Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 33

I've been creating articles for Tennis players, mainly based on the databases of WTA and ITF. These are script-based databases: one interrogates them, and is shown results. They don't produce URLs that one can use to show this or that piece of information. So, although all of the information is in those databases, inline citations cannot be created for specific pieces of information. I have been placing the links to the WTA/ITF player pages in External links, and leaving it at that. Anyone who wants to check the information will have to press the appropriate buttons at the WTA or ITF sites.

Recently, one of these was hit with a {{No footnotes}} tag. On one hand, I can't deny that the warning is literally true, but on the other hand, there's nothing that can be done about it when the sources are in this form.

I am not here for arbitration, I just want advice. Am I justified in removing the tag? Is there another tag that would be more appropriate? Any comments would be welcome.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

An example of an article that may serve as a test case? -- Banjeboi 06:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Liza Andriyani is the one I was talking about. Ordinary Person (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, the <ref> mechanism just introduces footnotes. Just put a cite web template into it and add a comment that explains that one has to search the DB. This is not an optimal solution, but I would think the WTA and ITF sites are reliable enough for basic details of their players. I don't know if they are good enough to establish notability, as listing there would be essentially automatic. See Wikipedia:Notability (sports). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give that a burl.

On notability: I am certain that WTA and ITF listings are _not_ enough to establish notability, since they include players who never won a single match. There aren't any guidelines yet for notability of tennis players but I'm going on the idea that if you've won at least five ITF tournaments or _any_ WTA tournaments, you're probably notable enough.

But that's by the by: the article's not being challenged on notability. (yet)Ordinary Person (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want to draft some language if nothiing else as a guideline for those who know little of the sport suggesting what would infer notability for the sport. -- Banjeboi 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this considered a reliable source? The site is dedicated to media with a detective theme and is not publicly edited like Anime News Network encyclopedia. Currently it's used to source List of Case Closed episodes (season 1) at its Detective Conan episode section. DragonZero (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethel Merman has a fact tag challenging the assertion that she is a mezzo-soprano. I found this, which describes her as mezzo-soprano/alto. Can I use this to cite her as a mezzo-soprano/alto? Dlabtot (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me. The site seems relatively comprehensive and up to date. I can't see any obvious objection without evidence claiming the contrary that she is something other than a mezz-soprano/alto from a more authoritative source. Chaldor (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are scans of copies of marriage certificates considered reliable sources? Another editor is claiming he has these for Bob Ross and wants to use them in the article but would like to confirm they are considered reliable considering they are scans of copies. How do we "authenticate" them? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No. That's the kind of item one might use when conductng original research, but it's not a published source. Dlabtot (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Different jurisdictions have different rules about obtaining marriage certificates. If a jurisdiction will send a certificate to anyone who asks, it meets the definition of published. However, other sources may be necessary prove a person named in a certificate is the same person described in a Wikipedia article. Of course, a scan of a certificate in the possession of a Wikipedia editor is not reliable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If a jurisdiction will send a certificate to anyone who asks, it meets the definition of published. umm, no. Dlabtot (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one could make the argument that if such documents have been made publically available by the jurisdiction (say on an online database) then they have be "reliably published". But a scan of a copy? no. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But does it matter that you're using the scan of the copy? After all, you're referring to the Marriage Certificate itself, it's just that in practice you're not actually using that yourself to look up the relevant facts. What matters is whether everyone could get the actual certificate or a reliably published copy to corroborate what you claim. No? sephia karta | di mi 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be the first place of publication for any information (see WP:No original research), and unless the certificate can be considered to be previously published, then using the information contained in it does make Wikipedia the first place of publication for that information. The key word here is "Published" (ie disseminated to the Public)... This is why we have been discussing whether the document has been reliably "Published" or not. I don't think going to the courthouse and copying the certificate qualies as "Publication". Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC Trust#2009 Editorial Standards Committee report section (which has been moved from the Jeremy Bowen article following an edit war, protection and 3rd opinion) discusses a recent report of the BBC Trust issued following complaints made against Middle East reporting by Bowen and BBC News. One editor is insistent that the comments of the complainants following the report should be included, in particular that some comments by someone called Jonathan Turner should be quoted. I do not believe that Turner is a reliable source and his opinions should not be recorded here, irrespective of his partially successful complaint. His comments have been widely reported including in The Jerusalem Post and the Guardian, which I assume to be reliable themselves. However, I do not think that makes any difference to the reliability of Turner's comments.

One particular quote that this editor wishes to include is something to the effect that the BBC took 2 years to correct an article that was found to breach accuracy regulations. The full comment from Turner is that this (and Bowen's reporting in general) has had an impact on anti-Semitic attacks. That, to me, is an exceptional claim which requires an exceptional source and Turner is not an exceptional source. Further, the Guardian article linked to above is particularly critical of this statement and says it is an "unfounded slur". Now, both the comment and the response could be included in the article, but I think that including this comment by an unreliable source is over-representing a minority viewpoint and should be left out altogether.

Other comments on this whole affair have been made by CAMERA and the Zionist Federation. The Guardian article is equally critical of their comments and, in my view, CAMERA had the chance to voice their opinions in the ESC Report. While I am not as bothered about including quotes from these parties (since they are established organisations rather than individuals) I still think doing so is putting undue weight on their apparently minority opinions.

Sorry for the long explanation, but the whole issue of Middle East reporting is very sensitive and (as I mention above) prone to cause edit wars so I wanted to give people as much info as I could. GDallimore (Talk) 13:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Turner's comments may or may not be reliable on their own... but the fact that his comments have been reported in reliable sources such as the Jerusalem Post and the Guardian makes his opinion notable. I think this is more an issue for WP:NPOV than RS... The key is to phrase any discussion on Turner's comments neutrally... and make it clear that what Turner says is his opinion and not proven fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, although I'm far from convinced that a "notable" opinion is also a "reliable" opinion. But if the comments are notable AND reliable, then I guess they have to go in, in which case the only solution from an NPOV perspective is to go overboard and report all the facts and both sides of the debate - something which I have been loath to do in view of repeated comments from various third parties that we are falling into the traps of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. GDallimore (Talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing reliability with "truth". They are not the same. In the case of statements of opinion, what needs to be reliable are the sources that report on the opinion (ie we must be able to rely on the source to accuratly report who holds the opinion and what that opinion is). The opinion may or may not be "true". I do think you have a point in raising WP:UNDUE. I don't think you need to go into great detail on this... It sounds as if this is something that can be dealt with by making a passing reference. Just note that the criticism has been made and if there has been any official reply. A few short sentences should do it. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but questions about "what is true" are usually tied in with "verifiability" rather than reliability. I agree that this opinion is clearly verifiable (having been published in reliable sources). Consequently, it's also clearly true that this chap holds this opinion. My question is whether he is a sufficiently reliable source on this matter that we should even consider recording his opinion. I don't see how the fact that he has been quoted makes his opinion more reliable (although it makes it more verifiable) than if he had not been quoted. GDallimore (Talk) 16:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a matter of NPOV (and specifically WP:UNDUE) and is not within the scope of this noticeboard. Personally, I think it warrents a passing mention under a "criticisms" heading, but no more than that. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to define the journal of "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology" as a non reliable source since it has as sponsors many groups with conflict of interests [1] and many of its articles are written by employees of consulting companies like Cantox/Intrinsik whose role is defined as "protect client interests while helping our clients achieve milestones and bring products to market"[2].Nutriveg (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We generally try avoid making blanket statements that sources are always 'reliable' or 'unreliable', preferring instead to examine specific citations to sources in context. So what is the citation in question? Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot, and most journals will publish industry-funded work. Incidentally, Regulatory Tox and Pharm. is listed in User:Yilloslime/Questionable_Sources. One example of its use is in aspartame controversy. In 2002 a pretty good review was published in Regulatory, which was authored by industry-funded scientists. In 2007 a similar review was published in Critical reviews in toxicology, whose lead author worked for Cantox International, which seeks to "facilitate timely regulatory global approvals". These are a couple of the main sources on aspartame's controversy, and no mention of their industry funding appears in the article. Although several editors think the conflict of interest warrants mention, a couple have managed to edit war it out in order to keep from poisoning the well. Generally I think that Wikipedia should have the same standard of disclosure as journals do, which means the disclosure should be on the Wikipedia page. II | (t - c) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly the use of this journal has been problematic in articles relating to secondhand smoke; it was one outlet for material produced by the tobacco industry intended to forestall regulation. In one case, the journal's editor was paid $30,000 by the tobacco industry to write a paper which downplayed the risks of secondhand smoke. The industry then cited this paper in its arguments against EPA regulation of smoking.

  The Center for Science in the Public Interest has criticized the journal by name as "read[ing] more like a house organ of big business than an independent, peer-reviewed scientific journal... It is hard for anyone to have confidence in RTP's published research when blatant conflicts of interest are concealed." ([3]). In the book Doubt Is Their Product (Michaels, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780195300673), RTP is described as the best known of a group of "vanity journals that present themselves to the unwary as independent sources on information and science... the peer reviewers are carefully chosen, like-minded corporate consultants sitting in friendly judgment on studies that are exquisitely structured to influence a regulatory proceeding or court case."

  We've had an entry on RTP in a (completely informal) list of "Questionable Sources" for awhile now. I agree with Dlabtot - context is important, and it's hard to make binary, blanket pronouncements about reliability, but there's certainly a case for a large grain of salt here. I would, however, hesitate to extend the six-degrees-of-separation approach suggested by II, unless similarly reliable sources are similarly critical of Crit Rev Toxicol. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, a six-degrees-of-separation? I didn't say either were unreliable, I said all journals publish industry-funded papers. I actually added an interesting Regulatory article to animal model not too long ago (PMID 11029269). I mentioned Critical reviews because it is worth noting that Regulatory isn't the only journal willing to work closely with industry. Critical reviews, one of the most widely-cited toxicology journal, could seem even more questionable in that it's willing to devise schemes to make it seem like their industry-funded work is entirely unbiased -- in the aspartame paper, they said that the authors didn't know who the sponsor was until after the paper was published, although in truth the authors more than likely knew because Ajinomoto takes in something like 90% of aspartame revenue and sponsored a similar review in 2002. And the fact that they appointed as lead author someone who has been campaigning for sugar-free coke doesn't isn't really encouraging either. That doesn't mean Critical reviews is unreliable or pro-industry per se. in fact they published an article which appears extremely critical of genetically modified food not long ago (PMID 18989835) (that was Crit reviews in food science). You could probably find articles critical of industry in Regulatory similar to the way you can find articles critical of pseudoscience and the paranormal in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. II | (t - c) 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)I would normally assume an Elsevier journal to have decent standards. However, in this case, there is serious doubt. The editor in chief is a former tobacco industry shill, and the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health has gone to the very unusual step of publishing a debate about the quality and independence of the T&P peer review. David Michaels' Doubt is their Product, published by OUP, is also less then complimentary. So I would suggest it is not, in general, reliable. Good catch! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Some people think that IJOEH and CSPI are, in general, not reliable, which is why articles from them have been continually reverted from the aspartame controversy. So it goes both ways. And personally I think IJOEH/CSPI's position on aspartame (that it likely causes cancer) suggests that they're not very rigorous. II | (t - c) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think what distinguishes a journal as a reliable source, and a self published work as generally unreliable is the review process and the quality of the editors, so if that review process is weak and publishes anything, the publication turns out to be as unreliable as a self published work. My case was of an article about Roundup, it looked as a general citation, but I decided to investigate the authors and discovered that the lead "scientist" worked for a lobby group, another author worked in research about another Monsanto product (aspartame) and Monsanto sponsors the Journal. I don't mind presenting all those facts together with the citation, but the evidence that a research is tainted is not always present (like Cantox operates abroad and doesn't list its clients) so the burden of proof that a specific research from that journal is reliable should be on the side of who cites it.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, User:ImperfectlyInformed was the one trying to eliminate the Roundup article, resuming it to few citations in Glyphosate.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• To add my two cents, I think it can be used as an RS depending on its relevance to the article at hand. It may be a horribly biased and industry-favoring source, but it's still an official publication house. Use it with the appropriate disclosure. Don't necessarily state opinions expressed from these articles as facts, but ensure there are appropriate lead-ins: According to an article in the JRTP... and then follow-up with other sources which call into question the bias/reliability/integrity of the journal/article/author, etc. If you can't find any specifc evidence against the author/article in particular, yet feel the article is misleading, cite an RS that criticizes the journal and use it as evidence to call into question the integrity of anything coming from the journal (the key is making as full a disclosure as possible). There's nothing wrong with presenting a slanted source, so long as the slant is also disclosed. It's not up to the wiki community to evaluate the truth, but simply to present all the relevant information (remember, the key is WP:V not truth). If an article in the JRTP is a notable voice in the scientific dialogue that occurs within the context of the respective article in question (which it appears they are in this case?), then it deserves mention. Just be sure to explain/point out the bias and any relevant notable voices against this voice as well. Chaldor (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of any wikipedia articles that set a good example for tackling this issue? COI in industry-funded studies is a valid concern, especially in WP:CONTROVERSY articles on medical topics, and should be given appropriate weight. Not too much, and also not too little. In a densely-written article "According to an article in JRTP" would be wordy, and uninformative. "In an industry-funded critique" would read as biased, and has been rejected by one editor at Aspartame controversy. Is it WP:OR to make judgements about a source? --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it's not original research since articles are rejected all the time based upon editor's impressions of the work even if these impressions are not based on actual published evidence. For example, the IJOEH was rejected from aspartame controversy based on no sources. II | (t - c) 16:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's part of the process, and can be either good or bad. As editors we do play an enormous part in this process. Should we add Humphries review article (PMID 17684524) on aspartame's safety to the aspartame controversy article? We don't have articles specifically criticizing the publisher (Nature Publishing), the journal, or really the author. But it's still an article which is wildly at odds with other evidence, and thus it's OK to exclude it. We could give it a sentence maybe. The IJOEH has defended Ramazzini's studies, but it hasn't engaged the criticisms of the studies, so it's not a great source. II | (t - c) 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A user sourced material at The Good Witch of the West using allcinema.net. Is someone well versed in Japanese willing to check if this is a reliable source? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Maria Surfs The Web is a spot on KTTV (Fox news channel in LA) where Maria Quiban reviews web sites. Reliable source for establishing notability or any other uses? Examples here --neon white talk 10:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the proposed use? If it's just to show a website's been picked up on by more mainstream media then maybe, if we are citing her opinion and providing WP:Attribution then also maybe. If it's citing her as more an expert then you may need to also source those credentials as an authority. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Potentially to show a websites notability, though that isnt currently in question, it's possible that someone might question it. Also to cite info provided in the broadcast. I presume, as this goes out on a news show, it would be subject to some kind of editorial oversight? None of the info in her broadcasts is really 'expert' in nature more very general info about the websites featured. In this case to cite a general categorization of a website. --neon white talk 09:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes as it's attributed, onscreen even, to the news channel which will have reasonable standards for fact checking. As long as the content cited errs on the conservative it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe check use {{cite video}} at WP:Citation templates as well. -- Banjeboi 15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The particular one i want to cite is this one] to cite the website's categorization as an auction site. As you can see it's mention in both the text on the page and video. The page also seems to be under news stories on the site. [4] --neon white talk 19:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a total fluff piece that shows nothing more than the fact that the site exists. It is not "news" by any means, and does not contain any useful commentary or analysis. Neon is editwarring to use it to supplement other existing RS sources (which actually offer analysis and have some sense of journalistic integrity). If this installment of MSTW was the only source for a website, I think an article about that site would fail AFD. Can we have this conversation with the other editors on the talk page instead of hiding it here? NJGW (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's published by a news station, on a news show, it's contained in the news category on the web site, how many more clues do you want? The spots might not contain in depth info about sites but it is cites the info and is verifiable. We do not base the reliability of sources on such strange ideas. Your obvious personal prejudice against this source does not change the established reliability of Fox News and affiliate stations. As WP:RS staes "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." This is not edit warring. Using the RS noticeboard to ok a source is the correct and proper procedure and i take such accusations as a personal attack and warn you not to continue them. --neon white talk 09:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The article about the Oom Yung Doe martial arts school relies heavily on the book "An Introduction to Traditional Moo Doe", copyrighted by Oom Yung Doe and used within the school as a sort of training manual. The book is available online[[5]]. It seems pretty obvious that this is not a reliable source for controversial information about the school (such as the quality of the training or the accomplishments of the founder of the school), but is it a valid source for noncontroversial information (such as when the school was founded or what styles are taught)? Subverdor (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a Self-published primary source, with all the limitations this implies (See: WP:SPS). You are esentially correct in how it can and can not be used. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This self-published source is from an author involved in a long-term legal battle with the State of Illinois Attorney General's office ( see the article with references Oom_Yung_Doe#Legal_Entanglements). The author voluntarily entered into a consent decree. I feel this legal action concerning fraud reduces the reliability of these self-published sources below the level needed for a Wikipedia article. jmcw (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the subject did not admit any misconduct or wrong doing in the consent decree... so the allegation of fraud was never proven. Unless the book is alleged to have played a part in the alleged fraud, I don't see it as being relevant to its limited reliability. As long as we don't use the source for anything controvercial, I see no reason not to allow it for basic noncontrovercial facts (if need be, we can attribute anything we take from the book to the book... as in "according to Kim's self-published Oom Yung Doe Handbook, the school was founded in 1972 and teaches X styles". This changes the statement from being a statement of fact about the school to a statement of fact about the book. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I assume you have looked at the Oom Yung Doe article and the online book in question [6]. This links to a discussion of the author "jumping from the equivalent of an 11-story building" and the author "has taught some instructors [...] They are now able to jump and land from a 2 or 3-story building without injury". Could you tell me which of these Wiki conventions you feel applies to this author? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not read the article in question. I would definitely say that what you are talking about now is using the book to support a controvercial claim, and I agree that such claims should not be cited to the book in question. I was responding purely to the idea that the book can be used for non-controvercial statements, such as the year in which the school was founded or what styles of martial arts are taught. For such basic facts (and only for such basic facts), the founder of the school can be considered an expert (as he was there at the time). Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that serious, thoughtful editors (like Subverdor) read the policy pages before they post here. What is needed is input in the context of this particular article and this particular reference source. The reliability is in question. I believe that the source is not reliable due to unusual material in the self-published book. The author is not a recognised authority. The author has not been acquitted of the fraud charges. The lead page of the reference in question posits the author levitating. I assume good faith concerning Wiki editors. Why do you assume reliability about levitating source authors when the self-published sources in question are the main reference for the article? Your opinion would be of greater value if you read the article and source in question. Thank you for your time! jmcw (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point... a) I would not use the source to discuss claims of levitation or anything like that. I would only use it for basic statement such as the year the school was founded. b) The source in question should not be the main source for the article. No article should be based primarily on self-published primary sources... ever. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose a guideline as to what can be used from the Handbook: Posit: If a Wiki editor visited a school, could she/he usually see the activity or item being referenced. For example, if the Handbook say "During training, students hit themselves with bags of herbs", this would be acceptable. If the handbook say "Students and instructors wear various coloured belts", this would be acceptable. If the handbook say "There is a legend ...", this would not be acceptable because a visitor could not verify the legend.

