Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Global Warming Art

The following page is a local copy of the Wikipedia page at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (more info)

General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Please post new topics in a new section.

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

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

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



Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42

Contents


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

New Man magazine - extremist and fringe?

We have a dispute with User:Hrafn on the use of New Man magazine to cite the following three statements in Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum.

  • The Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum is a creationist museum in Crosbyton, Texas, opened in 1998.
  • The museum also bases the Mount Blanco fossil excavation team who go on "digs" and investigate fossil evidence according to a creationist view.
  • He became interested in fossils after cleaning and preparing bones at the La Brea tar pits, and made a 10-foot-by-40-foot casting of the Waco, Texas mammoth site, now on exhibit at Baylor University. He returned to Texas in 1984, to make a living as a fossil collector and mold-maker.

Removing the source, Hrafn wrote "New Man is not RS per WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources". I looked it up (wrote our article about it yesterday, in fact), and New Man has been around since 1994, with between 100,000 and 400,000 subscribers in all regions of the United States and in Canada, it has separate editors, writers, and publishers. It's a Christian magazine, originally affiliated with Promise Keepers, but not particularly an extreme one. The New York Times has written about it a few times, but never called it extremist.

Now Hrafn writes "... the article in question is rabidly creationist. Creationism is widely acknowledged as a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, lacking any scientific merit. Ergo Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources applies." The article in question is:

At no point does the article affirm creationism, other than stating that is the point of view of Joe Taylor, founder of the museum. It calls him courageous and says he has a strong faith in God, but surely that's not the same as affirming his views - being courageous does not make you right. Instead, the article says "even the Christian scientific community has backed away from this evidence". I don't believe that's "rabidly creationist", and, I don't think it is either in the letter or the spirit of WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources to forbid it as a source for the above three not particularly controversial statements.

Hrafn isn't bringing up any evidence on his side, but does keep reverting. He did, however, suggest we come here (not quite in those words :-)). So, here we are. Our discussion is on the article talk page, Talk:Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum#New Man as a source. What do you think, folks? --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is transparently pro-creationist, but that does not mean it is unreliable as a source for biographical information about the museum's founder. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
New Man magazine is clearly Creationist. However, I agree with Paul, for these specific claims it is ok. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
My concern is that an article/magazine that is so blatantly & uncritically regurgitating Taylor's position is likewise unlikely to fact-check Taylor's claims about his biographical details. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be the one to say it, but WP:RS are supposed to be third-party. Can't you find better sources for this content? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It is thoroughly third party. New Man is a US national (+Canada) publication, based in Florida, not affiliated with Taylor's small museum in Texas. All they share is a rather large country and a rather popular religion. While the article is nice to Taylor, it doesn't specifically advocate his views, and, as mentioned above, states that not all other Christians do either. In my research about New Man for the New Man article, I've never seen them called Creationist. The assumption here seems to be that Christian = Creationist, which isn't really so - most Americans are Christians, but relatively few are Creationists. --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the presumption would be that Biblically literalist Christian = Creationist. That Beh is taking a creationist slant is clear from his use of the term "evolutionist", his scare-quotes around "experts", "150 years of evolutionary hype", the "cone of silence" claim of censorship of creationism, his fawning eulogising of Taylor as "courageously daring to do their own primary research and are digging up, preserving and presenting fossil evidence that has evolutionists running scared." This is not legitimate or neutral journalism, it is a blatantly creationist puff-piece. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. I thought he was afiliated with the magazine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Do either of these help? [1] [2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The first one requires a subscription which I don't have, while I think you'll see the second one is already used as a source for what it covers. Thanks, though. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A source that we're already using [3] states that the museum opened in 1998, Taylor is a creationist and is located in Crosbyton. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Right. (I wrote the article. :-)) That first statement is easy to source, even to the museum's site if necessary. The other two, though, I think are useful to the article, and I suspect strongly will be deleted by Hrafn without it. They're simple not very controversial statements, but there are people who will do what they can to delete absolutely every statement not strictly sourced, no matter how innocuous. Here's the sort of information Hrafn deletes as unsourced: [4]. Though there are multiple other references for the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum article, the New Man article is the longest single source. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The USA Today article [5] I mentioned earlier can be used to establish that this is a creationist museum. So, can we agree the first sentence is covered?
Sure. --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the last two sentences, there's no way this [6] is a WP:RS. I wouldn't trust it for biographical information either. Hrafn's concern is well-founded. However, you can use this article for some of the biographical information [7]. It looks like lubbockonline.com has covered this quite a bit. I recommend doing a little more research and rewriting those two sentences to fit what lubbockonline.com says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that, please? Notice that the two RS/N people commenting immediately before you have disagreed, so "no way" seems overly strong. What makes you not only sure, but categorical? --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be happy to.
  • "What does this guy have to say that has evolutionists running scared?" Evolutionist is a term used by creationists and rarely used today in the scientific community.
  • "For decades these "experts" have told us that dinosaurs roamed the earth for eons" Note the use of scare quotes around the word "experts" to imply doubt in the credibility of evolutionary biologists and paleontologists.
  • "threatening long-cherished views of evolution" Threatening? Nonsense. There is no serious debate in the scientific community regarding the validity of evolutionary theory. Nor is there any kind of threat. The evidence supporting evolution is vast and overwhelming. In terms of validity, evolutionary theory is on par cellular theory and Einstein's theory of relativity. Perhaps even more so than relativity since scientists haven't been able to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. Anyway, see our article on Evidence of evolution.
  • "Here, at the beginning of the 21st century, after more than 150 years of evolutionary hype" So 150 years of scientific research and experimentation are being dismissed as nothing more than hype?
  • "the 'cone of silence' that has surrounded all opposing facts and ideas" Cone of silence? Is New Man Magazine honestly proposing some sort of conspiracy theory about scientists actively suppressing legitimate scientific research?
  • "is beginning to be broken by men like Joe Taylor" Which peer-reviewed, scientific journals has Taylor been published in?
  • "are digging up, preserving and presenting fossil evidence that has evolutionists running scared" The fossil record is one of the most powerful sources of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. See Evidence_of_evolution#Extent_of_the_Fossil_Record.
  • "This lack of "missing links" has been a grand puzzlement to evolutionists, and represents no small obstacle to their theory." More nonsense. There are plenty of transitional fossils. See our list of transitional fossils.
Need I go on? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Well put. OK, I'll see if the article can live without this source. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I posted a Google search link at that article's talk page. I think you'll be able to get a lot (but maybe not all) the biographical information you want from those sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I see the argument, I just felt those details were pretty innocuous so long as they were clearly attributed (now, that I should have said -- you write things like that saying 'the magazine' or so and so, or an article, said thus and thus). But if it had called him 'Dr', or 'archaeologist', yeah, dubious. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Quest For Knowledge is mistaken that the phrase about "this lack of missing links" is nonsense. If there is a lack of missing links, that must mean that the links have been found: a view in line with mainstream science! Also, a cone of silence is a completely fictional thing. Either the New Man's author writes very confused prose, or he is subtly satirising the bias he is required to express. However, there is no doubt that the article is very very biassed, but that does not mean that the journal is not as reliable as others as a source for uncontroversial biographical information. One can find biassed, distorted reporting on politics in much mainstream journalism. Paul B (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. I think it's sloppy journalism. If you look at the rest of the sentence, it says "This lack of "missing links" has been a grand puzzlement to evolutionists, and represents no small obstacle to their theory." Subtle satire? I think that's giving them too much credit. Sloppy journalism is just another reason why this isn't a reliable source. Also, keep in mind that reliable sources are those that have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does New Man Magazine have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? If so, on what basis? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a pretty serious problem with the New Man references being replaced with citations to different newspapers. There's a couple places that are now tagged as unreferenced that were clearly backed up by the New Man article ( about the La Brea tar pits and returning to Texas ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Despite bad journalism and stupidity and just plainly being scientifically incorrect the New Man journal IS reliable when it comes to the point of referencing what the museum's intention and goals and the founder's views are. Wikipedia guidelines on reliability are clear that every source is not just "reliable" or "unreliable" but instead each source must be reliable on the topic it is being used as a referenced for. As a source referencing scientific and correct thinking on evolution and geology and science it is fringe and unacceptable. As a source saying what the museum has, does, and believes it is reliable, it has no reason to lie about what the museum believes seeing as how it agrees with the museum. Reliable magazines such as Popular Science, Discover, and National Geographic are reliable on science and evolution but would probably be biased and unreliable on what that particular museum believes, I have read some very strong language in those very articles against creationists that isnt exactly neutral and unbiased. It is all subjective. If there are actual TRUE facts about the museum (not commentary on evolution) in the New Man article and other more reliable sources can not be found then wp:ignore all rules applies and it shouldnt be removed.Camelbinky (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, I'm slightly more sympathetic (but only slightly) to the idea that might qualify as a reliable source for information unrelated to science. I still have some issues with it.
First, the second sentence listed in the OP makes a claim, I believe, related to science, that the museum hosts a "fossil excavation team". Is New Man Magazine qualified to judge what constitutes a fossil excavation team?
Second, per WP:V, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If New Man Magazine is used as a source, it's up to the editor who cites them to make the case that they qualify as a reliable source.
Third, per WP:V, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include web sites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist.... Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Certainly, this is a publication that promotes an extremist fringe theory, namely creationism.
Fourth, there's still the outstanding issue of whether New Man Magazine has earned a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Do we have any policies, guidelines, etc. that explain how to make this determination? For the Washington Post, it's pretty easy. For example, we can look to the number of Pulitzer Prizes it has won. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the existence of a fossil excavation team really a contentious issue? On reputation, no we don't really have a standard on what consistutes a reputation for a news source. Reputation normally comes up only for self-published experts or for the very most contentious material. Otherwise, despite what WP:V says, we tend to assume reputation is OK for widely published sources unless they get a reputation for disinformation. On the extremist issue, that's very debatable. Extremist to me means advocating political extremism, not holding what are somewhat widespread religious views in the United States. I know many on WP tend away from religious fundamentalism, but it is very appropriate to use religious sources on articles related to their religion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm concerned that readers might get the impression that they're conducting legitimate scientific research. Fringe is not defined by the number of proponents it has but by the number of reliable sources backing that theory. According to our article on Young Earth creationism, "the overwhelming scientific consensus is that YEC claims have no scientific basis. For example, a statement by 68 national and international science academies lists the following as facts, established by numerous observations and independently-derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines, without any contradiction from scientific evidence: that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has shown continuing change; that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin" Young Earth creationism is clearly a fringe theory and this is a source promoting a fringe theory. It's no different than a source promoting the idea that the Sun is the center of the universe or that the Earth is flat. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with squidfryerchef... I don't understand how having a particular religious/scientific belief makes this "fringe." There are many (although certainly not the majority) established/respected scientists who believe in Creationism. Also, using the word evolutionist doesn't make this fringe any more than evolutionists referring to people as creationists (which is common). New Man is certainly indepentent, verifiable, etc., and in no way is it fringe. This seems like a clearcut example of an editor attempting to introduce their POV into an article they don't necessarily agree with the content of. Wikiwikikid (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that. Young Earth creationism is contradicted not only by the theory of evolution, but by just about every field of science, including geology, astronomy, biology, archeology, anthropology, physics, etc. BTW, it is entirely possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time. Even the Roman Catholic Church says evolution is compatible with the Christian view of creation.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Quest, come on, you're not going to exclude a religious source on a religion article because the religious beliefs don't match up with science. Nobody is suggesting that New Man is an RS on paleontology. I am suggesting that it is an RS for basic facts about the museum such as where it is, who founded it, and how they came to be interested in running a museum. The article may reflect Creationist hopes about confirming beliefs through archaeology, but nobody is suggesting we quote those hopes as fact. Furthermore, using rhetoric such as "cone of silence" does not disqualify a source; political sources use wording much more colorful that all the time. Neither does the phrase "lack of missing links". That could be an unintentional pun, but they clearly mean that the "missing link" still hasn't been found, "missing link" being an idiomatic expression we don't parse further. If anyone seriously reads "lack" as "the missing link is no longer missing" they are way overthinking this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
How is this any different from a source that claims that the Earth is flat? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's about a flat-earth museum, then that's fine. More specifically, by your logic, we could not cite a Catholic newspaper that mentioned the transmutation of wine into the blood of Christ, for simple information on which church bought a new organ and what the name of the priest there is. Being non-RS for science does not make a source non-RS for everything. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
No, we can't say as a statement of fact that wine turns into the blood of Christ. We can say, however, according to the Catholic religion, wine turns into the blood of Christ and cite the Catholic newspaper. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Facebook or Twitter?

