Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 11 December 2009

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. 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.

This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.

If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.

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

Index 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, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462, 463, 464

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

open ended question on sources that could best be labelled as misleading or "hoax"

Hi, this is a rather open ended request for more people to look at a bit of a mess on a thermodynamics topic- one that often attracts perpetual motion machines and other odd ideas. We've been debating this page for a while now, http://en.wikipedia.org/Law_of_maximum_entropy_production and got a consensus to merge. However, part of the issue is a content dispute between a small group ( conjectured one person) or "Team Swenson" contributors and all other parties. Team Swenson wants to make this an article about Swenson. If you look at the talk page, now redir into my user space, you can see some of the issues. This isn't so much about a POV any more as much as questioning the validity of the sources. One editor was unable to confirm with a journal that an article existed, another seems to be from a "journal" controlled by Swenson. If anyone is interested please help discuss at talk page. Thanks.

Ask.com

Is this site reliable for the Barbara Bush quote at the top of the article? Nightscream (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, but you could probably cite if challenged. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. See which attributes it to Lenny Clarke. I can find no reliable source for attributing it to Barbara Bush, and Clarke is a noted comedian. And misattributions of quotes are common -- that someone attributes a quote to a person does not count for much. Collect (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Ask.com is not a reliable source as discussed in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. It does not do significant fact-checking and is often inaccurate. Nevertheless, it often has useful information that can then be searched for in a more reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ask.com is entirely too inconsistent to be considered RS. Dlabtot (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, AskMen.com has a professional editorial staff and I would consider it to be reliable in many cases. However, given WP:BLP and the lack of corroborating sources, I wouldn't use this source for this particular claim. If this quote is legit, I think you would find a lot more sources for it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Palestine Telegraph; Adallah's Newsletter, Electronic Intifada, Journal of Refugee Studies, Dissident Voice, and Islam Online

Would appreciate input as to whether these are RSs or not:

1. The Palestine Telegraph for book review (of author up for AfD)
2. Adallah's Newsletter for ref to article written in it by author in article "selected works" list (article on author is up for AfD)
3. The Electronic Intifada for book reviews (of author up for AfD)
4. The Journal of Refugee Studies for book review (of author up for AfD)
5. Dissident Voice for interview of author up for AfD
6. Islam Online for book review (of author up for AfD)

--Epeefleche (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer this, we need to know what these are being cited for.... how they are being used. Would you link to the article (or better yet some difs to show exactly how they are being cited). Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary response: The Electronic Intifada is biased and not in line with the facts, support terror groups like Hamas and hence a very problematic source. Adallah's offices are located in Israel and formally it's an Israeli organization but I would not count on it, I think that it have a bad record with facts and would look for information on that when I've free time. As for the others, don't know them but in general Palestinian media have a very biased approach (examples: ) you can also find information on many Islamic/Arabic/Palestinian media sources here and here. For the meanwhile I would recommend to avoid usage in any of these sources.--Gilisa (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Bias does not necessarily equate to unreliability... as I said... we need to know context. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, so allow me to rephrase it, there are many documentations of false information coming from Palestinian media sources.--Gilisa (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some specific examples of 'false information' coming from specific sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

True... which is why we need to know the exact context of how these particular sources are being used. We can not simply say: "Every Palestinian media source is unreliable in all circumstances". Instead we need to look at the specific source and the specific circumstances. For example, are they being used to support a bald statement of fact (if so what fact), or are they being used to source a statement of opinion (if so, who's opinion)? Are they being used to source a quote (and if so who are they quoting)? Their level of reliability is going to be different in each of these situations. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Electronic Intifada

..has come up before Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#The_Electronic_Intifada which includes multiple examples of reliable sources citing them. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)..and let's not forget their role in Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First, as for electronic intifada, even if it was cited by many reliable sources it still doesn't mean that there are no examples of where it provided false information (but indeed it's usually more biased than fallacious). Also, I didn't say that we can't use Palestinian sources, just suggested that based on their controversial reputation they will be scrutinized more carefully.--Gilisa (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saying there are examples means nothing. You have to actually provide those examples for your words to carry any weight. Dlabtot (talk)

