Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (28 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Automatic archive navigator}}
== Soundbuzz (www.soundbuzz.com) ==
Line 11:
== wolfram alpha-- moving discussion ==
{{
get the details regarding this 'computational knowledge engine' here: [[Wolfram Alpha]]
Line 92:
--[[User:Bureaucracy|Bureaucracy]] ([[User talk:Bureaucracy|talk]]) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
:FYI, "Shady Reference #2", ''Troubled Memory'', is published by the University of North Carolina Press. The book is thoroughly footnoted, though the notes for page 448 are not available on Google. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
Line 99:
--[[User:Bureaucracy|Bureaucracy]] ([[User talk:Bureaucracy|talk]]) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
:A primary source would not only not be required, it would be discouraged in this instance. If notable/reputable pubs write about it, it's notable. [[User:IronDuke|<
:It is not "available in its entirety". It is availible in limited preview. However, there is no point in "footnoting" a summary of the contents of a book, since it by definition epitomises the whole text. There's nothing 'shady' about that at all. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 116:
:*Winner of the 2000 Kemper and Leila Williams Prize in Louisiana History, Louisiana Historical Association
:*A 2000 Booklist Holocaust Literature Best of the Year Selection
:Per the publisher's website.[http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/book_detail?title_id=695] <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
Protonk,
Line 122:
BTW....I was directed here from the talk page by User: <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
--[[User:Bureaucracy|Bureaucracy]] ([[User talk:Bureaucracy|talk]]) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
*Well, I think that we can roughly say that the Powell book is reliable (assuming that list of rewards is accurate and given our policy on reliable sources). We are down to the assertion that Powell didn't read the book in question. I don't think we can make that accusation without some evidence. the omission of the book in the bibliography may be telling or it may be benign. I don't think that the books being out of print is sufficient to support your accusation, especially because one of the principal subjects of the book is Duke. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 217:
::perhaps you could say "described by the Daily Mail as ...". In general newpapers seem to attach the words 'prize winning' and 'bestseller' at the slightest opportunity.
:The Daily Mail should be fine for a book review. However it's our call whether to include "bestselling", unless the Mail has its own bestseller list like the New York Times does. It could have been a reference to Amazon.com's Bestsellers in Books status, where it is currently #76 in the Terrorism and Freedom Fighters category on Amazon UK and #14 in the September 11 category on Amazon US. There's also a conspiracy-oriented site that says the book was on Amazon's Top 100 list for several weeks,.
::I agree with Squid... If we were talking about an article about Griffin or his book I could see this being relevant, but within the context of the controlled demo article whether a source is a bestseller or not seems irrelevant (and mentioning it smacks of promotional puffery). Best to omit the word "bestseller". [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 346:
:But is this notable, or is this just some fans joking around? [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
:: There's no evidence of notability whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a petition vehicle. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<
:::Unless a newspaper or magazine mentions it, we shouldn't - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 385:
:::as this includes an assessment by a non-censored "free" scholar. But unassessed Communist era sources used to back up statements in wikipedia? Given the abundant use of such sources, it is impossible to properly in-text attribute them without turning the narrative into a complete mess. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 20:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
:::: Any Soviet era "scholarship" on history is suspect until independently (non-Soviet, non-Soviet based) proven otherwise. Recall, "history serves politics." [[User:Vecrumba|PetersV]] <SMALL><SMALL><
::Of course, when dealing with this particular topic, the alternative to Communist sources may well be ''Nazi'' sources... which I think we would all agree have their own bias problems. I do disagree with saying that any soviet era scholarship is suspect until independently proven otherwise. I would say we should lean slightly the other way... Cautiously accept it ''unless'' proven otherwise by post-Communist sources. That said, I think the problem here is one of neutral wording of the text, not of reliability. Instead of focusing on criticizing the source, we should simply edit the text so that it is phrased from a historiographical/opinon perspective. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 398:
:There is no requirement for unbiasedness in [[WP:RS]]. The requirement is on editorial procedure. The reason for this is that most sources can be assumed to be somewhat biased. So the fact that communist publications operate under censorship does not in itself mean that they are unreliable. The issue of proper fact checking might come into play, but will depend on specific sources. In addition, when dealing with biased sources, we should use proper attribution, so that readers are aware that bias might exist. Finally, and perhaps most importantly we should adhere to [[WP:Undue]] which is problematic if an article or section of article is based entirely on communistic writing. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 11:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
:Having written the article on [[Soviet historiography]], I tend to be cautious when it comes to communist-era sources. That said, they should not be treated a biased by default; a lot of them were correct, and Poland, as most Soviet satellites, was more liberal then SU itself. We need articles on [[Polish historiography]] and [[German historiography]], and on average, any Polish or German source about Polish-German relations is going to be somewhat biased, but ''Polityka...'' by [[Czesław Madajczyk]] is, for example, still seen as the best comprehensive overviw of German Nazi policies in occupied Poland, and widely cited. Unless specific reviews can be presented that would dispute reliability of those works (or authors), I think they should be accepted. If info cited is controversial, full atrribution (ex. Polish historian Czesław Madajczyk wrote...) should be enough. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
It is true that totalitarian countries' sources tend to lie. However, they don't ''always'' lie, which means that they can be used, with caution. In general, it is best to back up claims derived from a totalitarian source with other, more independent sources. Also, matching the claims against two basic criteria: ''Does this make sense?'' and ''What reasons would these propagandists have had to lie about this topic?'' is useful. For example, should Stalin have said that the sky is blue, it should not be discounted in a swift knee-jerk motion merely because he was Stalin. But if Stalin were to claim that the Red Army has painted the sky blue, any reasonably calibrated [[bullshit]] meter should take notice. [[User:Digwuren|Διγουρεν]]<sub>[[User talk:Digwuren|Εμπρος!]]</sub> 13:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 423:
: I am disputing this source as weak on a page that is a biography of a living person and the information it is adding is nothing or next to nothing and can easily be found and a stronger source. Is the article available to access on line? I notice by reading wikipedia article [[Chicago Sun]] that the tabloid has a controversial history and is currently in bankruptcy . ([[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC))'
:: Let me get this straight: You are claiming that the Chicago Sun-Times is not a reliable source? Why not? It seems like a pretty ludicrous claim, but if you want to make your case, this would be the place to do so. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't see how the current bankruptcy of a newspaper affects reporting from years ago. If there are "better" sources then that's fine, but I don't see anythig wrong with this as a source for factual information, especially as related to the Chicago area. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
:::: The bankruptcy is a reflection on the paper..and reading the wikipedia article the paper does have a controversial history, with some history of article falsification . I would say someone who was bankrupt would have less trust at least in my eyes . I have asked where the article is available for viewing and as yet got no reply. We have a responsibility with BLP to find the best sources available. I feel the source is weak and would prefer a stronger one. The information that the cite supposedly supports is next to nothing. I just explained my action and removed the cite , no information was disputed or removed from the article. ([[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 21:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC))
Line 429:
:::::Bankruptcy reflects on the financial climate for all newspapers currently, and does not reflect one whit on the RS-ness of a newspaper. The material does not appear contentious to anyone, and thus unless consensus oposes nclusion, it likely would be fine with the CST as a source. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]])
:::::In most newspapers, the reporting is kept separate from the advertising and other business aspects of the publication. I don't see any reason to discount the reliability of the source and its deletion does not appear to be warranted. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
::::::{EC}Of course the Chicago Sun-Time is a [[WP:RS]]. Bankruptcy is a reflection of its finances only. Wait a second. This dispute is about whether someone lived in Highland Park? Are you honestly trying to tell us that they can't figure out where someone lived? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 448:
== [[Mike Easley]] ==
An editor has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Easley&diff=288434843&oldid=287267302 added] a somewhat controversial claim to a BLP, citing [http://www.truthinjustice.org/gell-probe.htm this] website. The original article can be found [http://roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/news/2004/feb/25/prosecutorial-misconduct-probe-is-needed/ here]. My question is whether or not the ''[[Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald]]'' source is an [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations|editorial/opinion piece]] (example: the opening sentence states "What the prosecutors did in the first Alan Gell trial is criminal."). The claim may be true (I don't know anything about the case), but the 'Controversies' section already accounts for ~40% of the BLP. [[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|<b><
:'''Comment:''' It is an editorial/opinion piece, and if used, should only be used as such and attributed as such. The latter part of your comment seems more something for [[WP:BLPN]] than here. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 03:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
::Ok. Gracias. [[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|<b><
== Validity of Youtube References ==
Line 493:
Hi all. I asked this [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_33#ARA_Rivadavia|a little bit ago]] and didn't get an answer on whether it qualified as an RS or not. So, here it is again. :) It's the only really good source I have found online.