I think the Handbook would be more valuable to the article if there were less "statement of fact about the book" usage. Let us use what is reliable and discard the rest. jmcw (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact is that a book (any book) is a reliable source for a statement as to what is contained in that book. Whether the article should discuss what is said in the book or not is an editorial decision for the article writers to make, and not something for policy/guideline pages to dictate. That said, it does sound as if this article needs a re-write and better sourcing. While the Oom Yung Doe handbook can be used in the article (for limited things), the bulk of the article should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be wholeheartedly in favor of discarding things in the article that aren't reliably demonstrated. A lot of what's in it now seems to be of the form "Oom Yung Doe says X, whereas critics say Y," where neither of the assertions is really reliably demonstrated (although the fact that they're asserted by some person or other is). I think cutting down on the number of those little mini-debates within the article would improve it (as well as making it easier to find wording that everyone's okay with).

That's sort of a separate debate from whether non-controversial information in the handbook can be considered "reliably demonstrated," of course. Subverdor (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As for your proposed guideline, I think my answer is contained within an old revision of WP:CON (sadly no longer in the document, because I really liked it): "The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome." I personally feel that it would be better to apply policy than to adopt an ad-hoc guideline for this particular source, but how I feel about it is also sort of irrelevant. Subverdor (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published..." so we are agreed that the Handbook should not be referenced<g>. jmcw (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing the handbook as a primary source is bizarre. It's written by Tom White based largely on his interpretations of information from others (largely John C. Kim), so it's not self-evident that it's a primary source. There are reasonable reasons you could argue against using it, but you should actually argue those reasons and apply some insight into the ideas behind policy if you're expecting to convince people. Subverdor (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When Kim (the author in question) was charged, convicted and sentenced to prison for tax evasion (ie. lying), Thomas White was also charged [7]. Do you know if he was also convicted? Do you believe convicted liars are reliable primary sources? jmcw (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oy... repeated ad hominem attacks unrelated to what we're discussing aren't (I hope) going to be too effective at persuading people, either. The tax case which you're describing now is different from the fraud case which you mentioned above. In any case, I said long ago that I'm not particularly interested in getting drawn into a debate over whether Oom Yung Doe is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. As a general rule, and regardless of whether Tom White was convicted, I do believe that those convicted of conspiracy to commit tax fraud (which, unlike tax fraud itself, does not require an overt fraudulent act or "lying") can serve as reliable sources, yes.

As a side note, I realize that I was actually incorrect about primary sources as Wikipedia sees them -- Wikipedia policy's definition pretty clearly does consider "An Explanation of Traditional Moo Doe" a primary source, because the source material it interprets is all (to my knowledge) previously unpublished. So there may be some merit to going over the uses of the handbook in the article to make sure that we're not relying on it too heavily (and possible adding some more of those "according to Oom Yung Doe internal literature..." phrases). Subverdor (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the fresh view! jmcw (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The article on Gerry Maclochlainn is being edited continuously because one person rejects the Western Mail newspaper as a reliable paper of record. I need someone who knows something about Wales and the Western Mail to intervene here. It is a paper of record but perhaps O fenian does not know this. He needs to check this rather than just acting on an assumption. I have tried to discuss this but he ignores my posts and removed my edits

I removed attempts at dispute resoltion from within the article itself, since this editors attacks and assumptions of bad faith have no place in an actual article. Tabloid newspapers are not good sources for rarely known controversial information about living people. O Fenian (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The proper link is Gerry MacLochlainn. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also this editor has frequently used sources that do not support the text. For example this edit uses this source which does not say anywhere that he was a member of the IRA. Similarly the same source is used for the entire second paragraph of this repeatedly made edit, when the only information in the article about the person is a photo caption describing him as "former POW Gerry Mac Lochlainn". If online sources are used that badly, who is to say what their use of offline sources is like? O Fenian (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Western Mail is a reliable source. Robert Hazell in The State and the Nations (Imprint Academic, 2000) calls it the closest thing Wales has to a paper of record. It's not accurate to call it a tabloid, with the derogatory connotations that implies. It is perceived as having moved downmarket in recent years, especially since a new editorial direction in 2005 put more emphasis on stories about leisure and entertainment. (Meryl Aldridge. Understanding the Local Media, McGraw-Hill International, 2007). However it continues to cover hard news, its stories are quoted extensively in literature about the press, and the cite in question is from 1980.

If you have doubts about the cite, it's reasonable to ask that the editor include the author of the piece, and quote you the relevant passages. Note though that the information he wishes to add is backed up elsewhere, for instance the National Library of Wales is holding MacLochlainn's Prison Letters 1981-1983 and describes it thus: "Twenty-seven letters, 1981-1983, from Gerry Maclochlainn, a Sinn Fein activist on the United Kingdom mainland, from Maidstone prison to Ioan M. Richard, organiser of 'Dros Ryddid', a left wing republican movement in South Wales. At the time, Maclochlainn was serving a four year prison term following conviction on conspiracy charges."[8] And a journal called The Blanket, published under the aegis of An Phoblacht, ran a piece by Liam O Ruairc which said "The former Sinn Fein organiser in Wales was released from Maidstone Prison in November 1983 after serving two and a half years of a sentence for conspiracy to cause explosions".[9] 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The information at the National Library of Wales either contradicts or differs from the information that is under dispute, and I feel The Blanket is unacceptable for accusations about a living person. As the editor has shown no interest in policy and continues edit warring to include large swathes of totally unsourced and point of view material, the chances of a successful resolution are fleeting. O Fenian (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the National Library blurb and The Blanket are somewhat weak sources, but the point is they should allay your concerns about the material in the reliable source that you do not have access to: the Western Mail. The OP's edit cited to the WM that MacLochlainn was "charged with conspiracy to cause explosions and possession of explosives". If that is so, then no other sources are needed, but nevertheless the other sources bear this out to varying degrees (the National Library says just "conspiracy charges").

If I may say so, it seems to me that focusing on the content issue rather than what you see as behavioural issues will be the most effective route to resolving this. The OP has brought the issue of the Mail here, so s/he is not disinterested in policy, process and independent views. 86.44.27.38 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Brought this here, but since ignored this discussion and other discussions and continued to add large amounts of unsourced information. Until actual quotes from the source are provided, I am unwilling to accept it as a source due to the misuse of other sources. O Fenian (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, but probably not worth edit warring over when a reference is provided. The OP has also opened dialogue on the article talk page, so you can ask him/her about what you require there, rather than the two of you back-and-forth reverting, which seems unproductive. If you don't get the progress you want, WP:30 or WP:RFC (using {{RFCbio}}) are still available to you before editing the article. I agree that the unsourced stuff should be removed persistently. 86.44.27.38 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP did not initiate dialogue on the talk page, that was moved from the article by me. O Fenian (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. ;) 86.44.27.38 (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate here... while the OP did not initiate dialogue on the talk page... he did attempt to initiate dialogue (which you then, correctly, moved to the talk page). You might assume good faith and continue the dialoge on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor is arguing that biographies on NME are copies of Wikipedia text in this article. I can't say I agree, so if others can take a look at the site and add their input, it would help. — Σxplicit 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The NME article and the 2008 version of the Wikipedia article are certainly suspiciously similar... The question is whether NME did infact take it's information from Wikipedia, or whether they are both based on some other source. That is going to be very hard to prove (it takes all sorts of digging around in old archives). One question we would need to look at is when the NME bio was written? Can we establish that the Wikipedia article is older than the one at NME? Probably the best bet is to avoid the NME article just to be on the safe side... since there seem to be lots of other sources that can be used instead. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Details here. Please weigh in there, not here. It's about the current flu outbreak all over every inch of the news media and on our main page. rootology (C)(T) 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I have a particularly frustrating situation here. Okay, here's the story: voice actress Jennifer Hale purportedly voices a character named Samus Aran in the Metroid Prime trilogy of video games. I say 'purportedly' because there were no reliable sources to support this, only dubious ones like the IMDb, until this video interview with Hale was conducted by a blogger named Sadie a.k.a. "UltraNeko" and placed on her (Sadie's) blog late last year. She has performed several other interviews with voice actors, as well as other people in the video game industry. Within the video interview, Jennifer Hale confirms she voiced Samus (it's at about 2:10 into the video). So, I added that information to the Samus Aran and Jennifer Hale articles and used the video interview as the source, but a user named Gary King removed the information, stating the video isn't reliable because "the person in a video might not necessarily be who they say they are". Is that reasonable? Because to claim that one of Sadie's interviews isn't authentic is to claim they're all inauthentic. These voice actors look like themselves, and they even perform their characters' voices within the interviews.

At Gary King's request, I brought this to a user named Ealdgyth and she agreed with him that the video interview isn't reliable enough. But the fact still stands that Jennifer Hale confirmed she voiced Samus and I have the video to prove it. The interviews are definitely authentic, so why can't they be used? Or can they? Thanks to anyone that responds. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All reliable sources have two inter-related components... the author has to be reliable, and the publisher has to be reputable (another way of saying reliable). The best sources (such as articles in peer reviewed academic journals) are strong on both components. However, for some topic areas (videogames being a prime example) we often have a problem because there are no sources of this quality. We often get reliable authors (such as game designers) making statements in unreliable publications (such as a blog or web forum). This is the situation you are facing... Ms. Hale is the author of her own statements, and Sadie's blog is the publisher of those statements. While Ms. Hale is a reliable "author", Sadie's blog is not a reputable (ie reliable) "publisher". Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for responding, Blueboar. I understand the importance of citing reliable sources, but this isn't a case of "some random blogger says Jennifer Hale voiced Samus, so let's use it as a source." Of course that wouldn't be considered reliable. This is a case of "Hale acknowledges she voiced Samus on video", so why does it matter who shot the video or where it's hosted? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sesu Prime. We are getting into process wonkery to say that a video of a person saying something non-controversial isn't a reasonable source of what that person said. Given that this "publisher" has a reputation for doing exactly these kind of interviews, I'd call it an acceptable source unless someone expresses a basis for believing otherwise. That this is in a WP:BLP makes it more of an issue, but I just don't see the problem here. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The results of this discussion aren't exactly conclusive, so I would greatly appreciate more input on this. Thanks to anyone who further responds. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 09:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, just a question to help back me up. Are forum threads from a website a good reference for the article talking about the website? I think not, but I need opinions. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While forum postings are generally not reliable, there are rare circumstances when they might be. You have not really given us enough information to definitively answer your question. We would have to look at the specific website under discussion ... We have to ask questions such as: Is it a closed community of experts, or can any Tom, Dick and Harry post, and: can we determine who authored the comments being cited? (there is a difference between a comment made by an anonimous member of the general public and one clearly attributable to a recognized expert) Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a an article about an online game, and some of the users of the game have decided to take to re-vamping the article. The forum they wish to use is of--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)f the game's web site. They want to use it to show threads talking about features and events of the game.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the article in question is Blockland, now, what reference are you talking about? Please don't again give some generic description. Just say what website, what forum, and what reference. Dlabtot (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Blockland Forum is what people are planning on using as a source.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... not look reliable at first glance, but we are not done yet ... next question... how do they want to use it? What exactly are they trying to cite to the Blockland Forum? Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They are using a thread about the game being sold to Lego to prove that the event happened along with numerous other things that I am not fully informed of.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be at least a press release related to the acquisition. That would not be a generally admissible source, but it could be used as far as it provides information about the source itself, i.e. the company LEGO as a part of the subject of the article. Press releases can be obtained from companies, i.e. from LEGO in this case. The forum would be a source that provides information about a third party. Then, if the information comes from the editorial staff of the board, in my view, you would need overwhelming circumstatial evidence that it is correct, and the information should still be tagged as needing a proper source. If just some people on the board are saying so, they have no reputation for giving accurate information, and they probably are not really held accountable for any false information they provide. --Cs32en (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The sale never completed, and Lego doesn't own the game, so there was no press release.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

err, but the claim that they want to support with the source is that it has been sold to LEGO, or am I getting this wrong?

They want to use the thread as proof that LEGO had an interest in buying the game.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The source would not be admissible for such a claim. I don't say the following is the case here, but I could imagine people setting up a software company and claiming that a big firm is interested in buying them, with the aim of attracting credit or venture capital. (If you don't see any reason why something would have been faked, it's maybe just because you didn't think of the one reason for which it actually has been faked.) --Cs32en (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As I thought. Thanks.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For reference though, it would be nice to have the page versions/diffs in question listed, and to have the reference in question listed here as well, just so everyone can clearly see what is being discussed and what the claim is. Can you add these? Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The page they want to use the thread on is Blockland and one of the forum threads they want to use is this one.--gordonrox24 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not include that information without further support by other sources, because of the likelyhood that it would be inaccurate by presenting the facts in a self-serving way. Thus, while a self-published source is acceptable in principle with regard to some of the information here (e.g. "I went to brickfest (a Lego convention here in Virginia) and talked with 2 lego executives"), the circumstances and content would indicate the need to be cautious here. In addition, he is making not only claims about himself, but about the intentions of other people, i.e. the LEGO executives, so this part of the information would not be admissible. (Things may be different if he presented a document from LEGO stating these intentions, as he would only be the medium then, not the publisher.) --Cs32en (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this posted by an owner of the Blockland company, or is it by a user? If we're positive it's by an officer of the company then it's essentially a press release and usable as a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The thread I posted was written by the Blockland game developer, giving it some reliability. How much, I am not certain.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Are Helium.com articles reliable sources? The article in question is Travian.--Joshua Issac (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in this case. It sounds like their editorial policy isn't strong enough for an article to be cited for those allegations. Furthermore, "criticism" sections should have notability beyond RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Joshua Issac (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is so silly that I sort of hesitate to bring it up here, but I don't know of a better forum for discussing what's an acceptable source. The Oom Yung Doe article currently has several citations to court cases (as opposed to specific court documents) -- the two references used are, in their entirety, "United States v. Kim, No. 1:95-cr-00214 (N.D. Ill. 1995)." and "People of the State of Illinois v. John C. Kim, et. al. No. C89-CH-10044 (N.D. Ill. 1992)". The editors who inserted these references have refused (or failed to respond to) several requests to identify in detail which document from the cases in question supports the statements that bear those citations.

My feeling is that this is not acceptable; a court case is an event, not a document that can be cited. A filing or transcript from a court case is, of course, a perfectly acceptable source. Can someone confirm that my feeling is correct?

Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are primary sources, and as such, must be used with caution. For example, in Roe v. Wade, a Findlaw link to the actual court decision is cited to support direct quotations from the opinion. A reader can read our article, follow the reference, and verify that our article is accurate. That is not the case with the references in Oom Yung Doe which simply refer to the name of the case to attempt to verify general statements of fact. Dlabtot (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that documents from court cases are primary sources and should be used with caution. Just to be clear -- are you saying that just citing the case as a whole is acceptable, or not? Subverdor (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that the case title (with the docket number) is verification for the fact that the case exists, but that is about it. Really, the only court documents that are reliable are the judge's decisions and rulings.Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In summary: What is the policy on Hate, White Supremacist, Holocaust Denier and Extremists concerning their validity as reliable sources?

Unfortunately, many of these haters, white supremacists and holocaust deniers have Ph.D., masters degrees (like Dr. Butz) and other advanced technical degrees from universities, colleges, technical schools etc... or these haters don't have top degrees, but extensive experience for example in execution technology like Fred Leuchter for instance (who worked in many states rebuilding execution technology and so forth see the movie Mr. Death about Fred Leuchter).

I don't condone these people getting advanced degrees in engineering or getting extensive experience in technology oriented fields, im just mainly concerned about their validity as reliable sources for example. Which came first the Holocaust Denier or the Holocaust Denier getting extensive experience in execution technology and then using that knowledge to claim or realize after extensive forensic study the Holocaust was grossly exaggerated. Holocaust Denial is something I abhor.