Sean.hoyland, the wikilink to CAMERA is really unrelevant for this discussion (what more that it would be ridiculous to assume that there are no such groups on the behalf of the Palestinian issue, or that just motivated by anti semitic agenda and likewise-in fact I would be surprised if they are not taking part in it themselves). I think that this discussion will became more scathing after false reports examples would be given. As I told, I would search for suce soon.--Gilisa (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the context in which reliability is required has not yet been specified by Epeefleche, you are not in a position to say whether it is relevant or not. However, I expect the context to be this book review for this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Very bad example, we were not discussing on such cases where there is a direct link between subject and source. So, back to the issue, as I said-if source is proved to be unreliable it's not even about the context as whenever one cite it he/she would also be expected to provide other sources to support the already-fishy source and in any case they would have clear advantage and replace it...So, there is no point in your context argument.--Gilisa (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sean, you only provide context for one of the texts questioned above. Do you know why the others are being questioned? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for sure. I'm just guessing that Epeefleche's questions relate to the sourcing for the Jonathan Cook article because the source list matchs in many cases and Epeefleche has been involved with the article and associated deletion discussion. I assume Epeefleche will come back and provide the context for each source. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, if Sean is correct, then what is being cited are reviews of Cook's books from these sources. (I assume they are being used to establish notability). A book review is always reliable for a statement of what is said in the book review. Whether the review is worth mentioning is another issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've added, to the initial entry above, the context in which these are being considered now--most for book reviews of books written by an author (Jonathan Cook, as surmised above), whose Wiki article is up for AfD. If they are RSs, they would count towards his notability; if not, not. But as these sources may be used as RSs in other wiki articles generally, where possible it would be helpful to get input as to whether they are RSs or not (as a general matter). I recognize that they may not be RSs for facts or for book reviews by non-notable people (for the same reason that a blog book review by a non-notable individual blogger's website would not be a RS for inclusion in a wikipedia article), but may be acceptable if (which is not the case in the above, I believe) RSs for the purpose of reviews by notable people. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK--to spur conversation, let me share my view. I've looked carefully at these sources. I should preface first by saying that I am (at this point) voting to keep the Jonathan Cook article, as I believe other sources that have surfaced are sufficient to evidence his notability. I believe, however, that none of these six os an RS, and that none of them are acceptable as a book review unless the book review is written by a notable person (not the case in the Jonathan Cook article). Should any of them carry a book review by a notable person (say, the leader of Hamas), I would on the other hand view the source as an RS. Does anyone disagree with any of that? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I might disagree... Let's remove the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from the equation... if Cook were an author who had written books about Alpine politics, and the cited sources were book reviews from Swiss media sources... would you have the same objections that you do now? Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. As I said -- I'm voting to keep the Cook article. I'm on the side of those arguing for his notability. I just don't think these are RSs. (I think there are RSs sufficient to support his notability). If Abdullah's Newsletter were instead Hans Federer's newsletter (or Joe Smith's Newsletter, or Hogarth Pinkerton V's Newsletter, or Judah Levine's Newsletter) I would say its a personal blog non-RS ... no question about it. I reach the same conclusion as to the others.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Palestine Telegraph is a relatively new online newspaper based out of Gaza. I don't see why it does not constitute reliable source. It has been used as an information source by mainstream news sourcess like the BBC.

It appears to be a non-notable 23-year-old's blog-like work, its predecessor self=identified in the past as a blog, with an all-volunteer staff of volunteer reporters that includes "citizen journalists who do not take assignments from editors or paychecks from corporate controlled media". Is barely mentioned by mainstream sources. This seems to fall squarely into the non-RS category described here, and in general doesn't have the indicia required by wp:rs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Adalah is a legal NGO based in Israel that advocates for the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel. I don't see why it cannot be used as a source reviewing Cook's work.