There's a very good Spanish source for ''Rivadavia'' on this site, http://www.histarmar.com.ar/, but I'm not sure if it is a reliable source. Can anyone here help me out? ([http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.histarmar.com.ar%2F&sl=es&tl=en&history_state0= Google Translate link]) —<
:It's hard to say, since I don't know Spanish, but it looks like a self published source. That means its reliability is dependant on whether Carlos Mey, Martinez is an expert on the subject. If you find that he's published books or scholarly papers on the subject, or is used by some reliable media outlet as an expert on the subject, then it's a reliable source. Otherwise, probably not. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 514:
The organization claims to have received the support of [[Edward Asner]], the actor and political activist, in a letter dated Oct. 6, 2008. ({{cite web|last=Gage|first=Richard|date=Nov. 18, 2008|publisher=Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth|title=Ed Asner is an AE911Truth Supporter|url=http://www.ae911truth.org/info/43|accessdate=May 23, 2008}})
Any advice is welcome! <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">[[User talk:Cs32en|<
: Not a reliable source. The only evidence he wrote it was an unreliable source, not him publishing it. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 554:
First of all, Stephan's translation of ''Wahnprophet'' as "delusional prophet" instead of "insane and arrogant prophet" is an improvement, no question about that. However, I have not researched whether it would be appropriate to use it instead of, or in addition to, the Vatican's translation.<br />As it happens, I was involved in a dispute about Primary Source vs. Secondary Source only recently at [[Richard Williamson (bishop)]]. An IP made an edit which initially I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Williamson_%28bishop%29&diff=288773002&oldid=288770964 reverted as vandalism]. The IP editor then edit warred with myself and a number of editors on that point. (Click on the "History" tab of the article). However, I then examined the primary source – the interview with Swedish television conducted in English and available on a variety of websites including [[youtube]] – and found that the subject of this [[WP:BLP]] article had been misquoted in some of the media articles reporting on the interview.<br />Next I explained my change of mind on the [[Talk:Richard_Williamson_(bishop)#Six_million_Jews|Talk page]] and tried to gain consensus for implementing a change in the article to better reflect the evident truth and stay clear of WP:BLP [[Libel]] violations.<br />The discussion, mostly between myself and two editors, went on and on and despite my best efforts seemed to make no headway. They kept quoting policy at me in a robotic manner ("verifiability not truth") and refused to acknowledge that once the misquote had been pointed out to us (by the IP editor on May 9) we were obligated to stop republishing it as fact.<br />I believe that, as a minimum, changes should be made in the appropriate places in WP's Policy pages to make it clear that Wikipedia does not republish demonstrably false claims about living persons. Editors more conversant in the policy pages of WP than I are hereby requested to make these changes. More generally, I believe the mantra "verifiability before truth" should be modified to accommodate ''all'' cases in which the truth – the facts as evidenced by a Primary Source – require no translation or interpretation and are clear as daylight, as in the case of the TV interview with Williamson.--[[User:Goodmorningworld|Goodmorningworld]] ([[User talk:Goodmorningworld|talk]]) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:In addition to [[WP:GREATWRONGS]], there should be a guideline like [[WP:MINORNONSENSE]], stating that assertions from a single [[WP:RS]] sources must be attributed to the source if there are [[WP:RS]] sources that contradict the statement. <s>For example, if Reliable Source 1 say "A is always B." and Reliable Sources 2, 3 and 4 provide examples that some As are not B, the statement from source 1 should be either left out or be attributed to the source. It should not be necessary to find another reliable source that explicitly says "A is ''not'' always B."</s> <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">[[User talk:Cs32en|<
::Interesting but I do not see the connection to my posting above. --[[User:Goodmorningworld|Goodmorningworld]] ([[User talk:Goodmorningworld|talk]]) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 649:
== [[Journal of Mental Health]] ==
I'm trying to find {{cite journal | last = Song | first = S | coauthors = Jason LA |no-tracking=true | year = 2005 | title = A population based study of CFS experienced in differing patient groups. An effort to replicate Vercoulen et al.'s model of CFS | journal = [[Journal of Mental Health]] | volume = 14 | issue = 3 | pages = 277-289| url = http://www.informaworld.com/index/713996042.pdf | format = pdf | doi = 10.1080/09638230500076165 }} on [http://www.pubmed.org pubmed], but am having no luck. With such an explicit search term, it should be easy. Am I missing something? [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
:It appears that the Jorunal is not included in pubmed central and is only available through subscription via Informa. [http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713432595~db=all] [[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 657:
:::::It's completely outside of my field so I'm afraid that I can't really help answer those questions. It hasn't been cited by anything else in this particular database but I don't know if that it is at all meaningful as there appear to be many articles in the same boat and without knowing the field intimately it's impossible to make a judgment based on that datum. That the journal is indexed in a few databases - Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Academic Search Premier, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text - seems to speak favorably for the journal. Academic Search Premier has issues online back to 1992 so it doesn't appear to be a brand new journal although it certainly isn't venerable. --[[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) PubMed is for biomedical journals. A claim about biomedical topics supported by a non-PubMed source is therefore somewhat suspect. The claim in ''[[Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome #Etiology, diagnosis and treatment]]'' is written weirdly, but the cited source is primarily making the claim that CFS can't be explained by psychological mechanisms, and must be biomedical. It is somewhat worrisome that such a claim is in a source that isn't PubMed-indexed, and that raises a red flag. More generally, the containing paragraph is weakly sourced. It cites primary studies, such as the source in question, in an area where there is a plethora of reliable reviews. As per [[WP:MEDRS]], that paragraph should be using those reviews instead. Possible reviews include Griffith & Zarrouf 2008 ({{PMID
::Publisher is T&F, a respectable but second level academic publisher. The editor in chief and about half the editors come from a single department, often a danger sign, but it's the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London, which is rather well known. . However, although indexed by Web of Science, it is not in JCR, and has published an article trying to explain why its important anyway. It is indeed not in Medline, (but it is in Excerpta Medica and PsychInfo). Thus there are some indications that there are problems about it. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Line 674:
:Blurbs from download sites are usually not independant. You'd have to find out more about what an editor review from freedownlaodcent.com means, but it doesn't look like that site is a reliable source. 3D2F.com doesn't have anything that makes it look reliable that I can see at a quick glance, either. For sites that arent automatically reliable, you have to see if the writer is an expert on the subject. Basically, do they write for reliable sources on the same subject as well. For the softpedia one, for instance, you'd have to check if Codrut Nistor is an expert who's a professor or writes for PC mags or something. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::I don't believe there is anything about a download link disqualifying a review site as promotional. Links to freeware/shareware/evaluation versions are pretty much par for the course. I can't vouch for all those links as RS but the Softpedia one looks good. I believe the Softpedia review could be considered "published" so there won't be a need to invoke SPS and check if the author is a recognized expert. Whether these sources are strong enough to show notability is an editorial decision the people in the AFD will have to reach. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 00:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
== [[Joe Capilano]] ==
The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Capilano is not referenced and has not been verified for several years, and I am wondering what the historical implications could be if information like this is never challenged and verified. What are the steps to take, and should this be taken given the information is simply many peoples opinions or stories they have been told. [[User:Sovereign Squamish Nation|Sovereign Squamish Nation]] ([[User talk:Sovereign Squamish Nation|talk]]) 16:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
:It is referenced, it just lacks inline citations. I don't know about verification since I lack access to the sources. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 00:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::Basically someone pulled them out of a book and they cannot be verified? [[User:Sovereign Squamish Nation|Sovereign Squamish Nation]] ([[User talk:Sovereign Squamish Nation|talk]]) 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::They can be verified, but only by finding the book. What statements do you object to? - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 04:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::::The 1st objection is that this man is not a Capilano at all. There is no lineage and his family who has seen the photo, denies that this man is a Capilano blood line. In those times, someone from an area would be called, Joe from Capilano country, and the confusion made him "Joe Capilano". The 2nd is that if this man was not of the Capilano blood line, then he was not "a leader of the Sḵwxwú7mesh (Squamish)". [[User:Sovereign Squamish Nation|Sovereign Squamish Nation]] ([[User talk:Sovereign Squamish Nation|talk]]) 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, we can only go by what the various reliable sources say. A [http://books.google.com/books?um=1&as_brr=3&q=Joe+Capilano&btnG=Search+Books google book search] turns up a bunch of info on him. They seem to say he was a Squamish chief.[http://books.google.com/books?id=NSN8geEr6MYC&pg=PA173&dq=Joe+Capilano&as_brr=3&ei=dckaSuX4FIq8kwTlzJnTCQ][http://books.google.com/books?id=OltrdsuFwx0C&pg=PA159&dq=Joe+Capilano&as_brr=3&ei=dckaSuX4FIq8kwTlzJnTCQ][http://books.google.com/books?id=sdjTkGo3gc0C&pg=PA86&dq=Joe+Capilano&as_brr=3&ei=dckaSuX4FIq8kwTlzJnTCQ] You might want to look through some of those sources and see if one explains the discrepancy you're describing. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::The article says that he was given the title "Kiyapalanexw" when he was about 56 years old, which was anglicized to "Capilano". The article doesn't imply that "Capilano" was the surname of any of his ancestors, and so I don't see the relevance of whether he was or wasn't of the Capilano blood line. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::The article implies the surname as being listed as "Joe Capilano", in the format of a firstname surname format. Who gave him the name? [[User:Sovereign Squamish Nation|Sovereign Squamish Nation]] ([[User talk:Sovereign Squamish Nation|talk]]) 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The article is vague on that point (it says that "many local white settlers" called him Joe Capilano). I guess we would have to refer to the sources that the article claims to be based on. But I'm not sure why this is of particular concern; as long as the subject did become known as Joe Capilano, that is how he can be referred to in the encyclopedia. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 03:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The true Squamish Capilano family claims that there is no Joe Capilano in their lineage or family tree and to list his name on Wikipedia as "Joe Capilano" is to imply a firstname, lastname individual existed within the Capilano family. There is no evidence of anyone giving him the name - during these times names were taken and changed quite frequently by the Canadian Governments Indian assimilation departments, names were also taken by transients who attempted to create a place for themselves by using other family names. If a true identity for this individual cannot be found, and without a reliable source as to who gave him the name, we request this posting to be deleted from the system or at a minimum all references of the Capilano family name be removed. The Province newspaper reported on August 30th 1906 "Capilano Joe visits King Edward VII", this article states the following " He was "Capilano Joe" before he went, after he came back he was Chief Joe Capilano". Actually he was not a "Capilano" at all - not by blood." This is similar to Mike from the city of Seattle calling himself Mike Seattle. [[User:Sovereign Squamish Nation|Sovereign Squamish Nation]] ([[User talk:Sovereign Squamish Nation|talk]]) 05:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
*If the Capilano family had an objection to Sa7plek (as he was originally known) calling himself "Joe Capilano", they should have taken that up directly with Sa7plek, although he has been dead for 99 years so they may have waited too long. Or if he has any descendants who use the Capilano name, they could complain to those descendants (although they might not get a favorable response, since the descendants could have been using the surname for 100 years or more). But I don't see what that has to do with Wikipedia. If Mike from the city of Seattle chooses to adopt the name "Mike Seattle", and he becomes famous under the name "Mike Seattle", then Wikipedia can have an article titled [[Mike Seattle]] about him. That is true even if his original name was "Michael Kowalski" or "Michael Petropoulos" or "Michael Shapiro". We don't require Mike to get permission from anyone else with the surname "Seattle" before he can call himself "Mike Seattle". --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 07:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the point precisely. He was only famous because he "took" the Capilano name and tried to use it to his advantage to be admitted to see King Edward VII, however he was refused to see him but when he returned he was somehow then a Chief. Historically and traditionally, this does not add up. “Apparently, he received the title of ‘Chief” (via recieving the name Kiyapalanexw (Capilano), in order to facilitate his trip to Ottawa and to London, to meet King Edward VII.” One blogger writes from past information listed in Wikipedia http://qmackie.wordpress.com/
The Capilano name is a sacred name and as tradition goes is only passed along from father to son throughout the Capilano bloodline, it is not given for the convenience of meeting arrangements as done with Sa7plek by unconfirmed sources. The tradition of passing the name down to the son is common among all patriarchal societies. There are people with an interest in distorting this families true history because they have never signed a treaty or amalgamated into any of the Canadian Government's Indian Band corporations. If Sa7plek is was his name, then this page should be changed from “Joe Capilano” to “Sa7plek”, otherwise the name is used in fraud and Wikipedia continues to regurgitate a historically incorrect fact. [[User:Sovereign Squamish Nation|Sovereign Squamish Nation]] ([[User talk:Sovereign Squamish Nation|talk]]) 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:Further to the facts, the article written in The Province newspaper on August 30th 1906 (Vancouver City Archives) "Capilano Joe visits King Edward VII", this article states the following " He was "Capilano Joe" before he went, after he came back he was Chief Joe Capilano". Actually he was not a "Capilano" at all - not by blood." Was in fact written by [[J.S. Mathews]] - the City of Vancouver's first archivist and an early historian and chronicler of the city.
