Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General help Help desk • Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Userpage help • New user help Report abuse Vandalism • Spam • Edit warring (3RR) • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sock puppets • Copyright violations • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • BLP sanctions logging Request assistance Editor assistance • Page protection • Checkuser • Oversight • Arbitration • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Wikiquette alerts Noticeboards Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Biographies • Conflict of interest • Ethnic and cultural conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Neutral point of view • Original research • Reliable sources

Shortcuts: WP:RSN WP:RS/N WP:V/N

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Contents 1 References. Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here 2 YouTube 2.1 Refocus 3 CNSnews.com aka cybercast 4 Problems with a petition 5 Newspapers in countries without a free press 6 Astrology-online.com 7 Daily Mirror 8 Article on American Chronicle 9 Questionable website as a reference? 10 Official distributor posting on forum 11 Aspartame 12 Metal: A Headbanger's Journey 13 Re Watchtower Society/ Jehovah's Witnesses 14 Wide consensus in self-published sources 15 USS Nevada (BB-36) 16 Articles using Universal Cyclopædia & Atlas as source 17 Kotaku 18 Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018 19 Freedom of information (FOI) reports - not published, can they be used? 20 royal sulu 21 Press releases 22 Korean War 23 Color sources 24 Reliable Sources 25 DataTreasury 26 Kirsten Storms Engagement 27 Air Combat Group RAAF 28 Denial of the Holodomor 29 Court Documents - are they reliable sources or not? 30 Fansites and official transcripts 31 lewrockwell.com 32 Continental Freemasonry in North America 33 Nightingale Research Foundation 34 Huffington Post, AJC, & E&P

[edit] References. Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here

[edit] YouTube

I've been involved in a few disputes at Talk:Political positions of John McCain about YouTube. Editors have been saying that YouTube is not a reliable source for information about what is in the video. For example, the first dispute was a video of McCain responding to "would you support nuclear waste going through Pheonix?" with, "no, I would not." This is shown in the video and that is what another editor and I were fighting to include. Can we establish in a policy somewhere that YouTube is a reliable source for the content of the video? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that yes, youtube is reliable for what is in the content of a questioned video. Of course, if the video is from a no name production, there are issues of whether it's been doctored and such. In addition, there is the rule against engaging in original research, which remains. Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research. Ngchen (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how quoting someone is original research. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't original research as long as one treats it appropriately as a primary source, which is to say that it's used only for objective, descriptive, and uncontroversial claims. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The problems with You Tube are many. I will address the two biggest ones: First, there is no way to verify that videos appearing on You Tube have not been altered from the original. Second, You Tube, as a website, has serious issues with copywrite violations... and, by linking to You Tube, Wikipedia becomes party to any copywrite violations. There are other issues, but these are the primary reasons why You Tube is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And I will add another danger: using this kind of primary source material places Wikipedia editors in the position of determining what is and is not important material in the video: if no reliable secondary source such as a newspaper, magazine or TV/radio news show has noted McCain's response to the nuclear waste question, then why is it notable or interesting enough to be included the article? Editors making decisions of this kind is Original Research. --Slp1 (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed for verification, they are not a measure of importance. There are some popular ideas and even facts that papers attempting to be objective simply will not echo or even report. The John Edwards scandal for example. Anyway, in the example I mentioned, it had been taken up by the Obama campaign as an attack on McCain and McCain never denied the video's accuracy. Thus we considered that verification. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't videos really hard to fake convincingly? In the example I have in mind he talks very smoothly and continuously. Unless I'm mistaken, you would hear breaks or changes in tone if someone was putting together words that he didn't actually say consecutively. In addition, his words are echoed in a number of democratic websites. I don't doubt they might cherry pick McCain quotes to make him look the worst, but out-right fabrications? They would be risking a lawsuit. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are "popular ideas and even facts that papers attempting to be objective simply will not echo or even report" then how "popular" are they? Who has determined that they are popular? You? Using primary material such as this is fraught with the danger of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and point of view pushing. Find some mainstream media sources that have noted this incident you will be fine, and avoid all the youtube and the primary sourcing problems. Also note that the Wikipedia article on John Edwards actually did not include much, if any, information about the Edwards scandal until the saga entered mainstream, secondary sources.--Slp1 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1220 Google hits determines it's popular. It's not original research, and reciting what he says is not POV pushing. Just because the MSM censors this information doesn't mean we need to. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked here whether Youtube was reliable source, and have been told by experienced and uninvolved editors that it is not. Yet you continue to argue the case, and in addition claim censorship (always a red flag) based a mere 1220 googlehits without, apparently, one reliable source among them. Wikipedia is not the place to fight the system, though there are other websites where this is certainly appropriate and acceptable. And yes, "reciting what he says" can certainly be POV pushing if no reliable source has found it notable or interesting in any way. But I confess that I have led this thread off the topic for this Reliable Sources noticeboard. The main point is that no, the Youtube video is not a reliable source. Sorry. --Slp1 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I see editors on both sides. There is no consensus here. I do enjoy people attempting to end an argument by claimining consensus despite the lack thereof. If you read what I said, we found a reliable source for both quotes. Those opposing inclusion on the John McCain page had to shift their argument to one of WP:WEIGHT rather than of WP:RS. Note that even "reliable sources" censor information as was the case in the recent John Edwards scandal. Reliable sources are not a measure of importance. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are not a measure of importance" in the real world perhaps, but they are the basis to the verifiability policy here on Wikipedia, as most other editors in this thread appear to see. As I said, this page is for discussing the reliability of sources: if you have found reliable, non youtube sources, good on you, but issues, such as the undue weight issue should be sorted out elsewhere. --Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping I could establish consensus that watching someone do something was enough to say they had done it. I see that there is no consensus, in either direction. Looks like insertion of YouTube material will have to be considered on case-by-case basis. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm telling you, the consensus is going to be that youtube is largely not going to be considered a reliable source, especially on such a contentious issue and such a notable subject. Youtube is the WP:SPS example. there is no compelling reason to add this to an article on a national politician. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CRYSTAL. I don't see how SRS applies. WP:OR says that primary sources can be used for easily verifiable information. The compelling reason is that his official statements have been intentionally vague. You would list a judge's decisions on either side of an issue to get an idea whether they leaned right or left. It is the same with a political figure who takes an ambiguous stand. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• My guess is no. One, videos are EASY to fake convincingly. Two, the premise (that McCain had some obvious reversal on Yucca Mtn.) needs to be asserted by a reliable source. Three, we should be very careful about using youtube as record of events, even when that record appears plain and the event is uncontroversial. Protonk (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We found a reliable source showing the video and mentioning the other quote. One of the two quotes on the draft was deleted per WP:UNDUE. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The other issue Azure isn't mentioning here is one of context. Watching the YouTube video he has repeatedly inserted into the McCain position page, one doesn't know the question being asked. It just starts with McCain answering a question by saying, in part, that he 'might consider' a draft in a certain situation. We don't know what question was asked of him, though. If the questioner asked, "would you support a draft if every country in the world simultaneously engaged the US in a ground war?" then the answer he gave would be interpreted differently than if it was "do you support a draft for troops in Iraq?" We just don't know. This is why we need other reliable sources to have covered the question to be sure that the video isn't taken out of context. Oren0 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oren0 is also leaving out that the section already mentions he would only start a draft in WWIII. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"We found a reliable source showing the video" - I must take exception to this. The only source other than YouTube that you've presented for this was ThinkProgress.org, a partisan blog. Also worth noting is that this is a WP:BLP page, meaning our standards for inclusion must be even stronger. Oren0 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we must only include it if there was irrefutable pro...er, I mean...only if a MSM source mentions it! ~Sarcasm. What about MSNBC? Is that not reliable? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about proof. Like I told you before, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MSNBC (and by MSNBC I mean Keith Olbermann, whose entire show is commentary and is therefore no different than an op-ed IMO) was only used as a source for the other quote which is a separate conversation entirely. Oren0 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Showing a video of McCain talking is opinion? I commend you on another lie, bravo sir. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refocus

Ok. Can we get, under this new heading, each video that Azure wants to have reviewed as a reliable source? And as a general, sweeping statement, if something is on MSNBC, then cite MSNBC. Unless they link to the youtube video (possible but odd), then there is no reason for us to link to it. So let's get the links below this heading and just go through them one by one. When this started I thought we were talking about Yucca Mtn stuff, now is is draft stuff, etc. I just want to know what we are talking about here. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's kinda confusing because there are two different draft quotes that are being fought over simultaneously. Below are both, with ref tags removed:

1. In September of 2007, while speaking about issuing a draft, McCain said, "One, it's the best military we've ever had, it just isn't big enough. Two, there's never been a draft that I've ever heard of since World War II that was fair. What we've done is we find rich people find a way out, and lower income people are the ones that serve. I might consider it, I don't think it's necessary, but I might consider it if you could design a draft where everybody equally would serve. But it just doesn't happen. And the other thing is that, because you know from here in Brauman, it takes intensive training with the equipment and the technical skills that now our people are required to engage in, that it makes it not conducive to a short term. Now they enlist for 4 years. We used to draft people almost for 2 years or even 18 months so it's much more difficult."McCain: I 'Might Consider' Military Draft
2. At a town hall meeting on August 20, 2008, an audience member said "Senator McCain I truly hope you get the opportunity to chase Bin Laden right to the gates of hell and push him in as you stated on your forum. I do have a question though. Disable veterans, especially in this state have horrible conditions, their medical is substandard. They drive four hours one way to Albuquerque for a simple doctors appointment which is often canceled. Our VA hospital is dirty it is understaffed, it is running on maximum overload. The prescription medicines are ten years behind standard medical care we have seven hundred claims stacked up at the VA office in Albuquerque some of them are ten and seven years old waiting to be processed in the mean time these people are homeless. My son is an officer in the Air Force, and I am a vet and I was raised in a military family. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have illegal aliens having a Medicaid card that can access specialist top physicians, the best of medical and our vets can’t even get to a doctor. These are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don’t reenact the draft I don’t think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell." McCain responded with "Ma’am let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said and thank you and I am grateful for your support of all of our veterans.""[Feeling the Draft]". Countdown with Keith Olbermann. 2008-08-14.

Azure's revision can be found here. Have at it. Oren0 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well first, as an editorial matter, we aren't Project Votesmart. I don't think we need direct and largely unabridged quotes on each issue area. We could probably make due with a list of coverage of each area sized in proportion to its relative import. But that is for another day. Protonk (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• As for the sources. Again, WP:SPS is fairly clear here. There are a dozen reasons why video from the candidate on youtube shouldn't be used unless is from the candidate himself (in other words, his youtube channel) and relates only to noncontroversial details about the candidate himself. In the case of someone like McCain or Obama, that simply isn't necessary. Now that the Olympics are over, they are the two most watched people in america. A multi-billion dollar news industry watches both of them (to varying results) and we can't, in good faith, say that there is some detail about either man that can only be derived from watching a primary source on an unreliable site. The second source is a little more reliable, but the commentators above are correct. Olbermann is basically the liberal version of Billo. Stuff from his show should be treated as opinion, rather than fact and I'm honestly not sure what kind of fact we are looking to convey here. We should not be relying on offhand remarks and interpretations of responses to audience questions in order to present out readers with an encyclopedic view of his policy positions. In my opinion, both of these mentions should be scrapped and the page should be started from scratch using the candidate's web page, reliable lists of his policies and scant full quotes attesting to policy without some additional support. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Laugh at "using the candidates web page." I'm sure that will be very balanced. The only reason I've seen against YouTube as a reliable source is that it could possibly have been tampered with, but no examples of this ever having been done convincingly have been given. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• We aren't using it in order to make a judgement. We are using it to make sure that it is actually a policy plank. And youtube itself can be tampered with but it is far more important to note that anyone can add anything to youtube, so all the "tampering" can occur before uploading. Further, the WP:RS gateway that is imposed is done so in order to limit the ability of single, unsupported individuals to impact the encyclopedic outlook on something. There are (like I said above), a dozen reasons why youtube isn't a reliable source. I may never convince you of that fact, but that isn't strictly necessary. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Give one example of this happening ever, convincingly. We are debating right now whether or not YouTube is a reliable source so don't try to say that the "RS gateway" blocks out YouTube when there is clearly no consensus for this. You keep saying there are a dozen reasons but I only see one, with no evidence. You're right, I don't think you will convince me, so I will continue to add these quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd really rather you didn't. IT doesn't help anyone to do so. Just step away for a while and work on another article, rather than continue to insert disputed content. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• That it is disputed is not enough reason to remove it. Is anyone actually disputing the accuracy of the videos? It is true, I wish the question was in the "I might consider it" video, but the context of McCain's position on the draft is mentioned in the previous paragraph. We leave it to the reader to decide the implications of this message rather than decide for them that it is not important enough. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• We report, you decide is the motto of a different organization, not wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, let's decide for the reader. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you're suggesting we can perform synthesis by excluding something. Oren0 (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, fair enough. I don't know what policy exactly that would violate besides WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. It seems to me it's basically the same thing as synthesis, deciding something and then excluding based off of that decision. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is intent. Your intent is to show that McCain is for the draft by including those two sections. This is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH Arzel (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. No claims are made in the article, we simply quote him. We've been over the requirements for a violation of WP:SYNTH before. C must be specifically mentioned in the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable secondary sources have already used this question/answer while specifically speaking to McCain's position on the draft. Additionally, most anything on youtube can be traced back to and sourced to the originating show (Countdown, Verdict, etc). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• "YouTube Yes" and "YouTube No" are both overly simplistic. We have to exercise some intelligence about the specific clip in question. If it's posted by somebody completely unknown who says, "Here's a film of one of John McCain's houses, and you can see the three gardeners working out front," then it's worthless, because it might easily be faked (someone else's house). If it's McCain himself saying something, though, it's in a different category. The presumption should be that it's valid unless a good-faith dispute is raised (that the guy on screen is an actor portraying McCain, or that the clip was edited to substitute a different question than the one he actually answered "Yes" to, or the like). Of course, this applies even if it isn't YouTube. A month ago, CBS broadcast a distorted interview with McCain, in which the network edited out one of his statements that made him look bad (when he claimed that the surge had caused the Anbar Awakening, which actually preceded the surge). In a case like that, it's reasonable for an editor to cite CBS or link to the clip, but once the deception is pointed out, the doctored clip can't be linked to blindly as if it were established fact just because it's on CBS. Also, if a clip on YouTube seems to show McCain endorsing the annexation of Canada or something, it's on a different footing from a clip that shows him opposing trucking nuclear waste through his home state. Rule of reason, people.

