Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
General help
Report abuse
Request assistance
Noticeboards
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.


Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

Contents


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

[edit] Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski as a reliable source

Is Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski a reliable source in history articles? List of WP articles that cite him: [1]. He is not a historian by training; the advantage of being an amateur is the lack of professional accountability. Sample statements from his website: "The author, Jeff Sarlet is so far the only journalist who succeeded in documenting the activities of the hidden elite, headquartered in Arlington, on the outskirts of Washington DC, “The Family,” at the core of American fundamentalist Protestant power, was originally created along the lines of European fascism in 1935 by Abraham Vereide, who organized the wealthy internationalist elite...They have had an enormous impact on the beliefs of Americans in the 20th century and on U.S. imperialist policy in the 21st century, through their secret machinations which have been unsuspected by most Americans." [2]. Yikes. Novickas (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that citations of this author could be reliable or not. They would have to be evaluated individually. For example, who published the book or article? If it is a publisher with a good reputation for fact checking and overall academic quality, that would support reliability. On the other hand, his essay on his own website, such as the one you posted the diff for, is self-published and therefore not reliable as a source - unless he is clearly a notable expert as recognized by other reliable sources. That does not appear to be the case but would need more research to determine for sure. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider him a reliable source for controversial material. The statement given above is the sort of extraordinary statements that requires extraordinarily reliable sourcing. Is it typical of his site? If so, it's enough to discredit it based on internal evidence. I do not like the sources cited in the article on him to establish his reliability, as they do not seem to be published reviews, but rather blurbs, where even good academics sometimes say something nice about anything they get sent a copy of. . We should try to find some actual reviews of his work, or document where the ones listed have been published. If no academic journal has reviewed his book, that too would indicate something. It's worth doing, for the book has been used a number of times in Wikipedia.DGG (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://townhall.com/

How reliable is this site? --neon white talk 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mixed... parts are reliable, and parts are not. Much will depend on exactly what you are trying to use the source to support. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The site is mostly opinion columns. It looks like the columnists are mostly mainstream and respected, but they provide opinion, not investigative journalism. They're facts are usually going to be correct, but not always. Since they are simply offering opinion on news they've read, you should be able to find a better source for any information you find there. So if you find something on that site that you think is worth mentioning, it's probably correct information but you should really search for that same information from another source - and if the information is correct you should have no trouble finding it. Readin (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The news is usable (almost all from AP, in fact.) And news makes up a lot of the site. Since the articles are AP, they are citable. They are not "simply offering opinion on news they've read." Opinions are ... opinions, and generally marked as such. When citing them, treat them as opinion. Townhall.com is more reliable than Salon, not as reliable as The NY Times. But even the NY Times can be unreliable -- what you are claiming in a RS is that the facts are generally right and subject to editorial oversight. If you look for AP, you will likely find the exact same articles. Collect (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Collect is right. I missed that there were news articles on the page. The columnists have a significant presence and should be treated as I described above. But the news articles are as reliable as their source. Readin (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
But AP's own site, or their links to papers which republish the articles, are preferable; readers should not have to make this analysis before accepting the source as reliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music genre cofounder and website

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The radio production company is Hearts of Space established 25 years ago (35 including the original Music From the Hearts of Space show on KPFA). HoS was historically played on more than 250 USA public radio stations on a scale of 500. This 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle description of Stephen Hill's expertise reads:
"Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago, hosts the "Music From the Hearts of Space" music program, syndicated on 250 National Public Radio stations, including San Francisco's KALW 91.7 FM, which airs two hours of the program at 10 p.m. Sundays. In addition, Hill's Hearts of Space Web site (www.hos.com) provides streaming access to an archive of hundreds of hours of spacemusic artfully blended into one-hour programs combining ambient, electronic, world, New Age and classical music."

The claim as I understand it (maybe I don't), is that a justified primary source reclassification, along with other sources properly reclassified as primary, would cause a synthesis/OR violation in the article titled Space music. The further result would be that the cofounder's detailed analysis, opinions, and other website information would be mostly removed from the article about the genre he cofounded.

The campaigning editor says his most contentious objection is that the name of the genre is a "commercial entity's branding drive". Presumably, he objects strongly to a previously unnoticed form of commercial spam in the Wikipedia article, and a great wrong should be righted by minimizing it. If I correctly understand it, I can only describe this position as extremist.

Spacemusic genre is a case of limited circle fame. Its current USA public radio fans are thinly scattered, but dedicated to its support through public radio fund drives. Its niche music sales amount to less than 1% of the commercial market, so very little is written about spacemusic in major USA music publications dependent on commercial advertising.

(The rest of the 102 Space music sources to be considered for reclassification as primary, and then removed for synthesis/OR, should be handled separately to avoid noticeboard overload.)
Milo 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose all this would give some reason for caution in using these sources, and particularly a reason to be careful to try to double-source things and to give all sides where sources disagree, but it sounds to me like Hill would be a perfectly reasonable source. Where he is writing about his own work in fostering the genre, or about his own show, he's primary. Where he's writing about the musicians in the genre, it would seem to me that he is secondary, just like any music critic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jmabel on all three points - multiple sources are always recommended when there are differing published views on a topic. On the primary/secondary question - Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show. On third-party topics such as music styles, record albums, musicians, the radio and music business, etc, he'd be a secondary source. I'd say that within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear about the encyclopedia-margins deletionist effect of what you are both saying:

Stephen Hill and his Hearts of Space website were previously treated as expert-based secondary sources via WP:V(WP:SPS). The Wikipedia art/music reasoning has previously been that the founder of an art/music genre knows subjectively more about what he/she created than anyone else as a matter of expert opinion. You are changing that.

What a secondary source says can be combined in a point-by-point source-provable editorial analysis. In this case, since there are so few other mainstream sources, many or most of them are presently combined with Hill's previous secondary source expertise to write the article.

But a primary source has fewer rights in an article than a secondary source. What a primary source says cannot be combined with other sources for a standard article editorial analysis, even if every point made by article editors can be proved through analysis of the primary sources.

Art/music experts normally have secondary source rights under WP:V(WP:SPS). You are now removing Hill's secondary source rights, so you are in effect declaring that he is not an expert on the genre he founded. (Yes, you deny that, but the denial is cosmetic.) Since he is no longer an expert on his own work, his dominant presence in an article about his own creations constitutes undue weight, which can be removed by his opponents (and as already declared, will be removed by the campaigning editor).

The big names in creativity won't be affected at Wikipedia, but if one's creative work is notable, yet limited circle famous with few mainstream sources, this appears to be a significant deletionist change at the margins of Wikipedia. The effect is that a marginal creator's expertise is henceforth trumped by a marginal rival's expertise. I assume that hundreds of articles will eventually be affected as the art/music opponent class finds out they can now marginalize their rivals by de-experting and de-weighting them through primary sourcing.

Are you sure you want to go there? Milo 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what I meant. I'm surprised you interpreted it that way, did I write so unclearly? I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above. He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography. I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(Roe 03:05): "did I write so unclearly?"
What you wrote first was (Roe 20:14): "Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show..." and "...within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source."
There's a contradictory overlap between those two statements. Since the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres is mostly defined by his radio show, your 20:14 statement causes Hill to be mostly removed from the genre article due to a newly-defined lack of secondary source expertise about his own radio show (using the Milo 00:49 reasoning above).
What you wrote second was (Roe 03:05): "He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography."
Ok, that works if we define "personal life" as those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work.
(Roe 03:05): "I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above." ... "I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question."
Reliable secondary source creative expertise includes more than writings. The campaigning editor has made an issue out of Hill's verbally broad definition of the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres, which includes segue assemblies of certain slow-paced contemplative pieces found within up to 30 standard genres. The only exact definition of "spacemusic" is the collective example of 850+ archived shows created by Hill's expertise, along with his late cofounder Anna Turner and his production associates.
Per the top question, does Hill's reliable secondary source expertise also cover his HoS.com website that may include publishing the writings of others? Hos.com holds the 850+, 25-year Hearts of Space radio show archive, and its historic playlist server is used to help determine the notability of "spacemusic" genre-of-genre artists. Is HoS.com, a reliable secondary source? Milo 07:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, maybe the way I wrote my first reply there could have been some ambiguity, so I have gone back and modified it to change an "and" to a period, to better split the two separate ideas I was noting. I hope that makes it more clear. As I've tried to say, my view is that Hill is a notable expert and reliable source. I would apply that to his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists. I re-read the spacemusic article tonight and I don't see any problem with the way Hill or his radio program are referenced in the article. I'm basing that view on what I've learned about Hill and the radio show since this inquiry was posted, and on my understanding of the policies. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[Note: the article version as of the above date was Space Music 18:38, 14 November 2008.]

The problem is that "space music" is not a musical genre and Hearts of Space did not invent it. The term existed for decades before the 1970s - and particularly in Europe has a very specific association with Kosmische musik - and not the sort of contemplative music broadcast by Hearts of Space in the United States. None of this is currently appropriately weighted within the article - which overabundantly relies on HOS as a primary source.
In the context of the Hearts of Space radio show, "space music" is merely the catch-all marketing term uniquely applied by the show's producers to all of the broadly low-key, relaxational, contemplative music which they typically broadcast - irrespective of genre; much of it is ambient, New Age or electronic, and the rest rest is classical, cool jazz, celtic, world or contemporary instrumental music.
It is important to note that while many other radio programmers, music retailers and music reviewers also make use of the term "space music" - none of them use it in the same over-arching manner that HOS does.
The suggestion that "space music" is 'exactly defined' by a set of playlists from a single radio show (HOS) is not only original research, for which no citable sources exist - it is complete raving nonsense. Musical genres are defined by characteristics inherent to the form and structure of music itself; they are not simply conjured out of thin air by radio producers.
A piece of classical music by Arvo Part does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A jazz piece by Jan Garbarek does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A piece of celtic-inspired music by Clannad does does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show.
Thus, while the HOS website is a reliable primary source for data about the radio show, the various musical genres from which it's producers draw, and the producers' opinions and philosophical approach to music - it is not and cannot be the sole primary source for the entire article subject - which should properly be about a lot more than merely the self-descriptive terminology one radio show uses to broadly characterise its "sound" - further to which it is entirely inappropriate to liberally cite the show's playlists throughout the article as if the mere fact of doing so "proves" that "every piece of music that's ever been played on Hearts of Space is part of a musical genre called 'space music' ".
Such an asertion is specious and misleading, and it - and any variations of it - simply cannot be insinuated into the WP article on this subject. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
When there are multiple reliable sources that disagree, that does not change the reliability of each individual source. In that kind of situation it's important to mention the various viewpoints and not focus only on one, as noted in the neutral point of view policy. Attribution can help to provide context between multiple reliable sources that differ. That said, most of the above discussion describes an editorial content dispute, not a question of determining whether or not a particular source is reliable. This noticeboard is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex editorial matters. For that there are various options of dispute resolution available that may be able to help, such as article request for comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
IMO the validity of Hearts of Space as a primary source is not a matter of dispute - although one other editor has disagreed - hence the need to gain clarification via this discussion. The article's broader issues are certainly content and policy-related, as you correctly point out. The article currently lends undue weight to the primary source; it does so by synthesising an original research theory - largely from the fallacious interpretation of multiple citations drawn from the primary source. Informal dispute resolution has already been initiated with the intention of addressing the longstanding opposition to the rectification of these issues. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[Note: at this point the article was edited twice: Space Music 21:45, 17 November 2008 and Space music 21:46, 17 November 2008.]

Let's be clear that Hill has significant commercial interests and arguably has a vested interest in seeing that this label is utilised as a branding device. Hill has published nothing on this subject but we do have verifiable secondary sources that discuss the topic, notably Lanza who offers a view regarding Hill and the space music domian in general - in the context of the subject as it is expressed in the current space music article. The statement above Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago is misleading, not verifiable, and is in actuality false.Be aware also that a number of the cited sources contradict themselves - swinging from 'space-music' as genre descriptor to 'space music' as category of musics. Hill states that all music played on his program, irrespective of era, ethnic origin, or extant definitions, is 'space music' (ranging from Haydn to Yanni), this statement is backed up by nothing other than the brief statements on the Hearts of Space website, it's a deeply personal view. In terms of offering a qualified secondary perspective on this, Lanza, the musicologist, is the best bet, not the radio producer and record label boss. Also, note that a number of the statements attributed to various cited sources are synthetic, the first two sentences in the lede being the most problematic. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What is your source for making the claim of, "The statement above [quote from 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle ] ... not verifiable, and is in actuality false." ?
If you think the statement is not verifiable, how do you know it's actually false?
Since they already verified it, are you seriously claiming that The San Francisco Chronicle is not a reliable source??
If you are challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reporting of the facts, what is your evidence to the contrary?
If the San Francisco Chronicle's source on the quote is Stephen Hill himself (reporter Sande can be asked), and you can't prove the statement is incorrect exactly as written and spelled, then you have potentially committed libel per quod - potentially a covert defamation of Hill's veracity and professional expertise. If so, it's also a WP:BLP-talk violation, and you could be required to retract the statement.
So how do you explain your self-contradictory and worrisome comment? Milo 09:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The SF Chronicle article cited above is entitled "The sky's the limit with ambient music". The article's opening paragraph states "spacemusic, also known as ambient...". The article goes on to note "a prime mover in the ambient/spacemusic genre...", and "the best description of what we do is contemplative music". This does not support your WP:OR theory that spacemusic and ambient are somehow different genres, and that Stephen Hill invented spacemusic. The assertion that Stephen Hill invented the term spacemusic 20 years ago is clearly false, as numerous other sources already cited in the Spacemusic article confirm that it was in use by others at least 20 years before Hill started using it - as you should know, given that you added those sources yourself. All the other statements in the SF Chronicle article are not false. Your highly selective synthetic interpretation of them is false. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify, what I should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong. The relevant literature does not support the thesis Milo is presenting, but that is not the even the point, the point is the article is breaching guidelines on WP:OR and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
You struck one problem claim, ok, but your more dangerous claim of "is in actuality false" still stands. Therefore you are still at the previously stated potential risk of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (09:44).
Semitransgenic (22:44): "should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong."
A further self-contradiction. We agree that the term "space music" (two words in English) was a term in use for other kinds of music prior to 1973. But SFC reported that Hill "coined the term "spacemusic"", and exclusively used that term spelled "spacemusic" (one word in English) throughout the article.
A reminder that you were the one to raise the issue of branding: ""Any music with a generally slow pace and space-creating sound image can be called spacemusic", this is actually a commercial entity's branding drive,..." Semitransgenic 00:39, 8 November 2008.
If you can't prove SFC's statement is wrong, exactly as "spacemusic" is spelled (one word), and Hill is SFC's source for the statement, then you are now potentially facing a second count of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (22:44).
You are still challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reliable reporting of the facts – what is your evidence to the contrary? Milo 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Libel?? LOL : ) yawn...you are a dreamer. Yes the SFC is wrong, Newspapers are often wrong, about lots of things, often intentionally so. And yes, I do have evidence. Fact check: The term 'space music' was in existence long before Hill coined it. But, this is not a forum, nor is it the place to discuss content disputes so let me reiterate: "the point is the article is breaching guidelines on WP:OR and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material." please deal with this fact Milo rather than attacking editors who disagree with your views. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

←Let the record show:

  1. Semitransgenic refuses to discuss the distinction between the two spellings "spacemusic"/"space music". For brands, a minor spelling difference greatly matters, and he originally claimed that "spacemusic" (one word in English) was a "branding drive"[3].
  2. Yet, he has persistently challenged the San Francisco Chronicle's fact reporting reliability, apparently based on his self-contradictory implication, that "spacemusic" (one word) is not different from "space music" (two words), and therefore "spacemusic" can't be a brand of "space music". He wants to have it both ways.
  3. He has presented no valid evidence that the San Francisco Chronicle article's reporting by Sande is unreliable or excludable from citation. He doesn't agree with it, but asked twice, he can't say why without either generalizing or contradicting himself.
  4. He treats concerns about libels that might ruin other people's reputations as a joke.