Can a post on Facebook or Twitter ever be a WP:RS? There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Tea Party protests#Mike Huckabee. The background (at least from my possibly slanted POV) is that on April 29 President Obama commented on the Tea Party protests. On the same day, former Governor Huckabee posted on Facebook and Twitter "Astounded Pres. Obama still doesn't know tea parties were led by moms, dads worried about future...that's serious and no game!" Huckabee's official website links to both, so I assume they aren't fake accounts. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter accounts might pass muster as Self-published primary sources for use in an article on the account holder (ie Huckabee's Facebook page might be used as a source on the Mike Huckabee bio article), but not in other articles. If Gov. Huckabee's comment is notable enough for inclusion, a secondary source will have picked up on it and reported it. No need to quote from Facebook or Twitter. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If a publiched news source quoted the Twitter, then the Twitter becomes a primary source and doesn't need to pass SPS. Whether it's useful to our article to quote Twitter is up for debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Huckabee's Twitter post was cited by Think Progress, but unfortunately that's not an RS because of Wikipedia's bright-line rule against blogs. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That "bright-line" rule against blogs isnt so bright-line per discussions going on in many places. IF the twitter or facebook quote is useful and needed, ignore all rules comes to mind. I think we see community consensus going against a clear cut line against all blogs.Camelbinky (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Depending on how they are used. Still problematic in WP:BLP unless published by a good WP:RS and usually best only for opinion unless it is an individuals whose grasp of facts is impeccable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Twitter is a micro-blogging service, and as such, anything there can be used in line with WP:SPS. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Is CEPR and its articles a reliable source?

This source on RCTV in Venezuela, article by Mark Weisbrot: CEPR Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction, By Robert McChesney and Mark Weisbrot, June 1, 2007

cepr.net is not the same as cepr.org, but one of the authors, Robert W. McChesney, can be considered an expert in the field, as Research Professor of Communications at the University of Illinois. I assume there are different opinions on the subject, so it's probably best to attribute the statements to the sources.  Cs32en  15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the about us page at the website, I would say it is reliable. Certainly for a statement of opinion, and probably for statements of fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

CEPR is a think tank in Washington with a *very* overt political bias that has tobe referred to as left-wing. I am not saying there is something wrong with that but their "facts" on subjects like Venezuela are certainly subject to questioning. I highly recommend anyone using them as a source to include the fact that they describe themselves as overtly in favor of the governments of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa. see this: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wes/weswpa/2008-001.html http://lasarmasdecoronel.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellow-traveler-and-gangster-mark.html

WP:RS does not mean "conforming with the majority opinion". How do we know that Francisco Rafael Rodríguez, the author of the paper you refer to, is unbiased and reliable?  Cs32en  02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
CEPR's director Mark Weisbrot appears to spend lots of time speaking in favour of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, not only in the US Congress and US media, but in Europe (Madrid & London). In fact Weisbrot has referred to Venezuela's propaganda office in Washington as "a great source of information".Venezuela Head Polishes Image With Oil Dollars Regardless of its general principles, CEPR maintains a clearly partisan view with regards to Latin American politics, and its director lacks broadcasting credentials.Proofknow (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

American Journal of Family Therapy

Could I have an analysis of the American Journal of Family Therapy? It appears to be the primary publisher of noncritical articles about parental alienation syndrome, which is a curious pattern. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It has an eigenfactor of 0.13891, if that helps. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
On first review, I don't see anything to indicate a problem with its reliability for Wikipedia. It's a peer-reviewed journal with a 37-year history, published by Routledge, with a solid editorial board [9]. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree. it is a journal of demonstrably abysmal quality. In Journal citation reports, it ranks 27th of the 30 journals in Family studies, and 85th of the 87 in clinical psychology. It is just such journals which tend to publish articles from distinctive non-central POVs. Many academics join any editorial board that asks them to; it does not necessarily involve any work. DGG (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a most interesting comment from someone whose opinion I respect a lot. The article in question is Parental alienation syndrome; Jack-A-Roe's pointer to the editorial board [10] led me to observe on the talkpage that at least ten of those listed, including the editor-in-chief, are known to be "pro" PAS, with articles often published in the American Journal of Family Therapy itself. None of known the "anti" academics are on the editorial board as far as I can see, and few "pro" articles has been published elsewhere, especially recently. But what does one do about this? The journal may be of poor quality, but should it really be excluded as a reliable source? Other opinions welcomed --Slp1 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Peer reviewed journals are of varying degrees of reliability. the distinction reliable/non-reliable is naive. Scientists judge articles to a considerable extent by the journals in which they appear. Perhaps an article about the journal could be written for Wp -- all peer-review journals even at the bottom of the JCR list are usually considered notable eniough for that (even that list is selective--there are lower levels yet). DGG (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Those are good points, maybe that journal should not be used in the same way as a more reputable one. But this brings up a policy question - how do editors make these decisions? If there is no other source disputing papers published in this journal, and it is peer-reviewed, what is the criteria to use for determining how to cite that content? I'm not arguing in favor of the journal, this is a more general question. If there were other references contradicting this one, then both could be shown, but how can a journal be cited with a caveat that it doesn't seem reliable because it's ranked low or publishes non-central POV articles? Again, I'm not arguing for the use of this journal, but this seems like a gray area in the policy that may need clarification. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I've answered my own question - after reviewing more of the other reliable sources on that topic, sources known to be solid, they are all strongly critical of the theory, and they document the lack of mainstream support for it. That provides context and support showing that the journal, though peer-reviewed, is less than reliable (at least on this particular topic). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent - I agree it's a very interesting policy/editor question. In the two cases where there has been reliable sources of dubious merit I've posted questions on RSN and ultimately the questions seemed to come down to, in my mind, undue weight concerns. The comments informed the discussion, but the "dubious" journals could be identified by their support of the minority position. I don't know if there is an easy, rule of thumb way of determining this (impact factors are obviously tempting, but probably inappropriate). In cases where neutral editors are simply reviewing sources it can be determined fairly readily I think, when there is a minority and majority opinion. Problems were created for me in the past when editors with strong POVs were pushing for the minority opinion to be included as if it were the majority (such as what is happening now on talk:parental alienation syndrome). I think experienced editors will probably manage to tease out the issues in cases like this, but it will certainly be time and reading-intensive work (unless the Cochrane Library is kind enough to pop out a review article the year of). Interesting questions though, and not easy answers for most of us. Thanks for your comments DGG and JAR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no way to determine the level of reliability of a "dubious" journal other than to take the time and energy to research it and determine its reputation. We need to find out who its editors and reviewers are, and find out about their qualifications and reputations. Certainly the fact that a journal is not cited by other scholars whould be a hint that it is less than reliable... another hint would be if the journal consistantly seems to be publishing "alternative" viewpoints (in which case we may be dealing with something that is not properly peer-reviewed, that is essentially a medium for POV self-publication). Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm finding the talk page very difficult to follow. It and the article have been in flux for the past week. For those of us who aren't too familiar with child psychology, can we get a nutshell description? Anyway there's nothing wrong with an academic journal having a point of view. And we should explain what the alternative points of view are especially because this is not purely a scientific topic where we're interested in the absolute truth, but something that comes up in child custody cases, where readers may be more interested in the debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The nutshell version is that a psychiatrist (Gardner) said that he had discovered a new syndrome in which children in conflictual divorce situations would refuse contact with one parent because the other one had "brainwashed" the child against the other, including sometimes getting the child to make claims of abuse etc. Gardner self-published his discovery (rather than submitted it to peer-review, as would be normal in the field of medicine), and also provided very limited research in support (mostly case studies etc). He claimed that despite this PAS met the criteria for use in court cases in the US, though others have vigorously disagreed. The syndrome seems to have been somewhat accepted to begin with, but more and more critical articles have appeared as time goes on, from psychologists, lawyers etc, with most textbooks of child custody evaluation, law books, saying that it does not qualify as a syndrome, and/or is not advised for use in court because of multiple issues including lack of scientific evidence that it actually exists. Other formulations, mostly dropping the "syndrome" label, have been developed instead, However, some authors continue to write acceptingly about the topic, almost always in the same journal; many of the same authors also recently collaborated on a book on the subject. Fathers' rights activists strongly support the existence of the syndrome claiming that their former wives are turning their children against them; women's rights and domestic violence activists strongly oppose it, claiming PAS is used by fathers and their lawyers to dismiss legitimate claims of child abuse made by mothers.
I wouldn't disagree that we need to give both sides of the debate. But the question is how much weight do we give to what appears to fairly clearly be the minority view, mostly published in a walled garden type journal, and other low quality sources. --Slp1 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
To that I would add, parental alienation is something completely different - the separation and lack of affection between a parent and a child. Parental alienation is middling-well accepted as existing, but the existence of the syndrome, particularly as described by Gardner, is not well accepted and this is quite easily demonstrated through the numerous critical discussions found in many books. It's a rather textbook fringe theory in my mind. PAS does have considerable popular attention in the form of news articles and advocacy by parents, as well as a legal strategy in many courts. If this can be clearly demonstrated via sources, this should be included in the history section of the page. It is in the academic, expert and scholarly audiences that PAS has found minimal play and in my opinion should be discussed as primarily not accepted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know the details, but the journal is prima facie reliable, and given its history, publisher, and the length of its editorial board it would certainly would seem to be as or more reliable as the legal articles which are currently used for science in the article. Sounds like the journal is the area where the proponents publish. If an article from that journal says something which is obviously over the line, that statement should be attributed as an opinion or left out entirely, but in general both sides need to be presented. The fact that the lead doesn't even have sentence stating the proponents' view, when according to WLU there's a medical journal which frequently publishes articles supporting the view, suggests that the page is not currently NPOV. It makes it seem as if Gardner is the only supporter when this discussion makes it sound like there are more. The Scientific Status section doesn't cite the journal either. The article also has the annoying practice of ref-bombing. It's important to make things as factual as possible, but not to keep out content that makes things more complicated than we might like. II | (t - c) 08:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
II, if the medical journal you are talking about is the AJFT, I wouldn't call it a medical journal as it's about psychotherapy (making it a psychology journal I guess). The reason I asked for a comment is to get the sort of analysis that moves beyond "the journal is peer reviewed therefore reliable" - I am far from able to make the distinction easily. Because this is an undue weight issue, it's up to editors to parse the sources and figure out where the line is. Based on WP:MEDRS, the best sources to use are books, review articles and broad statements by secondary sources - those seem to indicate that PAS is not accepted (the exception being the AJFT, which seems to be the primary vehicle publishing mostly positive articles - a curious pattern that I alluded to in my opening post of the section). Refbombing is an unfortunate consequence of heavily disputed pages where it is necessary to cite everything because everything is challenged. If consensus indicates that PAS is indeed not well accepted, the page can be rewritten more elegantly, limiting the number of cites for each phrase. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
How does 3-4 extra sources make a difference when one has a good source? Plus it suggests the sources are being used imprecisely. Anyway, the article still strikes me as lacking neutrality because it doesn't seem to allow the proponents to voice their argument -- not even a couple sentences. The article is not something that interests me right now so I'll leave it alone. When I usually respond to these sorts of RS/N questions, my first question is: what's the context? What do you want (or not want) to use the article/journal for? I haven't noticed any of that information being provided. Are you looking for ammunition to keep the source out? II | (t - c) 18:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, I'd be happy to have a maximum of two of the most reliable for each statement. However, there has been a consistent POV-push on the page (that is still going on) that PAS is a legitimate diagnosis that has been properly used in the courts and should be accepted into the DSM (see the talk page, any posts by Michael H 34) which required a steady application of a number of sources to avoid the weaselly "Critics say..." or "X person said..." rather than the acceptance that a large number of sources actually say the same thing. The reason that there are few "proponents" arguments is that most of the proponents arguments I have seen have been self-published or cited in dubious sources (for instance, the insistence on the use of newspapers in this section - the statement from Baker is from the New York Times and one from Stahl is published in the Whittier daily news). By comparison, the more reliable sources converge on the opinion that PAS has been inappropriately cited in legal cases and in fact has insufficient scientific merit to be included in the DSM. This is why I consider it fairly classic WP:FRINGE - minimal investigation in reliable sources; when there is, unrelentingly negative discussion in the most reliable sources; a small number of proponents continue to flog the idea in low impact sources after it was rejected. Previous versions read very, very poorly, (such as this version) because of the insistence on "NPOV" - being interpreted as a lack of criticisms. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
SLP, thanks for posting the nutshell. There's no reason why we shouldn't cite the AJFT. If they tend towards a particular point of view, then see if there's an adjective that can be used to qualify the cite, i.e. "conservative". If anyone here is very interested in the AJFT then go ahead and start a WP article on them. Remember, we don't need to give undue weight to alternative views, but we don't want to wind up with a page that's entirely written by critics of PAS.
The broader issue is that we are overthinking the academic debate on whether PAS is really a "syndrome". For instance I wouldn't expect something like this to be listed in the DSM whether it was widely accepted or not. The DSM is a very general book, and it tends towards medical diagnoses. It doesn't list every possible phobia, fetish, or psychoanalytic concept. I would expect it to list Parkinson's Syndrome, but I wouldn't expect it to list Battered Women Syndrome or Stockholm Syndrome.
Whether PAS is a distinct mental phenomena is not important to most of our readers. I don't think anyone here doubts that people say all kinds of nasty things about the other spouse in a divorce case and that children are suggestible. PAS is likely more important as a legal argument than as a psychiatric diagnosis, so we should forget about WP:MEDRS and start looking at legal books, newspapers, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks for your suggestions; I think for the most part they are very helpful. The problem is that the DSM thing is a major issue for those involved in the debate (on both sides), and supporters do claim that it is a psychiatric (ie medical) diagnosis that should be included in the manual. There are published arguments (scholarly and in the news) for and against, calls for letter-writing campaigns to the American Psychiatric Association etc by supporters etc[11]. In part this is because recognition of this sort would be a clear indication that the syndrome has the validity/reliability required to be recognized as evidence in courts of law. BTW, as a neurological condition, Parkinson's disease is not included in the DSM IV; nor are Battered Women Syndrome or Stockholm Syndrome both of which are also very controversial "diagnoses". The legal and medical issues here are inextricably linked; and I really don't think newspapers are good sources for either of these topics. However, high quality legal, child custody, psychological, and medical sources, are, I agree where we should (and have, frankly) been looking.--Slp1 (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
We should be giving appropriate emphasis on PAS as is found in reliable secondary sources. Those sources are primarily critical and point out the errors assumed and made by asserting that PAS exists and should be used in a court of law; their content is normally a brief summary of how proponents describe PAS, followed by a series of criticisms and reasons why it is generally not accepted by the relevant experts. The page is in my opinion about a fringe theory and should therefore focus more on its shortcomings and the societal/scientific/legal debates, rather than on what the proponents claim it is about. Cautious expansion of the page according to proponents could occur, but no claims of effectiveness, reality or appropriateness should be made without high-quality sources, of which the AJFT does not seem to be one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The DSM seems like a polarizing side issue as far as PAS is concerned, maybe we should only spend a paragraph or two on that. It's interesting that there's a group lobbying to have PAS included but good luck with that, the DSM is for more general categories. But I doubt that not being in the DSM precludes PAS from being argued in court. I'm not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me an M.D. psychiatrist ought to be able to testify as an expert witness on someone's mental state without having to make a diagnosis out of the DSM book.
I'd have to disagree about using news media sources. We don't want to use only ivory-tower academic sources. Those are fine for theoretical underpinnings but we should also use our top-tier newspapers such as the Washington Post, New York Times, and so forth. They would have interviewed judges, experts and others and provide some context as to how commonly PAS is argued in court and what the opinion ( including the popular opinion, that's important for juries ) is on the matter.
I'd also like to comment on some problems with the bio on Gardner, which has too much of a critic's POV. Our article on Parental alienation is a stub with a number of pro-PAS external links. Likely it should be merged with a more general article on alienation in the psychological sense, except that we don't have one. And our article on alienation is a redirect to Social alienation, which is mostly about Marx and Sartre. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest continuing this discussion on talk:PAS - post this message in full on the talk page and I'll have comments to make when I have time (probably not 'til Thursday night or Friday). I agree with some points but the more specific this gets about PAS, the more it should be continued on that talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no way I'd be able to keep up with the debate on that talk page. Feel free to point them here though. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of sources published in Communist Poland