I started a conversation in the discussion talk area of the Leuchter Report article on wikipedia about including a link to the actual article the Leuchter Report, a research report which promotes Holocaust Denial. The problem I am having is DougWeller and a number of other editors for emotional and political reasons keep deleting and editing my discussion thread in the Leuchter Report Talk Discussion area preventing me from discussing the links to the actual research article called the Leuchter Report and thus preventing others from discussing it as well.

They also keep deleting the link to the Leuchter Report from the Leuchter report article because of hurtful feelings, sensitive political and emotional reasons, and I was wondering what the policy is on Reliable sources and can someones feelings or emotions be a reason to prevent such a link from an article. I make no personal attacks against the deleters, just their statements came off as very empty, hollow, lacking in merit and substance.

When I add the link to the actual Leuchter Research Report by Execution Technician Fred Leuchter to the actual Leuchter Report Article on wikipedia, User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon and a number of other editors keep deleting or arguing against the links, saying WP is not a directory of hate links, well I only added 1 or 2 links, as an argument against that, then they change the reason and say something along the lines Hate Sites links are not allowed on wikipedia or that you can't link to hate sites, Then I say there is no policy on linking to hate sites on a hate article. They then say / elude to hate sites are not valid and reliable sources, not notable, not good sources, one even said because of fears these links might convert people into neo-nazies by making it easy for them or make it to easy for people to find information on hate sites which arent considered valid or reliable they elude to. To restate they would rather people have to take the extra step and go to google to find the actual Leuchter Report, they dont want it easy for people to find the information.

I'm not suggesting we use references links from hate sites as sources or references for the mainstream version of the Holocaust, im just suggesting there should be a link to the Leuchter Report from the Leuchter Report Article on wikipedia and I keep meeting with emotionalism, politics, pseudo intellectual red herrings like the Hitler card or hate card. I make no personal attacks towards these editors User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon, my criticism is on their reasons and behavior - not the people themselves. Infact, I think these editors are very nice people in general, and their heart is in Wikipedia, I just find the emotionalism Politics to be against wikipedia neutrality and lacking in any kind of substance, but other than that: User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon are really really nice people with good hearts.

I do not in anyway shape or form support these hate sites, I just think on a hate article, there should be a link to the original source.

So what is the policy on hate sites? What is the policy on linking to hate sites? Is it not allowed on Wikipedia? What is the policy on hate references? etc.. etc..

Is there an administrator who can put their hatred of nazis (a hatred I share) aside, and look at this from a neutral stand point and help give me some clarity?

Markacohen (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping. This can also be found at [10] and [11]. It would be nice to keep the discussion at one place. And despite what Markacohen says above, a link to the Leucter report was added to the article on the 23rd, just not one of the links to hate sites that Markacohen wants and is placing on other articles, eg [12]. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, although he has raised the issue again in the last hour at Editor assistance, he was referred here a couple of days ago. But since his post again, he's raised it also here: [13] along with a complaint about my converting a raw url by removing the http:// (on a discussion page, here's the diff [14]. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer his question... there are several policy and guidelines that cover this topic... Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist and fringe sources... Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources... and WP:Fringe theories come imediately to mind. We can talk about them and their views where appropriate (ie in topics where their viewpoint is notable), but we do not want to give such views more coverage than they deserve (Per WP:UNDUE)... essentially, citing such sources should be limited to articles about the groups themselves, or general articles about such things as racism or holocaust denial (where their view point is the major topic of discussion). Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Rarely even then; keep in mind that the purpose of holocaust denial is to perpetuate a lie; thus, a holocaust denial site is on its face not a reliable source, not even for the questions such as "what do deniers believe", as they can and do lie about what they believe. The most we can do is say "According to IHR, IHR believes...". But that's not even what's going on here. We've got other sources, not from denier sites, for the material in question; so we have no need to send readers to the hate sites. This issue should, therefore, be moot. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. I do find it surprising that we don't provide one single citation to the actual Leuchter Report in an article about the Leuchter Report. We cite Mein Kampf in the article on Mein Kampf after all. Remember the criteria for inclusion is Verifiability not Truth. If we are going to discuss what is said in the report, we should cite the actual report saying it. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Blueboar is right, acceptable as primary sources in articles about the groups themselves, or closely related topics such as Holocaust denial. Even a lie can be cited for an article about the lie. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What we actually have is a Scribd.com copy of the report. What needs to be understood is that the 'report' is actually a document published by the neo-Nazi Ernest Zundel's Samisdat Publishers, and contains a foreward by the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. It isn't just a copy of Leuchter's testimony. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If it contains more than testimony, that's a problem. Is the testimony archived anywhere more neutral? Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of books have forwards. How would a forward invalidate a book or article? Would you not publish a link to the book mein kampf on the mein kampf book article because the forward was by the Angel of Death Dr. Mengele? It's like saying, because the research document has a forward on it, some how the document is no longer valid or the Forward some how changes the substance of the original document. In good faith assume most people are intelligent enough to form their own opinions on a book or research document.

Would it help if all the hate, holocaust denial, extremist and other fringe and pseudo academic works were all put on Archive.org which is a neutral source? Would this help solve the problem here? I have yet to hear anything of any Wikipedia substance or merit as to why you wouldn't link to an original source the article was about.

Markacohen (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Our policy seems very clear on this:

• (from Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist and fringe sources): "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals..."
• (from WP:SELFPUB): "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..."

Both of these statements seem to apply here... we may cite the Leuchter Report in the article about the Leuchter Report, especially for statements about what is contained in the Leuchter Report (ie quotes from the report). The fact that a published copy of the report has a forward that was not originally part of the report is easily dismissed... don't cite anything to the forward. Am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

He's talking about linking. The hate site links that he added have been replaced by another link, so there has been a link to the original report for several days. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting confused. First, the Leuchter report is, of course, different from the testimony given in court. In fact, the report was specifically disallowed as evidence in the Zündel trial. Instead, Leuchter was put on the stand as a witness directly. But Leuchter's report was published, twice (by Zündel and Irving) independently of the trial. And I hate to shout, but THERE IS A LINK TO THE FULL REPORT in Leuchter report. What is not in there is a link to a copy on a Holocaust denier's website. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah... that is very a different kettle of fish. While the report can (and should) be cited, there is no rule that says we have to link to any particular website that hosts it. Which citation points to the full report? Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As the author of all but a couple of sentences in Leuchter report, I feel it is worth commenting on something. The beauty of citing a point in the report with reliable sources is that the reliable source not only a) contains the explanation as to why the primary source is wrong, but b) references the point contained in the primary source, thus minimising the need to cite a quintessentially unreliable source.

In compliance with WP:FRINGE, I figured that this was the most appropriate way to write this article, as disparaging references that prevent fringe theories being construed as anything more are encouraged.

On a related note, there is an AN/I thread related to this topic and Mark's conduct, which is now starting to arouse suspicion. WilliamH (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole substance and supposition of this entire exchange was to make this point, if you are going to write an article about the Leuchter Report or any report for that matter, you need to link to at least link the original document. If the document could not be found on a Neutral site, then the only alternative would be to link to it from a hate site - which is 100% valid according to Wikipedias policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Wikipedia:PSCI.

I'm glad you guys put the hurt sensitive feeling and emotions aside for a moment in the name of making WP a better place by putting a copy of the document on a Neutral site (rather than no link at all). However, I think a better solution would be to put the document on a more long term web site like www.Archive.org as I'm guessing it will be a matter of time before the original document is deleted off Flickr.com and when it is I will put a copy on Archive.org where it can not be deleted and re-link it on the Leuchter Report.

So everything concerning only this specific issue seems to be Kosher for the time being, now on to the next struggle for putting emotional politics aside for neutrality and building a Wikipedia with proper sources.

The next conflict I was having was over Germar Rudolf, there is no Neutral web sites on the Internet where Germar Rudolfs books can be found. So I linked to a hate site to link to Germar Rudolf books online, and they were deleted for again reasons without Wikipedia substance or merit. What would be the solution here? To put the books on Archive.org a neutral site, before linking to them, so there aren't links to them from hate sites?

Question is this, can we talk more about the policy of linking to Hate sites from articles about individuals Holocaust Deniers, Extremists and Haters? There seems to be numerous links all over Wikipedia to hate sites from articles about haters, Holocaust Deniers, Extremists and so forth. It seems the policy is clear, you can link to hate sites from articles about individual Haters and Organizations.

I would like to put links on the Germar Rudolf page to the books he wrote, but coming up against the same group of people deleting the links for reasons that lack Wikipedia substance and merit. What do I do here?

Markacohen (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly read again what I wrote (probably twice) pointing out that we already had a link to his works? Our guidelines on external links make it pretty clear that external links should add something to the article, and as we already link to his works, adding duplicate links just added the hate sites to the article. This is the second article where you've claimed there were no links where in fact there are, and in this case the link has been there for a long time. I don't understand why you didn't check before claiming that there were no links to his works. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we also need to distinguish between citing something and linking to it. We don't have to link to a book or document when we cite it. Doing so is mearly a convenience. If we are going to provide a link as part of a citation, and we have a choice of websites to link to, then we should definitely link to the most neutral one available. Does this mean that occasionally we will end up linking to a hate site when citing a document? Yes... but we hope to keep such links to a minimum. Note, however, that this applies only to linking as part of a citation. For non-citation linking there are different rules (see WP:EL). Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Amnesty International website appropriate for a source in the article Troy Davis case. I question their neutrality because they have voiced support for Davis' plea for innocence.JakeH07 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The question would be whether it's reliable. If the information is mixed with non-neutral statements, then it must be paraphrased so that the language is neutral. (Unless the fact that the AI position on the matter would itself be notable, in which case the claim and the statements must be attributed to AI in the article's text section.) --Cs32en (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on what exactly what it is being used to support (ie the exact statement in the article) and what exactly is being cited to on the AI website. It certainly would be reliable for a statement as to Amnesty International's opinion on the case (Whether their view is notable and worth mentioning is something that is not within the scope of this noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually believe JakeH07 that he questions Amnesty International's neutrality because they have voiced support for Davis. He claimed that because they "represent" Troy Davis they are not an independent source. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI work. In the archives I found two previous comments about AI's reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Human Rights Watch in a slightly different context:

"I suggest this thread be closed and archived; it verges on frivolous. HRW is not only acceptable as a source; it is – with Amnesty International – the best possible source on human-rights violations, period. They've been criticized as "biased" by every country they've ever published reports on, which is pretty much the whole world; this, as others have pointed out, tends rather to enhance their credibility than to diminish it."

"I was about to say much the same thing - that HRW and AI are second in reputation for accuracy only to the very circumspect ICRC."

The question is of course not whether AI is reliable for a statement about what AI think. The question is whether Amnesty International agreeing with the European Parliament, Desmond Tutu, the Pope and Jimmy Carter that Troy Davis is a victim of a miscarriage of justice outweigh a one-line decision by the US Supreme Court to not consider his case. The practical application is how much space should be given to exonerating evidence and Troy Davis' claims of innocence. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for saying they "represent" Troy Davis, I mispoke. They do not represent him in a legal sense, however, they have voiced support for him. My problem is that AI is used as a primary source for the facts of the case. All I suggest is that we find a source that does not have an interest in the case (e.g. trial transcripts). Furthermore, just because the European Parliment and Jimmy Carter agree with AI does not make them more reliable, only the courts can truly decide the case (barring a pardon). I agree space should be given for evidence for Troy Davis' innocence, but space must also be given for the evidence against him. Despite what AI (and the article) say, there was ballistic evidence implicating Troy Davis. This article, http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2008/12/08/troy_davis_appeal.html?cxntlid=inform_artr, would be a good source because it shows both sides of the argument. JakeH07 (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AI is not a primary source here. They have collected primary information with the intent of collecting it, so it's a secondary source. This is probably a case where both views should be given, with attribution to the sources. Given that AI's statements are generally regarded as properly checked and not manipulated for (short-term) advantage, I'd say divide for/against roughly by half, unless you have further circumstantial evidence that the information of some sources related to the dispute would be twisted. There are cases where the only relevant information actually passes through sources that have some kind of interest, and WP:RS sources, such as newspapers or TV companies, just choose whatever they think works best with their respective audience, to be honest. --Cs32en (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International have a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy; they are thus a reliable source, per our policies. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of people misunderstand the concept of NPOV. Our sources do not need to be neutral... WE do. A source can be biased. The important thing is that we report what the source says with neutrality, and present any opposing views. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I can find no policy indicating specifically that search engine results cannot be used as a source. Am I missing something? If not it really ought to be stated somewhere directly, as I've come across articles which try to use them as sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Google search results aren't published - they are dynamic searches of a database. Dlabtot (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye aye, but this ought to be specifically deliniated in some policy or another.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Completely agree with this statement. Google searches for two words, for example, using Google to prove "transsexual homosexual" is a term, yield the same results as "homosexual transsexual". In other words, it merely reports the times these words are uses in the same articles, nothing more. Yes, It would be good to specify this in a policy, as so many editors seem to rely on this measure. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree... something about this probably should be in the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact "homosexual transsexual" yields 1,780,000 results, while "transsexual homosexual" yields a mere 2,550. You have to use double inverted commas to identify specific phrases. Google is usually simply used to establish notability of persons or concepts. It can be a tool to help determine the title of an article by identifying the most commonly used term. We should be very careful not to create policies to ban its use for such purposes. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLE. Dlabtot (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using Google Scholar for slightly more reliable sources, as compared to Google Web Search. TechOutsider (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://deviousmud.tripod.com/ I don't believe so; sounds like an indiviual's blog hosted by Tripod.com. No author is provided. No date of publication. TechOutsider (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And also, notice that he speaks about Jagex, Andrew Gower, and Paul Gower in third person. Plus, why not put this on a subpage of Jagex's official site? And I know the Gowers and the rest of Jagex have better grammar than that... Unreliable--Unionhawk ^Talk 21:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Source In Question: Dale Beyerstein's unpublished ebook: http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/papers/saibaba

Question: Is this ebook a reliable source for the Sathya Sai Baba article?

Currently this ebook is used as a source in a number of places in the article.

• Author::This ebook is the original research work of Beyerstein and is maintained by him.
• Publication: Can this ebook which was never published nor its facts checked or verified by third party publication be used as a reliable source?
• Peer Review:This ebook was never peer reviewed.
• Viewership: There is no proof of viewership. I don't think this ebook is linked to any websites.
• Staff:: Thie ebook is solely written and maintained by Beyerstein. Not like a journal handled by team of staff or going through different stages of editorial process.

My concern is this ebook which is currently used as a source in the article seems to me like original research of Beyerstein. Does this ebook qualify as a reliable source for the article?

There are several such unpublished electronic books. What are the criteria for determining if a source is a reliable for using in a wikipedia article?. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the reference only purports to be "adapted from the book by Dale Beyerstein", the source is not the book by Dale Beyerstein, but this adaptation, made and published by bcskeptics.info. I don't find any hits in Google Scholar for either bcskeptics.info or The British Columbia Society for Skeptical Enquiry. Essentially, self-published. Dlabtot (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This self published source which is not backed by any reliable third-party publications cannot be used as a reliable source in the wikipedia article right? Radiantenergy (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not a RSMartinlc (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a question about whether an author's claim about how many newspapers he's been published in can be accepted. There are no sources contradicting the number given, but one editor thinks it's "doubtful" and that it's an "exceptional claim" (WP:REDFLAG). See Irfan Yusuf#Self-published sources. Rd232 ^talk 13:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a more recent source contradicting it, also written or based on information supplied by the subject. We'll probably use that instead. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict it :( but it is a more useful claim so we'll go with that. Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is in regards to this edit [15]. The entire section is sourced to a single cite [16]. Is Scribd a reliable source? I'm not that familiar with that Web site but it appears than anyone can upload a document to it. Even if it was reliable and the document accurate, I'm concerned that this constitutes WP:OR. I did an albeit brief Google search and did not find any reliable sources that covers the release of this document. I also posted my concern on that articles talk page here [17]. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any way to authenticate the document. The document appears to have been uploaded by a citizens-journalism project called Historycommons, but I can't find much about that organization. However there are other sources that cover the "minders" issue, try this Guardian article "9/11 inquiry alleges witness intimidation". [18] Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Scribd is just a repository. The reliability of documents uploaded there has nothing to do with them being hosted by Scribd. They are either reliable or not. An interesting question, though, is if uploading to Scribd counts as "publication" and if this material, if otherwise unpublished, is suitable for Wikipedia. I would generally only consider this as a primary source, and would certainly try to verify the original source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be used as a link of convenience for genuine published material so long as there are no copyvio problems. But unless a document has been 'normally' published elsewhere, I'd say it's SPS. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I don't think you could even use it as WP:SELFPUB because there is no way to verify the identity of the uploader. Dlabtot (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As others have said, it's a convenience link, nothing more. --NE2 16:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. WP:convenience link: the term "convenience link" is typically used to indicate a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the internet, offered in addition to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format. This is not offered "in addition" to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format, it is offered as the citation. Dlabtot (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean it should be used only as a convenince link. --NE2 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEDyC0QRyM0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLz-ChkPQo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0cVU-Uv7p8

Above are three youtube movies which are in an information/lecture format with an expert delivering the information to the camera. They are in the public domain, produced by the US Geological Survey and available on YouTube. They tie directly to the subjects of Supervolcanoes and Volcanism in Yellowstone National Park. There is no better source for information on these topics than the individual, Jake Lowenstern, speaking on each short movie. He's the scientist in charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory and he's in many ways refuting widespread misinformation about the Yellowstone's volcanic status. Is there a better source? I tried posting these as "external links" in the "supervolcano" page at the bottom they were quickly dumped i guess due to the youtubiness of the links. Can someone please help me get around this problem? TravisBickleLogic 18:08, April 24, 2009

The above post was at the top of the page. I moved it to the bottom and added a section title since it did not have one and I didn't know what else to do. I notifed the editor[19] that I moved their post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this help you? [20] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no blanket prohibition against using YouTube either as references or external links. However, how about [21], [22], and [23] ? Dlabtot (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with YouTube (and the reason why many people believe that that there is a blanket prohibition against it) is two-fold... First, there is the issue of copyrite. Because YouTube lets people post things they may have recorded without permission, linking to YouTube can place us in the position of linking to a video that is in violation of copyrite laws. This is not a problem if it can be established that the person or entity that has posted the Video to YouTube is the owner of the copyrite, or had permission to post it. Unfortunately, this is not always easy to establish, and we take a "better safe than sorry" stance. Second, we have the issue of verifiability. Video is easy to edit and manipulate. There is often no way for us to know if something posted to YouTube is true to the original or has been edited in some way. Again, if the original creator of the video is the same as the person who posted it to YouTube we can be relatively sure that the version at YouTube is identical to the original... but in other cases we can not.