This thread was again and again bloated with claims about non-sourcing issues. Since they were off-topic at this noticeboard, I ignored them. Now Semitransgenic yawns and claims to be attacked. Experienced editors will recognize these distractive ploys that herald a thread to be ended by gainsaying last-worders.

To summarize from the top post:

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The RS answers are:

  • Stephen Hill is a notable expert as described under WP:V(WP:SPS). Hill's reliable secondary source expertise covers his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists.
  • Hill's comments on his personal life, meaning those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work, are reliable primary sources.
  • Additionally, the 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle article by Steve Sande, quoting Stephen Hill and others with analysis of this music, is an article that can be cited as a reliable source.

Milo 03:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, you are very confused, read the article, read what you have written in the article, you interchange space-music and spacemusic throughout, but now, because the flimsy tissue of lies that you call one of your lifetime best pieces of analysis (what??) is disintegrating, you want to reconstitute definitions so they substantiate your diabolical delusions. Yes, yawn, it's boring, tiresome, and your lecturing and educating is really quite patronising, so please, stop, we have all had quite enough. So for the last time, let me get this across to you: your WP:POV, WP:SYN, WP:OR thesis is indefensible, and this is something you should come to terms with. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I contributed to, but mostly did not write the current article. It was not my decision to interchange "space music" and "spacemusic", but for consensus I let it pass. The version of the article I referred to at that link was deleted by another editor long ago. I was gracious about it since I wanted to collaborate to produce a better article. Milo 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
But Milo, in this very declaration you refer to space music?? so do please forgive me for finding this inconsistent of you. It all seems rather disingenuous and we would be better served here if you stopped entertaining yourself at our expense and instead made a genuine effort in resolving this matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It's an obscured research issue embedded in the second paragraph (Milo 07:04, 21 February 2007): "... points that seem most important. First is the issue of Hill-Turner space music versus other kinds,...". "Spacemusic" and "space music" sound about the same on radio, so I wrote it down as two words. I expect others did the same. Milo 00:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
"obscured research issue"? you mean WP:OR. Sorry but this is again disingenuous. You say you heard the term on the radio and wrote it down as two words yet your first major contribution to the article demonstrates you had knowledge of the Hearts of Space website so were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill - but you still explicitly use the term Space music throughout. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
""obscured research issue"? you mean WP:OR."
Lose the sophistry.
"were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill"
No. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling on the website. Creative spellings are routine in popular music "biz" writing, so I didn't notice until it emerged as a research issue during 2007. Milo 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore: the SFC is wrong. Thanks for confirming this. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling. "Discuss" means "b: to present in detail for examination or consideration" (M-W.com). Not discussed doesn't imply that "spacemusic" isn't mentioned by that spelling. My recent search of HoS.com displayed 155 hits on "spacemusic" (one word) and 11 hits on "space music" (two words). The 11 hits on the two word spelling appear to be quotations including album titles.
The earliest preserved, dated usage of the "spacemusic" spelling is the HoS website's intro announcement for Hearts of Space radio program #003 of 1983-01-12. That's consistent with the 2004-01-11 SFC report statement reading: "Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago,...". Milo 05:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but you are insinuating that Hill's neologism - following the transference of a contraction into a compound word - makes him the co-founder of a genre but space-music and spacemusic refer to exactly the same thing - in the same way that space-craft & spacecraft mean exactly the same thing; yet the person responsible for compounding the words space & craft is not credited with being a co-conceptualizer of space-travel. I recommend you look at the Oxford English Dictionary online under space and count the number of times you find similar examples. Also, note that the very book Hill cites as "the best general treatment of the subject" does not mention spacemusic - nor is there mention of this in the books precursor, David Toop's Ocean of Sound (nor does it feature in Timothy Dean Taylor's book Strange Sound which includes a chapter entitled Space). There are, from what I can see, only two published secondary sources that mention spacemusic/space music directly (in keeping with how article wishes to define itself) that's Lanza and Birosik: and note that Hill's partner and co-founder of Music from the Hearts of Space, Anna Turner, in Birosik, uses the term space music, and not spacemusic. It's clear that spacemusic and space music are one and the same thing so you need to stop with all this nonsense about Hill being the creator of a genre, or even genre of genres for that matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the fact that this has evolved into a content discussion with significant ramifications for the article, I've copied it to Talk:Space_music. Please continue the discussion there. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magee Secondary School

Resolved.

Ongoing edit war at Magee Secondary School about who the current school administration is.

  • The school's own website is being disputed as a source because the date at the top says 'Tuesday, 07 November 2006'...although the bottom states that it was 'Last Updated ( Friday, 03 October 2008 )'

Discussion from a few days ago can be found at the bottom of this page and here. More recent discussion is here. --Onorem♠Dil 13:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The website uses an interface called Joomla, where webpages are written like articles. It is likely that the page was first created in 2006 (hence the top date), but has been updated many times to present new information, up to its most recent update as of 2008. I would guess that Mr George is the current principal. --Joowwww (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I gather that the underlying issue is that the school's administration may have changed since the 10/3/08 update of the web-page, but there is not yet a reliable source to support this fact. If so, my advice is... wait... have some patience. It will not be long before the school either updates the page or issues a reliable publication under the new administration (at which time you can change the text, citing the revised website or new publication). Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
In before photoshop Dustbomber (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing is ridiculous. NWA Rep claims that he believes that the principal who there from 2001 to Dec 2006[4] is still the principal there 'cause he heard it from a guy and they don't promote VPs to Principals in the same school. Yeah, whatever. Why is Mr. Grant at Kitsilano Secondary then [5] [6] and why is the school board and the Ministry of Education promoting the lie? Hmm, who does one believe? Assuming good faith is way over. User:NWA Rep was long informed of the truth with sources on his talk page, on the article, and here. Further reverting is continued clear deliberate vandalism and will be dealt with appropriately. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

<--(unindent) Content dispute != vandalism, and please do not ever say that again, Double Blue. In fact, I see very little discussion of this matter on the talk page of the article. Why is it happening here instead of there? Go back to the TALK page, outline the different references available, and as a group determine which of those sites provides the best information. If none of them appear to be reliable, perhaps the best solution is *not to include unverifiable information in the first place*. It is not the end of the world to have a blank in an infobox, and would be preferable to having incorrect or out-of-date information. Risker (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unverifiable information? What is? The user in question removed a source documenting that the person he was reinstating as principal had left. He has also removed the references provided to him on his talk page. There is no content dispute. The sources are crystal clear and I provided them above. How can you possibly not see that knowingly reverting verified sourced facts to verified falsehoods is vandalism. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, It seem clear that there are more that enough reliable sources that all verify Mr. George as the Principle of the school. Unless there are reliable sources that explicitly say otherwise, I think this discussion can end with that. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Credibility of reference source

Cristol, A. Jay (2002). The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship. Dulles, Virginia: Brassey's. ISBN 1-57488-414-X.

His website [7]

Relevant AN/I thread here: here

USS Liberty Incident has been a long term problem article as it tends to attack Single Purpose Accounts with a POV agenda. Author A. Jay Cristol has written a book that purports to debunk many of the conspiracy theories. Editors on talk page have made a series of criticisms, though none back up by secondary sources, claiming the book is unreliable and the author has manipulated the evidence. Secondary sources I've found to date would indicate that, conspiracy theory websites aside, the book is well regarded as an authorative independent investigation. Most recently when I asked for secondary sources to back up what the editors claim I received this response:

I found them and I'm not even computor literate. You can find them much faster than I could. Go for it.

Requesting independent third party judgment on the credibility of this source as per WP:RS. Justin talk 14:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Brassey's is now Potomac which appears to specialize in books on defense and baseball (odd mix). It is a real publisher and not a vanity press or publisher with specific political points of view. I would consider it as valid as any books published by specialist publishers in the field. [8] purporting to debunk the book is in the honored tradition of conspiracy photo analysis. From Amazon customer review "Cristol, in addition to being a Federal Bankruptcy Judge is a Navy Reserve Pilot and I think his flying experience helped him. He commenced writing about the Liberty to fulfill the requirements for a dissertation." which rather implies that the author is a Judge, served as a Naval piliot, and wrote a dissertation. Another "debunking" is at [9] which, as near as I can tell, debunks nothing at all. I'd use the book Collect (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I would note that one of the debunking pages you've referred to was written by one of the editors seeking to have Cristol removed as a credible source. Justin talk 15:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying an editor is using his own writings as a source? WP:RS etc. basically decry that. See WP:SPS Collect (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It was being used by other editors. The author is an editor who is also active on the page. It has been removed now, I think, from the article. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading request (this comment added by an involved editor) - nobody has set out to claim that Cristol's book is not an RS - the problem under discussion is the UNDUE we've giving it over better regarded sources/books.

Cristol's "The Liberty Incident" 2002 gets 1 cite (and his 1999 dissertation gets two) according to Google Scholar - by comparison, Ennes's 1979 "Assault on the Liberty" gets 5 citations. Other books with chapters on the incident are much, much better again - "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-secret National Security Agency" - J Bamford - 2001 - Doubleday - Cited by 47.

And yet, the treatment we give Cristol, both as to his person and his book, is far better than what we give Ennes and Bamford. There are lots of other serious problems at this article (eg treatment of possible motives for Israel attacking is extraordinarily POV) which I could go into, but this request is a complete mis-statement of them. There is, however, another source being used that is non-RS, at one point in the article, Cristol's views even get a second bite of the cherry by re-statement in an opinion piece from the ADL. PRtalk 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, my summary and request is accurate: "Cristol is a target for criticism, from what i've seen so far, because he is an author who fits research around a preconcieved idea. It makes no difference if he is right or wrong, the fact he fabricates discredits any good work he does.", "The more I research Cristol the less reliable he appears.", the intention is clear to deny that it is a credible source and to use others the editors concerned consider more reliable. Editors concerned have edit-warred previously to include an edit that claims the attack was deliberate, using the Moorer report as a primary source.
Also I would dispute the use of Google Scholar, Cristol's Book published in 2002, is bound to be cited less than a book published in 1979. Now I asked for an independent 3rd party viewpoint, please allow that to happen without disprupting the process with reams of criticism. Justin talk 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with citing the book. As for how much weight to give it... that is something that goes beyond the scope of this noticeboard, and must be determined on the article's talk page by those who know more about the subject... ie the editors who regularly work on that particular article. Content disputes are never easy to resolve, but if you assume good faith and work to achieve a neutral POV you should be able to resolve it. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another source

The USS Liberty: Dissenting History Vs. Official History By John E Borne Published by Reconsideration Press, 1996

The USS Liberty: Dissenting History Vs. Official History By John E. Borne Published by New York University, Graduate School of Arts and Science, 1993

Two different versions of the same source. I'm finding it difficult to find any information about Reconsideration Press. I'm presuming the second reference is the publication of a doctoral thesis. 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Harpur and Gerald Massey, Egyptology

Are those two reliable in matters of Egyptology? wp:rs says, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." While Harpur was a New Testament professor, neither are/were trained Egyptologists, and I think the ideas of the self-taught Massey in particular is on the fringe as far as ancient Egyptian and comparative religion goes. As far as mainstream acceptance goes, Christian scholar W. Ward Gasque noted, "Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M. L. Bierbrier’s Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995), nor is any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt’s very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942)." http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html . Also Massey's work is long out of date; he missed all the breakthroughs in the field of the past century. As far as Harpur's fringe goes: 'First, he insists, there was "the greatest cover-up of all time" at the beginning of the fourth century; and thousands of Christian scholars are now participants in this on-going cover-up.' Ibid.

For more information here is Tom Harpurs biography, and Massey's booksMadridrealy (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say definitely not in most cases, there may be some exceptions when dealing with fringe claims, but not for general use as a RS in Eygptology. dougweller (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB.com for plot synopsis

As far as I can see, [www.imdb.com] IMDB is editable by any user and does not cite the sources editors use when coming up with a plot synopsis. Where a work needs interpretation, does IMDB cut it as a reliable source of information? Alastairward (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe WP:SELFPUB answers your question. (That answer being, no, it is not) --Bobblehead (rants) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is not self-published, and though editable by "any user", it does in fact (at least as of yesterday) require confirmations and sources for submitted informations, and it routinely rejects user submissions that are not themselves accomanied by sources... though IMDB does not share those sources as Wiki requires for its own articles. Different entities, different rules. Keep in mind though, that IMDB's usefulness as a source is in continued contention (see CIMDB and (recent discussions)... and you will find editors wishing it banned outright. That being said, and the arguments about its usefulness notwithstanding, it is still a terrific tool to guide you to other locations for finding the informations you wish. If you find a plot synopsis on IMDB, it is extremely likely that you will find a better and more complete one elsewhere, as that better one was likely used as a source for whatever is on IMDB. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Alastairward (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:SPS is perhaps more relevant than WP:SELFPUB to this discussion, and based upon its language, the information on IMDB is indeed self-published: IMDB is an open forum anyone may edit. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is IMDb an unreliable source?

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

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

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

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

I think the answer is - it's both reliable and not reliable as a source. To determine where the line is would take some research on how the site collects its information. Some of the content of the site is provided by users, but some is factual and under control of the site's editors. Considering the widespread use of the site as a source in general, for them to profit from their information, the factual elements need to be accurate. For example, the detail lists of casts and crew, etc, are likely dependable; the main synopsis might be reliable (though that's where more research would be needed into how they come up with those); and the secondary synopsis pages where they accept user edits would be non-reliable, as with any wiki-source.
Regarding the use of IMDb in the infobox, that's a different question than if it's a reliable-source reference. That's more like an external link at the bottom of an article; my view is that I would apply the principles of WP:EL to that kind of use, and in that sense IMDb seems OK to me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Jack-A-Roe. The credits, especially for recent productions (last five years) usually come directly from the producers and correspond precisely to screen credits. The cross-referencing makes it very difficult to insert bogus material, which is anyway perused by their sysops before publication. Their core business is a subscription database for professional film/tv industry use. The associated talk sections though should be treated as a blog. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, if either of you want to get involved in the discussion I started over at WP:CIMDB on this point, please feel free. I've given up on it as it's degenerated into an "it's all reliable" or "none of it's reliable" shouting match. You may have better luck than me in prompting those editors with IMDb experience to be more forthcoming on where the boundary between reliably-sourced and user-generated content actually lies. GDallimore (Talk) 19:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. The message boards are just message boards which are inherently not reliable.
  2. The user comments for each title are also pure user-generated content, and they are not reliable either.
  3. Some other sections have been added in the relatively recent past which are wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ at [10]), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control).
  4. Newsgroup reviews are archived Usenet postings. I would not consider them reliable unless they were written by an established critic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Alternative Media: Is it really a Reliable Source?