In the specific case of that nuclear waste clip, I did some research at the time. My recollection (not 100% sure and too lazy to re-check) is that McCain was being interviewed by a Nevada-based news show, that the tape of the full interview was available on the show's website, but that you had to pay for it. In a circumstance like that, where the full interview is available, it's reasonable to assume that the McCain campaign would be on top of the situation. Specifically, if the excerpt were doctored, they would have obtained the full tape and pointed out the deception. This inference is especially strong if the YouTube excerpt is being widely commented on (even if only on blogs). On the other hand, if a YouTube clip has received no such attention, then this inference isn't available, which cuts against citing the clip. JamesMLane t c 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I found a source for a quote in an article from a major U.S. newspaper. But the article, as it stands, uses You Tube as a reference. The quotes ares identical. Given that You Tube is not a reliable source, when I finally learn how to do footnotes, what should I do? Regards Johndoeemail (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But you are using the newspaper as a reference, not You Tube. What they choose to use is up to them, and not ours to judge per WP:NPOV. Ty 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think he's asking a more pedestrian question. Here's my answer: {{Citation}} offers a number of different parameters. Just cite the quote from the newspaper. given the choice between a youtube cite and a newspapwer cite, go with the newspaper almost every time. Protonk (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CNSnews.com aka cybercast

I removed a section from the John Lott article saying that the source wasn't reliable - and that the references weren't available, ie they don't work. Now I know Cybercast News Service is a conservative news agency and I'm not sure it's a RS for the claims in the deleted section. And in any case, the references are no longer available and this is not a paper newspaper. (I've looked for another RS and failed). Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The links are broken, but you can find the correct urls are here: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/searchresults.aspx?Keyword=%22JOhn%20Lott%22. I'll pass on the question of whether cnsnews.com is itself an RS--at first glance it appears to be, but I've only just glanced. If the story is truly notable, then surely you can dig up coverage in other sources, and sidestep the whole csn/RS issue. Yilloslime (t) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether CNS is reliable. It's not a conventional news organization, but rather a group founded by conservative media activists to serve as a counter-balance to perceived liberal bias in the real news. It could be a good source for the opinions of American conservatives, but I doubt it would be suitable for general purposes. (And certainly not for negative contentious information in a biography of a living person.) <eleland/talkedits> 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. CNS is a reliable source, but should be used more for opionion on all subjects than fact. CENSEI (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with a petition

It has recently come to my attention here, that there are manylinks being used on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism which are not from reliable sources. However, they cannot be removed, because the people who added such information believe that they are reliable.

The two main ones in question are these:

• |title=CA112 Many scientists find problems with evolution.

From talk origins, which is posts chat room conversations and other such things. Plus, it does not cite sources, use evidence, or anything at all close to being academic.

• The Leader's Guide

Others, on the page, have seemingly equal problems:

• Barbara Forrest’s Letter to Simon Blackburn Barbara Forrest and Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses William A. Dembski

From the designinference website, not an academic source but is a blog as it clearly states on its main page.

• Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goal

Not an academic source, basically a POV website.

• How to be Anti-Darwinian.

Another talk origins site.

Can we get a ruling on these? This deals with over 100 BLP pages and is used to justify remarks on those pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion on TalkOrigins in the noticeboard archives, which concluded with the assessment that there's no way in hell we will ever let you say it's unreliable, you creationist troll, you. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the "you" doesn't actually refer to me, does it? But is a rhetorical you? If so, okay. I honestly would like a ruling on the above, as most don't seem to be reliable sources but instead from individual people with views on a matter that may or may not be notable. I would like some larger community response. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newspapers in countries without a free press

I am interested in whether a newspaper in a country without a free press can be considered a RS on news events? Specifically, I would ask about the Jordan Times, a newspaper that Freedom House considers "partly free" for the year in question. However I am more interested in the broader question. Thanks for any thoughts. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense seems to suggest no as the answer to the general question. Peter jackson (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would seem so to me as well, particularly in contentious areas such as the I-P conflict. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that free=/=reliable and unfree=/=unreliable. I would think this is obvious. I also think that Freedom House rankings are full of shit, personally. Last year, IIRC, Pakistan's noisily critical press was declared as unfree as China's, and India -- with draconian freedom of speech regulations and a very active press council -- was declared "partly free". Load of rot. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The rankings are one thing. The descriptions of a free press another. Of course free does not necessarily mean reliable as witness the tabloids, for example. Still, unfree would seem to suggest unreliable. So how does one determine reliability of an unfree or partly free press? Do you have any thoughts on the Jordan Times, Relata? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An unfree press might publish articles which are planted, in which case those would be unreliable. Or it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable. A free press might practice self-censorship, and be reliable, or be held hostage by commercial interests, and be unreliable. Merely using a non-descriptive statement as "free" or "unfree" is, in the end, not helpful at all. On the Jordan Times, I don't have the slightest opinion, though I believe I have both added and removed academic book reviews from it at various points. [I note, however, that Jordan had a widely-publicised clampdown on the press in 1997, which seems to have eased somewhat a few years later. It is also true that this newspaper seems to largely be described as "independent".] --Relata refero (disp.) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the claim that "it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable". Why would a censored article be reliable? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are two facts, X and Y, then just because X is censored does not mean Y is untrue. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not mean Y is untrue, but it does not mean Y is true, either, which is what you imply when you say "it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable". In addition, selective censorship can easily lead to biased, misleading articles, which would alo smake the article unreliable. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I should have said "need not be unreliable". --Relata refero (disp.) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is honestly an issue of case by case review. Pravda was probably a horribly unreliable source for the happenings of the Soviet government. Perhaps it might have been a reliable source for reviews of plays and works of art (maybe), I don't know. State control or state influence means that we should treat as suspect (or at least qualify as non-independent) claims made by the source about the government. Determination of that control is again a case by case manner. I can't support Freedom House's rankings as an editorial tool on wikipedia. We should review and act on individual claims about the editorial freedom of individual publishing houses. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You can't generalise this, particularly as the degree of state control is highly variable. In some "non-free" states, such as the old Soviet Union pre-Gorbachev, the media was entirely a creature of the government - it was owned by the state and reflected only official views (even on issues such as theatre and art which, let's not forget, were also subject to strict ideological controls). In modern Russia the media isn't formally under state control or ownership, but the state directs it from behind the scenes. At the next level down, the media in some countries may be subject to what could be called ideological conformity on some issues, even if they aren't controlled or directed by the government. I'm thinking of countries such as the Arab Gulf states, where the media is relatively free but still has to operate within certain ideological limits (such as not being overtly critical of the regime). I'm not familiar with the Jordan Times, but I would guess that it falls into the latter category. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought Chris, as to what entails "ideological" limitations in regards to something like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Freedom House said that the Jordanian press practices "self-censorship" since should one anger the government a reporter can lose his credentials and his livelihood. In which case, since Jordan involved itself in the Al-Durrah case (in particular after the reported death of the boy), there could well have been an "acceptable" viewpoint in relation to the reporting of the incident. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not confuse presentation and facts. The facts in an article may be correct, but the presentation and/or selection may have a bias. // Liftarn (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so. This is the same in a lot of countries. It's almost always the case that certain avenues of argument are closed off by general social and political convention. (You'll never see criticism of King Bhumibol in the otherwise raucous Thai press, for instance). This isn't so much a restriction on free speech as a form of self-censorship, as you say - an unwritten agreement that the scope of free speech has certain boundaries. But the Western media has just as much of a self-imposed bias in various directions, as the whole "political correctness" debate makes clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-censorship due to state control of the press is very different from "political correctness" in a free society. A reporter can choose to be "politically correct" or not. In a country with a free press, there will be plenty of reporters who are neither politically correct nor self-censoring. In a free society with a free press, the marketplace of ideas and commerce will ultimately decide who "survives", not the government and its ideological thrust. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are the articles arguing in favour of underage sex and racial discrimination in the mainstream Western media? Every publication self-censors, for commercial, social, moral or political reasons. There's no such thing as an unfettered "marketplace of ideas" anywhere, simply because some ideas are considered unacceptable by the general population. The government doesn't have to censor if social pressure does the job for them (this is very much the case in Thailand with regard to criticism of the king, for example). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles in favour of underage sex and in favour of racial discrimination would not be the purview of mainstream reliable sources. They would be opinion pieces anyway. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Jordan Times is controlled by the government. That makes it absolutely off limits, except when it is referencing itself or it has something to do with official Jordanian government policy. In general, non-free presses should be avoided, especially on controversial issues. IronDuke 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the paper is published by the Jordan Press Foundation. According to Alan George, the JPF is "62 per cent owned by the government via the Social Security Fund" [1]. Partial state ownership certainly doesn't make it off-limits; plenty of broadcasters (the BBC, France Télévisions and RAI are European examples that come to mind) are wholly state-owned. Don't forget that state ownership doesn't automatically equate to state control - it did in the case of Pravda, because that was directly managed by the Soviet government, but many state-owned media outlets have a strict arm's length relationship with the government. WP:V#Reliable sources sets out four criteria: it must be a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Note that the question of ownership doesn't enter into the equation. Its articles are quoted by numerous published authors, so it clearly does seem to have a reputation as a reliable and accurate source, satisfying the first and fourth criteria. It obviously also meets the second and third criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that if it were "controlled," as opposed to "owned," it would make a difference as to its reliability? I'll also point out, the books you link to are intriguing, but a) there is no context at all for the citations in the books, and b) the standards of any given random book may not be Wikipedia's -- is Winnie the Pooh a reliable source? What happens if we ask Google Books? IronDuke 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It may make a difference, but it really depends on the degree of editorial independence enjoyed by the media outlet in question. Some are totally under the grip of their government masters - The Herald (Zimbabwe) is a case in point. Others are stridently independent, like the BBC. Some are in-between with a sort of compromised independence, like RAI. The only real way to tell is to to find out what others say about the outlet in question and, in particular, determine how widely it's cited as a source, hence the usefulness of reviewing Google Books to answer that particular question. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Given we have no good way of teasing out what parts of the Jordan Times are independent (assuming any part of it is at all) I'm not sure how we can rely on them as a source. They are controlled by an undemocratic government, that makes them automatically highly suspect. Google books doesn't help at all here, although looking at the books on Google might. Again, despite our inability to write reliable articles, we do have higher standards than many of the works we reference. IronDuke 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, ownership isn't part of our reliable sourcing criteria (nor should it be, considering the POV mischief that would permit - e.g. people trying to disqualify the BBC or Al Jazeera on the grounds of government involvement). You have to apply the criteria we have, not the criteria you'd like to have. If the JT is a reliable third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then I see no reason not to use it. Note that I'm not arguing that it meets those criteria, since I don't know much about the newspaper - I'm just stating for the record that those are the criteria we have to apply. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

but policies and guidelines a descriptive of a community standard of behavior. I agree that we can't claim "WP:V says no state owned media" but it we instead claim "An editor has raised a concern in good faith that the lack of editorial independence at newspaper X renders it unfit to be used as a reliable source on issue Y", then that is another matter entirely. If we have good reason to believe that a newspaper would make editorial judgments at the behest (or in advance of that behest) of their owners on a particular matter, then we can discuss that. Even in England, we would be incorrect to cite a British paper on a matter subject to a DA-Notice as an authority on the matter--we would expect that they would withhold items related to the issue from publication. Protonk (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course ownership impacts reliability, especially when the owner is a state which censors and controls the media -- very much the case in Jordan. There are tough cases, to be sure, but this isn't one of them. You keep saying you don't much about the newspaper... fair enough. From what I know, it is unreliable, and I have seen no evidence that it meets the criteria you set out. Could a story in the JT be true in all its particulars? Most definitely. But there's no way to know, and good reason to be skeptical ... thus, it is unreliable. IronDuke 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We simply don't operate on that basis - it amounts to a back-door way of eliminating all media citations from particular countries. I see from Reporters without Borders that Jordan is actually rated the third most free country in the Middle East in terms of press freedom, after Israel and Kuwait. But then again, you're blurring the difference between government ownership (which in this case appears to be only partial, if George is right) and government editorial control. The British government owns and funds the BBC World Service 100%, but it doesn't exercise control. Your case seems to be based entirely on the assumption that the newspaper has no independence due to the government's partial stake in the fund which owns it. I don't think that's a logical conclusion. You certainly haven't cited any sources to back up your assumption that the newspaper is not independent. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I went to Reporters without borders. First sentence of their 2008 report on Jordan? “State security police have kept journalists under pressure despite King Abdallah II’s promises of democratic reform.” If that’s not a ringing endorsement, what is? More: “…self-censorship continues.” Also “state security stopped the weekly Al-Majd from coming out for allegedly “undermining national interests.” It had planned to run an article about Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his plans to boost his party. Copies were seized at the printers.” This is in addition to several other examples of censorship. So we have that, we have Freedom House, if TB is correct. As to your point about state ownership not equaling state control, that’s quite right. So… here we have the NYTimes “Once they are a sovereign country, we could sit down and have a conversation about unity,' said Abdullah Hassanat, editor in chief of The Jordan Times, a publication controlled by the Government.” (February 13, 1999, emphasis added). Okay… so Jordan papers are out, at least until something significant changes (argumentum ad googlem aside). For the larger question of whether unfree presses should be used, I think the answer is obviously no. If someone wants to introduce an unfree press cite, the onus is on them to show why a) it’s relevant and useful to the article in question and b) believable/reliable. IronDuke 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another perspective: there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Hugo Chavez got a law installed in Venezuela prohibiting criticism of *him* in the press, and has gotten television stations not favorable towards him shut down, while there remains a large state-dominated media machine. The press is not free in Venezuela; specifically, private enterprises cannot criticize Hugo Chavez, and leading private newspapers now often avoid identifying journalists in bylines. Do these restrictions mean that Venezuelan press articles aren't reliable on every other score, excepting that they aren't allowed to criticize Chavez? No, it just means that non-Venezuelan sources have to be used to complement what Venezuelan sources aren't allowed to report, and we have to use editorial judgment in interpreting Venezuelan sources, wrt 1) the state-owned enterprises and 2) limits on privately owned press freedom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I see with what you are saying, Sandy - is that once there is any state censorship, we can only guess whether other things are reliable -- that goes to the very heart of the definition of "reliable." Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Press sources that are not independent or are arms of the government like Granma should be used only to express the opinion of the controling entity, and sparingly at that. They should never be used for facts. Freedom House's rankings are a good place to start in evaluating media outlets. CENSEI (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't. See above. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree with ChrisO that sources on political subjects from countries with official policy of censorship (like Glavlit in the USSR) are unreliable. The problem arise with sources from countries without official censorship but where press is still "not free" according to independent reliable sources (not necessarily Freedom House). Then, some discretion should be applied. For example, reports by independent journalists and well known opposition newspapers (if any) from such countries should be considered reliable.Biophys (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, censorship implies that material is excluded. It does not mean that false information is included. That is disinformation. There is a correlation between the two, especially in totalitarian societies, but they are not the same thing. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common practice that false information has been used by totalitarian countries, take Nazi Germany or Soviet Union etc. They even have an article on WP about it: Big Lie.--Termer (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology-online.com

I am having a persistent issue with a guy that keeps inserting material sourced to Astrology-online.com in the Aquarius (astrology) article. This website doesn't seem to fulfill Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources, it obviously duplicates much of the copyrighted material from Elore.com (much reworded but still obvious), and the few claims it does introduce are often deeply contradicting, which flies in the face for any argument for scholarliness.

I have given him many warnings about it, yet he continues, often outright falsifying sources (I have that Oken book). I don't know what to do about him, if anything. I was thinking of removing all references to that website in the article, but I want to make sure I am on the right here and do it correctly.

