Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 31

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 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Hello! I have a question on using The Daily Kos as a source for Wikipedia edits. The relevant articles are Remote Area Medical, Nursing, and UVA SON. I am the editor who added those sources; I'm trying to get an impartial ear here, so I created another account to get some advice from those currently uninvolved with the brou-ha-ha over there. Anywhoo, I tried to include sources to The Myth of a Recession-Proof Job: Nursing, as well as The Busiest Emergency Room in America. Now, I understand the general principle of blogs being potentially unreliable sources- except that on both of those articles, there is extensive research chronicled well, and well-cited in both of them. I went through the links to verify the information was correct, and I even took an extra step on the "ER" room article, and contacted the head of the Remote Area Medical clinic to verify that article properly represented that clinic in Wise, VA.

Now, I believe part of the problem these people had with these sources was that they assumed I was the author, which is incorrect, and I can happily substantiate via IRL sources, as well as my communication with RAM's founder. If that was the case, obviously it would provide a COI, even though personal promotion would be hard to accomplish if the author is anonymous. I also found out via searching the DailyKos site that those articles were both reviewed by administrators there to verify it's content/veracity, which I can provide evidence of (or anyone familiar with DailyKos can verify personally via their account there). Indeed, I discovered he plans on hosting the "ER" article on his website, via the author's permission, to help chronicle the event.

Now, I think those are both important articles containing relevant information to the events, and, as such, would constitute a reliable source. Sources on blogs are no more relevant than citing Wikipedia in scholarly work. I understand the reluctance to rely solely on either a blog, or Wikipedia, in this manner, and if these articles were not well sourced, then I would never have included them. That would be unacceptable. Another point of contention is that the author is nominally anonymous, but I have contacted him and he is willing to be sourced personally on those articles. However, I would note that a part of Wikipedia's nature in and of itself rests largely on anonymity, for a variety of great reasons, and that alone should not preclude those sources from being cited. However, I am more than happy to follow the community consensus here; especially on the "ER" topic- and I'll admit this for full disclosure- but it is truly a noble thing those people do, and the conditions under which they operate and the services they provide make me, as an American, ashamed we have let our system get that way. Yes, I know, we're going for neutral tone, and we're not an advocacy group here, so I did the best I could to avoid bringing any of my personal feelings in on that topic. I would like to think I succeeded in that effort. However, this is absolutely not worth creating a WP:Battleground over on the pros or cons of using blogs as sources, or any such nonsense, and all three of those articles deserve only professionalism in the tone of addressing these concerns. That's pretty much it. Let me know your thoughts, thank you, and God Bless. Ks64q3 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Any relation to User:Ks64q2 ?

Blogs of anonymous authors are not reliable. -Atmoz (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source that may be cited in Wikipedia articles is in itself reliable; a Wikipedia editor's judgement that an author did a good job writing a well-referenced article does not turn an external article by an author who is not known to be an expert, on a website that is not known to have high editorial standards, into a reliable source. What you could do is read the sources cited on the external site and use those sources to improve the Wikipedia article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And yeah, I'm that user. I did read all the sources there, but they're nicely contained in one place, as opposed to unwieldlyunwieldy linking each one to form a barrage of disparate information. For instance, to get the information on the rate of nursing shrinking requires extensive use of the DOL Jobs site report. I would note that I feel that DailyKos has no less editorial standards as many print publications; simply the fact that it's a blog shouldn't preclude it from being cited, IMHO. If these articles were published verbatim in a print source, would that make them automatically worthy of citing (obviously, not the local biweekly flyer)? Ks64q3 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics, as a general matter, it's hard to view referencing reliable secondary sources as "unwieldy linking" to a "barrage of disparate information". If the blog is actually a synthesis drawing conclusions from what are essentially primary sources, then it almost certainly shouldn't be cited (and nor should the primary sources be synthesized here). However, there may be similar conclusions drawn in other reliable sources, so keep huntin'. Bongomatic 04:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Further research shows me lots- lots- of Wikipedia articles using blogs as sources from people with no automatically discernable notability. Should we edit those out, or what? Ks64q3 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the blogger's notability is not automatically discernable doesn't mean that the blogger's notability is not discernable at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, is correct, but obviously just because someone put a blog link in as a reference doesn't mean it's been approved or meets our standards, so a lot of those should be edited out, yes. It's not an all or nothing thing either way. You have to do it case by case. DreamGuy (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) WP requires "reliable sources." Blogs by their nature (no editorial supervision or fact checking, no accountability) even if they are written by Saint Jude are not in the category of "reliable sources." That a lot of articles use them is unfortunate - "other stuff exists" is not a reason for adding any. Many articles, in fact, have no real sources at all, and date back five years or more. Sources which are primarily editorial in nature, written by a well-known person may be used occasionally, but the opinions need to be cited as opinion, and not as fact. If this precis is wrong, please correct me. Collect (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of political blogs, but you can probably use "The Busiest Emergency Room In America" as an external link for Remote Area Medical. Which btw should be renamed "Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corps". On the other hand "The Myth of a Recession-Proof Job" probably couldn't be used in an article with such a wide scope as nursing. And there are many other sources out there you can use to point out that while health care isn't as market-sensitive as some other sectors, it's not immune to budget cuts either. Hospital cutbacks are in the paper every day, but its still a lesser evil compared to finance or construction. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the online database ebsco a reliable source? It is a subscription database so the links would lead to a log in page. My question is can ebsco articles(information found on ebsco) be used as a reference for wikipedia?Smallman12q (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ebsco itself wouldn't be the source. It's providing access to articles published elsewhere (newspapers, magazines, academic journals, etc.). Whether the article is a reliable source depends on where it was originally published. Generally, I would think that if the publication is in the Ebsco database it qualifies as a reliable source, but if there are questions about individual articles, that can be handled on a case-by-case basis. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I was looking for. So a publication in ebsco would generally be reliable(with some exceptions). Now my other question if I put links, they are subscription based(not everyone has access), is that okay?Smallman12q (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not a problem. You can also cite books that people can't get access to without buying. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could let me know if a news paper article online is a reliable source, it is being used on the Banksy article, as follows.

==Orpington==

New work of Banksy is to believed to be found in Orpington Kent London Borough of Bromley some speculation about the art which shows a baby with some balloons and a small child with spray can has been mentioned on the Banksy forum [[1]]--86.11.100.50 (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any particular problem with the reliability of the News Shopper, but you'll see that the article is pure speculation based on comments made on an internet forum. Too trivial to mention. At least at the moment. If the images do turn out to have been authored by Banksy then it will be reported in other sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of articles written in the news start out as tips, hunches, or chatter in online forums. But once those tips and hunches go through the editorial process and end up in a newspaper, then you have a secondary source, at least for the fact that the speculation exists. However, if you want to use this it should be worked into the material of the article, alongside all the other alleged or credited Banksy murals. You have an RS but you still have to watch for undue weight. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, much of this article on Donald P. Scott is sourced from fear.org, which I suspect may not be a reliable source. What do others think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd treat it as a self published source.... it seems like it should be possible to find better sources for this article. Dlabtot (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dlabtot that fear.org should be treated as a SPS. There is no evidence that this source publishes materials with a reliable publication process, nor are their authors generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative. Better sources need to be found. I also fear that this person fails WP:BLP1E. -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS could really use a section on advocacy groups, as this question comes up all the time. Dlabtot (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck getting a consensus on that. Someone tried to add one at one time but it fizzled out. But we do have a problem with the label "self-published" being used by some editors to refer to official sources, publications from organizations, etc, while to other editors "self-published" means only a personal blog or vanity press. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems more like published, but by a political advocacy group, and one which happens to cite its sources. If you have access to the original newspaper reports and would like to bring them in to improve the article, more power to you. But I wouldn't remove the political articles just yet. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a difference between a website that is self-published by an organization and one self-published by an individual... the problem is that this is often impossible to determine which is which. An individual can set up a website, claiming to be an "organization" ... while some legitimate organizations (especially non-profits) often rely on one computer literate volunteer to host the organization's offical web page under the auspicies of his or her personal website. All you can do is conduct some additional research, to find out if a website claiming to be an organization actually is one... or whether it is really one person pretending to be one. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I scrolled down on the FEAR website and there was something about it being influential in legislation intended to rein in asset forfeitures. That shouldn't be hard to verify, and if it checks out, it speaks well for notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to Squidfryerchef's views, and towards this organization's acceptability or reliability, especially if it just being used as a host for material originally published elsewhere. This is a legitimate organization, as these gbooks, gscholar and gnews searches show: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Citation by books from university presses and mainstream scholarly or legal publishers therein gives evidence toward it being "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative," although of course, it has a POV which should be accounted for in writing articles. John Z (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use foreign language sources in English language Wikipedia (that is French or German government sources published in French and German) for numerical information like gallons/year? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Although English sources are preferred, you can use others when necessary.

It's covered here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Center against Expulsions presents (only in German version of the site) an alleged table of expulsions http://www.z-g-v.de/aktuelles/?id=58 . It's a biased synthesis of quoted sources. A part of the table is quoted in Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe and an editor has removed even my POV template. I doubt we need such POV here.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC) No comments yet.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please list reliable sources which say it is a biased synthesis. Knepflerle (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please list reliable sources which say it isn't biased. Xx236 (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The article Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe is a collection of different sources and methods to examine the numbers of German refugees and expellees in connection with WWII. The article is a spin-off of Expulsion of Germans after World War II, which would be way too large if all different sources and methods were included there. The table in question is one of numerous estimates presented in the "Demographic estimates ..." article and summarizes the numbers estimated by the Foundation Center Against Expulsions, a foundation of the Federation of Expellees, the head organization of German expellee groups.

The web address www.z-g-v.de [7] is the internet portal of the foundation, whose objection is to document the expulsions in the name of the federation, and is used according to WP:SPS to present the view of the expellees, who after all are the very subject of the article. Though the Federation of Expellees does not represent non-organized German expellees, their views should be notable enough to be included in the article. The table is properly attributed to the federation in general and also specifically its foundation. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In another words - let's put the waste in a basket and we obtain science. Generally subjects aren't reliable in any case. Xx236 (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You are again choosing to avoid substantiating your complaint. Editors here will look favourably at a well-sourced argument. If you want editors to take the time to take your complaints seriously, you should take time to provide the relevant information. We're waiting. Knepflerle (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the table sourced entirely to the www.z-g-v.de, and is it the site of the Federation of Expellees? If so, it doesn't strike me as the most reliable of sources; at the very list it should be clearly attributed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The table is sourced and attributed to the federation of expellees, foundation center gainst expulsions, and their website. There is no confusion whatsoever who the source is. The table is not intended to represent "truth", but is only one of various data sets presented in the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The table is biased

1. It doesn't inform about the expulsion of 550 000 Poles from Warsaw by Germans, see Planned destruction of Warsaw#Expulsion of civilians.
2. It downgrades expulsion of Poles by Germans as "Oktober 1939 - März 1941 460 000". Expulsion of Poles by Germany informs about 4 years long expulsions of ethnic Poles, more than 1 million of expelled. Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does not inform about any expulsion of Poles. The article is about expulsions of Germans, and the table is one of several different data sets presented in the article. For the Warsaw and other expulsions of Poles, there are other articles. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the table is about any expulsion, as the title says: "Chronik der Vertreibungen europäischer Völker im 20. Jahrhundert". So if it is unreliable regarding expulsions of Poles, it becames unreliable regarding any other expulsions, including the ones of Germans. Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the website does not state exactly the numbers you have in mind regarding issues unrelated to the article's scope, it does not make the cited numbers unreliable as the federation of expellees' estimates regarding the flight and expulsion of Germans. To every number in the expulsion statistics there are different numbers from other sources, that's exactly why the "Demographic estimates..." article collects several relevant estimates and attributes them to their respective sources rather than stating just one number from one source. Everyone is free to evaluate the given background of the presented estimates (source/method) and draw their own conclusion. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Either a source is reliable or isn't. I have proven that the source is unreliable. Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't push a Polish nationalistic site as a reliable source. The same a German nationalistic site doesn't deserve to be quoted as reliable. If the site quotes reliable sources, the original secondary sources can be quoted, rather than an amateur mixture of numbers.Xx236 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.patriotresource.com/index.html

Can somebody vet this web site for reliability, please? Thank you! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS. In fact, I it does not meet WP:EL in the first place. Looks a advertisement site, related to rentals etc., --Nvineeth (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Linked to quite a few articles: [8]. dougweller (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And a furthe search shows it is a personal website owned by a Scott Cummings. dougweller (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks all! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

http://measuringworth.com/

• spam or good? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 17:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No source is reliable in all circumstances. What specific pages from measuringworth.com and for what use? --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Ronz, good to see you again, and thanks for coming to help. Sorry to keep pestering you on these kinds of things, but you're the most knowledgeable editor I know personally (well, so to speak), on this type of stuff. I first saw it an article about a NASCAR driver, Tim Richmond maybe, - and when I looked, I see it shows up all over the place in "search". A lot of BLP articles and such, it just seemed sort of spammy to me. I didn't see it in the blacklist, but kind of wondered if it should really be used as much as it is. I see it in articles like Mary Hyde, John W. Simpson (lawyer), Emanuel Lasker, etc. I can appreciate its usefulness on articles discussing the value of a dollar, or yen, or pound, or whatever - but it seems to be showing up in a lot of BLP articles. I'm not sure how relevant it is to say that Actor A, or Singer B, or Inventor C was worth X-amount of dollars in 1955, but if we use "measuringworth.com we can see what they would be worth today. What's your (and others) thoughts on it? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Was on that site a week ago, and it is backed by several government indexes that can be downloaded. It appears to be a reliable mirror of those primary sources in convenient calculator form. That being said, its strong cautions against reading too much into the data should be heeded, and any claim it is said to support should be compared against its cautions to ensure the comparison is phrased correctly. I agree that it can be overused even for legitimate calculations, and it can contribute to Amero-bias. JJB 08:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We're having a discussion over at Talk:Deaths in 2009#Derek Benfield as to whether death announcements (not, I stress, obituaries) in newspapers are reliable sources. The question is whether the announcements are checked sufficiently by newspaper staff (so we can be reasonably sure that the named person is indeed dead) or whether the notices are essentially classified ads (prepared and published without reference to the newspaper's editorial staff). The extent to which newspapers check such facts, if at all, isn't clear. 87.114.147.43 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. We're having a debate about whether a newspaper death notice is reliable enough to use? Is there a question as to whether the person was deceased, or what? A death notice is at the very least usable as a primary source for the fact that a death notice was listed in the newspaper. And, if there's no fact-checking on these, how come we don't have a spate of bogus ones every April Fool's Day. Or is this actually a debate about whether the source confers notability? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that newspapers do any fact-checking at all on death notices. Do actually think they do research to see if John Doe really was "a loving husband and devoted father"? Of course not. These notices, written up by family and friends, do not go through the editorial process. Yes, they are essentially classified ads. Dlabtot (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncertain. I imagine that they take quite a bit of care since they wouldn't want to incure legal responsibilities, but it also seems kinda like a want ad. I would say it's reliable for the fact that a death occured, but not for stuff like "he was a great father". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Hobit (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is [9] Rootsweb considered a reliable source for birth/death dates and related info? Earlier tonight, I used it to cite the birth date of Playboy Playmate Diane Webber and I just wanted to verify that it's okay to use them as a source. Webber's entry at that site is noted with a V for verified. Who does that, I'm not sure. The other source for her birth date that is in the article is a Playmate listing site at Univ. of Chicago. I've emailed the maintainer of that site a couple times in the past and they say that they often get their info direct from Playboy magazine. Playboy could have had Webber's DOB incorrect. It wouldn't be the first time but it's hardly a common thing either. Anyway, is Rootsweb reliable? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, In an AfD discussion[10], we are debating if the Daily Vault is a RS. It appears to have staff writers [11] and an editorial staff [12]. I'd call it a RS, but I tend to be fairly unconcerned the reliability of about review sites for books/movies/etc., so I figured more input would be good. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

check out WP:SPS. it states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, etc., are largely not acceptable." whether or not they have editorial policies is irrelevant. if i start up my own blog, it'll have editorial policies, as well. namely, that all stories are about me. that's an editorial policy and it's not sufficient to qualify my blog as a reliable source per WP:RS.

also, check out the footnote to WP:SPS. Wikipedia:SPS#cite note-5. it states ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.". the Daily Vault is little more than a group blog in this context. if i start a message board and invite my friends to moderate it and am no longer accepting invitations that does not mean i am all of a sudden a reliable source nor does it mean Daily Vault is. Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:RS for the reasons given above. Dlabtot (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Could you distinguish an on-line newspaper from a "group blog"? Hobit (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

if an online newspaper does not have a wikipedia article it is liable not to be a reliable source imho. indeed, i believe reliability is something of a misnomer. articles discussing the killian documents, before they were found to be fake, may not be reliable, anymore, but what they said is still notable, if, for nothing else, as an example of what the prevailing view was at the time.

similarly, if someone who had an absolutely unimpeachable character, citing them would still be inappropriate if they weren't notable. WP:NOR doesn't exist because wikipedia works on the assumption that anything said on wikipedia without a citation is a lie - it exists because, for the most part, nothing said on wikipedia is notable. WP:RS doesn't exist because wikipedia assumes that the BBC are the only ones who can tell the truth - it exists because the BBC and similar organisations are the only ones whose comments are notable. articles on wikipedia should not be seen as "the truth" so much as they should be seen as a summary of what others of note believe or have believed. you can't really that without notable citations.

if Daily Vault were oft cited by the BBC a wikipedia article would probably be in order for them and in turn for the bands they mention, but they're not oft cited by the BBC. Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Erb? Still lost. We don't rate sources as reliable because they do (or do not) have a page here. As far as I can tell, we are talking about a review site. The site has editors and writers and you can apply for a writer's job (though they aren't looking for any at the moment) just as you could at a newspaper. I'm not seeing a difference. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ignore my last paragraph - i'm now discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#a source isn't reliable unless it has a wikipedia article?. to address your original question, lets approach this another way. how do you distinguish between me posting a comment on a phpbb3 message board and a website like daily vault? if the phpbb3 message board has queued posts enabled or if a particular forum can only be posted to by admins one could say that there is an editorial standard, even though it is obviously not a reliable source. at the other end of the spectrum is the new york times. they can be assumed to be reliable because they have people whose sole job it is to fact check. and if they don't do good fact checking, their reputation would be ruined and their business would crumble. where does daily vault fall in that? well, per your own comments, it's a review site. an opinion site. opinions are not reliable by definition. "he's hot, she's hot". that's all very subjective and not at all reliable. daily vault is a review site and as such, there is no presumption of reliability. per that, it's doubtful they have fact checkers and if they said something that was in error, who really cares? an opinion cannot be in error, anyway Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

an opinion cannot be in error, anyway - I know that's just your opinion, but it's wrong. j/k Dlabtot (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, easy. There's going to be sources that fall on the border of being RS; we're dealing with a continuum here. Somebody said what if you start a message board and then stop inviting new members, is it an RS? Well, if years later it has a staff and an editorial board, it may well be. Every news organization has to start somewhere. And lets not get too whacked out about academic standards in pop-culture articles. My take is it may be fine for discussion about the music, but it may not be "secondary" enough to establish notability in the AFD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Much easier one. Edited by Rabbi Isaac Landman. Don't know if it's the same as "Universal Jewish Encyclopedia". Question: Use freely, use with attribution, or don't use? The discussion is at Talk:Shabbat if you need it. JJB 03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Talk:Shabbat discussion, I'm not sure why you brought this here. In that discussion you told another editor: "you're saying that the NUJE is an unreliable source", however, that editor did not in fact say that. Anyway, all sources and their uses have to be examined in context. That this source is 65 years old must be taken into account. That's certainly enough time for a work to gain a reputation among those who know the field. (Which I don't. But for the sake of argument let's say it has a fair to good reputation.) For material that is uncontentious and unlikely to be challenged, you don't even need in-line citations. Contentious material is another matter. Of course it needs to be attributed and written carefully to follow all our policies. That's what talk pages are for. Dlabtot (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Metal Observer is cited in multiple articles relating to performers of heavy metal music. The website's coverage of band genres is inconsistent, its content appears to be user-submitted. Most reviews that I have seen from this website do not appear to be professionally written. Can anyone confirm the reliability of this website? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