The Alternative media claims that the mainstream media is in error, even slanted towards some agenda. Wikipedia claims that Alternative media is unreliable. I'm here for clarification only. Powerzilla (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some examples:
These are some examples. Powerzilla (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not say that the Alterative media is unreliable. Wikipedia does not equate Bias with Unreliability... thus, a reliable source can be biased (and conversely a biased source can be reliable). The important thing is that we should not be biased in our articles (see WP:NPOV). We need to make sure that all significant viewpoints are represented. When sources disagree or show their own bias we need to report both viewpoints, and make it clear who says what... hence we say something like: According to a report by Fox News "The election of Obama is a disaster for America" <cite to Fox> however, according the a report by the New York Times, "the election of Obama is the best thing since sliced bread". <cite to NYT>. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would be careful about assigning wholesale bias to organizations - for example, NY Times publishes both hard news as well as commentary, ranging in subject from politics to science to food to fashion to pop culture. Its stable of op-ed columnists include progressives like Krugman and Herbert, and conservatives like Brooks and (the very movement-y) Kristol. Like Blueboar says, bias doesn't necessarily make one unreliable, and opinion is fine as long as it's attributed rather than stated as fact. But opinion should be attributed to the writer rather than the organization. Mosmof (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Also see WP:UNDUE with regard to the weighting given to various souces in an article. Ty 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Mosmof... I from what I know of the issue, I think this goes beyond the separation of opinion and news. The accusations that are flying around in both liberal and conservative circles is that these various media outlets allow their political bias to affect both what they report and how they report it. In other words, the news reporting is biased, and not just the editorial and Op-ed pages. The right accuses the NYT of liberal bias in its news reporting, while the left accuses Fox News of conservative bias in its news reporting. Being familiar with both Fox and the NYT, I would say both accusations are fairly accurate... but they are irrelevant as far as WP:RS is concerned. Both the New York Times and Fox News are considered reliable sources. Where they disagree, we need to note that they disagree, and not choose between them or try to determine which is "correct". Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The reliability of a source in question

First, let me just say that the artists listed on List of best-selling music artists need to be supported by very reliable sources which in their turn must contain sales-figures within. This source which is for Backstreet Boys was recently added to the page to support 200 million records sold by the band. Even though, the source may seem reliable, the sales figure of that kind for Backstreet Boys is clearly overinflated. Therefore, I first wanted to ask for the opinion of people here who might be familiar with PGCitizen.ca, because I don't want to start a controversy over tossing it out. Also, let me point out that most sales-figures for Backstreet Boys published by reliable sources do not exceed the 100 million boarder including these two sources [[11]], [12], [13] just before this one in question came into the picture. I'd appreciate if someone could comment on this. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Prince George Citizen in a long standing published newspaper it's more reliable than most web links. — Realist2 02:32, 21 November 2008

(UTC)

The source was added by you whereon three people including myself have already disagreed [14], [15], [16], therefore you should let others state their opinion on this. The fact that Prince George Citizen has been around as long as you may suggest doesn't mean they don't have a long history of gathering negative reviews. --Harout72 (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:Consensus is not a vote, not about numbers, it's the strength of the argument, the newspaper I used is more reliable than most websites. — Realist2 12:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The Prince George Citizen would ordinarily be considered a reliable source, but in this case there are other reliable sources that disagree with it, some of which are more prominent news services. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photobucket as a reference when photobucket is not really the reference

Editor Hbent has been removing "photobucket references" from articles. This is what I stated on Hbent's talk page:

"Would you mind explaining why you made this edit? What policy on Wikipedia says that we cannot use photobucket as references? If Wikipedia does say that, then I am sure that the policy is in regards to photographs at photobucket due to the fact that photographs can be doctored.

My point is that photobucket is not the reference for those references you removed from the Todd Manning article. Those references are from valid soap opera magazines; the "photobucket references" are showing scanned articles from those magazines in which validate the article's text being stated. If you were going to remove all those references, the least you could have done is format the references so that they do not need urls.

I see that you have removed "photobucket references" from other articles as well. You should first discuss stuff like this over with other editors of the articles you are removing these from. There is no telling how many valid references you have removed from articles because of this.

I have reverted your edit to the Todd Manning article."

Of course...I would like clarification on this matter from editors here at the Noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hbent stated this answer on my talk page: "The photobucket links in question were links to copyvio content. If you want to cite an article in Soap Opera Digest, cite the magazine article itself, not an image in violation of copyright. I have fixed the citations, removing only the photobucket URLs."
I understand Hbent's point about copyvio. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
In my experience so far, at least 75% of the links to photobucket I have seen (whether inside references or not) were copyright violations. I have been removing photobucket links in general; they are almost always used inappropriately. There were some pages, like the one Flyer22 mentions, where I removed references that could have been reformatted or refactored instead. If the refs are salvageable then I have no problem fixing them in the future instead of just deleting them, and I apologize for not having done so previously. Unfortunately, I came across many refs where there was no real source info other than the photobucket picture. In that case, I am loathe to spend my time fixing refs that shouldn't have been added in the first place. hbent (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, if this is really viewed as a copyright problem by Wikipedia, then I will start removing other "photobucket references" I have included in other articles. Heck, I will likely do that anyway, so that I do not come across this problem with other editors. Flyer22 (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's really a legal problem if we link to copyvio content hosted on other sites. However, it doesn't seem needed in this case anyway. Citing the magazine as a source without a url is perfectly valid and copyvios on other sites are liable to be taken down at some point. DOUBLEBLUE (talk)
I added them in url format because I was like, "I have visual proof of these articles, so why not? Isn't visual proof better than simply words?" Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I understood and it makes perfect sense to increase verifiability but it is, of course, unnecessary and if a copyvio then, it appears, actually not "a good thing". Cheers! DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
DoubleBlue, I respectfully point you to WP:COPYLINK, which states that, "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." And while it would be nice if photobucket patrolled their site for copyright violations, I've seen no evidence of that in practice. hbent (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I do wonder, though, how this is any different than linking to a copyrighted interview at an actor or actress' website where the interview features that actor or actress, such as this. I mean, Wikipedia allows us to link like that all time as a reference because it is the actor or actress' official site. I mean, is it because, unlike liking to a scanned magazine article through photobucket, the articles at these actor and actress' sites are usually not the scanned images of the articles? Even if that is the case, I must point out that they sometimes are.
How is linking to photobucket any different than uploading copyrighted images? Is it because those copyrighted images must provide a fair-use rationale saying that they are copyrighted and a license also saying that they are copyrighted? Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the issue is that if you link to a news article, say, at a corporation's "in the news" page, its reasonable to assume that they got permission to reprint the interview. On the other hand, if it's a popular song on some anonymous enthusiast's web server, its reasonable to assume that's a pirated copy. I'm not sure I understand the second question though. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There is some confusion here about the difference between copyrighted content and content that is a copyright violation. Linking to copyrighted content is fine, and so is using copyrighted content as a source. We wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia at all if you couldn't do those things. The problem here is linking to content that is in violation of copyright, specifically images that are being used by someone other than the copyright holder without the consent of that copyright holder. Magazine scans on photobucket are a perfect example of such a violation. Magazine scans elsewhere are trickier, but I would think that it can be presumed that scans (or interviews, or what have you) on an official site have probably been cleared.

Copyrighted content hosted on Wikipedia is only okay within limited circumstances, and those circumstances are policed here. I very much doubt that you could get away with uploading a scan of a copyrighted magazine article here because it would not qualify as fair use. I can't imagine that having the scan on photobucket would be any more legal than it would be here.

I asked on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for someone with copyright expertise to weigh in here, and hopefully that will happen. hbent (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And just to clarify: if you use a copyvio magazine article somewhere as source and then cite it as just the article, without the image link, I don't see how we could prevent that. hbent (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
the usual solution is to give the reference to the source used without it being an actual link. The court decision cited there refers to links, not references. DGG (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw your question on the copyright desk while I was there asking a question myself. No expert on the legalities, but Wikipedia policy is perfectly clear if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work (WP:LINKVIO) SpinningSpark 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Not truly confusion on my part, guys. I just wanted clarification. Thanks for that. I mean, Squidfryerchef, of course I know that if you link to a news article at a corporation's "in the news" page, its reasonable to assume that they got permission to reprint the interview. And that if it's a popular song on some anonymous enthusiast's web server, its reasonable to assume that's a pirated copy. I was just wondering about reprinted interviews at an actor or actress' official site. hbent, I know that linking to copyrighted content is fine, and so is using copyrighted content as a source, and that we would not have much of an encyclopedia at all if we could not do those things. But your statement "The problem here is linking to content that is in violation of copyright, specifically images that are being used by someone other than the copyright holder without the consent of that copyright holder" is what I was going for when asking how is that different from uploading a copyrighted image...such as a screenshot where we do not have permission from the copyright holder or holders. I was wondering if the difference for that is because by linking to the images instead of uplodaing them here at Wikipedia, we are not providing fair-use rationales and licensing stating that the images are copyrighted.
But, again, thank you guys for your time. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, WP:LINKVIO gives the reasons for the policy: it shows Wikipedia in a bad light. There are also legal problems in the US with doing this (very possibly other countries as well) but the main reason is we do not want to be seen to be flouting the IPR of others. SpinningSpark 19:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to use your own judgement on whether an actor's site is more like a corporation's "in the news" page or more like an enthusiast's page. I'd assume an actor's official site would have an agent take care of copyright clearance, but I'm not too familiar with the show business. The second question you ask is a question about "fair use", and that is a very complex topic in copyright law. Basicially it allows you to make copies, usually small parts of a work, under very limited circumstances, and there has to be a justification, such as for academic criticism. Every time you quote a passage from a copyrighted book, that's using fair use. For instance WP allows a screenshot of a movie in an article discussing the movie. But you cannot upload the whole book or the whole movie, nor would you link to such. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] //texts.00.gs/

User:0XQ is adding this website to various articles (and has it on his user page, another issue perhaps). It's his own personal website with various texts on it. Before I remove it everywhere, I want to check to see that people agree that we can't use this as a RS (how do I know they are correct, for a start). Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree... delete it as spam Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] //www.cyberpunkreview.com/

I've seen this site used in various places, ut it is beginning to be used extensively to cite a list of cyberpunk works. Is it s reliable source? Or just an extensive blog? I question it because the writers seem very uninformed, and claim almost anything with a computer in as cyberpunk. Would prefer to find out before it is used 100s of times, thanks!Yobmod (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the site, I would not consider it a reliable source. It appears to be a blog, and the owner has done a lot of work on it - but it doesn't even have a link about the person who maintains it. It also has a user-forum with many people commenting, and a wiki. None of those are usable as references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Andersen Maps

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

Either keep them all or remove them all. You can't cherry pick since you and grandmaster have only attacked the author of the maps but never the actual content.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a case where WP:NOR#Original images is apt. Most maps from reliable sources (such as from a respected historical atlas) will not be in the public domain. Thus, if we are to include a map at all, we must either accept a map that may come from a less than reliable source and seems to reflect only one POV (ie Andersen's map), or our editors must self-create a map that is more neutral (perhaps using some sort of cross-hatching to show areas that are in dispute). I think the latter may be the best way to go, since it avoids the entire issue of whether Andersen is reliable or not. Another option is to include two (or more?) maps, side by side, so that the reader can see the differences between all of the various POVs. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
There are no "differences" - the map is not POV and does not deal with contested borders. In Azerbaijan, possession of the map would probably get you a prison sentence - but Wikipedia is not Azerbaijan. However, producing a self-created map would be better because the current map deals with regions that are not relevant to the article (and some of those off-topic regions are not accurately depicted on the map anyway). Here is what I wrote about the accuracy of the map in the article's talk page: Out of interest I compared the Andersen map with the nearest equivalent maps in "Armenia, an Historical Atlas", especially the one on p143 titled "Armenia under Turcoman Domination, 1378-1502". The various "Georgian" kingdoms are roughly in the same position, which is good given that indicating their positions is the main purpose of the Andersen map. A specific border for Kachen/Karabakh is not shown on that map, but is shown on the map on p135 titled "Armenia under the Ilkhanid Domination 1256-1335". Its position is similar to that on the Andersen map - and given that we have a source saying that the Khachen principalities/melikdoms still existed during the Karakoyunlu time there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Andersen map on that point. There are mistakes in the Andersen map though - Bayburt is shown as part of the empire of Trebizond, when by this time it would not have been (if it ever was). Worse still, it shows territory marked "Ottoman Empire" directly to the south of Bayburt, which is a nonsense. The Ottomans captured Trebizond in 1461, then the inland castles of the former empire a decade or so later, and only after that did they begin to extend their rule deeper inland. When the Trebizond Empire was extant the region of Erzincan was not part of the Ottoman empire, it was ruled by independent emirs, and then by the Ak Koyunlu. In other words, the Andersen map seems to be accurate for its titled purpose (showing the Kingdom of Georgia in the 15th century), and for its use here (indicating the position of Khachen), but it is not accurate for the territory at the western end of the map. Meowy 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW, thanks Blueboar for recognising the WP:NOR#Original images issue. I had tried to point that out in the earlier discussion, forgive me for quoteing myself again: It should be remembered that what you are wanting removed are images, not sources. The standards for images on Wikipedia are different than for sources. For example, you cannot remove an image of the Parthenon simply because the photograph wasn't taken by a known archaeologist or doesn't show the Parthenon under the best lighting. You have to point out some flaw in the actual image, (like proving it does not actually show the Parthenon but is some other monument), or indicate a flaw in its usage (like finding it being used within a page about Gothic architecture), or get it removed by uploading an even better image of the Parthenon to replace it. You have done none of these things for the Andersen maps. Meowy 03:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note that, WP:NOR#Original images points out that the image (in this case a map) should simply illustrate what is stated in the main text of the article (which should be based on reliable sources), and not contain OR in itself... The issue of maps on wikipedia is currently being discussed at WT:NOR... I have raised the issue of editor-created maps there... it seems to be a complicated issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