A user recently added information to Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany based on this source:

Czesław Madajczyk. Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 1970

...and to the Szczecin article based on this source (related talk here):

Polonia szczecińska 1890-1939 Anna Poniatowska Bogusław Drewniak, Poznań 1961

I say sources published in Communist Poland are unreliable, at least in regard to all aspects of politics and history which were likely politically abused by the regime. Though of course the scholars were not all dumb nor solely politically motivated, it has to be taken into acount that free research did not take place under Communist regimes, and that censorship ensured that noone could publish something not in line with the contemporary political agenda - furthermore, one was unlikely to even become a scholar if one was in any conflict with the stance of the regime. Since German-Polish relations and Polish territorial claims were of central importance to the regime, no Communist Polish sources should be used for these topics, if at all on wikipedia. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not be so quick to discount Communist era sources, and certainly not as a class. Yes, we should use caution (because of the potential for political influence and spin), but not all Communist era sources were bad. If nothing else, we can use the material with attribution for a historiographical statement (ie a statement as to what was thought about the topic during the Communist era), to be compared to more modern (post-Communist) sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar; we shouldn't throw those out. They should be used with attribution, and they should likely be treated either as we would treat a political watchdog group ( because of political bias ) or as a primary source ( on opinion during the Communist era ), but still RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This makes no sense. Sources published in one country relating to that country's negative relations to another country are almost always biased, whether due to censorship or just systemic bias and self-censorship. This requires careful reading between the lines, double-checking as far as practicable, attribution etc., not discarding of sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Proper attribution when used as a source for what was thought in Communist times - ok. But the problem I referred to is the sourcing of "facts". Eg in the article Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, the following sources are used abundantly to back up statements in the narrative:
  • 46 times: "Położenie ludności polskiej w Kraju Warty 1939-1945. Dokumenty niemieckie", Poznań 1987, pages V-XIII
  • 51 times: Czesław Madajczyk. Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 1970
I do not say that the statements sourced to the above authors are necessarily false, but I strongly object to using these sources to back them up. What I do not object is the use of sources from the Communist era or before as cited in modern sources,
  • e.g. Maly Rocznik Statystyczny (wrzesien 1939 - czerwiec 1941), Ministerstwo Informacji i Documentacji, London 1941, p.5, as cited in Piotr Eberhardt, Political Migrations in Poland, 1939-1948, Warsaw 2006,
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. 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." PetersV       TALK 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
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. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with some Blueboar said in the above post. First, in this topic area the alternative is not Nazi sources, but independent scholars publishing in a free country, including of course modern Poland. Second, not every bullshit uttered by Communist propaganda and not every information given by a scholar during the Communist era was later evaluated by independent scholarship. If we make it a rule that all that was said during the Communist era is acceptable (i.e. treated as "fact" that we can rely on) until proven wrong, we are in hell's kitchen. I still remember very well how every day we were told how everything was not just fine, but extraordinarily precious in our Socialist world, and that was backed up every day by lots of data in literature and media. And of course everyone, even Communist hardliners, knew that the data was very likely to be faked or lacking the necessary contextual information. I cannot imagine that all this bullshit ever underwent an analysis from a modern perspective.
Rephrasing as an "historiographical/opinon perspective" - how would one accomplish that? As shown above, there are more than a hundred statements like "foo happened that way and then foo went foo". How would you present this kind of information instead? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I commented on the general question of reliability of communist era sources, not on the specific problems of the article. E.g. Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany#Segregation seems to be based almost completely on one such source. What the section says is plausible, but a bit surprising in its full extent. I would expect that for every single claim, such as Poles not being allowed to use public phones, there is at least a grain of truth, and possibly but not necessarily much more than that. Was it true in practical terms for the full time of the annexion? Or was it true only theoretically because of a law that wasn't widely followed? I guess the truth is somewhere in between.

I still think that what I wrote above holds as a general principle; but I am not at all sure that this general principle of double-checking etc. has been followed here. It seems that the large number of facts cited to the sources in question amounts to embracing its opinion, in a situation where it would be best to compare the opinions of present-day Polish, German, and other scholars to get the current state of the discussion, and then perhaps use the old sources to provide specific details that support this. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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. 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. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As the scholar and historian Andrzej Friszke noted in IPN Bulletin fom 4th May of 2004 Czesław Madajczyk remains the best author and scholar in regards to studies on Nazi Germany's policies in Poland[12]. Also Friszke did write that most of Polish research on Nazi Germany is based on publications before 1989 as post-1989 researches focused on Soviet era and territories, amd there is no doubt that this sources are considered reliable. In fact even modern historians from Germany use Madajczyk's works and praise him which can be sourced. --Molobo (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The obvious criteria here concerning sources published in Communist Poland (and other Communist countries) is how they are viewed by sources not published in Communist Poland (or associated regimes). If a post-1989 scholar, or a Western scholar, says that a source is reliable (not necessarily using that exact terminology) then that source should be treated as reliable. A mark of reliability could be just the fact the original source is quoted or cited without criticism or major qualification in later and/or Western work. By that standard Madajczyk definietly passes the test. I don't know about Drewniak.radek (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is The Bible (or other religious scripture) a reliable source?

I think the answer to this question is an obvious "No!" but that hasn't changed the content of Ammon, which cites nothing except the Old Testament and Webster's dictionary to establish the authentic historicity of this mythological nation. Apparently there are a great many other articles on Old Testament topics that need authentic sourcing, but I'm unaware of there being any reliable sources on this. If some could be produced, there'd be no problem of course, but I'm not happy with Wikipedia articles reflecting Old Testament mythology as if it were a source for history. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source, which are reliable for what they specifically say, but interpretations of primary sources require reliable secondary sources. In the case of Ammon, it's clear that the Hebrew scriptures refer to such a location, and the relevant passages can be cited, but beyond that... so what? The historicity of religious documents in general are questioned, so using it to establish anything other than "Yup, it references it" is simply not possible. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand you here. Do you mean "Yes, of course the Bible can't establish the historicity of its own claims" or "Who cares if someone uses the Bible to establish the historicity of its own claims, because everybody doubts the authenticity of Bible history anyway"? --Ryan Delaney talk 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want a one liner, how about "The Bible is a reliable source for what the Bible says (with a few caveats), and nothing else for purposes of Wikipedia usage", Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Bible is a reliable source for discussing Christian and Jewish mythology and oral history (though I'd add in the additional Jewish interpretive works to the Jewish view), and is a notable view worth mentioning. However, it shouldn't be presented as the only view or as undisputed fact, unless archaeology and so on agree with the Biblical views. Also, the Hebrew names usually do not resemble the more correct names very well (e.g. Hittites v.s. People of Hatti.) In short, the Bible should be used, but should be clearly identified when used, and not be used exclusively. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
All right, I think we agree about this. So the second question is: Am I right to think there is a problem with Ammon, Kurkh Monolith, and a lot of other articles on Old Testament mythology like those in Category:Assyria and so on? What should be done about this? --Ryan Delaney talk 19:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
With uncertain oversight by any scholarly body, it certainly doesn't count as a reliable source under our rules. Google books has a variety of sources and they would almost certainly be more fruitful sources of the significance of Ammon outside of the Bible. Right now it looks like a lot of original research is happening - "The latter statement can be reconciled with...This explains, in part, the claim mentioned above..." with no references except biblical passages. I'd say the page should be trimmed with extreme prejudice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I've done considerable trimming - the page was rife with original research, improper tone, and very few sources beyond the bible itself. I've integrated a couple claims to the Jordanian website with information about the Ammonites, but the page needs considerable expansion with real sources. Assyrology might have something to say. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the website of the Jordanian government is particularly reliable either. They are probably accepting Old Testament stories as they were passed through Islamic scripture. They don't cite their sources, so we don't know whether their claims are based on authentic, empirical historical research or blind acceptance of religious doctrine. Notice that the claim attributed to the website of the King of Jordan is that "Its capital was located in what is now the Citadel of Amman", which is the capital city of Jordan. The political motivation for identifying the seat of your government with the location of an ancient religious story should be obvious, so this seems like a serious conflict of interest. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A specific translation of the Bible is only reliable for what that particular translation says. Not what it means, not for historical accuracy, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's even sticker than that, DreamGuy. Different translations are based on different manuscripts, fragments, and whatnot, and every modern translation is an amalgamation of such transcripts, since the oldest (and presumably the most reliable) are the most fragmentary. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No, different translations (since the KJV) are based on the same manuscripts, and are not based on manuscript "fragments." They are based on the manuscripts evidence as a whole— which typically does give greatest weight to the earliest and best preserved (non-fragmentary) manuscripts. What is more, none of the issues under discussion here even have a relivant "variant reading" in the manuscripts. Dispite efforts to paint the Bible manuscripts to the contrary, for most pratical purposes, they are much like each other. --Carlaude (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an old Biblical Archaeology Review article on the Ammonites here that might be useful. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If the website of the Jordanian government is deemed unreliable on account of them "accepting Old Testament stories" I can not really see how a Biblical Archaeology site should be more reliable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of taking Chronology of Babylonia and Assyria/1911 as it's just a chunk from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, nothing else - it wouldn't be a useful redirect, and there's no justification for it as an article that I can see. Any comments before I do it? Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you planning to do exactly? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
As a government website that has not-really-very-contentious information on it, I think it's certainly better than the Bible. Irrespective, the Bible (and flurry of WP:OR that derived from it on the page) was certainly not an appropriate source, and has been for the most part removed. Further discussion about the Ammonites should really take place on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, we don't need to remove -every- Biblical quote. Even though such quotes are subject to overinterpretation, the Bible is still a primary source, historical as well as religious, and uncontroversial descriptions like "people X lived over by river Y" should be OK. PS: WLU I ountdented our discussion so it doesnt appear in response to a different question I was asking Doug. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no worries. You may be pleased to see I did in fact leave a couple bible passages on the page, primarily as "in Judges the Bible says..." which I think is appropriate It'd be nice if google had some sort of "google archeology" option for cases like this. I'm sure there's a bunch of useful information if you can parse it out of the exegesis discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The Bible is not a primary source for authentic history. It is a primary source for its own contents. That's it. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, in case I wasn't clear before, I agree completely and edited accordingly. The passages I left were clearly "in the Bible the Ammonites are referred to as..." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a primary source for history in the sense that, say, the Icelandic sagas are. A set of ancient documents. The places and peoples described in the Bible generally check out. We rely on secondary sources to do the checking out. But it's appropriate do do what WLU has, "in Judges the Bible says ..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to return to an issue mentioned above, most modern translations of the Hebrew scriptures translate the same text, the Masoretic text, except where they think it's obviously wrong or unintelligible. This text is based on manuscripts about a thousand years old. The much older Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek manuscripts are gernally ignored. Peter jackson (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

http://chucknorris2012.com

Just wondering if http://chucknorris2012.com would be a reliable resource in refrencing that specifi site's desire and attempt to get Chuck Norris on the next presidential ticket? It seems like that site is specially suited to getting the point across that the site in question does want to work towards getting Chuck Norris on the ticket, yet the TALK page, not the main page, is being edited to remove the link so that it cannot be discussed, talked about or mentioned - it was not reqeusted that the link be put on the main page due to its being a newer site, but I felt discussion was worth it Chucknorris2012 (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