I had trouble finding a good about page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem to be a reliable source- or match up to other sites like Metal Archives which do have user-submitted content on par with IMDB. Nevard (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect re: the submissions I'm afraid. Genres being "inconsistent" is purely original research, only meaningful if you have reliable sources stating this directly. Content is not user-submitted: reviews are all written by staff members, not simply users. Metal Archives is not used because it does rely on user-submitted content. As far as the professionalism of the reviews goes, it varies certainly, but no more than any review source. Even the most highly regarded here (allmusic, Rolling Stone) have examples of poorly written reviews. But poorly written or not, they are still the opinions of a staff body engaged consistently in exploring and reviewing music releases. Prophaniti (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The list of staff members can be found here so contrary to what has been said above, the site's contents are not user-submitted. --Bardin (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is nothing but an amateur webzine/fanzine. Not a reliable source for anything and should be a blacklisted link. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it an amateur webzine/fanzine? What is your definition of amateur in this context? The Metal Observer has a fairly large roster of staff members from several different countries. None of these staff members are anonymous. They have a radio show in Austria, have organised a concert festival in Canada, has been recognized as one of the world's longest-running metal website, and it has even been described as one of the the top international online metal resources. That does not sound like an amateur fanzine to me. --Bardin (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that they have a lot of people who they call "reviewers"... the question is, are these people professional staff members, assigned to review a band and paid to do so, or are they just members of the site (ie amatures) who wrote a review of a band they saw? How does one get to be a reviewer? As for appearing in the media... I am concerned that you just link to articles that are all from one website: blabbermouth.net. I would agree that Blabbermouth.net (which itself is not reliable under RS) considers Metal-Observer to be note worthy, but does anyone else? Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They are staff members. Whether they are paid or volunteers, I do not know but it's not as if anyone from the internet can just sign up to write reviews for them. There's no provision for users or visitors to write reviews. As for Blabbermouth, it is most certainly a reliable source otherwise it would not be used as often as it is on featured articles. --Bardin (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong, but Blabbermouth looked like a blog site run by a record company... they even include a disclamer saying that the material posted on it is not to be considered reliable. But... that is a secondary issue... My point in questioning Blabbermouth was to say that I would like more than just a few posts to Blabbermouth to establish that Metal-Observer has a high reputation and is more than just a popular fan site. I would do the same with a source that was only mentioned in the New York Times.

As for your comment about the "reviewers" being hired staff, that sounds good if it can be substantiated. Unfortunately, I can not find anything on the Metal-Observer website that talks about how they pick reviewers... so how are we to know? Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, Blabbermouth is independent of the record company, and your comments above are a misrepresentation of the disclaimer that appears on the website ("BLABBERMOUTH.NET is run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner Records, and the views and opinions of authors expressed on these pages do not necessarily state or reflect those of Roadrunner Records or its employees.") This states that Blabbermouth is independent of Roadrunner, and that's all. I have no problem with Blabbermouth as a source as long as we are aware that a lot of their news stories are based largely or wholly on press releases. Original pieces should be fine as sources. I don't see Metal Observer as a reliable source though. --Michig (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think this is what you're looking for with regards to the site's selection of staff members. German language version here. I do not know of any other site that praise, criticize or discuss The Metal Observer. There are several hits for the site on google news but all the results were in various foreign languages that I do not understand. Some of the interviews they conduct has been reported as news on sites like Blabbermouth. Some of their reviews have been posted up on the website of various bands and record labels but I suspect that's only when the reviews are positive. What I do know is that The Metal Observer is one of the longest running metal websites around and that translates to me as experience. It has developed a reputation as "one of the top international online metal resources", according to Blabbermouth. I feel all of that is enough to indicate that this site is "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", to quote WP:RS. That subject being heavy metal music, obviously. --Bardin (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As well as Bardin's excellent points regarding their history and from Blabbermouth, a few extra things to throw in: Metal Observer has come up on this noticeboard before recently (brought up by myself), and two other users affirmed it.

It mentions in the FAQ section "We are a closed society for now, at least as far as reviewers are concerned", and reviewers and their profiles can be seen here [13]. So it does have it's own staff body, and they're not accepting people to become new reviewers currently. Bardin also provided a link to what sort of thing they're asking of staff. WP:ALBUM states that a site can be used in the professional reviews section so long as it has an editorial and writing staff, be they paid or volunteer.

In addition to this, a quick look at the statistics: it currently says they have about 14,000 album reviews. With a staff of 30, that's over 450 reviews per staff member. That's a pretty significant experience of heavy metal music. Prophaniti (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, that's rather funny. Alex, the website owner... with over 2000 reviews himself... states that his occupation as "international moving coordinator"... oh yeah, there's a reliable source there!! Val, the other website owner, claims her occupation as "working for The Metal Observer.. no salary of course." Ooo... another completely reliable source there too. The staff list consists of plumbers and taxi drivers.. HAHA! Thanks for the staff link... the site is now officially killed. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm...no. No it isn't. The staff are volunteers, not paid. No one ever denied this, nor does it rule them out as a source: WP:ALBUM clearly states that paid or not, a source can be used. So yes, they have jobs. This is irrelevant to the discussion. Regardless of what they may or may not do in their lives outside of the site, they are an editorial and writing staff with very extensive experience of heavy metal music. So the source may be ruled out in your eyes, but you do not speak for wikipedia. For which I'm very glad, if you honestly believe these people having jobs means they cannot be cited. Prophaniti (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh?? Extensive experience? Most of them are students who haven't even reached the age of 20 yet. Have you even read through some of those bios? It's like some sort of school paper where the shop teacher is the journalist tutor and the students are all 1 trashcan fire away from being expelled. It's pure comedy reading through them. There isn't a single shred of journalistic integrity within the lot of them combined. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you believe their age or jobs outweigh hundreds of reviews apiece (as well as all the other evidence provided by Bardin), then that's up to you. However, the site has been shown to meet the criteria given for a "professional review site", so unless you can provide good counter-arguments based on wikipedia guidelines (as opposed to your POV), then there's no problem using it. Prophaniti (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get hundreds apiece> Again I ask.. have you actually read the bios. Outside of the anomally of the fansite owner with over 2000 most of the volunteers on the list have less than 50. So who actually posted enough reviews to get them over 14000??? Because the sum of the people listed on the staff page doesn't add up to a number near that high... again pushing reliable source even further into the hole on this one. No metal-dedicated online webzine is a reliable source for anything. And this one is no exception. (and yes age and jobs would outweigh review amounts... if they actually had any... which they don't) The Real Libs-speak politely 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM clearly states that paid or not, a source can be used - where? I just reviewed WP:ALBUM and I can't find this statement. In fact it seems to say just the opposite. At any rate, the relevant policy is WP:RS. WP:ALBUM is a WikiProject, not a policy page. Dlabtot (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First line of the "professional reviews" section: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff." The point I'm making is that if it qualifies as a professional review site this must lend it a degree of reliability. Prophaniti (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It's a bit of a circular argument, however, since the next sentence states: The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources... . So the question is, does The Metal Observer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I haven't seen any evidence that this amateur website has such a reputation. Dlabtot (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bardin... thank you for finding that page! It is exactly what I needed to see to give a firm opinion... it completely answers my questions and resolves any hesitation as to the sites reliability. Metal Observer reviews clearly do not come from user submissions, and I would agree that they should be considered as reliable as any other professional critical review. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I just point out that just because their title is "staff member", doesn't make them an authority. I can start a website right now and call myself "Ruler of the Universe", but unfortunately, that doesn't make me so. Professional music journalists (note "Professional", as in, they make their living from it) could grind this site into the ground. See NME and/or Q Magazine. Now they are reliable sources. Not this stuff. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you could do that. But then you would not have a radio show connected to the site; be known as one of the longest running heavy metal review sites in existence; receive praise and acknowledgement from blabbermouth.net; have a team of 29 other reviewers behind you; be one of the most visited heavy metal websites in the world; nor have 14,000 heavy metal reviews to your name. That's the difference. If by "grind into the ground" you mean "are printed and cover mainstream music as opposed to heavy metal music", then yes, quite right. But I don't see what that has to do with anything. Besides which, no one is saying this is on the same level as all other music sources. There is more than one level of source reliability: just because something is not a perfect source does not rule it out alltogether. Prophaniti (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like just some amateur website. Dlabtot (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Libs, you said that most of the staff members are students who have not even reached the age of 20. That is completely wrong and I hope that it was an honest mistake on your part and not an outright lie. The editor in chief Alexander Melzer is 36 years old. Ralf Henn at 41 years old and has been working for The Metal Observer for eight years now. Steve Herrmann at 40 years old, Stephen Rafferty and Alexander Ehringer are both 38 years old, Chris Doran and Falk Kollmannsperger are both 37 years old, Dustin Hathaway is 35 years old, Patrick Weiler, Gabriel Gose and Jean-Pierre du Toit are all 29 years old this year, Frodi Stenberg, Eric Vieth, Jonathan Smith are all 28 years old, Neil Pretorius is 26 years old, Matt Reifschneider is 24 years old, etc. I could only find one staff member that was aged 19 years.

Dlabtot, you said that The Metal Observer looks like just some amateur website. Could you explain how exactly it looks like some amateur website? What were you expecting to see? You say that you have not seen evidence that the website has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have already pointed out that it has received praise by an unrelated and reliable source as being one of the top international online resources for heavy metal music.

Scarian, there is nothing on WP:RS that indicates an author must be paid to be deemed reliable or professional. What it does says is that "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. How reliable a source is depends on context." Given the reputation that this website has as one of the top international online resources for heavy metal music and its record as one of the oldest running metal website, is there any reason to think that the authors are not "trustworthy or authoritative" in relation to heavy metal music? --Bardin (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not here to argue but simply to give my opinion. An amateur website is one that is not professional. One that is not the job of the people who run it and staff it. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that this website fits that description. I've seen the links you've provided and I don't believe that they establish a reputation as a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is looking for an argument but there's not much that can be done if you are just going to state your opinion without providing any explanation, as you did again with your last sentence there. Is there anything in WP:RS that specifies reliable sources can only be those from paid authors? --Bardin (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stating my opinion without providing an explanation, but I'm also not going to be drawn into a pointless argument. The explanation, (again) is that The Metal Observer does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and no one has provided any references that indicate they have such a reputation. They aren't published. They are just a bunch of people who put up a website. So, in my opinion, they don't meet any of the WP:RS criteria and shouldn't be cited under any circumstances. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Bardin: a writer does not have to be paid to be authoritative or knowledgeable. It would be fair to say that someone who is paid for it and does it for a living may well know the subject matter better, but as I say, that doesn't rule out those who aren't paid. Just look at the number of reviews: 14,000. As I say, this translates as 450 reviews per author. Over a 9 year period this averages at 50 reviews a year; which in turn means 1 heavy metal review nearly every week by every reviewer for 9 years. Obviously staff will have been hired as time passed and so on, but nevertheless, this average clearly suggests a good understanding of the subject matter. Prophaniti (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got your stats wrong again. The fansite owner... the "international moving specialist"... has just over 2000... there are about 5 volunteers listed with between 200-400 and the rest are students under the age of 20 with only a handful each. No journalists to be found here. Just fanboys. The one that states their job as "Metal-Observer (unpaid of-course) but will gladly take work that pays... know of any?" speaks volumes for this fansite. There is simply no such thing as a good heavy metal website... plain and simple. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This shouldn't be necessary...

• Alexander Melzer, 36 years old, 2151 reviews, started January 2000, that's around 476 weeks, ave. 4.5 reviews per week
• Ralf Henn, 41 years old, 1033 reviews, started January 2001, that's around 423 weeks, ave. 2.4 reviews per week
• Steve Herrmann, 40 years old, 14 reviews, started December 2008, that's around 12 weeks, ave. 1.3 review per week
• Alexander Ehringer, 38 years old, 404 reviews, started November 2001, that's around 382 weeks, ave. 1.05 review per week
• Stephen Rafferty, 38 years old, 132 reviews, started February 2005, that's around 212 weeks, ave. 0.6 review per week
• Chris Doran, 37 years old, 475 reviews, started August 2001, that's around 395 weeks, ave. 1.2 review per week
• Falk Kollmannsperger, 37 years old, 642 reviews, started October 2001, that's around 384 weeks, ave. 1.7 review per week
• Dustin Hathaway, 35 years old, 110 reviews, started February 2007, that's around 108 weeks, ave. 1 review per week
• Gabriel Doser, 29 years old, 89 reviews, started April 2007, that's around 100 weeks, ave. 0.9 review per week
• Patrick Weiler, 29 years old, 197 reviews, started February 2001, that's around 419 weeks, ave 0.5 review per week
• Frodi Stenberg, 28 years old, 307 reviews, started December 2003, that's around 274 weeks, ave. 1.2 review per week
• Eric Vieth, 28 years old, 198 reviews, started November 2005, that's around 173 weeks, ave. 1.1 review per week
• Armen Janjanian, 25 years old, 264 reviews, started September 2002, that's around 339 weeks, ave. 0.78 review per week
• Jorryd Andries, 22 years old, 7 reviews, started December 2008, that's around 12 weeks, ave. 0.6 review per week
• Mitchel Betsch, 19 years old, 158 reviews, started July 2006, that's around 139 weeks, ave. 1.1 review per week
• Kevin Roy, 19 years old, 41 reviews, started November 2007, that's around 69 weeks, ave. 0.6 review per week
• etc. Most of the staff members are in their 20s or 30s. Most of them average around 1 review per week, which is probably the level of commitment that the site expects from them. --Bardin (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No that shouldn't have been necessary since several pages on your watchlist were vandalised in the time it took you to compile that but thanks for doing it... it just emphasises my earlier point about reliability and experience. (you left out the part about most of them still being unemployed and living in their parent's basements) They have the spare time to blog their opinions to their favourite fanzine... and the fanzine owner liked their writing style and said they could submit more.... which is a good way for him to meet new friends and share an interest 'n all... but... if those same people decided to cut out the middle man and post their views here... it would be reverted for numerous policy reasons. I am a 47 year old engineering lecturer and library data compiler... and if I blogged my album opinions to an online fanzine and then turned around and saw them here as a reference... it would make me cringe. I am not singularly prejudiced against this one fanzine. All internet fanzines are equally bad. Some have already been blacklisted. The rest will eventually join them. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I put that is to counter your statements that a) the majority of them are under 20 years and b) they only have a handful of reviews each. Both statements are wrong. Your claim now that most of them are still unemployed and living their parent's basements is not just wrong too but rather vindictive as well. Is it not possible for you to argue that The Metal Observer is an unreliable source without resorting to untruths? For the record, none of the pages that are on my watchlist was vandalised in the time I took to write that up. --Bardin (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Real Libs, what speaks volumes is the tone with which you refer to the site. Repeatedly dismissing it as a fansite or blog, claiming the reviewers are "living in their parents' basements". You have no evidence for such claims, and even if it were true it would have no bearing on this discussion. If you can't discuss a source's reliability in a mature manner, and without resorting to unfounded insults, then please don't contribute. Prophaniti (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Another point to those who are worried about their age: It's irrelevant. How many posts they've made is irrelevant. How many weeks they've been is irrelevant. Prophanti: This site has its own radio show? Many sites have their own "radioshow". Q Magazine has its own TV show on cable in the UK. Just because the site has existed for a long time (apparently), does not make it more trustworthy. There are still geocities sites and yahoo sites kicking around from the mid-late nineties. And in response to "just because they're not paid" (paraphrased): It's a good indicator of their ability. If you could find the full-time professions of these "reviewers" then we can see how trustworthy and notable their reviews are. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The age is irrelevant, because it's no indicator of experience. But producing 1 heavy metal review every week for 9 years (on average) is an indicator of a high degree of experience with the genre. Having an editorial process is also indicative of reliability, because it suggests there is someone checking their work and ensuring it meets certain standards. Their full-time jobs however, are not relevant: the WP:ALBUM page makes it clear that they can still be considered reliable sources even if not paid. As I have stated before, no one's suggesting this source should be put at the same level as printed magazines like NME or Rolling Stone. Rather, it qualifies for a degree of reliability, even if it isn't a perfect source. All the points Bardin and myself have listed do count for something. Prophaniti (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This really comes down to reputation... does Metal-Observer have a reputation for being "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". One way to judge this is to look at how much it is cited in aritcles here on Wikipedia (see this search)... To highlight the top few, it is used as a citation at: Avant-garde metal, List of gothic metal bands, and List of folk metal bands. In addition, it's reviews are linked to in the info box for The Phantom Agony and other articles on bands. So, it seems that Wikipedia editors who write articles about this topic (Heavy Metal music) think it is reliable. That is good enough for me.

That said, looking beyond Wikipedia, this rival wiki says they have been criticized for mis-categorizing bands (yes I know it is a wiki and thus not RS... I am not using it as a source, but simply as an indication of public perception outside of Wikipedia).

So... my suggestion is that for basic facts about bands, Metal-Observer should be considerd reliable... but for genre classification it should be considered reliable only for statements as to its opinion, and that opinion should be attributed in text, with opposing categorizations also mentioned (as in: "According to the Metal-Observer website, DeathTῦng can be categorized as Thrash Metal, but the band categorizes themselves as Speed Metal.") Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That other wiki that you linked to is actually an outdated mirror of the Metal Observer article that used to be on wikipedia, an article that I wrote. All that original research on mis-categorising bands was later reverted by another editor. The article was eventually deleted in an AFD.

The first three wiki articles that you mentioned were all penned by me. I'm not one of those editors that spend their time with genre wars. I prefer to work on actually improving articles. I've been working on death metal for a while now. I already have three books that I can use as a source. I do not have that sort of luxury for other genres like folk metal or gothic metal so I have to rely more on web content. It would be nice if the New York Times could give more coverage to folk metal besides the one concert review of Finntroll but they don't. There are a lot of web content that I could have used, many of which would have made my job easier, but I did not because I've been careful to abide by WP:RS, or at least my interpretation of it. I avoid anything that doesn't have a specified author, unless its a news article. I avoid any website that does not have a specified editor. Etc. I find the metal observer useful because they cover a broader range of heavy metal music than that which is usually found on other sites like Allmusic (which some editors still maintain is unreliable too).