I don't see how the fact that it has filed a registration form to be considered an NGO makes Adallah's Newsletter a RS. There is nothing indicating that it meets the requirements of wp:rs. Here is a list of 53,750 NGOs and other development organizations; do you believe they are all RSs? NGO, by itself, does not an RS make.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Electronic Intifada, while certainly partisan, is a reliable source for reviews of Cook's work.

Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot understand the objection to The Journal of Refugee Studies at all.

Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dissident Voice may represent a minority viewpoint, but provided it is not given undue weight, I don't see the harm in including its reviews of Cook's work, given his greater popularity in non-mainstream circles.

Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Islam Online is a perfectly fine source for reviews of Cook's work, just as would be Christianity Online or Judaism Online, if they existed. Tiamut 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. You're basing your view that it is an RS on its name (and the same with Christianity Online and Judaism Online)? Frankly, I don't think that's the criterion. Furthermore, if the publication were limited to subjects covered by its name, which of Cook's books do you believe are on the subject of Islam? I don't see it. Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets? I don't see evidence of it on their site. And articles such as this one don't encourage me to think they are an RS, quite frankly, as elements of it (beyond the bare headline/main topic of Irving's release] appear along the lines of fringe theory support.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll insert my thoughts under your references to the pubs. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is hard to respond to because people seem to want to know a) if the sources are good to establish notability of an author and b) how they are generally. And most of them are complex cases and only possible to comment on in context. The exception is the Journal of Refugee Studies which is an academic journal published by Oxford Journals and reliable in virtually all circumstances. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Palestinian Telegraph meets Misplaced Pages's definition of a questionable source. Its use of "citizen journalists" and its recent history as a simply a blog. "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" - Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (emphasis mine).Cptnono (talk)
• http://dissidentvoice.org/ looks to be the same since it is a "radical newsletter for peace and social justice". It looks like they take
• also take ssubmissions. They have such an axe to grind (in "combating pro-Israeli, pro-American spin") that I would not trust them.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)::
• The Journal of Refugee studies gets some credit for being academic. They admit to being biased (in that they are trying to accomplish a goal through promotion) but that shouldn't completely prevent its use.
• Islam Online appears to have a full staff. I would assume, just from a quick look, that they are professional enough. They try to assert this all over their about page.Cptnono (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify what you are saying in regard to bias in the Journal of Refugee Studies? Academic journals like this are the best sources that we have in WP. This one comes from a centre at the University of Oxford, is published by Oxford Journals and refereed in the normal way. I don't understand why you think it might be biased (although even if it was, that would not affect reliability). This does illustrate how the way that the question is framed here makes it difficult to answer. The status of these sources in general is a different question from that of whether they are appropriate in a particular context. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

They are biased in the fact that they have a "commitment to improving the lives and situations for some of the world’s most disadvantaged people". It sounds morally just but it doesn't mean they don't have an axe to grind which is clearly shown on their website. That ebing said, they use "world-class academic research" and are part of a reputable institution. I find them reliable but felt it OK to point out that they aren't a neutral source.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure on the context, but in general Electronic Intifada and Adallah are unreliable. 'Dissent Voices' describe themselves as "newsletter dedicated to challenging the distortions and lies of the corporate press" which makes them nothing more than an advocacy blog with little to no notability and not much of a wiki-reliable source. There's probably issues with the other sources since there seems to be a common theme here but I don't have the time to give them a proper look-see. Jaakobou 13:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the context is only whether reviews in these sources indicate notability of Jonathan Cook. And since the AfD on that article has had extensive discussion and seems to be moving towards conclusion, then I don't know that there is much else to concern us here. Except that to inform our future discussions I would just restate that per policy academic journals are with few exceptions good sources while internet advocacy sites are likely to be problematic. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is actually still useful since these sources are being used in an article that will more than likely be kept.Cptnono (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviews by unreliable sources as an indication for notability? I don't know. It doesn't sound like a good measure. Imagine a person is smeared by unreliable websites and someone wants to create an article based on just that. This one seems more like a question for the notability forums than for the reliability forum. The sources, in themselves are not reliable. I would like to hear other explained opinions and thoughts on the notability issue. Jaakobou 09:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an update is in order. The article is good to go since there is coverage from sources. What about the potentially bad ones? Of the list up above, are there any that are not RS. I personally feel that a couple of them are so biased without a proven track record of proper editorial vetting that there is no way they can be trustworthy in my opinion. I would prefer the Barnes & Noble or Amazon websites over Palestinian Telegraph (don't be fooled by the name) and dissadentvoice.Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's called The Palestine Telegraph and the spelling of the latter is dissidentvoice. Please try to get the names right. Tiamut 12:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Screw 'em. I misspelled a whole lot here. I even said Seatl the other day. I think we are above boohooing over that. Thanks to Epeefleche for trying to clean it up. I didn't realize how bad it actually was until checking the difference!