Please check it out. Thanks, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If your analysis of it is correct (which I'm not doubting), then the source should be removed. If the other editor is linked with the site, then you might want to post on WP:COIN. Ty 06:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have replaced that source with a more reliable, mainstream one by a well-known author. I think it should be OK now. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Mirror

How much and how far to trust a newspaper like the Daily Mirror for accuracy and reliability? Should it be used as an only source in highly disputed articles? My instinct is to say "no" since it is clearly distinguished as a tabloid. According to its wiki article, there seem to be a fair number of problems associated with it. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mirror is certainly a mass-market tabloid, but one with a fairly distinguished history (no Page Three girls!) and the second-highest circulation of any UK national daily. It does serious reporting; it has foreign correspondents who cover major overseas stories such as the US elections. In the specific case of the article which you're disputing, it was written by David Leigh, a Mirror correspondent with a very high reputation - he was formerly its news editor and very recently won a prestigious award for breaking the John Darwin disappearance case, one of the biggest UK media stories of 2007. At the time of the report which you're disputing, he was the newspaper's Jerusalem correspondent. The Mirror itself clearly meets the four criteria of WP:V#Reliable sources: a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's not to say that it doesn't get things wrong - every newspaper does - but it's certainly one of the better UK tabloids. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In what I remember of previous discussions with you Chris, you have been against singling out reporters as having a "good" or "poor" reputation. You have required that we accept the publication's reputation only. The four criteria of WP:Reliability cannot include reliability -- that is defining a term by itself, not. Are you sure that the David Leigh bio-ed in wiki -- David Leigh and here is the same David Leigh writing in the Mirror in 2000? Neither articles even mentions the Mirror. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two David Leighs - the one you linked works for the Guardian, the other whom I'm describing used to work for the Mirror but now works for Splash News in the US. You're right that we don't rely on the reputation of individual writers but of publications, but the point I was making (which I thought was obvious - maybe not) was that the Mirror does serious reporting, not just gossip columns. Some tabloids - the Daily Express comes to mind - certainly do rely on gossip and recycled news agency reports, but the Mirror isn't one of them, as the John Darwin case showed recently. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer made quite a scoop recently with catching an American presidential candidate with his pants down . None of the mainstream newspapers followed up on the rumours. But one scoop/investigative report does not reliability make. Just as one gaffe does not take it away... My understanding is that the very concept of 'tabloid' actually means 'not reliable' -- Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's nonsense. "Tabloid" simply refers to the format. Even The Times is a tabloid these days. The format of the newspaper has no bearing on how reliable it is. There are certainly some tabloids which have a very bad reputation - the National Enquirer is a case in point - but the Mirror is not one of those. It's a very long-established newspaper which has played a central role in British media and political affairs for over 100 years. It was the biggest-selling British newspaper for decades. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking "size" or "circulation" for reliability. To the extent the two are related, it is usually an inverse correlation - sensationalist, unreliable tabloids will have the larger circulation numbers, while high-brow, respectable and reliable papers will have smaller ones. This is nowhere clearer than in the case of the UK, where the largest paper is the News of the World - a rag focused on celebrity gossip and titillating sex scandals, which should not be used anywhere in Wikipedia (followed closely by the The Sun, a paper whoe biggest claim to fame is pictures of topless women on page 3), while a quality paper like The Times, considered by many to be the UK's newspaper of record, has a circulation 5 times smaller. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the former editor of Daily Mirror who admitted he printed false allegations against Arthur Scargill in 1990? [2] . That's a real baddie. Add the 2004 hoax photos [3], the suit by Leicester City F.C.[4] as well as the recent libel against Kate Garraway and I really think the criteria for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" mite be a bit compromised. The tabloid concept (as in supermarket tabloid -- not size) is discussed here with ref to the Daily Mirror -- [5]. Doesn't sound like a good rep to me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust the Express or Mail any more than the Mirror. The mirror is not a sensational gossip-filled newspaper. Ignore libel suits, libel laws are vastly different in the UK. So a football club decided to start legal action? Why do you add that rather than the outcome (not mentioned on the football club's site). What newspapers don't get lawsuits? Show that it gets more than other newspapers and you might have a point, just mention a couple (and yes, it had a problem editor, he's gone now), and it means nothing. --Doug Weller (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, which "newspaper like the Daily Mirror" did you have in mind? It would be better to bring it up here when there is a case at hand, rather than speculatively. There is no overwhelming reason not to use the Mirror as a reliable source, as opposed to any other paper. The errors by it mentioned above caused a stir for the very reason it was not expected of their normal conduct. Ty 07:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want specifics, Tundrabuggy is objecting to the citation of an article of 21 January 2001 by the Mirror's Jerusalem correspondent, David Leigh, in Muhammad al-Durrah. The report is of value because it's a on-the-spot piece of reportage by an accredited foreign correspondent for a major national daily newspaper. However, it takes a position that contradicts a conspiracy theory that Tundrabuggy apparently supports. This is essentially a WP:IDONTLIKEIT affair at root. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense, ChrisO. Please stop with the constant name-calling and personal attacks. I brought this up at this site because of what I read about the Daily Mirror in wiki, (ie that it is a supermarket tabloid), what I have read on the 'net in regard to the Arthur Scargill allegations. A decent newspaper does not knowingly print false material that harms other peoples' reputation. Nor would an article of 21 Jan 2001 be an on-the-spot account of anything, as the Al-Durrah incident occurred in 2000. Finally, your assertion that David Leigh was "on-the-spot" has yet to be backed up with any references. Tundrabuggy (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the attempt to discredit the Mirror was somewhat contrived. I don't see a problem with using it as a source. There is always the possibility of the format "David Leigh of the Daily Mirror reported xxx", depending on how the rest of the article is written. Ty 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My object is not to discredit the Mirror but to ask uninvolved editors their thinking on it. ChrisO is deeply involved in the article in question and has a stake in the Mirror being reliable. I am much more interested in the opinions of the uninvolved here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of or connection with these editorial disputes, nor the editors for that matter. There is no valid reason why The Mirror can't be used. Re. "A decent newspaper does not knowingly print false material that harms other peoples' reputation." You'd be surprised! Ty 12:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not anything like a US 'Supermarket tabloid', eg the National Enquirer or Weekly World News. It is populist, I'd say. Doug Weller (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no more stake in the Mirror being reliable than in any other source in that article being reliable. The Mirror report wasn't even the subject of any dispute before you started this nonsense about it being a "supermarket tabloid" (an American term for which there's no British equivalent). There's no "name calling" - I'm simply pointing out that the report contradicts a POV which you've promoted, a conflict of interest on your part which you didn't mention.

As for the other points you raised: the article is bylined "DAVID LEIGH FOREIGN EDITOR AT BUREIJ CAMP GAZA" (hence, on-the-spot) and it's an interview (claimed to be the first) with Muhammad al-Durrah's father after he returned home from hospital, three months after the incident of 30 September 2000. You really shouldn't make such definitive pronouncements without first making sure that what you're saying is accurate. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are the one making definitive pronouncements, ChrisO. I am just asking you to back them up with a source. But as you have stated previously, it makes no difference who the author is, as long the source is reliable. I am more than willing to accept the word of people who appear to know but don't have an axe to grind. That is not you however, in regards to this issue. With respect. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror is a perfectly respectable newspaper, which is wholly unrelated to to the concept of "supermarket tabloid". The only UK newspaper that fits that category is The Daily Sport. The Mirror is probably the most reliable of mainstream popular UK newspapers. Paul B (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Our own article on the Daily Sport, which you've linked to, says it is "in the same segment of the tabloid market as The Sun, The Daily Mirror and the Daily Star". Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not evidence, especially ones that have POV tags at the top! However it merely says that it is aiming at the same market. Paul B (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest we use the Wikipedia article as evidence or as a source in the article - but the WP article (written by an editor just like you) is just as valid as Paul B's opinion, no? So are you saying the wikipedia article is wrong? I'd actually like to see some independent 3rd party evaluations of these papers, from releiable sources, rather than the persoanl opinion of WP editors. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Past tense. Did, that was just nonsense, see [6]. Doug Weller (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This same source describes the Daily Mirror as a "sensationalist, left-wing, down-market paper". Not exactly a ringing endorsement for WP:RS purposes. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes that same source [7] puts it in the category of "redtop," which it defines as: "The mass-market end of the British press, with little hard news but plenty of celebrity gossip, sensational crime reporting and loads of sport and entertainment coverage." Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It described it as being those things in 1939. However, it is very mildly left wing, supportive of the Labour Party. Paul B (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

um, not. It was described as right-wing until 1939 when it changed ownership which "led to a complete revamp of the paper as a sensationalist, left-wing, down-market paper," the implication being that it still is ...those things. [8]. It is also said to be the "only national newspaper to support Labour consistently since 1945." [9]Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

un no. It has developed dramatically over the years. It won the newspaper of the year award in the National Press Awards in 2006. As I said, it supports the Labour Party. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

? Not according to an apparently sourced wiki article which lists the Guardian as winning the 2006 award. Do correct it if it is wrong. I did find the section regarding the controversy surrounding it to be illuminating.

ten editors of major newspapers released a joint statement announcing their boycott because of the "decline in conduct and prestige". The statement read, "The editors of The Guardian, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph, The Independent, the Independent on Sunday, the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, the Daily Mail, and the Mail on Sunday believe the organisation of these awards brings little credit to the industry or to the newspapers who win them".

There does seem to be a lot of misinformation floating around about the Daily Mirror, that much is certain! Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What the site refers to as the "National Heavyweights" includes the Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph and The Times. Midmarket (which are described as "pretensions to hard news coverage") include Daily Express, Daily Mail, Metro, and Morning Star. The Daily Mirror falls in the redtop category, "little hard news but plenty of ...gossip, sensational crime reporting"....etc. Maybe not as bad as the Daily Sport referred to as "unapologetically trashy," Perhaps the Mirror is apologetically trashy? - but a reliable source for international news? I don't think so Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, there's a spectrum of reliability here. The Daily Sport is certainly off the far end - I don't think anyone sensible would cite it as a reliable source. The Express newspapers don't do much original news reporting any more due to cost-cutting, and rely mainly on news agencies. Metro is largely in the same boat as it's a free-sheet. The Sun, Mirror and Mail do a substantial amount of original reporting, including foreign reporting with dedicated foreign correspondents in key capitals like Washington, Brussels, Jerusalem and Moscow. In the case of the article you're attempting to dispute, it was written by the Mirror's Jerusalem correspondent. That's not to say that the tabloids don't also publish sensationalist stories - obviously they do, but they also do a fair amount of serious original reporting as well. They may be tabloids but they also want to be seen as newspapers, not just entertaining but informing as well. Bear in mind also that they're subject to comparatively punitive libel laws, so they necessarily have to be a lot more responsible about their reporting than, say, the National Enquirer. As others have said, there is really no good reason not to use the Mirror as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just at their website and it sure looks like garbage to me. Do you have any evidence regarding these "dedicated foreign correspondents" and their "substantial amount of original reporting"? I don't see anything anywhere even vaguely resembling serious news or evidence of foreign reporting. And if they are "redtops" (ie equivalent to supermarket tabloids in US) that provide the Brits with "gossip,[and] sensational crime reporting," why are we to think that they will provide anything different because they are "reporting" from Washington, Brussels or Jerusalem? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give it up, Tundrabuggy. This endless tendentiousness is getting incredibly tiresome. You don't like the Mirror article because it contradicts the conspiracy theory that you and Canadian Monkey have been pushing for some months now. You came here for a second opinion about the Mirror. You've received advice from multiple uninvolved editors, but you're still looking for an out. What makes it particularly exasperating is the fact that you plainly do not know a damn thing about the UK media, as shown by your ignorant claims that the UK tabloids are like the US supermarket tabloids. Just leave it, please. You been advised; now please accept that advice in good faith and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How you seem love that word tendentious, Chris... I have heard you use it so often, one might almost think you have a special sense of affiliation with it. You are certainly welcome to move on, since you find the discussion so tiresome. Despite the protestations that the Daily Mirror is as "reliable" as any other "popular" paper, (or as you would have it -- that it has "a fairly distinguished history," "does serious reporting," "has foreign correspondents" in places such as Washington, Moscow and Jerusalem, and has won distinquished awards) all the facts seem to point in another direction entirely. It is trashy, has lawsuits against it, has admitted to carrying out a campaign of lies against someone, has printed hoax pictures, has an acknowledged political bias, and generally looks like the trashy rag it is. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO. You came here for independent feedback. You got it. It wasn't what you wanted, so you're ignoring it, insisting on your own rhetorical and highly selective condemnation of the Mirror. The plain fact is that nothing you have said in order to try to undermine the paper shows that its standard serious news reporting should not be considered reliable. By the logic you use, the BBC should be discounted as a serious source, as it also broadcasts gossip and comedy, has been sued for libel, and has been exposed for fake content. Ty 03:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you have been warned, more than once, about labeling editors as "conspiracy theorists", or describing their actions as "pushing a conspiracy theory". Please stop it. TB has brought forth a legitimate question. We know your opinion of the DM, since you were the one who inserted this questionable source into the article to begin with. You and Paul B may feel the DM is a good source, but as TB wrote, the evidence suggests otherwise- 3rd party sources describe it alternatively as "sensationalist" or "down market" , and its content as "little hard news but plenty of ...gossip, sensational crime reporting"." This is not a ringing endorsement for WP:RS purposes. Are there any 3rd party sources that describe the DM in the same flattering terms that you and Paul B do? If so, just produce them, and we'll move on.

Ty, it is incorrect to state that "nothing [TB] said in order to try to undermine the paper shows that its standard serious news reporting should not be considered reliable" - TB quoted from a 3rd party source which describes the DM as "sensationalist" and its content as "gossip", "sensationalist crime reporting". That reads like pretty strong condemnation. Are there any 3rd party sources (not Wikipedia editors) thta say otherwise? Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You and TB have been promoting, for months, an account of this particular incident that posits a vast eight-year conspiracy involving dozens or hundreds of individuals in a devilishly sophisticated multinational plot. What am I to call that if not a conspiracy theory? It's been characterised as a conspiracy theory by the Jerusalem Post and other sources, too, so it's not exactly a novel position on my part. The fact that this particular source we're discussing strongly contradicts your own POV is, I suggest, a significant factor in your opposition to its use. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd that you are the only one currently actually banned from either the article or the talk page. You neglected to mention that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely wrong - I'm not banned from anything anywhere. Could you try actually checking your claims before making them? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is only one consideration as far as wiki is concerned which is policy, namely in this case Wikipedia:Verifiability, which at WP:SOURCES defines acceptable sources: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers." The Daily Mirror is undoubtedly a mainstream paper. It is therefore acceptable as a source. If you don't agree, then change the policy. "The Daily Mirror is one of the world's most famous newspaper brands and Europe's fourth largest-selling title."[10] Your citing of a blog as a source to invalidate a source is ironic, to say the least. It is taken seriously by CNN[11]. See Al Jazeera bombing memo. Hardly lightweight. Your use of "sensationalist" confuses style with substance. Just for the record, "The Daily Mirror, also a red-top tabloid, tends to have more left-wing opinions but can also be critical of New Labour."[12] You might note the Mirror is referred to as a "news provider" along with The Times and others (p.46).[13] Ty 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In one sense I can agree with TBs concerns about the Mirror, but this discussion probably highlights where the verifiability policy is pretty badly flawed. I'd agree that the approach to dealing with that should be through amending the policy, but the weight of opinion in the denizens of that is quite focussed on a purely academic environment, and then tries to make academic approaches extensible to other media. Source analysis in the real world is a very different beast.

Publications are not inherently reliable, the discussion about the Mirror cf others being a reasonable example of that. Personally I wouldn't trust it to tell me the date without some form of corroboration. Individual items of product within newspaper have differing levels of reliability and should be assessed on a case by case basis. As with any publication it has items of content that would be considered reasonably accurate, as well as a lot of noise.

Still, changing the policy to actually assess sources rather than rubber stamp based on the name on the front page probably isn't a viable option. One just has to find ways around the inadequacies of policy. For that purpose this discussion has probably run its course.

ALR (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right, Tyrenius. I'm frankly amazed that anyone would try to exclude one of the UK's leading daily newspapers. It's like arguing that the New York Daily News or New York Daily Post should be excluded because they're mass-market tabloids. I live in the UK and I've been professionally involved with the media for a decade now, so I know very well, both personally and professionally, what kind of newspaper the Mirror is. As for the "conspiracy theorists" side of things, the fact is that Canadian Monkey and Tundrabuggy have been pushing a conspiracy theory about Muhammad al-Durrah for several months now. The Daily Mirror article just happens to strongly contradict that conspiracy theory. The longer this goes on, the more I'm getting the impression that this is simply a case of trying to find some reason - any reason - to exclude a source that contradicts the POV being promoted by the two of them.