That said, all those articles on bands and albums that use the Metal Observer as a source are not my effort. There are apparently a lot of those articles so clearly, I'm far from alone in using it as a source. --Bardin (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "criticisms" section in the rival wiki (which was once here): it was inserted by one particular user and was entirely original research. It basically boiled down to "There are a few examples where Metal Observer calls a Brazilian band death metal while another source says thrash metal" (or vice versa, I can't actually remember anymore), which of course could be said of any source. Ultimately, any question of genres comes down to the opinion of reviewers. So I think the important thing to bear in mind is the issue of undue weight: Metal Observer is certainly not as reliable in wikipedia's terms as something like Rolling Stone or Q Magazine. But it does nevertheless represent at least a degree of reliability, based on the factors outlined above, so I don't see a problem in citing it along with other sources like popmatters, IGN music, about.com, sputnik, blabbermouth, etc. Prophaniti (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed... perhaps not the most reliable source, but acceptable as a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I read over some of the reviews for Motorhead, as my biggest knowledge is in that area. Two articles told me they were heavy metal, one article told me they weren't and mentions that some peeps never thought they were, and would leave that discussion up to the forum boards. I couldn't find anywhere that rates them as a site in terms of have a reputation, so if someone could provide with me some links I'd be grateful. I therefore agree with Dlabtot's points that this site doesn't yet meet a number of bars of WP:RS.--Alf ^melmac 10:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as metal information sites go, this is one of the good ones. But so is metal-archives.com, metalstorm.ee, and BNR Metal. As far as a reliable source (in the context of what Wikipedia requires reliable to mean) I would say not, as with the others. For instance, on the review side, reviewer Luca has reviewed all five of Carcass' [excellent] albums. He has given them all a 10 – now I like them, but I wouldn't give them all a 10! That smacks of (dare I say, for want of a better word, and "borrowing" the term from a fellow contributor) fan-boyism. Similar for Opeth, who arguably deserve praise, but there are a lot of 9s and 10s flying about. This may, I believe, be due to the law in the metal world that to give them anything less would be sacrosanct. I'm not here to criticise the site because, as I said, I use it, and enjoy it, myself (along with the others) but for different reasons. – B.hotep •talk• 13:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is important to remember that all reviews, no matter who writes them, are opinion pieces. The site is a reliable source for that reviewer's opinion. The next question is whether that opinion is notable (or perhaps I should say note worthy, so as to not get it mixed up with WP:NOTE). Based upon the discussions here, I think it is. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was any more noteworthy than the opinions of any other metal related site, such as Metal-Archives, Metal Storm, or BNR Metal (by the way, have I missed any?) – none of which could be considered a reliable source under the Wikipedia definition. Why is Metal Observer any different from these other popular sites? They may be authoritative in their own circles, but for a general encyclopedia they may be a bit too restricted in their view to be even neutral. – B.hotep •talk• 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually have some amount of respect for BNR as it is one person who has maintained a metal-dedicated site for a long time simply due to his love of the genre. That being said... the respect for online metal fanzines stops there. As much as I respect BNR I would never use it as a reference for anything. Nor would I use any of the other fanzines that Bubba mentions for the same reason. The "internal moving specialist" that owns metal-observer puts a lot of dedication into his website. But his opinions are no more noteworthy (or reliable as a supporting source on Wiki) than those of.. say... self-ordained phd musicologist Fred D. Hunter and his constant spew of run-on blogs/essays on the Wik. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:RS allows for sources that are authoritive in their own circles... "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. How reliable a source is depends on context." (the italics are in the guideline).

Based upon the number of times it has been cited in Wikipedia, it seems that Metal-Observer is generally regarded as being "trustworthy or authoritive in relation to the topic at hand"... ie heavy metal music. Because of this, I have no problem calling it reliable. My only quibble is that reviews are, by their nature, opinion pieces. I would have the same quibble with a review published in a highly reliable mainstream newspaper such as the New York Times. I think all reviews should be stated as opinion (as in: "according to review source X...") and not as fact. This is especially true when it comes to classifications and categorizations... different reviewers will often disagree as to how to classify or categorize things. And if there is disagreement among reviewers, we should note it and tell our readers what the different reviewers say.

As for the other sites you mention and why Metal-Observer is different... I have not looked at the issue of the reliability of these other sites and so have no opinion. I am not familiar with their reputations. Perhaps they are just as reliable as Metal-Observer... perhaps not. All I can say is, having looked into, and discussed the reliability of Metal-Observer, I think it is reliable under our rules. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is it that led you to the conclusion that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Are they cited by other reliable sources? Dlabtot (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

<ec rp to Blueboar> But if we were to say MO was an amateur site which just happens to be reliable/noteworthy enough, then we would be having this very same discussion about the other sites as well. Because presumably they are run by the same sort of people who purport to have the same level of knowledge in the same areas. In fact, these discussions may have already taken place. There was a time people thought it was OK to include metal-archive reviews, and even a time when BNR Metal had its own article on Wikipedia. But, quite rightly in my opinion, over time and with discussion, it was adjudged that they were neither "reliable" or noteworthy. As for the reviews again: of course they are the reviewers opinion, that kind of goes without saying and neither should it need to be said, but I still wouldn't want the reviews linked on here for the reasons I stated above with only 2 examples which took me 10 seconds to find. – B.hotep •talk• 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, I said they seem to have a reputation for being trustworthy and authoritive... which is a slightly different criteria for judging reliability (and one that is, I think, more important when it comes to opinion peices). I base my opinon on two things, a) the number of times they have been cited here on Wikipedia, and b) the number of times their reviews are copied on the official websites of the bands that they review, and on the websites of the record companies that have the bands under contract. Granted, it is unlikely that these people will post a negative review, but the fact that a positive review is worth posting tells us something about the reputation of the reviewer. If Metal-Observer were just another personal website or fanzine, its reivews would not get this much attention. It is obvious that people in the music industry care about what they say, and feel that a positive review by them is important. This goes to the website's authoritiveness. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

the number of times they have been cited here on Wikipedia is not an argument for their reliability. It's a perfect example of circular reasoning. They can be cited on WP because they are being cited on WP? that makes no sense at all. Dlabtot (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I also don't agree with the idea that the reprinting of positive reviews by the subjects of those reviews means anything. They would have to be reprinted, cited or discussed in independent third-party sources in order to establish a reputation. Dlabtot (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I will concede that the amount that MO is cited in Wikipedia is circular and the weaker of the two arguments (although I do think it shows is that a lot of the people who write our articles think it is a reliable source)... As for the second... They are independant third-party sources... these companies and bands have no connection to MO. They do not post copies of the reviews to push MO or advance it in some way (they post them because to push themselves... which shows that they think fans will be influenced by the positive things that MO has to say... in other words, they think fans will respect MOs opinion). They don't, on the other hand, post the opinion of some random blogger or any old fan site.

I think you are holding this source to a standard that is impossible to meet given the nature of the topic. Heavy metal music (as with most pop-culture topics) is not going to be discussed in an accademic journal, or even by the mainstream media (with the exception of some of the really big bands). We have to look to industry and fan sources... and pick those sources that are the most reliable within the context of the topic. MO seems to have a good reputation in the industry, and I see no reason to disallow it. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard has to be workable for websites in general, and the standard you're using won't. I know it sucks. There are many categories of articles that are difficult to find sources on becuase of our rules. It really hurts foreign subjects, but we have to have consistency in our sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the subject of a review is not 'independent', nor is their record company. Dlabtot (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC) And no one said anything about academic journals, let's skip the red herrings. Dlabtot (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So we should never cite a review that is mentioned by the subject of a review? I don't buy that at all. That would mean that we could not cite film critic Roger Ebert in the article on The last house on the left, since the web site for that movie quotes his review. No, that website discusses Ebert's review because they think he is a notable film critic... just as the band websites discuss MO because they think it is a notable music critic site. It is the same motivation, and should be judged similarly. I think we will have to agree that we disagree... you don't think my arguments in favor of Metal Observer are strong enough to call MO reliable, and I don't think your arguments against it are strong enough to call it unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No one said or implied that we should never cite a review that is mentioned by the subject of a review. What was said was that our policy requires sources to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that the only way to establish if such a reputation exists, is by references, citations and discussions of that source in other, independent sources. In the case of the Chicago Tribune, and Roger Ebert, there are plenty of independent references that establish their reputation. So, again, please stop with the ridiculous red herrings. Dlabtot (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways to gage reputation... one of them is being quoted by others (which is the case with MO). Is it a source of the highest quality? no... but I think it passes the bar. I see no cause to say it isn't reliable. Blueboar (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, being quoted by others counts - if it takes place in a reliable source. Is that the case here? Dlabtot (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the context... yes. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK.... could you point to the reliable, independent sources where this quoting takes place? Dlabtot (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

On the website for Trustkill records for just one example. Certainly independant, and reliable (at least as an SPS) in that it is a legitimate record company. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:SPS and WP:RS. They are the applicable policies here. And clearly, according to our policies, the self-promotional material on the Trustkill Records website can't be used to establish the reliability of metal-observer.com Dlabtot (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely the sort of example which reinforces the view that MO should not be used as an RS for reviews or anything else. Trustkill use an over-exuberantly positive review to promote their product. That doesn't exactly strengthen your case, Bb. – B.hotep •talk• 17:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course they used a positive review... and of course they are using it in an attempt to pump a band under their label. Would any one seriously expect them to post a negative review of one of their bands? My point is that they used MO's glowing review as opposed to some other sites glowing review. That says something about MO's reputation in the industry... a major heavy metal label thinks fans will care about the fact that MO has given a good review to this band. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus here seems to be against you. The use by an obscure record label of fan website's glowing review to promote one of that label's obscure acts is not an argument in favor of that website as a reliable source. Our policies are pretty clear in this instance. Dlabtot (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine... as I said before, we will just have to agree to disagree. No harm in that. Blueboar (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes you certainly have the right to disagree with the clear consensus, as you do in this instance. Dlabtot (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to put some boring stats on this – using Alexa page rankings comes up with the following results. Now, I know Alexa has its faults and concerns, but when comparing sites of a similar nature, it will have a fair degree of meaning. Also, this is in relation to the point that was made about MO being widely used on other websites not to make any claims as an RS (because I've already said none of these sites can make that claim).

• Traffic rankings

1. Metal-archives ranks 3,421
2. Metalstorm ranks 29,242
3. Metal-observer ranks 139,582
4. BNR Metal ranks 192,651

• But perhaps more telling is the number of sites which link to these:

1. Metal-archives 2,364 links from other sites
2. Metalstorm 760
3. Metal-observer 692
4. BNR Metal 456

If anyone was here to argue the "lots of people cite x as a source" point about MA, they may have had a valid argument (but still one which would be disproven). As it is MO, though, I have to say again: why? – B.hotep •talk• 09:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems that this link has been dubbed "among the useless" can we just go ahead and blacklist the stupid thing and move on. There are many good reliable sources for heavy metal music that editor/fans of this genre can use instead of just littering the Wik this amateur fansite. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Portland Mercury, used at David Miscavige, namely this article [14]. Please post comments at Talk:David_Miscavige#RSN. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is someone making the absurd claim that this is in some fashion not WP:RS? On what basis? Dlabtot (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I merely was asking - didn't know too much about The Portland Mercury. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know anything about it myself. I do know that our local alternative weekly seems to have much the same format. For the local paper, it's news articles are sometimes more reliable than those of our daily paper, and always at least meet RS standards. Would tend to assume the same of the Mercury, but that's done without any real direct knowledge of the paper. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I live in Portland, and am a regular reader of the Mercury and all Portland papers. The Mercury is indeed often more thorough and more accurate than other publications. It has less of an editorial structure than, say, the Tribune or the Oregonian; if there were a direct conflict with one of those papers, I might tend to give the Mercury less weight depending on the circumstances. However, the paper in general (and this article's author in particular) have done a fair amount of original reporting that has gone where no other paper has dared to go.

I am perfectly comfortable with treating the Mercury as a RS where there is no direct conflict with publications that have a more clearly-defined editorial structure. For a simple factual claim like this one, backed up with an explicit quote, I see no cause for concern whatsoever. -Pete (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable, like any other smallish newspaper in a big city. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with reporting on Hawkins' claims as reported in the Mercury. The claims are notable and the Mercury is a reliable source. Important that they be reported as an ex-member's claims regardless of the weasel word - sometimes claims are claims. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Separately but at same article David Miscavige, could use input from fresh eyes at Talk:David_Miscavige#Hawk_Radio.3F. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider the source reliable or indicative of notability. This was a community college radio show hosted by a critical ex-Scientologist (Tom Smith). I understand that the statements used in the article are those of ex-Scientologist Hawkins however I do not think the source rises to BLP standards and we should remove it and simply go with the Mercury as source. I am not an uninvolved editor. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am not uninvolved either. But given the extremely damaging and personal nature of the claims and the fact that they are unsubstantiated allegations, I would generally prefer something more notable like the New York Times before we include something like this in a BLP. Jayen466 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• I guess the question is if the unsubstantiated allegations should be in the article. I don't think there is any doubt that the people in question have made those allegations. So I don't think it's a RS issue, it's a BLP issue. Do we print unsubstantiated information like this in a BLP? I'd lean toward not doing so. I'm not involved, but I used to be somewhat involved in some of this stuff and know a bit about the players (used to be very anti-Scn, now only a bit). Hobit (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hobit, you make a very good point. There is an important editorial decision to be made, but it doesn't rest on the reliability of the sources. There's no reason to doubt that the claims were made, but it will take discerning judgment (and someone much more familiar with this guy and the context than myself) to determine whether they bear mention in the article. And because it's a BLP, it may just be that "when in doubt, leave it out" is the best starting point. -Pete (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've left a note at the related BLP/N thread for more eyes to look in. The material related to this topic in the article was originally cited to three sources: the college radio podcast (no longer online last time I looked, citation now removed from the article), the Portland Mercury article (allegation and citation still prominently present in the article), and to an interview in "Inside the Cult", a 1995 ITV television program (allegation and citation still prominently present). The last one is probably the most notable source – I guess it would have been a nationwide TV broadcast in the UK. Note that Hawkins has recently repeated some of his allegations about Miscavige here on KESQ-TV. I guess we have to look at it the same way as we would if there were an unsubstantiated allegation by a former employee that a famous industrialist had behaved in a similar way. Jayen466 10:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources questioned:

• Steve Levicoff
• Name It and Frame It?, by Levicoff
• John Bear
• Degree.net, which publishes Bear
• Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization here
• Negative hearsay when original source is probably pay-per-view

I really need extra eyeballs on this. I stumbled over Accrediting Commission International, which suffered from many issues including potential attack page; I stubbed it per attack page policy, and immediately heard from two editors who provided a bit more sourcing, from which I carefully peeled back items that did not appear reliable or compliant with sourcing. It appears to me after initial dialog that (1) the sources are still thoroughly questionable; (2) they are now used very widely on WP for stating that accreditors are "accreditation mills", a derogatory term, based on the efforts of dedicated watchers of such "mills"; (3) this has created a longtime walled garden of support for continuance in really poor sourcing.

My data:

• Accrediting Commission International was created by a 3-day single-purpose account but its potentially violative allegations remained untouched for 2 years.
• The same SPA, User:Diplomamillwatcher, created the Name It article and worked heavily on the Levicoff article.
• One of the two editors who had this watchlisted and responded immediately is also an SPA in this field (for 1.5 years).
• Both editors immediately thought I claimed Diplomamillwatcher was Levicoff when I hadn't. Huh?
• Name It is admittedly self-published by Levicoff. Degree.net appears to be self-published by Bear.
• The Levicoff, Name It, and Bear articles have questionable notability and have little to commend these self-publishers as experts in the field. There is an offhand USDE reference to Bear being an authority, but this seems hardly sufficient to meet WP:SPS.
• The Levicoff and Bear articles also suggest that they themselves both have past problems with their own educational accreditation.
• I am told with great certainty what experts these sources are, with little to show for it besides the USDE recommendation, which is apparently a conflict of interest because of course USDE would be interested in Bear if he is charging other groups with not being USDE-affiliated.
• Many policy concerns I raised (e.g., WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP, WP:SPS) seem not to register with the other editors in the conversation.
• The Oregon page says DO NOT RELY right up front, but this is still being interpreted as a reliable source for points elsewhere on the page.
• The edit histories of these various editors do not commend the view that alleged "diploma mills" have balanced, neutral coverage on WP.
• Finally, there is also a hearsay link, in that Baptist Press passes on negative charges against ACI but attributes them with the disclaimer "according to the Post", where the original Palm Beach Post article is probably pay-per-view and the other editors indicate unwillingness to take time to quote from it. Am I right in doubting that this is a sufficient source for charges of fraud, and for linking the alleged fraudster to ACI, because it's hearsay from an unverifiable source?

What do you guys think of these sources for making allegations of fraud against living persons, and for making other negative allegations upon the alleged mills? What should their own articles reflect about their expertise in this field? Is there sufficient evidence that edits in this field really need more review? Thanks.

• Disclosure: I suppose I favor separation of church and state and disfavor the feds, and those sort of issues may color my view, but I think you can tell from the edits above, and from Talk:Accrediting Commission International, that I'm doing my best to be fair in light of the numerous policy violations I believe I saw. Thank you for your time. JJB 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC) JJB 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other independent sources that cite John Bear, including a Chronicle of Higher Education article. Also, to say that the United States Department of Education suffers a conflict of interest when it performs its duty of protecting Americans from substandard educational institutions is not a reasonable argument. Any firm that is criticized by the government could try the same excuse. Finally, the evil people who create diploma mills and accreditation mills try to cloud the issue in the hope that students and the employers who hire them will mistake mills for genuine educational institutions; any efforts to water-down Wikipedia articles on these topics should be evaluated with the possibility that the editors weakening the articles might be shills for the mills. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The claim "the Oregon page says DO NOT RELY right up front, but this is still being interpreted as a reliable source for points elsewhere on the page." is a misrepresentation. The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization page in question only indicates that there may be problems with a particular US Department of Education database, not with the Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization web pages in general. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jc, but your arguments are almost identical to those of the three other editors I described, right down to suggesting the possibility of shills for the mills. I was looking for other editors who could look at this from a fresh perspective who have had no prior experience with diploma mills (like myself, incidentally). Your statement "evil people" speaks for itself. Your statement of misrepresentation of Oregon is unfounded, because Oregon does make the statement I quoted and it is unclear to me what scope it has. The fact that USDE and CHEA and Bear all like each other is only one side of the story; look, the only outside reference in Bear's article is CBS, which gives him the very faint praise "who's written books on diploma mills", hardly the third-party-recognized expertise required by WP:SPS. And if a firm is criticized by the government in another way, we don't usually create categories and lists and articles of "firms criticized by governments" as if NPOV. If it's so obvious what an unaffiliated accreditor is, that should be stated clearly. The fact is that since we are talking about groups that disagree on jurisdiction (academia-government versus unaffiliated accreditors), I see no NPOV treatment possible except by stating other objective criteria. But I'm getting offtrack; the point of this request is the reliability of the sources under the policies, such as being self-published sources making derogatory claims about living persons. Thanks! JJB 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all of John Bear's works are self-published. This page shows books by Bear that are published by Ten Speed Press. The fact that Ten Speed Press is a genuine publisher, not an entity under the control of Bear, is demonstrated by the New York Times article describing the purchase of Ten Speed Press by Random House. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is too much noise here. I fail to see what the separation of church and state has to do with this, or other Wikipedia policies. The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization and the USDE are reliable sources without question. The disclaimer on the OSDA site refers to the one data base only. Steve Levicoff seems to be an acknowledged expert on the topic. I don't know enough about Bear. And while free sources are preferable, pay-per-view is fully acceptable - most academic articles are ppv, after all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan, and sorry! Two followups: What authorities do you see as acknowledging Levicoff as an expert? And a pay-per-view article must still be cited in its own right (not as hearsay) and quoted in talk if debatable, according to WP:V, correct? JJB 20:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Name It and Frame It is self-published, so I wouldn't use it, but it's not in the current article anyway. John Bear and Degree.net is recognized by the US DOE as a reliable source. Where does WP:V say anything about quoting a pay-per-view article in talk? If you want to verify the information, pay for it. -Atmoz (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Name It and Frame It? was cited in Accrediting Commission International until less than 24 hours ago, when JJB made major changes to the article. See this earlier version of the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that discussion at WT:V fizzled out without agreement. So combining everyone's views, I am of opinion that Levicoff/Name It is subject to WP:SELFPUB, Bear and Degree.net are only subject to verifiability, and attribution in cases of multiple POVs, ODA is fine if quoted accurately, and hearsay needs double attribution if nobody has the PPV. I will still be looking for third-party independent testimonies of the expertise of Bear and Degree.net, which have not materialized. If Dlabtot or anyone wants to chime in too, great. JJB 03:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC describes Bear as "widely acknowledged to be a world authority on distance learning, Mr Bear acts as an expert witness for the FBI on trials involving so called diploma mills where degrees are sold for cash". --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that JJB claims that he needs to "still be looking for third-party independent testimonies of the expertise of Bear and Degree.net." I made the following information available yesterday to JJB. John Bear has authored or co-authored 34 books (not all are distance learning or diploma mill related). Here's a few. The Chronicle of Higher Education says, John Bear, an expert on distance-learning institutions and diploma mills who is a co-author of the Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. There's probably dozens of other wp:RS articles that reference John Bear as an expert on the subject. TallMagic (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

Can somebody please vet this website for reliability please? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a self published source. Dlabtot (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

While true, the author has a book published in the same area that isn't self-published. So might fall under the exception for "experts". But I'd be careful there. The book would certainly be a reliable source, so things from the book on the site would be fine. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the book is the source. You cite the book, but WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT - the website. But for original material from the website to be used, he'd have to have a more established and prominent reputation than simply having authored a book. Dlabtot (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure what other things might qualify him as an expert. Just the book would be very unlikely to be enough. Hobit (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A website called Assyrian RAF Levies is being used as a source for the Assyrians in the United Kingdom article. The site is fairly amateurish and I can't find details of its author(s), although it does contain lots of potentially useful information. What raised my concern was that it refers to a Battle of Sarande in 1945, when the battle by this name actually occured in 1940 and involved different parties. I'm therefore looking for advice on whether this is a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to wikipedia.