So misspelling aside (was in Opera w/ out spell check and was too lazy to check), what is up with the sources?Cptnono (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cruise Reports

A couple of "Cruise Reports" have been added to the Biography page of Fiona McLaughlin. These are made available on the website of http://www.whoi.edu, which potentially makes them sources. However they lack publication dates and there is no information on where, or if, they are otherwise officially published. They have been listed as publications but I suggest despite their article-like appearance they are in practice an extension of the website. Are there any suggestions on whether they should be included as publications as per the current layout or should their status (as non-academic standard reports) be made clearer?—Ash (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is up for deletion as being unnotable, it might be good to find some really notable sources about her. These won't make a difference, even if good ones. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about citing "about the author" type material

I was wondering if it is OK to cite the "about the author" section of a book (i.e. the info often found on the back cover or a dust jacket flap) for basic biographical information about the author. I would consider it a primary source, and obviously it can't be used to establish notability, but I would think it is permissible for basic information. Other opinions?\

Assuming it is permissable, how would be be cited? Like a normal book, but with a note saying it is the about the author section?

Thanks, ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the information... I would say it has very limited reliability. Far better to look for something more reliable (perhaps a review of the book). Blueboar (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the book reviewer is likely to get biographical information about the author from some other source than the "about the author" section? In any case, to answer the question: my feeling is that it probably doesn't undergo much if any editorial review and should therefore be given as much reliability as other self-published sources by the subject: ok for simple factual information that is unlikely to be contested such as the author's birth date, not ok for anything contentious. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good summary. In my experience the usual practice is for the publisher to ask the author to submit a short biog. On the behaviour of a book reviewer, it depends on the reviewer. Most reviews wouldn't carry any biographical information anyway. Then again, in academia, the reviewer might know the biography of the author well anyway (their careers have run in parallel), in which case there might be some detail that didn't depend at all on the publisher's blurb. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with it being included. As long as there aren't unverifiable or unrealistic claims (such as " has visited Mars twice, and has published 2,000 books), I think the information is fine. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam Gay Video Directory (RfC)

Frequenters of this board may wish to comment at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. LadyofShalott 20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

TMZ

What were the policy based reasons we don't consider TMZ a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Per these two previous discussions it actually appears pretty reliable, see in particular NY Times: "The site has become a reliable source for the mainstream media". However, the big caveat is that the kind of material they publish, and their salacious commentary on it, is likely to run into WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and/or WP:BLP issues. I think User:Badger Drink summed it up well: "If something notable and encyclopedic is covered by TMZ, chances are it will also be covered by several other news outlets which are superior to TMZ" and "If something is only covered by TMZ - with no alternate sourcing options - the overwhelming odds are that it is completely non-notable".