Re ALR's comments: you make a fair point - there are certainly some sections of the Mirror, such as the gossip columns, which I definitely wouldn't wish to cite as a source (though then again they would probably count as opinion pieces per WP:RS#News organizations which would impose restrictions on how we could use them in any case). However, what we're talking about here is a serious piece of on-the-spot news reporting by the Mirror's Jerusalem correspondent - mainstream journalism, in other words. There is absolutely no reason other than partisan POV or, let's face it, ignorance about the source, to exclude a mainstream source such as that. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In the general case it would help if there was some form of corroboration. In terms of coming up with an analysis piece I would generally only use a newspaper source as an indicator that more work needs to be done. The broad category that the paper fits into would guide how much effort I'd put into finding corroboration, although it also usually indicates how easy it might be to find that corroboration. The heavyweights are generally reasonably easy to corroborate, but equally I'd put more effort into a snippet from there than a tabloid.

My biggest concern about corroboration in this environment is provenance, given the way stories migrate around the press it's very easy to end up in a circular reporting and self reinforcing situation.

ALR (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, there's no problem with provenance - it's not a second-hand piece, an opinion piece or a recasting of agency reports. It's an original, first-hand, on-the-spot report from the Mirror's Jerusalem correspondent, who interviewed the principal surviving eyewitness of a controversial shooting incident. It's of particular importance because, as far as I've been able to determine, it was the first interview with this eyewitness to have been carried out after he was released from hospital following the shooting. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The provenance issue would be around any corroboration of the piece, either seeing it derived from the article or based on further interviews with the same human source. In my line any use of it would have to be fairly heavily caveated. Of course in this specific case none of that is particularly important, the issue merely highlights the inadequacy of policy.

ALR (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. There are indeed multiple further interviews with the same human source, following his release from hospital; this is simply the earliest that I'm aware of. As Ty has already said, the source clearly meets all the requirements of WP:V. What "caveating" do you think is necessary? As for the policy, there's a good reason why we take the approach that you describe as "rubber-stamping". WP:V and WP:RS focus on the process by which sources are published - i.e. that they have undergone proper editorial review, that they are independent of the subject, etc. If a factual report - as opposed to an opinion piece - is published by a mainstream newspaper or book publisher, we rely on the publication process to assure the quality of what the author has written. We don't base our quality assessments on our views of the reliability of individual authors. Experience has shown that there are too many problems with that approach - in particular, it opens the door to partisans trying to blacklist individual writers because they feel that they are "biased" against their POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Essentially what I'm getting at is that Tundrabuggy is asking the wrong question. The unthinking approach adopted on the basis of a majority view by a self selecting group of editors who control the policy pages will always rubber stamp a piece based on the label on the publication, rather than an analysis of the content being quoted. That essentially prevents an editor undertaking the process which a real analyst would undertake; does the product exhibit the characteristics which indicate a level of confidence in the facts being presented? Frankly I'm not suggesting that there should be rubber stamping based on the author label any more than the publisher label.

In this instance the story is based on a single human source, human sources probably being the least reliable indicator of what happened at a particular event. Merely because it was published in other titles doesn't make it anything other than single source, hence in need of corroboration from other sources. I am conscious that journalists are reliant on human sources much more than other analysis professionals, and are also bound by the editorial policy of the titles they write for.

Notwithstanding all of that, given the use that the article is being put to, it should be fairly easy to articulate the origins of the statements and the effort above to dismiss the Mirror as a source are pretty pointless. Having asked the question Tundrabuggy is left in the situation where it's really unimportant what the answer is, the source can be used in some way. The snag from the position he's trying to support is the same discipline should be applied to the theory that it's being used to contradict. If it is as flaky as you suggest upthread then the process of doing that should indicate the levels of reliability around the theory.

I guess my key point is that the policy as it's written at the moment is a tool which can be used or abused in a whole host of ways. It certainly doesn't support a rigorous approach to analysis in its current form. It is therefore up to editors to make the best of what they have available to them.

ALR (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a fair characterization though. We talk about sources because the policy is concerned with sources (rather than individual works from the source) for good reason. In cases where we cannot make clear declarations about the reliability of the source, the suggestions should be that editors review the work itself and determine if it is acceptable. In the case where the reliability is questionable, that becomes a bad suggestion, as it is possible to write a pretty convincing story that is almost completely full of bullshit. We don't make work by work determinations often for that reason. Even more important, a work by work determination on a heavily POV issue is likely to be viewed along POV lines. If paper X produces a story that pisses off one group and makes another group very happy, it is MUCH harder to get them to agree that story is reliable than to get people to agree that the source is generally reliable. And that discussion produces a much more meaningful consensus. None of this is meant to prevent editors from using their brains. If we say that a broadsheet is reliable and someone writes an article based on the personal adds or the horoscope, we aren't bound by silly rules from saying that shouldn't be on here. Protonk (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're using source in different ways. I do profoundly disagree with the position that the publication is a source, the source for the purposes of a Wikipedia article should be the individual article within the publication. As you reasonably illustrate, taking the position that a publication at the gross level is reliable undermines the purpose of the policy.

At the more analytical level the author of the source will have one or more of his/ her own sources which have contributed to the story, the reliability of those sources is up for debate and the resulting story will be nuanced by many things.

I think the suggestion that the policy as it stands prevents WP articles being full of bullshit is itself extremely idealistic. It doesn't take long to find articles here which fulfill the letter of the verifiability policy, yet are patent fiction. There are other articles which are reasonably accurate, but inadequately sourced. Both of these require editors to use a bit of common dog, although what I see around is far more of that with respect to the latter.

Progress in Wikipedia happens despite the policies, not really as a result of them, and verifiability is probably the worst.

ALR (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a misunderstanding that comes from the fact that the word "source" is used rather casually to refer to three things:

1. The publication which undertook the financial and editorial responsibility for the piece.
2. The author of the piece.
3. The original, existential, font of knowledge for the piece. An informant, a primary document, etc.

All three are important in judging the validity of a piece. However, the latter two don't provide us with a good metric with which works can be judged. Whether or not a particular author is to be trusted is an important question, but how do you propose we write a consistent, concise policy to help the community do that? the same problem applies with the documents and informants that the author used to write the piece. How do we write a guideline for editors to judge the character of a piece? In this case we have a blanket guideline that offloads those two difficult judgments on to a third party. We HOPE that the editors of a reputable source of news (or journal, or publisher) would vet both the authors and the facts underlying the piece before publishing it. Where it is established that "sources" (in the first sense) have that record, we offer the benefit of the doubt to pieces published by them. where it is clear they do not (works for hire, vanity presses, tabloid papers), we do not. In between there is room for judgment on particular items published by that source. Since that discussion (as you see here) can be long, heated and inconclusive, we try to write guidelines that limit the number of times we have to engage in it. I think that WP:RS does a fair job of that. It does have room for improvement, especially in the sense of offering guidance to editors who face difficult questions like this, but it is overall fairly effective. Protonk (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't describe either of the first two as the source in the context of using a product to support a statement used in a wikipedia article. My use of source is around the latter, although any source used by an editor in WP would have a number of sources used by the author, be they human or through technical means. As I recall the Mirror was one of the papers which was guilty of using illegal voice intercept methods.

I'd prefer to give editors access to the tools needed to assess sources, and qualify the use of those sources in the assessment they write here. When that was suggested 18 months to two years ago the preferred direction was towards a more doctrinal approach, taking any responsibility away from editors and essentially labelling at too high a level to be truly useful. At the time I recommended actually sourcing the sourcing guideline, my recommendation was from a postgrad business research handbook that I use when I'm training analysts. What I would tend to train them to do is evaluate a source in part on the track record, but also based on the degree of corroboration or confirmation of what is said. The former essentially what the policy says at present, the latter is where an editor is able to add some value and use their own intellect. That's essentially what a journalist will do in the first place and then drives the use of language to express the degree of confidence placed on the conclusions based on the source, or sources, used by the analyst.

I'll acknowledge that the majority of editors probably don't have the skills to really assess a source and then express their degree of confidence in their conclusions, so the rules have to accommodate a lower level of skill than some of us might be used to in a professional context.

ALR (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of skills. It is a matter of the project goals. Anonymous editing (either through IP's or through pseudonymous usernames) is a fundamental tenet of the project. In order to ensure that contributions made by those anon editors can be legitimate, we have to offload (at least at a doctrinal level) the research and editorial control. I could be a theoretical physicist. I could be a film critic. I could be a Fortune 500 CEO. I could be a 12 year old. There is no way for the project to know (see Essjay controversy) and no reason we should pretend like it matters. As such, we have policies like WP:OR and WP:V that ensure that we are not a secondary source, that we are not selecting content on a wide basis by individually considering the primary constituents.

This also is only a matter for accepting sources. This doesn't mean that we demand credulity when it comes to the claims those sources make. IF the New york times publishes some hokum about a legal subject, we should not use that claim in an article. However, we may have to assert that the article has been shown to be false or that the particular claim has been rejected by another source. I think it works pretty well, myself. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ALR, I do appreciate what you are getting at here and it is thought-provoking. I am convinced that one of the keys to solving some of the problems with the more contentious areas in wiki might be clarifying verifiability policy in those areas. I imagine the policy works well enough in the middle areas, but doesn't hold up in extremis. I am not trying to support or contradict any theory, just trying to determine what constitutes a "reliable source" on wiki. Why would the following not apply to the DM? "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Not extremist, but "promotional" in regard to a POV (Labour)and acknowledged to rely heavily on rumours ("gossip")? This discussion has led to my listening to all the comments, fact-checking the opinions and finally coming to the conclusion that for me, despite its popularity and "mainstream" nature, it would not qualify as a reliable source. I would never use it as the sole source for contentious material. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no, that argument again shows a total lack of knowledge of the UK press. British newspapers are traditionally partisan, unlike most of the US press. The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail are traditionally pro-Conservative, the Guardian and the Daily Mirror are traditionally pro-Labour and the Independent is somewhere in-between. That doesn't mean that they are in any way "promotional" when it comes to news reporting on issues other than domestic politics (and "promotional" isn't the right way to put it, either; "biased" is closer to the mark). Their editorial outlook may be influenced by their political allegiences, just like Fox News in the US has an assertively conservative bias to its reporting, but this doesn't in any way mean that any of them are unreliable sources. As for "relying on rumours", while the Mirror may - like all newspapers - report gossip, that does not mean that all of its coverage is gossip. As I've pointed out, the story you're disputing is a serious, mainstream piece of journalism by an accredited foreign correspondent, and as Ty has pointed out the Mirror is a leading mainstream newspaper which fully meets our standards. You're not approaching this in good faith - you're simply trying to find a reason to reject it, even when your arguments don't hold water. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mirror, for all it's faults, is no more or less reliable than any other news publication in the UK. They all have a political agenda driven by their ownership, some have better editorial oversight than others and that oversight does vary depending on what the theme of the story is. My point is not that the Mirror is better or worse, but that assessing sources at that level is inadequate. Those wishing to exploit the policies need to think more about how to do that, and ask appropriate questions. as observed by ChrisO, this discussion is getting nowhere and might as well be killed.

ALR (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

{unindent}That's your choice. This means that you probably would never use a newspaper as a reliable source, because almost all of them support political candidates during elections (POV according to you), and have gossip columns. Where did you get "acknowledged to rely heavily on rumours" from? Doug Weller (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From here, I'm guessing... (Added) Tundrabuggy has at last explained what specifically he's disputing - a single line which I was able to corroborate from two other sources within about 30 seconds (see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Al-Durrah was "pronounced dead"). I suggest that we consider this discussion closed, since there doesn't appear to be anything further that can usefully be said. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse closure. Previously uninvolved editors consider that this source meets wikipedia requirements per WP:V, which is all that is required. This source should be used from a NPOV like all sources and per UNDUE. Ty 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's resolved as far as I'm concerned. & btw, ChrisO, my question was specifically to the Daily Mirror, not to any particular point. I am more than ever convinced it is an unreliable rag, but it is clear there is no consenus for that here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article on American Chronicle

The article Sarah Heath Palin, Middle Class Change or More of the Same is being cited by Feminists for Life. I believe this is an unreliable source, for the following reasons:

• It is frightfully badly written, suggesting little if any editorial review.
• This disclaimer appears at the bottom of the page: "The American Chronicle and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content."
• The publication's Author Account Information page says "All articles are subject to editorial review (mostly for grammar and formatting) before they are published." (Emphasis added.) To me, this suggests the factual claims were not subjected to review.

Since the relevant section of the article is about Sarah Palin, WP:BLP applies, raising the bar even higher. Tualha (Talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It looks pretty unreliable to me, and the "reporter's" credentials listed on the right are somewhat kooky ("Psychic Intuitive Science Consultant"?) The American Chronicle seems to be a compendium of syndicated reports from other sources such as AP, Reuters, daily newspapers etc, plus original writing from freelancers. They even have a "Submit Work" page inviting submissions from readers and contributors. It looks like it's effectively run as a sort of cross between a newswire and a closed-source Wikinews; definitely not a reliable source in my judgment. You should also bear in mind the four criteria set out in WP:V#Reliable sources: a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I would say it decisively fails the fourth criterion, and may well fail some of the others too. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at what links here: [14] -- a bit worrying as it looks as though it isn't a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's a cool tool, I didn't know about that. It is indeed worrying. Tualha (Talk) 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but what exactly is being linked? - original reports such as the one you cited, or newswire articles? The latter are reliable, the former certainly aren't. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

She looks kooky to me too (she's published articles on UFOlogy) but that's ad hominem, so I didn't depend on it... Tualha (Talk) 19:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at the article linked to the Hmong people and the sidebar shows the author to be very reputable (and I checked also), so it may be one of those issues where you have to look at the source? This one was probably a syndicated report. Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess they should all be checked. How tedious. I guess we should focus on the Palin article here, and perhaps open another item dealing with The AC in general? Tualha (Talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The format suggests that it was a submitted report - the syndicated ones don't seem to have an author sidebar (unless I missed something). Strictly speaking, though, when it comes to reliable sources we're supposed to consider only the publication, not the author. There have been plenty of instances where authors have published reputable, mainstream things in mainstream sources, and kooky stuff in fringe publications where editorial standards are lower or non-existent. Tualha, I don't think there's any point in opening a second section - let's deal with the AC here in this section. Don't forget that many of the returns from the linksearch tool are on talk or project pages; we only need to concern ourselves with the links from articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if I may summarize so far (and reset the indentation):

• Tualha thinks the Palin article is probably unreviewed and therefore unreliable, and is concerned about original articles on The American Chronicle (hereinafter TAC) in general.
• ChrisO seems to think that newswire articles on TAC should be treated as reliable, original articles as unreliable, and the Palin article falls into the latter category. Correct?
• Doug Weller seems to think TAC is unreliable in general, but we should consider the author. Correct?
  • ChrisO disagrees re considering the author.
• We haven't heard from BenjiBoi yet, the editor who cited it in the first place.

Tualha (Talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The original content on the site does not look reliable. As others have pointed out, the site certainly fails the "with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" part of WP:RS. Also, their writers are unpaid[15], and, at least for the few I checked at random, none of the writers have the usual journalism credentials one would expect for a real news source. The disclaimer at the bottom of every article is a bad sign, too, as is the fact that nowhere on the website (at least that can find) are the names of the publishers or editors given. These are all hallmarks of non-reliable sources. Yilloslime (t) 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Newswire articles on TAC shouldn't be cited to TAC but, rather, to their original publications. Hence for instance this article lifted from USA Today should be cited (and linked) to its original publication, not to TAC's copy. Apart from any other considerations, we don't know whether TAC is republishing such articles unaltered. As for the point about considering publications rather than sources, this is pretty much what WP:RS requires: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process". Note that the emphasis is not on who writes the piece, but how the piece is published. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, a quick google search turns up plenty of hits, many of them reliable, confirming that Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. Yilloslime (t) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the point that needs to be made in the article, it would be much better made through citation of a more reliable source than TAC. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that's kinda what I was trying to say. Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's no doubt she's a member of FFL. Originally I was questioning whether she was pro-contraception; the Anchorage Daily News cite supports that now. I'm not sure if there's any claim left in the article that's supported solely by the Morris article. I just want it out because it's a sucky source.