There used to be a wikipedia page for an ISKCON Guru named Sankarshan Das Adhikari. It was created by another user, edited diligently by a few editors until Feb 25 2009, when it was deleted because 2 wikipedia editors thought there wasn't enough "notability" established. This person is not an academic researcher, so there aren't publications of that nature. The things that set him apart from other religious leaders are:

1. A practising disciple of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder of ISKCON 2. Pioneered Internet preaching from the year 2000 onwards, with a daily email newsletter with 10,000 unique readers, containing a thought for the day, and questions and answers 3. He answers each email from a reader himself personally 4. Has made 6 world tours and many more North America tours, at least 2 tours per year 5. Founded at least 1 new centers, helped to establish others 6. Many blogs, facebook groups, etc., exist 7. Over 70 initiated disciples and growing

A biodata is available at:

http://www.iskconpreacher.com/bio.htm

There are newspaper clippings from various language publications, and Internet sources to show what he does.

Now, how can official wikipedia-style notability be established for such a personality, who is notable in so many respects?

Also, how can the data from the existing page, before it was deleted, be recovered for backup purposes?

Any help would be appreciated. Bindumadhava (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It mainly has to do with wp:verifiability and sufficient sources available on the subject. I did a Google search and found what appear to be a large number of sources. Is this the same guy? [15] Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Also see Wikipedia:Notability TallMagic (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of a subject on wikipedia is established by looking for non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent reliable sources, and not simply by counting google-hits or trying to judge how "worthy" the person truly is. (See WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:Bio for more details).

I would suggest that you ask the admin User:Aitias, who deleted the article Sankarshan Das Adhikari, to retrieve the deleted version and place it in a subpage in your userspace, where you can work on it by adding citations to the required sources. Once you have done so, it may be okay to transfer the article to mainspace, although I would recommend that you have it reviewed by some experienced editors before doing so. Abecedare (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Having looked through the Biodata and looked for independent sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), in my judgment, the subject does not meet wikipedias standard of notability. But you are welcome to show otherwise. Abecedare (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I had mistakenly Google searched on Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada instead. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In particular can information in the following article [16] be used in Warren National University? The discussion on Talk:Warren_National_University#WNU_was_apparently_a_bigger_joke_than_some_of_us_thought has one editor saying that the article shouldn't be used because it is a completely biased article and the person being interviewed in the article, the ex-Chief Academic Officer of WNU, is never named. I agree that it seems strange that the ex-CAO is never named but my thought is that perhaps she had a contract with WNU saying that she wouldn't be named in any articles about WNU or something. Anyway, there's some information in there that helps explain why WNU failed to get accreditation that I thought would improve the article. We appreciate any and all comments. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on issues of weight or notability, I'd say that as a clearly labeled opinion piece, it could be cited as the opinion of Dave Featherly. Dlabtot (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This piece definately does take the tone of an editorial or commentary by Dave Featherly, and not an article. It certainly does lack objectivity. I noted that nowhere in this source is the supposed official from WNU named. Furthermore, the writer does not attempt anywhere to seek opposing viewpoints. This piece cannot be considered unbiased. Piercetp (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that any comments by Dave Featherly should be marked as opinion. Although the most interesting bits of information in the article are comments by the CAO. I can't see marking that kind of information as an opinion by Dave Featherly. Any suggestions on how that information should be introduced if used in Wikipedia? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've already stated, material based on that source could only be used when attributed as the opinion of Dave Featherly. Since that is how it is presented in the original source. Dlabtot (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While some of that article is "opinion," much of it is not "opinion". Much of the content would be more accurately described as "statements attributed to the former Chief Academic Officer of WNU, reported by Dave Featherly of the Cheyenne Herald." --Orlady (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. So for example (may or may not go in the article, I just wanted to find a quick example. Here's the exact quote.

<qoute>By April, this imminently qualified and experienced academician had raised a “lot of questions” about the preparation for accreditation. Paul and a board member from California visited her and “essentially told me to shape up and get in line and do what the party line is saying or I would not be an employee.”</quote>

Here's a potential addition to the WNU article.

In a Cheyenne Herald editorial interview with the Chief Academic Officer of WNU, in April the CAO was told by the owner to reel in some of her attempted preparations for accreditation or she would not be an employee any longer.

comment? TallMagic (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here at WP:RSN, we don't adjudicate editorial disputes; we discuss sourcing. However I will state, again, that sources that are originally explicitly presented as opinion can not be used to support contentious material as if it were undisputed fact. Dlabtot (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, having read nothing about it but this request, and following Orlady, I would say something like: Dave Featherly of the Cheyenne Herald reported that the academician stated she was essentially told by board members either to obey the party line about accreditation preparation or not to be an employee. By contrast, the Tall version adds the concept "reel in", omits the second board member, and still presents the hearsay as fact (and this is thirdhand hearsay, not secondhand, which is an argument for omitting it entirely). But this comment is to spare me the time of posting it to article talk instead, and I may be hampered in making this suggestion by my still working out details with Tall elsewhere. JJB 06:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I came across mondaq.com being used in a BLP article. On first glance, it appears to be a legitmate legal/accounting site but a look at the about section revealed a price list (for publication) and the following:

• On pricing Mondaq breaks the mold of traditional 'pay to publish' marketing opportunities that are expensive, demographically dubious, and provide no conversion evidence at the end of the year when it comes to making renewal decisions.

While the testimonials section has comments such as:

• "Mondaq is a great opportunity for us to put the articles on the site and I have had excellent feedback from the team here about it. I'm also very encouraged to see how many hits our articles receive and the number of people who want to sign up to our mailing lists."

• "We are most pleased with the quality of inquiries being generated through Mondaq Business Briefing, and that I am now satisfied that subscribing to your service has been a most worthwhile investment."

Surely for our purposes, a site where editoral control consists of "please make the cheque out to.." is worthless? The site is being used in a *lot* of articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This may be okay. It seems to only take articles submitted by members of law, accounting, or business consulting firms. It does have a section specifically for press releases, that may be what those testimonials you saw refer to. Anyway this is very likely a good source on its subject area, such as obscure areas of tax law. It may not count however as a secondary source so it may not establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you read the FAQ it will take content from *anyone*, the only criteria are a) length (but you can pay extra for more space), b) that it's *on* law, account or business consulting not that you are an expert in those subjects and c) the cheque is in the post. I'm sure that some of those papers are very good but without *any* editoral oversight, who can tell. The testimonals I saw are directly related to the articles nothing to do with press releases. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that Mondaq is only the channel, and that editorial oversight rests with the law firms sending in their articles ( or expert SPS'ness for those in private practice ). We should take it on a case-by-case basis, just like we would any other corporate whitepaper. It certainly isn't used in a "lot" of articles; linksearch showed ~35, including talk pages. But I think the issue that brought you here is whether Mondaq can be cited for "Mr. Smith wrote 57 articles for Mondaq" in a biography of Mr. Smith. That should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But that's completely misleading, an accurate summary would be "Mr Smith paid to have 57 articles hosted on Mondaq". --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Mr. Smith wrote 57 articles [which appear] on Mondaq", if we're perceiving "for Mondaq" as implying a traditional author/publisher relationship. I don't think we have to attach such undue weight to who pays who. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, mondaq.com is well outside the boundaries of what we consider a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you're using it for. There's nothing wrong with using a press release for uncontentious information. And there's nothing wrong with using Mondaq as a source that something is written on Mondaq. How I think we arrived here is that someone may have tried to use the "Mr. Smith wrote 57 articles on Mondaq" in an AFD for notability of Mr. Smith. Which is not valid; Mondaq may be a fine primary source, but it is not an independent secondary source. However, there's no reason to overreact and delete cites to Mondaq when it's only being used as a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree. Uncontentious material that is unlikely to be challenged doesn't even really need a source. At the point that it is challenged and needs a source for verification, that source needs to fit the criteria of our reliable sources guideline. Since mondaq.com does not in any respect meet any of those criteria, there is no conceivable situation in which it could be used as a valid source on Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

All material should have a source, though not all of it gets challenged. Anyway I did a Google Books search to learn a little more about Mondaq, and it's pretty well-respected. The essential guide to the best (and worst) legal sites on the Web gives it five stars. Courting Your Clients speaks well of it too. And below them a number of law books cite Mondaq articles. I know it's an unusual combination of corporate whitepaper and press release, and not a secondary source, but it sounds like a fine source for subjects such as legal strategies or tax issues. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that this website does not exercise editorial control over it's content, making it nothing more than a venue for self-publishing. Our verifiability policy is pretty clear about this; your viewpoint that the policy should not be followed in regards to this source is noted. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting an WP:IAR for material submitted through Mondaq. But I have to disagree with your reading of policy. Mondaq itself is citable to say that an article was published on Mondaq. Almost any source is citable for information about itself, and this is true on WP:V, WR:RS, and WP:PSTS. The articles themselves, if we choose to use those, must be decided on a case-by-case basis, because it is the law firm that sent in the article who is the publisher. What I'm arguing against is that the OP seemed to find something unseemly in the fact that the articles are paid to be printed, and that it shouldn't be linked to at all for that reason. I say that while the articles have some trappings of a press release, they can often be used as either a primary source or a self-published source by an expert, and there is no reason to blacklist the site. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Squidfryerchef. This isn't notability-proving information, or reliable on the content of the articles, but Mondaq for the fact that they were published by Mondaq is fine. How much mention in an article should be given to the existence of publications is a weight issue, and not appropriate here. As an aside, the article from which this issue arises is Sally Ramage, which will probably be deleted. But she is just now publishing a book through Oxford University Press, and WorldCat identifies it as a second edition of a book she published through iUniverse - so such stuff is not invariably garbage.John Z (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Are memoirs published by major, reputable U.S. publishing houses reliable sources? Are they only reliable if they cite sources? I wonder because I wasn't sure whether a memoir is considered fact or opinion. Maybe they are blends of both, but lean more toward opinion if they lack citations to sources? BB22030 (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2009

Depends on the memoir, the author, and what you are using it for.

A memoir may be used to source non-controversial facts, especially regarding the author's own life; but in general it should be regarding as opinion, or more accurately, the authors recollection and retelling of such events, which may be incomplete, flawed, or even deliberately embellished. I think it would be possible to provide more specific guidance, if we know what memoir you are talking about, since then we can take into account reputation of the author and publisher, reviews of the book etc. Abecedare (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Abecedare. The memoir that I refer to is "A Reporter's Life," by Walter Cronkite, published by Alfred A. Knopf in 1996. Page 223 of the memoir is quoted in the Clay T. Whitehead article. The statements cited in the Whitehead article are not about the author, Walter Cronkite, and his own life, but about Clay T. Whitehead. I checked the book out of the library to see if Mr. Cronkite referenced a newspaper article or speech for the quoted statement, but the book doesn't have footnotes or any references.

In case it is useful to you, here is the sentence in the Clay T. Whitehead article that cites to the Cronkite memoir: "With the Nixon Administration's hostility toward network TV news broadcasts growing, Whitehead suggested to affiliate stations, notoriously more conservative than national newsrooms, that they did not need to carry network news reports, and instead could rely on wire dispatches, in an attempt to reduce the influence of more liberal, critical newscasters like Walter Cronkite on the American public."

Do you think this factual sentence that cites to the Cronkite memoir is reliable if it is about someone other than Mr. Cronkite (that he seemed to dislike) and that isn't supported with independent sources?

Thanks again for your help.

It is often necessary to use memoirs. Memoirs may be reliable if the author and publisher are reputable. If, for example, a memoir describes a conversation in which the author participated, and the other participants are dead, the memoir is likely to be the only source available. However, given that Cronkite was the target of Whitehead's alleged tactic, and given that the managers of all the affiliate stations would be privy to the alleged suggestion, one would expect other, more impartial, sources would be available. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Given Walter Cronkite's reputation as a journalist/anchor, I think it is safe to use his autobiography as a source. However, since Cronkite's relation with the Nixon administration was adversarial to some extent, it would be good to attribute the statement to Cronkite, i.e., phrase the extract something like, "Cronkite wrote in his autobiography that with the Nixon ..." (may need to be split into a couple of sentences and copyedited). That way, we are making clear that these are Cronkite's characterizations of the events - which, given his notability and personal involvement in the media during those years, are of interest to the reader. Of course, if other sources are found affirming (or contradicting) Cronkite, they can be added too. Abecedare (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Good morning. Reviewing this report I've found that chicasperuanas.com is included into the articles as a reference (see here). I wonder if this sort of site is appropiate as a reference cause IMHO is nearly a porn site with no or little information. Thanks for your attetion and best regards. --Dferg ^{(w:en: - w:es:)} 16:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not suitable as a reference, or an an external link. Has already been removed from the article in question. [17]. -Atmoz (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and for the removal. I'll request the blacklisting of the link. Best regards. --Dferg ^{(w:en: - w:es:)} 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently there is a debate going on in the Talk:Shibdas Ghosh whether a magazine is a reliable source to say one Shibdas Ghosh is a "Marxist Ideologist". I have almost lost interest talking to this user. Someone please look at this.220.227.207.32 (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2009

(UTC)

I've responded. Even if this magazine was an academic magazine, which it is not, a scientist (engineer I think) is not likely to be a reliable source on whether someone is a Marxist theorist. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

An article that I have been writing, No. 410 Squadron RCAF, is up for an A-Class review and three of the sources have been called into question, so I would like to know if they are a WP:RS. They are as follows:

• Page 1
  • specific page
• Page 2
  • specific page
• Page 3
  • specific page

TARTARUS ^talk 20:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The first one is borderline. He's a published author, but only on related subjects, not the specific subject. I couldn't find anything on the second two to indicate they meet RS. No author is listed for the second (I think), and the third seems to just be some (knowledgable) guy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Pit Pietersen is an architect, not a historian.
• Is the book reliable? German Wikipedia quotes it only once. Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do other reliable sources or academic reviews say that it is unreliable? If so, please list them here. Knepflerle (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you put lies here, it's you turn to prove you are right, not mine. It's a biased text written by an amateur historian.Xx236 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that's anything but just your opinion? That's not how WP:V works. If you support your assertion with reliable sources, then we will certainly consider what to do. Anything will do to start - a review which criticises the author's methods or sources, or academic papers whose conclusions contradict those of this author. But give us something to work with other than your opinion. Knepflerle (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. Please give details of the book in question, of its publisher, and of its author, and cite sources which claim its a biased text written by an amateur historian.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Piet Pietersen is an architect, not a historian. This information is available in his, quoted here, book. Piotrus, be so kind and read the book, if you want to discuss about it. Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The title of the book is " Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte - Terroristische Bombenangriffe auf Deutschland und Europa 1939-1945." which means "War crimes of the allied winning powers - Terror bombings in Germany and Europe 1939-1945" so the title says

1. The book is about bombings (but it isn't quoted in bombings related articles of this Wikipedia). German Wikipedia quotes the book once, in Bucarest article.
2. The books isn't about expulsion, especially not about the ones after 1945.

The problem with this book is that no academic historian has written about it, at least Google doesn't show any such opinion. Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Neither the author nor the book have any reputation, especially "for fact-checking and accuracy". Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The book is published by Books on Demand Gmbh, a German print-on-demand publisher. As far as I can tell, they don't do any editorial review at all, in other words, this is essentially self-published. Not a RS, I would say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And there are genuine books on the topic - why use a self-published one? Collect (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Stephen - that's the sort of qualified criticism of the source I was asking for above. Looking at WP:SPS, as the author doesn't seems to be one "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", we should look at the statements supported by it and either call for a better source with a tag, or remove them as unsourced. Knepflerle (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

History of German settlement in Eastern Europe quotes the book extensively. I prefer not to edit this article, because User:Skäpperöd has attacked me and an another Polish editor.Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source to say the least. Read fragments of it posted on the personal webpage :Lot's of anti-Allied tone and I also got the impression that it sometimes tries subtle attempts to compare situation of Germans to Holocaust. As it is self-published, not a scholar and no support in any other publications of valuable as source, it should be removed as it is certainly not a RS.--Molobo (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

an editor is disputing the RS status of a book book cite on Talk:1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot the book is already used as reliable source on two other wikipedia pages. this is the book..Brecher, Max (1993), A Passage to America, Bombay: Book Quest Publishers .ISBN ASIN B0000CP5CF. Can I use it as a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

Per WP:BURDEN, I have asked the individual adding this material multiple times to substantiate his claim that this source meets WP:RS. I have asked specifically multiple times for information about the book's publisher, and also if it has been reviewed in any book review publications. These questions have not been answered. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the Worldcat entry.[18] Apparently it does not have an ISBN number. WP:V says that the reliability of books can be judged by the reputations of the author and the publishing house. Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What do we know about Book Quest Publishers or Max Brecher? Have they published other books?   Will Beback  talk  19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be somewhat wary about using this book; worldcat shows that it is carried only by 30 libraries, which makes it quite obscure. Also,this website has a synopsis:

"A Passage to America is the first book to systematically explore the complex sequence of events which led to Osho’s apparent demise. Based entirely on historical records and hundreds of interviews conducted in the US, Europe and India it is a piece of hard-hitting journalism. It proves the previously unbelievable: That there was a multileveled US government conspiracy against Osho."

which suggest a fringe, conspiratorial POV. I think we need some positive evidence of reliability before using it as a source for facts. Abecedare (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Will Beback (talk · contribs) and with this cogent point Abecedare (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The book has an introduction by Khushwant Singh, a prominent Indian journalist, which perhaps speaks for it. The publisher is Indian and does not seem to be a very large one, at least judging by what you can see online, but appears to have published some reputable titles on Indian matters: [19][20] The Brecher book was reviewed in the Indian Review of Books: [21] (don't know what they said about it, might be interesting). It has a few academic citations: [22][23][24] Not top drawer by a long shot, but perhaps not complete rubbish either. Jayen466 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The paper, Dharm P. S. Bhawuk, Culture's influence on creativity: the case of Indian spirituality, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Volume 27, Issue 1, February 2003, Pages 1-22, cites the book for some basic biographical information about Rajneesh and Tom Robbins quote on him (originally published in Seattle Post Intelligencer). What is the source being used for in the article under discussion ? Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

from google boooks...http://books.google.com/books?id=-Zn4k2WvKZUC&pg=PA17&dq=isbn:8120815998#PPA17,M1 (Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

I am not sure what you are pointing to, Off2riorob. Can you explain ? Abecedare (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He is pointing to yet another fringe, conspiratorial POV book which is basically just a compilation of essays, it contains quite a bit of poorly written material and a large chunk of the book is written by followers of the topic they are discussing. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare (talk · contribs) that the book's writing style suggests a fringe, conspiratorial POV. Cirt (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A small clarification: I am not referring to the book's writing style; just a synopsis I found online, which is the only indicator of the book content I have seen till now. That makes me wary of its reliabality as a source of facts; but I can be convinced otherwise, if other indicators of reliability are found. Abecedare (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the website you cited for this synopsis is a POV site promoting Osho [25]. The fact that this site pushes out the book claiming some sort of "multileveled US government conspiracy" does not speak well for it. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Most of the other websites I found the book listed on, were similar. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare (talk I posted the new link that I was refering too.. quoting an alternative source for the quote..here...http://books.google.com/books?id=-Zn4k2WvKZUC&pg=PA17&dq=isbn:8120815998#PPA17,M1 have a look yourself.page 17(Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

The article you linked to is clearly unacceptable as a reliable source for anything except Rajneesh's disciples view of him. This should be clear from the author, Cherles Newman's (Swami Devageet) of the article (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: A New man for all seasons") writing style and content. For example:

It is my opinion that Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is a master of the same status as Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu or Pythagoras. His vision is to raise the consciousness of mankinf beyond the barbaric, biological endgame in which civilisation finds itself today, into the next stage of human evolution; from Homo sapiens to Homo nuvos ... the New Man.