But is this notable, or is this just some fans joking around? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no evidence of notability whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a petition vehicle. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless a newspaper or magazine mentions it, we shouldn't - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The site is completly serious about Chuck Norris and his ability to lead the country, if you go to the site and review the "issues" page you will see where his views match our founding fathers views when forging the Constitution. While there have been no "mass media" news articles about this you would have to agree that the media is generally biased in its views and I would expect only Fox to even whisper about it as the other news outlets are so far up the current administrations rears that the reports are slightly tinged Chucknorris2012 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But is he himself considering running for President of the United States? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian scholarship from Soviet-era

There is a dispute in an article about Russian history. Two editors are claiming that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, published by Russia's Academy of Sciences, written by Russia's top scholars, and translated by Macmillan Publishers, is not a reliable source. It should be noted that many Wikipedia articles cite this source. Wikipedia Precedent confirmed the reliability of such sources. I find allegations concerning the BSE's alleged unreliability to be baseless because all Western-based scholars have used soviet-era scholarship in their work. Kupredu (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since free speech is restricted in Russia, it'd be preferable to use a non-Russian source. Especially when dealing with a sensible subject like the "enemies of the Bolshevik regime". Laurent (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion has nothing to do with allegations about Russia's political system, but is solely about the reliability of Russian scholarship on Russian history.Kupredu (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that:

  • First, Kupredu is misrepresenting the nature of the discussion he or she is linking to. The discussion DOES NOT establish a "Wikipedia Precedent" that the GSE is reliable AT ALL. If anything the discussion shows that it is NOT considered a reliable source.
  • Second, if we're talking about precedents, then this [13] establishes in a pretty unequivocal manner that generally the GSE is NOT a reliable source, except in cases where it is used to illustrate what the Soviet POV at a particular time was.
  • The fact that SOME Soviet-era works on SOME subjects are considered reliable does not imply that ALL Soviet-era works on ALL subjects are also reliable, as Kupredu seems to believe. In many cases, Soviet sources are corroborated and can be verified with non Soviet sources, or have been examined by non-Soviet authors and found to be of quality - then sure, they're reliable. That's not the case with the GSE as a whole (though I'm sure its treatment of topics in natural sciences and mathematics is probably reliable, Lysenko aside).
  • The main dispute revolves around a sentence which is phrased in a POV way (and couple related statements) - basically it refers to "The People" and "The Capitalists" etc. Basically standard Marxist rhetoric. It's not much of a change to rewrite the sentence to remove this POV but Kuperdu objects.

Finally it would be nice to once and for all get a definite guideline on the GSE.radek (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian sources such as GSE and other sources published by Academy of Sciences are indispensible facts, data, and interpretations of the country's history and politics. There is not a single reliable expert of Russia's history who has refused to use Soviet-era sources because of their alleged biases. In Encarta's entry about Empress Catherine by historian Nicholas Riasonovsky, for example, it emphasizes the interpretations by Soviet historians: "One group of scholars, including Soviet academics, considers her liberalism all facade and pretense. They argue that the empress's 34-year performance on the throne was a single-minded affirmation of autocracy and of the overwhelmingly dominant position of the Russian gentry." That article does not suggest that Soviet-era scholarship is unreliable.Kupredu (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No, GSE is not an "indispensible facts, data and interpretations". They are unreliable. Again, to focus the discussion, we are talking about GSE here SPECIFICALLY, not Soviet era scholarship GENERALLY. The fact that Riasonovsky's work on Catherine is considered as quality by non-Soviet publications only shows that the words "ALL" and "SOME" have two distinct meanings.radek (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Riasonovsky, author of the Encarta article, is a Russian-American professor at University of California, Berkely. The fact that he emphasized the work of Soviet scholars in that article means that such scholarship is reliable. And this states: "Other valuable sources for Russian and Soviet history are the magnificient translation of the third edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia(New York: Macmillan, 1973-83)--end of discussion.Kupredu (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but Riasonovsky, states, per your own quote "including Soviet historians" - so fine, as far as Catherine the Great is concerned Soviet historians and Western sources can be corroborated. What does this have to do with the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, with which AFAIK Riasonovsky was not involved. As per the "valuable sources" please note that the source you provide also recommends using the GSE among other, more reliable sources (like Cambridge History of Russia). Which I'd recommend here as well. By itself, GSE, not reliable.radek (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Great Soviet Encyclopedia is not a reliable source, because all its content has been censored along the CPSU lines, especially when it provides information about sworn political enemies of the Soviet authorities like admiral Kolchack (the debate in question).Biophys (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It's ironic to speak of Russian scholarship being censored while at the same time basically trying to impose a policy of censosrship on Wikipedia when it concerns Russian scholarship from the Soviet-era. The fact that the GSE was written by the country's top scholars and published by the Academy of Sciences means that there is no basis for a dispute of the source's reliability. Kupredu (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a government run or sponsored institution. It is a private body which has certain policies. One of these policies is that we use reliable sources. That's the difference. Not that complicated.radek (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Such sources should be used with caution. A work such as the GSE might be fine for some non-controversial facts, but when the subject is, like in this example, an anti-Bolshevik leader, editors would be remiss if they did not take into account the revisionist reputation of the Soviet regime. Dlabtot (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I already cited a source above showing that the GSE is a "valuable source" for Russian history and politics. Any assertion to the contrary is inconsistent with the views of qualified scholars on the subject. Kupredu (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
One must simple remember that the GSE was produced by the regime which stated "History serves politics." That means it may or may not be factual on a specific historical event. Plain and simple. I've used Soviet era references, but reliability is directly related to the topic. PetersV       TALK 18:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the motto "History is past Politics and Politics present History" has been prominent in the way political scientists have approached their field. It was not coined by the Soviet "regime" as you suggest. If a work of history is written by a professional scholar, then it has a place in this encyclopedia. To dismiss a source because of its bias shows that you have no understanding of scholarly research. No honest historian or political scientist dismisses a source just because it is written by a certain side of a conflict. Kupredu (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Validity of Youtube References

Need verification of something. Assume a wiki uses a nightclub's Myspace page as a particular reference. On that Myspace page, there is an embedded video hosted on Youtube. The Youtube video was not filmed, uploaded nor owned by the nightclub. There's no way of confirming how the video has been edited, or where it was shot. Is the video thus a reliable reference for a Wikipedia article? 74.248.89.150 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No Wikireader41 (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Youtube videos are never reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Not quite true... for example, the BBC has its own YouTube page where it posts news clips from it's broadcast. These can be used as sources because they are verifiably posted to YouTube by a reliable media outlet, who has released them to the public Domain, and we can be assured that they have not manipulated them from the original. So... while the vast majority of YouTube videos (definitely including the one under discussion) are not reliable sources... there are some exceptions. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to above

Unregistered user 74.248.89.150 has abandoned his original claim that the linked video on the Jägerbomb article is a copyright violation and now attempts to claim that the video is an unreliable source.

A second link to the video in question has since been supplied; this one goes to the website of KETV channel 7 in Omaha. This website provides additional information about the event recorded in the video.

Full information about the ownership and production of the video is found on the video at its end.

The video is a legitimate and reliable source, and furthermore it provides verification for the world-record claim that is made in the Jägerbomb article.

Are we all expected to believe that the management of a trendy bar, KETV of Omaha, and everybody else were completely suckered and taken in by a fake video that was made about an event that never actually happened? The video appears on the bar's own MySpace page!

Whatever happened to common sense in editing? Wahrmund (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To which Wikipedia article are we referring? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The two links appear in the Jägerbomb article at the bottom of the subsection titled "Jäger-trains." Wahrmund (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple questionable sources in a BLP

It looks like an author is leaning hard on some questionable sources in Shirley E. Flynn: Specifically:

  • a poorly formed citation to a "People Search, Background Check, Internet site" which is all the information we have on this citation
  • a google cache of a restricted, third-party self-published site (ancestry.com), incorrectly labeled "Genealogy rec ords placed on Inernet by Shirley E. Flynn" which appears to have been published by a user on that site called "vlwest" who attributes the work to a "Randall J. Handly".

At the time of this posting, these are references # 2 and 3 respectively. I don't believe that either of these meet Wp:RS. Since I've had similar conversations with this editor before without much success, I request other eyes on this and commentary please. Thanks in advance. Toddst1 (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The "People Search" is apparently a paid report from USSearch.com. Again, I believe this fails WP:RS as it is not WP:V. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Bellhalla (talk · contribs) appears to have addressed this in the article. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliability check on TorrentFreak

TorrentFreak is used as source for articles like aXXo, in that case for 6 out of 15 references. TorrentFreak is a weblog run by an editor called Ernesto who claims to be an assistant professor without journalism experience. Are articles from TorrentFreak reliable and what should happen to the cited content on the aXXo page? - Shiftchange (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem with using articles from TorrentFreak on a limited basis and with limited weight. They ( looks like they have three fulltime people ) appear to have a reputation in the file-sharing community and are cited by the mainstream media.[14] Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross on Falun Gong

The dispute lies with the Falun Gong talk page, and the disputed statement is:

Rick Ross, an American expert on cults have described Li Hongzhi, the funder of Falun Gong as someone who "doesn’t recognize everyone’s human rights, or even their right to be 'human'"[15]

This statement was placed on the Academic reception section, and was continuously removed by Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs) [16], Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) [17], and HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) [18]. Amongst the reason was that Rick Ross is an ideologue with no academic credentials, in bed with the CCP, and fails RS., and that Rick Ross is a self-employed entrepreneur and former criminal who is singlehandedly rejected by the academic community without any supporting evidence.

I oppose the removal of this section, as I feel that their consists consists of an ad hominem attacks on Ross and his views. The passage simply consists of reporting a statement by Ross, who is prominent cult critic, without giving support to his personal opinion.--PCPP (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ross's views are notable and so should be mentioned... however, I agree that he is not an Accademic and so is misplaced in that section. If you don't have another section for the material, I suggest broadening the scope of commentary by adding another section entitled something like "Non-accedemic reception" or "Reception in the media". Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless Ross's views are published in an RS, they are not acceptable. Self-published blogs like cultnews.com are only acceptable if the source is an acknowledged expert *on the subject of the article*. Ross's status as a "cult expert" is arguable, but there's no RS evidence I'm aware of to suggest Ross is widely consider an expert on the subject of the article - Falun Gong. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
We have discussed Rick Ross several times before, so please look back through the archives... Ross is definitely a controvercial source, but the consensus is that his opinions are notable, and so his blog is reliable for (attributed) statements as to his opinion (but not reliable for a blunt statement of fact, without attribution). In other words, we can say that Rick Ross believes that Falun Gong is an evil cult <and cite to Ross>, but we can not say that Falun Gong is a bad cult . Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Rick Ross appears to be his own self-contained cottage industry. PetersV       TALK 18:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Since when did some group "consensus" somewhere trump wikipedia *policy*? WP:SPS is very clear - Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Unless you have RS that shows Rick Ross is an established expert on Falun Gong, his self-published blog is not acceptable. If you disagree, then get the policy changed. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to add "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.", also from WP:SPS. I don't think referencing Ross's blog meets the letter and spirit of that. Jayen466 20:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, there are > 4K matches on "cults" on jstor.org and 13 matches on scholarly articles referring in some way to Falun Gong. There is no mention of Mr. Ross anywhere. PetersV       TALK 19:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Definitely only use something from him on any topic if he's been quoted by reliable source and where relevant mention he used to be a "deprogrammer" to make his POV perfectly clear. Preferabbly where WP:RS say that that person's efforts have someone influenced the outcome of events. Being a paid professional smear artist who happens to get a lot of media should not necessarily make one a good source for an encyclopedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

are music reviews from digital spy reliable?