We seem to have a fairly solid consensus that this article is unreliable, though I would still like to hear from Benjiboi, now that I've stated my case better than I did in Talk:Feminists for Life. Tualha (Talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it out, I don't think you need Benjiboi's permission for that. If he gives you problems just refer him back to this discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see from hir contribution list that ze was on for several hours after your comment and has had plenty of opportunity to respond. Fair enough. Tualha (Talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

{unindent} For the record, I don't consider the TAC a reliable source, anything that looks reliable almost certainly is from elsewhere and should be sourced from there. I think we need to do something about its use elsewhere in WP. Doug Weller (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, assuming the original source is still available. If it's not, well, I doubt the TAC copy would have been deliberately altered. It would be good to reduce the number of references to TAC as much as possible, since checking them isn't a one-time-and-done task. Tualha (Talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I didn't feel I needed to comment here as those more experienced as sussing out RS issues were on the case. The fact tag was put in to cite that Palin was "pro-contraceptive", I felt this source was reliable enough for that concern but also found another source that supported the same information. If the TAC source has to go so be it - we have another source in place. No biggie. I will also point out that this article has been mostly dormant until Palin became the Republican VP candidate and her connection to this group made more prominent. I was doing my part to ensure this article remained accurate. The content itself is fine so if a source must be removed then go for it. Banjeboi 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable website as a reference?

There is a website that is being used as a reference for various UK sitcom article pages. The site is http://www.phill.co.uk and the site owner calls it a "British TV Comedy" site, but upon closer inspection, the site seems to be little more than the personal website of a fan who likes UK comedy (the address of the site suggests this further). Details about some shows have very little relevant detail, and it appears what information is there was possibly just copied from IMDB or TV.com. There is also a commercial element to it as the site seems to be little more than a way for the site owner to make commission off Amazon sales (via various Amazon DVD links for the various shows it lists). Of course, this by itself is not necessarily a problem, but considering that the site (and its anonymous owner) are not a recognised authority on the subject, should this site be permitted as a valid reference source?79.66.22.104 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say definitely not. I agree that it looks like a personal website, I don't see why clearly reliable sources couldn't be found, and I certainly wouldn't rely on its accuracy. Doug Weller (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Doug. In the abscence of an official site from a production company, would a site like TV.com be more preferable for quoting things like airdates and episode titles, etc? Or do airdates and episode titles even need to be sourced/referenced at all if it did not contain any material that was controversial or likely to be challenged?79.66.55.39 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official distributor posting on forum

Official German distributor of the GP2X console Michael Mrozek, who uses the forum name "EvilDragon" (this is confirmed by a number of articles and video interviews, eg. [16] [17]) recently gave the total number of GP2X units sold worldwide as 60,000, but did so in a forum post here. The info currently in the "GP2X" article about number of units sold is from October 2006, and is quite outdated. Would it be possible to add this information to the article? Esn (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how the source is cited. From this you could say "A distributor has claimed that 60,000 units have been sold worldwide" but if you want to make a stronger claim, you'll need to find out what his source was. --Slashme (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it can probably be added, but the forum post must be treated as a self published source. Careful reading of EvilDragon's post at gp32x.com makes it seem like he got the number from the gamepark CEO, "that guy from the picture" right above his post, lending it a bit more credibility than if EvilDragon just pulled the number out of his hat. Also, a more direct reference to EvilDragon being the german GP2X distributor can be found on gp2x.de. I think including the number in the article complies with WP:SELFPUB. A further 10 000 units sold does not seem contentious or unduly self-serving. I'd recommend briefly characterize the source of the number in the article text similar to Slashme's suggestion above. I would also leave the older sales numbers from more reliable sources in the article rather than replace them with this updated number. Siawase (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've edited the page in a manner I hope was in keeping with your suggestions. Since gp2x.de would be considered another self-published source, though, and verifying the verifiability of a self-published source with another self-published source is likely problematic, I've decided to use the third-party German article to source the fact that EvilDragon is Michael Mrozek. Esn (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I also added the source here. A bit odd - having to source the verifiability of the source. Esn (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me, even a bit more detailed than I would have been. Since the credibility of EvilDragon on this particular matter stems directly from his affiliation with the gp2x mother company, I don't think there's a need for outside confirmation, since gp2x.de is confirmed as an officical distributor on gp2x.com. But that's really just a minor concern. Siawase (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aspartame

In Aspartame and Aspartame controversy, are http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html and http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/Facts/92_Symptoms/92_symptoms.gif reliable sources? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good gravy no. CENSEI (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Bork (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Yilloslime (t) 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Bork (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Noterino. _diddly Protonk (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Was that yes or no?

In case you did not bother to read the page, the report was based on documents submitted by Searle Laboratories to FDA (Freedom of Information Act request), and Jerome Bressler was the FDA team leader. So basically, you are saying FDA is not a reliable source. Bork (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bork, What is the source for what you say? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bressler's opinion was the minority at the FDA. CENSEI (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And the source for that statement is...? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is not that it's a study submitted to the FDA by Searle, or how representative of the FDA Bressler's opinion may have been. The point is that the website is self-published, and there's absolutely no way to know whether the information on it is a true replications of an legitimate FDA record obtained by a FOIA, or if the webpage is just a hoax. Even if it the document could be authenticated, it would be a primary source, and thus it would have to be used very carefully if at all in the aspartame article. Yilloslime (t) 01:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Very funny, but Hawaii Senate does not think the report is a "hoax". [18] And why did you get the idea it might be a hoax? It is just your personal opinion that it might be a hoax. Bork (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, even if this is absolutely dinkum, which it may well be, it's just a report of how many people reported to the FDA that they had symptoms of various kinds which they themselves attributed to aspartame. In other words, J. Random Consumer drinks a Culaid Soda Lite straight from the fridge and gets an icecream headache. He's just read in a magazine that aspartame is deadly poison, so he phones the FDA and says he got a headache from drinking a soda that contains aspartame. They log it. What does this really prove? the source is really not a secondary source at all, as it is just a list of numbers, and definitely not interpreted by the FDA as implying that Aspartame is dangerous. --Slashme (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, but none of the Editors of the pages involved was informed about the discussion. Nor were they given time for input, so there has been no chance for Wiki Editors involved in the issue to weigh in. In any case, I started a discussion on the appropriate Talk page as suggested at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus to clarify issues when some Editor's concerns with the government reference format and hopefully find ways to list government references on both sides of the issue. If Editors disagree, I believe it is best to hold a public discussion on the Talk page and not a secret (to long-time page Editors), albeit productive discussion on this page.

The image is the full government document provided by the FDA upon request (and available to the public when similar requests are made). But rather than discussing it here, I think it can be cleared up quickly and easily and would avoid removal of all government references in the article with some discussion and clarification on the appropriate Talk page. That's my suggestion. Twoggle (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know the web page is what you say? I think there is no "Bressler Report," as a document published by the FDA. The only thing there is, is the self-published material at presidiotex.com, dorway.com, and (surprise) rense.com. At best it's usable only as a primary source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Because as a long-time Editor of that page, I made the effort to get original copies. So did many other people. In addition, the Bressler Report is mentioned in numerous government documents. While discussions of reliable sources belong here, discussions that effect the edits of the aspartame pages belong on those Talk pages so that Editors can participate on that subject matter. I have repeatedly made attempts to have a cordial discussion on that page in order to understand each and every concern as it relates to Editing the aspartame pages. Please refer to what you quoted on my own talk page: 1) "I won't do anything until you've had a chance to give your thoughts there." ; 2) "...use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." Twoggle (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[This is a cross post from Talk:Aspartame controversy. It's unclear where this discussion is living.] Toggle, the FDA is a reliable source, no doubt, but riddle me this: how do you know that the "Bressler Report" over at http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html is authentic? Who even maintains that website, and how do you know that they've faithfully transcribed the report from the actual FDA document obtained by FOIA (if it really exists) to the html shown on the website? And how do you know the website's interpretations of the FDA findings are valid? Whose interpretations are they (i.e. "The Bressler report is one of the most damning documents about aspartame in existence. .."--according to whom)? Presidiotex.com is self-published source and certainly has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy and thus is not a reliable source. If you can find the Bressler report or even some official mention of it on the FDA website (fda.gov), in the public docket (www.regulations.gov), in the federal register (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/), or in the archives of a newspaper, then maybe that could be used as a source. But what we've got right now is some anonymous, self-published website claiming that there's such a document as "the Bressler report" and offering not actual scans of the document (except for a lone, disembodied table of dubious provenance and relevance), but an unverified transcription of it as well as some interpretation by an unknown individual with unknown credentials. WP has higher standards than this. Yilloslime (t) 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion related to editing the aspartame and aspartame controversy page is living on the Talk page where it is supposed to be living. If discussions of editing every page were conducted here, Wikipedia would be chaos. I do like this page for Reliable source discussions, but now that we are actually trying to come up with a consensus on editing the aspartame page, I think the discussion belongs there. Twoggle (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is here though, and I agree with Yilloslime. You need a much better source for the 'Bressler Report' than a self-published website. I don't think a group of editors on an article's talk page can change WP policy. Doug Weller (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is *a* discussion here. Great place to discuss WP policy related to Reliable Sources. But an inappropriate place to discuss disagreements with Edits to specific pages without involving Editors of those pages. There was a dispute about content on those pages. "This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content." I think this is a fantastic page for discussing sources especially if Editors who add references are not kept in the dark that their added references are being discussed/debated, but once a dispute about content of an article comes up, the Talk page is the appropriate page in my opinion. Twoggle (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Published articles that mention it include Sweet Talking from The Ecologist. Not a great source, but I feel it could be included. Also, looking through Google Books I found a Senate Committee record which discusses it.[19] Clearly it existed. II | (t - c) 17:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metal: A Headbanger's Journey

A quick question: Is the documentary film "Metal: A Headbanger's Journey" considered a reliable source, can what it says be cited? Prophaniti (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the reviews, it appears to be a legitimate documentary and so should be eligible to be used as a source. Note, however, that statements in the film by the narrator and the interviewees may be matters of opinion or interpretation and should be treated as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When attributing material from the film, I'd suggest taking approaches such as "According to the documentary film Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, ..." or "In an interview in the documentary film Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, X said..." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Metropolitan90 and ChrisO. It turns out the specific occasion in question was invalid anyway, as it was a user interpreting the film rather than just directly quoting it. But nevertheless, it's something I've been curious about for a while, so much clarity is appreciated. Prophaniti (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Watchtower Society/ Jehovah's Witnesses

There's a debate over the extent to which Watchtower Society publications can be used as source material for the pages about Jehovah's Witnesses. The debate also extends to the reliability of books published by former Jehovah's Witnesses.

Up til now, I have been guided by the wording of this template, where it mentions "sources affiliated with the subject of the article": "This section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page."

However, all I can find on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page are references to "self-published sources," rather than "sources affiliated with the subject of the article."

For example, "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."

I'm not too sure whether the Watchtower Society's publications would be considered "self-published." Of course, they write and publish their own material. The Watchtower Society is a legal entity used by the religion, as far as I'm aware. Only baptised Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to work at the publishing presses of the Watchtower Society. Wikipedia lists self-published sources: "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources." Watchtower Society publications aren't really like newsletters, personal websites etc. though, because it's a fairly large concern.

I believe that Watchtower Society publications have been referenced by third-party publications, but not as "work in the relevant field."

Another quote from Wikipedia: "Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if: ... the article is not based primarily on such sources." I confess I have been mis-reading this. I thought it said that "sources about themselves" may only be used if the article is not based primarily on such sources. It actually says that self-published sources may only be used as sources about themselves. That's the same thing, isn't it? Don't mind me.

On other hand, I'm currently checking out the reliability of a book by M.J. Penton. He was formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses and so his work has been challenged by an editor on the basis that "only academic and journalistic monographs, essays or articles by people who had never been JWs could be really considered as third party sources." (underline his)

In regards to the definition of a third party source, the link from "third party" where I clicked it goes straight to the bullet list of what constitutes a primary, secondary and tertiary source. Therefore, I'm not too sure how you would define "third party."

Wikipedia says: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers."

M.J. Penton's 1985 book, Apocalypse Delayed, was published by University of Toronto Press.

I found 14 citations in journal articles or books on Google Scholar including: -Dawson in Nova Religio (University of California Press)(1999) -Hitchcock - The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life: From "Higher Law" to "Sectarian Scruples." Published by Princeton University Press (2004) -Walls - The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology. Published by Oxford University Press US (2007) -Wilson - The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society. Published by Oxford University Press (1992)

Does former affiliation with the subject of the article override the definition of reliability given above? Is there anything else I should be thinking of?

Mandmelon (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Does former affiliation with the subject of the article override the definition of reliability given above?" I would say no, the author's former or current affiliation does not disqualify the source. "Is there anything else I should be thinking of?" Exactly how the source is used. In general there are very few things that can never be cited for any purpose at all, and no source that is universally appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wide consensus in self-published sources

There are numerous self-published sources online that discuss flash drives (including mp4 players) with hacked fake capacity [20]. Various software exists for checking and correcting this. I have one such mp4 player and I could put an article in my wiki summarizing all this evidence. I'm a little unclear as to whether any of these would meet Wikipedia criteria as reliable or notable sources or "original research". According to WP:V "Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." While I've not been able to find a third-party published source for this information;

• there are an overwhelming number of self-published sources,
• many of these sources are in (apparently) open and disinterested forums where scrutiny is published also,
• it's not very difficult to test the drive once you are aware that the problem may exist, so these claims are not particularly extraordinary, controversial, or vulnerable to bias or mistake.