He is the living embodiment of his vision; seeing him, being in his presence, one experiences some of the vast possibilities available to those who can bring their consciousness to the same peak. ...

Surely, not a disinterested, neutral source! Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, strongly agree here with Abecedare (talk · contribs) - and I have explained this in a bit more detail on the article's talk page: Talk:1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#reliable_source.. Cirt (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

this ....Bhagwan himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy........was an early edit in this thread..does anyone disagree with it? and if you do then why? [[26]] Bhagwan himself was never charged with any involvment in the conspiracy. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Can we please stay focused on the purpose of this board which is to discuss whether or not a particular source is reliable? Cirt (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) It is not for us to affirm or dispute this. Lets just look at what reliable sources say, and include that in the article. Broader question: I just looked at the article talkpage, and it appears the point of contention seems to be what Charles Turner said at a press conference after an event (1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, I assume). Since the comments were made at a press conference, aren't there contemporaneous media accounts about what was or wasn't said ? Why are we having to look at POV sources for this information ? Has anyone searched Lexis-Nexis ?Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

that is indeed the point in question Abecedare (talk)and I will be looking to verify comments made at that press conference...that is it..(Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

this RS[27]is the book that I found to support the original book that is disputed here .(Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Please see comment by Abecedare (talk · contribs) [28] about that source. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

comment does'nt refer to the quote that I am looking at...the quote I am looking to verify is that charles turner said at a press interview ..and I quote..Turner said at a press conferance after the event that “I did not have any proof whatsoever linking Rajneesh to Sheela´s crimes" (Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes, the comment by Abecedare (talk · contribs) refers to the book you cited. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

well I'll have a look again tomorrow.. the simple truth is that Osho was not charged with involment with this crime of conspiracy to murder...so that is all I am looking to insert..it is actually simple..Osho was not charged with involvment with the crime of conspiracy to murder this guy..so I will keep at it until this reality is inserted . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't quite see the problem. The article does not (unless I've missed something) imply that Rajneesh ordered the plot; it actually mentions that he held a press conference asking authorities to investigate his former lieutenants, providing details of undetected crimes they had committed a year prior. Why should there be a need for a statement that he was not charged?
• The only problem I see in the article is in the lede. The sentence "The assassination plot was uncovered as a result of an investigation by federal law enforcement into the bioterror attack in The Dalles, and Turner was never harmed." implies that the attempt was not carried out because authorities discovered the plot and foiled it. This is not so. The conspirators had fled the country before the investigations that led to the discovery of the plot began.
• If a source were needed to state that Rajneesh was not charged in relation to this crime, here is one, which is already used in 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Jayen466 11:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Are letters to the editor considered WP:reliable? In the Gilad Atzmon article, this [29] is used as a source, and quoted (debating the question of rationality of anti-semitism. I claimed that since Israel presents itself as the 'state of the Jewish people', and bearing in mind the atrocities committed by the Jewish state against the Palestinians, any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right.") in the article. I thought the source was not reliable, and deleted it, but then reverted myself. Any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually letters are only deenmed to be RS if the author has an established independently published reputation in the relevant field. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It also occurred to me that, since letters to the editor are usually subject to extreme editing without the author's approval, that might also diminish reliability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The author in this case has an established independent reputation, and can certainly be considered as a reliable source for his own opinions, which was how the text was used in the article. I have occasionally had letters published in The Guardian, so I can point out that it is their practice to phone the writer and confirm identity before publishing any letters. RolandR (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, they are. This looks like "Newspaper N writes an article about Mr. M. Mr. M questions his portrayal in the article, and submits a rebuttal to newspaper N." It's almost a BLP problem not to include a sentence on the rebuttal. If the letter to the editor was written by a third party, that's a different story. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for the author's opinion, which is all that it is cited for (actually, quoted) here. I don't see an RS problem in this particular instance. THF (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody let me know if [30] could be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Thanks--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nationmaster is Wikipedia's mirror. brandспойт 12:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Roblox doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so how is that possible?--gordonrox24 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Roblox had an article on Wikipedia, which was deleted. (You are aware of this, since you initiated the deletion review of the article earlier this week.) Horologium (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The roblox Wikipedia article I brought to Deletion review is a new page I have been working on. The original roblox page was spam. No substance. Nothing.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that nothing on Nationmaster is a reliable source for any Wikipedia article, except if there's a Nationmaster article and we source that for claims the company makes about itself. DreamGuy (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We hope to nominate Planescape: Torment at WP:FAC pretty soon, and there are concerns over the reliability of two sources: ActionTrip and RPGWatch. Some discussion over their reliability can be found at the peer review page, but some additional input would be much appreciated. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably for rpgwatch, they do have editors, and the writer of the article referenced interviewd personel who worked on the game. Can't tell with actiontrip, since there's no about page or similar that I can find, so no. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue at hand is http://www.gpradio.com.br/images/1/area/dados/institucional/documentos/t20_s_03-01-2009.pdf, a PDF document which apparently documents a study done by Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Group dos Professionales do Radio. For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate to everything: Crowley is a reputable survey firm, GPR is a reliable professional group with regard to Brazilian radio broadcasts, all of that.

Discussion at WT:Record charts#Brazilian charts has pretty much come to the conclusion that it is hard to treat it as an acceptable record chart. One editor, JuStar, has refused to acknowledge that consensus, and won't permit it to be removed.

So, my question at WP:RS: this document is a private document. It was found through one of those Google accidents ... an apparently private document, with no publicly viewable links that somehow wound up exposed to Google's search engine, and is now returned though Google searches. It's labeled Exclusivo para Group dos Professionales do Radio, which means "Exclusively for ... ". Can such documents be used for sources?—Kww(talk) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say No. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it is reliable, but it's use will have to be determined by consensus. Just because a source is an RS doesn't mean we have to use it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The document is published by Group dos Professionales do Radio; it is not a 'private' document, it is a public document by virtue of the fact that they are making it publicly available on their website, which is why we are able to view it. It seems to be a reliable source for citing the results of the survey conducted by Crowley Broadcast Analysis and commissioned by Group dos Professionales do Radio. Dlabtot (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you find the link for it on their website? I was unable to find one. That's why I believe it to be a Google accident. I agree, if it's published, it's at least reliable, and the only question is whether it can be treated as a "chart" or not, which isn't a question for here.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you find the link for it on their website? I didn't look for a link on their website because the question of whether there is, was, or will be a link to it on their website is irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective: if someone has a private area on their server, intended for customers, and, through misconfiguration, the Google spider found it (which is what I sincerely think happened in this case), you don't think the intended privacy has any impact? No copyright or verifiability implications?—Kww(talk) 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Isnt the basic premise of RS to help define WP:V - identify sources that material in articles came from so that readers and other editors can verify the existence and content? In this instance this appears to be something that we would need to consider more like a primary source to be used only with extreme caution, not a published source as it was not intended for any type of mass distribution. ("Exclusivo para") We have no sense that once they find out it is publically accessable that they are not going to pull it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of 'misconfiguration', nor do I find any of your other assumptions to be inescapable conclusions rather than conjecture. It is an undeniable fact that Group dos Professionales do Radio has made this document available to the public on their website; the assertion that this document is in some way 'private' appears to me to be without any rational basis. Dlabtot (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The complete lack of links to a PDF as demonstrated by a link search is clearly a "rational" basis. You may not draw the same conclusions as I do from it, but my conclusion isn't irrational. How is the public to find a document with no links?—Kww(talk) 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, that is irrelevant. If you wish to change our verifiability policy to include the idea that sources must be considered 'private' based on this type of google search, the correct place to comment would be at WT:V. Dlabtot (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V: "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" (emph added)- an internal report designed and intended only for internal distribution is not "published". -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is undeniable that this document has been published. That is why we are able to discuss it. On the other hand, the assertion that it is intended only for internal distribution seems to be based on conjecture. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is available on the web does not mean that it has been "published" in the way the term is meant in WP:V. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying that? Dlabtot (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

dictionary.com "to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public. 2. to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner. 3. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate. 4. to make publicly or generally known. 5. Law. to communicate (a defamatory statement) to some person or persons other than the person defamed. –verb (used without object) 6. to issue newspapers, books, computer software, etc.; engage in publishing: The new house will start to publish next month. 7. to have one's work published: She has decided to publish with another house. " Publishing has the intent of being public. There is no indication that this report was intended for public consumption, in fact, it it clearly NOT for public audiences. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

When they placed this document in the publicly accessible part of their website, where we accessed it, as members of the public, in what way was that action not making it available for public consumption? Dlabtot (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, if their intent was not to make it public, why would they put it on their website? Dlabtot (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a mistake or a piece of corporate sabotage. Clearly if you intend to make something public, you dont use a version stamped "for internal use only". and if you wish people to get to a page you put links directing them there. Someone could contact them and see if they know the page is available to the public and if it stays, well then we know, and if it goes, then we know that too.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say "for internal use only". And your certainty that it must be " a mistake or a piece of corporate sabotage", while no doubt well-intentioned, doesn't seem to have any basis. Dlabtot (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How on earth is it only conjecture when there's wording written right on it saying it's not (apologies - had written this differently and changed it but missed this word) only for the company? That's what that phrase means. If it were intended for the public it would either say so or that would have been removed. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What the document says is that it was produced by Crowley Broadcast Analysis exclusively for Group dos Professionales do Radio. In other words, GPR was the only client for this survey. The document does not say that it is private and not intended for publication, or any words to that effect. Group dos Professionales do Radio published this document on their website. Some have conjectured that they didn't mean to do so, based on the result of a Google search. I don't find anything in our policies that dictates that sources should be considered 'private' if certain google searches related to those sources return no results. Dlabtot (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

On part of this, I will concur with Dlabtot. This appears to have been done as a work-for-hire by Crowley for GPR. In the absence of some special contract between Crowley and GPR, GPR would have the right to release it. I still question whether they did or not, but if they did, that inscription wouldn't even make me blink.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This non-RS seems to indicate "link:" is a sampling. Google's spider cannot find something that does not have a link to it. All it does is follow links. Whether it improperly processed a nofollow or nocache or bots.txt, I don't think we can tell. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But the real issue here is the premise that because a Wikipedia editor can't find a link to a document on the website that hosts that document, that document is somehow 'private'. A simple hypothetical example will illustrate the fallacy in this premise.

One could publish a document on one's website, and then take out radio, tv and print advertisements broadcasting the url of the document. Although google won't find that link, it clearly is a document meant for the public.

Or, the link to the document could have been included on an earlier version of the website, or could be planned for a future version, or simply been omitted through an error. Dlabtot (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is an isolated week tends to support the accident theory. The motivation for publicly releasing the ratings for one week without releasing any other week is hard to fathom. Crowley does publish charts, one for Rio De Janeiro and one for Sao Paulo, and publishes those weekly on the web. This one week, one difficult to find PDF contains a broader chart, with no documentation or pointers.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... most of the discussion so far has been focused on the publisher of the document ... my initial "No" reaction, on the other hand, was focused on the author of the document. How do we verify that this document actually was authored by "Crowley Broadcast Analysis" for GPR and not created by someone at GPR? We do not need to assume nefarious motives in asking this. It could be an internal report based upon CBA analysis... or even a "mock up", created by GPR for distribution to Crowley, to indicate the categories they would like Crowley to analyze and the format they would like Crowley's final report to take.

Or, let's assume that it is authored by someone at Crowley, how do we verify that it is their final report and not a draft?

All we know is that it is a document that is found on GPR's website... we do not know its history or provinance. We have no way to know who authored it, or if it was approved by either company. I simply can not agree that it is a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Strictly true, but as skeptical as I am of the usability of this doc, I'm willing to concede that. Crowley Broadcasting Analysis does do radio broadcast analysis, GPR is a professional group of Brazilian broadcasters. Hard to prove it's not a forgery, but I'm willing to bet it's not.—Kww (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that it probably isn't a forgery (ie a deliberate fake)... but it could well be a draft, or a GPR employee's analisys a Crowley report ... or who knows what? About the only way one could use it would be for a statement to the effect that "According to an anonomously authored document found linked at GPR's website that looks like it might have come from Crowley...". That just isn't good enough for me. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing weird about the source is the google link search. It's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit strong. I'm taking away from this discussion that the sourcing problem isn't strange enough to get a consensus that the source is unreliable, but to say that there is only one weird thing about it isn't true. Having only one week of a weekly chart published with the remaining hundreds of weeks being nowhere to be found is also pretty weird.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if any of these websites were reliable: Teen Reads.com [31], Active Anime [32] and Graphic Novel Reporter.com [33]. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In support of what text in which Wikipedia article(s)? Dlabtot (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As reviews in the reception section of manga articles. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please be specific? Dlabtot (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I was looking for reviews (of the manga series Earl Cain) on Google for the article Earl Cain. I was wondering if websites I found the reviews on were reliable and so the reviews could be used as a result of the websites being reliable and not just some random person's blog? Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, [34][35] two of the sources are the same company. They do seem to have an editorial staff, so I would say they're reliable for non-controversial information, aka their opinion. ActiveAnime doesn't provide enough info to judge them, so no. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In the page Shusha pogrom some Andrei Zubov is used as a reference to support the claims of the massacre, etc. The whole article has serious neutrality issues, and most sources used are completely unreliable, such as law schools, obscure politologists, etc. However Zubov is claimed to be a historian, but the analysis of the source shows that he is absolutely clueless about what happened in the Caucasus at the time. This is the original Russian text:

Британская администрация почему-то передала населенные армянами уезды Елизаветпольской губернии под юрисдикцию Азербайджана. Британский администратор Карабаха полковник Шательворт не препятствовал притеснениям армян, чинимым татарской администрацией губернатора Салтанова. Межнациональные трения завершились страшной резней, в которой погибла большая часть армян города Шуши. Бакинский парламент отказался даже осудить свершителей Шушинской резни, и в Карабахе вспыхнула война. Англичане пытались разъединить армянские и азербайджанские войска. Когда же они ушли из региона, азербайджанская армия была в начале ноября 1919 года полностью разгромлена армянами. Только вмешательство англичан смогло предотвратить поход армянских войск на Елизаветполь и Шемаху. [36]

Translation:

For some reason the British administration placed the Armenian populated uyezds of Elizavetpol gubernia under the Azerbaijani jurisdiction. The British administrator of Karabakh colonel Shuttleworth did not prevent the discrimination of Armenians by the Tatar administration of governor Sultanov. Interethnic tensions resulted in a horrible massacre, in which most Armenians in the town of Shusha perished. Baku parliament refused even to condemn the perpetrators of the Shusha massacre, and the war started in Karabakh. English tried to interfere between the Armenian and Azerbaijani troops, but when they left the region, the Azerbaijani army was completely defeated by the Armenians in early November 1919. Only the interference of the English prevented the march of the Armenian troops to Elizavetpol and Shemakha.

As one could see, this guy has no idea about what actually happened in the region, and when exactly. According to all sources, even those quoted in the article the fighting in Shusha took place in March 1920, when Azerbaijanis celebrated Novruz (precisely, on 22 - 26 March 1920). Zubov says that the fighting between Armenians and Azerbaijanis started after the "massacre" in Shusha, and as result of that the Azerbaijanis were defeated in November 1919, i.e. according to him the "massacre" in Shusha was in 1919, not in 1920. Moreover, he says that the British interfered to prevent the Armenian offensive towards Ganja, while in fact the British left Azerbaijan in August 1919. See for instance these sources:

While the Italians (wisely) never got involved in the Caucasus, the continuing pressure of demobilisation and calls for British troops in other places, forced withdrawals from the region. At the end of August, Baku and the Caspian naval personnel were evacuated. By about mid-October 1919 the only troops remaining in the Caucasus were three infantry battalions at Batum.

Keith Jeffery. Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson: a political soldier. Oxford University Press, 2006

ISBN 0198203586, 9780198203582, p 247

However, the British withdrew from Baku and Azerbaijan in August 1919, and the Soviets took over the Azerbaijan Republic in April 1920.

