Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
||
Line 780:
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|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </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)
| |||