To give an example of how this can all play out... the BBC has its own YouTube channel, where it posts video clips connected to news stories. The clips are tagged as originating from the BBC, and so can be considered reliable. However, If an annonomous YouTube user posts a news clip that he says was recorded off of the BBC TV channel, that can not be considered reliable... we have no way to know if the clip was edited or manipulated. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Republic of China#"De facto" capital? and Talk:Republic of China#Email from the government of ROC (automatic translation) a source has been provided that consists of an email that one of the editors claims was received from the ROC Ministry of Interior. Normally this would not count as a verifiable source, but in this case there is a twist. The claim has been made that if we send the same inquiry to Taiwan's Ministry of the Interior, we will get the same response. This would make the source verifiable because any editor can write the government agency for verification.

I have not done so myself to test the verification because My Chinese reading and writing skills aren't up to the task of using the link that was provided. But assuming I could do this task, and did to this task, and received the expected result that agreed with the other editor's letter, would this be considered a reliable source? Readin (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be careful. Even if that would be current practice at the moment, the ROC Ministry of Interior could choose to discontinue sending such e-mails at any time, so they do not commit to the content of the information in the same way as if it would be properly published. I would also be careful because there might be a specific reason why they chose to distribute the information in this way, instead of putting it on their website (assuming that it cannot be found there). --Cs32en (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, we often have links to sources and find later that the links are no longer working. Readin (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An e-mail... even one that is essentially a form letter... can not be considered reliable by our guidelines because it is not published (ie disceminated to the general public). In each case it is a person to person communication. Also, using an e-mail that was sent to you would constitute Original research. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not published because the ministry does not commit to give everybody the same information. (Many ministries have their own publishing department, so "published" needs to be defined in a quite abstract way here.) I'm not exactly sure about the question of original research. If the e-mail, for example, contains statistical information compiled by the ministry, then it's the minstry, not the WP editor, that has done the research. --Cs32en (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be OR because publication in WP would be the first publication of the material. Dlabtot (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it repeatable? Maybe so. Is it published? Definitely not. Dlabtot (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Readin (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A user recently added "http://folk.uio.no/morters/wot/WintersHeartv6/Chapter22.html" as a source to the Minor Wheel of Time characters article. I haven't explored it thoroughly, but it appears to be a verbatim copy of most of the books of the Wheel of Time series on a Norwegian website. This has got to be some kind of copyright violation on the part of that website, right? Should we be using something like this as a source? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Similiar sources from the same site were also added to Ta'veren. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We should not be linking (through references or external links) to copyvios. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will remove the citations and leave word for the editor. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Would the work above be considered a reliable source for information on the Soviet positions and POVs of various subjects? John Carter (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fine with attribution, I would have thought. Jayen466 15:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• In some cases, yes. Care must be taken to avoid mixing up Soviet interpretations of facts with Soviet versions of what the facts are, however. And don't forget that when Soviet positions changed the GSE changed too -- an infamous case is when Beria went out and the GSE replaced him with Bering's stuff. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Depends how you use it. It is fine for a source of information on the Soviet positions and POVs, but I wouldn't give it much weight as a source for the article on Trotskyism, for example. According to the Encyclopedia: "TROTSKYISM. Contemporary Trotskyism is not a political tendency in the working class, but rather an unprincipled, ideal-less band of wreckers, saboteurs, agents, spies, murderers, a band of accursed enemies of the working class, acting for hire of intelligence organs of foreign governments." It wouldn't be reasonable to place a POV tag on the article Trotskyism because it didn't give equal weight to the Soviet POV. Martintg (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That sentence is marked as a verbatim Stalin quote. As such it surely could be used profitably, for example. Jayen466 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • In context yes, but not as a general source that would allow me to contest the neutrality of the article Trotskyism in its current state. Martintg (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that all of the sources in this BLP may be unreliable. I'm concerned about the following in particular:

^{[1][2] [3] [4]}

All of the sources definitely need assessment.

Born Gay (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get some clarification on whether or not documents published by the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights (specifically this document) and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) (specifically this document) are WP:RS' in the context of a debate over how to describe the Israeli locality of Ramot. An editor at Talk:Ramot seems to be suggesting that precedence should be given to "mainstream, neutral, English-language sources" rather than those from "other organizations". It is my belief that these UN affiliated organizations are mainstream English-language sources (I'd also argue that they are neutral but that's really irrelevant since NPOV does not preclude expressing POVs that are properly attributed) and do in fact constitute high quality RS's. Could someone take a look see and offer their thoughts? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that "Palestinian Rights" groups can't be neutral due to their declared mission statement. This is even more of an issue when referring to Israeli matters and I'm not even going deeply into improprieties such as several of them (including the UN ones) having militants on the payroll[24] or that they purposely keep Palestinians and their -- now 4th generation -- descendants under the "refugee" status for 60+ years. I can't follow the suggestion of them being neutral in the raised context and I have to agree that precedence should indeed be given to mainstream, neutral, English-language sources rather than ones that are actively campaigning against both Israeli and Palestinian rights under the pretense of being a "Palestinian Rights" group.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

p.s. What other sources do we have on the locality that you insist on these sources? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's clearly a political argument, Jaakobou; it's irrelevant to what Wikipedia's policy requires, as set out in Wikipedia:Verifiability. I note from our article on the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights that it "is a part of the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat." It's clearly not simply a "UN-affiliated organisation" as Tiamut (I think mistakenly) suggests, it's part of the United Nations Secretariat itself, which is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is headed by the UN Secretary General. In other words, the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights is a core element of the UN, not some sort of affiliated group. It's under the direct supervision of the Secretary General. I think we would assume as a matter of course that the UN Secretariat was a reliable source. We certainly would not reject material from other UN Secretariat divisions solely because someone had a political objection to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you clarifying that for me ChrisO. I wasn't aware that the Division for Palestinian Rights was such an integral UN division. In any case, a very good mainstream, English-language source that is a secondary source (i.e. discussing usage of the term "settlement") was (re-)brought to my attention by NSH001 and is being discussed at the centralized discussion page for this mammoth issue (which ressembles in many ways the issue in the current Arbcomm proceedings). Until NSH001 brought it to the table, we were dealing largely with primary sources (i.e. those using the terms only). Now I'm quite sure that others will accede to what is expressed in this high quality RS (It's the BBC style guide for their reporting). Still, its good to know that these UN sources are generally considered reliable. Tiamut^talk 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO,

You make a notable point but I'm not sure it makes a big difference to my raised concerns. This concern, btw, is not just my own political one, but a general argument repeated by a number of bodies. It's not a new issue that the UN has several bodies that are inherently anti-Israeli and the recent "Durban 2" shindig is just one of many "UN sanctioned" examples. For example, has this "Palestinian Rights" UN-body ever issued any statements against the deportation/ethnic-cleansing of 400,000 Palestinians from Kuwait?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jaakobou, but that's an explicitly political argument. WP:V excludes political arguments from consideration. A source may say things with which you disagree, but that's where WP:NPOV comes in: you can use a reliable source to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views", but you can't simply exclude a source on the grounds that you don't like what it says. You can use the source to represent the UN viewpoint, if you wish, but I don't think you would have any grounds to exclude it altogether simply because you consider it to be "inherently anti-Israeli". Lots of sources are anti-something or pro-something else, but that doesn't make them unreliable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to point the policies to me as I actually never meant that it should be completely excluded. If you note, my first comment is that "precedence should indeed be given to mainstream, neutral, English-language sources rather than ones that are actively campaigning". I also took interest in what other options we have on the material. As a side note, I point out that I supported the use of a "pro-Israeli" advocacy organization when (a) the content was verified to the point where there's no reason to believe anything was mistreated, and (b) no quality, neutral replacement was found. The source wasn't used for language though, so I'm not sure this one fits entirely. I don't object to have all notable POVs represented though.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, it isn't our sources that are required to be neutral, it's us as Wikipedia editors. NPOV is about dealing with "conflicting verifiable perspectives". We don't exclude sources because someone considers them to be biased - we use them to represent significant verifiable viewpoints, writing a neutral article that summarises "multiple or conflicting perspectives". -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO,

I understand the policies quite well, thank you. To be frank, I don't follow why you're "lecturing" me here as I've not advocated the censorship of notable perspectives (have I?). I have accumulated a reasonable level of experience on this project and it would be nice to have some of the people I sometimes work with assume a bit of good faith. To be a bit blunt, there's a couple other editors on this thread who habitually violate NPOV and I'm simply not one of them.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack, your rationale could be used to disqualify any pro-Israeli group due to their "declared mission statements" and employment of figures from within the Israeli government and/or military... Is this really your point of view?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.04.2009 12:40

There is no comparison, Pedrito, and I disagree with your perception of the issue. For starters, I'd support disqualifying pro-Israeli advocacy groups that have numerous terrorists on their payroll. Secondly, which "pro-Israeli" groups are you referring to exactly? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that UNDPR would, in general, be a reliable source for use on wikipedia. Note though that the document linked in the first post is a a media review containing abstracts of media reports in the region. Searching for Ramot in the page, I found the following quote:

Israeli bulldozers started to raze agricultural land in the village of Beit Hanina At-Tahta located near the "Ramot" settlement north of Jerusalem for the construction of the separation wall. Israeli forces prevented villagers from approaching their land after having declared the area a closed military zone.

— Ma'an News Agency

If this is the bit we plan to cite, it should attributed to the Ma'an News Agency and not quoted as UNDPR's position. Abecedare (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning on using this particular source for this particular issue given that a secondary source discussing usage of the terms has been found. I would note that while I generally agree with what you are saying here, UN sources all use "settlement" to refer to Israeli localities in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line without any hesitation. There is also no indication that this is a direct quote from Ma'an News Agency. Having worked on media summaries like this previously, I can tell you that they are paraphrased and that in general the terminology used reflects that preferred by the organization doing the summarizing. But your detailed reading and analysis is still very much appreciated. Tiamut^talk 13:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion does not represent the crux of the issue. Putting aside whether advocacy organizations are reliable sources (they should not be, and clearly there's no consensus that they are), the question is whether these orgs' terms are given greater precedence then the terms employed by international mainstream news sources. The readers are probably well aware, but what's behind this thread is the debate in the article Ramot whether it should be described as a "settlement" or a "neighborhood". The only sources that use the word "settlement" are the UN-affiliated orgs and Ma'an News Agency, a PA affiliated news source. The other mainstream sources, NY Times, LA Times, BBC all use the term "neighborhood" and never use the term "settlement" when describing the area. So even if were to accept that these terms employed by these orginizations are somewhat reliable, their terms never trump the terms used by mainstream international news organizations.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please see this extensive discussion of the question from 6 weeks ago. Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, imho, the lead of Ramot does a good job in a NPOV manner of informing the reader that Israel and the United States don't like to refer to it as a settlement. When sources are in dispute, we report the dispute. That's what the article does. Dlabtot (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

IP editors keep removing the whole controversy section from this article as can be seen in this edit. Are these sources reliable enough that the article be reverted and locked from editing if necessary?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-02-04-598541874_x.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22956815/

http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5343

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004163328_webintelius04.html

http://www.wirelessweek.com/article.aspx?id=157142

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Verizon+Intelius&cf=all

Thank you

—Zener 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The first 2 are fine, the 3rd maybe but unnecessary, the 4th duplicates the first, the 5th is ok, the search is not. I'll take a look at the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In the past, IPs have removed well-sourced criticism from the Naveen Jain article, and a discussion occurred at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Naveen_Jain. Intelius is run by Naveen Jain. I've semiprotected the article to forestall the continuation of apparent WP:COI editing. I don't see any BLP violations in the information being removed, so I think it's fair to expect the IPs to explain their concerns on the Talk page, which so far they have not. Other admins may modify the protection as necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And guess who 63.231.16.57 (talk · contribs) is? Whois tells us: CustName: Naveen Jain Address: Private Residence City: Medina StateProv: WA [25]. Talk about COI!. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[26] Apparently this is not a reliable source, allegedly because it links to a travel site. This is being used to justify removing a cite on Ushuaia, substituting with a dubious tag. I personally can't see a problem with the cite but as it seems to be the locus of a content dispute thought I'd bring it here. Justin talk 21:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair this is really just the New York Times reposting something they borrowed from Frommer's. So the reliability of the source can't really be attributed to the New York Times, but rather Frommer's. That being said, though, Frommer's is a pretty respectable travel guide. I'd have to see exactly what information folks are disputing to say more. I'll take a look. — e. ripley\^talk 21:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable only for what they themselves witness, but also for information that they choose to pass on from other sources (unless the reliable source indicates that a certain source is dubious). Otherwise, whenever a major newspaper begins a report "According to a highly placed source in the White House..." we wouldn't be able to use it because it comes from an anonymous source. We depend on reliable sources to evaluate the credibility of less well-known sources for us. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. However, this was copied directly from a Frommer's entry; the Times, I'm sure, considers them a fine source for travel information, but that they chose to recite it in an entertainment section doesn't automatically mean it's been given some extra stamp of approval in this instance. Take a look at the link and you'll see what I mean -- this isn't a Times-generated article where a reporter chose to cite an unnamed source, it's information lifted directly from Frommer's (and identified as such with a Frommer's ad graphic). — e. ripley\^talk 00:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable frommers is. Folks with experience working w/ travel guides can comment, maybe. I will say that 'in between' content like that shouldn't be cited as the times. It should be as Frommers. The link can point to the times, but I have every reason to believe that this is content produced and served automatically under contract and that the times probably doesn't excercise control over the content. Whether or not the times considers them a source is largely speculation. We don't know if this was a partnership, paid placement or what. Depending on the motivation for the placement, what the times thinks of them is obscured to us. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Generally speaking, Frommer's is a long-time and respected travel guide. — e. ripley\^talk 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Planet Bollywood a reliable source? It seems to somewhat gossipy to me. I also noticed that on its About Us page it says it has been featured by major news organisations, but not used as a source. None of the articles appear to have credited authors, just the somewhat ambiguous (and misspelled) byline "Planet Bollywood Special Correspondant". Copana2002 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently, an article I had created about the tacosort sorting algorithm was deleted for a lack of reliable sources. However, since the deletion, the National Institute of Standards and Technology included this in their dictionary of data structures and algorithms in this article: [27]. Would this constitute a reliable source and be grounds to recreate the article using this new information? Mbernard707 (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's a start. In general you need multiple independent sources. So one more would probably do it. You really should be able to get this published at SIGCSE in 2010 as student research. That with the NIST source would be enough for me (though I'm pretty darn inclusive and care a lot about the area). I also suggest you work on your analysis of the algorithm. It looked wrong when I looked it over, but I wasn't sure. (CS prof am I). http://www.cs.arizona.edu/groups/sigcse09/ Hobit (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• What is the criteria for inclusion in the dictionary? Is it just sending an email to Paul Black? As you appear to be the creator of the algorithm, and as you appear to be attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your work, I strongly suggest that you wait until you have many solid sources before recreating it. 98.122.180.107 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The site is part of NIST and has significant editorial control. Could be viewed as a SPS, but really I'd say it is at least the equiv. of a Washington Post blog by one of the columnists. Not enough by itself, but reliable IMO. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC) (didn't realize I wasn't logged in)

You should probably build up a paragraph on Tacosort within an article on sorting algorithms instead of a separate article. I've been on too many AFDs that went bad even when sources were being found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Audrey magazine a generally reliable source? (It appears to be borderline gossip mag) Particularly for this quote from an interview in the article Freida Pinto: Pinto states that she is "completely pure Indian", but her family is Catholic and some of her ancestors were probably of Portuguese background, which explains the origin of her surname Pinto. Sung, Helena. "Destiny's Child". Audrey Magazine (February - March 2009). Retrieved 2009-04-29.

Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's appropriate to use a celebrity magazine for articles about celebrities, especially if it's an interview with the celebrity and theyre on the cover page. I looked the magazine over and it doesnt look too sensationalistic to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like some feedback regarding the inclusion of a Facebook link to a page for a group supporting Philip Markoff (the accused in the Boston Craigslist killing and assaults).