Andy Stern. Who won the oil wars? Collins & Brown, 2005 ISBN 1843402912, 9781843402916

Zubov has no idea what he is talking about. He does not know the basic facts, such as the date of the events in Shusha, the date when the British army left the region, etc. In my opinion, Zubov cannot be considered a reliable source on the topic of events in Shusha in 1920. Grandmaster 11:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from his notability, I felt that Zubov could be unreliable some time ago. Although he is credited as Doctor of Historical Sciences, Google returns virtually no evidences of his reliability. 'Zubov shusha' query for example (as there are thousands Andrei Zubovs and probably several tens of scholars named Andrei Zubov) points only to WP. In the above request he shows a widespread, though not ubiquitous bias in the AA matter, which distorts the objectivity. brandспойт 12:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Zubov is a reliable Russian historian, Professor and his article is fully academical. Grandmaster just misinterpretes what Zubov write about 1920. Grandmaster tries to understand Zubov specifically while Zubov says something correct and obvious. Grandmaster sees what he want to see, and he seems to be the first criticist of Professor. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The text is there for everyone to see. Zubov places the events at the wrong time, claims that British were involved in the events, while they left the region by November 1919, etc. Zubov does not know the history of this particular region, he does not know even the basic facts, such as when the fighting in Shusha took place, when the British left the region, etc. The source is absolutely unreliable for the purposes of the article about the events in Shusha. It clearly contradicts all other sources. Grandmaster 16:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Its you who dont understand the text by Zubov and all other scholars like Guaita that write the same. You're not a reliable source. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I will deal with Guaita later. He is no better than Zubov. As for Zubov, let's see how other people understand his text. It is clear that he says that the events in Shusha took place in 1919, and that the British army interfered after November 1919.--Grandmaster 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He never says that. These are your own words. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone can check Zubov's words to see what he says. I quoted him in full.--Grandmaster 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Men's News Daily sufficiently reliable, for either facts or opinions, to be used in articles like Separatist feminism, Lev Navrozov, David Holcberg, Antifeminism, Andrea Dworkin, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any indication that Men's News Daily has established a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It doesn't appear to be cited by other RS. In fact, I wonder if they are really notable enough to have their own article, since it itself is unreferenced. So, imho, no. Dlabtot (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything about their editorial policies either (which is weird, much smaller sites have significantly more information about who owns them and who the editors are and stuff) So I'd avoid this site also. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not for BLPs, and probably not for wide social movements. It seems to be mostly opinion pieces. It is verifiable but no information on editorial policies. A few cites in Google Books and Google Scholar; be sure to include the apostophe in your search. May be usable in reaction pieces to news stories (i.e. if they flag a perceived misuse of statistics in a gender study), but with very light weight i.e. boiling down the whole cite to one or two words. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There's some major problems rearing up on X-American articles. The population boxes are adding dubious representatives, some WP:BLP, of that ethnic group. Dutch Americans places Franklin Roosevelt and Martin van Buren, as, apparently, pristine representatives of Dutch Americans, though neither have been proven to have any more than a great-grandparent of that ancestry (in fact, for Van Buren, it's "great-great-great-great-grandfather Cornelis") - and neither have sources providing them as "Dutch Americans" merely of "some Dutch background." I think intervention will eventually be needed as many editors are incredibly hot-headed about their ethnicities' "known names." Bulldog123 16:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

X-Yian articles in general seem to attract a lot of trouble. I'm assuming editors already have good sources for these, and we're dealing with an issue of appropriate weight. It doesn't seem so off-base to include former presidents with Dutch surnames in a list of Dutch-Americans. There is of course the question of whether to weight the paternal line of descent more heavily on these lists, and the question of whether less common ancestries should be more heavily weighted. For instance, the list of Scottish-Americans could get ridiculously long unless it was limited to those with the strongest ties there, while editors might dig a little deeper to populate the list of Greenlandic-Americans. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Principality of Paganija & De Administrator Imperio

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring (the English Version) of Wikipedia’s Editors attention to some of the historical information on its web site. It concerns the former coastal Principality of Paganija in today's modern Croatia. As I am not a qualified history scholar I shall present my facts as clearly as possible.

Historical facts are being presented here which appear to be formulated using unscientific methods. One can only interpret this as to be politically motivated. The article states that the peoples of the former Medieval State of Paganija are of Serbian descent by using the "De Administrator Imperio" written by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire), as it's only reference point. This statement contradicts the ethnic demographics of that region that as it exists today. The writers have not bothered to explain why this is the case! From a scholarly perspective the "De Administrator Imperio" cannot be used as source of factual information as it also has contradictions within its own paragraphs.This makes De Administrator Imperio a questionable source of historic information about this region.

There are two chapters telling two different versions of the arrival of Croatians to the region. The sections about the arrival of Serbs are nearly identical to one of stories telling the arrival of Croatians. The chapters read as an ancient form of rewrite of the migration pattern of same peoples (as if the author lacked historical information). Chapters also use mythic Croatian narratives as fact! Also De Administrator Imperio is describing events that took place three centuries before it was written. With this in mind, information in De Administrator Imperio concerning the Principality of Paganija can be put in serious doubt.Why haven't secondary references been represented, such as the historical perspectives from the other Chronicles written in that period? The Chronicle De Regno Sclavorum from 753 is a good example. This document makes more sense as it was written within that period of history and it confirms the ethnic demography of that area. The De Regno Sclavorum is believed to have been written at the congress of Southern Slavs in the Bosnian town of Dalmae (today’s Duvno). Noted famous historian J.B Bury has expressed problems with certain paragraphs of "De Administrator Imperio" this can all be referenced easily.

Secondly when talking about certain facts concerning the demography of that region of Damatia(Croatia), Wikipedia’s historical article on Paganija makes a mockery of everyday life as we know it. They misrepresent the ethnic origins of the people who live in this region. The facts of who really makes up the population of the area can be gained from an examination of several sources. For example:

(a) The recent Croatian census that was conducted in the region. (b) The Austro-Hungarian census compiled in the 19th century. (c) The recorded and documented Croatian History of the peoples of the “Republic of Ragusa”, which is now called Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik is just south of the old Medieval State of Paganija. The unreliable sources used by Wikipedia would make them of Serbian descent. Croatian literature from Dubrovnik (Republic of Ragusa) goes back centuries (reference is drawn to their long established history archives located in their libraries). Writers from Dubrovnik have a long established history of interaction with their peers from the Venetian Republic and Europe. This is a well established fact both in Dalmatia and in the rest of Croatia.

(d) There are Croatian costumes and folkloric dances that have been passed down for centuries from one generation to another. These dances are still actively performed today. (e) People who migrated from that region that I know refer to themselves as Croatian or of Croatian descent. (f) All the towns and councils of this region state on their web sites that they are Croatians.

These are just some of the facts that are known and it’s just the tip of the iceberg. With all that is stated above "De Administrator Imperio" just does not make any sense! There is always the possibility that this misleading information can be used in the future as a propaganda weapon. One can only recall the recent former Yugoslavian Wars and how much pain, misery and death it brought.

I have researched the “www.britannica.com Dalmatia Region Croatia web site (this is a more updated version) and they do not mention “De Administrator Imperio Chronicles” as an historical reference for the Dalmatian Region. This omission is obviously due to the fact that this reference is considered contradictory and therefore unreliable for that region. Maybe Wikpedia could consider adopting the same approach as www.britanica.com.

Due to the very nature of the Internet and its growing power in presenting information to society, I sincerely ask that Wikipedia look into my concerns.

Sincerely

123.2.59.195 (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to join up and join in the effort Unomi (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to figure out what your question is, and failed. The fault, no doubt, lies with me. Briefly, what Wikipedia article(s) are you asking about, and what sources are you asking about? Dlabtot (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are they Serbs or Croats? Is the gist. And not a topic WP should touch with a ten foot pole. IMHO, of course. Collect (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We would consider an academic peer reviewed journal as a Reliable Source for an article about a topic. How far can we take the same journal as reliable in describing iteslf? If it says on the title page that it was published in 1957, can we take that as true, or are we obliged to find another publication that verifies it? Martinlc (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals may have an opinion on this. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please be specific? In the editing of what Wikipedia article or articles has this question arisen? What is the source in question? Are there prior talk page discussions concerning this question? Dlabtot (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From Martinlc's talk page, seems to be about Morgannwg (magazine). Journals, like any other topic that can talk about itself, are allowed to, subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS, if applicable. Here it is probably not applicable unless there is reason to suspect the journal's general reliability. Problems arise only if there is conflicting information from other sources or if a claim was extraordinary.John Z (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not go over to an indexing site like Worldcat and do a journal search? It shows a collection beginning in 1957[37]. The journal's own history about itself should be enough, but if there's a debate we could go ahead and cite Worldcat as a tertiary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: there is no debate about the start date- the general question I wanted to raise was how far self-description is taken as reliable within sources that would be taken as reliable for their content. My feeling is that for matters of fact there is no need for external validation, so that we might say a magazine started in 1919 because that's the date on the cover. If a reliable soruce was later identified which showed, or said, that the cover date was incorrect, then that could be added (and referenced) accordingly. Martinlc (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where to put this question, but I'll give it a try here. I'm trying to add a relevant video for the external links portion of the Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Would the following video be considered reliable(would it fit into the external links section).

• Discovery Channel Best Evidence:Chemical Contrails How stuff works

Smallman12q (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fails WP:ELNO #9 8. But besides that, the Discovery Channel is not a reliable source—it's a source of entertainment—and they tend to air topics which are (how shall I put this nicely) crap. Like this. -Atmoz (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've had time to properly view the video now instead of just briefly previewing it, but my opinion hasn't changed. In fact I'm even more convinced it doesn't belong in the article. In addition to violating ELNO 8 (sorry about the wrong number above), it violates ELNO 2 and NPOV as well. And with the lack of an external links noticeboard, this seems to be an adequate place to discuss them. There are 3 talking heads in the video, two of them don't have names mentioned (the other is Dave Dickie [sp?], but who is he?) and none of the claims made by these persons can be verified, and indeed can easily be refuted by established science.

The first talking head starts by talking about cloud seeding, not chemtrails. Not a good start, but as she continues the evidence presented is secondhand hearsay, "I was told initially by a friend, he said his brother was in the military service..." (0:29).

The second talking head (1:02) is probably just confused, but he doesn't explain himself well enough to know how to refute it. It sounds like he's describing someone looking from the ground up at contrails from airlines and military aircraft "in the same airspace" and comparing the residence time of the contrails. What does "in the same airspace" mean? If it means they were in the same field of view while looking up from the ground (that was my interpretation), it tells us nothing about the altitude of the aircraft. And from the ground, and only seeing the contrails, it's difficult to tell the difference between an aircraft at 30,000 ft and 45,000 ft. As I said, it's entirely too vague in the video to tell what he's specifically talking about. Even if he did see military contrails persisting for longer than civilian contrails, there are plenty of accepted scientific reasons for them. The military aircraft could be flying at an altitude where the air is closer to saturation, which would mean the contrails would persist for longer.

The third segment is a guy saying he saw two suspicious contrails from KC-135s while touring a civilian air traffic control tower. They were "identified" as military aircraft, but says he didn't see them, only their contrails, and their radio callsigns were identified as Petrol 1 and Petrol 2. If the aircraft were not visible from the air traffic control tower were not visible, they were not on the tower frequency or in the tower's airspace. The information presented that he saw this while visiting a control tower is a red herring to make the viewer think they were flying at a low altitude. However, he didn't see them, this means they could be flying at any altitude, including high enough to make normal contrails.

In addition to the information presented in the video being unverifiable, it is also not presented in a neutral point of view. All three of the talking heads were convinced that chemtrails exist and that it's a military conspiracy. But there was no alternative evidence presented attempting to rebut the claims, which is actually quite easy to do. There may have been in the original Discovery Channel episode, but the clip provided is only 2 minutes long, and ends abruptly after the third talking head gets done. While ELs are not required to be NPOV, the addition of this link would be placing undue weight on the side that advocates "the truth" of the conspiracy theory.

TLDR summary: the information presented in the video is factually inaccurate, unverifiable, and not NPOV and as such should not be included as external links. -Atmoz (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Number 9 is search engine results, perhaps one of the others was intended. Text web sites are generally preferred over streaming video (#8), but there's no ban by any means on using video. The RS criteria for external links is not as stringent as for cited sources, however in some ways ELs are more restrictive on how broadly the link fits the article topic. You don't want a long collection of ELs; to me, three is a good number for most articles. The chemtrail article happens to have three. One is a general EPA page about pollution from aircraft, and the Discovery progam seems a much better fit for the topic. Discovery, though part of the popular media, is both RS and V. Now, if there was a Frontline program on the idea of chemtrails we might use that instead, but for now the Discovery program should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Discovery Channel is a reliable source which can be cited, although only in specific ways. But saying that it is a reliable source that can in some instances be cited doesn't mean that everything that the Discovery Channel broadcasts is The Truth™, of course. Anyway, external links don't even need to conform to the RS standard, this shouldn't even be posted here. Dlabtot (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see the issue. The video isn't the entire documentary, it's a teaser introducing the strange story of chemtrails. While what we write must be verifiable to sources, our sources don't have to cite their sources and so on down the line so I'm not too concerned about hearsay. The next interviewee simply said he saw an impressive contrail from a military refueling jet. Air-to-air refueling is something that aviation buffs like to catch a glimpse of, and that's probably why that jet was pointed out from the tower. It's not at all unusual to see the contrail but barely be able to see the plane flying at a stratospheric altitude, and I'd expect the larger, heavier refueling jet to leave an impressive one. Besides the difference in altitude ( it's cold in the stratosphere and that's why you see the exhaust ), there's other reasons why a military jet would leave more of a trail than a civilian jet. Afterburners are one reason. Another possible one is a difference in fuel. And it's interesting how the conspiracy theorists got interested in contrails right around the time the military switched to the heavier and less flammable JP-8. Anway, because the video is only a teaser and doesn't actually explain anything about the issues involved, I'd say not EL for editorial reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Or is the entire documentary split into the "related videos" section? There's a bunch of others like "Best Evidence: Chemtrail Belivers" and so forth. But it's still hard to tell which are the teasers. Even if these make up the entire documentary, it's laborious to go through them all. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to give an idea from where chemtrail conspiracy theorists come. It is a teaser video, but I thought it would serve the function of visually introducing chemtrails.Smallman12q (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• AbeBooks (January 12, 2009). "2008: A Year of Books in Review". Bookseller Digest UK. booksellerdigest.abebooks.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-03-27.

The layout of this webpage appears to be in a blog-style format - but it is the official website of the publisher AbeBooks. Reliable source for information on what books were bestsellers from the AbeBooks publisher itself? Cirt (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The best source for publications of US books is Publishers' Weekly: they have an annual review in January of each year. I have not used Abe Books as a source, but I know they are a bookseller and they price rare and first editions. There should be a UK equivalent to Publisher's Weekly, but I don't know what it is. --Moni3 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to find the source you are referring to, but is this AbeBooks cite a reliable source for the information The book goes on to become AbeBooks’ No.1 bestseller in Australia in 2008. ? Cirt (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The official site for AbeBooks should be reliable for claims made about bestselling on its own site... but then I'm not sure that would be notable for mention in an article. Perhaps. DreamGuy (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not being used as a notable claim in and of itself, but rather as a source showing the current article (which states "the book was never published in Australia") is inaccurate. Starhunterfan (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Talk:Siena_College and perhaps offer opinions? It's a lengthy, very lame discussion about the location of the college. I have a dog in the fight, so I'm probably not the best person to summarise. As far as I can tell, published sources, and the college, overwhelmingly say "Siena is in Loudonville" but there are a few editors who feel that maps show that it is probably in nearby Newtonville. IMO, an editor's interpretation of a map which does not show clear boundaries is not a reliable source. I'd be grateful for any input. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like Loudonville and Newtonville are villages within the town of Colonie. Is there a ward/precinct or ZIP code boundary that's generally accepted as the boundary between the two? What about school, tax, water, fire districts? Did the towns exist as separate entities before joining the town of Colonie? Be prepared for the possibility that the campus was built on a wide-open area between the historic villages; if that's the case the more accurate wording would be Colonie, between village X and village Y. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're proposing some original research; if Hippo is right that sources say Loudonville, that's what we should go with; if other sources say something else, add that, too, but studying maps is not the way to resolve this. Go with sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dicklyon, and I've left a note on the talk page to this effect. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing we bring in more sources to get to the bottom of the matter. The best source for a definition of what constitutes the village of Loudonville or Newtonville would be an old ( as in Civil War-era ) map. The second best would be a USGS topo map, those tend to retain old place names, and they would show how villages contrast with farmland.

Now from looking at this topo map [38], Siena College is very close to Newtonville. Both are separated from Loudonville by a gravel pit, cemeteries, and golf courses. But on the other hand, you can see a stream separating Siena College from Newtonville, remnants of which are visible on Google Earth, and it's quite possible the stream was the original boundary of Newtonville. Another argument in favor of Loudonville is that the entrance, the major buildings, seem to face the Loudonville side while the parking lots in back face the Newtonville side.

Using a map without boundaries to say whether the college is in Newtonville or Loudonville is original research because it creates facts from the map which aren't actually contained in the map. I just gave two sensible interpretations which each give a different answer. You can use the map to say it's near A and B or between A or B, but you can't use the map to say it's in district A.

However, I do think the proximity to Newtonville should be acknowledged. I recommend the intro wording should be changed to near the hamlets of Loudonville and Newtonville, with a cite to the USGS map above, while the infobox should retain the Loudonville address with its cite to the college's homepage. Any further qualification of which hamlet is which would be undue weight, and should be moved to the articles about the hamlets. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would need to 'bring in more sources.' The sources are already clear - it's in Loudonville. There are multiple sources which have been cited in the article, and many more which could be. They are consistent that Siena is in Loudonville. So far none have been found which say "in Newtonville", "betweeen L'ville and N'ville" or "near Newtonville". If one or two were found, they would still only represent a tiny minority of the sources, so would probably not merit being included, per WP:NPOV.

A civil war era map would only indicate (via OR) that the area near where Siena is now was known as X'ville in the 1860s, so would not really be relevant to this article. The sources are clear that Siena is now in Loudonville (not specifically "the hamlet of loudonville" or "the village of Loudonville"), and has been since it was founded in the 1930s.

Why do you think the proximity to Newtonville should be acknowledged in the article? Not a single raliable source has yet been presented which says as much.

Surely if using a map to say "Siena is in Shelbyville" is OR (and I agree that it would be), then using a map to say "Siena is near Shelbyville" or "Siena is between Shelbyville and Springfield" is also OR? If your argument is "I looked at a map and it looks to me like it's near Newtonville" then surely that is classic original research??? --hippo43 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The original research policy means that Wikipedia should not contain facts that can only be sourced to Wikipedia. Reading a map is not necessarily original research as long as we stick to facts that are actually shown on the map and not guesswork. The issue is that the map shows the hamlets roughly as points, with no political boundaries. It's pretty obvious that the word Newtonville is right next to Siena College. It's within a mile away, and is well-summarized by the word "near". On the other hand, using the map to say that Siena College is in either hamlet requires the editor to guess where a boundary lies. Like I said, one interpretation might draw the boundary through the uninhabited areas, while another might use the stream above the college. Because there is more than one interpretation of where the border lies, adding one would create a new fact that is not sourceable to the map. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"near" excludes "in"; if you say that Siena is "near" Newtonville, that implies that it is not "in" Newtonville. Obviously, too, the motivation for saying it is "near" Newtonville is obvious to anyone who takes a cursory look at Talk:Siena College--for some reason, there are a number of editors who do not want the article to say that Siena College is in Loudonville. Never mind that there are several reliable sources that say exactly that. When we have sources that tell us exactly where Siena College is, if an editor looks at a map and comes up with a different location, that's obviously original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have multiple independent secondary sources that weigh the Loudonville/Newtonville issue. What we do have is the U.S. Postal Service placing Siena within a Loudonville delivery area, plus a number of sources that simply repeat the college's mailing address. We also have the U.S. Geological Survey placing the college near points which are described as Newtonville and Loudonville. There are both fine sources, and they don't necessarily contradict. While I agree that Loudonville should be given primacy, as most of our readers will be more interested in the mailing address than in the local geography, it is difficult to look at that map and not mention Newtonville. It's a little like saying we shouldn't acknowledge the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon are near Newfoundland, because they are part of France.