According to WP:V "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources." Would the inverse be true; that when there is wide consensus in disinterested self-published sources, that a third-party publication is not necessary? Under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources it states that "When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published." but I don't see any guideline as to how a self-published source may be used "appropriately" unless the author has previously been published by a third-party. Lumenos (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because if anyone disputes, telling them to "go read this forum" isn't acceptable. --Crossmr (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well for what it is worth, the seller accepted it. They refunded my money without requiring I return the player. I don't see how we could expect a third-party published source to make the case any better than it was made, but you would have to see the evidence yourself. Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It also speaks to the notability of the issue. If reliable tech sources aren't picking it up, it isn't really considered that big of a deal so why are we creating content on it? --Crossmr (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a good chance there is some source you would consider "reliable" among the thousands of search results, I just don't have all night to figure out which would have an acceptable publisher. This seems a rather indirect way of going about it. I mean, how do we know who the reliable publishers are if we aren't supposed to evaluate their claims? Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As for notability, if all that means is that third-party published sources refer to it, than what is your point? Are you saying it is not likely to be valuable to the readers of Wikipedia? The particular model of mp4 player that I bought, is selling at nearly one per second on Ebay. They are less expensive than nearly any mp3 player I could find on bargain hunting forums or Ebay, plus they have rechargeable batteries, charger, they play video, record voice, support folders, etc. It makes a big difference if the capacity is 4GB (as was claimed) or about 512MB (like mine actually was). Having this information allowed me to make the player stable and get a complete refund. Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about these products, but it appears that the claims are that the products don't have as much capacity as they are supposed to or that they don't function properly. Those are controversial claims, in the sense that if someone made false claims along those lines, the manufacturer would be justified in suing the claimant. Therefore, we should only include such statements if we can find reliable sources that have made such claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I worded the section so that it is not making the claim, simply stating that many have made the claim. Would Wikipedia be liable? Lumenos (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USS Nevada (BB-36)

Is reference #27 reliable? It's going through an A-class review, and their are questions about it...thanks! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help me?? ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that only one published book out there uses it (MaritimeQuest.com) as a source, and that's for photos, not information [21] [22], so I'd say that it's a little shaky as a reliable source for ship information. Perhaps you might email that site's owner and ask where he/she obtained the information that you're using in that article. Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you...I'll work on it. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles using Universal Cyclopædia & Atlas as source

I've created Universal Cyclopædia & Atlas as several articles (WhatLinksHere) are using Appleton's Universal Cyclopædia & Atlas of 1902 as source due to it being in public domain. Some of these articles have no other reference, and as Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography apparently contained dozens of hoaxes, I wonder what I have stumbled upon? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

quite apart from hoax article, personally, I think using a 1902 encyclopedia as a source for anything other than what was thought important in 1902 is something to be done very cautiously, and with full knowledge of what may have become known about the subject since. And if one knows the later sources, why not use them in the first place? It takes expert knowledge of the general subject to assert that the 1902 is accurate, and that there is nothing better than the 1902. If you know that much, why not publish it some place in the RW? DGG (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kotaku

Are we considering Kotaku a reliable source? I kind of view them as any other random group blog online, and I'm not really sure if the community has decided that they check their stories enough or not.--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a hard one. We consider Gawker a source (I think). I would consider Kotaku as kind of a less serious Gamasutra. It's a group blog and we have pretty harsh guidelines for group blogs, so I would be cautious sourcing it, but I don't see the problem if the material isn't contentious. Let's say (for an example), that you have a notable game, but that one particular facet of the game hasn't seen too much third party attention. You can't really go on about that part at length on just primary sources (or you shouldn't) per WP:OR and WP:NPOV, but if Kotaku spends a few paragraphs on it, you can probably just cite that and move on. I can't imagine people would be cool with Kotaku being the main source for an article or in the case where the claims made would be controversial, but it seems to be a specialist blog with a limited set of contributors. Dunno. Take it case by case. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did some digging and found their ToS where they state their content is provided 'as is' which to me sounds like they're not standing behind their content as a news paper would, so I'm going to have to say that I don't really think it can be used as a reliable source of anything. If a facet of a game hasn't received coverage, that isn't an excuse to use less reliable sources its a reason not to devote any coverage to that facet, its obviously not really that interesting to the general public.--Crossmr (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair position to take. There are certainly better game blogs out there. I hope I was some help, sorry about the long delay (in wikipedia time). Protonk (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018

This is perhaps RfC material, but I thought I'd ask for input here. There is currently a dispute over the content of Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018 which is, at bottom, an argument over the reliability of the various sources and the weight, if any, which each should be given.

One editor wishes to base the article largely on writings by Rafał Jaworski in a 16-page supplement to the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita published in 2006. Jaworski's work is about 8 pages of text. The paragraph beginning "It is possible that Vladimir decided that neither Svyatopolk nor Yaroslav ..." shows this well. The current version places Jaworski's theory first and seeks to present the the alternative as outdated ("...in their older works..."). This work is not translated into English and is, as near as makes no difference, unobtainable. It contains none of the apparatus - notes, bibliography - which would normally be found in a serious work of history.

Another editor wishes to base the article on English-language works. These include Janet Martin's, Medieval Russia 980–1584 (Cambridge University Press, 1995, Cambridge Medieval Textbooks series) and Simon Franklin & Jonathan Shepard's The Emergence of Rus 750–1200 (Longman, 1996, Longman History of Russia series, general editor Harold Shukman). Franklin, Martin & Shepard were all chosen to contribute to the Cambridge History of Russia, volume 1, covering 1015–1125, 1246–1462 (2 chapters), and c.900–1015 respectively. Cambridge UP and Longman are respectable academic publishers. These works are widely cited, are commonly found in large libraries, and are available for purchase on the internet.

I own the two English-language works in question and largely for that reason I am supportive of the second school of thought. Rather than being irrational anti-Polish prejudice, this seems to me to be in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. But I would say that, wouldn't I? Any thoughts? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hell, the academic gurus still argue if there were Varangians in Kiev or not :)) Isn't it obvious that any explanation of these events is simply one author's hypothesis and nothing more? everyone is entitled to his version of the past. I'm afraid that an even combination of all major theories is not possible within one text. Looks like a deadlock. NVO (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about the substantive issues and therefore am approaching this strictly from a sourcing direction. Let's set aside the language issue, as well as the availability. First, the English-language history books. These are without any shadow of doubt reliable, especially as they all agree. This viewpoint must be summarised in the encyclopedia. Then the Jaworski article. In its favour is the fact it is more recent (although the other texts are also quite up-to-date). Against it is the fact that it was a supplement to a newspaper, not a book from an academic press, although from its WP article the newspaper seems to be a highly reputable one. Therefore the deciding factor is who Jaworski is. If an academic historian, then this is also an acceptable source and should be summarised alongside the other view. If just a journalist then his opinion is not worth including. If something in between (e.g. if he would be best described as "cultural commentator" or similar), then you have a close call, but I would say include, place second and attribute. HTH. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If they all agree (if!) than their reliability is at question. Any reconstruction of those events is just that, reconstruction of uncertain. There is some mainstream agreement on the main course of events, but the underlying smaller events like 1018 succession always have different explanations in secondary work. Tertiary books are more conservative. NVO (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Historians agreeing upon facts does not throw doubt on the reliability of their books. The English-language books listed by the OP are bona fide historical works, as can be seen from their titles. I have since looked at the article talk page and it seems that discussion about the status of the Jaworski source is ongoing. I hope you can come to a consensus there. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You should know better: I don't have these books at hand; but from the titles is seems that these are tertiary sources (I can hardly imagine a secondary - i.e. scientific - account to appear in Textbooks series). Textbooks must be conservative to be safe. Open the peer-reviewed journal or a university conference pdf, you'll see a zoo of conflicting opinions. NVO (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus view is that university textbooks are excellent sources for this encyclopedia. If there are conflicting academic opinions about this issue, fine. Simply present both views without commenting on which one is correct. It seems that there is a traditional view which some emerging scholarship is challenging. This is quite a common situation and should be easy to present so long as fellow editors can discuss it nicely. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It seems to me that a serious textbook dealing with Kievan Rus wouldn't be worthy of the name if it didn't mention that there were multiple theories on offer, even if only to knock them down. Having gotten a translation of a substantial part of Jaworski's main article, it's depressingly apparent that this is not a case of "emerging consensus". Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of information (FOI) reports - not published, can they be used?

These are documents available under the UK's freedom of information act. They are obtained by application and are not published documents. Can they be used? See Wandsworth Parks Police where a scanned copy of one (presumably) on a web site is being used as a key source. Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If they're not published then they certainly don't meet the criterion of WP:V that sources must be reliable third-party published sources. A scanned FOI document on a personal website would seem to be an especially untrustworthy source, as we have no way of judging the veracity of such a source. Note, though, that an FOI document published on a newspaper's website - something I've seen the Guardian do, for instance - would not be subject to the same concerns, as the newspaper would be undertaking the act of publication and we would be relying on its reputation for accuracy to judge the document's veracity. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They would be the same as any other offline source. Just because they're not "published" doesn't mean they're not available. Anyone can request a copy of the document just as they could go to the library to request a copy of any offline source used in an article.--Crossmr (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Under the terms of the FOIA any document released on the basis of a request could be either published, essentially complete and endorsed by the sponsor, or ephemeral. The implication of each is very different.

I don't see any issue with a source which isn't available online, although I share ChrisOs concern about a scanned version privately hosted.

The guidance in most public sector entities is that the declaration of a record should happen at the point when the document is published, although the provisions of the act don't just restrict release to formal records.

ALR (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Publication" has to mean more than just "availability", though. At the very least it implies that the material in question has been through a proper editorial process and has been made available to a general audience. In the case of government documents, in my experience at least they're very often works distributed to a very limited private audience and very often authorised solely by their author - i.e. with no subsequent editorial oversight. They are, obviously, not meant for a general audience (otherwise you wouldn't need to resort to an FOI request in the first place). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A scan of a document in the public domain could be uploaded to the commons so that all readers have ready access to it. Regardless of where the document is located, it is a primary source and needs to be handled with great care. No article should be based on a primary source. Primary sources are better used to illustrate or provide details for material that is mostly derived from secondary sources. If no secondary sources exist then the issue shouldn't be included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not necessarily primary sources. Often they are reports or reviews.II | (t - c) 23:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Careful wit hterms like public domain, even if released uder FOI, UK governmetn doucmetns are likely still to be under Crown Copyright, so will not be eligible for Commons. David Underdown (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why I drew the distinction between completed documents declared as records and the material which goes towards that. A record could quite easily have been through an extensive review and comment process. As an example something from security policy division in Cabinet Office relating to the vetting process will have been reviewed and commented on by a good dozen or more other departments and have been through three or four rounds of approval before it's released. The working drafts or comments couldn't constitute policy as they're still subject to the process, but once they're declared then that becomes some form of statement; policy, direction, regulation etc. As an example take the procurement strategy for a new desktop infrastructure for DWP. Probably not releasable until after the procurement has been completed, but certainly available after the contract has been awarded, due to EU procurement legislation. That would be reviewed internally, by Treasury, OGC, probably the stakeholders that DWP deals with and any Local Authorities it may impact on.

As an alternative, take an economic appraisal of a developing country within DfID, probably an analytical piece drawing on a range of sources and reviewed by FCO, MoD and DBERR.

Esentially we can't dismiss something just because it's been obtained through the FOI process. Most records will at some stage find their way into the National Archive and at that stage would be considered acceptable.

ALR (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My take is that release doesn't constitute publication. Someone else, to whom it was released, is the publisher, whether The Guardian or Wikinews. For one thing, we need to know what constitutes due weight. We 'fairly represent all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.' Then there's original research. Someone can't just assemble a selection of foia documents from the Air Force and present them as citations for our article about ufos. Someone else needs to assemble the sources, articulate a thesis, and publish a book. Then that book is our source. There's nothing special about FOIA either, as far as I can see. The same reasoning disallows a letter of reply from my congressman, or photocopied land records from the courthouse. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? If the air force has released some information about studies it did into UFO sightings via FOI, aren't they just adding facts to an article? Original research only comes in to play if they're trying to make a case for a particular point of view thats one thing, but if all they are adding is "the air force did study x on y date and yielded z results according to their released FOI documents" that isn't original research.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've confused the issue by dragging in WP:OR. Let me leave that aside. Mailing me something if I ask for it, isn't publication. If it's not published we can't cite it. If The Times has published a collection of primary source documents (FOIA responses, correspondence, whatever), we can cite that, but it's a primary source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're over simplifying it to make it sound bad. I'm not mailing you something. The government is. The origin of the document wouldn't seriously be in question nor would its veracity. Waiting for it to be mailed would be no different than waiting for the inter-library system to provide a book that isn't currently in the building. Unless there is some genuine concern that the FOI might provide different documents or in someway alter different copies of the document I can't see this as being any different than any other primary source which can be used on wikipedia. You're being overly picky about the word "published". The distribution of the document is controlled by a central entity that you can sure would be scrutinized and called to task if it was found to be sending out different copies of the same requested document.--Crossmr (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The origin and veracity of the document certainly would be in question, as would its completeness. No, published means published. This scrutinizing and comparing is what makes a reliable source. We summarize those reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd infer from your previous comments that you're talking about the US FOI regime, although I think there are parallels. In the UK, relevant to the question asked, many of the documents released under the act will have been published by the document owner. as ever we need to be clear about the question being asked, and we can't just block rejet all material released under the act.

Release to the requester isn't publication, it's release of either a record or ephemera. Personally I'd question the use of ephemera but would not discount the use of a record if appropriate.

ALR (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As the person who received the response, I'd just like to point out that I didn't scan it in but that it was emailed to me - small point I know and I doubt it makes any difference either way :p ninety:one 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ALR, thanks, could you explain what a record is in this context? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In this context a record is an item which has been declared into the FOIA compliant records management system. Examples of compliant systems include Documentum and Meridio. Items are declared when they've essentially been completed and published, or have reached some sort of conclusion in the case of an email exchange. Once an item has been declared as a record it is stored in a frozen version and held in accordance with the retention policy and at some point then handed over to the National Archive.

The record is something which will, at some stage, become open source and available to enquirers at the NA. So we're really discussing a lifecycle point.

In the case of the example I used above the procurement strategy would be declared at the point where it reaches Version 1 and is endorsed by the programme board as the basis for a procurement exercise. A subsequent revision would be declared when it reached V2, although the procurement manager may also choose to declare any email exchanges related to the transition from V1 to V2. the email exchange need not be declared, unless local departmental policy requires it. I'd consider the V1 and V2 of the strategy to be usable in an article, but the email exchange probably not usable as it would require some synthesis to make it meaningful whereas the strategy can stand on it's own.

I know there is some ongoing debate around the email issue, declaring versions of web pages used as fixed copies and the retention of chat sessions under the provisions of the Act, but they haven't really reached a conclusion.

Does that make it a little clearer? To be honest implementing FOIA has been a rather lucrative nightmare.

ALR (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to do some reading when I get the chance. Maybe we have to take this case by case. I got into this from the Aspartame section above, and that may have colored my approach. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just glanced at the Aspartame discussion and what I see is the conflation of two issues, which are reflected in this discussion as well; can a released document be used as a source and can a privately hosted rendering of that document be considered as a fair representation. Personally I find the WP drift towards discouting offline sources a bit disturbing, as well as the fallacy of consensus decision making we then compound the flaws of the approach with the fallacy that all required sources will be online. the balance is also drifting far too much towards a contributor categorically proving the source says what it says rather than providing a pointer and anticipating another editor can play a part in the validation process themselves. That said, I do share the distrust of privately hosted renderings.

Notwithstanding all of that discussion, the article in question does appear to be excessively reliant on ephemera, the text is confused, lacks focus. As a result I would suggest that the source is being misused and in this instance is open to interpretation around how it should be exploited.

ALR (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Published means published well let's see what wikipedia's own entry on publishing has to say Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view. Last I checked FOI produces and disseminates (on request) literature or information and its made available for the public to view. There is no conflict between what FOI does and what publish "means"--Crossmr (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] royal sulu

Hi there. I want to know whether the two links below can be considered reliable source per WP:RS. The link can be found in the articles about Sabah and Sabah dispute.