:::You can pontificate about his "blood" as much as you like, but it will make no difference. According to policy we use the most common name, which this appears to be. See [[WP:NAME]]. There is nothing stopping you from adding material to the article, but you have so far provided no relevant sources for your repeated dogmatic utterances. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 17:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Paul B you seem to take this personally. I am simply trying to correct historical inacuracies. If J.S. Mathews is not a "relevant source", considering he was a historian for the area, then what would be? [[User:Sovereign Squamish Nation|Sovereign Squamish Nation]] ([[User talk:Sovereign Squamish Nation|talk]]) 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::Who says it's not a relevant source? That material can be added to the article, but the title should still give his most common name. That's the policy. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to change the page name to Capilano Joe, rather than Joe Capilano, as to show he was a man named Joe from the Capilano area. Several references actually use this naming convention for the individual. Please advise as to your thoughts. [[User:Sovereign Squamish Nation|Sovereign Squamish Nation]] ([[User talk:Sovereign Squamish Nation|talk]]) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
*At this point, it would not be acceptable to me, given that there are more than 10 times as many Google hits for "Joe Capilano" compared to "Capilano Joe." If you can find evidence that the subject is more commonly referred to (say, in books written in recent years) by some other name than "Joe Capilano", I would reconsider. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 04:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
== On ghosts at [[Fort Mifflin]] ==
A section has been readded several times over several months on ghosts at [[Fort Mifflin]]. The Fort is a national landmark near Philadelphia. The rational for including the material is that it appears in the sources:
* Wetterning, Joseph http://www.moorestownghostresearch.com/Cases/FortMifflin/FortMifflin.html
* Selletti, SFO, Anthony L., Fort Mifflin : A Paranormal History, A. L. Selletti Press, Chester, PA, 19013, October 2008, {{ISBN|978-0-615-22847-1}}, 248-pages
I don't see anything in the website to suggest that it is a reliable source, and it certainly uses a lot of weasel words in making its completely bizarre claims. The book is obviously self-published. Please leave comments here or at [[Talk:Fort Mifflin]].
[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] ([[User talk:Smallbones|talk]]) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:Similar material, similar complaints about [[Clifton Hall, Nottingham]] which includes the sources http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/devil-worship-Clifton-Hall/article-344872-detail/article.html in which there is nothing in the article about the building (only in the reader comments below), and http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Clifton-Hall-Creepy/article-345680-detail/article.html in which the strongest claim is that
:::''BANK worker Tracey Collins was a pupil at Clifton Hall in the 1970s when it was a girls' grammar school and recalls numerous tales of ghostly goings-on.
:::"I never saw anything myself but everybody used to talk about it," she said.''
:See [[Talk:Clifton Hall, Nottingham]] for details. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] ([[User talk:Smallbones|talk]]) 08:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Under WP:FRINGE such claims would need to be Notable and backed by RS.[[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 09:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Re: Clifton Hall. First of all, let's make it clear that the article covers the matter neutrally, and does not make assertions as to the veracity of the claims of hauntings. Secondly, ''"Clifton Hall: So Creepy". ThisisNottingham.co.uk. 23 September 2008. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Clifton-Hall-Creepy/article-345680-detail/article.html. Retrieved on 23 September 2008'' is used to establish that the hall has a ''reputation'' for being haunted at least since it was a school. How does it fail as a reliable source? There is something wrong with ''"Was there devil worship at Clifton Hall?". ThisisNottingham.co.uk. 23 September 2008. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/devil-worship-Clifton-Hall/article-344872-detail/article.html. Retrieved on 23 September 2008'' as it no longer links to the correct article. The url has not been changed, but for some reason it links to an article on football; unfortunately the wayback machine doesn't have an old version of the page. Despite the sensationalist title of the article, it was in fact used to back up a statement to the effect that there have been no "hauntings" since the Rashids left. Martinlc, I agree with you that fringe theories etc must be scrupulously sourced, and I believe the Clifton Hall article is. Moreover, the case of Clifton Hall is notable as it received national news coverage (eg: the BBC, ''The Telegraph'', ''The Independent''). [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::And it's pretty clear that a book written by someone named Selletti and published by a press named after the author is sel-published and not a reliable source. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 09:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::That's not automatic. Has the author published elsewhere, too, or are these publications cited in reliable sources? What is the quality of the research? [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 10:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::It may not technically be automatic, but for all ''practical'' purposes here it is. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear - there are some reliable sources on Clifton Hall - the local BBC, Telegraph and Independent. I had left those in, summarized them, and trimmed the rest. I think three good sources on one event is fine, but any part of the article that relies on "I never saw anything myself but everybody used to talk about it," is akin to rumor mongering and has to go. Fort Mifflin was worse, and I like the way it's been trimmed to a couple of lines. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] ([[User talk:Smallbones|talk]]) 16:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clifton_Hall%2C_Nottingham&diff=293141496&oldid=293002025 removed] the sentence "A representative of Bridge Gate Security, which is now looking after Clifton Hall, said "we have had guys on several shifts and haven't had any scary feedback from them"" as the source the information was taken from has changed. The only other complaint you've mentioned here that is related to the reliability of sources is whether ThisisNottingham.co.uk is suitable to establish that the hall had a reputation for being haunted prior to 2008. I believe the answer is yes: it's a newspaper article and the editor felt it was worth noting that pupils at the school used to think the hall. It's not a particularly controversial statement as many old houses have a reputation for having some resident spook. Importantly, the statement adds context to the article.
:The Fort Mifflin article in its current state is indeed superior to the previous version. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have edited the entry to reflect the fact that the Fort Mifflin official website supports (to some extent) the paranormal angle; a secondary if not reliable source. [[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 16:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
== [[Talk:Fascism]] ==
An article by [[Bill White (neo-nazi)]] about neo-fascism originally published in [[Pravda Online]] was included in an anthology of writings about neo-fascism, ''Fascism: Post-war fascisms'' (2004) edited by [[Roger Griffin]] and [[Matthew Feldman]].[http://books.google.com/books?id=kne26UnE1wQC&pg=PA365#PPA365,M1]. Does this make it a reliable secondary source because "A book edited and assembled by historians is a valid secondary source." or should it be considered only as a primary source for neo-fascism? See: [[Talk:Fascism#OED]]. [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:An odd misstatement of the issue at hand. One editor asserted that the OED is a secondary source and should be used to define Fascism as being "right wing." An earlier sentence, with 12 cites (not just the one being mentioned here) stated that, basically, ''historians differ on the position of fascism in the political spectrum.'' The issue now is that one editor says a source whoch quotes Mussolini can not be used because ''Mussolini was a "primary source"'' (of all things). The cite here questioned, which actually is an article ''within a book on fascism edited by noted historians,'' was written while Bill White was a Communist, of all things. Thus the issue at RSN now. Thanks! [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]])
::It is incorrect to state that "Bill White was a Communist" both from the WP article and from reading his article, but in any case is irrelevant to his article's use as a secondary source. [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Try NPA. The fact is that Bill white was working for Pravda and was a Communist. "White says that in 1997-8 he became briefly involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party's (RCP) Refuse and Resist and Coalition against Police Brutality, as well as the International Socialist Organization (ISO).[1]" seems rather to say as much. In 2000 he briefly supported Perot, but there is ''no'' indication he ever dropped his faith in communism while he was an employee of Pravda Online. SPL does not link him personally to anything "right wing" until after he left PO. So saying he was a communist at the time is supported by SPL. Seems enough for me. And since I read the articles and cites I give, I fear your comments are not precisely helpful in this discussion. Thank you most kindly. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And please indicate when you emend your post - someone might not realize you added to it after my reply. Thanks! [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:I am not as experienced as you are in this and do not know how this should be done - please post a message on my talk page explaining how to indicate emends (a term with which I am unfamiliar) and I shall do this in future. [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::If you wish to change your position on something, usually people use "strikeout" on the deleted text, and a note clearly identifying the added text. Fixing typos is not generally important unless a "sic patroller" comments. Spelling perfection in a post is rather unimportant. And be sure to sign the change so that people know when it was done. Alternatively, just reply with your new opinion and don't touch the old post. That way, there is no chance of confusion about when the post was made. Hope this helps! And since this is a matter of continuing interest, I posted here. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
== ARAcontent ==
I came upon several articles by these people recently and have become suspicious that they may be PR in disguise. Take a look at [http://www.sunjournal.com/index.php?t=8&storyid=244058&subpub=89 this one], for instance. There were several articles by this group, and they didn't strike me as particularly critical. They also were contradictory to some more routine newspaper publications. Anybody familiar with them? Have they been discussed before? (For more on them, see [http://www.aracontent.com/printsite/AboutUS.aspx]) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 00:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:Definitely a PR firm, and not really in much disguise. Here's [http://www.mnprblog.com/2008/12/aracontent-responds-to-industry-trend.html a press release] they put on a blog for press releases. Their website http://www.aranetonline.com/ lets clients "Access reports to measure your results". And everything I've seen written by them on a quick glance through maybe 15 articles elsewhere all have a promotional/advertising tone instead of balanced and informative. As press releases of course they wouldn't be reliable sources for much of anything, and I'd be hard pressed to even come up with a hypothetical example of what they could be used as reliable sources for. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you very much. I thought they smelled fishy. :/ --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
== IBDB ==
Perhaps this has been brought up before, but the archive search didn't turn up anything: is the [[Internet Broadway Database]] a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], particularly for [[WP:BLP|BLP]] information (DOBs, etc)? — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">pd_THOR</span>]]''' <sup>|''' [[User_talk:pd_THOR|=/\=]]'''</sup> | 02:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:Per [http://www.ibdb.com/contact.php this], they appear to collect primary sources, and not accept direct user contributions like IMDB. I'd say they'd be ok for non-controversial BLP data like DOBs unless proven otherwise. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
== Vator.tv ==
Is this a reliable source? Seems like little more than a collection of self-published promotional material. [[User:NoCal100|NoCal100]] ([[User talk:NoCal100|talk]]) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:Definitely not. It looks like Twitter for businesses with added video (talks about getting people to follow you). The front page clearly says "The place for emerging companies to showcase and market themselves, and share their news", so yes, self-published. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 15:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
== Elite Forces UK ==
Can I ask for a review of [http://www.eliteukforces.info/rumours/the-increment.php Elite forces UK] used as a reference for [[The Increment]] please. I have concerns in the articles at the moment over single sourcing, circular reporting and speculation being reported as authoritative. Other sources used that bear similar concerns are [http://www.opsroom.org/pages/intelligence/bo-3.html The Ops Room] and a report by something called AFI Research, that appears to be a group of private individuals conducting ''open source'' investigation. The only contact is a ''supanet'' (domestic UK ISP) email address.