Part of the confusion is that we are working with two definitions of each hamlet. There is one definition that the hamlet is the historic village that grew up along the railroad junction, or whatever, and some unspecified part of the adjourning area, not unlike the way neighborhoods are named after "squares" in urban areas. However over time, postal delivery areas, census tracts, etc, grew up, and probably every parcel of land in the town had to belong to one hamlet or the other. If you work only from the second definition, then yes it is silly to argue about whether something is in hamlet x or y. But the real world is not so simple. It's very possible for Siena to be only on the outskirts of ( i.e. "near" ) the historic hamlets of N and L, but within the modern postal delivery zone of L. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"We don't have multiple independent secondary sources that weigh the Loudonville/Newtonville issue." Indeed. Why do you think that is, exactly? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are about 50 books that mention Sienne College and Loudonville; and about 0 books that mention Sienna College and Newtonville. Case closed? Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Those look like citations, which I'd expect to use the mailing address. And perhaps the campus and the adjoining country clubs are included in the more restrictive zoning district with the rest of Londonville. Still, I don't understand what the phobia is of adding that the college is "near the historic neighborhoods of Londonville and Newtonville", when a USGS map clearly says so. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the objection is that we don't understand why one would want to say what a place is near on a map, instead of just saying where it is according to sources. An interpretation of a map is fairly characterized as "original research", especially when it's used to justify saying something different from what is explicit in a bunch of reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The map is a published reliable source. What I'm proposing is not an interpretation or synthesis from the map; it's something that is explicit in the map. Your "bunch of reliable sources" are mostly reprints of the college's mailing address. Saying that the college is near the historic village centers of L and N does not conflict with saying that the college's address is in the postal delivery zone named after the historic village of L. Or course I wouldn't go into that undue detail, I'd sum it up with the word "near" in a discussion of the campus, while using only L in the rest of the article. Also there was a real-estate related source brought up in the talk page, which put the bounds of N at the college. People were trying to use it as a source for the college actually being in N, which it didn't exactly say, but it would be a fine source for "near". The wording I propose takes multiple reliable sources into account. The USPS, and the college's description of its address, as well as the USGS and the real estate site mentioned on the talk page. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying that something is near X based on a map is an interpretation of the map, therefore original research. Repeating the diction of the college's website, which is that Siena is "located in Loudonville, New York, a suburban community just outside the state's capital" is not original research. (Nor is it a "reprint of the college's mailing address.") --Akhilleus (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

When the map show the word "Newtonville" so close to the campus that the final 'e' ends up in the football field, "near" is explicit. Anyway, you should take this to a different noticeboard. Either NORN for the map, or a wikiproject dealing with place names. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a fine noticeboard for these questions, but to make you happy: Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Siena_College.27s_location.2C_and_maps. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that reading a map is not original research. Maps are used as references in multiple FA articles on roads and highways. Should we then start deleting those references and their info from Featured Articles some of which are primarily edited by admins? A map was one of the main arguments for keeping North River (Hudson River) instead of merging it with Hudson River. A map was used as definitive proof for keeping out Mapinfo as a "company in Troy, New York" due to the map showing that it wasnt in Troy even though its ZIP code is, it politically was in a neighboring town. In multiple discussions hippo refuses to accept any commonsense such as that above, claiming OR and all that. There were three or four sources for Newtonville when I first put it in. They werent "reliable", they are however more reliable than anything hippo has come up with. Siena College has a conflict of interest in saying Loudonville (read my rants on the talk page of the article). As for ZIP code that someone here mentioned- the official USPS city name for that ZIP code is Albany, NOT Loudonville, Loudonville is only one of two other alternative names (the other being Siena, which isnt even a hamlet). The town hall of the town of Colonie is directly across from the campus and the town says its address is Newtonville. The Newtonville PO does not do home delivery only PO boxes that is why the college must use the ZIP code it does. Hippo doesnt wish to discuss hamlets or anything but "the college says its in Loudonville". I'm sorry this is so long, I'm trying to catch everyone up on our point of view on why Loudonville alone is not acceptable. As for those asking for an older map, see Colonie, New York, the name Newtonville goes right over where Siena College is today on the 1866 map on that article, Loudonville is considerably farther south.Camelbinky (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"they are however more reliable than anything hippo has come up with" Really? So the blog and the classified advert that you linked to (neither of which even stated that Siena was in Newtonville, or not in Loudonville) are more reliable than the college itself? And more reliable than the numerous easily available news sources online? And more reliable than all the reference books on colleges? And more reliable than these sources?

Lenhart, G., The Stamp of Class: Reflections on Poetry & Social Class, University of Michigan Press, 2006, p.100

The New York red book, Williams Press, 1977, p. 496

Heathcote, J., & Ebling, J., Jud: A Magical Journey, Sports Publishing LLC, 1995, p.210

“Kent State And Siena Hire New Black Men's Basketball Coaches”, Jet, Johnson Publishing Company, May 7, 2001, p.50

The College Blue Book, 16th Edition, Macmillan, 1977, p.473

Shontz, P., The librarian's career guidebook, Scarecrow Press, 2004, p.405

LaGumina, S.J., The Italian American Experience: An Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, 2000, p.574

If you gave me an hour, I could come back with another dozen, and so could you if you bothered to look. --hippo43 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Binky, I'm the one who asked for old maps. But I enlarged that 1866 map of Colonie and compared it to the USGS map, and the words "Newtonville P.O." don't exactly cover the campus. They are written over the area immediately north of the campus; the fork in the road is prominent on both. It's clear that the campus is near the Newtonville neighborhood and the Newtonville Post Office, but you cannot guess at a border. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you squidfryerchef, I suppose your right about that. Hippo- are you really saying a poetry book, and a book on the Italian American Experience are authoritative on where Siena College is? Reliable verifiable sources are not just about them being good/bad overall, its about their relevance. Those sources you put have no relevance or research into where the college is. Siena College has a conflict of interest, their website is not useable you can not say they arent using Loudonville simply because it is an acceptable alternative for their ZIP code, they can say they are in the city of Albany and legitimately use that as their mailing address, it doesnt make them in Albany. But of course if they did we'd still have this argument and you'd insist we'd have to list the campus as being in Albany. Am I wrong? If I am right then your argument loses water, so tell me how it and your opinion would be different if they had substituted Albany for Loudonville on everything. Because there is nothing stopping the college from doing that any time. It is not an unlikely or hypothetical question, there is no reason it couldnt happen. A blog while not reliable shows that there are local people who believe that the campus could be in Newtonville, you (I believe) are in Texas how would you know what the locals consider the campus to be in? But that doesnt matter to you of course. It does to those of us who are locals, those that care about this article and articles of the area and want them to be factually correct. You have now started an edit war on Loudonville, New York saying that the hamlet is actually a town and have been warned by multiple editors to stop editing in face of concensus.Camelbinky (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW- I have found multiple sources, including the Siena College website itself that DOES mention the college is "in the town of Colonie". So I do not see how your objection to the town being mentioned is valid nor your assertion that the college ONLY says it is "in Loudonville".Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, can you supply a single diff showing that I have edited the Loudonville article to state that it is a town? If not, you owe me an apology. --hippo43 (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody keeps inserting into Kaitsepolitseiamet, article on the Estonian Defence Police, claims taken from the personal blog of one Risto Teinonen, a noted neo-Nazi. Can such a blog be considered a WP:RS for claims such as "KAPO appears to be a criminal civil service"? Can insertion of such material be considered vandalism? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, personal blogs are definitely not considered reliable. Remove it as non RS. If it keeps being added back to the article it can be considered vandalism. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessment. I'll revert it as vandalism if the issue arises again. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

is www.rapbasement.com a suitable reference for an album's track listing? i dont think so but other users on the page Fantasy Ride do think so. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

I was helping out with editing on the article System of a Down, and I wanted to check the reliability of a few sources that are cited in the article:

• "Rock City Awards 1997". rockcitynews.com. Retrieved 2007-07-25.
• Nalbandian, Bob. "Interview with System of a Down". Shockwaves Online. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
• SoaD at Musicmight

Are these any good at all? The Rock City News link looks somewhat unprofessional and I have no idea what authority/notability Hard Radio/Shockwaves Online and Musicmight hold. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Is this a reliable source. yousaf465'

Yes. It's a well-known major media outlet - see WP:RS#News organizations. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And even Jimbo Wales agrees--Cerejota (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the "Resolved" tag from this just to clarify that we are all talking about Aljazeera.com, which is not the web site of the television channel Al Jazeera (online at http://www.aljazeera.net). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, not so quick. I wouldn't say this is quick and dirty answer! No do I accept what Cerejota says re Jimbo Wales agreement. Here is the direct quote and more context is in the link. The original question had to do adding with A-J photographs. I will embolden nothing and leave the interpretation to the readers. "I would say that these questions are not really up to me to determine, but I can offer a few thoughts which I hope are helpful. (1) Al-Jazeera is generally a reliable source as far as I know, in the sense that we normally mean it. (2) Be careful about what Al-Jazeera is being a reliable source for - i.e. did a staff photographer take the picture such that they are standing behind what it is, or did they obtain it from an activist group claiming it to be such-and-such. I would trust Al-Jazeera (as far as I know) to report honestly in either case, and we should not go further than what they have actually claimed." Now I guess this could be considered an endorsement, but hardly a "ringing" one. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe Metropolitan was saying the question was about the website for Aljazeera Magazine, which is not related to the TV channel. The name "Al-Jazeera" simply means "the island" i.e. the Arabian peninsula. According to our article, they sound fairly POV. If it's used for news from inside the Arabian peninsula, it may be fine. If it's for commentary about Israel or the Iraq War, you would use it with caution and attribution. Their opinions may be notable in the region, but they are still opinions. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. The quote from Jimbo above (found at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 43#Do images fall under WP:RS policy.3F) refers to Al Jazeera, not Aljazeera.com, which is not related to it. To claim reliability for Aljazeera.com based on the reliability of Al Jazeera would be like saying that The Globe (tabloid) is reliable because one confused it with The Boston Globe. My inclination is to say that Aljazeera.com should not be assumed to be reliable due to its strong POV. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But what about article not about Israel conflict.--10:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)yousaf465'

I'd say fine to use with attribution if it is considered a reliable source in its own regional context. What is its standing in the Arab world? We can't exclude it because of its POV alone, or define NPOV as "Western viewpoints only please, everything else is not a significant viewpoint". Jayen466 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this also apply to NYT.It's also know to have this problem NYT book.--yousaf465' 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I said we cannot exclude aljazeera.com because of its point of view, and the same also applies to the New York Times. We can't decide who is right, but we should present both sides of the debate, using the most authoritative sources available. The NYT, whatever its possible POV failings, ranks very highly in the West, and we should ideally use Arab media that rank equally highly in the Arab world to present their POV. Hope that clarifies what I mean. (I've taken the liberty to correct the link you gave above so it leads to the book review I believe you meant. Please check.) Jayen466 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,yes it was the book review I was referring to.--yousaf465' 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm wondering about this edit, and what people think about using commercial sites to verify the existence and other details about some liqueurs on the list for which we have no other independently verifiable information. The discussion at the talk page has seemed to come down to a question of whether it's appropriate to use a commercial site to verify something when no non-commercial site can be found.

Thanks in advance for any input, either here, or at Talk:List of liqueurs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so people know... this question has also been raised at WT:Reliable sources#List of liqueurs (and they suggested that GTB double check here... so no forum shopping accusations please). I agree with the general consensus stated at WT:RS: while commercial sites may not be the most reliable sources, they do pass the bar and are better than nothing. I also agree with the idea that there is nothing wrong with looking for better sources. I think User:WhatamIdoing hits it right on the nail when he noted: "Why not cite a book, if the manufaturer's website seems too commercial for you?" He seems to have found several you could use. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's not forum-shopping if I try to talk to a broad spectrum of Wikipedians. I'm asking for information, and so I know what the community thinks, and I'm listening to people whether or not I agree with them. I have my own personal take, but that's not important compared with the consensus reading of our policies and guidelines. Everyone's input is appreciated; I'm learning. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the individual situation... and the apparent motivation. Asking the same or a similar question at multiple policy talk pages, is sometimes considered forum shopping. It looks like the poster simply did not like the answer he or she got the first time and is trying again. But this does not seem to be the case with your double posting (especially since you were advised to re-post here). My advice: if you do post the same question to multiple venues, post links to the other places you posted it. That way everyone can check what was said at the other venues before replying.

Having said that... let's focus on replying to the question (I gave my view above). Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List is getting crufty. Perhaps it should be limited to liqueurs that already have a WP article establishing notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But then it wouldn't be a "list of liqueurs", it would be a "list of liqueurs that already have articles within the website Wikipedia".

Items within a list do not need to satisfy WP:N individually. See WP:NNC, and Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Lists, and Wikipedia:Lists#Listed_items, and Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria, and Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists for the guidance. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

True, and I've argued those points in debates to keep lists of private airports by state. A list of liqueurs might not be the best choice for our purposed. Maybe a category or v/d/e. The problem is that almost any distillery can whip up a new novelty liqueur, so if we cover them all we'd fill up with ones that aren't really important. We should really concentrate on the top-shelf ones that have been made for many years, such as Benedictine, Cointreau, Chambord, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is www.city-data.com a reliable source for demographic and other city data? I thought I had seen that it was not but I cannot locate any discussion on the topic. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that city-data.com has good data, but everything there is from some other readily-accessible source (such as the U.S. Census). I'd cite the real source, if possible. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at all kinds of sources and they seem to be zeroing in on something. The short answer is, if we allowed original research here, and it was my job to draw the border between Loudonville and Newtonville, the northern boundary of Siena campus would be the border. I'll go through them here.

1. The college uses the address of Loudonville. Google Books shows it was considered in Loudonville since its founding in the 1930s. Every mention of the college's address in print or on the web ( except for WP and some pages quoting the WP ) show Loudonville or Colonie, not Newtonville.

2. Maps. We've looked at several maps, from Mapquest, Google Earth, the US Geological Survey, and a historic map from 1866. None of them place a border around Newtonville or Loudonville. Some of them shade in an area above the college and mark it Newtonville, or they label the post office, or they label the Loudon/Maxwell crossroads as Newtonville, but none of them mark the campus itself as being in either hamlet.

However, there is at least one outlier. Yahoo Maps puts the dot for Newtonville right at the entrance to campus. I don't know why it does this ( it's not interpolating the address of the post office ) but I still think the other maps, especially the ones not generated by computer, take precedence. Is an online-generated map an RS at that level of detail?

3. Post offices. The Newtonville PO shares ZIP code 12110 with Latham, the hamlet just to the north. The streets that are clearly in Newtonville also use 12110. Siena on the other hand uses 12211 for its own post office, which it shares with an Albany PO. The streets that are clearly in Loudonville use 12211; there is no physical Loudonville post office, but Loudonville is an acceptable city name.

4. Neighbors. The Schuyler Meadows Country Club just next door,[39] and which extends a little further to the north, also uses a Loudonville address.

5. Delivery addresses. While ZIP codes are defined by streets and addresses and not by zones on a map, in all but the most rural areas they generally do form boundaries. The streets just above the campus, Fiddler's Ln, Cherrywood Ter, and Middlefield Dr, use Newtonville 12110 according to the USPS address lookup. Private roads in the area belonging to the college don't appear in the database.

The campus, at 515 Loudon Rd, uses Loudonville 12211. Across the street, the NYSP facility at #504 also uses Loudonville. Campus View Drive, across from the college's Friars Rd entrance, uses Loudonville. The town hall at #534, across from the northern border of campus, uses Newtonville. At #552 is the Newtonville Post Office.

This all hints at a boundary around 530, right at the edge of campus.

6. Real estate. A local Realtor's description, which I would consider an expert SPS, has Newtonville is not an incorporated town, but rather a loosely defined area--a neighborhood really--beside the also nebulous Loudonville, both of which lie within the town of Colonie. Roughly speaking, Newtonville runs along Route 9 from Siena College to Hoffman's Playland, taking in part of Maxwell Road to the west and over to Fiddlers Lane to the east of Route 9. Loudonville lies to the south of Newtonville.

I'm reading "from Siena College" as exclusive. Again, I would draw the border right at the north edge of campus. It might zigzag a hundred yards on the even side of the road to get all of the town hall parking lot, but that's what the sources say.

8. Zoning. The zoning map for Colonie[40] doesn't show a border. Loudonville and most of Newtonville are zoned single family residential. There is a narrow historic overlay zone along Loudon Rd as far as Maxwell, but that's simply where the old mansions are, as opposed to the shopping plazas to the north, not a neighborhood border.

9. The phone company. Telephone numbers seem to change from a 78X office code to a 43X prefix somewhere further south of where the post office splits the addresses. Newtonville addresses have phone numbers that start with 783, 786, 713. So does the college. Most other Loudonville addresses have phone numbers that start with 432, 434, 435. But I wouldn't make too much of this; a NXX lookup simply shows 783 as Colonie and 432 as Albany. Not Loudonville or Newtonville.

10. So the written sources overwhelmingly say Loudonville, ranging from books, university materials, self-published materials, and collection of postal data. The maps show that Newtonville is close by but none of them has a border. While it's tempting to cluster the campus with the adjacent Newtonville, especially when it is separated from the rest of Loudonville by wide-open areas, that would be original guesswork. In addition the USGS map shows a creek bed above the campus which could very well have been a natural and ancient border. The Yahoo map may not be RS for such fine detail. The zoning map didnt have relevant information, and the telephone city codes dont mention Newtonville or Loudonville.

11. The article should however mention Newtonville. We've run into an odd duck here; the campus is on the outskirts of the larger hamlet L, but almost across the street is the village center of the tiny hamlet of N. Some people visiting campus are going to see Newtonville on their online maps or GPS and wonder if theyre in the right place, and those touring the area on mountain bike will see Newtonville on their topo maps. It would be appropriate to mention, in a description of the campus, that it's close to the Newtonville Post Office and Newton Plaza, in the same context we might mention the country club and cemetery on the other side of campus.

12. We should word it carefully to avoid a false compromise like "Siena is near Newtonville but has a Loudonville mailing address". Its neighbors to the west, east, and south also use a Loudonville mailing address, because theyre all on the edge of Loudonville. Making an issue of the address would make sense if the college were in Troy, but it isn't. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, thanks for putting that work in. --hippo43 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more I can have issue with but will address what I need to go over with for now- go to Mapquest and ask for a map of the college's address as listed by hippo, with Loudonville as he insists. It wont come up with anything. Try it with Newtonville. It then shows up. So I dont know how you came up with that online maps crap shows it to be in Loudonville and that there is no dispute, this just adds one more piece of circumstantial evidence that shows there is a dispute. It's neighbors to the west DONT use Loudonville, the Colonie Memorial Town Hall uses Newtonville, those to the north on Fiddlers Lane use Latham (and USPS gives them the option of using Newtonville). Its really hard to call much of what you said "original research as some of it is "original make-up crap" really no disrespect, I dont mean you are lying or intentionally distorting facts, there just isnt any research that you did you do to even think that the "creek bed" could be the ancient boundary. It's not. I'm sorry if this is considered "more OR" or my opinion, but I am considered by some to be an expert on the geography and history of the CD, I've seriously been reading, researching, and studying the history and geography of this area that I LOVE soo much, and really to have outsiders come in and while well-meaning slow down progress, I had someone tag as "suspicious" the assertion in the Albany, NY article that Albany was the fourth oldest city in the US, the second oldest state capital city, and oldest surviving settlement of the 13 colonies, it wasnt (like almost all the article at that time, it was pretty slim on citations I admit) but it slowed down progress that had just started building on upgrading the article by having a suspicious tag.(the Siena College article hasnt been ruined I'm not saying that, but it has happened elsewhere, not just to me but to other editors pride and joy geo & hist related articles by well-meaning good-faith edits that gut content or add false info). Btw- we use the old Dutch word kill in Albany, generally creek is from non-natives and some map makers who dont realize kill already means creek, such as mapmakers putting Normanskill Creek instead of Normans Kill as DOT signs say on the bridges; just one of those oddities that show non-natives should do their due diligence and respect natives when they mention these things, I would and have done the same for others in articles others know more about. I'm sorry if I go off on tangents and make my arguments long, I know hippo throws a fit about that. To be honest I have a disorder on the autism spectrum (asperger's syndrome) and disorders normally associated with those that have autism. I hope hippo understands its not that I'm being rude or whatever he has been thinking everytime he calls me out for typing so much I consider it him being rude, but at least I understand that he didnt know, but now you do.Camelbinky (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I went to Mapquest and "515 Loudon Rd. Loudonville NY" comes up just fine. So does "515 New Loudon Rd. Newtonville NY". That's right, the name of the road changes and overlaps. This comes from the postal data. If you do a zip code search at usps.com for these streets, the 500-599 range may be addressed as either New Loudon Rd, in Newtonville or Latham, or just plain Loudon Rd, in Loudonville or Albany.