OK... I think this comes down to a simple question... is the theory that this independant fiefdom was independant discussed in the article? If this theory is discussed, then a map that depicts where this fiefdom was is appropriate (perhaps with a caveat in the caption along the lines of: "Map depicting X as an independent fiefdom, as theorized by Y"). If the theory is not discussed, then the map is not appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue is discussed, but the thing is that those principalities were never independent. They were subordinate to the rulers of neighboring city of Ganja, and later to the khans of Karabakh. The map depicts them as independent states. That's why it would be good if the map came from a real historian, and not someone's personal website. At least we could have ascribed the opinion to some notable scholar, which Andersen is not. Grandmaster (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I assume that since the issue is discussed, then at least one reliable source disagrees with you, and says that the principalities were independent. If so, then including a map (reguardless of who drew it) to illustrate what that source says is not OR. There may be other issues still to be addressed (WP:NPOV#Undue weight comes to mind)... but it isn't OR. I would also add that any such map would need to be captioned correctly... to make it clear that it is simply illustrating one view point amoung many. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There are no credible sources which agree with Grandmaster's and Atabek's assertions. Actual sources agree with what the Andersen map shows. I had already quoted one source in the talk page discussion. It is from p143-144 of "Armenia: A Historical Atlas", by Robert H. Hewsen, University Of Chicago Press, 2000. "It was Jahan-Shah [the leader of the Karakoyunlu - my note] who, apprised of the existence of the Armenian princelings of the Siunid house in Karabagh dispossesed by Timur, restored them to their possessions and granted them the title malik, Arabic for king". The same source goes on to say that Jahan-Shah did this to protect his northeastern frontier by bordering it with a territory whose rulers he expected would be loyal to him as well as offer resistance to any invaders. In other words, the reality was exactly as depicted in the Andersen map - the territory was separate from and was independent from Karakoyunlu territory. Meowy 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I've never actually edited the article's content, so I did not add the information from that quote into the article. Nor has anyone else, it seems. Once the article is unprotected I will add it in, making the inclusion of the Andersen map even more appropriate. Meowy 21:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
But that source does not say that the principalities were independent. There are plenty of sources that confirm the principalities were subordinate to the Ganja khanate, and later Karabakh khanate. Here's for example The History of Karabakh by Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. [18] The online text is in Russian, but there's also English edition by the Armenian scholar George Bournutian. Grandmaster (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The quote says "restored them to their possessions", indicating a difference between the possessions belonging to the Karakoyunlu and the territory possessed by the Karabagh princes. The fact that in theory they were subordinate to the Karayokunlu is unimportant in relation to the issue here: the map says "principalities of Karabakh" and the map is in the article to indicate the location of those principalities. Meowy 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
These melikdoms were in some periods autonomous, otherwise sovereign, though loyal to the Turkomans (15th century, this period is shown in the map) or the Persians, a fact which latter was recognized by the Russians:

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

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

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

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

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

At the same way we should not use a similar map for other historical states, which were dominated by an other state. Btw. Caucasian Albania, which was formally ruled by Persian Marzbans. So far, the removal of the map in question is required only by Azeri users, without any serious argument. IMHO they simply do that to suppress the historical fact, the Nagorno-Karabakh has been inhabited and ruled by Armenians for ages. --Vacio (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Your second quote also says that meliks were subordinate to the khans of Karabakh. So why accusing Azerbaijani users? It is a fact that those principalities were not independent states. And again, the rules require using reliable sources, and Andersen is not such. This was also noted by a wiki admin sometime ago: [19] Why can't we get a map by some reliable published third party source to use in the article? Grandmaster (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The Karabakh Khanate was established only in 1752. The map of Andersen shows the region in 1450-1515. May be you should look at the map before refusing it?
But you did not reacted on my note: The Albanian state was formally subordinated to a Persian governor, nevertheless there are many maps showing it a distinct state.
It is your POV that they were not independent. You don't even have a source to support this POV. While I have many to support that they were.

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

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

Also, you refer to a post mikkalai (talk · contribs) (admin?? no I think) who proposed the removal of all maps of Andersen. That means: no one should remove the map of Andersen from the article Nagorno-Karabakh untill there is made such a dicision and all his map are removed from wiki-articles (fr example: [20] [21][22][23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]). Since I don't think we are going to use double standards in Wikipedia. After all, so far you don't have any serious objection against the map of Andersen in question. --Vacio (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. [50]

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

Atabəy, in order to reach such a decision you must come with some real arguments, not accusations. I only ask you to remove the map of Andersen used in the Nagorno-Karabakh article as the last, as long as you don't have any abjection against itself.
Grandmaster, once more: this map is not showing Safavid Iran. And you still did not react on my question in reference to Caucasian Albania. --Vacio (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. The History of Karabakh.

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

Why are you repeating a quote that has already been dismissed as off-topic? It deals with a different period than that shown in the map. The main issue is how accurate the map is. The map is accurate for its purpose - illustrating the location of the Karabakh principalities. True, Shusha did not exist at the period the map ilustrates, but I assume it is there as a sort of place-marker in order to visually link that map with other later maps illustrating the same region (and I don't think there would be any copyright implications if Shusha were to be removed). Meowy 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I scorn mudslinging, but Andersen apparently holds only a Ph.D. in Political Science, that is he isn't a historian or something. The fact he graduated from Moscow State University becoming a political scientist may support the fact he conducts a partisan researches. Consequently, no article in Wiki on him. Among all, if there is any reliable scholar who affirms Andersen's position, I may think of it at least. --Brand спойт 10:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should also scorn talking about things it seems you haven't properly read up on. Did you read the discussion so far? The map is an image, not a source. It is in the article to illustrate textual content within the article. I will repeat in it shout-out-loud capital letters IT IS AN IMAGE! What exactly do you, and Grandmaster, and Atabəy claim is wrong with this specific image? In what way is it inaccurate? Meowy 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Inaccurate because related reference (16) to "The Principalities of Karabakh (orange), were the last relics of Armenian statehood in the region" belongs to Andersen himself. It's a circulus vitiosus. --Brand спойт 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
That is just a badly written caption. It belongs to the editor who originally wrote it. And it can (and should) be rewritten once the page is unprotected. Again I ask, what is wrong with the actual map? In what way is it inaccurate? Meowy 16:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The quote says nothing such, it speaks of Nadir's reign and afterwards. And the only thing prior is the following: Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. It relates to the Khans, not the meliks. Clearly it’s two different periods and as Meowy said, the map isn’t making any claims besides showing where the principalities were. Subordinate or not, Karabakh principalities existed making this entire discussion totally worthless. - Fedayee (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest that this discussion be continued on the article talk page? It seems clear that if the map in question is simply being used to illustrate information stated (and sourced) in the article text, and is not being used as a source for that information, then there is no WP:RS violation involved. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Before we do that, it would be good to have some other neutral editors say that it is not a RS issue, just to finally settle it. Meowy 00:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Maps are diagrams, they are not reality. All good-faith maps are full of accidental errors. Either you exclude every map, or accept the fact that no map is accurate. Maybe in some future date there will be atlases available where you can interogate each marking on a map, click on a line and get an explanation and a full set of sources detailing why the cartographer decided to draw that line at that location rather than 50 miles to the east or west of that location. Anyone who looks at a map showing a distant historical period and reads borderlines like modern borders is fundamentally mistaking what the map shows. Every line is actually a blurry zone full of uncertainty, conjecture, and simplification - a zone that gets wider and more blurry the older the historical period depicted on the map. Meowy 22:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The maps should be made by professionals to be considered reliable, and not by random people who happened to have a website. Grandmaster (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the precise trajectory of a boundary. I am saying that I had and still have serious doubts regarding whether it is at all possible to determine that these particular states were there, and that they included these areas. And if parts of the map are uncertain, this should be indicated on the map (say with a different colour), and a failure to do so disqualifies the cartographer. sephia karta | di mi 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Once again... the determining factor is whether you are drawing information from the map or not... in other words are you using the map as a source for information or not. If you are using the map as a source, then I agree that the map should be made by a professional. If, on the other hand, you are mearly using the map mearly to illustrate what is said in reliable sources, then that illustration can be created by anyone (including a Wikipedia editor).
To relate this back to the Andersen Maps... The question is: Is the article using the map as a source, or is it using the map as an illustration? If the first, then no it is not a reliable source. If the second, then it might be an acceptable illustration. Whether it is an acceptable illustration or not needs to be determined by consensus back at the article talk page, and not here (as it is not an RS issue). I hope this clarifies things. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It is being used as an illustration. The fact of the territory's existence is backed by sources. However, there is a side-effect of your reasoning - if the map were to be redrawn by a Wikipedia editor a source would have to be given for that redrawn map, which would mean using the Andersen map as a source. Meowy 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand now, thanks for the clarification. In this case I would argue that they suggest more than is sourced and therefore go beyond illustration, but this is a matter for the respective articles, not this discussion. sephia karta | di mi 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No, as per WP:OR#Original images a seperate source does not need to be given for an editor drawn image. The key is that any original image (including a map) must accurately illustrate the information discussed in the article, and that information should already be backed by sources. Now, the Andersen maps are not "Editor created"... but the concept is the same. If an image (no matter who created it) is mearly illustrating the text of the article, then the determination of whether to use it or not is purely one of editorial judgement and consensus. It is not an RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rash deletions of my sincere additions

Hi, 'Kuru' has rashly deleted the 'academic research' references I am adding without actually reading them, and is not willing to undo his deletions even after I explained (kindly see his discussion page topic titled 'thanks', which I have copy pasted below). I am an academic researcher in US university and my intentions are good. I also know that Kuru's intentions are good, but I am not a 'vandal' against whom he thinks he is fighting. I would greatly appreciate it if you can please help him understand. Thanks. --Ytrab (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


________________________________________________

:(copy paste start)

:Yes, kuru. I have been reviewing the research literature. These are high quality references that I am adding from books and journals. I will add references from various authors in due course. Thanks for your kind support. --Ytrab (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


::A good idea would be to either add material to support with your citation, or at least find something that actually needs the citation. You appear to be adding citations to a single author very quickly across multiple articles to some very fundamental sentences - this comes across as a probable conflict of interest. The citations in most of our business and economic articles quite frankly sucks, and we could certainly use the help. Let me know if I can clarify this any better. Kuru talk 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


:Kuru, I am sorry but your rash actions dissappoint me. I understand your concerns, but you should give time to users. It takes a lot of time to find good legitimate sources and add them. By deleting my edits almost immediately without consultation you are simply discouraging efforts by users like me to improve the references. I have been a university researcher in these topics for many many years, and I know what I am doing (with due respect to your concerns). Otherwise, people like me will have to give up, because frankly I don't have time to debate my intentions and your rash deletions. I can make some time to improve Wikipedia, but it would be impossible if people like you delete additions almost as soon as I add them. You have dissappointed me. Can you please undo your deletions so that I can continue my sincere efforts? Or would like me to just leave, and you can play god? I will gladly leave if you want me to.--Ytrab (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


::As explained above, I'm afraid I can see little to no correlation between your citations and the text you've added them to. Perhaps you could explain your additions and why you've chosen to add the same ones over many articles? If you don't have time explain your position, that's certainly understandable - we all have precious little time to participate in a volunteer efforts - but I'm afraid that unless you're willing to explain or change your approach, I cannot help you. Kuru talk 03:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


:Dear Kuru, The answer to your question is rather simple. The citations are relevant to the topic, and the wiki-articles to which I added citations were on similar topics -- hence the same citations. I have personally read these citations (as in the journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers) many times during my research. So I am surprised that you "see little to no correlation between your citations and the text". I encourage you to actually read the articles that I am citing (as in, actually read the journal articles and book chapters for which links are available), and I am sure your doubts will be cleared. Kindly read them before arriving at rash conclusions. It would be very unfair on your part if you make uninformed deletions without actually reading the citations. Also, there is no question of any conflict of interest because these journal/book/conference articles etc. are 'academic research', and is therefore for public good (which you will realize after actually reading them). Kuru, I know that your intentions are good, and so I hope that you will understand. --Ytrab (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:(copy paste end) ________________________________________________

I agree with Kuru - all I see here is someone spamming their own work. remove on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
While I wouldn't put it quite as harshly, I also agree with Kuru. The relation between article and added source is at times dubious, and the singularity of purpose is an indication of a conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
While there is nothing wrong with having an "Additional sources" section, to point the reader to sources that were not used as citations in the article, it is bad form for someone to list their own work in such a section (as that is a conflict of interest). If someone else were to list it, that might be diffent. However, if the work is only tangentially related to the article topic (as seems to be the case here), others can remove it. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Thank you everyone. I am leaving Wikipedia. Probably all of you have encountered so many vandals/bad people on Wikipedia, that you look at any new contributor with pessimism. "is this person a vandal? is this person upto something fishy? does this person have a COI?". I am none of these. I genuinely wanted to improve some of these poorly referenced Wikis with genuine research literature from multiple authors in the field (one author at a time). This obviously would take time and which I thought would be an ongoing process. Unfortunately, many of you doubted my intentions and rashly deleted all the work I was putting in (I do admire your ability to delete new stuff within a matter of seconds, even before the contributor completes what he/she set out to do). My sincere apologies if I hurt anyone, because I know all your intentions were good (though misdirected). Take care, and I am leaving Wikipedia for ever. No more posts from my side. My best wishes to all of you. --Ytrab (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)




.

[edit] Casino Gambling Web as a news source?

