo would clearly state it is a product of Nazi propaganda, we may consider its inclusion. But there is also a question of balance: what if only pictures of the event are Nazi propaganda? Do we allow Nazi propaganda, even marked as such, to monopolize visual aspect of a subject? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Every picture of the Katyn massacre was made as a product of Nazi propaganda. Goebbels used Katyn for his propaganda, which does not mean the massacre IS propaganda. And I don't think anybody wants to delete these "propaganda" pictures. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-Nazi propaganda pictures of Katyn massacre (ex. this one). If there are no non-Nazi pics of the Bromberg massacre, well... that doesn't really help the credibility of this story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure you understood what I ment: contemporary pictures showing the victims of Katyn, not the modern memorial. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda is obviously not reliable, and unless we can agree that a given photo is noncontroversial, it should not be used to illustrate the subject. Even on Commons, Nazi era German photos from Bundesarchiv (a pitful stub...) are tagged with a template that states clearly: For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme. What more needs to be said? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a comment from an uninvolved editor. Bundesarchiv is a highly reliable source. If they have a copy of a photo then that photo certainly exists. If they make a statement as to what the photo represents then that is also reliable. If there is no statement made by Bundesarchiv but only a caption that we do not know to be from a reliable body, then we do not have a reliable source for speculating what the photo might represent. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I think we have to see the difference between the original image captions at the bottom of the pictures, often "erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme" and the headline, which contains the registration number of the BA and a short descriptive title. This headline was obviously created by the BA and should be used, while the contemporay comment is most likely of unclear origin and shouldn't be used. User:Karasek's picture of Eger above is a perfect example for that (I don't think Karasek wanted to say, that picture shouldn't be used at all) HerkusMonte (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a staged photo reliable? The Nemmersdorf massacre describes one of such cases. Any part involved used to produce war propaganda and this Wikipedia should warn the readers. I have watched a number of the BA pictures, they show disciplined, uniformed Germans, profesionally staged German victims, bad looking prisoners in KZs and no non-German victims. The non-Germans had little chance to be professionally photographed under German occupation. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So the question boils down to whether the BA's "headlines" are to be considered reliable. Does the BA say anywhere that it has done its best to ensure that these "headlines" are accurate? Or on the contrary does it say that it cannot guarantee that? In the absence of any such statement I think we must conclude that they have been created in order for people to find the archived photos and are thus not reliable as to what the pictures represent. A parallel would be a university library classifying Marx's Capital in the Economics section. It does not guarantee that it is a reliable work of economics, only that people who are looking for the work would expect to find it there. On a general point, history articles should be sourced from texts by academic historians, not from photographs. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be confusing the issue here. The archive is recording that the photographs exist and were used in a certain context. It is a reliable source for that fact. A photograph of a Nazi officer arresting someone might be captioned "victim of oppression arrested by by Nazi thug" or "Officer detaining thug who murdered innocent Germans". Photographs in themselves are not source for facts unless the circumstances in which they were taken are undisputed. Both captions are POV, what matters is whether the source identifies this as an authentic photograph of the period and how it was used at the time. We can then use an NPOV caption which improves the article by showing the kind of images that were made and circulated at the period and in what context. Paul B (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another comment from an univolved person: I don't need Bundesarchiv as a "reliable source" to tell me that a photo that is there is a photo that "certainly exists". I'll just trust my eyes for that. What I do need Bundesarchiv as a "reliable source" for is to tell me that the captions are actually correct. However, Bundesarchiv does not claim they are. This means the captions should not be used a a source if there is a dispute over what the image depicts. Further, Bundesarchiv should not be quoted with the image captions ("according to Bundesarchiv") – it's simply not correct that Bundesarchiv claims anything that's in the captions. -- 3247 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To bring it to a clear result, the common sense seems to be, as follows (please make a short comment):

Any picture from the Bundesarchiv at commons:Bundesarchiv made in 1933-45 might be reverted without further explanation as the BA image captions are not reliable and do not proof the factual content of the image.

• Oppose, per discussion above. The BA is a reliable source and its image titles are reliable. Factual doubts are already considered by this template. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the image captions from the Bundesarchiv may be extremist, but not neccessarily incorrect. If an image is Nazi propaganda, this should be mentioned in the image caption in the article. Regards, --ChrisiPK (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, the image may be used if it relates to the article. It is simply a question of how to caption it using neutral language. For example, the image above can be nutrally captioned: "Photograph reported by Nazi sources to depict American POWs During the Battle of the Bulge". If there is a reliable source that claims the picture was actually staged, then we can include that information in the caption as well... "Photograph reported by Nazi sources to depict American POWs during the Battle of the Bulge<ref>, but which historian Iman Expert says was staged<ref> Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda was created to propagate the Nazism, not to inform. Xx236 (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The images probably can't be used as sources (just per WP:PRIMARY and not because they are Nazi), but they certainly can be used as illustrations. How many captions on Wikipedia are reliable at all? Then we should exclude every PD-self from Wikipedia at the very least, as well as all pictures by modern press offices. Colchicum (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Straw man alert. Nobody is suggesting removal "without explanation". Only controversial photos that may be seen as still propagating German Nazi propaganda can be removed, after proper explanation is given.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has ever provided any source or evidence, the picture shows anything else but what its title says. User:Molobo makes totally unsourced suppositions on the "real" background and the removals were exclusively based on the former usage by Propaganda. The only explanation given yet is the fact, the picture was used by Nazi-Germany, that's it. It's necessary to find a general rule on how to deal with propaganda photos. It shouldn't be based on "I don't like it" or "It might be staged", this would turn it into a pure game of chance. The supposed solution above is the consequence of the current discussion, but feel free to make a different suggestion. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw Man Alert indeed. It is Piotrus's assertion (repeated ad nauseum) that being "Nazi propaganda" makes it unusable that is the real straw man. The fact that this irrelevant "argument" is simply repeated over and over like a mantra is evidence it just serves to distract from the real issues. All photographs in war are used as propaganda. Some were staged, some were authentic (like the exhumed bodies at Katyn). The allies also staged photographs. Famously, the most used photographs of the Battle of El Alamein were staged by blowing up a cookhouse and advancing into the smoke. That does not mean they should not be used. Indeed we do use one of them in the article as the main photo of the battle. That's beacause it's the best available photograph, properly captioned. As has already been stated over and over, it is legitimate and reasonable to use photographs (or posters) that were circulated as propaganda. We use German WWII photographs in any number of articles about those events. I know of no guideline or consensus that states "controversial photos that may be seen as still propagating German Nazi propaganda can be removed." Acceptance of any such claim could be used to justify even removal of portraits of Nazi leaders on the grounds that they make them look noble. We should not imply that such a policy or guideline exists without any evidence being provided. That's argument by assertion. Paul B (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The picture is not the problem, it's the caption provided by BA that's unreliable. Even a staged image has encyclopedic value iff put into the correct context; it illustrates the point that false propaganda was made. -- 3247 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