The diff where the dubious material starts being inserted is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Increment&diff=292301038&oldid=292206047 here]
ETA - AFI Research appears to be [http://www.secret-bases.co.uk/afi-research.htm Allan Turnbull], same principles - civilian, no credible experience and open source research.
Thanks
[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 08:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:I have extreme concerns about the sourcing on that article. The Chris Ryan book is a work of fiction, the "Spooks: Behind the Scenes" book is a book about the making of fictional TV show [[Spooks]] featuring interviews with the cast and writers. While it is possible, albeit unlikely, it may mention the "Increment" it would not be an authoritative source. These only seem to source the horrendous "Popular Culture" section though, but their presence in a section titled "Sources" at the bottom is misleading. The Daily Telegraph article is not 13 February 2008 but [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1578498/Diana-inquest-MI6-plotted-tunnel-murder.html 17 February 2008] (as it is reporting what he said at a very high profile inquest, it's a certainty it was reported as soon as it happened). Some of what was said was [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579337/Ex-MI6-chief-details-Balkan-assassination-plan.html half-confirmed] a week later by the head of MI6, without using the term "increment" though. The Guardian aticle cited can be seen [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jan/26/iantraynor1 here] and while mentioning the "increment" it does not really source the sentence in the article that it is cited for. As for the site being asked about, it is doing nothing except publishing unattributed rumours and is next to useless as a source. What really needs to be done, short of deletion, is someone needs to track down the actual published sources, such as Tomlinson's book mentioned in the Guardian article or "How to Make War" by James Dunnigan mentioned in the [http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/813/813we16.htm Asia Times article]. None of this use of questionable websites or second hand reporting, see what the original sources say. [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk:O Fenian|talk]]) 09:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Correction - AFI Research is Richard M. Bennett - a journalist with over 40 years' experience. He acts as a consultant to www.secret-bases.co.uk and that is the only reason the "afi-research.htm" page is there on my site. You can use it to get in touch with Richard and his team of international researchers whom I'm sure will explain things to you all.
Alan Turnbull
www.secret-bases.co.uk
:Thanks for the confirmation, as far as I'm concerned that doesn't indicate ''authoritative'' with respect to the topic. Open Source research on potentially sensitive topics can lead to a number of wild goose chases.
:[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 08:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::I've redirected the article to [[Richard Tomlinson]], since his allegations seem the only real source for this topic. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
== This looks like self-published, editor claims it's scholarly ==
Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_H5_(mtDNA)&curid=20826331&diff=293604894&oldid=293459560] where I reverted two links as not academic sources for an article on a Haplogroup. All I can find about this Rodney Jowett is at [http://dna-forums.org/index.php?showuser=353] and [http://www.familytreedna.com/public/jewett/default.aspx] -- I don't think these links belong in any DNA article myself. Thanks. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 08:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:It ''might'' be scholarly, but the only way we verify that is having it published in reliable sources. I'm sure you already know and were just asking to get confirmation, but that doesn't apply here because it's just a personal page. I've removed those sources myself. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
== Oxford English Dictionary and [[Fascism]] ==
Oxford English Dictionary is a RS, right? A reliable tertiary source and can be used in LEAD's? [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 01:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
<s>An editor is</s> Editors are using the OED as a source for stating that Fascism is "right wing" in the lede, despite many cites (a dozen of which <s>he</s> they removed) saying it is not specifically right wing. And <s>he</s> they also removed all cites saying that "keft wing fascism" exists as well. <s>He has</s> They have refused to consider any possibility that the OED is not a proper source here saying "Oxford English Dictionary is not a RS? Dont be ridiculous."
As I understand it, dictionaries are "tertiary sources" and those secondary sources he removed are preferable. Is the OED a "reliable source" for the absolute statement he is using it for? Were all the other twenty sources <s>he has</s> they have removed (all of which were secondary sources) better sources for statements about Fascism? Many thanks! [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 02:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Please do not make false accusations, I have removed nothing. Feel free to go to edit history. [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::(ec) The OED is a reliable source for definitions of words. It probably doesn't have the nuance needed for an encyclopedic article, so if the other sources were reliable and of high quality, then they should be included in the article as well. Facism is a hard to pin down word and concept, so including multiple views is probably what's best. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 02:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Note: Further discussion can be found here: [[Talk:Fascism#First_sentence_of_.22Fascism_in_the_political_spectrum.22]] and [[Talk:Fascism#OED]] [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 02:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually, talk about RSN stuff goes ''here.'' That is why it is here. And I now use plural - though most folks here understand that "editor" may refer to several folks, and I did not assign any particular name to anyone, nor was the issue of singular or plural important to the issue of RS. If I wished to make a statement about a particular editor, I could actually manage to type the name. The issue is not the editor, the issue is whether the OED is RS for the purposes for which it is being used. Thanks for your concern that they would be confused about the issue. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I am the one who said "Oxford English Dictionary is not a RS? Dont be ridiculous." And I'm the one who added the OED quote. Yet I havent removed anything unlike you claimed. I'm asking you one last time to retract false accusations. [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:How can I accuse you of anything when I did not accuse you of anything here? And I carefully use the plural here so saying that I accused you of something makes no sense -- and is graciously irrelevant to the issue of whether the OED is RS for the purposes which are given to it. The issue here is one of RS -- and only that. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 02:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::There is only one person who is using the OED as a source for stating that Fascism is "right wing" in the lede and who has said "Oxford English Dictionary is not a RS? Dont be ridiculous.". And the accusation is here: "despite many cites (a dozen of which he removed)". [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 02:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Might you discuss why you feel the OED is exempt from WP:RS? That is the ''only'' issue here. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 02:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::It isnt exempt. I was applying WP:RS in my edits. [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 02:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Oxford English Dictionary is very much a reliable source, and general tertiary sources like dictionaries are appropriate in the lead paragraph. I believe we're trying to give equal billing to too many alternative views in the "political spectrum" section. While there's going to be some that argue that fascism can be on the left or that it doesn't fit a one-dimensional political spectrum at all, for various reasons such as its integration with big business, it is almost always placed on the right. The answer however is not to cite the OED in an already-crowded quote farm, but to move the OED up, perhaps as high as the article lead, and break off some of that quotefarm into a subsection on "alternative views". [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 03:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::The [[WP:RS]] policy does not classify dictionaries as ''tertiary sources''. They are not in fact ''compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing source''. They are ''secondary sources'' because they are the results of scholars who research primary sources in order to determine the meanings of words. In fact the [[Oxford English Dictionary]] is the most reliable secondary source for the meanings of words in the English language. It is common sense that if one wants to know the meaning of a word that one consults a dictionary. Ironically, the twelve sources presented in the footnotes do not support the interpretation that [[User:Collect]] has provided.
::Also could we all please assume good faith. [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::It does not really ''matter'' whether we label the OED as Primary, Secondary, Tertiary or Sesqui-Centeniary... what matters is that the OED is ''Authoritive'' when it comes to the English language. I can not think of a more reliable source when it comes to defining words. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::While that is true, the placement of fascism in the political spectrum is not an English language issue, and I would assign no dictionary any authority there. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 17:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Definition of fascism in English is an English language issue. [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Firstly, this has nothing to do with the definition of the word, but rather with the history of human civilization. Secondly, the definition in English is not likely to differ from that in other languages. If it did, I would be greatly concerned. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::So if the definition in English is not likely to differ from that in other languages, then we can use sources which provides definition of english words, such as OED. [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::You can, but only for definitions. If a dictionary would say something like 'usually found on the extreme right' you cannot use that. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 17:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, definitions of word are suitable for LEADs, you dont make sense. [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::To explain: dictionaries primarily contain definitions, for which they are authoritive, but may add background material for which they are not. In good dictionaries it is clear which is which, but not all dictionaries are good. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::All right. I hope your not disputing that OED is a good dictionary. The matter at hand is this: adding "The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism." into the LEAD of [[Fascism]] [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that this is also being discussed in [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources]] and at village pump [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Mention_Oxford_English_Dictionary_in_Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.3F] [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 17:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't have access to the OED; its smaller online version doesn't seem very good. But no matter, that's just my personal impression. I would not present the second part without other sources as its weight and context are completely unclear. The first part is uninformative (and let's hope it's not circular...). Kind regards, [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not find credible the idea that someone could in good faith suggest that the OED is not a reliable source for the definition of words. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
OED is a reliable source. However, whether some source should be used in the introduction is a matter of [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. From what I can tell, Wikipedia articles usually don't use OED for defining words. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 18:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Actually dictionaries can be problematic when they are defining words used by professionals, etc. Take the word 'archaeology' - Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines it as "the excavation and subsequent study of the physical remains of earlier civilizations!. No archaeologist would accept that as a definition. Ignoring the fact that you can do archaeology without excavating (eg field walking where you walk through a landscape looking for artefacts on the surface), archaeology covers all periods of human existence up to today, ie both before and after 'earlier civilizations'. And that isn't the only dictionary that defines archaeology as only dealing with things that happened 'a long time ago'. There's been a similar argument I believe at [[Patriarchy]]. So no, I would not automatically accept the OED as a reliable source for the definition of words, odd as that might seem. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::True... not all dictionaries have the same reputation for reliability as the OED (which, by the way, defines ''Archaeology'' as: 1) Ancient history generally; systematic discription or study of antiquities 2)The scientific study of the remains and monuments of the prehistoric period.) [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::It does? Well, that's wrong, no archaeologist would say 'Ancient history generally' study of antiquities, prehistoric period, etc. Archaeology is the study of material culture - no particular period. That's worse than I expected and I certainly wouldn't accept that in the lead of our [[Archaeology]] article, which says it is "the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis, and interpretation of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, features, biofacts, and landscapes". Quite a different definition and much more accurate. So in this case, the OED is just plain wrong and misleading. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, looking over all the points made:
* OED is generally considered a reliable source on the definitions, usage, and etymology of words. There may be better sources for highly technical vocabulary, and a dictionary can't cover every possible shade of meaning of a word, but it is a good source on how a word is used by most people. Questioning OED as an RS is a red flag that there may instead be some editorial problem with the article.
* OED is a tertiary source. Reference books generally are. Now, as WP is made up of people from many different disciplines, there will be conficting definitions for P/S/T sources, such as is it more important to classify a source by what it is ( reference book ) or to classify it by where it falls in the food chain ( does it summarize primary or secondary sources ). But lots of tertiary sources are based on primary sources; maps are one example.