None of the maps show that the campus is in Loudonville but they don't definitively say it's in Newtonville either. It's tempting to group the campus with Newtonville because there's some open spaces between it and the rest of Loudonville, but that's only a guess. The middle of Loudonville isn't exactly far from campus either.

What I did do was check postal data for streets in the area to see whether they used the Latham/Newtonville or Loudonville/Albany ZIP codes. If they fell in the 5XX range I Googled the names of the establishments to see which address they prefer. And you might say this is original research or not, but this is the talk page and I'm doing this to doublecheck the college's self-reporting of Loudonville.

Now while you might say the Postal Service is just another source, they have been around for a very long time. I'd expect them to follow historical place names, and they have an army of men in short pants constantly walking the area, so I'm comfortable in saying they know where everything is. Also even in the 1866 map, it seems Newtonville was defined mainly by its post office. The post office was marked on the map, not the village of Newtonville.

The results were pretty consistent. You could print out a plot plan of the area and color in the property lines by zip code. There's an obvious diagonal border running from above the country club, then the campus boundary at Fiddler's Lane and then crossing the street between Campus View Dr and the Colonie Town Hall. And this original research of mine is consistent with the Realtor's description of the area, as well as the college and country club's self-description.

The college's neighbors directly to the west are the houses on Campus View Drive, all Loudonville. The town hall just next to it is really northwest, and that's Newtonville.

Look, we all have topics that we know well and seek to have them described accurately on Wikipedia. Sometimes this can cause an editorial consensus to decide which sources are more important or how to organize the article. When there's a conflict, it's productive to look for more sources or to check where the sources we question get their information from. Hippo liked text sources and didn't want to look at maps. I studied the maps and a bunch of primary sources but say they still don't contradict Hippo's sources. If you want to say Newtonville you need sources.

The ultimate authority on what constitutes Newtonville is the boundary of the land that John M. Newton purchased, from van Rensselaer himself, in 1842. Whether this land included the farm that later became Siena or not, verifiable information on this land would make a fine addition to our article on Newtonville. See colonie.org[41]

One dollar was the price paid for the land for this church which was located at what was known as the Crossroads. It was purchased from Stephen Van Rensselaer in 1842 and was to be used for church purposes for all time. Between 1842 and 1859, Mr. John M. Newton purchased the property and built the home which we know as the J. G. Hills estate. The Crossroads became Newton Comers and later Newtonville.

Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out about the 1866 map, the comment that the Newtonville Post Office was labelled on the map but not the village, the same can be said of Cohoes, which in the 1840s became an incorporated village of the town but on that map is named only by Cohoes P.O.. To the other comment on the ultimate authority of what constitutes Newtonville is the boundary of the land that John M. Newton purchased; then also the same can be said of Loudonville constituting the original Ireland's Corners in which case Siena college is in neither hamlet but instead is in farm countryside between the two and can best be described as being in Loudonville's ZIP code as you have well demonstrated. Does any of this help?24.182.142.254 (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Loudonville is defined by the post office as well.

Elias H. Ireland ...

He bought a large farm from the Van Rensselaer family at the intersection of Osborne Road and Loudon Road (Rt. 9) in Watervliet (now Colonie) in 1832. A post office was established near this intersection in 1850 with Elias H. Ireland as postmaster. The area served by the post office became known as Ireland's Corners. In 1871, the area served by this post office was expanded and the name changed to Loudonville. albanyruralcemetery.org[42]

It still remains to be checked whether Siena was part of either the Newton or Ireland estates, or whether it was served by the former Ireland/Loudonville post office.

Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The 1866 map mentions both Loudonville and Irelands Corner P.O., does that matter at all? Are we sure they are the same thing? Why was the post office expanded and the name changed to Loudonville in 1871, when the map shows that Loudonville was a name in use prior to the post office using that name.

Could a sentence that applies all we've learned be "Siena College is in Loudonville, within the town of Colonie, New York. The campus is adjacent to the hamlet of Newtonville."148.78.249.33 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The map mentioning both Loudonville and the Irelands Corner PO doesn't conflict, and in the quote I'm pretty sure "the name changed to Loudonville" refers to the post office. Perhaps the area popularly considered "Loudonville" gradually expanded, and I imagine it took time and red tape to change the P.O.'s name and get them to expand their delivery routes. Remember that's only a few years between 1866 and 1871. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that we need anything like that. The sources say 'in Loudonville'. Some editors' interpretation of some of the primary sources gives us 'adjacent to Newtonville' but that is not explicitly stated in any of the sources, nor is it notable. For me, the college's location is a small detail with a clear answer. The article should be, and is, able to give readers a clear statement of Siena's location (according to the sources) in the intro without needing this spurious kind of hyper-specificity. Perhaps something like 'also near the hamlet of Newtonville' could be included in a later section - I have no objection if it will make this all go away - but to me it would still give undue weight to a dispute only taking place on Wikipedia, not in the sources themselves. --hippo43 (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding "adjacent to Newtonville" to the intro would suggest that there's a clear boundary between the hamlets when there is only a fuzzy one. It would be appropriate to write a paragraph on landmarks surrouding the campus, mentioning the Colonie Town Hall, the historic Newtonville Post Office ( it's on the National Register of Historic Places ), the mansions, the country club, etc. Even if further inquiry says that the farm which preceded the campus was on the Newton estate or was served by the Newtonville P.O., that would belong in a section on the campus history. Also, we've come up with a lot of historical documents in this discussion. Most of them don't say Siena was in either hamlet but they would make great additions to our articles on Newtonville and Loudonville. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On Sathya Sai Baba (an article which could stand more eyeballs), there is a currently a dispute about whether Dale Beyerstein and Basava Premananda are reliable sources. Radiantenergy (talk · contribs) argues here that they are not reliable, while White adept (talk · contribs) disagrees. What do others think? ←Spidern→ 18:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The source in question is this paper: http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/papers/saibaba by Prof. Dale Beyerstein. This is perhaps the most comprehensive study of all available on the topic of the purported miracles. In that particular section of the article, this was perhaps the only academic source and, I feel, it is one of the best and most comprehensive, in comparison to other sources available on the topic. If you see the talk - besides me at least two other editors have pointed out this source as being insightful. In another user's words[43] :"Honestly, I enjoy the bc skeptic http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/papers/saibaba/ as far more interesting reading, because at least he quotes the material sources, which I really need to do some digging to verify". User:Ombudswiki had also suggested it as an academic source. White adept (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started reading Prof. Beyerstein's paper. So far, it seems very well researched, with citations to many independently verifiable sources. The article would be much poorer without that info. Bhimaji (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Basava Premananda as a source for the Sathya Sai Baba article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

• Basava Premananda is not a new source to this article. Basava Premananda was discussed extensively during mediation discussion by BostonMA in 2006.
• At the end of the discussion neither Basava Premananda nor his book was accepted as a reliable source.
• Please see the following mediation discussion link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source.

Dale Beyerstein as a source for the Sathya Sai Baba article:

Dale Beyerstein wrote the following ebook:http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/papers/saibaba

I am not sure if Dale Beyerstein is a reliable source for the following reasons.

• Dale Beyerstein ebook was never fact checked nor its contents verified by a third party publication.
• Dale Beyerstein ebook did not have a system of peer review by any agency.
• This ebook was never even published. Its principally written and maintained by a single person. It is just an electronic book. This is not like a journal maintained by a large staff or members.
• There are number of such ebooks available in the internet I don't see how this ebook which was never published or verified can be accepted as a reliable source for this article.

Note: This article went through 2 arbitrations. And in the second arbitration great emphasis was placed on usage of reliable sources for this article. That another reson why I am concerned about using such unpublished, unverified and questionable sources.

Radiantenergy (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Vegetation and slope stability is suffering major mutilationat the hands of User:Radhakrishnansk who is obviously a sock of banned User:Suciindia who in turn socked under the cloak of User:Sekharlk (who claimed his name to be Sekhar Lukose Kuriakose [44] and it is more than mere coincidence that one of the articles our User:Radhakrishnansk has cited bears the names of Kuriakose S.L (See the second ref. in Vegetation and slope stability). The real person behind these socks had only two areas of interest. One is a minor Indian political party Socialist Unity Centre of India and its many related articles and a bit of geography. See this also.

This cu case also is a pointer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Suciindia The guy who probably hails from Kerala learnt a bit of geography from ITC Enschede the IP of which is [[45]]. If you check the contributions of that IP [46] it is evident that the person behind these socks was there. The disturbing thing is that this guy has not learnt the way WP works and through socking and reverting is trying to push his pov, self promotion etc. On Talk:Vegetation and slope stability he makes some funny exhortations:

Dear editors, this article necessitates considerable editing. The content is excellent and factual. I will attempt to do it in the coming days, but I request more able editors to reduce the essay like nature of this article.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like his purpose is to re-write the article inserting his pov and his own sources. This is the home page of the guy and the strange admixture in the hall of fame (Stalin and Che among scientists and poets) reflects the sort of person who is behind the socks. Talk:Shibdas Ghosh has some discussions related to this guy's attempt to push through non-RS.Uzhuthiran (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone has questioned Store norske leksikon as a reliable source, saying that almost anyone can edit it.[47] I have read some of what it says about itself and have been accepting it as reliable.[48] Since it is used as a source for a great many interesting articles on Norwegian subjects on Wikipedia, I would like to be sure of its reliability. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is some editorial oversight; to paraphrase, anyone can apply to be responsible for certain areas of knowledge. But it comes with a probationary and 'presumably' mentored period, there are no formal criteria to formal education or professional experience to be on the 'oversight' group. Here is a list of the people that currently considered responsible for content, perhaps you could look into the individuals that affect the topics you are interested in. Unomi (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have gotten some input and there is a seal of authority that is placed on some articles. Also, some are over sighted by specific persons or groups. Overall, I think it is a good source for factual data on Norway that is not typically available in English. It seems to avoid opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, could podcasts be considered reliable sources depending on where they're from. As there are lots of podcasts on the Stratfor website, which is a reliable website. Could podcasts from reliable websites be used? Deavenger (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the medium usually does not matter. But I'd have my doubts about accepting Stratfor as a particularly reliable source in the first place - certainly not for controversial claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Stratfor, though specialized, is rock-solid. I'd put them up there with the Washington Post and the Economist. They're probably our best source for opinion and analysis pieces on what does the conflict in XYZ signify. Also don't forget that certain categories of text articles are free to read; the Geopolitical Weekly and Security Weekly reports. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree... Stratfor is most definitely a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'd say a podcast is as reliable as the site it's published on (unless, say, the publishing site itself attaches a caveat to it). Jayen466 15:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one could make the argument that, if the podcast is an interview, then any material taken from that interview should be phrased as an opinion (of the interviewee)... but otherwise Jayen's approach works for me. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. If the site is reliable, use the podcast, as the interviewee's opinion. Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I know this was covered before, but it appears that it wasn't resolved. In regards to MEMRI and other articles that feature comments from Coles blog, they meet the definition of reliable sources because they come from a scholar on the middle east who is tenured at The University of Michigan. Wikipedia policy allows blogs if they come from a scholarly source. What Cole writes on his blog is no different from him writing a book or being quoted in a newspaper.

You can argue that Cole is wrong about this or that, but you can't say he isn't a reliable source. His opinion is a scholarly one and it shouldn't be dismissed because some have an ideological difference with those opinions. annoynmous 20:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends for what. Shiite history? Rock solid reliable. As a citation for a matter of recent fact? Never reliable. For an opinion? Sometimes, depending on due weight and how close to his area of expertise the matter is.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is your opinion, not fact. Just because you don't like his interpretations of recent matters doesn't mean he isn't reliable. annoynmous 21:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

His posting on his blog are most certainly not the same as 'him writing a book or being quoted in a newspaper'. those posts are not peer-reviewed like an academic book or a scholarly article, and don't have the editorial oversight and reputation for fact checking and corrections that a quote in a newspaper has. In fact, he has been criticized for precisely this - editing blog posts and making undocumented changes to his blog posts, without acknowledging he has done so. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is "anonymous" addressing me? If so, I never said i don't like Juan's opinions (shit -- Juan and I are even facebook friends). However, they are just that -- opinions -- and have the same value as, say, Bernerd Lewis' (whose politics are awful in my opinion, whose analysis of the middle east has been repeatedly and demonstrably mistaken, but much of whose scholarly work is beyond reproach) when it comes to current political events. He should only be used in the authoritative voice on matters of fact for which he is unquestionably an expert (Napoleon in Egypt, Shiite history, Iraqi history, a few other things). Some of his political opinions can also be used -- particularly vis a vis current events in the Middle East -- but should be clearly flagged as his opinion/analysis (with perhaps a mention that he leans left on these matters) when so used. This would be most productive if you'd tell us what it is exactly you'd like to source to Juan's blog.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say I'm sorry Bali ultimate if my tone above sounded offensive. I didn't know it was you and it sounded like you were being dismissive of Cole.

As to whether Coles blog counts as a relialbe source, well he is a scholar and his opinion should not be held as that of some unkown blogger or an editorialist for a newspaper. As for his blog not being peer-reviewed, well neither was Daniel Pipes Middle East Forum until this winter. If he was being interviewed by a newspaper would there be any objection to his quote being used in the article? Okay he isn't peer-reviewed, but wikipedia policy doesn't say everyhting has to be peer-reviewed. Cole himself is a tenured professor on the middle east and his opinion should not be treated like that of some crank off the street. As Bali said above it's his opinion nothing more and should be stated as that. If Bernard Lewis wrote a Blog I don't think anyone would object to his views being displayed even if people like me found his opinions offensive.

I don't know what Candandian Monkey is referring to with Cole changing information on his blog, but Wikipedia policy clearly allows blogs if they are written by scholarly sources who are experts in the field. annoynmous 23:38, April 2009 (UTC)

Okay lets look at Juan Coles record:

[edit] Appointments and awards Cole was awarded Fulbright-Hays fellowships to India (1982) and to Egypt (1985-1986). From 1999 until 2004, Juan Cole was the editor of The International Journal of Middle East Studies. He has served in professional offices for the American Institute of Iranian Studies.[4] He was elected president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in November 2004.[5] In 2006, he received the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism administered by Hunter College.[6]

1975 B.A. History and Literature of Religions, Northwestern University 1978 M.A. Arabic Studies/History, American University in Cairo 1984 Ph.D. Islamic Studies, University of California Los Angeles 1984-1990 Assistant Professor of History, University of Michigan 1990-1995 Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan 1992-1995 Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan 1995- Professor of History, University of Michigan

In edition to traveling to many Muslim countries he spent a significant amount of time in lebanon during the civil war.

His blog informed comment has also won many awards.

The blog has won various awards; as of April 2006 the most prominent is the 2005 James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism from Hunter College.[23] It has also received two 2004 Koufax Awards: the "Best Expert Blog" and the "Best Blog Post".[24] It has since dropped off the list, but Informed Comment has been ranked as the 99th most popular blog on the Internet by Technorati on October 21, 2006.[25]

Cole himself has been on television many times:

Cole has been cited in the press as a Middle East expert several times since 1990.[19] However, he was considered obscure outside his field prior to 2002, when he began publishing his weblog.[20] From 2002 onwards, Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East. His focus has primarily been Iraq, Iran, The Palestinian Authority, and Israel. He has published op-eds on the Mideast at the Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review, The Nation, the Daily Star, Tikkun magazine as well as at Salon.com, where he is a frequent contributor.[21] He has appeared on the PBS Lehrer News Hour, Nightline, ABC Evening News, the Today Show, Anderson Cooper 360°, Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Al Jazeera and CNN Headline News.[22]

As For Wikipedia guidelines in regards to his blog:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Well Cole has written many books that have been peer-reviewed so I'd say he meets the exception. annoynmous 01:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He's not an expert on MEMRI, and the material is from his blog. There was a lengthy discussion about this issue in the past, and the consensus was to source criticisms from third-party sources, rather than using Cole's blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No there wasn't a consensus, you just declared the debate over and stopped talking. You ended with the dubious rational "Coles quote is too wordy". The other editor didn't agree that the issue was resolved. annoynmous 02:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also how is Cole unqualified to talk about MEMRI. He speaks Arabic and Farsi so why is he not qualified to dispute MEMRI's translations from the muslim world. annoynmous 02:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is his area of scholarly expertise Arabic and Farsi translations? That's the excuse you're trying to use in order to include material from his blog - a fairly controversial blog, I might add. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is he knows the language so he can tell if MEMRI distorted an interview or not. It's not an excuse, I was disputing your false argument that he isn't qualified to talk about MEMRI.

The idea that his blog is controversial is your own personal view. Daniel Pipes is controversial and disgusting in my opinion, but I wouldn't object to him being cited. Until this winter his Middle East Forum was non-peer reviewed yet that didn't stop people from citing it. Cole is a prominent scholar who's personal opinion should be allowed to be heard. annoynmous 02:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets look at this passage again:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Now notice what it doesn't say, it doesn't say "If other sources reference it than it isn't allowed" it says "caution" which doesn't mean theres any definite rule against including Cole in this article. In the case of MEMRI Coles views on this matter aren't published anywhere else than on his blog. So the blog is the only place you can find his specific critique of MEMRI.annoynmous 03:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I've relented in regards to the MEMRI article. The reasons being that I don't have the strength to argue it by myself against the tag team of Jayjg and Nocall. I still maintain that in matters dealing with issues in the middles east that excerpts from Coles blog qualifie as a reliable source under wikipedia guidelines. annoynmous 04:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This has become unreadable. Uhm, Juan Cole is an expert speaker/translator of arabic (there seemed to be a question about this up above). He's one of top 10 historians of the middle east living. Make of this what you will, but thems the facts (he is far more reliable than a partisan group like memri, which has been caught distorting far too many times to be trusted.)Bali ultimate (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to make one last comment. It's very odd how certain people like Anonmoos like to protray Juan Cole as some sorta radical when he is in fact a very mainstream scholar. As far as I know he has no history with any socialist or leftist movements. Yes he's liberal in his beliefs, but he's a very mainstream one.

It's remarkable how anyone who speaks out against Israel or U.S. middle east policy in general is branded a radical. As Cole commented on his loss of the Yale appoitnment, he knew speaking out was going to hurt his chances of academic advancement. He almost got it, but people like Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin and John Fund of The Wall Street Journal put pressure on Yale to deny him. As Yale History Professor John Merriman said, "I love this place. But I haven't seen something like this happen at Yale before. In this case, academic integrity clearly has been trumped by politics."

It's a sad state of affairs that very mainstream and moderate politically scholar is turned into a radical lefty by the neo-con faction of academia who work hard to stifle dissent. annoynmous 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)