I was wondering about the reliability of http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/ as a news source, specifically this article. On the one hand, it reads like a press release, and the website has a "submit news" function, which seems to be its main source for news items. On the other hand, the article says it's "Posted By Susan Torres, Staff Editor, CasinoGamblingWeb.com", which indicates some sort of editorial oversight. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the "submit news" link and the front page, it looks like a mix of press releases, news, editorials and advertorials. I don't think it's unreliable per se as a source for facts, but it also seems like the type of place you can find an article that says "Men who play cards at casinos live longer, study shows". "Editor" might not mean much - it might just be a staff member responsible for posting the news releases it receives. As far as the specific article/press release goes, it's pretty clear about who commissioned the research and its methodology but I'd treat it as a primary source. --Mosmof (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
According to this page, the website is a paid publicity service that distributes any information supplied by any company willing to pay their fees. That's not a reliable source, it's not even a primary source, because it's not any different than an advertisement. The only way it could be used is as a courtesy link, to support a statement that a company published some particular words in an advertising/publicity release. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Media

It has been disputed by User:jehochman that Times of India, NDTV, Indian Express are reliable sources of news. I need a neutral opinion. He has also said that to write about an US citizen one must use a US source of news. Is that a policy? Do we need to use only Indian media for information on Dr. Manmohan Singh (The current Prime Minister of India)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M an as at yahoo.com (talk • contribs) — M an as at yahoo.com (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Times of India and NDTV etc. are clearly reliable sources (mainstream media) by our rules. In fact, using non American sources is encouraged as it helps combat systimatic bias (ie that the English Wikipedia overly pushes the US/UK view of things). If there is a concern that they are spinning the news or something, then attribute the source (as in: According to Times of India...) so people know who is saying what. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Blueboar. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia. So I shall rewrite the article with the proper references. If the problem persists who should I contact? M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the right place for now. What article are you editing? I might be able to pop over and comment. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Never mind... I figured out which article, and it seems to be under control on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record: I was editing Sonal Shah. I appreciate your help very much. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M an as at yahoo.com (talk • contribs) — M an as at yahoo.com (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Before making any judgment, User:Blueboar, please review the history of the article and notice the tendentious editing by multiple single purpose accounts. When dealing with a biography of a living person, we have high standards of reliability. Sonal Shah has been appointed to an administration position by Barak Obama. This article is already covered by the Barak Obama article probation, due to excessive problems in the area from right-wing advocates, especially. Administration appointments have received exceptional scrutiny by US media. Sonal Shah has been subject to a smear campaign by political activists. The fact that they have managed to plant a story in an Indian paper about a "controversy" does not make this controversy notable. It is very well likely a violation of WP:UNDUE to report on this matter in Wikipedia, given that US media has apparently ignored it. I'd like additional opinions from editors who have familiarized themselves with the facts of the matter. Reliability is not absolute. TOI may be reliable for news about India, but I am not sure it is sufficiently reliable regarding a biography of a US citizen, in this particular instance. Reliability depends on the situation; it is not an absolute. Jehochman Talk 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
We need to put aside the history of editing and look at the sources and how they can best be represented. A good suggestion was made earlier today for a brief neutral wording about the stories that have appeared in the India media and the vigorous rebuttal them. Whatever we think of these stories, they have been read by many thousands of people and are therefore notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
All I am saying is that the sources are considered reliable. I tend to agree with Itsmejudith here. It seems as if, true or false, the accusations about Shah are fairly big news in India. We need to be able to discuss this. The key is to do so neutrally... we should also discuss the vigorous rebuttals. I actually agree with comments of several people at the article talk page, who state that it might be best to hold off on discussing the issue for a week or so... until we know whether this will be a "flash in the pan" story or a something significantly more notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
OK on the basis that we should not fall into "recentism". On the other hand the TOI and Indian Express stories are likely to come up high in Google for some time to come. There is no principle that says the stories have to run in the US media. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference library category

In order to help facilitate easier location of potential sources of offline information to help verify the notability of article subjects and contents, I have created Category:WikiProject reference libraries and placed into it all of the reference library pages of which I am aware. Please add more project reference libraries to this category if you know of more. Additionally, feel free to create new reference library pages for any particular project as well. They can be very useful. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! I just added that to WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions.Carol Moore 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gothamist sites

Are Gothamist sites (gothamist.com, shanghaiist.com, chicagoist.com, etc.) valid sources? One of them popped up in a DYK nomination, and I wanted to check. I would be inclined to accept such sources, since the writers are actually employees of the site (as opposed to being random people from anywhere), but I seem to recall hearing objections about shanghaiist in the past. so I wanted to check here. —Politizer talk/contribs 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this quite recently. It seems to me that they count as local newspapers, fine for establishing notability of films, shows and exhibitions. I would be a bit wary about using them for any political controversies. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frenchculture.org

I am reviewing the article The Elegance of the Hedgehog for GA status, and while most of the sources look reliable, I am unfamiliar with Frenchculture.org. The article in question is this one. Is this source reliable? Any help appreciated, the skomorokh 14:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's reliable. It is being used to support a statement of opinion (ie a statement as to what the website says about the book), for which it is definitely reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Southparkstudios.com video tags

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

Normally a fan forum would not be considered reliable. How are we sure that the answers are indeed from somone official such as the writers themselves? Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the site itself is the property of the show's creators and not an affiliate. The writers themselves do seem to have some input into parts of it (if we can believe the typed word), but the tags for video clips do not seem to be one of those parts, if I understand what was said in that link. Alastairward (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's be fair, shall we? The complete quote is The FAQs and the tags don't have much to do with each other. A search for Butters in the video clips will give you all the clips they have here with Butters in it. Further more, the quote preceding it is Only the admins and the people who work in the Studios can tag videos here. How's that unreliable? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The full quote just confirms that the tags seem to be there to aid searches, not as a form of FAQ. 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastairward (talk • contribs)
That's your personal understanding. They are generated by the SPStudios' admins and therefore, indisputably reliable. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
But there is a dispute, a note on the site itself says they're added to aid searches, not to act as a FAQ. Remember WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor to prove something, not to simply dismiss queries. Alastairward (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ccinsider blog

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

I don't think it is reliable. 01:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You didn't sign your post. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It sounds fine as a primary source to me. It's published by Comedy Central and they have a regular staff, just like some newspapers have columnist blogs that are still part of the newspaper. Also the suggestion that readers send in tips doesn't impact RS; many of the best newspapers accept tips from the public. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but what about for speculating on cultural references and the like? Alastairward (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"Speculating" is done only on your part here. What you think is OR and therefore, unsuitable for WP discussions, let alone editing. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
What I think is OR? What else would a person's thoughts be?! But philosophy to one side, what makes your edits not speculation? And what makes this team suitable to define the writers' intents? Alastairward (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It should be fine for speculating on cultural references as long as what's being cited is not unduly controversial or self-serving. What it can't be used for is to assert notability because it's published by the subject of the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking back, it was used to support a "cultural reference" in the article on the episode Towelie, but it seemed to go against the actual episode commentary. Alastairward (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Then cite them both. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Both are cited, there is no contradiction between the two, yet AlastairWard seems to assert his personal understanding (or the lack thereof) as the end of all things. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bay Area Music (BAM)

I have an editor reverting edits/removing citations for BAM because they have never heard of it and because it is/was "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source". For those who may not know BAM was a California based music magazine for over two decades that was published in both a Northern and Southern California edition and also sponsored the yearly BAMMIES. It was as "local" as the NY Times is to New York City or to the LA Times is to Los Angeles. It was mainly about music but not specific to one style of form or even subject. "Frank Zappa - Interview from Hell" was only one cover story in it's history. At one point BAM merged with Seattle's Rocket ("West Coast music magazines BAM and Seattle Rocket combine forces; now third-largest U.S. popular- music publication") and the BAMMIES were always a notable event in the Bay Area ("Show Shouldn't Go On", "Bammies go one step further -- bronze plaques in the sidewalk", "Journey Induction into the BAMMIES Walk of Fame", "The Bay Area Music Awards", "ARTHUR M. SOHCOT Award", "Chris Isaak, Primus top Bammie ballot ;17th show honors Bay Area musicians on March 5" and "Nostalgia plays well at California Music Awards. Young bands win, but veterans steal show"). The overall issue here is when editors have never heard of something they sometimes remove a citation or information associated with it. A person outside of the industry may not have never heard of R&R, Pollstar, Entertainment Design or even Billboard because they are all, very clearly, "niche" publications yet they are all very good sources. Guitar For the Practicing Musician, Modern Drummer, Bass Player and Guitar Player Magazine may not be read by non musicians, however if someone started removing facts or information where any of these were cited as sources because they were "niche" publications it would be somewhat ludicrous. I don't live in Chicago but that does not mean I would discount an article on a Chicago musician who was featured in the Chicago Times, thusly included citations for that publications, because it was a "local" publication. For information about musicians that were playing in, lived in, and considered part of, the California scene a source such as BAM would a goldmine of information on certain "local" artists. Van Halen, Journey, Guns and Roses, RATT, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Quiet Riot, Carlos Santana, Frank Zappa, The Eagles and so many others were all covered at various times. So the question is, really, should a magazine that mainly covered the California music scene be considered a "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source"? Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Niche" does not equate to "unreliable". From what you have said here this source should be reliable for facts about rock musicians and bands but probably not beyond that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
If info can't be verified it can't stay on Wikipedia - wp:v is one of the 3 most important policies on Wikipedia. With one wiki editor saying one thing, and an emailer saying another - we need sources editors and readers can verify and agree are reliable. This is the basics for tertiary sources like encyclopedias, especially ones written with wiki software.
The New York Times is a newspaper of record, and it and the Los Angeles Times are major international newspapers, with world wide archives that allows Wikipedia readers to verify info sourced to it. BAM's none of these things.
I've removed the BLP info sourced to BAM because the Wikimedia Foundation received a complaint about the incorrect info sourced from it: OTRS ticket#2008111210030712. If the info sourced to it is encyclopedically notable, better sources that are known for fact checking will exist to reference it. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-24t14:06z
Stricter rules apply in the case of WP:BLP, but from the history talk page of the article I think is under discussion, it seems to be only the date and title of an album release that is at issue. Could this be found in material issued by the band or their recording company? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
OTRS tickets are for copyrighted information, such as a photographer allowing use of an image. Wikiepedia articles are not "owned" in the same sense although if there were a copyvio it could be certainly be removed. However I have no clue why this OTRS ticket relates to BAM as a source. And Itsmejudith has mentioned an album and release date - which is not anything to do with the information the editor keeps removing. I think there is some confusion going on. My reason for asking about BAM is that Jeandré keeps removing the name of a musician who played with a band, as well an another comment about the same musician, and another former member, going on to play in another band. It is a fact and not anything slandering or controversial. It was asked a citation be provided and one was. However as the source is BAM Jeandré feels it can not be verified as he has no knowledge of what it was it is niot a fact. Jeandré keeps mentioning this OTRS (Could someone post the entire OTRS here so everyone could read it and if it relates?) and that WP:BLP needs to be enforced. A musician who was part of, or played with, a band is nothing compared to some of the other information that is not being removed from this same article. For example there was a comment that one member was fired because of drug addictions. I actually sourced it to a specific article where another member of this band said alcohol was the reason so I cited the source and made sure it was attributed to that specific person. BAM was not that source so, seemingly, the statement was left. This discussion is not about WP:BLP however, and it is highly doubtful BAM would have lasted for as long as it did, or been part of the music industry, had it been nothing but slander and misinformation.
There are thousands of sources not "online", but that does not mean they do not exist of can not be verified. I am sure if Jeandré is in California s/he can locate a source. Perhaps UCLA archives would have them or some place else. There may be some sort of online archive that is searchable. I did find Bam Forever however it is under construction. The issue is not if a source is found "online" or not, nor is it, as Jeandré first argued, because a publication is "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source". To answer Itsmejudith's question about albums. An albums existence could be verified by any number of sources such as an official website, an official press release, publications such as Pro Sound, R&R, Billboard or the album itself. But, again, I have no idea, really I don't, what that all has to do with BAM or the OTRS. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I misunderstood, it is not about an album release but about band membership. I can't see why this would be controversial, and I would think it is still within the areas of expertise in which BAM would be reliable. Of course if another source contradicted it then that would be a different question. Perhaps one of the other respondents to this board will have a different view, or you can take it to the BLP noticeboard for further advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As a local music magazine, BAM would not necessarily be considered as reliable as a mainstream newspaper or a national music magazine, but it was published for 23 years which suggests stability, and it is collected at a few libraries. Apparently the claim under dispute is that a certain person was formerly a member of a certain band, which is something I would expect a music magazine to be reliable about. If I understand the situation, there is nothing obviously controversial about this claim. So I don't know what the OTRS ticket would be about -- did the person contact the Wikimedia Foundation to deny that she was ever a member of the band? And, if so, is it necessary to keep the OTRS ticket a secret? Couldn't whoever handled the OTRS ticket put a notice on the talk page saying that the person has contacted the Foundation to deny ever having been a member of the band? I don't see potential harm in the situation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
wp:blp "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, [...] and to all of our content policies, especially [...] Verifiability [...] We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. [...] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. [...] Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used"
wp:v#Questionable sources "Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature"
I can't republish the OTRS emails because of Wikimedia's privacy policies, I can however say that the emails are about Cara Crash (living person) being a member of a band (living persons)/or not. The only source is a local music magazine which isn't archived like newspapers of record are, and is therefor not verifiable by Wikipedia's readers. This source was challenged in an email to the foundation. I don't think local music magazines are good sources, so what I'm asking for is a reliable verifiable source for the info I removed (which was called vandalism). If BAM is the only source for this fact, is it even of encyclopedic notability? -- Jeandré, 2008-11-25t11:56z
Lets see, several issues at played here. First - so you are saying anyone can email the foundation and say somehting like "they were in a band" or "they were not in a band" and than that information becomes "secret" as well as a valid source? That is a new one. To this comment: "I don't think local music magazines are good sources" I say "People with limited knowledge of a subject should not be involved in editing an article" Well, in either case I provided several other links that connect the musicians and at lest one of them is direct from another former members website.(The same member who's personal statement was deleted for being original research by Jeandré. And it is still doubtful someone would seriously complain about band membership but not complain about a statement that a member was fired for drug use. Also stop taking wp:blp out of context. it was intended to prevent un-sourced, un-cited, comments such as "They were fired because of drug abuse" from appearing, not "After they left the band they were in another band" with several cited sources backing it up. Your edits were removed as vandalism because you keep removing cited sources and you are being asked not to. This is the first mention of the OTRS being directly related to the article, however, as I pointed out, if all someone has to do is send in an email making a statement they did, of didn't do something, and then you accept that as "fact" and refuse to actually provide "proof" it opens up a whole new way to have article edited. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This is sort of an aside, but as this "secret" OTRS email about band members that also seems to imply that BAM is considered a poor source, I would ask that Jeandré revel if this secret person explained this: "We want to be on the cover of BAM now!", BAM, #409, June 4, 1993. 4 Non Blondes Cover Story. Seems funny that, as the magazine in not reliable and simply a "local niche", why a band would "want to be on the cover" of such a magazine. (Of course one would have to wonder why well known artists such as Tom Petty, Sinead O'Connor, Pat Benatar or Crosby, Stills and Nash would even agree to be interviewed for a cover story either. I know if I were a musician of that stature I would never ever want to be associated with such a "local music magazine" that is a "questionable source") Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we assumed that BAM was an unreliable source, we might explain the cover by suggesting that BAM bought a picture of 4 Non Blondes from another source and made up a fake quote about them wanting to be on the cover of the magazine. In actuality, I don't assume that BAM is unreliable or that they made up a fake quote from the band. However, BAM's coverage of 4 Non Blondes is the issue being disputed here, so we can't use BAM's quotations from the band to prove that the coverage is accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok - back up. Now what are you talking about? Is there now another article being discussed? There are are no quotes from BAM in the 4NB article. This has zero to do with any sort of debatable issue and, unless the OTRS is made available here, than it is up to all of you to proove that that the images are faked, the album/single I have in front of me is fake, the reviews of it are fake, that former 4NB guitarist Shaunna Hall is lying and that any other possible future source about Cara Crash and Wanda Day being in Malibu Barbi are not true. Until than this is asinine and a bogus discussion based on some unseen email from some unknown source.
Can we try to keep this on topic. BAM - reliable source or not? Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is kept by several libraries, so verifiability does not seem to be an issue. --NE2 07:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get any more from this noticeboard than what I and others have said: a magazine like BAM should normally be reliable for simple facts like who was or was not in a band. The usual caveats apply: not all verifiable facts are notable; usually reliable sources can make errors; sources may disagree. Usually who was in a band at any one time is not particularly controversial. Members of bands generally like to be credited for their contributions. Here there appears to be some sensitivity that we have not been made party to. This is not the place to unravel it. The BLP noticeboard might be appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "are saying anyone can email the foundation [...] and than that information becomes [...] a valid source?"
    • No, the info in the email's not verifiable. It is however a challenge and wp:v says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged" - which leads to the questioning of BAM as a reliable source, and as Metropolitan90 points out, you can't use BAM as a reliable source for showing that BAM is a reliable source.
  • "I provided several other links that connect the musicians and at lest one of them is direct from another former members website."
    • [51]: see Self-published sources. [52]: this doesn't look like a reliable source at all, and doesn't even mention Crash which it's sourcing. [53] looks like personal site that "dig[s] up and review old, obscure Metal vinyls of all styles from the 80's and early 90's." [54] also looks like a personal site, not an wp:rs.
  • "It is kept by several libraries, so verifiability does not seem to be an issue."
    • NE2's link leads to [55] which shows that 12 libraries have some copies of the magazine. While I don't think that qualifies it as a reliable source for an encyclopedia, the argument can be made (by e.g. Soundvisions1 and Itsmejudith) that it's not just some zine of "rumors and personal opinions, [...] promotional in nature", and, as a music magazine, is a good source for saying a living person was a member of a band. What I'm asking for is another source showing that Crash was a member of 4NB: a source reasonable people can agree is reliable and which is known for checking its facts, and therefore shows encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-26t12:37z