* We can debate that in some senses OED is a secondary source for etymology, but we are using it here as a tertiary source. One that's summarizing likely thousands of works that use the term "fascism" and what they mean by that.
* Didn't either RS or PSTS at one time list types of books that were normally considered tertiary sources? I could have sworn there was once a list of examples such as "dictionaries, atlases, gazetteers, undergraduate textbooks, and other encyclopedias". As PSTS is ( for some reason ) part of NOR, and there's been a lot of drama on NOR over the past three years, I wouldnt be surprised if that list got lost on the cutting room floor.
* Being a tertiary source does not make it non-RS. We shouldn't base too much of an article on tertiary sources ( IMO, especially other encyclopedias that we are in competion with ), but it is appropriate to quote a dictionary in the lead paragraph if an article needs a birds-eye view of the scope of the topic.
* There's an underlying problem that we're trying to add the OED to what's already a quote farm of different definitions of fascism.
* There is an undue weight problem caused by a misinterpretation of something that says secondary sources are preferred over tertiary. They are, but for research. For weight, I'd give more weight to the tertiary soruces because they are summarizing many, many secondary sources.
* A second underlying problem is that we are giving too much weight to alternative views that fascism does not fall on the right side of the political spectrum. By almost any definition, such as nationalism, it does. There will be some scholars that insist the revolutionary aspects of fascism place it on the left, and there may be different definitions for the political spectrum used in Continental Europe, but some of these should be in a secton titled "alternative views". [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 02:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:I think a point can be made for fascism not belonging to any specific place in the political spectrum. It is a type of government, after all (as any Civilization player knows). I had a look in the most trusted Dutch dictionary, and that has no mention of any relation to the political right side (nor to the left side). [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 02:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::OED is an historical dictionary, and lists both current and obsolete meanings. As dictionaries go, I don't consider it an authority on American colloquial usage, but it certainly is for general use in English-language publishing. If one wants a definition of a term like this, I can;'t imagine what would be a better source for most purposes. Whether to consider it a secondary or tertiary sources is really quibbling. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 05:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::See my comments above about its defintion of ''archaeology''. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::: Dictionaries arrive at definitions by looking at how words are actually used. With all due respect, I will continue to consider the OED more authoritative than you, despite your disagreement with their definition of this particular word. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 20:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::They also list archiac definitions. Determining that a definition currently applies is a [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] conclusion based upon decisions made about the original source. For any controversial claims you would need a less ambiguous source. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 19:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::And of course the OED is more authoritative than I am. That doesn't mean it can be used as a source for the definition of archaeology. That should come from archaeological textbooks/dictionaries. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I would agree with this in this specific case and also as applied to other specialist topics. "Evolution" has a variety of meanings, but out [[evolution]] article rightly focuses only on the specialist one. The more broadly focused a source tries to be the less reliable it is for specific fields of knowledge. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 22:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I read in a reliable source (which I might even be able to find if it seems important) that sample surveys of actual English usage corpora find 10-25% of words are either not in standard dictionaries or obviously used in senses not given in them. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
== Is this source reliable for album sales ==
Does anyone know anything about the reliability of [http://disappearheremag.com/features/article/wear_your_art_on_your_sleeve this]? Im not sure if the web site complies with [[WP:RS]]. — [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#4173E4">'''''R'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#D80B0B"><sup>'''''2'''''</sup></span>]] 10:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:It might be reliable for some things, but I see no reason to think it'd be acceptable for reliable info about album sales. Whereever they get their numbers from would make more sense to use directly as a source instead of through them, because they'd have no inside track on these details except the same way anyone else would look that info up. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks, is anyone else in agreement with this? Any other input? — [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#4173E4">'''''R'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#D80B0B"><sup>'''''2'''''</sup></span>]] 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
== Claim that an authorised biography can't be used as being authorised, it violates SPS ==
Over at [[Talk:Bilderberg Group]] (the last two sections) an editor is arguing that an authorised biography is self-published (the publisher is Harrap) more or less by defintion. He's twice tagged the article and I and another editor removed the tag (the first time he didn't say what was self-published). Interestingly enough, he's found an article -- see the bottom section on sources -- that I think we might be able to use even though it is self-published to reflect what the author, who more or less founded the Bilderberg Group, said -- any comments on that also? There seems to be an agenda here to make this group seem even more mysterious than it is and to state that it's purpose is unknown. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 11:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:It's not SPS in the sense of the policy: it has been prepared and checked by several people and can reasonably be taken as evidence of factual statements. It may not be neutral, but that's another issue.[[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 10:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:Confusion seems rampant on that talk page. Even Blueboar is claiming that an autobiography published by a reputable publisher is an 'SPS' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bilderberg_Group&diff=293618395&oldid=293617254]. Let's keep this clear. The concept of an SPS refers ''only'' to the mechanism of publication, not to any ''genre'' of writing. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::The problem with autobiographies in general is that the author has a vested interest in putting a personalized mark on his or her role in this, that, or the other historical issue. The reader is not necessarily getting an objective assessment of any particular situation. True: Wikipedia guidelines outlined in [[WP:SPS]] "only" deal with the editorial mechanism, not the genre. Should it be that way? To be perfectly honest, I'm not so certain: the guidelines -- sooner or later -- need to caution editors on what "reliable" means in terms of "facts" versus "attributed opinion" found in autobiographies. It couldn't hurt to clarify it, at least. But that's for a separate noticeboard in the eventual chance the guidelines are revised. [[User:J Readings|J Readings]] ([[User talk:J Readings|talk]]) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::The issue is not with the obvious fact that an autobiography is a ''biassed'' version of events, it's just that it's not an SPS. We have to avoid confusing wholly separate issues. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 11:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::::There is a big diference between an ''auto''biography (witten by the subject himself) and an ''authorized'' biography (written by someone else, but with the approval and cooperation of the subject). The first might be considered an SPS, the second is generally not (the exception being if the subject paid for publication). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::You're not "hearing" what is being said. The first is '''not an SPS''' unless it happens to be published by the author. That and only that is what defines an SPS. The difference between an autobiography and an authorised biograpny is an entirely different matter. It goes to reliability, but not to SPS. An authorised biography can just as easily be SPS as an autobiography. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: Neither authorized biographies, nor autobiographies are, in general, self-published (although they, of course, ''can'' be). I agree that autobiographies should be handled with care especially when dealing with disputed or disputable historical events; however mixing terminology and calling them [[WP:SPS|SPS]] doesn't help the issue. There is already enough confusion in the area, lets not add to it. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::The problem is that the WP:SPS section does conflait self-publication and self-authorship to some degree. Much of the reasoning ''behind'' the limitations we set out at WP:SPS has more to do with self-authorship than self-publication. Both can be problematical, but for differing reasons. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: Hmmm, I don't see what aspect of [[WP:SPS]] deals with "self-authorship" ? Isn't everything self-authored anyway ? As far as I see, SPS deals ''only'' with the mode of publication, i.e., whether there was any editorial oversight and/or if any reputed organization has staked at least part of its reputation on the writing being "true".
:::: No one is arguing that autobiographies ''cannot'' be problematic, but I don't see how we can (in general) regard them as self-published or apply [[WP:SPS]]. In particular, SPS unambiguously forbids use of self-published sources in BLPs. Certainly that is not true for autobiographies! [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 17:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::WP:SPS does not "unambiguously forbid" the use of self-published sources in BLPs... it says "Self-published sources should never be used as ''third-party sources'' about living persons" (italics mine). In other words, you ''can'' use a self-published source to support a statement as to what a person says about himself/herself. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::: You are right about the exact wording of SPS; I paraphrased sloppily. Of course, autobiographies can be used even more freely, although with proper attribution and care that needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. (See [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Reliability_of_Memoirs_that_Don.27t_Cite_Sources| this earlier question]] about using [[Walter Cronkite]]'s memoir as a source).
::: But as to the larger point: Blueboar, I have read your opinion on this noticeboard to 100s of queries and I can't recall any prior instance where I have significantly disagreed with your view. That is perhaps the only reason why I am seeking a clear consensus in this case; I don't want "autobiographies can be regarded as self-published sources" to become the new, and incorrect, conventional wisdom on this board; a position that is really indefensible both off or on-wiki. I hope I have made my reasoning clear as to why autobiography ≠ SPS. Do you still disagree with that ? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::::There's a difference between ''authoring'' a work and ''publishing'' a work. An autobiography that is published by the author is self-published. If it's published by a third party of some type, then it's not self-published. Autobiographies are by definition POV however, so care I think needs to be used using them as sources for facts, especially with regard anything other than about the author themselves. --[[User:Insider201283|Insider201283]] ([[User talk:Insider201283|talk]]) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Autobiographies are considered to be different from self-published sources here. See [[Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source]] ". . . subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."[[User:John Z|John Z]] ([[User talk:John Z|talk]]) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Please note that, in this case, we're dealing with ''authorized'' autobiography. [[User:TheFourFreedoms|TheFourFreedoms]] ([[User talk:TheFourFreedoms|talk]]) 09:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::(I don't think we should ever accept ''un''authorized autobiographies as sources. The authors would have reliability issues.) <b>[[User:Will Beback|<span style="color:#595454;">Will Beback</span>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<span style="color:#C0C0C0;">talk</span>]] </b> 09:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Hmmm... what is ''unauthorized'' ''auto''biography? too much acid? Police coercion? [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Eh, authorized, in publishing sense (and with regards to this particular autobiography), would mean that the subject of biography did not wrote it himself, third party did it, while subject has read and gave consent to its contents. To keep the discussion pinpointed (we can work on improvement of policies elsewhere), do you think we should accept autobiographies outside the scope of biographical articles? That is, can this particular book serve as sole reference for the purpose/agenda of Bilderberg Group, if further details are needed, please see article in question. [[User:TheFourFreedoms|TheFourFreedoms]] ([[User talk:TheFourFreedoms|talk]]) 10:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, best cited as "one of the founders described the group as .... " [[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 10:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::and add what? The fact that his founding statements are not his and they cannot be verified by a single independent source? [[User:TheFourFreedoms|TheFourFreedoms]] ([[User talk:TheFourFreedoms|talk]]) 10:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::It is an RS for what Bernhard is on record as believing to be true (in 1962) about the group's foundation. He may have been mistaken or deliberately incorrect, but we would need an alternative RS to suggest that.[[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 11:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Agreed, I'll call it a wrap up. [[User:TheFourFreedoms|TheFourFreedoms]] ([[User talk:TheFourFreedoms|talk]]) 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
== Official Wiki. ==
Hello,
I listed this a while back and didn't get any answers so I am back with it again. I am currently writing an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Briguy9876/Roblox article] on a video game. Would the official [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Main_Page Wiki] be a good reference? The Wiki was written by users, checked over by the game developers, [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/User:Telamon and has been locked] so nobody other then staff can edit it. Your input is appreciated!--[[User:Gordonrox24|gordonrox24]] ([[User talk:Gordonrox24|talk]]) 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:The control the developers have over it makes it essentially self-published by them, so it would be a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source of limited use but not completely forbidden. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:: It has a [[WP:NPOV]] issue but the developers say it is factually correct. Could it not be used in describing functions/features of the game?--[[User:Gordonrox24|gordonrox24]] ([[User talk:Gordonrox24|talk]]) 11:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::The acceptable uses of primary sources can be found at [[WP:PRIMARY]]: ''"Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."'' So descriptions on noncontroversial functions/features would be fine. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: I'm not sure if I should consider it self published as it was written in it's entirety by users of the game. It is only locked now to keep it's factual accuracy. The only real problem now is deciding which facts are uncontroversial.--[[User:Gordonrox24|gordonrox24]] ([[User talk:Gordonrox24|talk]]) 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Other people wrote it but it was published and under editorial control of the company itself. That's clearly self-published. If you got tons of people to write about you and then you printed a book with the parts you like, that'd be self-published too. Same thing. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:Makes sense.--[[User:Gordonrox24|gordonrox24]] ([[User talk:Gordonrox24|talk]]) 23:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
== Source on Hinduism in the [[Encyclopædia Britannica]] article ==
A self-published critique of the EB's coverage of Hinduism written by an electrical engineer has been used as a reference in this article (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica&diff=293006126&oldid=293003379 diff]). This letter has been referred to by at least one website [http://www.hinduismtoday.com/hpi/2009/5/16.shtml here] but I'm sceptical as to if this satisfied [[WP:SPS]]. Opinions? [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:Sorry, [http://ia301526.us.archive.org/0/items/HinduismMisinterpretedEncyclopediaBritannicaInsultsHinduism-AmitRaj/HinduismMisinterpreted_encyclopdiaBritannicaInsultsHinduism-AmitRajDhawan.pdf here] is a link to a Pdf of this source. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:: [[Hinduism Today Magazine]] is published by ''Himalayana Academy'', which was set up by [[Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami]] to publish his own books and writings. As such, it should primarily be used only to source the views of Subramuniyaswami and his followers. Note also that the [http://www.hinduismtoday.com/hpi/2009/6/1.shtml Hinduism Today website] invites individuals and organizations to "submit Hindu-related news and announcements for distribution by HPI. News is our major thrust--the more current and global, the better. When sending news to HPI, please provide the source and text of the original item ..."