• http://www.epilipinas.com/SabahClaim.htm
• http://www.royalsulu.com/transfer.html

ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[23] epilipinas, no, they're avowing all responsibility for the content on the site. The second one is clearly a primary source and can only be used in the context that a primary source can be used. Articles directly about the subject. In this case an article on the Royal Sulu and his family.--Crossmr (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks crossmr. So i guess the second one would not be RS for the articles regarding Sabah and Sabah dispute, no? ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 11:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, only in articles about the royal family.--Crossmr (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Press releases

When a magazine reprints a company press release, does it become reliable? If it's verbatim there seems at least a reasonable chance that it has not gone through a rigorous fact-check. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. A verbatim re-printing of a press release is more a sign that the magazine is probably not reliable than it is a sign that the press release is an independent reporting of facts. What, specifically are you referring to? Protonk (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to evaluate the reliability of this

• "Jennifer MacLean accepts 38 Studios VP post", Wireless News (England) (2008-03-21). 

where a Google found this, for example, evidently the article referred to, but also this which is clearly the press release the article is based on. In terms of the fact being asserted, it's arguable the press release is more authoritative, after all the company should know whom it has appointed! It's paradoxical that the more copies of the press release appear, the more obvious it is that it is being blindly copied, and the less valuable the sources become. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You can really cite it from wherever you like. WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. However, this is one case where I think that guideline is wrong. If we cite it as a newspaper article we give the unknowing impression that we are attempting to mask the purpose of the content. this obviously doesn't apply to you, since you came here looking for an answer to this question. But, the impression remains. In this case it is probably still best to cite this as a press release, see {{Cite press release}} for a method to do so. In that case, it falls under the WP:SPS portion of WP:V--it may be used to establish non-controversial facts about the subject but not establish notability or make claims about other subjects. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is reliable in its original form as a primary source for a simple fact - the appointment. Read the release. When it boasts "pioneering entertainment company dedicated to delivering a broad spectrum" it's obviously not reliable. When it lists her expected responsibilities and projects it's mostly WP:CRYSTAL and corporate newspeak. But the very fact of appointment is set reliably. Corporations have their own BLP rules so I'm sure it has been doublechecked and agreed with McLean before publishing. NVO (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the fact of the appointment is sourced reliably. I would prefer to see the magazine cited rather than the press release. Trade magazines do often publish press releases verbatim. They may check by phone call to the company or they trust the company because they know it well; in either case the magazine takes responsibility for what it publishes. We had an exchange a few months back about the trade press. Trade publications are usually reliable for the facts about their own industry. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Korean War

User Nierva has repeatedly inserted a paragraph relating to alleged war crimes committed by UN forces in Korea. The issue is, it's being sourced to the KCNA, a highly biased news/propaganda outlet for the North Korean government. Note that the source refers to Americans as "ogres", the US as a "criminal state", the South Korean government as "flunkeyist traitors", and Kim Il Sung as "the great leader".

I am requesting a review of the source to determine whether it can, and in what capacity, be used in the article. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The story summarizes a report from the DPRK Foreign Ministry on mass killings of DPRK GIs during the Korean War. That the story is published on KCNA is not as relevant as the fact that the report is from the DPRK Foreign Ministry. It's worth noting that KCNA is cited in many articles about Korea.

The KCNA is one of the most reliable sources with regard to the situation in Korea. Whether or not the KCNA is biased is irrelevant. The BBC and CNN are quite biased, yet they are cited in many articles. That the citation has been clearly attributed to a party conforms to Wikipedia policies. Unless the view from the other side is given consideration under a section titled "crimes against POWs", it qualifies as propaganda. Nierva (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the source can be used, though not the way Niera is using it in this edit. It appears to be a reliable source for North Korean propaganda and not much else, and a long as it is clearly identified as such, it could be used to illustrate the position of the North Korean government. Whether that position is relevant to the article, and how much WP:WEIGHT to give it, is question I'll pass on. But assuming it is relevant, I think you could incorporate it. Something along the lines of: "The Korean Central News Agency—the state controlled news agency of North Korean, which is frequently antagonistic to the US—claims that the United States and its allies killed at least 33,600 POWs of the Korean People's Army. Tens of thousands more were allegedly wounded or crippled. KCNA says that on May 27, 1952 at least 800 POWs were killed by flame throwers at the 77th camp on Koje Island for rejecting "voluntary repatriation" …" Yilloslime (t) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Color sources

Keraunos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) likes to cite BF2S Colour Guide for color names and RGB coordinates and such. There's a very long list there, so it keeps him busy, and keeps PaleAqua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (and sometimes myself) busy removing them as unreliable sources. It seems to be a gamer's forums site. Any reason to allow it? Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A forum post is not a reliable source. Yilloslime (t) 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the colors displayed on the BF2S Colour Guide closely match the colors in 1930 book A Dictionary of Color by Maerz and Paul when the colors in this book are viewed illuminated by a full spectrum fluorescent lamp--I rigorously conducted a color matching comparison of all the colors on the BF2S Colour Guide with the colors of the same name in the book A Dictionary of Color. A Dictionary of Color was the world standard for color matching before the introduction of computers. Therefore, there is no reason not to use this list as a color source and to regard it as a reliable source. Keraunos (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Doing that matching sounds a lot like original research. Also there are a lot of variables when comparing printed color samples and RGB numbers. For example note that the list at the forum does not specify an RGB space. It appears the list was most from the X11 colors etc. For those the original sources should be used. I'm also worried that we may have a cyclic source problem in that it is possible that some of the numbers in the list came from wikipedia articles. I know I have seen that in the past when tracing through some other similar sources. PaleAqua (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Keraunos, if you can get the results of your rigorous comparison published in a reliable source, we can use it. Otherwise, it's just your OR to back up why you like this forum posting as a source. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I've done some digging. The source of the BF2S color list strongly appears to be Wikipedia itself! Check List of colors from the time of the post. While I'm not sure of the exact date used, this one is pretty close and predates the forum posting. Notice the "*" by the Hex triplets match up with the comments "(There are others, but I chose this one Mkay)". Not only is this an unreliable source, it appears to be cyclic. PaleAqua (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. Looks like this diff by Keraunos, adding rose (color) in late Sept. 2006 (consistent with the forum posting 1 yr and 11 months ago) is the last color change that made it into the list. Keraunos of course wasn't using it as a source at that time, and made lots more subsequent unsourced changes that do not show up in the BF2S list. But now he's got rose sourced to that list that copied him. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are about 86 pages] that cite "BF2S color guide", including many in non-English wikipedia. Is there any good way to pass the word about the need to remove these bogus citations? Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a rollback of Keraunos's last few dozen additions that undid PaleAqua's removals, now that it's clear. There are still lots more. Dicklyon (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

I'm having a bit of a problem in an article. Currently, I'm trying to get Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, up to GA status, at least. Currently, there is a source being used to cite the Development section, a fansite called "thelostworlds.net".

I am perfectly aware fansites are not valid sources. However, audio files available at the fansite, taken from the game engine, indicate the content is genuine content from the game that was removed. Furthermore, while various other sites note the same material, to the best of my knowledge there is no "official" site that covers these materials. Thus, I'd like to know if any of these websites count as reliable sources, so that I can perhaps cite one of them instead of thelostworlds. These are the other sites I've found that provide the information being cited.

- thelostworlds
- Moby Games
- The Gaming Intelligence Agency

Would any of these three sites be reliable sources? Or, if not, is there some sort of acception or appeal that can be made, since as mentioned, no official sources covers the materials? In other words, if I can't cite one of these three, the sections would go unsourced. The Clawed One (talk)

If I am to understand you, you are asking if you can cite thelostworlds to establish that there was content on the master disc but not playable (sort of like the actual ending to KOTOR II was on the disc but not playable)?

Why is the third site linked to as a mirror?

I think moby games' trivia bits are user generated, so no for that one. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the third site is, honestly. Moby Games, check. And yes, that's the situation, there was a lot of content cut from the game that isn't covered by official sources. The Clawed One (talk)

Hmmmm. I'll get back to you on the 'game media bit in a minute or so. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Take a look at Hot Coffee minigame controversy for some idea on how you might cite a claim about this. They cite the original modder on his website (arguably a pretty reasonable decision) for the claim that the 'hack' was a one bit change in an easily accessible file. That's sort of analogous here. Try rewording the sentence to something like "Ben Lincoln asserts that blah" or "ben lincoln discovered blah about game sound files". It's a start. I'm inlined to say that all three probably aren't reliable, but I'm sure there is a middle ground. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if that works for future editors. Thanks.

No..you'd need to establish the person asserting that is reliable and notable. Otherwise why are we referencing their opinion. Fansites are not reliable. They're self-published/hosted and don't have editorial oversight, control, guarantee, etc. If the only place you can cite it is a fan site, it doesn't belong in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's accurate. I guess I'm assuming that the issue itself (the game having content that was kept out of the release version) is covered in a reliable source and the fan site is used for fleshing out details. I haven't looked at the wikipedia article in question, so I don't know. Protonk (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No because we're still using the fansite as a reliable source. We only cover the information contained in the reliable sources. A reliable source covering some aspect isn't a license to go and use a bunch of unreliable sources to add more info about that aspect. The reliable source both provides a back for the information AND establishes what information is notable enough to cover in the encyclopedia. We might describe something in a little more detail (the reliable source says a car is in the game) we might describe that the car is black and has 4 wheels and is shaped like a 2007 mustang, with a white stripe down the middle (using the game as a primary source) but that's it. A fansite can only be used as a primary source in an article about the fansite.--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So what do I do then? The fansite is a vital source that can't be replaced by another. If there was a reliable source to use I'd use it, but there isn't. So what do I do? Also, the site isn't a collection of the guy's opinions and whatnot. - there are areas like that, but they're clearly marked as such on the site and are not being sourced. What the site is a collection of deleted materials from the game series as a whole, hosted by Ben Lincoln. The content that is being sourced is directly from the game itself, and is just being showcased by the site. The Clawed One (talk)

Then you write the article without that aspect and cover only what is in the actual reliable sources. Just because you want to include certain information that isn't covered in a reliable source doesn't mean you get to ignore policy to put the information in. Just because we all like video games, internet memes and trends and various other pursuits doesn't mean we get give them a pass on policies and guidelines that other articles have to adhere to. We might link that site in the external links, where people can go read more. But we can't put any information in the article based on it. We only have Ben Lincoln's word that this material was deleted in the game and that he's left it intact and not altered it. He's not a reliable source so we can't just take his word for it. --Crossmr (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DataTreasury

We would like to know... Is The Politico a reliable source? Is this The Politico article a reliable enough source for this edit [24] that includes negative allegations about living people? Other reliable sources for the information have been looked for, but nothing found. Thanks in advance for your help. --Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about The Politico, but I did a search on Factiva and found this:

"Financial industry allies have seized upon Ballard's political activities and his hiring of high-priced Washington lobbyists John D. Raffaelli and Ben Barnes as evidence of his hardball tactics. They also point to the 1991 conviction of DataTreasury's CEO DeLucia for his role in the robbery of an armored car" (US Sen Sessions Retracts Support For His Patent Reform Measure, By Patrick Yoest Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES,10 April 2008 - Dow Jones International News)

I don't know about the reliability of Dow Jones International News either though, but it is something. --Commander Keane (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, either, but Dow Jones & Company owns it. Protonk (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kirsten Storms Engagement

Someone left me a talk comment because I'm in a edit war with AltCrash. They left that user the same comment and they simply deleted it and went back to editing it with false information.

The user, AltCrash keeps editing the page to say that Kirsten Storms is engaged to Elias Reidy. Even tho Kirsten herself has said she is not engaged. The reason for this is because a friend of Stacey Winter, who is married to Ronnie Winter posted it on the Red Jumpsuit board. (http://theredjumpsuit.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=discussion&action=display&thread=2691) that he proposed for her birthday. But, Kirsten herself said that she is not engaged in a article that came out in late June (http://i31.tinypic.com/263gdg8.png) I know, that it could be said that she doesn't want fans to know, but in the thread, the friend says that she is sure that they don't mind fans knowing. So it is false. A spokesperson for GH even stated in a Daytime Emmy Article, which happened in mid June, that the rumors are simply rumors. SpoiledTink (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• What is your question? Protonk (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Which source is more reliable? SpoiledTink (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neither is reliable. One is a scan of an article in some unknown magazine, the other is a forum posting. If we knew which magazine that was, we could just cite the magazine and it might be reliable (depending on what it was). Protonk (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The image has a date and web address showing it to be ABC Soaps in Depth magazine, July 14, 2008. Not exactly The New Yorker, but it's certainly better than a friend-of-a-friend forum posting, which is completely inadmissable as a source per WP:SPS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air Combat Group RAAF

Kopp, Carlo. "RAAF strike force merge". Retrieved on June 15, 2008.

I was wondering whether this link is reliable for the article it is being used in (linked above). CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 22:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am renewing this as it was removed with no comments and archived. CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It was archived automatically. Sorry that no one got to you. WP:SPS covers sources like this pretty neatly. If the author of the work is a figure in the industry who is otherwise reliable, then we can accept that the work produced there would be reliable in his specific discipline. the author appears to be published in the field but he is clearly not a leader in the field. Furthermore, although he is very accomplished within the field of aviation, he doesn't appear to be professionally involved with the F-111. Tl;dr is yes, but keep an eye out for something better. Protonk (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Denial of the Holodomor

-library science is not a reliable source in this respect [25] claims Relata refero regarding
Denial of the Ukrainian famine (1933) according to:

• Evolution in Reference and Information Services By Di Su, Jessica Tan Gudnason, Di Ed; p. 137 ISBN 9780789017239
  
• Legitimacy and Force By Jeane J. Kirkpatric; p. 80 ISBN 9780887386466
  

and keeps removing the fact and the sources from the article. Any thoughts?

Also, once this is here are sources like for example:

• The Soviet Union dismissed all references to the famine as anti-Soviet propaganda. Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power and the Soviet empire disintegrated @ Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity By Dinah Shelton; Page 1055 ISBN 0028658485
• After over half a century of denial, in January 1990 the Communist Party of Ukraine adopted a special resolution admitting that the Ukrainian Famine had indeed occurred, cost millions of lives... Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts - Page 93

reliable sources that would define the subject unlike Relata refero claims the article is a violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:NPOV?

Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, I checked the talk page, and you seem to be mentioning a great deal of things that are unrelated to RR's comment about one specific source being inadequate for this purpose. Broadly speaking, RR's complaint - and it looks reasonable, on a first look, to me - is that the article is written such that it labels any failure to conform to a maximalist, intentionalist vision of the Ukranian famine of 1933 as an orchestrated master plan of genocide as "Holodomor Denial," a concept that does not seem to be well-defined or subject to serious academic study. It is as if someone were to write an article called "Iraq Sanctions Denial" about people who say that the UN sanctions on Iraq did not kill 1/2 million people; yes, the best evidence would seem to indicate that this indeed happened, and two consecutive UN Humanitarian Co-ordinators for Iraq resigned in protest of this "genocide," but that doesn't mean that "Iraq Sanctions Denial" is suddenly a notable topic and that people who say the evidence is unclear or Saddam is mainly to blame can be labeled as "Iraq Sanctions Deniers." <eleland/talkedits> 03:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically you're saying the article has notability issues? Please also comment on the question about the sources above. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than notability per se, I am concerned that there has been some POV-forking, or that there is a potential for POV-forking. It might be better to reabsorb the denial article and the genocide question article back into the main article on the Holodomor. Keeping such articles within a sensible length usually helps with maintaining NPOV and does not detract at all from the importance of the events. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Termer, Relata is correct. The first reference above is to a book dealing with library science and more specifically the impact of the internet on information services. This is not a reliable source for a contentious piece of Soviet/Ukrainian history. That much is clear. The second source, which clearly Relata was not directly referring to in his "library science"{ comment, is from a book by Jeane Kirkpatrick, who seems to be well known for her anticommunist polemics. She may have held a PhD but in 1988 when the book was published she had long been entrenched in the front lines of Cold War politics, and should be very hesitantly used to source contentious aspects of Soviet history. That should also be rather obvious.PelleSmith (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Itsmejudith might have some valid points and in case WP:Consensus can be reached about it, why not to keep all Holodomor related subjects in one article. I'd be open to that. However, I brought the books here to validate the reliability of the sources in the context, not that much what to do about the article in general. That I think would be a separate discussion that everybody could give their input in the relevant talk page.