A rather contentious editor, Theo789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who I believe previously edited as 63.215.27.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) has insisted on this wording and link:

Markoff's friends have formed a group and set up a Facebook webpage entitled "Philip Markoff Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty." The on-line group now has hundreds of members.<ref> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=162619985050&ref=search Facebook Page Phil Markoff Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty </ref>

I have removed the Facebook link and swapped it for the following identical text with a reliable source as citation:

Markoff's friends have formed a group and set up a Facebook webpage entitled "Philip Markoff Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty." The on-line group now has hundreds of members.<ref name="supporters">{{cite web|url=http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=794986&category=REGION |title=Craigslist killing suspect has supporters|last=Gustafson|first=Kristi L.| date=2009-04-29|work=Albany Times-Union|accessdate=2009-04-30}}</ref>

My understanding of policy is that Facebook is not a reliable source, and links to it are to be avoided, per WP:ELNO. Since the Albany Times-Union RS citation covers the matter and is not problematic, I have tried to explain to User:Theo789 that we should go with the RS, not the Facebook link, but he has repeatedly reverted and attacked me and my edit as somehow representing that Markoff is guilty, which in fact has nothing at all to do with it.

Please note that this is not a content dispute - the text is identical. It is completely a sourcing issue.

I'm not an expert on precedents regarding Facebook links here, so I would appreciate some opinions on how to proceed. And we can use some help over on that article to keep it neutral - Theo789 has not sought or received consensus for his edits, and is just doing as he sees fit, insulting editors and ignoring policy. (See Talk: Philip Markoff#Commentary and Talk: Philip Markoff#Edits by Tvoz, for example - other examples in edit histories and elsewhere on the Talk page.) Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, Tovz... In the absence of a relable secondary source (such as the Times-Union article) we could have allowed the Face Book page (as a primary source, verifying its own existance). But the Times-Union article is a better source for the same information, and so should be used instead. Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar - I may need you to reinforce it with this guy, but I'll try first. I'll holler if I need a hand. Tvoz/talk 01:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

← Now this same editor has added this footnote which is a link to a Facebook discussion page. Could you explain to him why this is not an acceptable source? I'm about to give up on this. Tvoz/talk 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that WP prefers newer sources to outdated ones, for example a 2003 source is better than a 1920 one. Where's the policy/guideline dealing with that? Squash Racket (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we don't automatically prefer newer sources to older ones... we prefer the most reliable sources on any given topic. In most cases a more modern source will be considered more reliable than an older one (as it will probably have taken into account subsequent scholarship, discoveries, and events, which might have changed the scholastic view of the topic)... but there are exceptions. Modern sources are not always the most reliable. There are some old sources that are still considered the difinitive work on their topic. It really depends on the topic and sources in question. The determination of which sources are best to use in a given article is left to the consensus of editors at the article talk page (as they will know the specifics of both the topic and the related sources far better than those of us who focus on writing policy.) Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Ajaxian a reliable source for information on software or websites? This came up in an AFD. To me it screams non-RS but I've never been particularly trusting of blogs and other not particularly traditional websources so I'm trying to see if I'm in a minority here. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an expert SPS. It looks usable for information, but I don't think it counts towards notability in an AFD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor wants the publications of the Shakespeare Oxford Society ([28]) to be considerecd RS. The SOS, which is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, is dedicated to the belief that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was the true author of Shakespeare's plays. His argument is that "the journal and website are edited by Roger Stritmatter, PhD, and the publication includes on its editorial staff four PhD's in literary studies -- Dr. Daniel Wright of Concordia University (English), Dr. Felicia Londré of the University of Missouri at Kansas City (Theatre History), Dr. Anne Pluto (English) of Leslie College and Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Instructor of English at Coppin State College in Baltimore, MD. As such, the journal and its website are indeed RS. If you want to fight that, then feel free to take it to another level of Wiki administration." [29] The fact is that all these people are committed Oxfordians (Stritmatter is also Wikipedia editor under the name user:BenJonson). The journal is a purely private publication with an absolutely polemical agenda. As we know, it is possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants. The fact remains that this is the internal publication of an organisation dedicated to a fringe theory. Paul B (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not call the idea that de Vere was Shakespeare a fringe theory... it is a minority viewpoint, yes, but one that a lot of people, including some very well respected scholars take seriously. However, I do agree that the SOS is not large enough for its journal to be considered more than a Self-Published source. Thus, it can be considered reliable for some types of statements, and not reliable for others (See: WP:SPS). Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And which "well respected scholars" do you refer to? I would suggest that you are unfamiliar with the overwhelming body of scholarship on this issue. Your reference to WP:SPS is irrelevant unless you can show that relevant scholars have published in in reliable sources and are recognised as more than marginal contributors. Paul B (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar, not RS, self-published, usable only in very limited circumstances. Dlabtot (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessary to ask this here—since this is an unreliable source according to our policies, we can confidently reject it for the Shakespeare article, whatever the result of the present thread. Unless we stick to the principle of best sources, Wikipedia will rapidly fall victim on many different articles to fringe theories (Blueboar, I'd define a fringe theory as one for which there's no valid evidence; I'm not aware of any well-respected scholars who believe this stuff) and become useless. Quality of source is the key: there's a large industry devoted to the idea that Shakespeare didn't write his own plays, but it has not penetrated good university presses. The same with many other fringe theories. It would be a victory for this industry to break Wikipedia's defences. qp10qp (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a major problem with the initial report by Paul Barlow above - he cites the wrong website completely. The Shakespeare Oxford Society is not the source being suggested. Mr. Barlow surely knows this and may be trying to poison the waters before an honest conversation can be had. Mr. Barlow, who recently defended "nastiness" as an appropriate response to those of us interested in the Authorship debate, has not presented an honest case. To be clear, the source being submitted (I should know as I submitted it) is the journal of the Shakespeare Fellowship. Here is the correct link to the website [[30]] and here is the correct link to the particularly well-referenced article that I wished to cite [[31]]. Further, I was being very selective (as Blueboar suggests), only wishing to quote representatives from the Victoria and Albert Museum about a portrait and artist with which they were familiar. Here is the edit that offended Mr. Barlow and resulted in this conversation being brought here [[32]]. Now that the correct information is on the table, perhaps we can have an honest discussion. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We could have an honest discussion always. I refered to the wrong website by mistake

Other than in Shakespeare Matters or other publications of the Shakespeare Fellowship, have Wright, Londré, Pluto and Stritmatter published works on the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in reliable third-party publications? What about Barbara Burris? Has she? Dlabtot (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Strittmatter and Wright have. I will research the others. I would also like to add the following in response to the initial accusation. I agree with Blueboar that the authorship debate is not a Fringe theory, but a minority viewpoint. It has been supported by scholars, professors, Nobel prize winners, Supreme Court Justices (including a good percentage of the current court), not to mention some of the greatest writers of all time including Mark Twain, Henry James, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman. Also, Sigmund Freud, Orsen Wells, Tyrone Guthrie and many other notable figures from world history also doubted the mainstream view. And hundreds of current or former academics. Several universities do, indeed, teach the authorship debate and host annual international conferences, as has the prestigious Globe Theatre (London) and Oregon Shakespeare Festival (Ashland). Hardly Fringe.Smatprt (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The claims by Paul Barlow in this thread seem to me to be full of abundant misdirection.

• The wrong source is named.
• "not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page" is cited as reason for the (incorrect) source not to be RS.
• "an absolutely polemical agenda"
• "it is possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants."
• "fringe theory"

These seem to me to be misdirections and trumped up alarms and inflammatory falsehoods to cover the fact that Paul simply does not like the well-sourced, meticulously researched and cited information contained within the source and noted in the Wikipedia article. I might add that Paul seems to me to be attempting to exercise WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, the bulk of which he created and which he seems to be patrolling so as not to allow sourced viewpoints which disagree with his own, which is in violation of NPOV. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard. We like to discuss sources here. Please refrain from commenting on other editors, or continuing disputes, and stick to discussing sources. Dlabtot (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no misdirection in any of my comments. I referred to the wrong webpage by mistake. Since I linked to the talk page, it's hardly deception, and the Fellowship is just as unreliable as the SOS. It certainly has a polemical agenda. It certainly is a fringe theory. It certainly is "possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants." All this is true. It is also true that the SF does not publish "meticulously researched" work at all. It is a purely polemical, amateur, fringe publication with no independent peer review. Paul B (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, fair enough; however other posters should be held to the same level of accountability and relevance, that is, recognition that (1) Shakespeare authorship scholarship is not a fringe theory but rather an ongoing scholarly investigation exploring the gaps in Shakespeare scholarship; (2) the "agenda" of such sources is not "polemical" but investigatory; (3) this has nothing to do with creationism, crystal healing, or any such insubstantial intangibles; (4) the fact of having a Wikipedia page or not is not a criteria for a source's reliability. Also, the information mentioned in the Portrait article has nothing to do with the Shakespeare authorship question but rather to do with the identification of the sitter of a portrait believed to be Hugh Hamersley by some (one investigation) and Edward de Vere by others (two investigations). Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

One investigation was by a non-specialist in 1940, whose investigation was motivated by ideology and whose publication contained known false assertions. There is also strong suspicion that he falsified his results. The second is by an amateur in a fringe publication. The Hamersley identification was made by established experts and its results were published in reliable journals. Paul B (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Dr. Wright, (obtained from Concordia University website): "Dr. Daniel Wright has been a member of the Concordia University faculty since 1991. He is the author of the acclaimed book, The Anglican Shakespeare, as well as over three dozen scholarly articles and reviews in publications such as Germany's Neues Shakespeare Journal, Studies in the Novel, International Fiction Review, The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Renaissance and Reformation, The Sixteenth Century Journal, The Elizabethan Review, The Oxfordian and Harper's. He currently is completing another book, The Gothic Antichrist, a work that examines the inversion of sacred iconography and rhetoric in 19th-century British Gothic fiction. He teaches Shakespeare, British Literature, The Gothic Novel, Russian Literature, The European Novel, The Psychology of Authorship, Sports Literature, and a number of other engaging and popular courses. Professor Wright is the founder and director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, the world's largest academic symposium dedicated to the investigation of the origins of the works by the writer who called himself Shakespeare. Among many affiliations, Professor Wright is an Associate Trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, and he is a Patron of the Shakespeare Fellowship--from whom he also is a recipient of the Outstanding Achievement in Elizabethan Studies Award. He is the Faculty Advisor to Sigma Tau Delta, the English honor society; and he is the Faculty Marshal for the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. He lectures worldwide, leads study abroad tours, and directs residential study programs for CU in the United Kingdom." Reliable source? I would hope so. Smatprt (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Dr. Strittmatter, (obtained from UMass Amherst): "The marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential discovery, literary reasoning, and historical consequence, by Roger A Stritmatter, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Abstract - This dissertation analyzes the findings of a ten year study of the 1568-70 Geneva Bible originally owned and annotated by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), and now owned by the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington D.C. (Folger shelf mark 1427). This is the first and--presently--only dissertation in literary studies which pursues with open respect the heretical and thesis of John Thomas Looney (1920), B. M. Ward (1928), Charlton Ogburn Jr. (1984) and other "amateur" scholars, which postulates de Vere as the literary mind behind the popular nom de plume "William Shakespeare." The dissertation reviews a selection of the many credible supports for this theory and then considers confirmatory evidence from the annotations of the de Vere Bible, demonstrating the coherence of life, literary preceden, and art, which is the inevitable consequence of the theory. Appendices offer detailed paleographical analysis, review the history of the authorship question, consider the chronology of the Shakespearean canon, and refute the claim of some critics that the alleged connections between the de Vere Bible and "Shakespeare" are random."Smatprt (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Stritmatter has also been published in the ”Review of English Studies", n.s. 58 (2007), co-authoring “Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited, among other independent journals and publications.Smatprt (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Felicia Londre: Dozens of books, articles, essays (from a quick search on Amazon Books) The History of North American Theater: The United States, Canada, and Mexico : From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present (The history of world theater) by Felicia Hardison Londre and Daniel J. Watermeier; De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon by William Farina, Felicia Hardison Londré; No Applause--Just Throw Money: The Book That Made Vaudeville Famous.(Book review): An article from: Theatre History Studies by Felicia Hardison Londre; Words at Play: Creative Writing and Dramaturgy (Theater in the Americas) by Felicia Hardison Londre; The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (History of World Theatre) by Felicia Hardison Londre (Paperback - April 1999); Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays (Shakespeare Criticism) by Felicia Londre (Paperback- Nov 2, 2000); Alexander Shurbanov and Boika Sokolova. Painting Shakespeare Red: An East-European Appropriation.(Book Review): An article from: Comparative Drama by Felicia Hardison Londre; Federico Garcia Lorca. by Felicia Hardison Londre (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1984); A History of African American Theatre.(Book Review): An article from: Theatre History Studies by Felicia Hardison Londre; History of North American Theater: From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present by Felicia Hardison; Watermeier, Daniel J. Londre (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1998); The History of North American Theater: The United States, Canada, and Mexico : F by Felicia Hardison; Watermeier, Daniel J. Londre (Paperback - Jan 1, 2000); The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (A Frederick Ungar Book) by Felicia Hardison Londre; The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (History of World Theatre) by Felicia Hardison Londre (Paperback - Jan 1, 1999). Wow - Now I'm impressed. Ms. Londre appears to be more reliable than many of the sources being used in the articles in question.Smatprt (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On Anne Pluto:(brief websearch) Much Ado About Nothing, Anne Pluto editor, Oxfordian Shakespeare Series/Llumina Press; Pluto is a published poet and professor of English at Leslie University. Will attempt to do more research on her this weekend. But in short, yes she has been published on Authorship matters. Smatprt (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she's a poet, not any kind of an expert on Shakespeare, and her "publication" is through Lliumina press, which is a self-publishing press. [33] The rest of your verbiage is similar misdirection designed to create the impession of scholarly weight, but listing people who are almost all marginal. Paul B (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Marginal is simply Paul's opinion and is off topic. The editorial staff meets the threshold. Period Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly no reason to clutter up the page with off-topic references such as publication of History of North American Theater: From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present. It just causes eyes to blur and in my case has lead to a case of WP:TLDR. I asked whether these folks had published works on the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in reliable third-party publications because that's what the policy requires. All this other stuff is totally irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The quick, non-cluttered, answered is yes, 3 of 4 have, as have several contributing authors who are members of the Fellowships' Board of Trustees. If that is all the policy requires, then the threshold has been met.Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you post the quick, non-cluttered answer that actually includes the citations? By the way, the policy we are talking about is WP:SPS. Even if these criteria are met, use of the source would still require caution. Dlabtot (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - here is a short non-cluttered list. Quotes are not mine, but are from the online descriptions or forwards. While I still agree with Blueboar that the Fellowship source should be considered a peer-reviewed journal, both he and you both have cautioned about use of the source to limited circumstances. I will certainly respect that advice, and understand that you (Dlabtot) are referring to the SPS policy only.

• The Anglican Shakespeare, Elizabethan orthodoxy in the great histories, by Daniel L. Wright. Published in 1993, Pacific-Columbia Books (Vancouver, Wa)From the forward -"For author Dr. Daniel Wright this view of Shakespeare’s purpose in writing the history plays was significant in his eventually accepting (and now actively promoting) Edward de Vere as the true author of the Shakespeare Canon (Dr. Wright now heads the Dept. of Humanities at Concordia University (Portland, OR), and in 1997 founded the Edward de Vere Studies Conference, held each spring on the Concordia campus)."
• Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited, by Roger Stritmatter and Lynne Kositsky. The Review of English Studies 2007, 58(236):447-472. Alternate dating of the Tempest to pre-1604, the year of De Vere's death.
• Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible, by Prof Roger Stritmatter, Oxford Institute Press, UMass. "Dr. Stritmatter's revealing study of the annotations and marginalia of Edward de Vere's personal Bible, now in the possession of the Folger Shakespeare Library."
• De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon by William Farina, Felicia Hardison Londre. Softcover, McFarland & Co Inc Pub, ISBN 0786423838 (0-7864-2383-8)
• Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays, by Felicia Hardison Londre ISBN 0815338880. Publisher: Routledge. "Selections discuss the play in terms of historical context, dating, and sources; character analysis; comic elements and verbal conceits; evidence of authorship; performance analysis; and feminist interpretations."
• Shakespeare Around the Globe : A Guide to Notable Postwar Revivals by Samuel L. Leiter, Langdon Brown, Felicia Hardison Londre,Tice L. Miller. ISBN 0313237565 / 9780313237560 / 0-313-23756-5. Publisher: Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated. "An important resource for any scholar working on the production history of Shakespeare's plays"

These authors have also published numerous essays and articles, and have lectured on authorship issues around the globe. If you want further additions to this list, I'll need to contact them for those specific details. In addition, if you want publishing history on any of the Fellowship Trustees, I can provide that as well.Smatprt (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The single possible exception is Wright. The other two figures mentioned are Stritmatter, who worked for his PhD solely to promote Oxfordianism. That was his purpose and that has been his purpose in everything he does. In academia he is thouroughly marginal. Londre is a writer of generalist books on theatre, not a specialist on Shakespeare. These are three people. There are thousands and thousands of Eng lit scholars throughout the world. Also, this query concerns the reliability of the source, which is the internal publication of the Shakespeare Fellowship. It's not the reliability of texts published through legitimate sources. A creationist magazine, for example, does not become a reliable source because it has someone on the editorial board who has also published on some aspect of geology or natural history in a mainstream publication. If we allow that argument we open the doors to everything. Paul B (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS states: 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. That's why I asked that specific question, and that's why publication on the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in other reliable third-party sources is relevant to the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and I hope I have answered your question. I agree that the topic of Shakespeare Authorship in other soruces is relevant to the discussion. It's the overlying theme, after all. Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "produced by an established expert". This concerns specifically an article by Barbara Burris, who admits that she is a complete amateur. As I understand she was an early member of the Fellowship. I know of no relevant qualifications that have ever been claimed for her. Smatpmt is trying to misdirect (after the usuaal accusations directed at me) by listing people who are associated with the Fellowship, but whose writings are not being discussed. Even if the editorial board members had published on authorship matters in reliable publications, which I don't think they have, that would not make their journal reliable, since it is a specifically polemical publication with no independent peer review. The specific article (or rather part of it) can be seen online here [34]. Again, if this argument is accepted then any content of any fringe theory journal can be allowed just because a claim can be made that someone on the board published something in the field. Paul B (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are specifically talking about the article by Barbara Burris, then no, she is not an established expert. This is one of the times when we have to be very specific. This sort of problem always reminds me of a certain 'cult archaeologist' who claims that HSS has been around for millions of years and that aliens influenced him, yet managed to get published in a couple of at least somewhat respectable archeological magazines (on less controversial topics I hasten to add). Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... The Shakespeare Fellowship's website has been discussed and cited in a positive light by no less that the New York Times. I think there is a good argument for calling its website a peer reviewed journal. If so, the papers that they host or link to are more than just SPS. Yes, some of these papers are written by amatures. However, they are amatures who has been able to get their work published in a peer reviewed journal. This counts for something. We may think the work is full of flaws and that the authors are completely wrong, but I do think we have to consider them at least boarderline RS... certainly reliable for a statement of opinion if not for a statement of fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source. According to this guideline: "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 context here is that this source has no credibility.