::The letter by Amit Raj Dhawan is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] and since there is no indication that he is an expert on the subject, we cannot use it as a source on wikipedia. If and when the issue gains coverage in mainstream press, we can reevaluate if it is worthy of inclusion. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
== Press Release ==
Are press releases from a U.S. State goverment, for example [http://www.ok.gov/OEM/Emergencies_&_Disasters/2009/Severe_Weather_Event_20090210_-_Master/Severe_Weather_Event_20090210-1.html this], considered reliable? [[User:Showtime2009|Showtime2009]] ([[User talk:Showtime2009|talk]]) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:I can't see anything being any more reliable.--[[User:Gordonrox24|gordonrox24]] ([[User talk:Gordonrox24|talk]]) 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, (almost) certainly. I say, "almost" only because sometimes even government communiques have obvious typos, errors etc, which need to be dealt referring to other sources, and using common sense. Can you provide more context about the particular dispute ? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 19:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::Aren't they primary sources? [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Yes. Reliable ones. They should be used cautiously to avoid OR by Synth. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::::What I meant was that primary sources are sources, not for the ''truth'' of what they say, only for the fact that they said it. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 10:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
== Childrens' Book as Source on L. Ron Hubbard Article ==
Thomas Streissguth's childrens' book 'Charismatic Cult Leaders' is quoted in the [[L. Ron Hubbard]] article as source for the statement '...Hubbard once checked himself into a psychiatric hospital.' I've never seen this data before in any reliable source. 'Charismatic Cult leaders' is published by Oliver Press in their Profiles series, which is for grades 5 and up, the book has no bibliography:
http://www.oliverpress.com/pages/pr.html
[http://books.google.com/books?id=w5J0SjdaoTEC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Streissguth%2BL.+Ron+Hubbard&source=bl&ots=i086vQJSeP&sig=6MubUpdcYGOt4KgCpHQ7bFCOEqY&hl=en&ei=6cQkSuTyH430tAP36d2fBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA67,M1 Google book search]
OK to remove this dubious info and source? [[User:S. M. Sullivan|S. M. Sullivan]] ([[User talk:S. M. Sullivan|talk]]) 06:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:I'd say it was a reliable source but the specific info you cite looks like a [[WP:REDFLAG]] - a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources" - since no other biography of Hubbard that I know of makes this claim. On that basis, I'd suggest removing the claim and citation. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 07:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:SMS, I think you might have a misconception about books like the Profiles series. Books written for "grades 5 and up" only means the language has been simplified -- it does not mean they are unreliable. Books written in simple English can certainly be reliable when sourced. (That's the entire concept behind [[Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia|Simple English Wikipedia]]). Your link also shows the book does have a [http://books.google.com/books?id=w5J0SjdaoTEC&pg=PA5&dq=%22Charismatic+Cult+Leaders%22+bibliography#PPA6,M1 bibliography section on pages 153-156] -- as do all the Oliver Press books (see your first link) -- and the first source listed in ''Charismatic Cult Leaders'' is John Atack's book. However, I would prefer to see the original sources cited -- and if claims are not supported by any of those original sourced materials - then they should be removed or altered. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer |</span>]] [[User_talk:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000"><sup>needles</sup></span>]]</span> 08:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::The book seems to be based on two sources: Jon Atack, as you say, and ''Bare-faced Messiah'' by Russell Miller. My neighbour happens to own both. Having looked at them, I would say that the book does not accurately represent what its sources say: They agree that Hubbard claimed psychiatric problems (consistent with the placement in the Profile book, but inconsistent with the placement in our article, they date it 1947), but they also agree that the context is simulation in order to extort money from the Veterans Administration. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 12:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Okay. Thank you for digging around and finding those sources. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer |</span>]] [[User_talk:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000"><sup>needles</sup></span>]]</span> 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(out) Simplified works (biographies written for children) may well not be RS - the concept of RS is that material must be a secondary source -- that is, it must have a source itself, and which validates the claims. Once a book has one "fiction" in it, it ceases to be reliable, and, in this case, since no apparent source cited in the book backs the claim, it must be regarded as unsourced. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:I agree with you that the claim here is unsourced -- because the book has apparently altered the meaning of the original sources listed in its bibliography, as demonstrated by Hans. The point I was making is that one should not assume a book is unreliable only because it is written in simplified English. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer |</span>]] [[User_talk:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000"><sup>needles</sup></span>]]</span> 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::The claim that Hubbard sought psychiatric help can be independently verified by a Globe and Mail article, which references the original court evidence where Hubbard's letter surfaced. See '''{{cite news|author=John Marshall|work=The Globe and Mail|date=26 January 1980|page=4|title=Cult founder avoids press, most followers but court files shed light on a tangled past|publisher=Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc.}}''': [http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/19800126-globeandmail.html ''"My last physician informed me it might be very helpful if I were to be examined and perhaps treated psychiatrically or even by a psychiatric analyst."'']. This letter is also referenced by Russell Miller's [[Bare-Faced Messiah]] in chapter 8, page 137. In addition, the letter is also referenced by Tom Voltz's ''[http://openlibrary.org/b/OL555377M/Scientology-und-%28k%29ein-Ende Scientology und (k)ein Ende]'', on [http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/germany/books/swoe07.htm page 63]. And finally, Stewart Lamont's [[Religion Inc.]] says on page 131: ''[http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/lamont/mind.htm In 1947 Hubbard applied for psychiatric treatment himself, a fact which may come as a surprise to those who see him as the scourge of psychiatry.]'' [[User_talk:Spidern|<span style="color:darkred;">←</span>]][[User:Spidern|<span style="color:green;">Spidern</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spidern|<span style="color:darkblue;">→</span>]] 15:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:::When you want to use the letter in this way based on Miller, you are committing a misquotation because Miller uses it not as illustration for any psychological problems of Hubbard but as illustration for his characterisation of him as a malingerer for monetary profit. As I said above, he agrees in this with Atack. Voltz doesn't explain the letter in this way, but uses it exclusively to prove that there were inconsistent versions about Hubbard's past. Only the Globe and Mail article is an entirely different matter and puts the same fact into a completely different light.
:::Finally, the balanced conclusion by Lamont seems to be very similar to what we should do here: "Whether or not the letter is a sick attempt to con the Veterans' Administration into upping his disability pension is not clear." But with so many sources discussing it, it probably belongs in the article. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, I wasn't really commenting on how the information should be represented in the article, I mainly meant to illustrate that the subject is discussed in multiple sources. [[User_talk:Spidern|<span style="color:darkred;">←</span>]][[User:Spidern|<span style="color:green;">Spidern</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spidern|<span style="color:darkblue;">→</span>]] 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
== examiner.com = paid blogging, no editorial oversight ==
Excuse me if this has been discussed previously, but I tried to do a search in the archives and all I got was any variation on the word "examine" (examining, examined, etc.) in previous discussions here, which, as you can well imagine, was extensive.