In some ways TMZ might be better treated as a primary source, as the facts per se that they report seem to be quite reliable, but any analysis or commentary from TMZ is in the vast majority of cases unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Their paparazzi videos in particular I think should be seen as primary sources, not to mention the privacy/BLP concerns they raise. Siawase (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

World Magazine

Is World Magazine considered a reliable source? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to many issues in religion World Magazine must be used very judiciously because of its declared bias of conservative evangelical Protestantism. However, when reporting on an issues where that bias is in abeyance, it can be given comparable weight to other primary news sources such as local newspapers who do a modicum of fact-checking. It should not be used in preference to primary news sources with better fact-checking reputations such as the New York Times. It should not be used in preference to secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Book published by Lulu.com

During the shale oil extraction article peer review process, the reliability of of the following source (Farkas, Tamás (2008). The Investor's Guide to the Energy Revolution. Lulu.com. p. 85. ISBN 9781409202851. Retrieved 2009-03-14.) was questioned. Although the information seems to be adequate, the publisher is not reliable and this book is the main published work by the author. Could it be considered as reliable source or not? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lulu is a vanity press; this work is thoroughly unprofessional in presentation (the acknowledgements to "a cute girl" are particularly telling), and the book itself describes its author's qualifications as "an independent thinker and experienced international investor". The Preface indicates that this is written by a 2007 college graduate; he claimed 5 years' experience in stocks at the time he wrote the book; and he holds shares in some of the companies he discusses. The bibliography might be useful, but this work itself is a far cry from meeting RS. Maralia (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, would be removed then. Beagel (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bowling for Columbine

There is at Bowling for Columbine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a dispute over the use of sources, including both reliability in general and appropriateness to the article. A diff showing usage is here.

1. Is http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html a prominent critical analysis of the film or a self-published polemic?
2. Is http://www.rkba.org/research/rkba.faq reliable for gun-ownership and crime statistics? As it does not mention the film, is it being used as appropriate contextualization or as inappropriate original synthesis and coatracking?
3. La criminalité cachée en Suisse et ses répercussions sur l’opinion publique: situation actuelle et évolution des 20 dernières années, Berne: Stämpfli is also being used in Gun politics in Switzerland, but I am not sure what it is.
4. http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html is a Wall Street Journal article from 1999; the film was released in 2002.

- 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Self-published polemic.

2. rkba.org does not look like a reliable source for any topic.

3. Don't know. (Haven't looked at the source.)

4. Assuming that that piece was really published in the Wall St. Journal as claimed by the non-RS site that reproduced it, I would not call it an "article", but rather an opinion piece. It does contain statistics, and it's reasonable to expect that (if it was published in WSJ) there was some fact-checking on those statistics. However, it is cited in the "Bowling" article not as a source of data on Switzerland, but rather to support a statement about criticism of the movie ("The stats have also been called into question for ignoring countries like Switzerland and the Czech Republic, which have gun laws similar to the US but death per capita numbers similar to the countries above."). The WSJ piece does not in fact criticize the movie (it was published before the movie), but appears to be introduced to help a Misplaced Pages contributor advance his/her own original research to support a particular POV. --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding (3). It looks as it it would be very difficult to trace this source, and it's not in English, which makes it hard to be entirely sure about it. I think it is reasonably clear already, though, that we have a case of OR. Where four sources are used together to attest to the same facts and three are identified as failing RS, I think it is a good guess that if there is a fourth, inaccessible source, then it is likely to be of a similar character. Given the title (it appears to be a book about unreported crime in Switzerland), I think it is unlikely that the source will contain an analysis of Bowling for Columbine, but that this is an attempt to coatrack information about Swiss gun crime which is not directly relevant to the article. The cite contains no page reference, so, stricly speaking fails WP:V, and I would just delete it for that reason. It does contain reference to two editions of a Swiss newspaper,. although it is unlear why. If these are indended to indicate indirect citation (ie that the information is actually taken from these editions of the newspaper, which in turn cites the book), then I find it odd that the newspaper refs are included in all three instances of the book being used as a cite on WP (ie I wonder if the cite has been copied from the Gun politics in Switzerland article simply because it looks authoratative and would be hard to challenge). In summary, I would delete it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding (3). Martin Killias is the editor for La criminalité cachée en Suisse et ses répercussions sur l’opinion publique (Hidden crime in Switzerland and its impact on public opinion). Martin Killias is a respected author and editor of works on crime and criminology in Switzerland and Europe. He works for or with the European Committee on Crime Problems. You can see a partial list of works for which he bears some responsibility at WorldCat. His works can be considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages; however, just because a source is generally reliable does not mean that it is used appropriately in a given instance. What is said in the Misplaced Pages article needs to reflect what is said in the source including, as appropriate, the context. Additionally, in preference to a work in French, a work in English should be used. Killias, Martin (1993) "International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide" CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal/Journal de l'Association Medicale Canadienne 148(10): pp. 1721-1725, for example, might contain the information that is sought to be authenticated with the newer French citation. --Bejnar (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Transparently not an appropriate source for an article about a movie. Hipocrite (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Forum postings