exactly, we might add "..used by Nazi Propaganda" or something similar, but we shouldn't rule out the picture per se. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not the way it works. It is equivlent to creating article on topic, and writing it wholy based on German Nazi propaganda then adding small footnote "as claimed by German Nazi propaganda". We don't know where those pictures came from, we only can guess that they are murdered people by several genocide operations perfomed by Germany during the invasion. We can add a link to the picture under links in article directly titled "Propaganda photo by Nazi Germany".--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Used... and created by Nazi propaganda. Intentions are important. So some people want to trust that Goebbels-run press/photo op? I am shocked.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Every (contemporary) picture of the Katyn massacre was "used and created by" Goebbels' Propaganda, so we shouldn't use them? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• As to the pictures from Bundesarchive-they are so various and with so diverse topics that they are to be judged case by case. As to German Nazi propaganda pictures-they belong in Nazi Propaganda article and not as worthwile expansions to articles--Molobo (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment the question here should be "can the commentaries attached to images be considered reliable" for Wikipedia purposes in case they come from such source as Bundesarchiv? This is the only thing that matters in the context because a commentary attached to any given image can change the meaning of the picture.
  

Also, since the images under discussion are currently published by the Bundesarchiv, not by the Nazi Germany, suggesting that the images and the commentaries attached to them by the archive are Nazi propaganda is basically accusing the German Federal Archive of spreading the nazi propaganda, just that such an act would be a criminal offense in Germany.--Termer (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* As said before, Bundesarchiv does not claim that the commentaries be factually correct. They do claim them to be contemporary commentaries, which may be Nazi propaganda ...or Cold War propaganda ...or no propaganda at all. -- 3247 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about. Are you saying the archive suggests that the images may be Nazi propaganda? Again, by suggesting that the commentaries and/or the photos published by the archive in Germany "may be Nazi propaganda", you are saying that the archive may publicly commit a criminal offense in Germany. this is, again, because spreading/and or publishing etc. nazi propaganda in Germany is a criminal offense in that country. I don't know how to make it more clear than that. therefore is there any evidence that criminal charges have been filed against the archive by anybody in Germany in order to suggest that we may deal with nazi propaganda? And what has "Cold War propaganda" to do with anything? --Termer (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions: How do we know that these photographs actually were Nazi propaganda? Is there a reliable source that claims they were propaganda? Or are we simply assuming them to be propaganda because they were taken by someone in Germany during the Nazi era?

Comment: even if the photographs were propaganda (or claimed to be propaganda by a reliable source), that fact does not mean they must be excluded from Wikipedia... it simply means that we should note that fact in the caption. Remember, the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not Truth. It is verifiable that the photos were originally captioned a certain way. As long as our caption accurately notes who captioned them that way, it does not matter whether that original caption is "True" or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose.

Bundesarchiv stores all images with two captions:

• Originaltitel ("initial caption") is the caption given by the database the Bundesarchiv got the image from. This may be biased, propagandistic, or untrue, as indicated in the image description at commons, and is only kept for documentation.
• Archivtitel (archive caption) is the caption given by the Bundesarchive. This caption is the one we have to rely on.

If we look at the Bloody Sunday (1939) image (at commons or [view=detail at Bundesarchiv]) which caused this thread, we can see those two captions. The initial, historical caption is of course biased, the archive's caption is not, it only states

"Polen.- Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des "Bromberger Blutsonntag")"

i.e."Poland.- Bodys of killed Volksdeutsche (victims of the Bromberg Bloody Sunday)"

So I do not see any reason to label the image as Nazi propaganda. I think the confusion here came about because commons has only one image description and Bundesarchiv has two - in commons, the archive's caption is given in brackets ("[...]") below the initial (historical) caption, which is for documentary purpose only. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC), PS 18:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the Bundesarchiv titles are just numeric and letters, the captions can be of various types and most are original ones-which may include Nazi propaganda, as is in this case.--Molobo (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing filename and caption. The captions are below in the description and clearly indicated as such as outlined above, you might however need to click on "detail" at the Bundesarchiv page. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the Bunsarchive makes it clear that captions can be propaganda ones. The only clear Bundesarchive orignal naming are the code numbers and letters. The captions are taken both from Nazi propaganda as is the case here or from original captions.--Molobo (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)