I added a review from Digital Spy for the britney spears song If U Seek Amy[19] and a user removed it saying that it was not a professional review. I'm just curious if this is really the case? Showtime2009 (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

They are not in any position to deliver professional reviews of music, they mostly deal in tabloid gossip and sensationalism. This would be better brought up with the music wikiproject, since this is not so much about the reliability of digital spy, but rather, is it a suitable source for music reviews. — R2 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Professional reviewers are listed here. — R2 02:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

National Enquirer

Is the National Enquirer (in print since 1926 and not known for inventing stories) a reliable source? The issue in contention is material it published about David Copperfield, namely:

  1. Details about the alleged rape of a 19-yr old woman on Copperfield's private island in the Caribbean
  2. Details about his secret children

This is the revision containing the details taken from the National Enquirer [20] (See sections on FBI investigation and Children). ► RATEL ◄ 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not known for inventing stories"? WP:Editors_will_sometimes_be_wrong Are tabloids often right? Yep. Are they RS by WP standards? Nope. If the material is notable, it should end up in a citable place, until then best to leave tabloids out of BLPs. Collect (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The basic story of Copperfield's rape investigation were reported all over the place, so that is not in contention. The Enquirer published additional details about the case, including details of what the woman in question did on returning to the USA (rape kit, hospital, etc) as per an interview with her friend. In addition, its disclosures about Copperfield's secret children were reprinted by other sources, which quoted the Enquirer, and included a statement by the alleged mother's lawyer. Copperfield did not deny the children story. (To Collect: because of my unhappy history with you, I would appreciate it if you would bow out and allow other editors to comment here please. Thanks!)
Before the Enquirer is condemned as a "tabloid", I think it should be shown that they have a history of unreliability. The word "tabloid" is not pejorative per se, it simply describes a newspaper whose pages, usually five columns wide, are about one-half the size of a standard-sized newspaper page.► RATEL ◄ 01:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
No way that the Enquirer should ever be considered a reliable source. They simply do not have a reputation for factual accuracy. To many times that they have gotten the story wrong, printed gossip as if it were news, or simply made something up. Blueboar (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Curiously enough, wehere I have input to make, I shall make it. Checking out several dozen queries, I have yet to find one where this tabloid is considered a "reliable source" which has absolutely nothing to do with any personal issues you may appear to have. And the NE definitely fits the pejorative use of "tabloid" <g>. [21], [22] and so on. Collect (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Still waiting for a single instance of the National Enquirer being proved to be an unreliable source .... waiting, waiting... ► RATEL ◄ 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Really. Why don't you check the article itself. I'd suggest that out of court settlements over libel and apologies over inaccuracies might constitute evidence. If you like I can look for more. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)An essay and two examples in WP space where it was deemed not RS are not enough? I found, oddly enough, absolutely no discussions on WP where it was deemed reliable. There are 395 WP hits in article talk for "National Enquirer" and "reliable" and in none of the first 80 at least is it considered "reliable." With no WP consensus for it being "reliable" out of more than 80 examined, I would suggest that it is unlikely that it will be considered "reliable" here as defined by WP:RS or WP:V. And, of course, the large number of lawsuits it has lost may be a factor as well. Collect (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
You want more stories about "National Enquirer" being unreliable? There aren't that many stories about their reliability "problems" because nobody takes them seriously. I'm astounded that anybody would consider taking them seriously from an encyclopedic viewpoint. Have you read an issue? Bhimaji (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The Enquirer has had a few mistakes, like most papers. However, the wikipedia article on the Enquirer states that "In recent years it has sought to establish a reputation for reliable journalism and had some success, often scooping other media..." I just don't see any evidence so far of the paper having a wilful and reckless disregard for truth, as some tabloid papers obviously do. ► RATEL ◄ 03:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The expectation for sources to be used on BLP articles is not simply that they lack a willful disregard for the truth. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well then, why don't we have a list somewhere of news sources that can or cannot be used in BLPs? ► RATEL ◄ 04:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Because such a list could never be exhaustive and it would be better served by Wikipedia:BLP#Sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm not sure what the pressure here is. We aren't in a rush. If wikipedia fails to include tawdry details about Copperfield for a few years, it doesn't matter. Protonk (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Not reliable. — e. ripley\talk 04:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As Protonk indicates, such a list could never be exhaustive. What's more, each source still needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If you look at this thread[23], there are certain, very limited cases where otherwise reliable sources such as Time Magazine and the Washington Post are not reliable for certain claims in certain articles.
I hesitate to even mention this, for a variety of different reasons including the potential for misuse, but you can try this.[24] It's purely my own personal project and not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way. It's certainly not exhaustive, tends to be conservative on what is considered reliable, and still requires an editor's judgement to determine if the source is actually reliable for a specific claim. Further, just because it finds a source doesn't necessarily mean that it's reliable and just because it doesn't find a source doesn't mean a claim isn't verifiable. Use it with extreme care. If it's misused, I'll take it down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but I always thought NE was mainly known as a publisher of ffringe theories. Doesn't sound very reliable to me. Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Due to it's negative reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, it is not in my opinion a WP:RS. If NE is actually right about something of signficance, surely other WP:RS will have covered it so just use those as references (assuming they pass WP:BLP). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The National Enquirer is possibly the prime example of the negative use of the word "tabloid". Not the physical size of the magazine, but the malicious and unreliable gossip magazine usage. Our own article uses it as such an example. Tabloid#As a sensational, gossip-filled newspaper says: "Supermarket tabloids are particularly notorious for the over-the-top sensationalizing of stories, the facts of which can often be called into question. These tabloids - such as The Globe and The National Enquirer - often use aggressive and usually mean-spirited tactics to sell their issues." Want examples of the National Enquirer being called unreliable? Here, the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050802092.html "The reputable media don't traffic in that sort of tenuous speculation about people's lives ... This is why "tabloid journalism" is used as a put-down..." The story is specifically about the rare case when the Enquirer may have gotten it right, but it's also a fine source on the general criticism of the magazine's tactics. Here's another, from the Daily Telegraph (Australia) http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25424888-5001026,00.html "The previously unreliable celebrity gossip tabloid claims it brought in "experts" to review Winfrey's medical history. These anonymous sources say the star's battle with her weight is due to a faulty thyroid that will send her to an "early grave." Reportedly (i.e. not remotely accurately), she's considering surgery to have the thyroid removed." In this case the criticizing paper is similarly a tabloid, of course ... so it goes ... :-)--GRuban (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for the legitimacy of every single photo, but there does seem to be a recurring theme that begs the question - is National Enquirer or Weekly World News for humor/entertainment purposes only? I think so. Tycoon24 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Very clearly not a reliable source - National Enquirer has a very poor reputation on fact checking. Quoting from this Newsweek article about The Enquirer [25] (page 4)
“ Accuracy is certainly an issue. Ross says he treats the Enquirer as a tip sheet, one that's more reliable than an anonymous e-mail but by no means reliable enough to take as truth. ”
Mishlai (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
How dare you question the credibility of my beloved Weekly World News? I'll sic Bat Boy on you!!!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Epoch Times

Currently, the Epoch Times is quoted as a source at Xinhua News Agency. The statement is, "The Epoch Times stated that Xinhua purposely skipped "important news" to broadcast propaganda regarding the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident that had occurred four years earlier.[26].

My problem is, that Epoch Times is no way a neutral third-party in criticizing Xinhua. It's politically anti-communist and sponsored by FLG, plus that the article in question if full of rhetorics and did not provide anything credible that RSF and other didn't cover.--PCPP (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be neutral... we do. That means we should report what reliable sources say in a neutral way, without inserting our own opinions as to which viewpoint is "True". The Epoch Times may or may not be reliable for other reasons, but being politically anti-communist is not one of them. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

From the article itself:

"Dr. Liu Kang, distinguished professor of Chinese Cultural Studies at Duke University and Associate Director of the Chinese Populations and Socioeconomic Studies Center, asserts that the paper does not adhere to basic journalistic standards of professionalism and objectivity, and is 'not viewed as an independent objective news media' by mainland Chinese." [27]

The Epoch Times also openly calls for the destruction of the PRC government and calls for people to "resign" from the CCP. [28] Hell even recently their printers tried to stop printing an Indian newspaper because one of their articles seemed to support the PRC.[29] They repesent a fringe political faction. We do not quote from KKK or Neo-Nazi websites regarding criticism of Barak Obama or the US government, and the pushing of the Epoch Times by single-purpose Falun Gong editors seemed to push WP:POINT--PCPP (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in some situations we can quote from KKK or Neo-Nazi websites... we just have to do so appropriately (giving full attribution... discussing what they say as being their opinion and not as being accepted fact, etc.) Again, please read our WP:NPOV policy. Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
A related issue might be how the WP:RS is using the non-WP:RS source. In other words, let's find an unreliable source to make an accusation to make everyone who says things look like that. Like when the NY Times quotes someone like David Duke about how great Ron Paul is. So it might be a case where if it was used, it might be good to have a third more WP:RS with same opinion as the unreliable source so that wikipedia is not manipulated by WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that another, more reliable source might be in order. By no means am I saying that the Epoch Times is universally reliable (no source is), nor am I even saying that it is reliable in this instance (I don't know enough about the situation to say Yeah or Ney). All I am saying is that having an anti-PRC bias (which is what PCCP has been focusing on) is not a valid reason to call it unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I'll begin by saying that I'm not familiar with the Epoch Times. After doing a little research, they have a print edition, offices around the globe (although some addresses are simply PO Boxes), I can't tell if they have an editorial staff. They are cited by the New York Times.[30] which is good. San Fanscisco Gate questions the Epoch Times credibility here.[31] which is not so good. A quick glance at some of their other articles such as the one about the current shuttle mission to service the Hubble telescope[32] appear to be on the up and up. At this point, I'm leaning towards it being a WP:RS. The particular article in which you reference is not a regular news article, it is an opinion piece. Assuming the author has some degree of notability, I would attribute it to the author, An Ni. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks RS to me.... it should be noted that all sources have a viewpoint. When in doubt, cite with attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Serious statement from Epoch Times: To all Chinese people: The Communist Party's end is coming. But this, most sinister wicked party (evil cult), of history, had committed enormous crimes against all living beings, God and Buddha. And God shall punish this evil. On the day, when God commands to punish the Communist Party, those so-called "loyal" members of this evil party will also be included. We make this serious statement: Anyone who had joined the Communist Party or other organizations under it (those who had been marked by that evil), quit now, erase the evil mark. When that some begins to punish this demonic cult, the records that stored in Epoch Times to renounce the Communist Party and its subordinating organizations can be used as evidence. The Heaven is just and ever vigilant, there is an end to your suffering and whether you'll live or die depends on yourself. Anyone who had been cheated by the most evil demonic cult in history, anyone who had received the beastly brand from the evil, seize this once in a life time opportunity!"--PCPP (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? Dlabtot (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

TV.com

Is TV.com a reliable source, for stuff like this? Nightscream (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like anyone who gets a TV.com account could edit the bio. If so, no, it is not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, Anyone with an account can edit it. TV.com should never be used as a source since it fails reliable and verifiable source policies. Bidgee (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, Thank you. Sorry to ask this, but are there any of these that could act as RS for her date of birth? Unomi (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
No... but given that they all give the same date, and that it seems non-controvercial... I am not sure it really needs to be cited. I would simply list the date without citation unless someone challenges it (and can express why they think it might be wrong). Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that while the bios on tv.com appear to be user-editable, there is another section of tv.com that is written by staff writers and indexed by Google News.(here's a search)[33] Those generally have a URL in the form of tv.com/story/####.html... I would imagine their TV listings are as reliable as any, too. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

TMZ.com

TMZ.com is currently used as a source in David Copperfield (illusionist). Is it a "reliable source" by its nature? Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of any tendentious editing or stalking, I'd say that TMZ is definitely not a reliable source for anything. --Conti|✉ 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Why? What led you to this conclusion? Dlabtot (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Being a "celebrity gossip" site, for starters. Have you visited the site? There are no authors (every article is by "TMZ Staff"), and the "articles" are short, sarcastic blurbs about whose butt got bigger or which celebrity got caught playing minigolf. Celebrity gossip isn't anything we want to cover here anyhow, per WP:BLP. --Conti|✉ 17:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
BLP concerns are a seperate issue. I'm pretty sure that there is nothing in our RS guideline that excludes sources because of their subject matter. Dlabtot (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Based on reporting by the New York Times[34] and the Washington Post[35], I'd have to say, yes. TMZ.com does have a reputation for reliability. Dlabtot (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would place it as boarderline... it is a "gossip" site... but they are better than most when it comes to checking their facts on that gossip. I think it needs to be evaluated on a "case by case" basis... carefully examining how the statement we are using it for is worded, and what exactly the TMZ article being cited says. In other words... we can not say it is reliable "by its nature" but neither can we call it unreliable "by its nature". Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Just like every other RS. Dlabtot (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well... yes... I suppose what I was getting at is that TMZ requires even greater caution than the average RS. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Might you look at its use in the article? I fear it may be used primarily for negative information to the detriment of BLP concerns, which I would not like to occur. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, then WP:BLPN might be a better place to discuss WP:BLP concerns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see you have.[36] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
And the squabbler followed, as you should note. The aim is to get the article right, I hope. Collect (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Having looked into this, the site quite clearly takes a sensationalist view in order to make sales. Does this make it an unreliable source? In my opinion no, but it does mean that caution should be used regarding WP:BLP. The most reliable source on whether it is a reliable source would seem to say: it is being used as reliable source at least (not quite the same a being a reliable source): New York Times. The Washington Post[37] article with the sub heading "Timely Scoops Push TMZ to Top of the Gossip Heap" is less compelling. There do also seem to be a significant number of actions brought against TMZ - again this would indicate caution with regard to BLP and using it as a single cited source WP:Weight Perhaps a better loaction for the debate is the BLP notice board. In balance I think TMZ could be considered reliable, but not where it is the only source and the content is contentious. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
TMZ has been brought up before here, but I don't remember any firm decision either way. I agree with the above posters that it may be a gossip site, but being a gossip site doesn't disqualify it from RS as long as it is used carefully.
At any rate, the TMZ information used in the Copperfield article is cited by CBS News among others ( New Charges Swirl Around Copperfield, Oct 26, 2007 [38]) and strongly alluded to by People ( Truth or Illusion?, Nov 12, 2007 [39]), so even if TMZ were only a blog it would simply become a primary source.
I do question whether we should have that in the "FBI Investigation" section of our article ( someone had taken it out as of present ). Just because the media tried to draw a connection between the two doesn't mean that we should. It may be more appropriate to add in a section on "audience participation" within a section on what his magic shows are like. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, Squid. TMZ.com is owned by Time-Warner and run by a fully qualified lawyer who states that everything they publish is checked for accuracy. This is not a tiddlywink little personal gossip blog. The word "tabloid" has no meaning in the context of a website. The site deals in news about celebs. So what, big deal. This does not mean ipso facto all its material is junk. TMZ is a BLP source in many places on WP, e.g. Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, and many more. ► RATEL ◄ 15:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"TMZ is a BLP source in many places on WP, e.g. Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, and many more" Then we should remove it from the articles! Just kidding. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that material sourced from TMZ would count as "poorly sourced" where BLP is concerned. My full opinion is at the Copperfield talk page. Mishlai (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