Regarding J. Kirkpatric being "in the front lines of Cold War politics" according to PelleSmith, that is a statement that would need some clear sourcing on its own I think. Has Kirkpatric been referred to by any other scholars as not being a reliable author who has promoted fringe theories about Soviet history or anything like that?--Termer (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I linked her entry in the hope that you might actually read it. She was a foreign policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and an outspoken critic of communism as a political figure. In terms of the Soviet Union, as far as I can tell, she was a polemicist and not a scholar. Where are her qualifications as a Russian or Ukrainian historian? We don't need an emphatic statement by another scholar about something that is this obvious. There are several writers who have PhDs and/or have taught at respectable Universities who also should not be used as reliable sources in areas that directly relate to their highly politicized public life - especially without any evidence that they have any academic expertise in these areas.PelleSmith (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in relation to the first two sources, Relata is quite right that the first relates to library science, not to history. Also, the second is not a mainstream historical work. History articles should be sourced from books and articles by qualified and practising historians, published in academic journals or books from academic presses. Their authors will usually have worked directly with the primary sources and will be competent users of the relevant language(s). I doubt whether Kirkpatrick was working in that way. Her writing would probably be a good source for commentary on current affairs or recent foreign policy, but not for unpicking events that happened decades ago and that professional historians are struggling to understand. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, including PelleSmith' points that Kirkpatric would be more like a primary source that would be valid only for citing a POV on the subject rather than a secondary source that an article on WP should be based on. How about the 3rd and 4th book in the context?--Termer (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3 and 4 are both RS. Only one caveat, that you avoid giving prominence to any points that these sources only mention in passing. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Court Documents - are they reliable sources or not?

On the Tucker Max article, the court documents involved in a legal escapade were added to the article by an editor. Another editor removed the documents, claiming that they were first party sources and thus not valid sources. I couldn't find any information about the validity of court documents on the Reliable Sources page, so I'm asking here. Here are direct links to the six court documents cited. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. McJeff (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Insofar as the court clerk and the lawyers for either party don't do official fact checking, they are not reliable sources. Furthermore, requests for relief are fundamentally rhetorical documents--they are written to convince the reader of a proposition. there are limits to the extent this can be taken, but the short takeaway is that a reading of that document for a neutral, factual encyclopedia would require a level of editorial discretion we don't practice. We may consider them as primary documents for a subject, but WP:BLP would severely limit how we use those sources. Basically, no. I can think of a very small set of possible situations where it would be acceptable to use those documents, but most cases it would be inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

the article has been cleaned up a bit, although the court case PDFs are still being used as sources. would you mind taking a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Max#Legal_troubles and letting us know if the sources are still being used inappropriately? they look ok to me now, but they are still primary sources. (diff: [[32]]) thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the right way to cover this story. If it is a notable case, it will have been reported in the mainstream newspapers. Cite the newspaper articles, not the court documents directly. If it isn't in any newspaper, then it probably isn't a notable case. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fansites and official transcripts

I'm bringing this to RS as its likely to get far more attention and generate a wider consensus. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Fansites. There is a stalled discussion on the use of fansites to host official transcripts. The logic seems to be that even though the fansite is an unreliable source, if we want to cite a transcript of something and there is no official source, a fansite is a perfectly acceptable source. Personally I feel if the site is unreliable we can't trust them to host reliable things (whatever that is, exactly how do we prove to the reader that we consider what the fansite is hosting is reliable). I think this is a bit of an extension of the youtube debate above (but not about a particular issue as that one seems to be). As a community do we feel unreliable sources can host reliable things?--Crossmr (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is a transcript in this context? --Commander Keane (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to an issue he has with this policy of the Video game project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Fansites

Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Fansites--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I included that in my original post. I made no attempt to hide it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well seemingly anything, there is a section on the main project page that indicates what they mean by this: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Fansites which includes the text A notable exception to this rule exists. When a fansite is publishing third party information that is reliable, but is not available elsewhere, or only in video or audio format, it may be cited. For example, a transcript of the text of a cut scene may only be available on a fansite. In this case, cite the video game (see below), and include a link like "Transcript" to the fansite containing the transcript. Do not cite the fansite itself as source. They're trying to say Don't cite the fansite but including the link like that is as good as saying that content hosted on the fansite is reliable. Otherwise, why are we linking to it? I bring this up because I ran into a situation on a now deleted article where for months a fansite was trying to push a name of a character into the wikipedia article where the only basis for inclusion was transcripts hosted on their site which gave the character a name. The creator never used the name of the character in the flash comic. If we're sourcing something primary like something in a video game that's fine, but putting up transcripts on unreliable sources doesn't seem like a good idea to me.--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK if by transcripts we are just talking about quotes from games, it seems to me the only time you can use a transcript is when it is quoted in a reliable source. The entire WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Fansites section looks wrong to me, I can understand using a fansite that quotes a magazine as a stepping stone, by linking to the fansite until someone can access the magazine but that is the only legitimate use of a fansite (and it is tenuous at best). If you don't rely on reliable sources for quotes of games, then what is to stop you placing 5000 words of quotes into the article - reliable sources help control the content of Wikipedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not entirely sure we'd want to link that fansite quote in the article (as you say very tenuous). It might be brought up on the talk page to indicate that such content exists in a magazine at which point someone could access it and verify it for use in the article. We have no requirement nor want to have unreliable sites copy text out of offline sources for other articles, so I don't see why video games have such a special need.--Crossmr (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• As written, the problem doesn't seem open and shut. We can't force wikipedians to not use fansites in their research, so we can't actually mandate that game information come from the game rather than from a web-available transcript. So, on face, we would want people to cite where they got it, if only to weed out what is cited from an unreliable source. As for the 'policy' question, this is thorny as well. If the fansite made the transcript, then it isn't reliable, period. But if the fansite is merely a host for an "official" transcript, then this is harder to judge. People may upload fakes, altered transcripts, or otherwise give us pause in believing the "official" bit. But the nature of the web blurs the lines. On balance I am going to say that we shouldn't be citing fansite hosted transcripts, but that if an editor is doing so right now, we shouldn't tell them "stop, just cite the game", because they may just write down a citation for the game and continue reading off the transcript. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  if only to weed out what is cited from an unreliable source, since fansites are not reliable if one is cited that means we should remove the information?--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  Not precisely. Well, I mean yes, but preferably the material would be verified against the original game and the cite changed. I raised that issue primarily because a project guideline forbidding fansite transcript citations might just have the effect of causing people to read off the transcript and cite the game. Maybe you guys can write up an inline tag for that sort of articles placing it in a category of "articles awaiting transcript verification" or something. That way you can say "Fansite transcripts aren't reliable, but if that is what you are reading, cite that and place X tag on it. someone will verify it against the game and fix the cite." But that's just a thought. Protonk (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  I think there is a tag for "verify source" or something like that. Perhaps that tag combined with a talk page entry would suffice to indicate it was taken from there and someone should verify it in-game.--Crossmr (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, you have some pretty clever folks over at the VG project. I'm sure someone can whip up a local "verify transcript" template that is specific to your needs so that you can manage a much smaller category than Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification, which is rather large. You could even ask someone to gin up an external link parser that checks where the most popular fansites are links from VG articles and apply the tag yourself. Just spitballing here. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lewrockwell.com

Besides Lew Rockwell, more than 350 of our articles link to lewrockwell.com (list at User:Tom harrison/rockwell-links.) How many of these are appropriate and useful? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm cross posting this at the Wikiproject econ. This is part of an ongiong dispute over the influence of the austrian school in our articles. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Lewrockwell.com also houses AIDS denialist material and is frequently cited by our small but committed group of AIDS-denialist editors. I have no idea about the econ articles, where I suppose it might be a borderline usable source in some circumstances, but I'll go through and look for areas where it's being cited outside that scope. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It is probably being cited well outside of its weight in econ sections to. the econ project has a long running issue with Austrian sources (which are almost all hosted free of charge online) being used in article where their connection to the mainstream is vanishingly tenuous. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec) Mmmm... an WP:SPS used so widely in articles other than the author? That is very concerning. Given the long number of links it will take concerted effort to clean up. I will lend a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the link in Fractional-reserve banking is exactly the sort of thing we (the econ project) need to agree is not appropriate at all. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
        • It's an interesting test case: I perceive it as a school of thought which has a major Internet and Wikipedia presence out of proportion to its actual significance among experts in the field. We run into this problem fairly often in the medical/alt-medical articles. Wikipedia tends to over-cover such topics, because a handful of editors committed to adding their pet material across multiple articles will generally overwhelm a handful of general-purpose editors interested in a balanced representation. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the articles linking to lewrockwell.com include Winston Churchill, Zora Neal Hurston, Inoculation, Elvis Presley, and Caffeine. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Eeee. I just finished cleaning up our links to mercola.com, which was referenced from a similarly broad (and inappropriate) range of articles. I'll look at these a bit later today. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked for it in the caffeine article. Can't find a LewRockwell cite. Your list is probably outdated. Is there a tool which generates a list like this? II | (t - c) 17:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's even worse, the lewrockwell.com link at Elvis Presley is to an article by Gary North. Doubly bad. ImperfectlyInformed, here's what you want [33] Doug Weller (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in the Caffeine article, you need to do Edit on the whole article and search it. I've left it as I don't have time to do a rewrite right now which taking the url out would probably require. Doug Weller (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continental Freemasonry in North America

Full disclosure: I know very little about freemasonry. That being said, I was recently drawn into a discussion about this by a post at the BLP noticeboard in regards to the now redirected Grand Orient of the United States of America, a relatively new Masonic grouping. Consensus on the article talk page seemed to be emerging that the article should be redirected to Continental Freemasonry, but the original author decided to redirect to a new article called Continental Freemasonry in North America. I object to just about every source in the article as a reliable source. The bulk of the sources are simply links to homepages of various masonic lodges or groupings in North America, such as Le Droit Humain and Grand Orient of the United States. These are certainly fine external links that prove these lodges exist, but, in my opinion, do not constitute reliable, secondary sources. The only sources that do not come from a specific lodges website are masonicinfo.com, an anti-freemasonry website that doesn't seem reliable at all to me, and freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com, a blog maintained by Christopher Hodapp. Are any of these sources actually reliable? AniMate 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

These are not in general reliable secondary sources, except Hodapp's weblog is okay for some things per WP:SPS. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nightingale Research Foundation

There's an ongoing discussion about if the following book is a reliable source regarding chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS):

Nightingale Research Foundation; Goldstein, Jay E.; Byron M. Hyde (1992). The Clinical and scientific basis of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Ogdensburg, N.Y: Nightingale Research Foundation. ISBN 0-9695662-0-4. 

It's is apparently a self-published source, but the primary editor, Byron Hyde, has published regards CFS. Here is his biography from the publisher of the book (Nightingale Research Foundation). I believe the problem is that the position that there is a difference between CFS and myalgic encephalomyelitis is a minority position. I don't have the details but I figured a posting here would hopefully deal with the complaints on the various talk pages. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The publication, which I have read from beginning to end, contains the proceedings of the first international ME conference, some 75 full-size and richly sourced articles in total. The difference between ME and CFS is not discussed in this publication at all; CFS didn't get into fashion until a couple of years later; the book does however contain the article in which CFS was introduced.

The book was published by the Nightingale Research Foundation, not by the editor. The foundation has since carried on ME research as one of the few research institutes to do so. This book is with distance the single most quoted work on ME, and is known by the nickname 'Bible of ME'. It gives a complete overview of all knowledge about the disease at the time in some 750 pages A4, with over a hundred contributors and historical pictures of them all. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the correct reference is: Byron M. Hyde (ed.) (1992), "The Clinical and Scientific Basis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome", The Nightingale Research Foundation, Ottawa, Canada with editorial and conceptual advice from Levine P and Goldstein J., ISBN 0-9695662-0-4 Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nightingale Researching Foundation published the book. Byron Hyde founded the foundation and runs it. Byron Hyde is the editor of the book. So Byron Hyde is editor and publisher. Authoritative works are usually published by a not vanity press. You don't usually have to set up your own press to publish something when it has quality. That's why Wikipedia has a thing about self pub. This is a self publication spreading a medical fringe view. RetroS1mone talk 02:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The foundation already existed years before the publication of this book. It helped organize the conference, and was asked by the attending experts to publish the proceedings. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WLU that there is a problem with this work. As has been demonstrated on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome, most researchers regard ME as a form of CFS. The whole subject is dominated by intense debate that has gone sour on quite a few occasions (not just on Wikipedia). This book represents a small fringe of researchers who insist that ME is distinct from CFS. It has no standing in the academic literature on the subject, to the point that a recent literature review that quoted from it extensively (PMID 1693596) was inaccessible on the journal website for months, reportedly because it was receiving additional editorial scrutiny. It is unfortunate that Guido has been unable to find a more representative source for his perspective. JFW | T@lk 05:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The 100+ contributors to the book are all highly credited experts in the field, including Acheson, Bell, Buchwald, Goldstein, Hickie, Holmes, Komaroff, Levine, Lloyd, Peterson, Ramsay, Richardson and Suhadolnik, all of which you have no problem refering to outside this book. These contributors wrote the articles as well as the conclusions on behalf of what is now the IACFS/ME, not Hyde. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still a self published book. Expert contributors will have stuff in fact checked and reliable sources. Find those sources, use those sources not the non rs self pub. RetroS1mone talk 12:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the researchers I mentioned are no experts? That is interesting. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The book is also 18 years old. If it is the most recent source that represents the ideas advanced in the book, that suggests that there is very little mainstream interest in it's contents and therefore it would be undue weight to place much emphasis or text on it. If the ideas promulgated by the book were not developed in the past 18 years, this suggests that mainstream interest died shortly after it's publication. If interest persisted, the book is useful as a historical text but the more current references should be used to expand the relevant pages. Indeed, as suggested on the CFS talk page, recent publications (2008) by researchers suggests that ME and CFS are considered interchangeable, with an overall preference for CFS (though always with the mention of ME and a notation that it is an alternative name for CFS). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles still refer to the real Bible, which is even a bit older. Let's discuss only reliability here, shall we? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Only about what the Bible says, certainly not for, say the origins of the earth, animals and humans. That's a logical fallacy because it implies that the Bible is used for verification of scientific information. The Bible is not, it is used for historical and cultural information and even then, if it is contradicted by archeology the archeology wins (Jericho#Walls_of_Jericho for example). On the other hand, The Clinical and scientific basis... is being used to verify scientific information, so the age, publisher and general acceptance is very relevant. You have failed to address the ultimate question here - how accepted is the book by the scholarly majority? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huffington Post, AJC, & E&P

It seems that the issue is now the reliability (aka bias) of the two sources, among others in the never ending dispute over sources on Criticism of Bill O'reilly page. I have already argued successfully that blogs (non self-published) can be valid sources (as seen in WP:V), after the recent discussion diverged from a WP:EL claim (which is completely unfounded, as it was a cite, not a External Link), and now is on the reliability of the two sources. While Huffington Post probably has been discussed already (and already discussed on the talk page of the article), I would like it reviewed, in addition to Editor and Publisher, as reliable sources. Huffington Post specifically to end the issue, and Editor and Publisher because I don't know anything about it and it was raised as a issue. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC) edit Sorry for the edit, but can this be added: Atlantic Journal Constitution as the objections seems to have changed (as they always seem) from those two (which were what the section was originally about) to this one and another? I don't know anything about the Atlantic Journal Constitution. And, would you know a link to where Huffington Post was discussed? I don't have the time to find it/don't know where it would be. I'll remember to not use it in the future, except for specific cases (ex. criticism) and to identify it clearly. Thank you.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Huffpo has been discussed before. It's my personal opinion that the site is not really reliable. they run wire service reports, minimal self produced news and lots of opinion pieces. they don't distinguish well between opinion pieces and news pieces and even the news pieces have a political slant. In short, the only way for something to be reliable from huffpo is if the writer is independently well regarded on a subject. So Sam Nunn on non-proliferation, etc. Otherwise, no. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• E&P is a little different. their job is coverage of media and they do it fairly well. they have been accused of bias from the left and the right, which means they are doing an ok job in my book. I don't know how they treat their online postings (for some reason I can't get to a link), but material that appears in the print journal is reliable. They may have a left leaning bias, but someone would need to confirm that with a source before applying that qualifier to fact or opinion cited to them. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)