← To Jeandré Invoking Monty Python skits may be cute at first but this is getting ridiculous. With the Shaunna Hall link(s) (And even her own edits to the article) now you are saying that band members are not reliable sources for fact verification, so it makes me question this secret OTRS even more as it couldn't be from a band member. (Note that Self published sources can be, and are - all the time, used to verify certain facts, they should not be used to establish notability. However in this case that link is not "self" published by the subjects of the fact being verified as is not Wanda Day or Kara/Cara Crash saying "I was in Malibu Barbi", nor is it the source being used to establish notability of either musician so they can have their own stand alone article) Next you say, of an image gallery: "...this doesn't look like a reliable source at all, and doesn't even mention Crash which it's sourcing". Please note the following text that sets up the images: "When Rude Girl broke up, Sandy joined up with Heidi, Joann, and Kara from Missconception. They formed Malibu Barbi. While Leather was on the 12" recording, Melanie sang live and most other recordings. Later Lupe joined up with Kara and Joann, Industrial Rainforest. Pretty much, everyone local knew everyone" Kara = Cara. Clearly, because you feel BAM was a "a local niche magazine, not a reliable source", you also feel that because this photographer was a local San Francisco photographer these photos are not reliable sources. But I say it is now up to you to prove that these images are fake, along with any other sources you toss out as not being reliable. You appear to rely on "I have never heard it" put under the guise of a policy/guideline that you feel implies that if an editor has never heard of something than it could not be used as a source. This is an open challenge for Jeandré to now prove that this band did not exist and that the members who were in it over a several year period were never really in the band. I have done more than enough to verify the band existed and that both Kara/Cara Crash and Wanda Day were in the band. If you feel it is some hoax that prove it. Or just be 100% honest here and say "I have no clue about BAM, the music industry, the California music scene or the musicians that were part of it, are part of it or may be part it in the future" and we can move on. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  • "With the Shaunna Hall link(s) (And even her own edits to the article) now you are saying that band members are not reliable sources for fact verification"
    • The page at Shaunna's site [56] does not say that Cara was a member of 4NB, it says she was a member of Alcohol of Fame and Malibu Barbi. The article at [57] doesn't mention Cara. If there was an article written by Shaunna published in the LA Times saying Cara was a member of the band; or if something like the All Music Guide's page said it, those would be reliable sources.
  • "Kara = Cara"
    • If the image gallery on the cosplay site can't get the name correct, and doesn't even mention her surname, its not a reliable source. It also doesn't say that "Kara" was a member of 4NB.
  • "But I say it is now up to you to prove that these images are fake, along with any other sources you toss out as not being reliable"
    • wp:v says that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Several editors have now said that BAM should be good enough, so what I'm asking for now is another source stating Cara was a member of 4NB - a source reasonable people can agree is reliable and which is known for checking its facts, and therefore shows that this information is of encyclopedic notability and is good enough when discussing living persons. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-27t12:37z
Stop with the Monty Python skit Jeandré, I get it and it is not funny anymore. So really only four main things to say:
  1. The "Dog Ass" article does not say Cara was a member of 4 Non Blondes, correct. It was not used to cite that fact, it was used to cite she was in Malibu Barbi - another of the facts you keep removing from the article because it was in BAM.
  2. The "Life and Times of Wanda Day" citation you bring up does not mention Cara, correct. But it was not used to cite Cara or her involvement with 4 Non Blondes in this specific case, it was used to cite Wanda being in Malibu Barbi. The direct sentence says "After leaving the Blondes in 1991 Wanda continued drumming with Malibu Barbi, and then Bad Dog Play Dead." As above, this fact was removed by you more than once because it was in BAM.
  3. Kirk Douglass, as an example. His real name is Issur Danielovitch but if someone from Amsterdam, NY posted personal images of him before he took a stage name you would say that "If the image gallery can't get the name correct, and doesn't even mention his surname, its not a reliable source." Perhaps it is not known, by you anyway, that performers often create stage names. Johnny, Marky, Dee Dee and Joey did not (do not) really all have "Ramone" as their last name. "Danny Dangerous" and "Sammy Serious" are not really the names of the bass player and singer of The Zeros. The fact that a guitarist named Kara Cross became known as "Cara Crash" is not all that shocking. And, as with the other "I have come for an argument" arguments, you conveniently overlooked looked where the citation was used, and for what reason, just so you could come here and argue some more. It was used to cite that Cara was in Malibu Barbi.
  4. Citations were provided for the comments you removed about Cara and Wanda being in Malibu Barbi as well as Caras involvement (However briefly) in 4 Non Blondes. May I remind you, and point out everyone reading this, that you also removed Shaunna Halls edit that confirmed Cara had involvement in 4NB. Now it is not up to me, it is up to you to do as I have asked because it is only your opinion that BAM is unreliable and so is it to your opinion that Shaunna Hall, because she was in 4NB, is also not reliable.
I maintain that the perfect source for much information about a turbulent time that most outsiders would never be privy to would be from the people who were there. And, again, this is not about some extremely controversial issue. Would I be arguing if you removed the statement that Wanda Day had been fired because of drug addition and there was an OTRS on it? No. You admitted you could care less about the article itself, or what it says overall, only that BAM was not a reliable source and there was an OTRS ticket on the magazine. The rest has been made far more clear in this discussion and it really does not appear to be solely about BAM as a source at all. Your opinion on this matter is clear, no need to add anything further to this discussion unless it supports your views that BAM in not reliable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into the topic-specific details of this long discussion, I can offer my outside view that BAM magazine is a generally reliable source for music-related information that it published during its 23-year existence. As was mentioned above in this section, the magazine had national notability and was widely respected. Unless there is conflicting information in other sources, I'd have no hesitation to use it as a source. If it published information that is disputed by other reliable sources, then both sources can be used, but with attribution for clarity. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbian magazines and ezines

Please could you give me your opinions on whether (and which of) the following magazines and ezines could be considered reliable (and non-trivial), especially in regards to their analysis and criticism of lesbian culture:

kiden (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It very much depends on what it is you're using the information for. There is not a large body of criticism on lesbian literature, culture, and history. Much of it comes from a small publishing base that produces these magazines. Some publications in the 1960s and 1970s (The Ladder (magazine), The Furies Collective, Sinister Wisdom) look very do-it-yourself and put together with tape and staples, but since mainstream news and literary criticism did not address lesbian issues, this is pretty much all that is available to gauge what lesbians were doing. I have used Curve and Velvet. The others I have never seen before. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just added URLs to the list to help assess kiden (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] toxicsinpackaging.org

Used in Packaging and labeling as discussed in Talk:Packaging_and_labeling#toxicsinpackaging.org_as_a_source. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Packaging and labeling article discusses environmental aspects of packaging. One of these is the need to keep toxic materials out of the package so, when it is recycled, burned, or landfilled, there will not be contamination. This subject has a citation which links it to the toxicsinpackaging.org website. Toxics in Packaging is a coalition of several US state governments for coordination of the issue and for its communication. It includes links to many state regulations. This is a reliable and unbiased source on toxics in packaging as it is the state governments providing the information. This is neither a controversial subject (it was 20 years ago) nor a controversial website. One WK editor, however, is challenging the suitability of this site for a refernece. See the packaging talk page for the discussion. Please review this and offer assistance. Thank you. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly an official source, a coalition as you say of several states of the USA. No problem whatsoever with its reliability on the environmental aspects of packaging. Obviously you should make sure you reflect its content correctly. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


[edit] IRS Documents/Phone Calls

Resolved.

I am attempting to show that an organization is not tax-exempt according to the United States Internal Revenue Service. The organization doesn't appear in Publication 78( a list of "all" tax-exampt organizaton), but may meet the guidelines for not having to be published in Publication 78. They do appear in the IRS Business Master File, which also has a list of tax-exempt organization. However, if you call the IRS Charities dept on the phone, give them the name or EIN of the organization, they will tell you that the organization has been tax-exempt since 2003. That is, however, the only information the I.R.S. can give over the phone because of "the status of the organization". I'd like to say something about the organization's tax-exempt status since I feel the organizations Wiki page misrepresents its tax-exempt status.

In other words, is saying "You can make a phone call to the IRS" a reliable source? Any suggestions?

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like original research. Can you provide more information, such as a link to the article or current discussions about this? --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
No. You need a source that's published somewhere. Conducting your own telephone interviews is definitely original research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] acsa.net?

This one web page is acting as source for a large percentage of Inter-Services Intelligence, an article about the ISI. I think the whole thing looks sketchy, but that may just be me. I'm open to comments. [58] CSHunt68 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fairly dodgy to me - a former indian minster talking about a nation they have much strife with ? hardly a NPOV source and the hosting site looks fairly dodge. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The same paper can also be found on the website of South Asia Analysis Group, which is a legitimate Indian think-tank on security and international affairs issues, and hence a reliable (though not neutral!) source for wikipedia. Hence the article can be used to provide a perspective on ISI, as long as the views are properly attributed to the author/SAAG and not simply stated as facts. 66.253.202.164 (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nightingale Research Foundation

Resolved.

reopened

In view of this revert by User:RetroS1mone, I'd like to hear opinions on the reliablity of this institute's website as a source for listing Florence Nightingale as someone to be believed to have suffered from ME/CFS, since this ME/CFS research institute was in fact named after her. Of course, there are plenty of other sources that say the same thing (e.g. [59]), but this one seems the most appropriate. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with historical figures we have to be very careful about retrospective diagnoses. Advocacy groups have a vested interest in declaring that famous people of the past had the condition they are promoting awareness of, because it gives them publicity and a kind of heroic pedigree of high achievers to be proud of. ME/CFS is particularly prone to heavily ideological and intransigent advocacy. It is clear that this insititute promotes a specific contested pov (that ME is a clearly medically defined condition) and so has a vested interest in using historical figures to assert the factual reality of the condition. As a specialist in Victorian culture I'd be very very wary of such diagnoses given the significant cultural differences and expectations regarding middle class femininity at the time and a host of other factors (conditions undiagnosable and unknown at the time; paucity of reliable information; medical expectations of the time regarding behaviour). I certainly would not expect Nightingale to be placed in an article which baldly asserts that she is a "notable person with chronic fatigue syndrome". Paul B (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The article correctly only claims that people are 'believed to be', which seems accurate in this case. The institute, as well as other researchers and historians, and most patient organizations, truly believe that she suffered from ME (and hence also CFS as it was longer than 6 months). Whether she really did, we cannot know. Maybe it was lupus. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Geocities and a website that advocates for a more or less unsubstantiated definition of chronic fatigue syndrome are not reliable sources. If published in a real reliable source, OK. The others are self-published and too fringy to be acceptable (the former quite clearly, the latter in my opinion but one I think quite understandable). WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
A reliable source in this case would be a specialist on Nightingale. The "Einstein was dyslexic" meme is a comparable case. Repeatedly debunked by Einstein's biographers it nevertheless still appears unrelentingly in dyslexia-awareness literature, posters, and so on - because the idea that the most famous scientific genius of the modern era had the condition is clearly good for the self-esteem of dyslexics. The phrase "are believed to be" still implies a consensus of experts, and there appears to be no such consensus. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The situation is not comparable, since there is nobody debunking this. Also, like I said twice and to which you have not responded, the article does not claim that she is, but that she is believed to be, which is very obviously true. We could specify this as "believed to be by...", perhaps, but should that not go for the whole list, then? Why would this be a special case? For goodness sake, her birthday is ME awareness day, declared so by a govermental body. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you have not actually read what I wrote. I did respond to that point. I will repeat it 'The phrase "are believed to be" still implies a consensus of experts, and there appears to be no such consensus'. If some people who are not experts on Nightingale, but have a clear motive for diagnosing her, say that she had the condition then their view is not sufficient. If the phrase "are believed to be" is taken to mean that someone somewhere believes it, it is very problematic. If it does not imply consensus then it is weasel wording, because it allows anyone who is believed by someone to have the condition to be included. I've no idea what should go for the whole list, since we are being asked about Florence Nightingale, not about the whole list.
There may or may not be anyone "debuking" the theory with regard to Nightingale, but her 2008 biographer Mark Bostridge identifies her condition as Brucellosis, a disease that was first identified during the Crimean war in which Nightingale worked as a nurse. Paul B (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I seem to have missed something. I don't see why a governmental body would have a suspicious motive though in this matter. Brucella infections are found in a subset of ME patients, so there is no contradiction. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what "governmental body" you are referring to. One soluton would be simply to add the disclaimer to the list that Nightingale has been claimed by some to have had the condition. Brucella may well be identified in a subset of patients, but since I am no medical expert I can't comment on the relevance of that fact. That's one reason why we have the OR and SYN rules, so that we do not "spin" the statements of sources to suit our preferred arguments. Paul B (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The Provincial Government of British Columbia, in 1995, by resolution #941109. Adding a disclaimer sounds like a good idea though. I imagine for the whole list, since the CFS article says that there is still no generally accepted way to diagnose the condition. (Btw spinning goes both ways, eg implying that brucella looks like debunking would also be OR, so a disclaimer should be carefully worded.) Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Unless the provincial Government of Canada has passed a resolution stating as a fact that Florence Nightingale had ME/CFS, I'm not sure what the relevance of "resolution #941109" is to this debate. Even in the unlikely instance that it did, governments to not decide facts of history. Paul B (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see (I could not find a confirmation in a reliable source so far), the PGBC has recognized May 12 as ME day. This date had been proposed (probably not by the Government but by people petitioning for it) because it was the birth day of Nightingale. It is doubtful whether the government did any investigation at all to find if Nightingale actually suffered from ME, and more probably that they accepted the proposal as is without much scrutiny. But I'll gladly accept any evidence to the contrary... Fram (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thank you. It seems that we still need a reliable source (Nightingale expert or non-involved medical professional) who has even suggested this as a possibility. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Supposedly they checked the biographic material and found that her symptoms matched. That is by itself not conclusive (ME/CFS has no symptoms that no other disease has, and many diseases mimic it), and no expert really can do anything beyond that so long after her death. One can, and does, believe, however. I would suggest that she is mentionable on the page because of the awareness day, but that it should be made crystal clear that there is no positive diagnosis. How does that sound? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Post-Mortem: Solving History's Great Medical Mysteries by Philip A. Mackowiak, M.D." has a chapter on the cause of death of Nightingale. The conclusion (from my reading of the limited preview, I have not read the full book) seems to be that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, a bipolar personality, brucellosis, and finally Alzheimer.[60] Fram (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No less than four disorders, without a thread of evidence, while the same symptoms can also be explained by one. The lengths people go to... Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Based on these sources there's not enough of sufficient reliability to support putting in the contention that Nightingale had CFS. Being sarcastic will not change this. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to put in such a contention, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you have apparently read the book, to make such definitive statements? At least the brucellosis is also given by her bioghrapher (mentioned above). The brucellosis and the bipolar disorder are discussed here[61].
Anyway, another biography, which also suggest brucellosis as the probable cause of her illness, gives you the perfect source to include the speculation that it was ME/CFS.page 35. The same book also indicates that she suffered some form of dementia[62], so at leastfor three of the four disorders in the previous source, there are independent sources as well. Fram (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Nightingale complained of spinal pain, insomnia, anorexia, nervousness and depression. Her symptoms often have been attributed to chronic brucellosis. "She may very well have contracted the infection in the Crimean War," Wisner said. "But that illness alone does not account for her severe mood swings, or the fact that she could be so incredibly productive and so sick at the same time.