More data on TMZ.com

See:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#TMZ.com

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive43#TMZ.com

TMZ mentioned in wikipedia news:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-31/In_the_news

40,000 TMZ references in google news: [40]

The NYT considers it as reliable source: [41]

But TMZ.com’s reach extends well beyond the approximately nine million people who visit the Web site each month. The site has become a reliable source for the mainstream media, which has become less self-conscious about reporting every detail of celebrity missteps, according to Hilary Estey McLoughlin, the president of Telepictures Productions, a division of Warner Brothers, which co-owns the TMZ site with AOL. Both Warner Brothers and AOL are divisions of Time Warner. ► RATEL ◄ 16:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that "40,000 hits" does not mean "40,000 individual news stories" we have such tidboits here as "But this represents a step from the other direction: the quality of footage from this self-styled news organization is as amateurish and bereft of news as any start-up video blog. “There is a straight line from Zapruder to all of this,” says Sreenath Sreenivasan, the dean of students and professor at Columbia Journalism School, referring to the Dallas man who was the only person to capture John F. Kennedy's assassination on film. “It’s a depressing line. But it’s still a straight line.”" "Sam, the famous Australian koala rescued by a firefighter after the deadly Victoria wildfires, has garnered a huge Facebook following and even earned a rare apology from the gossip Web site TMZ." "Wander through TMZ.com at any given moment and it's easy to grasp what the Web site is gleefully pushing. There are stars smooching. Stars sunning. Stars looking hot, or not. And, always, there are stars misbehaving." "Lawyers for the family of Ron Goldman and a bankruptcy trustee say celebrity gossip Internet site TMZ.com should be held in contempt for posting a manuscript of O.J. Simpson's If I Did It book." ""Austin Powers" actor Verne Troyer is suing TMZ for violating his rights by publishing and airing portions of his sex tape, TMZ reports." [42] "Breaking with standards widely followed by the mainstream news media, the celebrity Web site TMZ posted a story Wednesday about a 14-year-orime victim" Level of newsworthiness involved? [43] TMZ tv ... "No celebrity scandal is too risque for TMZ TV, no celebrity spat so bitter that it can't be packaged for TV insomniacs, gossip hounds and those hard-working wage earners who, at the end of a long day of paying the bills, just want to kick back and be reassured that celebrities have it just as tough as they do. The celebrity life isn't all about red carpet soirees, glitzy movie premieres, late-night talk-show appearances and swag bags -- there are perp walks, rehab stays and dust-ups with the paparazzi to deal with as well." [44] has "Hewitt, 28, who starred in the horror film I Know What You Did Last Summer, appeared beneath the headline, "We know what you ate this summer, Love, everything!" on the celebrity website TMZ.com. But Hollywood's women have been fighting back, eliciting a rare apology from the website and sparking a new discussion about the US obsession with body image." TMZ.com is first and foremost a web tabloid, focussed on gossip. And the NYT cites many things which are not RS per WP standards. That something gets cited does not mean it gets pixie dust and becomes reliable. Collect (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why you think this stuff in some way disqualifies TMZ as a reliable source. Nothing you've posted indicates that their reporting is anything but accurate. Dlabtot (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fair comment to note that TMZ is being "used" as reliable source in many Biographies on Wikipedia. From this article New York Times it is stated that "The site has become a reliable source for the mainstream media". I think it clear it's celebrity gossip site, therefore there are concerns regarding WP:NPV including WP:Weight, so care and caution must be used when citing with regard to WP:BLP (and I think all BL should be revisted in this respect) but I don’t think it can be argued that it is an unreliable source per se. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So basically it's sensationalist trivia, and should be excluded not because it may be unreliable, but because its stories will generally fall foul of WP:UNDUE, unless the wider significance of any particular "news" item is demonstrated, which will be with reference to more reliable sources - which can then be cited, obviating the need to cite TMZ. Basically if the need to cite TMZ for something arises (because there are no better sources), then that something should probably be excluded for WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, cite the better sources. Rd232 talk 17:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that with regard to the fact there may be WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPV concerns. I think they exist in this case. I do not believe that it can be argued they automatically exist just because the source is TMZ. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Soundbuzz (www.soundbuzz.com)

Apparently they do news bits? Specifically this item is in question from the Race in hip hop article. I'm guessing they're not too reliable, but does that mean everything from them should be considered just a rumor or outright lie? Anyways I'm still left wondering where this quote originated from. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 13:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find who's writing their stuff, but they are probably reliable since they are partners with the big media companies, and yahoo's launch deems them reliable enough to print their articles. If you want to find other sources to corroborate that story, they're easy to find.[45]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Smallbuzz.com doesn't load for me for some reason, but I would think that Yahoo Music News is reliable. If you want a better source, try [46]. Without reading the whole article, it appears the quote originates from this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
So if Yahoo Music News is generally speaking reliable, then MSN Music is reliable, too, generally speaking, correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Hello,

Would this be considered reliable and good enough to be a reference for an article? Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the specific article you are using it in, and the exact wording of the statement you are use it to support. Given who they are, my initial reaction is that it is not reliable for blunt statements of fact, but would be reliable statements as to the views of their org. That said, I am offering no opinion as to whether their view is notable enough to be mentioned ... that also depends on the specific article... See: WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The article can be found here.--gordonrox24 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
And what statement did you wish to cite to the source? Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even sure yet. I know I would have to be careful as to not use it in a statement based on POV, but more for info about functions of the game.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Serenitystuff.com

A fan site apparently, but with an interview with the graphic designer for the film Serenity. Would the interview be acceptable as a citation? Alastairward (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, WP:RS is pretty specific on fan sites as not being usable. Collect (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
If it really is the guy, then he's an expert on the graphic design in the film, per WP:SPS. The issue is that they could have made up the interview, or not transcribed it correctly, or something. How do you want to use the source exactly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It's really just a small note to add to the Forbidden Planet article. Mandel says he intended to pay homage to that film in Serenity, which he was working on. I couldn't really find anything better that that link when I googled for it. Alastairward (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Hollywood.com http://www.hollywood.com/news/ a reliable source?

Surprisingly, I don't see this one mentioned in our WP:RSN archives. According to their About Us page[47] the site is owned by Mitchell Rubenstein[48] and Laurie Silvers[49] who previously founded the Sci-Fi Channel. They have a physical address [50]. I'm not sure what their editorial process is. They don't seem to list the names of any of their writers or editors on their site. They are cited by USA Today[51], the Washington Post[52] and many others[53]. I'm not asking about any specific article, just in general. Based on my analysis above, if this was someone else asking this question, I would probably tell them yes, but surprisingly, we don't seem to have articles on Hollywood.com, Mitchell Rubenstein or Laurie Silvers which I find odd. Is Hollywood.com a reliable source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to check the article or review for a byline -- one reviewer is Pete Hammond who is known. Think of it as a news aggregator with some of its own content [54] one section proudly blurbs "It's meant to be 'Matt Drudge, but for Hollywood.' " which I suspect may be true of other parts. Collect (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be OK for their opinion and non-controversial info. If it's BLP controversial info, find another source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Collect, yes, hollywoodwiretap.com is owned by the same company, but can we just restrict this discussion to Hollywood.com? From the discussion above, it appears as if we're saying that TMZ.com is reliable with caveats (especially WP:BLP, and Hollywood.com isn't nearly as gossipy). I know this might sound like an insane idea, but I actually do keep a list of Web sites generally believed to be reliable and I don't really have many sources for popular entertainment. I just discovered this site yesterday. Their Movie News section appears to be on the up and up.[55] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hollywoodwiretap.com states that it is part of hollywood.com. [56] does not quite read like anything other than a purveyor of gossip, reviews and showtimes (along with ads). Collect (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but I'm referring to articles specifically hosted by http://www.hollywood.com. IOW, articles with a URL that begin with http://www.hollywood.com.
Yes, that one is self-promotional. Obviously, some editorial judgement is required when determining if any particular article is a reliable source.
Anyway, to answer your specific objection, let me amend my original question. In the discussion about tv.com above, Squidfryerchef suggests "there is another section of tv.com that is written by staff writers and indexed by Google News. Those generally have a URL in the form of tv.com/story/####.html". In a similar manner, how about articles with a URL that begin with http://www.hollywood.com/news/? This would eliminate the article that you mentioned[57]. Honestly, it seems like it's reliable, but if other editors have a problem with it, I won't use it. I only discovered this site yesterday as it was used as a reference in a featured article in Trapped in the Closet (South Park). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

wolfram alpha-- moving discussion

Part or all of the discussion below has been transferred from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to this space below.
Please continue the discussion here.

get the details regarding this 'computational knowledge engine' here: Wolfram Alpha

wolfram alpha raises some interesting questions regarding verifiability. obviously, the overriding one - WA seems to base its info on verifiable sources; does it follow that WA is a verifiable source? --Kaini (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

According to http://www15.wolframalpha.com/faqs.html and expanding the Education & Research section, they consider themselves to be 'peer reviewed' so they would be reliable. Tra (Talk) 08:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's peer reviewed in the same sense as a journal, and I also suspect they're using wikipedia for some of their info. They may be using the CIA fact book or something, though. I wouldn't consider them reliable without knowing a lot more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think wolfram-alpha might count as a fairly reliable tertiary source... as such it has limited use. Rather than citing it directly, it would be better is to use it as a medium for finding reliable secondary sources to use (ie we should read and cite the various sources that wolfram-alpha cites, instead of citing wolfram-alpha directly) Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, having looked into this further, I note that they don't always make it clear which bit of information comes from which source... and since they do list Wikipedia as a source, that makes it unreliable for use in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Each individual page has a link to source information. The link specifies primary sources plus background sources and references. --Pleasantville (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Checked "Mark Twain" and clicked on "sources" -- got the "one size fits all" list including WP. "Related links"? WP. No way it is RS. Collect (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There are other entries that instead of listing a source, say "Computed by WolframMathematica" -- for example http://www50.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E2+sin%28x%29b --Pleasantville (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Which is specifically "mathematical computation" and not needed to be "sourced" anyway. Can you provide an example of a text search where it lists a specific reliable source itself? So far, I have not found one. Collect (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's doing its computation on the fly (which I would assume it is), then that means no one has reviewed the output. You might be able to use it as a tool to find a WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Except in the case of pure mathematics, the majority of the answers will be hybrids between curated data (curated by Wolfram staff curators) and calculations using Mathematica. Wolfram Alpha parses queries and generates answers. There is no data in the system that does not pass through the curation process except data streams (such as current weather information) which have also been through a vetting process. So the question is (a) whether Wolfram Research is an established and reputable publisher of information, and (b) whether Wolfram Research is a reputable and established source of reliable computation. --Pleasantville (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
But it's done by an algorithm and the output is produced on the fly. No one has reviewed the output produced. There's no guarentee that a bug hasn't been introduced into the algorithm resulting in flawed output. If software developers could produce applications without issues, Microsoft wouldn't be releasing a gazillion security fixes and updates every week. Not to mention the fact that it uses Wikipedia as a source. Keep in mind that reliable sources are those with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Given that the site only went live a few days ago, it doesn't have such a reputation. Not RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yup... and here is an example of what you get when you try to produce information by algorithm... They suggest that we "enter a date"... so I tried May 1, 1776... and got lots of information as to the day of the week, the hours of day light, etc. I want to assume that this is all accurate... but then I see the box for "Observances for May 1, 1776 (United States)"... International Labor Day? Huh? .... clicked on "more"... Save the Rhino Day?... in 1776! Who knew? Did the Continental Congress all wear color coordinated ribbons on their lapels to mark these observances? Perhaps Thomas Jefferson took the day off to participate in a walk-a-thon to raise money for such a worthy cause!
Seriously... This obviously was generated by a machine that has been given the input that certain "observences" fall on a given day each year... but apparently no one thought to input a start date, before which the obsevance should not be listed. In other words, for historical data, this site is garbage. If you are trying to find out what happened on any given day in history, you are going to get faulty information. Given this, I have to wonder what programing problems exist in other areas as well.
No, we can not call this site reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
And apparently the French Republic was involved in the Battle of Hastings (and this one is the default example they point to for searching "Historical events")... Did anyone check this stuff? (I do have to say that playing "find the error" is sort of fun on this site... but a bit too easy.) Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if the developers had thought of a start date (and end date), there's still no guarentee that the developers have correctly implemented it. Software development is tricky. What I always tell people is that if you ask for a bug-free program and I will show you "Hello World". That is to say that anything of sufficient complexity will have bugs. That's why you need a human being to review the output. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at WikiProject:Mathematics where it is most likely to be desirable for use. WikipProject Mathematics already makes extensive use of other Wolfram web resources, and also many of its participants are familiar with the capabilities of Mathematica, which is the calculating engine behind the site. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at WikiProject:Mathematics is here[58]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Our RS guideline tells us to used published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The answers to wolfram queries don't fit the criteria of published, and Wolfram|Alpha does not at this point have a reputation of any kind, good or bad. So I cannot see how it could possibly be considered RS. Dlabtot (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading this discussion, I can see it wouldn't be reliable, particularly when they base their information on sources such as Wikipedia. I could still see the site being useful, if its output is verified through the sources it cites before being used on Wikipedia. Tra (Talk) 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This Poynter Online column also urges caution: [59] Flowanda | Talk 19:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source

The source in question is a voice actor's self-run website, as far as I can tell, in which he claims to be doing the voice of a character in an upcoming video game. No other source thus far has reported him as the voice, however, and given the appearance of the site I'm dubious to its relability. This is the site - http://www.dynamicduovo.com/home.html, and here's the article that is sourcing the voice actor as the voice of a character - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dissidia:_Final_Fantasy&oldid=290602876. Can it be used as a source? The Clawed One (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Stephen B. Young reliable source for biographic info

The article as it stands only has 1 source, which is the first pdf link available here: [60]. Can we consider that source reliable? Unomi (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are supposed to be third-party, so no. I'm not sure he is even notable enough for an article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Armenian National Institute, Inc.