I've been seeing a few articles lately linking to pages on examiner.com as if they were published stories from the ''San Francisco Examiner'' or some other paper in that chain. Editors here should be aware that most of these links that I've found are actually to blog pages by people completely unaffiliated with the paper other than they passed a very brief initial test to set up a blog there. Content in these articles is posted by bloggers with no editorial oversight (they can write about any topic they like as long as there is at least an attempt to tie it to the topic area they were assigned to blog about) and they share in the ad revenue hits to those pages generate. It's similar in concept to [[Associated Content]] or [[Suite101]]. Based upon its set up and similarities to other prohibited sites it's pretty clear that these blogs fail [[WP:RS]] standards quite dramatically. Unfortunately it appears that examiner.com is blurring the lines between actual news articles from the parent media corporation, so I don't know if there's some easy way to differentiate the two. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:<small>This doesn't address your concerns but to search the archives for examiner.com, use quotes (i.e. "examiner.com"). I didn't find anything, but I thought this tip might be useful in the future. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)</small>
::Thank you for that... so it wasn't discussed previously. All the more reason then for people to be aware of this. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
: Please posts links, diffs, and other specifics, so that we may actually examine what you are talking about. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::In case it was unclear, I was not asking a question hoping for random users to come clarify for me (though the above search tip is useful), I was using the noticeboard to post a notice about a source that quite dramatically fails our standards for reliability. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I thought they were an online newspaper or something. Could you provide links that describe their relationship with their writers? - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 05:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually personally know one of the local bloggers, who complained to me about other bloggers' work there being full of errors and that it was obvious no editor had ever looked at them, and also saw the kinds of things being posted as sources to Wikipedia, so that's where I got the info. It's pretty obvious if you look into it at all. But for links on the web giving more info to support these conclusions:
*[http://www.examiner.com/assets/examinerfaq.html Examiner FAQs] from examiner.com, showing that they recruit locals based upon certain topic areas a bit vague on the details and written to promote themselves, but it's clear these are not employees of any newspaper (and if you pop over to a list of them, you'll see a huge mass of them on specific little topics just in a local area)
*[http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/wrg/1165564159.html "Bloggers wanted for Examiner (Fort Worth metro)"] info from Craigslist "writing gigs" post -- note ''"Pay is up to you and your ability to self-promote your material and increase page views"''
*[http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/05/writer_admits_she_spun_crazy-a.php "Writer Admits She Spun Crazy-Ass Nonsense For Examiner.com -- And Didn't Get Caught Until Lawyers' Letters Showed Up"] sfweekly.com with examples of just how the process works in practice... no editorial oversight whatsoever, no reliability, and basically spamming links
[[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:I have been watching this site for a while and came here when I saw that the 400ish links from a few months ago have now grown to about 1,100:
{{LinkSummary|examiner.com}}
:There were several newspapers in the [[The Washington Examiner|DC]], SF and other areas that were once probably considered [[WP:RS]]; some of their articles have seemed to be incorporated into this new Examiner.com website. The "new" Examiner.com is a user-generated site, as DreamGuy says, and its writers' dependence on page views for income makes Wikipedia a potential target for abuse, or if its articles begin to rank well in the search engines, an easy choice for some editors to use as a reference.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Swift&diff=280036631&oldid=279948089] Most articles are probably not useful [[Inositol#Common use as a "cutting" agent]][http://www.examiner.com/x-281-Caffeine-Examiner~y2008m5d22-Ingredient-of-the-day-Guarana--Murdered-Child-Eyeballs] or downright unacceptable [[Rahm Emanuel#Political views]][http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m11d6-Obamas-chief-of-staff-choice-favors-compulsory-universal-service]. I slogged through some of the links, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious organized abuse, but I would hate to come back a month from now and see many thousands of links and no real way to determine which ones could be useful or saved from black/whitelisting. As there seems to be some discussion as to RS or author expertise,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopaedia_Metallum_(2nd_nomination)][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Retro_duo], I would rather see what the community says before I begin working through the list. [[User:Flowanda|Flowanda]] | [[User talk:Flowanda|Talk]] 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
::Well, the community apparently hasn't looked into it much yet. The people in support of using it as a source you linked to above were doing so as part of AFD discussions, where some people unfortunately want to accept any source they can to try to justify a Keep. The claims that these bloggers were selected for expert status are simply incorrect, as Examiner.com is filling up spots and expanding their blogging system into new cities all the time, and they only criteria they seem to use is if someone can submit an initial essay that someone deems adequate enough.
::I just looked at the external links search and started looking through the kinds of things being linked to, and it looks to me that we should really have this thing blacklisted, just as we do with lulu.com and associatedcontent, which have similar models.
::Obviously it'd be nice to have more people check it out and comment here, but I'd hoped we'd catch this problem site earlier rather than later -- though it is already quite late in the game, based upon how long the've been around pumping out unreliable blog entries. Right now they are ramping up like crazy, so if we don't tackle this right away we'll have to do so soon. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:::''This looks like a real problem.'' I'm sorry to say that I looked at this a few months ago, sensed these links might be undesirable but did not invest time to push the issue. Now it looks a lot worse.
:::For starters, I suggest we try to see how many of these links were spammed and how many were simply bad choices made by innocent, well-meaning editors. --<span style="font-family:Futura;">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </span> 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
::::A. B. wrote "for starters, I suggest we try to see how many of these links were spammed and how many were simply bad choices made by innocent, well-meaning editors." I don't think it matters for purposes of deciding that it isn't a reliable source. No matter how many well-meaning editors cite an unreliable source, it's still unreliable. However, it might matter if we are trying to get it black-listed; I don't remember the blacklist criteria off-hand. --[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 05:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
== Is a resource still acceptable if it contains sentences taken verbatim from WP itself? ==
For details, see [[Talk:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth]] and [[Talk:Międzymorze]]. The source is here [http://www.sze.hu/blszk/CEIC2008vol.pdf]; it lists its publication date as 2008, but an editor has identified several sentences as first appearing in WP during 2005. Its publishers look reliable otherwise. [[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
: If they are using poached wikipedia content they have a demonstrably poor editorial policy - they are engaging in (pick a few) Plagurism, Copyright Violation and just plain Using Bad Sources. What unique information comes from this source that can't be found elsewhere? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::While I agree with the poor editorial policy comment, such sources are not engaged in copyright violation (Wikipedia releases it's content under GFDL). We do caution against using sources that cite to Wikipedia (see: [[WP:CIRCULAR]]). If the pdf in question lists citations, then I would advise reading those and citing them. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Blueboar|contribs]]) 2 June 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::That's only true if they attribute If they violate the GFDL license, they violate the copyright of our contributors. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Since I felt the reference, having copied from WP, was questionable, I reverted a bot's restoration of ref info; that edit was reverted with the edit summary "you are damaging a reference, please be careful" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth&diff=prev&oldid=294011358]. That's why I brought it up here. [[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that a source takes something from WP doesn't mean it doesn't have a proper fact-checking procedure. After all, ''some'' statements on WP ''are'' factually correct. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:My point exactly. It is possible that the source has in fact validated via peer review what was previously an unreferenced Wikipedia claim. Still, can we assume this much good faith? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:It is also possible that the wikipedia entry was written by the author of the paper after submitting it for publication but prrior to its appearnace in print. There is no reason to doubt that the source is an RS as academically edited and published by an established institution, even if if were shown that some parts of the content were not very well researched.[[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the fact that the author didn't credit WP in any way discredits the paper. It looks actionable under [[Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance]]. It also makes it extremely difficult to check possible [[WP:CIRCULAR]] - articles change - someone would need to sift thru article history for every citation to check that it wasn't here first. Supposing editors here agree it's an OK reference - on whom does the burden of proving or disproving circularities rest?
As far as the author of the paper having earlier edited the WP article - rather unlikely. The following sentence was inserted by [[User:Piotrus]], who edits under his own name, in December 2004: "Over the 16 years following the battle (the so-called [[Great Turkish war]]), the Turks would be permanently driven south of the Danube River, never to threaten central Europe again." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth&diff=next&oldid=8091856] Compare to the paper's "Over the next 16 years (during the "Great Turkish War"), the Turks would be permanently driven south of the Danube River, never to threaten central Europe again." in [http://www.sze.hu/blszk/CEIC2008vol.pdf], p.242. And now the article is using this paper as a reference for the sentence...[[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:All said, this sentence is hardly controversial. I am more interested in the reliability of other parts of our article, referenced to this article; in particular about the economy of the PLC. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The paper also contains several sentences taken verbatim from the WP [[Międzymorze]] article - see its talk page. These sentences were inserted by [[User:Logologist]] in September 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mi%C4%99dzymorze&diff=23973306&oldid=23769902]. Logo has been inactive since November 2007 and his/her email is not enabled, so it could be hard to find out whether he/she is actually the paper's author. [[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:The sentences in question were based on an article by the late, respected Professor [[M.K. Dziewanowski]] that had been published posthumously in Polish in a Polish-American newspaper that is cited as the source. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
::I didn't mean to question the reliability of Dziewanowski or the copyright status of the M. article - just to point out that the paper seems to have taken sentences from multiple WP articles. [[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 12:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:::It's not the first time that an author who is not fluent in English has found text he agreed with, liked the English wording, and borrowed it. This author probably approved of Dziewanowski's article but likely did not have access to the Polish-language original. But it would have been well if she had put the text in quotes and credited Dziewanowski indirectly, and Wikipedia directly. Wikipedia may be developing into a respectable encyclopedia—as did the 18th-century French ''[[Encyclopédie]]''. This incident, however, may also serve as a caution about academic and other authorities. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Technical note: I think this question is applicable to more than this single source, so the issue should be noted and/or discussed primarily at the talk of WP:RS. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:Link to this thread posted at [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&diff=294247913&oldid=294210228]). [[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 21:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
::Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors are NOT reliable sources, please see [[WP:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_source_information_from_Wikipedia]] [[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells]] ([[User talk:Jezhotwells|talk]]) 22:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I have a hard time calling reliable any source that copies wording from Wikipedia. I ''especially'' have a problem with the fact that the source does not seem to have the intelectual honesty to cite Wikipedia while doing so. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Or papers which cite material from sources they have not consulted, if Nihil Novi is right. Piotrus, how close did you come to translating your source? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 02:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
== Posts in a discussion forum by an ackowledged expert who has published in the field ==
Well, I guess the heading says it all. Are posts by an expert in a discussion forum an acceptable RS? Obviously it would be better to find a widely available dead tree reference, but in my opinion so long as the point is consistent and sensible, and reevant to the larger discussion in which it is posted, and posted under his own name, it is probably easier for people to check a web reference than an article in some technical magazine. I'm not madly fussed either way, I just haven't seen it discussed. [[User:Greglocock|Greglocock]] ([[User talk:Greglocock|talk]]) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:As long as we can be reasonably certain it really is that expert saying it, then the source is him or her, and it's just as reliable as he or she is when writing in a newspaper or book. Because such writing can be off the cuff, however, more traditionally published statements are preferable when they exist. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 02:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:Such a post is covered by [[Wp:SPS]] and is very low on the totem pole of reliable sources, although usable in very restrictive cases when the identity of the poster is not in doubt, (s)he is a acknowledged expert, no alternate sources are available, and the point being supported is not contentious or a BLP issue. Such sources are definitely not equivalent to, or preferred over, articles in technical magazines, newspapers or books. Online accessibility is always secondary to reliability. Do you have a specific source and article in mind ? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 03:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
::No, it is just a technical matter nothing biographical, specific thread in question is [[http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=216&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15]] where Bill Jurens is commenting on Bismarck. I realise dead tree references are preferable, but on the other hand the web link is far more accessible. Thanks for the link BTW. [[User:Greglocock|Greglocock]] ([[User talk:Greglocock|talk]]) 08:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
== www.tehelka.com ==
Would [http://www.tehelka.com this site] be considered a reliable source, as on the [[Sathya Sai Baba]] page? It is used to detail possible mismanagement of funds of the Sathya Sai organization. However, when I searched for the supposed name of the article, I found nothing. It has a circulation of about 120,000, which is minute for a country the size of India. From what I can tell, the majority of the information on the website is opinion, and all (that I read anyway, the articles that came up under a search for Sathya Sai Baba) of the articles on the page regarding SSB were critical of him, which would hardly be considered objective/neutral. Any help on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks, [[User:Onopearls|'''<span style="color: silver">Ono</span><span style="color: #92000a">pearls</span>''']] <sup>([[User talk:Onopearls|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Onopearls|c]])</sup> 02:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
== The Long, Long Trail ==
Hi a question of this online site is it a reliable source ?