By the way, newspapers, even the best ones, are not a good source for Shakespeare scholarship either. There's no shortage of high-quality Shakespeare scholarship, believe me. qp10qp (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying the source has no credibility is misleading. Just because a scholar of note supports a minority viewpoint does not mean they have no credibility. Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. I am not saying that the NYT is a reliable source for Shakespeare scholarship... I mention the NYT mearly to show that the Shakespeare Fellowship's website might be considered an accademic journal. If that is the case, then the papers that the Shakespeare Fellowship publishes shift from being purely SPS, to being papers published by someone "with a reliable publication process". The Shakespeare Fellowship obviously thinks Burris has at least some credibility, or they would not have published her paper. As for context... the context is the debate over the authorship of Shakespeare. Burris's view may well be a minority one, but it is one that has been deemed worthy of publication by a notable society... a society dedicated to the discussion of exactly that issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not missing your point, I am saying that it is wrong. And I am saying that a citation in a newspaper is irrelevant. The Shakespeare Fellowship is not a reliable source for Shakespeare studies. It is a POV organisation publishing a POV organ. qp10qp (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not an RS for Shakespeare studies. A fringe organisation pushing a fringe belief (in the mainstream of Shakespeare scholarship and the public at large). Verbal chat 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is the question, isn't it?... but for the sake of argument, let us assume that it is just a POV/Fringe organ... if this is the case, then the NYT article makes it a notable POV/Fringe organ, and as such its POV should be included in the article (per WP:NPOV). We can mention that it's opinion is POV/Fringe if need be... but it should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way... People often mis-use WP:FRINGE to omit any discussion of Fringe theories... but WP:FRINGE specifically says that we should discuss notable Fringe theories: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." ... in the case of the debates over the authorship of Shakespeare (and especially the possibility that he might have been Edward de Vere) a quick glance at Google Books shows that multiple major publications have at least discussed the possibility, and thus it is notable. This has no bearing on the discussions about the Shakespeare Fellowship or Burris... I raise it only to say that the theory should be discussed. If there is a better source, that can be used instead. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, this is not a discussion of whether the authorship controversy should be mentioned or not. It is a discussion on whether this publication is a reliable source or not. It is a profound mistake to assume that any publication passing a low threshold has a right to be cited in a Wikipedia article. There are thousands and thousands of sources for Shakespeare, including some from which we can reference the authorship issue, and we should use only the best ones. qp10qp (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah... that is a different question (not one for this noticeboard). My point was simply that the Shakespeare Fellowship seems to pass RS (just). But if there are better sources that discuss the various theories on who Shakespeare might have been, obviously we should use those instead. Which is the best source for this is an editorial decision that should be made by consensus at the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The question we have apparently been asked is determine whether an article published by the Shakespeare Fellowship is a reliable source "to quote representatives from the Victoria and Albert Museum about a portrait and artist with which they were familiar", not to cite that that Shakespearean authorship has been disputed (which is easy to source from many, many indisputably reliable sources). The V and A representatives are named living people who in an email correspondence with Burris apparently made certain statements.[35] Burris, the reporter of these comments is, all (including the SF website) appear to agree is "an amateur art historian", not a published scholar in the field. She is publishing her work in a newsletter affiliated with an organization dedicated to the promotion of one particular viewpoint of Shakespearian authorship. Despite the listings above, the newsletter does not appear to be peer-reviewed in any real sense of the term given that none of the editorial board listed is an art historian; in fact Burris' article was critiqued later by others, as also noted by the website itself. [36].

So, no, I do not consider this newsletter to be a reliable source for this information or any other information. This particularly the case because it involves quoting living people. I am also concerned about undue weight; if these views of scholars from the V and A are notable and significant, then they will be also be expressed and published in other, better, sources. --Slp1 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The NYTimes and other major news organizations have been used repeatedly to reference entries about the Cobbe Portrait in the same article. But they can't be used about the Hamersley portrait? Why? Because the wiki article editors are overly biased against anything that involves the Authorship debate. If the Cobbe portrait was purported to be of Oxford, the RS standard would have been changed to suit the whims of these biased editors. This kind of double standard should not be allowed to continue. Blueboar is correct that the NYTimes bolsters the case for both the Shakespeare Fellowship and the Burris article. The Fellowship journal is Peer Reviewed just as the Shakespeare Quarterly is. The Quarterly is biased towards the Stratford View and against any authorship discussion at all. At least the Fellowship is open to all scholarship and allows critiques of its writers and articles. The Quarterly is RS, as are other journals that agree with the mainstream view. The Fellowship journal should be too.Smatprt (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Smatprt, The difference here is that the NYTimes does not talk about the portrait, Burris, the e-mail from folks at the V&A... I only raised it to show that the Shakespeare Fellowship might be a reliable journal. It does not support what Burris says. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the NYTimes article I'm looking at does mention the Burris info (but not the V&A quotes). We must be looking at different articles! Here is the link (see paragraph 5) [[37]].Smatprt (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So use the NYT article for the information it contains; thus it needs to be presented as claim by Burris in a publication by the fellowship, not a fact. --Slp1 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for cluttering up the lists, but many of the books mentioned in the longer posts have applications to the study of Shakspeare and Shakespearean Authorship, including books related to the theatre (of course). To be more concise, however, we have agreement that Dr. Wright is RS. \As to the other three - Yes, Strittmatter has been published on the subject by independent publishers, so he passes the test (regardless of his motivation). As has Londre. And while Pluto may not have published work on the subject, one can certainly imagine why having a Professor of English on the review Board of a scholarly journal would be helpful, if not necessary! I think this group obviously passes the muster. If they find an author's work worth publishing, that should count here. Blueboar is correct on this.Smatprt (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to confuse identifying who would be a reliable source in their own right per SPS, with who is qualified to peer-review articles about art history. Peer review means exactly that; you need to have a peer, ie somebody who knows about art history on the review board for the purpose of checking facts and accuracy. None of the people listed have any qualifications in this field; how can they give a peer review in this case? That's why reputable independent journals usually have large editorial boards; so that they have access to the relevant expertise to do the reviewing. And why they send submissions out to other reviewers who have expertise in the area. I note, for example, that the Shakespeare Quarterly has more that 20 people on their board in one capacity or another.[38]--Slp1 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Slpl, that was an excellent post. Using the NYT article, and presenting the information as a "claim" by Burris, etc., makes complete sense. And your clarification of "peer review" should help everyone involved with this discussion. In this regard, it should be noted that the Shakespeare Fellowship has a Board of Trustees of 9, in addition to its 4-member editorial Board. The Trustees include researchers on various aspects (law, science, literature, etc.) who are called upon when their expertise will be helpful in reviewing submissions to the Fellowship journal or website. Of course, the wide experience of the editorial board certainly covers many aspects of Shakespearean studies, many of which have applications to the Authorship debate, including Shakespeare and religion, Renaissance history, Theatre history, English Lit., Poetry, and Philosophy, to name only a few. As such I think for the purposes of Shakespeare Authorship information, the Fellowship's publication can indeed be considered an academic journal. However, I also agree that there is no Art Historian on the review Board of the Board of trustees. My comment on this would be in line with what Blueboar has already suggested - that the Fellowship believes in Burris' credibility or they wouldn't have published her paper. As such, it should be quotable, but only as a "claim" made in the Fellowship journal, a journal that represents a minority viewpoint. NPOV would seem to require its inclusion just as the Authorship debate was included in the FA on Shakespeare himself. Smatprt (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments and I am glad that you consider my insights/suggestions valuable. However, despite your clarifications above, I cannot still agree that the Fellowship newsletter can be considered a peer-reviewed journal whose contents can be used as a source, except for the views of the SF where appropriate. Peer review also means being reviewed by a broad range of academic peers, not just a subgroup of those who are all proponents of a particular minority theory or view. We don't accept creationist or fringe medical journals as reliable sources, for exactly the same reasons. If the submitters to the newsletter can't get their research published in better journals than the newsletter, then there is likely a reason why. This view appears similar to that held by Paul Barlow, Dlabtot, qp10qp and Dougweller, and Verbal above.

In this particularly case, you also cannot assume or state that the Fellowship believes in her credibility. The SF website itself only states that she "claims" that the clothes come from a different period.[39] and the newsletter itself contains a disclaimer to say that the views of the contributors do not necessarily reflect that of the Fellowship.--Slp1 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does the NYT article make Burris's claims acceptable in a Wikipedia article? The NYT article is a news article, and news articles often mention writers that might normally not be considered reliable sources here. 'Newsworthy' and 'reliable source' are not the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you mean. The NYT is a reliable source; and the NYT article contains information about the dispute about the portrait, and some of Burris' claims are mentioned as part of this. I would say that this information (only) could be included (though see below for caveats) The NYT mention does not mean that reliability is extended the newsletter (and the information in it) of course.--Slp1 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So, Slpl - are you saying that as long as a posting states that the information is "claimed... as reported in the Shakespeare Fellowship journal" then the information is usable? If so, then I find that requirement agreeable. I don't think anyone is trying to hide the fact that these are claims, or that they originate under the auspices of the Fellowship. I would still disagree that the material is "Fringe", and will argue that the material is rather "minority viewpoint". Given the breadth of notable individuals who adhere to the minority viewpoint, the subject has surely left the definition of "Fringe". As Jimbo posted "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Based on the prominent adherents I have already listed, the Authorship debates fits this definition exactly. Can we agree on this?

Also, allow me to clarify what I (and I believe Blueboar) was saying in regards to credibility. I am saying that the Fellowship believes that Burris is credible as a researcher who would not attribute comments to the V&A officials that were fictitious. No one, except Paul Barlow, has made that insinuation. I was not implying that the Fellowship believes that what every writer contributes can be taken as a fact. Does that make sense?

Finally, my only remaining issue would be over the Journal's status as a reliable source. The problem with your comment about getting research in "better" journals, is the sad fact that those journals are strictly mainstream who actively banish worthwhile discussion of anything having to do with the Authorship debate, with many going so far as to state - as a fact - that no such debate exists. This is of course ridiculous on its face, but it is also the sad truth. This kind of problem is acknowledged in various sections of WP policy relating to alternative views and minority viewpoints which continually remind us that minority viewpoints must be reported, as long as they are reported as such. I have no problem with that. Smatprt (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should use the NYT, only, as a reference; you'll need to negotiate with editors on the page concerned about what can be cited from the NYT, but as far as I can see, they report a claim by Burris that the fashions were more consistent to 1580, when Hamersley would have been only 15. There's nothing in the NYT article to say that the SF subscribes to her view. But you need also to consider that the NYT, as a newspaper, is probably not the greatest source for any of this either, and you may need to debate this with article editors in the know, but you would be on stronger ground to begin with. The newsletter is not, in my view (or many others who have commented) a reliable source. Can't you find a real art historian who has made this point about the portrait in a reliable source. Why haven't they, would you say?

I would say that this is because "reliable sources", as defined here, are strictly mainstream, and as such simply do not print material that challenges the traditional viewpoint. Minority viewpoints are thus only printed in minority publications which rarely, if ever, are considered RS by the mainstream wikipedia editors that control content.Smatprt (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the authorship debates has prominent adherents or that it is a minority view that needs mentioning; but there is no need for the SF or its publications as reliable sources for this. There are much better, much more clearly reliable, much more notable sources about this available; and these should always be used. As you seem to understand, WP follows the mainstream view, like it or not. No editor here is considered competent enough to judge the merits of these arguments and minor points related to them, so if you want to get the word out, start with the academic conferences and journals and convince academia with your excellent scholarship; even get them to try to refute the claims; when somebody in reliable sources pays attention to the arguments then WP will happily report them too.

Your beliefs about what the Fellowship believes are unfortunately irrelevant. As noted above, the SF's own statements do not appear to corroborate your confidence, since they report her views as "claims". But I am not sure the point of this conversation, since I do not believe either Burris as quoted in the newsletter to be a reliable source, most particularly for any claims about living people.--Slp1 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points and while I may not agree wholeheartedly with everything you say, I truly appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you in a reasonable manner. For that, I thank you. Smatprt (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the offending section and, based on this discussion and the suggestion made by Slpl, have replaced with material that cites the New York Times article. Here is the dif edit: [[40]]. However I also note that Blueboar still considers the Fellowship cite RS (barely), that SoftLavender and I both agree, and that Dlabtot has stated that the Shakespeare Fellowship newsletter can be used as a source under limited circumstances. Thanks for the input, everyone. Smatprt (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course Soflavender and you agree. That's irrelevant. Your input is utterly predictable, as, of course, is mine. The fact that you choose to "include" such opinions as part of a summary indicates the level of its reliability. What matters is independent opinion. BTW, Barbara Burris makes a number of completely false statements, most amusingly referring to the 1847 mezzotint as a "woodcut". In her article she states that she sent Susan North the "woodcut" of the painting. In other words Susan did not even see the original, or even photograph of it (this is the mezzotint. The clothing is so dark it can barely be seen.). We then get excerpts from letters, but we don't know the real context of what is being said. Content might have been heavily edited. Frankly, the reason to suspect this is the long history of misrepresentation and distortion associated with Oxfordian literature. Smatprt may get indignant about this, but it is hardly news. Susan was involved as a consultant in the 2006 exhibition, and her quoted views (not referring to the Ashbourne do not seem consistent with the Burris article. I have not contacted Susan directly, though my wife knows her, but I think the time has come to do so. Paul B (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In the summary above listed by Slpl, you Paul were listed, as having the same view as Slpl. So having SoftLavender and myself listed in the opposing summary is perfectly appropriate. And your continued attacks on Oxfordians have no place on this page. Have I gone into misrepresentation and distortion by orthodox scholars? No. Why not try and stay on point? Since I have removed the reference to Susan and the V&A, instead referencing to the NYTimes, and since Slpl has edited my post, I don't see the point in your BTW posting.Smatprt (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out the long history of misrepresentation and distortions in Oxfordian literature (which is still continuing) is hardly an attack.Tom Reedy (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And has no place on this page, no more than the long history of misrepresentations, deceptions, assumptions and circular logic in mainstream Shakespearean literature. I mean, how many "scholars" and "peer-reviewed journals" have made mistakes over something as simple as Shakespeare's birthday? Please. Smatprt (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Such representations and distortions about William Shakespeare are not the accepted scholarly consensus among literary historians, which is the difference, and which really is the heart of the topic in this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most groups are pretty bad at self policing or acknowledging their own mistakes. But this is all off-topic and these generalizations are not what this notice board is all about. As far as I can tell, we're pretty close to being done here, so I'd like to thank the regular editors of this page for their helpful insights and suggestions. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

...is an online journal devoted to film. About the journal: it has an ISSN (ISSN 1443-4059), is financially assisted by Screen Australia and Film Victoria, indexed by Google Scholar and the MLA (Modern Language Association of America) International Bibliography, and is listed in the MLA Directory of Periodicals. It does not seem to claim any academic affiliations or be run by credentialed scholars (its founding editor is an "independent filmmaker"), but does seem to be cited in the literature.

Is this a reliable source? Any comments appreciated. Skomorokh 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Google scholar indexing is not a good indicator of reliability (even as a rough guess) but listing by the MLA is (though this may be less true now than it was years ago). I'm not thrilled by the nature of their "about us" page. My suspicion is that this may be treated like any other published literary 'zine. Not iron clad, but good enough for us. That's just a gut judgment, as I have not yet read their articles. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

www.hiphopdx.com has, for a long time, been used as a reference to source album sales. For a long time, I've deemed this site unreliable as it wouldn't get past GA as a reliable source, let alone pass an FA. I tried search for information of Cheri Media Group (the apparent host of HipHopDX) and I've found nothing, except its website, which provides absolutely nothing. I'd like to get other eyes on HipHopDX to determine whether or not this should be used as a source. — Σxplicit 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have editors and writers [41], I don't see what the problem is. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Does having writers constitute a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? That's the main probably I see. Also, would this be able to pass an FA? — Σxplicit 18:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Having staff writers and an editorial board is a start. While we have the language about "reputation" in our guideline (and remember RS is only a guideline; the less restrictive WP:V is the policy), for uncontroversial topics writers and an editorial board is unsually enough unless we hear otherwise on reputation. At any rate, HipHopDx has been cited by a number of news outlets, such as NME, the New York Post, the Jamaica Observer, news.com.au, New York Daily News, Sports Gamer, TV.com, AskMen, Hollywood News, and others, which speaks positively of it. [42](Google News Archive search) You do have to be concerned though whether a count of albums sold is encyclopedic information. If we'll have to update those numbers all the time, we probably shouldnt use a running count and instead concentrate on whether an album made Platinum or how many copies were sold in its debut year. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not specifically out for updating sales every week, but getting a closer approximate of current sale figures, as some albums don't have any information past the first week from other sources. So in this case, it seems HipHopDX would work. — Σxplicit 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tough one, as most of these are in German. For your convenience, here is the link for Google Translate: [43].