I am working on an article about a film (Gulaal) and some of the information is sourced to some forum postings that the director of the film made in response to fan questions. Is this a reliable source? Since it's on a blogging site and the director is the one posting the information I'm thinking it would fall under WP:SELFPUB, but I'm not sure. Copana2002 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at their about page of the passion for cinema blog site (and assuming it's accurate) it seems quite a few movie industry people are on the site, so it seems likely that the user is indeed the director. But I can't find any mention that the site actually verifies the identities of the users, so another reliable source identifying him as such would be better. If the user can be assumed to be the director, it should be fine to treat his blog entries and comments like any other self published source. Siawase (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK thank you, Siawase. Copana2002 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Establishing notability of YouTube videos

The article for the German film Downfall has a section on the re-subtitled parodies that have been appearing on YouTube over the past year or so. Because there are literally hundreds of these, the article source contains the prominent notice: "Parodies may be noted here ONLY IF THEY HAVE BEEN COVERED BY INDEPENDENT AND RELIABLE SOURCES."

By reliable here I'm assuming "reliable for the purposes of establishing the video's notability" rather than factually reliable because there are no facts to check: the only question is whether the parody is notable. Only three such parodies have been kept in the article: they've been political in nature and were covered in the New York Times, the Globe and Mail and the Jerusalem Post.

I've removed a mention of a Star Trek parody video on the basis that the source provided — a few sentences and an embedded video near the bottom of this post on the blog "trekmovie.com" — is not a reliable indicator of the video's notability. It's a Wordpress blog which, from what I can gather, will post pretty much anything Star Trek-related; further up the same article is an embedded video showing how to make an Uhura dress for Halloween.

Another user has reverted my removal and it's turning into a game of ping-pong, so to quickly resolve it I'm asking for opinions here and will respect whatever the consensus turns out to be. 77.103.113.127 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that trekmovie.com is just a glorified fan site. As far as I can tell, this 3-year-old site is doesn't have a clear editorial policy and the staff appear to be fans. I'm not even sure if they're writing in a professional capacity or of they do it on a volunteer basis.

Relevant section of WP:RS:

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.

In order for this to even be considered an acceptable self-published source, one would first need to establish the credibility of the editorial team. Even then it might be acceptable in it's area of expertise, which would be Star Trek, not German films. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that blogs and YouTube are not reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Some blogs and some youtube videos are reliable, but in this case, only parodies mentioned in RSs should be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Asking Jimbo his birthdate

A discussion at the Talk:Jimmy_Wales#.22Sources_differ_about_whether_he_was_born_on_August_7_or_8.2C_1966.22Jimbo Wales article raises the question of reliable sources for a subject's birth. I don't believe asking the subject makes sense when sources differ, but what if the subject did produce a birth certificate?

Scientific American (editorial) quote in RealClimate

Is the editorial content at:

• "Science & Technology Web Awards 2005". Scientific American Online. 3 October 2005. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

reliable for any purpose other than the opinion of the Scientific American editors, hence inappropriate as included text? My apologies if another noticeboard is more appropriate, but the question seems to revolve around whether the text is reliable in context, rather than the question of WP:UNDUE weight for the quote.