Chris Baker he author says this about himself - As far as historical things are concerned, I was Chairman of the Western Front Association for two years and a member of the WFA Executive Committee for six; I was also a founder member of the WFA's Heart of England Branch. I am a member of the University of Birmingham Centre for First World War Studies and of the Douglas Haig Fellowship. In December 2007, I proudly graduated with a MA (with Distinction) in British First World War Studies from the University of Birmingham. My dissertation was on the Supreme War Council 1917-1918.
*here is the link [http://www.1914-1918.net/welcome.htm] --[[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 20:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
: Do you have an idea what possible articles and in what context? -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 01:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::Articles on World War I, which he seems to have a passion for --[[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 06:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::: Well, I'm thinking the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29|standard]] would require (1) identification that he's an established expert (not merely his CV but independent third-party confirmation) and (2) his work had been published by reliable third-party publications. Google news doesn't produce anything but there are some cites at [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22The%20Long%2C%20Long%20Trail%22%20Chris%20Baker&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&sa=N&tab=np Google books] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22The%20Long%2C%20Long%20Trail%22%20Chris%20Baker&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&sa=N&tab=ps Google scholar]. Perhaps focus on those third-party cites first as [http://books.google.com/books?id=hzUZ-26KYQ4C&pg=PA25&dq=%22The+Long,+Long+Trail%22+Chris+Baker&as_brr=3&ei=AwQdSsm4NpzwkQTd_KiFBg#PPA25,M1 this] at best indicate some reputation for strict factual details, and keep out his opinions if possible? I'm not really sure. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 09:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the reply --[[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 10:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Jim, Birmingham University's website confirms his membership of the Centre for First World War studies [http://www.firstworldwar.bham.ac.uk/members/index.htm]. The website is also recommended by [[Intute]], see [http://www.intute.ac.uk/artsandhumanities/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=humbul4800] so I've certianly tended to view it as reliable in the past, see discussion on [[Talk:North Irish Horse]]. [[User:David Underdown|David Underdown]] ([[User talk:David Underdown|talk]]) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::<s>Some independent references to his work would be good - so far his authority as an expert is established solely by his affiliations. I don't think that counting a post-grad's blog/website as an RS is a good plan without some hint that it (the site) not he (the person) has been treated as authoritative.</s> Ignore me - Ricky81682 has shown this.[[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 08:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
== Problem about sources at [[Chronicles (magazine)]] ==
I really would appreciate some help here, where I am running up againt 3RR against what looks like one editor with several IP addresses (one-off so 3RR difficult if not impossible to enforce) challenging the sources that say that the magazine is, or at least has been, considered paleoconservative. Calling it paleoconservative should be in no way controversial, but various excuses have been used to remove the word and the sources, all of them revolving around the sources which is the only reason I am here. Thanks. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 13:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:That's what semi-protection is for; see [[WP:RFPP]]. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
::71.126.40.130 is using comments in a discussion forum for a statement of fact? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I thought about asking for semi, but it is possible to see this as a content dispute. although I see it quite differently. It's interesting. After the IP removed my references, all the references are either to the magazine itself or The American Conservative Union Foundation. And there's been a determined effort to not describe it as paleoconservative even though that particular reference says it proclaims itself as paleoconservative. Go figure! Maybe I should ask for semi, this is pretty blatant pov editing. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
== Weston A. Price Foundation ==
Hi,
I'm doing a [[WP:Third opinion]] for a dispute at [[Raw milk]] and would like more opinion on the use of the [[Weston A. Price Foundation]] ([http://www.westonaprice.org/ external link]) as a source for the article [[Raw_milk#The_Raw_vs_Pasteurized_Debate|here]]. I'd be grateful for comments here. I'll collect a diff in the next day or so and add to the talk page.
Cheers, [[User:Bigger digger|Bigger digger]] ([[User talk:Bigger digger|talk]]) 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
: Appears to be an advocacy organization. If they are notable, obviously reliable sources will have commented on their statements in the debate. Use those obviously reliable sources. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 15:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
== Media Matters and News Hounds ==
Would either [http://mediamatters.org/ Media Matters] or [http://www.newshounds.us/ News Hounds] ever be considered reliable sources, like in the [[Gretchen Carlson]] article? There is a question on this at [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Gretchen Carlson]].--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] <sup>[[User talk:Unionhawk|Talk]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:EmailUser/Unionhawk|E-mail]]</sup> 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:: I followed Media matters for a very long time and it might not be black or white. Given its function as a news watch organization its mission entails integrally very political work, and they probably criticize the right more than the left (partially true). On the other hand, they seem neither a tabloid, nor aggressively distortionary like some think talks, political organizations. I don't see "Carlson" on the page noted above. I think scholars with higher standards that wikipedia would use them as a source, but not carelessly assuming fact. --[[User:Ihaveabutt|Ihaveabutt]] ([[User talk:Ihaveabutt|talk]]) 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Quite a few reports by [[Media Matters for America]] consist of stating accurately what content can be found in various prominent media outlets. Thus, the work of Media Matters doesn't depend on something like "We heard from a confidential source that Columnist X was threatened with exposure of his adultery if he published this story." It's more like, "Last year, there was a story like this about a Democratic politician, and Columnist X covered it (link), but this year, despite similar reports about a Republican politician (link), Columnist X has been silent." Reports of that type can readily be reviewed by those criticized. If there had been any inaccuracies, they would have been exposed. Media Matters is not ideologically neutral but neither is the ''Wall Street Journal''. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
:::In this case they are not reliable. They are fringe sources picking at minor, isolated incidents. [[User:John Asfukzenski|John Asfukzenski]] ([[User talk:John Asfukzenski|talk]]) 20:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:::[[Media Matters]] is a self described "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" so they should not be viewed as being an unbiased source, but it may be appropriate to cite them in statements such as "liberal groups have criticized x, y ,z" or to cite their compilation of other sources such as videos and quotes from other more reliable sources. -- [[User:Gudeldar|Gudeldar]] ([[User talk:Gudeldar|talk]]) 16:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::John Asfukzenski cites no basis for his charge that Media Matters picks at "minor, isolated incidents". By [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Wallace_(journalist)&diff=293053366&oldid=285192951 this edit] he removed all mention of a Media Matters report that was based on review of ''every'' transcript of "Fox & Friends" interviews of Bush administration officials. That's an example of the kind of information that's perfectly proper. In fact, it's rather dubious that, in a case like that, the information even needs to be identified in text as coming from a liberal group. I agree with Gudeldar that such identification is generally proper when Media Matter is quoted as giving an opinion, however. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sources do not have to be politically neutral, they have to be accurate and reliable. It sounds like the only objections to the use of this source have been made for partisan reasons. No source is 100% free of opinions or world view. As long as those views do not get in the way of the facts then the source is reliable. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:: If there is a real reason to remove a Media Matters report, I don't know. But more generally, it does not seem credible or relevant to claim ''"Media Matters picks at "minor, isolated incidents"'''. On the contrary, that claim seems pulled from the butt and I doubt it would withstand any reasonable scrutiny. Media matters seems to often or usually support its claims with evidence. --[[User:Ihaveabutt|Ihaveabutt]] ([[User talk:Ihaveabutt|talk]]) 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Given the fact that we are supposed to be putting forth an effort to make the articles in Wikipedia as neutral as possible as per [[WP:NPOV]], and Media Matters on its own website calls itself a "''progressive'' research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting ''conservative'' misinformation in the U.S. media", I can't see any way that MMfA could possibly qualify as "Reliable", as per [[WP:RS]]. The organization itself is claiming a bias and an agenda that violates NPOV, how can it be reliable? [[User:SeanNovack|Rapier]] ([[User talk:SeanNovack|talk]]) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
== Video game sites ==
Hi! I'm wondering about the reliability of a number of websites which don't yet have any information on reliablity at [[WP:VG/S]].
* [[ActionTrip]] ([http://www.actiontrip.com/index.phtml home]; [http://www.actiontrip.com/reviews/baldursgate2shadowsofamn.phtml sample review])—Currently has a parameter in {{tl|VG reviews}}. Seems to be a largish, fairly professional site. No evidence that I can easily find that it is user-contributed like a blog or wiki.
* CVGames ([http://www.cvgames.com/ home]; [http://www.cvgames.com/?p=28 sample review])—Not even mentioned at [[WP:VG/S]] at this point. Seems to be fairly professional, even if not the largest or most popular of game sites. No apparent user-contributed content.
* The Armchair Empire ([http://www.armchairempire.com/ home]; [http://www.armchairempire.com/Reviews/PC%20Games/baldurs_gate2.htm sample review])—Doesn't ''look'' quite as professional as the other sites, but it is a partner of [[GameZone]] (an RS) and has been around for 9 years.
Thanks! –[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Drilnoth|C]] • [[Special:Log/Drilnoth|L]]) 22:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:ActionTrip.com - I can't really find any information on them. They don't have an About page, no mention of their editorial policy, no physical address, etc.. Our article on them doesn't cite a single [[WP:RS]]. So I would say, no it's not a [[WP:RS]]. I do find a handful of mentions of it by other [[WP:RS]] so it's views might be important enough to include in an article. That's really an editorial decision. BTW, ActionTrip has come up before.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Video_game_refs]
:CVGames.com - Again, I can't find any information on them. Even worse, I didn't find any [[WP:RS]] even mentioning this web site. So I would say not a [[WP:RS]] and it's reviews aren't important enough to include in an article.
:Armchairempire.com - I'm not sure about them. They don't have an about page but do have some sort of staff[http://www.armchairempire.com/staff_masthead.htm]. No physical address and they aren't referenced by a single [[WP:RS]] that I could find. So, I would say no, it's not [[WP:RS]] and it's reviews aren't significant enough for mention in Wikipedia.
:But that's just my 2 cents. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
::Okay; thanks. I'm guessing that eventually ActionTrip should be removed from {{tl|VG reviews}}, since having a possibly unreliable source built into that sort of template seems kind of confusing (that's why I was unsure of it). –[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Drilnoth|C]] • [[Special:Log/Drilnoth|L]]) 23:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
| |||