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

If you are not suggesting such a contention be added, and your concern is addressed, I suggest you place the {{resolved}} tag at the top of the section so it can be closed off. If this discussion is an effort to attribute reliability to the Nightingale Research Foundation, we've been through this before and the answer was a negative. Irrespetive, the NRF has been judged insufficient, as is the geocities page.
Based on the links provided by Fram to Nightingale/McDonald, it is now possible to have a discussion on the "notable sufferers" page about Nightingale, but it ultimately depends on a book cited by McDonald, since McDonald herself doesn't discuss at length. That book would be Norman Keen's Florence Nightingale. The discussion is now, is this book sufficient to include FN on the notable sufferers page; as it was published in 1982, is only 38 pages long, and doesn't seem to be cited by much else, that would argue against it in my opinion. Take this new source to the notable sufferers page and make your case there; if there is a discussion about the reliability of Keen's book, start a new section below. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, these are all good points. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I mis-read which footnote to check in McDonald/Nightingale. McDonald doesn't cite Keen, she cites the NRF, which isn't reliable. For clarity, this comment was moved to after GDB's response and addition of the resolved tag WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There go the good points. I suggest that instead this seems to be evidence to support the notability of the NRF. But that is not relevant here, relevant re the NRF here is only that it exists. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the "good points" were all completely wrong (albeit a good faith mistake) it seems odd that you should phrase it this way. At best we have speculation from a body with a vested interest, one that has been noted by McDonald. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
We're not discussing notability of NRF, it was deleted in an AFD. We've discussed if it's website is sufficiently reliable to add FN to the list of notable people w/CFS. I would say the answer is no. McDonald's statement isn't an endorsement, it's barely speculation, and I don't think it establishes anything as the NRF is self-published. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
@Paul: I was reaching out, but as usual it went unappreciated. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think an institute can be published, let alone self-published. An insitute's publications are, of course, usually self-published; what of it, and how does this in any way diminish the verifiability of its existence and of what it believes? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The institute publishes the webpage, which is what you believe can be used to cite the idea that FN had CFS. WP:SPS means it can't be used to cite controversial information, and WP:UNDUE means it can't be used to cite the claim since it's neither reliable, nor does it represent a substantial minority within the academic community. Essentially, the opinion of the NRF is of such little notability and impact, that we shouldn't be citing it at all (which is why it can't be used to justify the idea that Florence Nightingale had chronic fatigue syndrome). Verification is only one of wikipedia's content policies, NPOV, of which UNDUE is a part, is another. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No, what I was suggesting instead is to cite it for the existence of a belief, not for its accurateness or reliability, mainstreamness, academicity, neutrality, etc. etc. Meanwhile, we have more and possibly better sources. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:UNDUE and my reply here. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather listen to someone without a personal agenda against me. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Such as PaulB who said NRF wasn't an appropriate source for the claim that FN has CFS? The discussion, including in put from an independent party, has come down against the use of the source. It's been judged that NRF isn't sufficiently reliable to cite the claim. The second source, the geocities page, is clearly self-published. So aren't we pretty much done? to keep asking until you get an opinion you like is pretty much forum or opinion shopping. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Again: I am not making such a claim. Please stop attacking views that nobody expresses.
Here is one more secondary source, one that is already used in another CFS article:
  • Jason LA, Taylor RR, Plioplys S, Stepanek Z, Shlaes J (2002), "Evaluating attributions for an illness based upon the name: chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalopathy and Florence Nightingale disease", Am J Community Psychol 30(1):133–48, pmid=11928774 Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The American Journal of Community Psychology asserts on its webpage that its job is to evaluate "community psychological interventions at the social neighborhood organizational group and individual levels". I'm guessing that this article is about the impact of choice of name for a condition on the community of people who have been diagnosed. In other words its not likely to be about the reiability of a diagnosis of Nightingale. But since all you have given here is the title, I'm just guessing. We need to know what it says. Paul B (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't have access to the full article, but I found this (not sure if it's accurately worded): "The team found that when groups of medical trainees reviewed case studies of CFS patients that featured three different names for the disease, their perceptions did change depending on the name the illness was given. The names used in the study were: CFS, Florence Nightingale Disease (FN), named for the public health nurse who served during the Crimean War and was believed to have suffered from chronic fatigue; and Myalgic Encephalopathy (ME), the medically based term used to describe the condition." [63] It's not about the reliability of her diagnosis, but it supports the reliability that there exists a belief (something that is common knowledge, but Wikipedia wants sources). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rulers.org

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

I would be tempted to simply avoid it by citing other sources. I would expect something as simple as the start of a rulers' term would be easy to source. The page does not cite sources and accepts corrections via e-mail. I wouldn't use it if I could avoid it. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but in Hubert Maga's case it had information that I could not find anywhere else. I am trying to bring this to FA. Is rulers.org so unreliable that it should never be used. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of eponymous laws

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

I was expecting a page of actual laws, like Megan's Law --NE2 03:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hah! -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at the page and added citations with google books for one. I would say that's not an inarguable inclusion - in each case cited it is actually a poet discussing the apparent law (the more reliable reference turned out to be a quotation of T. S. Eliot rather than a discussion). I would say that it could be an example of undue weight - if it's not discussed extensively in contemporary criticisms and scholarly discussions, it's not a good inclusion. If it is discussed, even by a substantial minority, it should be easy to find prominent contemporary adherents. Google books searches suggests that it's Eliot's opinion [64], and there's a couple throwaway references in other books - [65], but some of those discuss for instance "Poe's law days" and each seems to have a different interpretation of what Poe's law was. I would suggest that there are more reliable sources available than website. I think I'll port this to the RFC as it goes beyond RS questions. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Website

Is this website the official MOD site for this unit of the TA. An IP has stated that it is a self published website by Gareth Baillie and not the official MOD site would the IP be correct or is it official thanks. If not official would its claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt. BigDuncTalk 09:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not an official MOD site - that would end in "mod.uk", It also says that it's copyright "Gareth Baillie". Looks self-published to me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking further it's the self-publishedassociation website not for the actual unit.normally I'd head over and remove it but since it's on a NI article, I have more sense than to get involved... --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Cameron. Should it be removed as a reference? And if yes what rational? BigDuncTalk 11:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a self-published website and therefore should not be used for anything that might be controversial. I don't know what article you are referring to but yes, it probably needs to be removed for that reason. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Amiga Games Database

Hi guys, my removal of a reference on Total Chaos was contested, so I would like a second opinion. The link, [66], is a review of a game by someone with the handle "War Chicken", submitted to "Anugs's Homepage", which hosts "The Amiga Games Database". As far as I can tell, the database and its submissions are entirely handled by Angus Manwaring, and I'm unsure about his qualifications as "an established expert" (going by WP:SPS) Any opinions on this are appreciated. Marasmusine (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my comment as the editor who reverted - my viewpoint is that the source is not being used as a reference (i.e., to back up a fact that is claimed in the article), but is instead in the External Links section. I imagine it is listed to help establish notability for the article. From Wikipedia:External_links, it is acceptable to consider linking to "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Mdwh (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I see, it's still in there as footnote #5, though :> Perhaps it will be okay as just an external link. Although it occurred to me earlier today that for all we know "War Chicken" is on the game's (apparently extensive) development team; the tone of the review seems rather promotional in the last few paragraphs (complete with snappy slogan), with no real critical analysis. Marasmusine (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Books

I'd like an unbiased opinion on the reliability of these two books:

Edelman, E, Natural Healing for Schizophrenia, Borage Books, 3rd edition, 2001
Pfeiffer CC. Nutrition and Mental Illness: An Orthomolecular Approach to Balancing Body Chemistry. Healing Arts Press., 1988.

They form the basis for a couple of contentious articles. Thanks! Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Healing Arts" is an imprint of Bear & Company, which is not a medical publisher as such. See [67].

"Borage Books" is a single book publisher with an obvious interest in pushing the one book. I doubt it qualifies as RS at all as a result. It links to "clinics" and the like which have a financial interest in the book as well. Collect (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if they are on the boarderline as to reliability... perhaps reliable for an attributed statement as to the author's opinion (assuming the authors are considered "experts" in their field). Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Borage is decidedly iffy. "Healing Arts" does work mainly with "holistic medicine" etc. so that might be a factor in how much weight is given it as a cite. Collect (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Both are used as sources in topics related to Orthomolecular medicine, a fringe point of view in medicine, and I very much doubt they would be appropriate as WP:MEDRS since they advocate for a non-mainstream position. Healing arts press is an alt-med publisher (i.e. not mainstream) and as noted, Borage publishes but one book. Nutrition and Mental Illness is also 20 years old, and in medical terms it that is quite ancient. I would consider them useful only in very limited circumstances - reliable to portray the opinions of orthomolecular practitioners, and for historical information. I wouldn't use them to assert anything about the efficacy of the approach. At best in that regard, I'd use wording akin to "X practitioner believes that Y", but better is to review what sources they cite for their claims and cite them directly (if it acutally supports the point without being WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and is published in a WP:MEDRS). I would be quite careful to attend to any WP:UNDUE issues. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book Reviews

A simple question, should a book review be used as evidence of what is in the book?

My reason for asking is that the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article contains details about a controversial book on the subject based on a Guardian newspaper review, not the book itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs)

Per Wikipedia:CITE#Cite the place where you found the material, in general the book review would be clearly attributed as the actual source. The book itself is better for what is said in the book. Reading the review itself, which starts with "A controversial new history of the Indian Mutiny...", I would cite Mishra's book tentatively after his conclusion, but cite both criticisms to the guardian article. I agree that the page is better off citing the book directly but the summary of the overall conclusion of the book is sufficiently vague in the article that I would assume it is reasonable. I normally use book reviews to inform decisions about the appropriate weight and reliability of uses of the book itself, and to temper its conclusions if controversial. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting that this is not a "book review", it's a news report on the book, which quotes its author and comments from other academics. A review would be quotable as an assessment of the contents by an expert on the topic. This is probably reliable as a summary of the argument, but not of its academic notability. Paul B (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's a distinction that I didn't see. I'd still say the preference is to cite the book directly, but based on this I think the broad statement in the article is sufficiently backed by the review you could simply cite the book. I'd mine the news report for the academics' names and see if they've published reviews in the appropriate journals. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War / Status of Forces Agreement

Resolved. Both parties are apparently new editors; article semi-protected and versions merged. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please have a look at Iraq War? User:99.137.127.111 (contributions, talk) and I are both up against 3RR on it: my preferred version; 99.137.127.111's preferred version;

99.137.127.111 is intent on: (A) placing reports of Bush being burned in effigy in the introduction of the article, which I believe is unwarranted by the current length of the article (206 KB!, but there is no noticeboard for long articles) and (B) using newspaper reports attributed to anonymous sources claiming that they request anonymity for no other reason than that they are not trusted to speak with the media in order to stir up dissent about the recently-ratified Status of Forces Agreement based on supposed rationales which are completely ungrounded in facts.

At what point does a source's reliability depend on the reliability of its underlying sources? I would argue that any source always depends directly on the reliability of its underlying sources, barring some underlying accidental situation, and that we should always consider the underlying reliability when making judgements about what to include in any articles, let alone space-limited articles.

Does anyone disagree? If you agree, please revert to my preferred version or some reasonable merge thereof. Thank you. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The newspapers seem reliable to me, and one of the newspaper articles says that its sources are anonymous because the text of the SOFA was classified by the USG as Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU). Other sources are also provided which aren't anonymous in the articles. Rather than immediate reversion I might encourage discussion on the article's talk page.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
99.137.127.111's misrepresentations of his news stories' subjects' reasons for requesting anonymity are outright lies. The text of the SOFA is public, and the reasons stated by the so-called officials request for anonymity are, "because he was not authorized to speak to the media," and, "because he wasn't authorized to speak to reporters." Their reasons for refusing to speak on the record may have been because they didn't have a translation, but that was not their reason for requesting anonymity. Translations have been available since shortly after the debate in Parliament began. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Attacking my integrity and trying to tell me you are from the same place as me on my user page isn't going to advance a discussion or intimidate me. Newspapers often use anonymous sources, and a variety of them did in covering this story. The one McClatchy article explains:

All three declined to speak on the record because the administration, which had planned to release the official English language text last week, has instead designated it "sensitive but unclassified."