Comments on the reliability or otherwise of "Armenian National Institute, Inc." would be appreciated in the section "Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide#RFC: Armenian National Institute, Inc." where it is the subject of an RFC. --PBS (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Maulana Ali

Can the book 'Muhammad The Prophet' written by Maulana Ali http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulana_Muhammad_Ali be used as reliable sources for editing Islamic articles related to the prophet Muhammad.The publisher(of Muhammad the prophet) claims that some boooks of Maulana Ali have been declared as authentic Islamic literature by Al Azhar university http://www.muslim.org/books/azhar-cert.htm The foreword of the latest edition of the book was written by Sheikh Tantawi a reputed scholar from the Azhar University.--Firstcome (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, almost certainly not. First, its severely out of date. Secondly, the Ahmadiyya movement is at odds with mainstream Islam, and I would suspect very much at odds with scholarly opinion. It might possibly be used as a source for a notable alternative view, but not as a source for facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Azhar university ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University ) represents mainstream islam.Books passed by this university as authentic literature should be considered as facts.Thank you--Firstcome (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not remotely. At most these books agree with the view of conventional Sunni Islam. And why would a categorization as "authentic Islamic literature" by anyone affect reliability? De la terre à la lune is authentic French literature, but that does not mean that we have or even could shoot people to the moon in a giant canon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol you are quite funny french is a language Islam is a religion I think The book can be used as It has been verified by Al Azhar university .Al Azhar periodically endorses material (Books) as authentic Islamic 'literature' According to wikipedia peer reviewed books can be used Notedgrant (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First, has the book been "verified" and who says so? Up in your original question you said the publisher said that some of the authors books have been declared "authentic Islamic literature". So we don't even have any claim about this particular book. Secondly, we don't know what criteria Al Azhar applies and what they certify if they declare something "authentic literature". I would expect compatibility with a certain interpretation of Islam, but not factual correctness. The Catholic church holds that during the Eucharist the bread is physically transformed into meat. We don't accept that as factually true either. If you really want to push this further, we at least need clear, verifiable source that the book has been accepted, and a reliable source describing what Al Azhar implies by endorsing it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.muslim.org/books/azhar-cert.htm This is the link showing AL Azhar accepts it This is what they say about it "The Department hereby confirms that the above mentioned books contains useful knowledge and do not include anything that contradicts the Religion of Islam" As per wikipedia guidelines In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.The letter sent by Al azhar to the publishers is the only source in English and the foreword written by Sheikh Tantawi confirms it.--Firstcome (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to assume, from reading between the lines here, that Maulana Ali's 'Muhammad The Prophet' is controvercial... that it says things that other scholars or religious leaders disagree with. That is not a reason to declare it unreliable. Scholars disagree all the time.
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not Truth"... so it does not matter whether any scholarly source is "officially approved" in terms of religious orthodoxy or not. The key to situations where scholars disagree on facts is to discuss what the different scholars say, by attributing each author's opinion to that author... phrase things in terms of opinion, and don't argue about which is "True". What is Verifiable is that Maulana Ali's book says certain things about Muhammad or Islam or what ever. Discuss this neutrally, and then compare it with what other scholars say on the matter. And don't say which is "right". Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification

I would like some help on whether the source [61] fails the be a reliable source for the statement that "Straights tend to use an approach that focuses on the chiropractor and the treatment model, whereas mixers tend to focus on the patient and the patient's situation". Thanks in advance. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the source says that the entire "Straight vs. Mixer" differentiation is outdated, I would say No, it isn't reliable for that. At best it should be phrased in a historical context... that at one time these factions approached treatment in this way. That said... I am always warry of PDF files. Was this submitted to some sort of peer review or is it just the opinion of the author. If the latter, what is the reputation of the author as far as reliability goes? Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not being used in a histroical context, and is currently being used to support the statement quoted above. It was also not peer-reviewed, but I believe it was released by a government agency, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. It is a good point that it says the straight/mixer dichotomy is outdated, as the abstract of Chiropractic currently mentions this dichotomy without stating that it is outdated. In addition, I tend to believe that nothing in the source supports the actual statement, and that the source is not being represented neutrally. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Should this particular Daily Mail article be used as a WP:RS?

Is the following article reliable An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 for the following claim: "The title of Griffin's bestselling book The New Pearl Harbor, published in 2004, makes a reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II."? The part that I am questioning is whether this book is a best seller. This is a book promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories which are popular online but not so much in print. The article cited is being used in World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. I searched the archives and the Daily Mail has come up before[62] and the opinions were, shall we say, mixed so I'm just asking about this particular article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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,.[63] but I don't know how to verify that they mean the global top 100 list which is constantly updated. So while there is some support for the term "bestseller", I don't know how much weight we should attach to bestseller within a category. Wording it as "Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor" should be fine. Squidfryerchef (talk)
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". Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times

The Chicago Sun-Times is being disputed as a reliable source by Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who removed it from the article Ma Anand Sheela [64], and stated I also dispute this Chicago_Sun-Timesis the kind of source that is reliable , verifiable or that it could claim to have a neutral point of view.

I would like to hear some feedback from previously uninvolved editors as to the reliability of the source the Chicago Sun-Times. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as with any news source, you need to take things on a somewhat case-by-case basis. That said, the Sun-Times is a major newspaper for the Chicago metro area. As with any newspaper, it has its political bias, but otherwise, it's on the same footing as any other major edited newspaper, and probably just as good as the Chicago Tribune. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The source is being used to support the fact that the then-husband of Ma Anand Sheela resided in Highland Park, Illinois. As this is information local to the Chicago area, and the paper is a major edited newspaper for the Chicago metro area - would this be considered a WP:RS source for this info? Cirt (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Very likely reliable for that sort of information; seems non-controversial. The sort of thing you'd find in the Tempo section of the Chicago Tribune, which I doubt would be contested. And by the way, the only real complaint I've heard about the Sun Times was from my grandfather, who canceled his subscription in the '70s when the cover photo was an American flag lying soiled in a gutter. They're as reliable as any other newspaper, if politically charged. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
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 . (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. 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.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
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. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC))
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. 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.   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
{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? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Digiguide web itnerface

Hello,

In the uk there is a software developer digiguide [www.digiguide.com] who make a piece of software that you install on your comptuer to view uk listings, which they get direct from the broadcasters. however there is a part of that software that allows for web interface within the machine its installed on, i am just wondering if i use my one wether it could be used as realible source for uk listings (however i am still to check wether it requires authisacation if a direct link is used which if it does then i couldnt use it anyway), unfortnally the company do not produce the listigns tehmself on a website.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources contradicted by primary document

A number of secondary sources assert that the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge described Hitler as "an insane and arrogant prophet' but the official English translation Mit brennender Sorge in English on Vatican.va contains nothing like this. I deleted it (as another editor did previously) but another editor has restored it, citing WP:RS. How should a situation like this be handled?JQ (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original German text of the encyclica has a corresponding passage (Wer in sakrilegischer Verkennung der zwischen Gott und Geschöpf, zwischen dem Gottmenschen und den Menschenkindern klaffenden Wesensunterschiede irgend einen Sterblichen, und wäre er der Größte aller Zeiten, neben Christus zu stellen wagt, oder gar über Ihn und gegen Ihn, der muß sich sagen lassen, daß er ein Wahnprophet ist, auf den das Schriftwort erschütternde Anwendung findet: „Der im Himmel wohnt, lachet ihrer“). The English translation is rendered as Should any man dare, in sacrilegious disregard of the essential differences between God and His creature, between the God-man and the children of man, to place a mortal, were he the greatest of all times, by the side of, or over, or against, Christ, he would deserve to be called prophet of nothingness, to whom the terrifying words of Scripture would be applicable: "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them" (Psalms ii. 3). Unfortunately, not even the numbering of paragraphs is consistent - it 20 in the German version, 17 in the English one. "Wahnprophet", translated as "prophet of nothingness", can be more literally translated as "insane prohpet" or "delusional prophet". So the conflict is not really there. In general, I would say that for the interpretation of a lengthy document written in a ritualistic and stilted style, competent secondary sources should trump interpretations of editors. If there are obvious problems, we should, as always, qualify the statements with an "according to" clause. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The primary document does not contradict the secondary sources... but there is a discrepancy in translation. The best, most NPOV way to deal with this is to mention this discrepancy in translation, and discuss who translates it which way. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


How can you prove that the original text contains that ? I think on wiki en We should consider any source available in english your translation of the passage can be termed as original research --Notedgrant (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're free to use a dictionary or learn German if you doubt my translation of that one phrase. Try [65] and [66] (and know that German has compound nouns). The encyclica was originally published in German and is available in the original language directly from the Vatican. I would assume that the authors of the reliable sources also worked off the original version. There is more original research in the interpretation of the English translation than in the confirmation of what reliable sources say about the original version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just a suggestion, but if the translation is in dispute, you can try asking for confirmation at WP:RD/L. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Your translation is correct I used google translator and got the same result
You can use the following link to source your argument [67]
--Notedgrant (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I would trust scholars more than Google translator. If several reliable sources are translating it as "an insane and arrogant prophet" I think we can accept their scholarly opinion. If different scholars disagree, then we should mention that disagreement. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Schulz, that for "interpretation of a lengthy document written in a ritualistic and stilted style, competent secondary sources should trump interpretations of editors" ... or even literal translations of primary documents. Note that the primary document does not even mention Hitler by name, and we need to rely on secondary sources to even say that the extract refers to him. Of course, if reliable secondary sources disagree, we can mention that (keeping WP:WEIGHT in mind). Finally, Google translations (and translations by Schulz :) ) are useful for talk-page discussions, but should not be used in the article itself. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree very much. I'm not offering my translation as the one and only correct one - I just wanted to point out that the perceived conflict between the primary source and the secondary sources is not stringent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Stephan, We do agree! Your translation on this noticeboard was perfectly appropriate and very useful for non-German speakers like me. I know that you were not proposing its inclusion in any article, and I was only trying to make the broader point in case someone else thought that google/wikipedian translations of such texts was considered reliable. I tried to indicate that with the smiley ":)"; sorry, if I was not clear enough. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Also, translations are not static over time. The word as used in German should be translated as it would have been translated at the time it was written, IMHO, which makes Google translations a bit useless. The Vatican translation, which was done at the same time as the wrk was released, is likely the best available translation (not least because the Vatican is known for diplomatic skill in word usage). Collect (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, everybody. I changed the text to read "It include criticism of "an insane and arrogant prophet" ("Wahnprophet"), taken by some scholars to be a reference to Hitler", with citations to Botenkotter following. My impression is that, while no one has explicitly disagreed with Botenkotter, and some subsequent writers (general church histories rather than specialists) have followed him, the absence of anything like this in other writers and the differences with the Vatican translation suggest that this is a rather tendentious and polemical interpretation. I think the phrasing covers this, and avoids OR.JQ (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification should be made in WP policy

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.
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 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.
Next I explained my change of mind on the 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.
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.
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.--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. 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."  Cs32en  15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) [I withdraw the second sentence of my comment as it might be misunderstood as referring to the particular discussion that is going on on the talk page of the Richard Williamson (bishop) article. I didn't read the (rather long) discussion there before posting the comment.  Cs32en  17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)]
Interesting but I do not see the connection to my posting above. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I admit I have not read the discussions at Talk:Richard_Williamson, but it seems to me that in such a case, editors must use common sense and not republish claims they know to be inaccurate, but, due to our no original research policy, neither can they use Wikipedia to 'correct the record'. Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese Room (2009) vs. Chinese room

In order to check whether the 2009 film The Chinese Room is relevant to the Chinese room article, I contacted the director/writer of the film, and got this response:

“ Our 2009 feature film The Chinese Room was inspired by and named after John Searle's thought experiment. Its story elements are designed to parallel those of the thought experiment, and it contains a literal depiction of the Chinese Room from Searle's description. The story revolves around an office which was written to be a Chinese Room in almost every way. The writing of the film began when I recognized the thought experiment as an eerie, evocative metaphor for elements of my life - its ideas come up throughout the film and it's completely essential to it. The story's themes have to do with the nature of understanding and awareness, which is what Searle was exploring. ”

—Nate Rulf, director/writer, by email

Clicking on "pictures" on this webpage starts a slide show, one of the pictures clearly showing a frame from the abovementioned depiction.