The majority, if not all, of these references, look to me to be not reliable sources, but simple announcements of performances, program notes, or self-published. Where the sources do appear reliable, Hauke Harder is just briefly mentioned.

FYI, most of these sources have been added after I nominated the article for deletion.

Your comments would be appreciated. As a regular poster at RSN, I'll recuse myself from the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read and analyzed the references. See below. I express no opinion on WP:NOTABILITY (or not) of the subject.

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.charternet.com/greatgear/captains-free.html

file:///C:/eric/profesiona%3b%20mariner.htm

file:///C:/eric/Automatic_Identification_System.htm

file:///C:/eric/bermuda%20maritime.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossito (talk • contribs)

Not sure what's going on with this. I've left a message on Ossito's talk page to explain a bit more. — e. ripley\^talk 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If the question is: are these reliable... the answer is no, Not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A dispute over accuracy has arisen in the article Led Zeppelin over the number of albums the group has sold worldwide (see Talk:Led_Zeppelin#Disputed_accuracy_of_worldwide_album_sales). A figure of 300 million is cited by some sources while 200 million is cited by other sources. It has been suggested that the references showing 300 million are a case of circular sourcing (see Talk:Led_Zeppelin#300_million. The sources supporting the 300 million figure are: CNN [44], VH1 [45], The Local, a Swedish online newspaper [46], The Daily Telegraph [47] and the Mail & Guardian, a South African weekly newspaper [48]

Two of the better sources listed above, CNN and The Daily Telgraph are contradicted by other articles published by the same orginizations: [49] and [50]

Sources supporting the 200 million figure include the group's record company, Atlantic Records (see atlanticrecords.com/ledzeppelin) and Led Zeppelin's official web site (see ledzeppelin.com/news), plus these publications: The Times [51], The Guardian [52], The Independent [53], Press Association [54], Los Angeles Times [55] and Billboard [56].

Also, two published book sources cite 200 million:

Schinder, Scott; Schwartz, Andy Icons of Rock: An Encyclopedia of the Legends Who Changed Music Forever (2008)

Hulett, Ralph; Prochnicky, Jerry Whole Lotta Led: Our Flight with Led Zeppelin (2005)

Can any of these sources be considered more reliable than others? Piriczki (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In my view, this might be an unanswerable question. The good news is that we don't have to answer it. All of these sources could be considered reliable in context. I don't see any reason why we can't make note of the discrepancy within the article and let readers make up their own minds. It doesn't have to be bloated; it could be as simple as "The group has reportedly sold between 200 - 300 million records, depending on the source. [refs] Though, I am curious to see if the sales figures in the book are footnoted and to what source. — e. ripley\^talk 21:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

When reliable sources conflict, we simply report the conflict. We don't try to figure out which is 'more reliable'. Dlabtot (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what would be more reliable to source Case Closed air dates. toonzone.com or anime.futurizmo.com. Toonzone has the airdates in once place but I'm not sure about the relibility of the site. Futurizmo lists episodes off the adult swim schedule from their site so it seems more reliable. Please reply to my talk, sorry if that's troublesome. DragonZero (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it a realiable source? http://theroadcompany.com/ Simone Jackson (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Source for what? Describing itself it counts as self-published; there is no authorship for the info about shows. So no. Martinlc (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering about what people think about the reliability of this source. I came across it at Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark#Impact. Dlabtot (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

aintitcool is an influential movie review site and has been recognized as such by the likes of The Guardian, the NYT and so on. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

permalink to its use here (footnote 39), since it has been edited out. I'm not sure the story quite supports the assertion in the article (that Roth "discovered" it) but that's a different issue. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Only reliable to the existence of a rumour, not that the rumour is true. No editorial review, checking of content, named authors or sources.Martinlc (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Beuller? Dlabtot (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There’s an ongoing disagreement on the article War of the Pacific as to whether Bolivia declared war on Chile. Several sources actually state that Bolivia did declare war on Chile. Among those are; Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565235/war_of_the_pacific.html ; Onwar.com http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/pacific1879.htm and Globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-of-the-pacific.htm One user claims these sources are not reliable since they don’t list any references. Is this the case? I read somewhere that Encarta, Britannica and other online encyclopedias are authoritative. Please advice.

Likeminas (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Authoritative"? Yes. "Inerrant"? No. Sometimes some sources are wrong. If you can't figure out which are which, word it something like "It is unknown whether Boliva declared war on Chile", and explain the problem on the talkpage. If somebody figures it out, the article will be improved. If nobody can, then that's the best representation of the events that can be. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Other sources also say that Bolivia declared war on Child, including Erik Goldstein's "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991" and others found here and here. I have to think that those sources can be at least used to say at the very least something like "Bolivia is reported to have declared war on ..."... John Carter (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't use "is reported". Either you are sure, then state the fact (with source), or almost sure (source with attribution), or present both positions, with attribution to the sources.  Cs32en  23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest checking through these: [57] Concentrate on the works published by reputable academic publishers – University Presses, Greenwood Publishing, Routledge imprints, etc. For what it's worth, this book, published by a research unit associated with Durham University, states that Bolivia declared war on 14 March 1879. But check through at least a couple of dozen reputable works; if there are differences of opinion on the facts among the most reliable sources, include and attribute both versions. Jayen466 17:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For international relations, this often will not work. Both sides (or all of the various sides) often have the resources to sponsor peer-reviewed research, encyclopedia etc.  Cs32en  23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are sources that claim that Bolivia declared war on March 1st, March 8th, and March 14th; along with the sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war. Like I pointed out in the article's talk page, I think that it would be best if the information was presented in a neutral point of view where it is noted that it is unknown if Bolivia truly declared war at that particular date.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see those sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war so I don't even know if they exist. But, when sources DO conflict, we don't throw up our hands and say it's unknown, rather, we simply report what the various sources say, without giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints. But that is a discussion for the NPOV noticeboard, not here. Dlabtot (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are books (in Spanish) written by mainly Peruvian and Bolivian historians that claim Bolivia passed several decrees against Chilean interests in the region, which in turn, were interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war. Likeminas (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one Chilean source in there that seems supportive of the claim Bolivia did not declare war but rather simply took highly aggressive actions. However, they do tend to be mainly Peruvian and Bolivian historians. The vast majority of what could be called "neutral" sources tend to favor the idea that Bolivia did declare war but, as we all should know, "neutral" does not equal "accurate" or "knowledgeable" and therefore sometimes they can be vague sources that do not provide as much information that is necessary to serve as verification. From my perspective, using a vague source to certify what is supposed to be describing something important is by no means correct.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(reply to both) It would be very helpful, if rather than just stating that these sources exist, you actually identified them. Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Encarta is a reliable tertiary source but it's also a competing encyclopedia so we should see if other sources are available. Globalsecurity.org originated from the Federation of American Scientists and is very well-respected. Onwar.com I wasn't familiar with, but from searching for it on Google Books it looks adequate. Try for more book sources for the declaration of war. If they conflict on the exact date you can say "early March" and cite them all with the exact date in the footnotes. If the sources conflict on whether a formal declaration of war was made then dig deeper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a quote from user Arafael, which argues the opposing view of the argument (I'm attempting to be the "neutral" third party between him and Likeminas), which is the one in favor of Bolivia not declaring war on March: "Check out these books about the Bolivian decree [58] of March 1: Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan - Peruvian [59] Luis Peñaloza Cordero - Bolivian [60] Atilio Sivirichi - Peruvian [61] Juan Pereira Fiorilo - Bolivian [62] Alejandro Soto Cárdenas - Chilean [63] Casto Rojas - Bolivian [64] Alcira Cardona Torrico - Bolivian [65]."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The books that Arafael presents look to be reliable sources. All of them make specific mention of the decree of March 1st, citing the aggressive actions taken by the Bolivian government, but none of them make mention of a declaration of war. If a war was indeed declared during that time or due to that decree, then it seems obvious to me that they would have had to make mention of it (A declaration war cannot be simply "skipped" as it is highly important). Now, I'm currently not an expert at these things (even though I eventually plan to be) of evaluating sources as reliable, but it seems to me that there is also a strong and verifiable position in favor of Bolivia not declaring war on March. Even if "neutral" sources tend to claim otherwise, sometimes they are not correct even if they think that they are correct. However, since the lot of you here are more experienced at this, do you think that the sources provided by Arafael are reliable? (Because if they are not, then this whole argument would be done and dead).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We have established that multiple reliable sources say that Bolivia declared war. It seems that no reliable sources exist that dispute this. Rather, we have Wikipedia editors who are reaching this conclusion, based on their own interpretation and analysis of sources. Lacking sources that actually state that Bolivia did not declare war, we must simply state what the sources say. Sources that don't mention the absence of a declaration of war certainly could not be used to assert the viewpoint that Bolivia did not declare war. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is there an WP:OR problem if in the first source that Arafael provided, it states: "Declaración de ruptura de comunicaciones con Chile y embargo de propiedades de súbditos chilenos." Roughly translated to: "Declaration of Rupture in Communications with Chile and Embargo of Chilean Properties." This the declaration of March 1st that allegedly is the declaration of war of Bolivia. There is no Original Research when the title of the decree, and the information within the decree, essentially make no mention of war. The other sources, which explain what happened on March 1st, also make no mention of a declaration of war. How is this "our" (I say "our" because I'm defending Arafael's point, please remember that I'm just trying to figure out the truth of the matter as a good 3rd party editor would) "interpertation and analysis" of sources? Have you not read them yourself?--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually pretty simple. If a source says that Bolivia did not declare war, then we can report that that source said that Bolivia did not declare war. If a source does not say that Bolivia did not declare war, we can not report that that source said that Bolivia did not declare war. I have nothing further to say about the matter. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, then, since the sources that Arafael have provided do state that Bolivia took aggressive measures during the declaration of March the 1st and make no mention of no war, then we can and should report that "according to Peruvian, Bolivian, and Chilean historians that analysed the Bolivian government's decree of March 1st, Bolivia took aggressive measures against the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory, but make no mention of a declaration of war." Having said that, it is neither stated that Bolivia declared or did not declare war on that date, all that is stated (as the sources verify) is that there is no mention of a declaration of war. Since it has also been agreed that the sources are reliable, then there is no problem with them. Oh, and by the way, does your "I have nothing further to say about the matter" mean that you read or did not read the sources? (You seem to have forgotten that question).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"On March 1st, Bolivia passed an internal decree against Chilean interests, which in turn, were interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war"

• Chilean source [66]. Historian Guillermo Lagos Carmona. History of the borders of Chile.
• Bolivian source [67]. Diplomat and historian Ramiro Prudencio Lizón. The occupation of Antofagasta.
• Peruvian source [68]. Historian Atilio Sivirichi. History of Peru

Arafael (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That’s been my point from the very beginning.

Sice I’m not a historian I don’t know whether these sources are 100% correct or not.

What I do know, is that they are reliable and they state a point I want to reference. That’s all.

To me it seems, Arafael and (now MarshalN20) are adding their own interpretations to the story. It also looks like the interpretation version is the minority point of view.

In any case, please let’s continue the discussion on the talk page.

Likeminas (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't take the ball and go home just yet. There's a simpler issue that's still answerable here on RSN. We have some sources that say a declaration of war happened. We have other sources that say some action other than a formal declaration of war happened. But those don't necessarily contradict. It's possible something got lost in translation, and it's also possible the process of "declaring" war worked differently in the Spanish colonies ( Napoleonic Code ) than in systems based on English law. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't want to magnify the issue by saying "Sources A,B,C say war was declared, but Sources D and E say it wasn't. But what you can do, when using the Spanish-language sources for fine detail, is to put "declaration of rupture" and other alternative terms in quotes. Using so-called "scare quotes" says that there may or may not be some subtle difference, but doesn't actually come out and create a false dichotomy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Squidfryerchef. Likeminas has apparently "taken the ball and gone home" already, but I still would like to reply to what you have stated and to what Arafael has just posted for us above. In the first source provided by Arafael, [69], from what I understood it seems that the Bolivian government understood the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory (without an actual prior declaration of war) as a declaration of war. What followed was that the Bolivian government made the March 1st decree (which was not a declaration of war either), which the Chilean government understood as a declaration of war; which prompted Chile to oficially declare war first. This is what, to me, is the truth. However, I do agree that this is my own original research, but I feel it in my guts that this is what truly happened.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, since WP:OR is not correct to use (at least not until I become a certified historian), I also agree with your statement of "declaration of rupture" (which is what the Bolivian government declared, essentially). Still, by examining the next two sources provided by Arafael, [70] and [71], they basically state (in clear statements) that the Chilean government took the Bolivian decree as a declaration of war when it wasn't one. Allow me to post the specific information here:

"Y no fue ese país sino Bolivia la que emitió un decreto interno que posteriormente se lo interpretó como una verdadera declaratoria de guerra." (From Diario La Razon). Translation: "And it wasn't that country but rather Bolivia that sent an internal decree that afterwards would be interpreted as a real declaration of war."

"Bolivia se limito a declarar el 1 de Marzo, cortadas las relaciones con Chile, decretando la expulsion de los chilenos. Este hecho, habilmente fue interpretado por el gobierno chileno, como [...]" (From History of Peru). Translation: "Bolivia limited itself to declaring the 1st of March, with relations with Chile cut, a statement declaring the expulsion of Chileans. This deed, skillfully interpreted by the Chilean government, as [...]." What follows in the [...] is, obviously, that the Chilean government interpreted the declaration as a war statement, which the source basically says that it was not.

In other words, these two sources that were presented agree with and directly state (In other words, no WP:OR in this case) that the Bolivian decree of March 1st was not a declaration of war.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The text follows: [72]. Arafael (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, one of the contributors in Republic of China is using the sources below as a basis for some of his edits. In particular, he wants to put in the article that Nanjing is the de jure capital of the ROC. However, some of us argue that these sources are not acceptable since they all take their content from Wikipedia (see the small prints at the bottom of the pages). There are no sources other than these five links, which he keeps bringing them to the discussion. So are these sources considered reliable per Wikipedia's criteria? Laurent (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]

They clearly are not. Mirrorsites and sites that take their information from Wikipedia are not reliable source, and those sites clearly state the information is taken straight from Wikipedia. It's not even one of those iffy sources where you think old non-sourced info shows up on another site and later when that site is used as a source here you think- "well, did the info come from them originally and then was put on wikipedia, or was the information on wikipedia first and they got the information from us?" You cant skirt the policy on not using wikipedia as a source simply by using a mirror source.Camelbinky (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to say that is absolutely correct. Those sources can't be used. Why would anyone think you could use a copy of an article as a source for the article? Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices. He has now found this source on encyclopdia.com: [78]. I suppose this one is fine as it doesn't seem to come from Wikipedia? Laurent (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, though you may want to do some digging and make sure the Columbian Encyclopedia that the website is "quoting" is legit and reliable. But at face value it looks fine.Camelbinky (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a very good Spanish source for Rivadavia here, http://www.histarmar.com.ar/, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source. Can anyone here help me out? (Google Translate link) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources: English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Is the Fox News website a reliable source? I am editing the Human Rights and the United States page and another editor wishes to use this Fox News article as a source for the number of times waterboarding was used on detainees: Article here. I am happy to use the ICRC report linked to in the article, but I am not sure about the testimony from the un-named "US official". I would also question the reliability and credibility of Fox News generally, but not sure of its acceptability on Wikipedia. Pexise (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean foxnews.com? Yes, it is a reliable source. National news service. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are those with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In broadcast media, I think that applies more to the news programming than the talk programming, because individual commentators are of course separate. I tend to think Fox News is generally counted as doing as much fact-checking as any of the other major broadcast media, so I'm guessing they do qualify as a reliable source. That isn't saying that a source from, say, the Guardian or the New York Times might not be a better source, but I have to think Fox News is counted as reliable enough to qualify. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The NY Times article simply reports what is stated in the footnote of the previously classified memo. The footnote is viewable here: http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-memos-on-interrogation-techniques#p=121. As for the Fox News article, I suppose there would be nothing wrong with using it to verify a statement that Fox News disagrees with the CIA about how many times the CIA waterboarded detainees. Dlabtot (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article explains in detail why the numbers disagree, explaining different usages of the word "waterboard" - the question being what counts as an instance of "waterboarding". Foxnews should be regarded as reliable but care needs to be taken in using this particular article to explain what is meant when one says a terrorist was "waterboarded n times". Readin (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, that would be giving undue weight to Fox News' fringe view that they know better than the CIA what the CIA did. Nothing wrong with noting the fact that Fox News has this fringe viewpoint, however. Dlabtot (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For our purposes, Fox News is a reliable source and is perfectly acceptable. I think the real question here is what happens when reliable sources disagree with each other? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot that Fox News cant be considered a more reliable source than the CIA on what the CIA did or didnt do. I'm not a big supporter of "verifiable trumps the truth" (see: User talk:Camelbinky) but in this case it doesnt matter if Foxnews.com or whatever IS correct, the CIA should be the most considered the ultimate source that trumps all news reports or opinions on what the CIA does/did. And of course commentators or other non-news programs on Fox or the website (Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and Bill O'Reilly) are NOT reliable sources no matter how many (or few as the case may be) people agree with them, same goes for Lou Dobbs on CNN. Remember that the wikipedia guidelines and policies on the matter of reliable sources does state that a source must be reliable on THE PARTICULAR TOPIC IN DISCUSSION, it is therefore not acceptable just to say "well Fox is just as reliable as any other news agency and is a reliable source in general therefore a reliable source this time and everytime", they MUST be a reliable source on this topic. They simply cant be considered reliable or as reliable as the CIA on knowing how many times the CIA waterboarded! Fox was not there with cameras and reporters everytime the CIA waterboarded they simply cant know, and one must assume the CIA does, even though the CIA may be lying.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a conflict of interest about what the CIA claims about what the CIA did? I would think that for an issue such as this, the CIA is only reliable for what the CIA says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in a classified memo that they never thought would see the light of day. Dlabtot (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Even still, reliable sources are defined as being third-party sources. This is a first-party source. The memo itself is only reliable for what the CIA says. So I would not directly cite the document for a direct statement of fact. That is to say that is there a difference between the following two sentences:

• "The CIA says it waterboarded X number of times."