The article also cited specialists who weren't barred by the government from speaking to media. Anyone who actually reads the articles will be able to tell this. Finally, the sources are attributed as anonymous in the article.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's see just how much you know what you are talking about here. What is the difference between off the record and anonymous? Southern Command Stooge (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not my job or your job to be knowledgable, and maybe that's for good reason. Wikipedia lets the sources speak for themselves. I'm going to try to let some others have input.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Well put. Thank you. However, my job in fact does require I be knowledgeable, and I'm sure there is something to that effect in one of these policies and guidelines which I would rather go eat turkey than read. Southern Command Stooge (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CESNUR / Its proponents

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

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

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

Both Kent, as in individual scholar, and CESNUR are recognized scholarly sources. Kent represents a significant minority position within NRM studies, CESNUR is more reflective of the academic mainstream.
Background info on CESNUR:
Re the Scientology ceremonies, other sources mentioning these ceremonies include
  • As for the other sites you quoted:
However, while academic assessments of these last three sites generally seem to be fairly dim, and their original writing is certainly not part of academic discourse, Kent, whose own stance you'll remember is relatively close to the anti-cult position, in this paper acknowledges that the archives of government and court documents hosted on them have some value as information collections, giving these sites perhaps sufficient credibility to use them as convenience links for documents referred to in our texts. Jayen466 12:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get sucked into this because it's not something I know much about but, as Jayen knows, the CENSUR thing came up over on Osho. This website features some kind of supposed expose on Introvigne, not sure about the background to it, or the credibility of the content, but there does appear to be exchanges between Introvigne and the sites owner about a number of issues including the matter of Introvigne's title's. He is not, by all accounts, a professor or a trained sociologist (the title was bestowed upon him). Remember also that this is Italy, rife with corruption and nepotism, look at its academic reputation in the humanities, and of course this guy is a big fan of the Catholic Church, and has defended it on the point of sexual abuse allegations. He is also allegedly a member of Alleanza Cattolica. CENSUR is an independent organization, and if an academic is invited to publish work it may be a nice little earner, but it doesn't really matter what Introvigne and CENSUR might or might not be up to, you can't prove it, you need to take each publication on its own merits, any bias will be self-evident. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Great. I post links to dozens of scholarly publications documenting the site's academic standing, and then someone comes with half-baked allegations from a self-published website. Jayen466 12:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Jayen, when you say "CESNUR is more reflective of the academic mainstream," what do you base this assertion on? ←Spidern→ 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
On my familiarity with this field of studies, and who the most notable scholars in it are. This page, for example, already linked above, describing the CESNUR conference as the largest such gathering of scholars in the world. Check the descriptions of CESNUR available in reliable sources yourself. I gave lots of links above. Jayen466 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the validity of the Army Manual as a source of information in this context was called into question on Talk:Scientology#Ceremonies by AndroidCat, quoted here:

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

– AndroidCat

←Spidern→ 13:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Please Spidern, it is a US government publication. Jayen466 13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Does the US army specialize in studying NRMs? Quoted directly from WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (emphasis added). Not to mention that they copied Scientology's description verbatim. ←Spidern→ 13:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The manual was prepared by the Chaplain's Office, and, as is described in the manual, was the result of an extensive research effort. The United States Army is one of the biggest armed forces in the world. Questions of religion can play a significant part in the operation of an army; I believe the U.S. Army would have spent time, money and expertise to get this right. At any rate, it represents an incomparably greater measure of research and editorial oversight than an individual's self-published webpage. I believe that on any other topic where there were less strong feelings, use of such a source in a similar circumstance would not raise an eyebrow. Jayen466 13:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Show me the money. I still consider your statement regarding CESNUR generally taking the mainstream academic view to be unfounded. ←Spidern→ 13:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Missed reply above. ←Spidern→ 13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I see now you missed my earlier reply; I had gone to find you another reference. Here for example: CESNUR was established in 1988 by a group of religion scholars from leading universities in Europe and the Americas. Jayen466 13:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
In situations like this, the solution is usually to directly attribute who says what in the text of the article. Remember that the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not Truth. That CESNUR comments on scientology is notable in and of itself. It is appropriate that Wikipedia reports on what it says. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid that does not address the entire issue. We are talking here about a scholarly paper, published by a renowned academic (Dericquebourg), hosted on cesnur.org. Per WP:RS#Scholarship these are the most reliable sources for us to use. I hope you are not suggesting that we should say, "Professor A says this, but B's self-published website says it's a lot of nonsense". That would be a travesty of both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Jayen466 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
That is precisely what must be done, in some capacity. Wikipedia, as per NPOV, can not afford to take positions itself, but can only accurately portray the most significant ones. Also taking in to account, of course, the due weight in proportion to a viewpoints prominence in academia. ←Spidern→ 14:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. Self-published websites do not figure in this. Jayen466 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. I shomehow missed the "self-published" part and read it as "Professor A" and "Professor B". ←Spidern→ 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
In this particular situation the person being quoted on the Talk:Scientology page was the creator of CESNUR himself, Massimo Introvigne, who appeared to be attempting to discredit Stephen A. Kent multiple times. That is why I brought into question the verifiability of CESNUR itself, as a publisher of academic thought. ←Spidern→ 14:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Half baked? yes, but it's well acknowledged within academia that religious studies is a deeply problematic area precisely because it is populated by individuals who not only hold deeply rooted belief based biases, in many instances they are also using the domain of scholarly research to generate an academic body of work which can then be cited in a defense of one particular religion or another. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say that, in this specific case, both Introvigne and Kent are notable enough that their views should be discussed. Hence my suggestion that you directly attribute who says what. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The trouble comes when trying to quantify which one deserves more weight. Taking into account, for example, Jayen's belief that CESNUR is more representative of the academic community at large; how and to what extent is one to accurately depict the opposing end of the academic spectrum? ←Spidern→ 14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Kent is a significant scholar, there is absolutely no doubt about that, and his opinions deserve to be reflected, but not to the point of exclusion of other scholars' views. In other words, he is one of the notable scholars whose opinions and publications we have to reflect. His squabbles with Introvigne, Lewis, Shupe etc. in Skeptic (U.S. magazine) (which is not a peer-reviewed journal, btw.) and the personal comments these scholars have made about each other are irrelevant to the Scientology article. Jayen466 14:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Neither is cesnur.org a peer-reviewed journal. AndroidCat (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you and I are in agreement on that. I never meant to imply that those self-published sources were to be used on the page in any case, they were just pasted here as fodder for discussion. Mainly, I just wanted to confirm that Kent is in fact an RS, as user Bravehartbear suggested that he isn't. ←Spidern→ 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Understood. The only thing is to make sure we don't give Kent WP:UNDUE weight. Right now for example, we have five mentions of Kent – by name – in our article, along with an explication of his opinions, compared to zero for Eugene V. Gallagher, one for Bryan R. Wilson, zero for Roy Wallis, one for JG Melton (cited for a cherry-picked negative statement about Scientology, when Melton has actually written a fairly sympathetic and conciliatory book about the CoS), zero for Jorgensen, zero for Chryssides, zero for Lewis, one for Bromley, zero for Douglas E. Cowan – each of which is at least as reputable a scholar as Kent. I hope you see what I mean: we are still far from an NPOV representation of scholarly literature. Kent is popular on Internet sites, because of all academics writing on Scientology, he is closest to the anti-Scientology position found in the various anti-Scientology websites, but his preponderance on the Internet is not matched by any similar preponderance in published reliable sources. Jayen466 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just two more things:

  1. Introvigne's self-published comments about Kent would be inadmissible even if they were relevant to the article topic, per WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."
  2. I noticed that Dericquebourg's paper on cesnur.org is an unpublished conference paper, marked "Preliminary version – do not reproduce or quote without the consent of the author." This means that as is, the paper may not be suitable for citing here (at least not without seeking and registering permission). I don't think we should use this paper right now. Perhaps later, if it gets published. But in the meantime, it may at least be useful background reading for editors. Jayen466 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • From the About page of cesnur.org[69] "The texts of this site, selected because of their scholarly interest, represent the point of view of their authors. CESNUR does not necessarily agree with them." (emp added.)
The contents of the CESNUR site are a grab-bag, ranging from academic articles with solid sources, to personal flames by the owner of the site. There is no indication that articles have to pass an editorial review processes, peer-review, fact-checkers, etc. In the middle there are weak papers with poor references[70] or ones that strangely omit key information about co-authors of a presentation (with sources to be given later) at a CESNUR event [71]
I realize that Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to be judges of academic sources, but neither are we supposed to blindly accept whatever floats in wearing a badge proclaiming "Hi! I'm with the academic mainstream", when there are respectable contrary views. AndroidCat (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using Carma for power station emission info in Australia

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

The reliability of the source does not depend on whether they use statistical modelling or not. If you report an estimated figure, simply say that it is estimated. The reliability depends on the website's authoring organisation and how it is produced. In this case the website belongs to an organisation we describe as "a think tank". It is a dubious case. It would be useful to know whether this website has had independent reviews, particularly from academic writers. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
There are Australian Government agencies that have reports about the emissions of the power station, like the department of Climate change[72], and National Polutant inventory[73]. The question is why would we use US lobby group that makes estimates base on a model designed from information obtained from US EPA reports on US power stations. When there are actual monitoring reports from Australian sources. The same issue can also be applied to US power stations why use Carma information when there are EPA reports avaiable? Gnangarra 03:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree you should use official sources in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sabetay.50.g.com - about the Donmeh origin of public figures

This has just been added to Donmeh: "[74]A website revealing the results of studies conducted by anonymous researchers, on donmeh origin of many public figures]" - it doesn't look anything like a RS to me from the description but I can't read the website. Comments? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For your information; I modified the link with a (Turkish) mark at the end, meaning that's a website in Turkish. Regarding reliability, none of the external links in that article fits into the reliable source definition.Lyckey (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've removed them all except the article in the Jewish Political Studies Review which looks RS. dougweller (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can a youtube video be used as a source, when there is no version from any reliable source

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

Well it really depends on who uploaded the video. If it's NBC it's likely reliable however if it's some fan you shouldn't be including it. Also please see WP:YOUTUBE as there can also be copyright issues when it is from a fan. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
It's supposed to be NASA footage. dougweller (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
As said, it's supposed to be a Nasa footage. Not sure but the uploader probably is a "fan" of UFOs, or might be a neutral NASA employee as well. On the other hand, the video speaks for itself, even if it were through, say NBC, nobody in NBC could have verified the originality. Lyckey (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say no to youtube as a source, but it is used everywhere to support everything so it must be me :) --Tom 22:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
No, youtube is not a reliable source. There is no way to tell if the video has been manipulated from the original. The user who posted it may say it is NASA footage, but we can not verify this. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
However, let's not think the video is not available elsewhere. I have found STS-48 video clips on several sites that have editorial control and do not have the copyright problems often associated with Youtube... for instance Williamson Labs. Just what does your video purport to show? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Little green men, oh course :) --Tom 23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
ps williamson-labs.com??? And they are who/what? --Tom 23:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess due to the nature of the subject, a "supposed to be Nasa footage" is beyond any editorial control, which can judge authenticity. I don't see any copyright issue with such a video, as any claim from Nasa would mean the confirmation of authenticity. The version in williamson-labs is obviously the shorter and poor quality one. Who cares their editorial control :)? I've not encountered with any longer and better quality version than the one in youtube. The video purports to show that Nasa has the technology to monitor UFO or ice particle activities. --Lyckey (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Well frankly, editorial control is what makes something a reliable source. Uploader Joe is not NASA, and so cannot have the credibility of a NASA video. Find the original. Cool Hand Luke 02:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Holy Crap! Someone said something on Wikipedia that makes sense! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The original is available for free at most good libraries and can be ordered from NASA. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Then per WP:NF, since the film is available from NASA and "most good libraries", the film itself can be used as a source, even if not available to every editor. So don't cite back to youtube, simply cite to the NASA or library site where it is available. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Right -- and also note the claim made for what the video shows better be substantiated by any normal viewer of the NASA footage. Too often I have found a cite does not say what is claimed for it. Collect (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the video was published by NASA and can be referred to as such a publication. Collect's point is extremely important. The conclusion that the video purportedly supports may not be obvious from the video itself; one should be careful to only state what it actually shows. Cool Hand Luke 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] newsmeat.com as source

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

No. I am shocked by the number of articles that link to this site. Also, the political affiliations of this meteorologist are not directly relevant to his career and to pull them off this website is a clear case of original synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I removed it. I'd argue that political affiliations are quite relevant even for meteorologists, but in this particular case they should be quite obvious anyway. NVO (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion needed please

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

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

It really doesnt matter that the provider is an expert in the field blogs/forumns dont meet the requirements of WP:RS, and you should avoid quoting any person from such discussions. Try contacting the person and asking for an alternative source that covers the information in more detail. Gnangarra 09:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. The person in question edits Wikipedia so I will have to drop him a line. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://www.adherents.com/

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

I don't see any copyright info of any kind. That would make me reject it out of hand. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I would consider Adherents.com a reliable source, primarily because it is very focused on citing the sources it uses. For example, this page on the site lists Oliver Stone's religious affiliation as "Jewish father; Catholic mother; raised Episcopalian; Tibetan Buddhism (convert)". And if you click on that description, you will see a page containing a long series of quotations from 11 different sources showing where this information came from. That's besides the table of religious adherent statistics, where every single entry has a citation. See this page for an excerpt from the table; the 8th column has bibliographic citations for every statistic, and the 9th column shows the quote supporting the statistic. As to who is responsible for the site, see the site FAQ; the fact that the site doesn't have a copyright notice does not necessarily say anything about its reliability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is a reliable source. According to the FAQ: "The Adherents.com website is primarily the work of Preston Hunter" (the webmaster of the website). As such it has to be considered a personal webpage. The only way it could be considered reliable would be if Mr. Hunter was an acknowleged expert in the subject of religion. I don't think he is. As he states in the FAQ... he is computer programmer who works primarily in biomedical and genetic research, with an emphasis on database-based bioinformatics. His accademic credentials consist of a B.S. degree in Conservation Biology, with a minor in linguistics and he is currently working towards a B.S. degree in Computer Science. In short, he is mearly an amature when it comes to religion.
Adherants.com is probably a good site to use for background research (ie our editors could use the adherants page to find reliable sources upon which to base information stated in our articles), but I don't think we should use it as a reliable source on its own. Blueboar (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that Adherents.com is used as a source by books published by university presses, which themselves would be considered reliable sources. Examples: Oxford University Press: [75], [76]. Cambridge University Press: [77]. University of California Press: [78], [79]. Harvard University Press: [80]. University of Chicago Press: [81]. If it is good enough for these academic publishers, it ought to be good enough for Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] history-nz

Resolved.

Hi! I was planning to improve an article on a relatively obscure French Explorer, Cyrille Pierre Théodore Laplace, but I was having trouble finding references. I have managed to dig up a website, one book which I don't have access to, and Laplace's own report, written in French. The website, [82] seems to contain a nice amount of valuable info, but I'm not sure how reliable it is - could you help me out? \ / (⁂) 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I say use it with caution, use the articles there to get an over view and to help find further sources. The sites author says In view of the fact that this is a personal homepage, I would advise anybody doing serious research to cross check subjects by paying a visit to... and provides links to various sites at this page noting that the particluar subject you linked to is sourced from French explorers in the Pacific by John Dunmore, I'd suggest trying to get that book. Gnangarra 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I missed that note at the bottom somehow. It seems a trip to the library is in order - thanks for the help! \ / (⁂) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knol - a reliable source?

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

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

[edit] Hard Core Pornography a reliable source for World Affairs?

An editor has quoted Hustler magazine [83] (Warning: NSFW) as a reliable source. A word of warning that some of the comments on the page are quite offensive and contain crass sexual innuendo. Is pornography a reliable source for world affairs, this particular article presents a fringe theory on the USS Liberty Incident. Justin talk 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the hustler blog or somesuch. The person who wrote it does seem notable though that he could only get these views published in a blog on Hustler does make you question why he couldn't get them into a peer reviews journal or a reliable paper. NOTE: Not supporting the use of hustler as a source, I think it is inappropiate, just adding details. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul Craig Roberts is a well-known writer. Though Roberts was once respectable, his reputation has declined. FWIW, the article is reprinted both on Roberts' VDARE archive,[84] and on David Duke's website.[85] I think it'd be correct to view this as a questionable source. At most, it might be worthwhile to mention his view of the matter with attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard"
Personal tools