I think Rulf can be considered a reliable source for information on what the movie is about, in fact he is the top authority, but that view is not shared universally. Paradoctor (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a personal e-mail is not a reliable source. We have no way to verify that it actually exists and was sent to you by Mr. Rulf. (not saying he didn't... just that we can not verify it). In addition, such corresponcence is considered WP:Original research. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
My question is about reliability, not verifiability. For the sake of discussion, let's assume the mail is available from Wikisource, and attribution is not in doubt. For the OR angle, I'd like an explanation of precisely how you think it applies. I'm not making "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims", neither do I "rely on unclear or inconsistent passages". What I am saying is that Rulf is a reliable source in the context given. Which takes us back the actual subject of this noticeboard, and the reason I came here: What reason is there to believe that the creator of a work is not a reliable source for information about his own work, and which part of WP:RS supports this? Paradoctor (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia goes, reliability and verifiability go hand in hand. WP:RS is a guideline explaining and expanding on one aspect of WP:V. If something isn't verifiable, we don't consider it reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I explicitly stipulated verifiability in my previous reply. Can we please concentrate on the reliability question? Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia is not the be all and end all of information. If something can not be discussed on Wikipedia due to our rules, You have the option to discuss it in other venues... and who knows, it may get picked up and get discussed in some thing we can cite. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What has this got to do with anything? The only discussion going on is with Dlabtot about an editorial decision. You're not going to tell me that Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of discussion, are you? Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It won't be easy to get a paragraph about the movie into the article. Pop-culture sections have historically been a headache on WP, and it's especially unlikely you'd get consensus to add one to a tightly-written science article. While I'm a mergist and generally suggest that people thinking of starting an article ( or trying to save one from being deleted ) should find an article on a parent topic and start a paragraph first, I'd have to suggest the opposite in this case as the topics are too far apart. If you can get multiple sources about the movie, then go ahead and create an article. Then you can add a hatnote to the Chinese Room article showing that Chinese Room (film) exists. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. "won't be easy": I like tough nuts. After all, I am the Paradoctor. ;) "culture sections" ... "headache on WP": If the argumentative style displayed by Dlabtot and Blueboar is representative, then I'm not surprised. Anyway, this is off-topic, I'd like to concentrate here on either getting useful arguments/facts, or establishing to my satisfaction that this noticeboard can't deliver on its promise in this case. Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From reading the talk page discussion, Talk:Chinese room#Chinese Room in popular culture, it looks like your main problem isn't showing that this film is about the Chinese room puzzle, it's that the other editors of the article don't think the film is notable enough to be mentioned. In fact, I suspect that if you could show the film were notable, that you wouldn't even need the source that said that "this film is based on this puzzle", the film title and subject would be enough to make it clear that it was, unless reliable sources specifically said that it wasn't. So it's not that this noticeboard can't deliver on its promise, it's that you're asking the wrong question, you don't want to meet WP:RS, you want to meet WP:N. For that you want to show multiple unrelated reliable sources writing about the movie. Roger Ebert would be a great start, he seems to be the standard most other film critics are measured by ...--GRuban (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if the movie was notable on its own, we probably wouldn't be discussing this. But as I stated in the discussion, notability is about articles, and it is too narrow as criterion in this situation. Anyway, I came here not just because of the Chinese room discussion. Dlabtot raised the issue of whether a creator is a reliable source for information about his own work, and pointed me here. That's why I came here, to get either a good argument or a pointer to the relevant bit of policy. Regrettably, I've come up dry so far. How can anyone seriously think that the creator is not a reliable source regarding the inspiration for his work, its interpretation, or a summary of it? Anyone gives me a good answer to that one, and I'll be one happy camper. Paradoctor (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Leaving the notability issue asside... The creator of a work is certainly reliable (small r) when it comes to a statement about the inspiration for his work... but for us to call it a Reliable Source (with a capital R) it has to appear in a published form. That's what I was getting at when I discussed WP:V being more important than WP:RS. A personal email is not considered published. If Mr. Rulf states his inspiration in some venue that we can equate with publication (in a published interview, for example, or even on his website) then we would be able to call it RS. But not in the form of a personal e-mail. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, you've just reduced my WikiStress level quite a bit. I was almost ready for another reading of Desiderata. ;)
Regarding the verifiability issue, I assure you that it will be adequately addressed. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for a not so controversial claim

Is this a reliable source for documenting the location a Michael Jackson music video was shot in, the main page of the site being this. I'm concerned that it cannot be used, particularly when the article in question is already a GA and the source might not be brilliant. — R2 00:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, as you suspect, it is not a reliable source. The website accepts submitted articles and asks contributors to "And naturally check your facts and the spelling of proper names and foreign or trickier words." [68] No indication that there is any editorial fact-checking or oversight. Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
They don't even get the name of the song right. It's They Don't Care About Us. These are academic journals which require a login, however, a Google search engine indicates that it might contain the information that you are looking for.[69] [70] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, here is the only relevant bit about the song in the first reference A Quest For Knowledge found:

Yet, each time the savage is held against the civilised, some kind of counter force is unleashed and the primitive falls prey to romanticism and commercial consumerism which turn rebellious savagery into banality, neutralising its power of denunciation, as in Michael Jackson’s 1996 music video clip They Don’t Care about Us (directed by Spike Lee), shot in the Dona Marta favela of Rio.

Use it if it helps, although I would expect better refs to be available. Abecedare (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Abecedare. I don't have subscriptions to those journals so I can't read them myself. All I know is that they matched my search terms. That's why I said "might". For all I know, they say "contrary to popular misconception, They Don't Care About Us was NOT filmed in Rio de Janeiro." Anyway, I did another search and found articles from MSNBC, USA Today and The Guardian none of which require a login. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. — R2 14:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

encyclopedia.jrank.org and "contributed articles"

Does anyone here know what the story is with the "contributed articles" at the http://encyclopedia.jrank.org website? That seems to host Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 stuff, but also some more recent "contributed" articles. See here for examples of uses of this link. An example of an article is here. The disclaimer says "Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.", but I would like to have more information than that. The main page says: "NEW Contributed articles – Articles from professional writers on a wide variety of topics." Should we need more details than that before using their articles as sources for ours? Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the Encyclopedia's articles for Danny Elfman and Dante Alighieri, I'd say not an RS. Since the author of the text is not identified, and its original source is not stated, there is no way to tell how reliable any particular article is. (The Elfman article appears to be original text of unknown accuracy; the Dante article is taken from Medieval art: a topical dictionary By Leslie Ross without attribution).
Disclaimer? Just what is it disclaiming? Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex - Is a primary source required?

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

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

Shady References:

1. The 1992 article, "The Picayune Catches Up With David Duke", does not cite a primary source, it defers only to this mysterious book having received front-page play in the Shreveport Journal on August 21, 1990. The article does not provide any reference but claims the book deals with "Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex."[71]

2. The book, Troubled Memory, by Lawrence N. Powell, plays on the phrase with "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex". But Powell does not cite the book Finder's Keepers nor any page number. Powell's claim is totally unsubstantiated. Check Powell's book, page 448, here:[72]

3. The ADL article discusses Duke's pseudonym but cites nothing for the book's sexual content.[73]

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

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


You have made an error. The book Troubled Memory is available in its entirety.[74] The book, Troubled Memory, does not cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers, yet it characterizes the book with, "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." That's shady scholarship. Again, I care not for publishing prestige, especially when negligence is involved.

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

A primary source would not only not be required, it would be discouraged in this instance. If notable/reputable pubs write about it, it's notable. IronDuke 03:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not "available in its entirety". It is availible in limited preview. However, there is no point in "footnoting" a summary of the contents of a book, since it by definition epitomises the whole text. There's nothing 'shady' about that at all. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • Wait, what? Are you saying that the three sources cited are insufficient to make the claims made in the article? If that is the case, it can be discussed on the article talk page--that isn't specifically an issue for this noticeboard. If you are arguing that access to the primary source is require for editors to verify a claim made by an otherwise reliable secondary source, I would disagree with you most of the time. For some extreme claims or claims where there is doubt as to the reliability of the secondary source (doubt from a source besides a single wp editor), then we can talk about comparing claims about the text to the text itself. But there is a difference between removing material on the claims that it is hearsay (a legal term of art which has no real meaning in wikipedia) and comparing claims in secondary sources which are explicitly falsified by the primary text. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I see that Troubled Memory has won a couple of awards:
  • Winner of the 2000 Lillian Smith Book Award, Southern Regional Council
  • Winner of the 2000 Kemper and Leila Williams Prize in Louisiana History, Louisiana Historical Association
  • A 2000 Booklist Holocaust Literature Best of the Year Selection
Per the publisher's website.[75]   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, Yes. The wiki sources do not substantiate that Duke's book offers advice on "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." The Wiki page cites authors, Lawrence Powell and Jeanne W. Amend - but these authors failed to consult Duke's book, Finder's Keepers, because it's out of print and not available online. Powell's bibliography doesn't even list the book, because he couldn't find it, yet he characterized it without having read it. Here's the claim with no footnote, it's in the first paragraph[76]


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

  • Well, I think that we can roughly say that the Powell book is reliable (assuming that list of rewards is accurate and given our policy on reliable sources). We are down to the assertion that Powell didn't read the book in question. I don't think we can make that accusation without some evidence. the omission of the book in the bibliography may be telling or it may be benign. I don't think that the books being out of print is sufficient to support your accusation, especially because one of the principal subjects of the book is Duke. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Powell's book is published by a university press, has won awards, and Powell is a Professor at Tulane specializing in this and related topics[77]. Of course this book is a reliable source. And, but that's by he way, has anybody tried getting a copy of Finder's Keepers via a good academic library with competent staff? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was curious to see whether all BLP articles are handled in a similar manner, so I went to W.H. Auden. Auden wrote plenty of porn, but his bio handles the issue in a way that is delicate in the extreme. I don't anticipate that this will be the case with David Duke. --4.233.125.91 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I will put them up somewhere when I get them, but in my own opinion, sex advice of this kind is not pornographic.Ordinary Person (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies: I foolishly neglected to send Professor Powell my mailing address. That's the cause of the delay. I have now sent it to him. Ordinary Person (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Genetically modified food controversies

The writings of Jeffery M. Smith were used as a prominent source for this article, for example the book/website "seeds of deception" published by Yes! books and this news article

Are these appropriate sources for this article? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble thinking that Smith being used as a reference twice out of the 55 sources used for the article would make him a "prominent source". Smith is a leading GMO critic and investigative journalist/author so his critism is relevant to the topic. Smith's seedsofdeception.com link is used because his best selling book that details the same events is not available online. The book, which you need to buy to read, is a RS so I see no problem with book extracts from the authors website that you can read free. Wayne (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither of these sources are reliable. The book, on the other hand, may be a reliable source. If the extracts on the website accurately reflect the book, and the book was both published by a major publisher and not used for statements of bald fact (as opposed to opinion), and said opinions are notable ("Smith is a leading GMO critic," if true, would make his opinions notable), then the book would be a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Cite the book, not the website. Non-free sources are OK. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, so if I understand correctly Smith's book is OK as a source of opinion as a notable critic of GMOs, but should not be used as a source for either factual statements about genetic modification, or a source for statements about other people's beliefs? As an alternative, would it be preferable to replace citations of this particular person's views with citations to statements from prominent non-governmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, The Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
These sources can be used the same way... as citations for statements as to the opinions of each group. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamic web

Is this site a reliable source for citing population data? My inclination is no since there it says that some of the data is gathered from independent sources, but makes no mention of what the sources are (I assume by British Encyclopedia they mean Encyclopedia Britannica). Copana2002 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No. There are better sources. What population data do you need? Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope, not reliable. No "about us" to indicate that this is anything but a personal web-page. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

nxtbook.com

I don't know anything about nxtbook, except it seems to be just some way for print material to get posted onto the web. Is it a reliable source for Awake (Skillet album)? I'm thinking not... Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you post a link? Also, what statement are we trying to source? Blueboar (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
They're probably referring to this. It's the only cite in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Right. Sorry I wasn't clear. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

An Argentine battleship

Hi all. I asked this 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? (Google Translate link) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 W The content appearing above is a local copy of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It was written by various Wikipedians (contributor history) and is distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (license text).

The version shown above has Revision ID: 291565854 and was last updated May 22, 2009, 1:41 pm.

Current version on Wikipedia: view / edit Read Wikipedia's disclaimers.
Retrieved from "http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:GWArtMirrorPage"
Sea Level Explorer
Random image
Toolbox