...and...

• "The CIA waterboarded X number of times."

The memo only supports the former, but not the latter. If you want to write the latter, I would simply attribute it to a different third party WP:RS such as [79] which do contain third-party, statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If the majority of reliable sources are reporting a different number, then we do not select to use the oddball source as the reference for our article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this Fox News article, the more it looks like 'spin' than an actual news report. The whole article is a refutation of the claim that there were 183 waterboarding 'sessions' - a claim made by no one. See my comments at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#ICRC_Report_2. Dlabtot (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I wondered that myself. It almost reads more like an opinion piece. Personally when I add content to an article, I always ask myself whether a source would survive a challenge on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If I'm not fairly sure it will pass muster, I won't use it. The possibility that this particular article might be an opinion piece or that it hasn't gone through the normal editorial review process creates enough doubt in my mind that I wouldn't use it. I'd try to find a more solid cite. But again, that's just me.

So to clarify my earlier answer: Is Fox News a reliable source in general? Yes, of course. Is this particular article a reliable source? I think so, but I don't know so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify: I agree with Red Pen's comment that "If the majority of reliable sources are reporting a different number, then we do not select to use the oddball source as the reference for our article." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean Fox News produced something with spin?! WOW! No way, must be a mistake. They are "fair and balanced" and have a "no spin zone". No but really- Fox News shouldnt be considered a reliable news source on anything politically based.Camelbinky (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. When it comes to politics, or any topic that conservative politicians might have an agenda on, FOX News is only a reliable source for the opinion pushed in their broadcasts but nothing like a reliable source for what really happens anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox news puts us in a pickle. As does huffington post. Both entities have named authors on the byline, they have editorial staff, they state that fact checking is performed and they are (as has been said above) national news services. Both organizations have seats at the press briefing room in the white house. Both organizations run a mix of reported material and opinion and are usually clear when a piece is obviously one thing or obviously another. So, if we play the straight man, both sources are reliable. They can technically be used to support 99% of all claims made in our articles...

But hopefully we all have functioning brains and bullshit detectors. Both Fox and Huffpo (among other "news" sources ranging from the unreliable to the fairly reliable) are relentlessly partisan and while they distinguish pure opinion from reported material, their editorial slant sneaks in to reportage constantly. Apart from the obvious bias involved with selection of content (which thankfully isn't too big a deal with us), presentation of facts, use of data and couching of spin will push left for huffpo and right for Fox. Far enough for either organization that I would be hesitant to use them as sources unless I really had to.

So my 'official' recommendation is "Of course Fox News is a reliable source". My recommendation for the personal practice of editors is that the fewer contentious claims we source to organizations like Huffpo or FNC the better. Protonk (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Fox News doesn't put us in a pickle. We can simply cite the CIA for what it says and cite Fox for what Fox said. We do this all the time even for sources that are much more partisan than Fox. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Squidfryerchef. Probably at least half of all users on wikipedia have a political preference in real life (though it would be pretty neat to somehow poll a good cross-section of editors on their preferences and see how it breaks down on political vs. non-political and their leanings left or right and how strongly, though I dont know how that would be done), and those that lean liberal would be more inclined to call Fox News on their bullshit and those that lean conservative probably wouldnt have Fox News' bullshit show up on their radar, and vice versa for a liberal equivalent though none come to mind... :-) So stating that "hopefully we all have functioning brains and bullshit detectors" is a nice sentiment but unfortunately whenever politics injects even a little on a source our bs detectors arent all calibrated the same way and "some" of us dont have functioning brains. Example- the news reporter, I dont remember if she was affiliated with Fox News or not, that called the "fist bump" used by Obama and his wife a "terrorist fist bump", she was "reporting" the news, not being an opinion or commentator she was a reporter, and how many people with "functioning" brains (ie- they can breathe and walk) probably still believe that it was a sign of terrorist sympathy? And now think to yourself- those people can and do edit on wikipedia, maybe even that same reporter edits on here.Camelbinky (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what putting us in a pickle does. We are forced to be overly literal and constrained in citing sourced like fox or huffpo due to their various biases (both acknowledged and unacknowledged). The unspoken contradiction here is that the judgment and volition required to do that is exactly what WP:RS is supposed to supplant. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but that is where I disagree with alot (and they might very well be the majority, but I like think we are split equally) of wikipedians, I dont believe that WP:RS is supposed to "supplant" judgement and consensus and discussion. Many editors think what we are doing right now, discussing and having a debate, is something to be feared or its "drama", or something to avoid through the use of set "rules". I think friendly discussion leading to consensus is good and healthy (and yes people will lose and be upset, oh well, that's not drama, that's bad sportsmanship). I've proposed several days ago, and am sure it wont succeed, that wikipedia: policies and guidelines be ammended to have a sentence or two saying "Quoting policies and guidelines is never a substitution for discussion and consensus building". Basically, this is getting off-point. But I dont think it is a contradiction to use wp:common sense and say "Fox News is not reliable in the sphere of the political", our "rules" here in wikipedia are living and changing and evolving things based on consensus and common sense and community building and should be applied not by the letter of the policy or guideline but by the intent and spirit of what the policy on RS is. That is why this noticeboard exists, so that the community may apply RS in whatever manner in which the community wishes at this particular moment, otherwise it would be a quote-fest of "rules".Camelbinky (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a bad thing. I am of the opinion that wikipedia editors are engaged in constant willful ignorance about the creative function of article editing. To read OR (even the parts that make sense) and interpret it correctly is to conclude that discussions like this and decisions to carefully weigh specific sources or make tough content decisions are proscribed. There is some feeling that we don't put forward new research or thought but somehow out comes a neutral, factual and engaging resource. Occasionally some limp response is given, asserting that we are just neutrally summarizing published research in proportion to its influence in the world...if you don't see a half-dozen things wrong with that sentence you should turn in your critical thinking card. :) I think that RS, NOR, PSTS and so forth are good general guides, but that the truth is we select among sources based on our obscured expertise, there is a significant author function in editing, and discussions like this serve as good checks against silliness. Some of that is acknowledged as the "wiki way" (especially the notion of countervailing opinions on a contentious subject resulting in neutral prose...a contention that has been disproven a dozen times over in the last 8 years). Some of it is unacknowledged or steadfastly denied. All that said, I do prefer using sources where the frictions you and I are discussing never come up. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We can simply cite the CIA for what it says and cite Fox for what Fox said. Perhaps, but not necessarily. Just because Fox News qualifies broadly as a RS, doesn't mean that what they say on a particular topic belongs in that topic's article. Editors must not only weigh WP:UNDUE, they must use editorial judgement and not inject spin into an encyclopedia article simply because it was published in a source that meets our broad WP:RS guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is factual that David Duke published the book, Finders-Keepers, under the pseudonym, Dorothy Vanderbilt. But it can't be substantiated that the book, Finder's Keepers, contained advice on "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Why? Because the book is unavailable and the secondary sources cited do not actually cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers. If someone can link to the book, Finders-Keepers, the matter can be resolved. Until then, it's hearsay and does not belong on Wikipedia.

Even though David Duke is widely despised, Wikipedia ought to maintain its standards and require that extreme claims be backed by primary sources, especially when the secondary sources don't cite the primary source!

Shady References:

1. The 1992 article, "The Picayune Catches Up With David Duke", does not cite a primary source, it defers only to this mysterious book having received front-page play in the Shreveport Journal on August 21, 1990. The article does not provide any reference but claims the book deals with "Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex."[80]

2. The book, Troubled Memory, by Lawrence N. Powell, plays on the phrase with "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex". But Powell does not cite the book Finder's Keepers nor any page number. Powell's claim is totally unsubstantiated. Check Powell's book, page 448, here:[81]

3. The ADL article discusses Duke's pseudonym but cites nothing for the book's sexual content.[82]

--Bureaucracy (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, "Shady Reference #2", Troubled Memory, is published by the University of North Carolina Press. The book is thoroughly footnoted, though the notes for page 448 are not available on Google.   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made an error. The book Troubled Memory is available in its entirety.[83] The book, Troubled Memory, does not cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers, yet it characterizes the book with, "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." That's shady scholarship. Again, I care not for publishing prestige, especially when negligence is involved.

--Bureaucracy (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A primary source would not only not be required, it would be discouraged in this instance. If notable/reputable pubs write about it, it's notable. IronDuke 03:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not "available in its entirety". It is availible in limited preview. However, there is no point in "footnoting" a summary of the contents of a book, since it by definition epitomises the whole text. There's nothing 'shady' about that at all. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying Wikipedia defers to notable/reputable publishing houses as the authority on the content of a book, and not the actual book itself? --Bureaucracy (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No. We are saying that the best way for us, the anonymous editors behind wikipedia, to judge if a neutral encyclopedia would mention this detail is to see if someone else mentioned it first. In very narrow cases are we to use primary sources, mainly situations where detail gleaned from primary sources offers necessary context for the subject as a whole and it would be silly to demand secondary sourcing. I don't think this is one of those cases. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, asking for proof is silly. So far, Wikipedia is relying on three sources which fail to backup a serious charge.

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. — Hillel--Bureaucracy (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, what? Are you saying that the three sources cited are insufficient to make the claims made in the article? If that is the case, it can be discussed on the article talk page--that isn't specifically an issue for this noticeboard. If you are arguing that access to the primary source is require for editors to verify a claim made by an otherwise reliable secondary source, I would disagree with you most of the time. For some extreme claims or claims where there is doubt as to the reliability of the secondary source (doubt from a source besides a single wp editor), then we can talk about comparing claims about the text to the text itself. But there is a difference between removing material on the claims that it is hearsay (a legal term of art which has no real meaning in wikipedia) and comparing claims in secondary sources which are explicitly falsified by the primary text. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I see that Troubled Memory has won a couple of awards:

• Winner of the 2000 Lillian Smith Book Award, Southern Regional Council
• Winner of the 2000 Kemper and Leila Williams Prize in Louisiana History, Louisiana Historical Association
• A 2000 Booklist Holocaust Literature Best of the Year Selection

Per the publisher's website.[84]   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, Yes. The wiki sources do not substantiate that Duke's book offers advice on "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." The Wiki page cites authors, Lawrence Powell and Jeanne W. Amend - but these authors failed to consult Duke's book, Finder's Keepers, because it's out of print and not available online. Powell's bibliography doesn't even list the book, because he couldn't find it, yet he characterized it without having read it. Here's the claim with no footnote, it's in the first paragraph[85]

BTW....I was directed here from the talk page by User:   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC) who seems to want to defer rather than fact check. --Bureaucracy (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I think that we can roughly say that the Powell book is reliable (assuming that list of rewards is accurate and given our policy on reliable sources). We are down to the assertion that Powell didn't read the book in question. I don't think we can make that accusation without some evidence. the omission of the book in the bibliography may be telling or it may be benign. I don't think that the books being out of print is sufficient to support your accusation, especially because one of the principal subjects of the book is Duke. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Powell's book is published by a university press, has won awards, and Powell is a Professor at Tulane specializing in this and related topics[86]. Of course this book is a reliable source. And, but that's by he way, has anybody tried getting a copy of Finder's Keepers via a good academic library with competent staff? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate to contact Powell. Troubled Memory was published only nine-years ago, and it is possible that he still has his copy of Finders Keepers, or a partial copy. If (possibly a big if) he was concerned enough about this doubt to take action to clarify the matter, he could make small amounts of Finders Keepers available online without breach of copywrite.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, good lord. There are literally a half dozen other book sources noting the same connection. I don't think this can be attributed to Powell, Tyler and the ADL making up the claim. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I agree, there are half a dozen sources characterizing the book as giving sexual advice. There seems to be two competing descriptions, one is dating advise for women and the other is "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Not one of these sources cites the book itself, not even a footnote in these scholarly works.

Perhaps these scholars are chasing each others' tail. Perhaps they know they won't be held accountable because it's David Duke. Or, perhaps Duke did indeed published a pornographic book.

I'm with Ordinary Person. Should I contact Powell or is that the responsibility of the Administrators?--Bureaucracy (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • At this point I'm not going to entertain the notion that all of these books have fabricated the same claim. There is a more likely but still incredible claim to be made that someone like Tyler fabricated the passage and later scholars just repeated the falsehood. That, to me, is only compelling in the presence of positive evidence. Is there some reliable source that makes the claim that Duke did not author the book? That the book did not contain those passages? This kind of this is a content decision and so should be made on the article talk page but my read is that we can't in good conscience throw out ~9 sources because we don't see confirmatory primary documents. If you want to email Powell and ask him, please do so. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, this is not to say that I think the sentence belongs in the article. It's unconnected to the rest of the paragraph and seems designed to show how lewd Duke was while writing under a pseudonym. I know that both Finders-Keepers and African Atto were written in persona, arguably one that Duke projected upon the intended audience. The article should use sources supporting a claim like that to contextualize the segment. But until that happens we might consider just cutting the sentence. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Protonk. I suppose it is not impossible that these sources have all relied on a set of false sources, but I think that should be enough weight for now. (To my mind, suggesting that Duke wrote such a book only enhances his reputation by implying that at one time he wrote something potentially helpful.) Still, it would be nice if someone can lay their hands on a copy of Finders Keepers, so that a couple of confirming quotes can be placed in the article. I'm emailing Powell anyway: you never know your luck. Ordinary Person (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Treat it as true, until something contradicts it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases in which secondary sources discuss primary sources that are not readily available. The primary source may be a rare manuscript or a long out of print book which exists in only a few copies. We have to trust the secondary sources according to their reliability, not according to the degree of access we have to the primary sources. Whether or not the sentence belongs in the article is not a matter for this noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did contact Professor Powell, explained the circumstances, and he gave a very helpful reply:

I did look at the book, and should have cited it. During Duke's meteoric rise in Louisiana politics in the late 1980s and early '90s, the PAC we set up to expose him came into possession of Finders-Keepers, courtesy of independent journalist Patsy Sims. She had interviewed Duke extensively for her book, The Klan (NY: Dorset Press, 1978). On p. 212, she discusses Duke's clumsy efforts to enlist her help in placing his sex manual with her literary agent. She also talked with klansmen who had been alienated by Duke's over-the-top narcissism . When Sims sent us her personal copy of Finders-Keepers, we made copies for distribution to the media, and deposited one photocopy with the Amistad Research Center at Tulane University. It is in its "Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism" collection. (For what it's worth, Patsy Sims can be reached at Goucher College in Baltimore, where she heads the MFA Program in Non-Fiction.)

I visited the collection today and photocopied pertinent pages of Finders-Keepers. Arlington Press (a neo-nazi house, if memory serves) released it in 1976. Duke wrote it under the pseudonym James Konrad and Dorothy Vanderbilt. I'm more than happy to send you Chapter Ten: "Toward a More Fulfilling Sex-Life."

Meanwhile, here are a few representative quotations that clinch the argument:

p. 115-- "One simple exercise you can do (and you can do it any time of the day--driving to work, sitting at your desk, or watching TV--and nobody will know you are doing it) involves merely contracting the vaginal muscles. It is not difficult to learn. Get in a sitting position, and imagine you are urinating (sounds gross, doesn't it?). Now use the same muscles you would use to stop the urination. Do you feel the muscles tighten?....Another exercise you can do involves the vibrator."

pp. 117-8-- "In fellating your lover, you can assume any position that is comfortable and in close proximity to his penis, In your normal foreplay of kissing this area, kiss him up and down the shaft of the penis and lubricate it quite well with your tongue."

p. 119-- "A very sensitive and erogenous area to both yourself and your lover is the anus....Some women occasionally place (carefully) one of their fingers in it during intercourse when body position makes it possible Most men really enjoy such activity on your part during lovemaking....Many couples today see nothing wrong with limited anal sex."

I think this nails it.
Ordinary Person (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary Person, nice one. I think Duke's pages needs a new section: Pornographer. Can you forward me the photocopies or post them? I'd like to see.... since Powell went to the trouble of copying them.--Bureaucracy (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was curious to see whether all BLP articles are handled in a similar manner, so I went to W.H. Auden. Auden wrote plenty of porn, but his bio handles the issue in a way that is delicate in the extreme. I don't anticipate that this will be the case with David Duke. --4.233.125.91 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I will put them up somewhere when I get them, but in my own opinion, sex advice of this kind is not pornographic.Ordinary Person (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)