Previous discussion thread at Talk:RealClimate#Scientific American (editorial) quote, and other preceding threads in that talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The opinion is relevant to the article, and Scientific American is a reliable source. Of course we want to mention in an article about a science web site what other reliable science publications think of the site. It's no different from including reviews by recognized book critics in an article about a book. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific American is definitely a reliable source... but as the quote comes from an editorial, there should be in text attribution ... something like: "According to Scientific American... 'blah blah blah'" Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Or say, "In 2005, Scientific American named RealClimate one of the top 25 science and technology web sites." It's factually accurate and automatically has in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The attribution is already (and has been since at least Jan 1,2008): "In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing: ....". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another PhD question at Entrepreneurial Mindset

I'm not sure if I should be bringing this up here or at the OR board, but Entrepreneurial mindset relies heavily on an unpublished (I think) PhD by the main author of the article, Max Senges. There may be a COI issue here, especially as his name is even in one of the section headings. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PhDs from reputable Universities are currently acceptable as RS. "Published" is a misnomer. Misplaced Pages's use of "published" means made available to the public. In academic circles, published can mean indexed, or published as a monograph. Australian PhDs, for example, are never "published" even if they're full text online. A monograph book related may be "published". If the source has been accepted as part of a PhD, and if it can be consulted by people (within reasonable limits, like physically being present at the Institutions library), and if the doctorate was awarded by a credible university, then the Thesis is an RS. There may be WEIGHT problems though, or UNDUE. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the claimed thesis (pdf format), and the website, single sourced, undue, delete cruft not substantiated with inline citations. Its a WEIGHT, UNDUE and single source issue. The source itself is unreliable as I can't find a claim that the PhD was accepted. If this "http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TDX-0307108-140133/" indicates the thesis was accepted / degree awarded, then the thesis is as credible as Universitat Oberta de Catalunya is (which appears to be a credible university). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.american-automobiles.com

Reliable source for car related articles? I found that a user has been including links to the site. It seems of a fairly high quality and has some interesting information, so rather than simply removing them I have left them in as a potential source for future improvements that would see the article no longer have need for the EL. The question is though, would information from that site be admissible? Unomi (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a WHOIS lookup of the site, and I don't feel it is reliable since the registrant lists a contact address linking to globalprofitgroup.com. ArcAngel (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Webcomic Reviews

I'd like to question the reliability of multiple sources pertaining largely to webcomics:

• Crush! Yiff! Destroy! - statistics for the site ranks it at #1,056,173 in terms of popularity.

• Master Zen Dao Meow Webcomic Book Club - this is essentially a forum. Reviews are user submitted. It's essentially like citing "some guy". This wouldn't fly in a review of a print comic.

• The Webcomic Overlook is a blog being cited in a small number of articles. Aside from being self-published, statistics for the site put it at 478 unique hits, total, indicating that it is not a popular or known website, certainly not popular enough to warrant its own article, much less to be used as a source. The majority of its uses are as external links, indicating that the author of the site has repeatedly added his own page to articles of comics he has reviewed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

If C!Y!D! is a review site, then popularity isn't an indicator. Comparative review structure to relevant print media is. Your description of MZDWMBC is that it is not a reliable source as it lacks oversight prior to publication. TWO's self-published status is sufficient to mark it as not a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any of these sites are comparable to relevant printed criticism. From what I can tell, the author of TWO doesn't really read through the comics he reviews. The overtly negative reviews appear to have been written more to generate hits than anything; author is also belligerent towards criticism of his reviews. Aside from the poor quality of the writing, neutrality issues and the fact that it's a blog, TWO links seem to have been frequently added as external links by the author. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Letter from the editor a valid external link?

This file is a letter from Fred Woodworth to the person that runs "The Classic Typewriter page." The letter is being used as an external link in Killian documents controversy. Is this a valid external link? Hipocrite (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Try asking this question on the WP:ELN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did that already but forgot to remove this. Feel free to disregard. Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Kew railway line, Melbourne

There are quite a lot of references / citations on this page pointing to Railpage Australia forums. As far as I know, forums (and other self-published sources) are not counted as WP:RS except in extreme circumstances. Replacements to these sources would be highly appreciated. 120.155.108.74 (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Far right

Are the articles listed below reliable sources for including the Muslim Brotherhood in a list of Far right political parties, or are they only reliable as a source of their authors' opinions? The sources do not actually use the term far right to describe the Muslim Brotherhood.

• Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi and Al Qaeda by John Loftus
• The Nazi-Islamist Connection by Herbert Eiteneier
• The Enemy of My Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam And the Extreme Right by George Michael
• Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World by Jeffrey Herf

The Four Deuces (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that the book published by George Michael does include extreme right and Militant Islam (which also include Muslim Brotherhood). Should these books and sites be included as source for the far right knowing that the Muslim Brotherhood does have influence from the nazi since WWII?--71.249.247.144 (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The book by Michael claims that the far right and radical Islamics have cooperated not that radical Islamics were part of the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

They would certainly be reliable to source an attributed comment as to the authors' opinions on the matter. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But is it adequate to include the Muslim Brotherhood in the list of Alleged far right organizations, which basically lists neofascist and neonazi parties? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the far right topic, extreme right has these attributes stemming from racial supremacist to religious extremist. religious extremist include jewish, christian, hindu and Muslim fanatics. To singled Islamist from far right association just because of one opinion is not wikipedia policy but personal opinion. According The Four Deuces this was base on minority or revisionist opinion because he/she can't accept the fact that islamist was influence by 20th century european fascist. Until now I haven't heard The Four Deuces provide the source of statistic that it came from minority or revisionist view from "reliable source". Now I'm not denying there are friction between modern days far right and Muslim group, however there are still Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist Groups that are sympathetic to Islamist group due to their common interest against United States Government,Israel and the west such as the Aryan Nation who called for cooperation with Al-qaeda. --yin and yang 15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are also islamist group such as Hamas that adopt hitler salute

It would seem to me that inclusion in the list is based on a simple criteria... are there reliable sources that label group X as being "far right". If yes, the group can be included in the list, if not, then it can not be included. So the question is... are their reliable sources that directly apply the term "far right" to Muslim Brotherhood (or any other Islamasist group)? (note: I am not talking about sources that say that such groups are influenced by the far right, or that various far right groups sympathize or cooperate with a given Islamasist groups... I am talking about sources that directly apply the term "far right" to the specific Islamasist group.) Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the source that i found (which i have not include as a source on wikipedia) use the term "Right-Wing political islam" which also include muslim brotherhood in it.--yin and yang 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

If Islamic fundamentalist cannot be included as far right just because some writer claimed far right only applied to european fascist why should "hindu nationalist" or jewish extremist be included since it was also a some writers opinion that claimed "hindu nationalist" and "jewish extremist" as far right.--yin and yang 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Radio Ga GA

Are radio inteviews RS, if you cannot actually hear what they say. For example <ref>The Adrian Goldberg Show, Talksport Radio (UK), 6 July 2009</ref>? From this source I cannot verify what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a good read if you have the chance. There are also lines throughout different guidelines and policies. WP:Access to sources addresses ease of verifying sources. Assume good faith, ask if a transcript is available, get a full citation (template optional) which will hopefully include a quote in this instance, search online (even if a page cannot be linked for whatever reason at least you can verify for yourself), and even go as far as contacting the station to see if they have archived material available on their website or mail.Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources for drug articles

Is it acceptable for the article Mephedrone to use sites as Erowid and ] as reliable sources? I think it is better to limit the information than to include uncertain information. Ulner (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a lot of essays and guidance specific to drugs and medicine including specificly more tolerance of primary sources or things other than popular press. But, in any case, a source is reliable or not depending on what claim you want it to support. If you just say " Eropwid says blah" then you can presumce the source to speak accurately

for itself. But, you may not want to site it as proof of safety and efficacy for a given indicatio ( Even if you cite the FDA, I'd do so overtly, " leading the FDA to conclude that water is safe and effective for the treatment of dehydration when used as directed."). Probably the best sources are on pubmed ad I wold at least include a survery of these to make sure that you have captured a decent cross section of knowledge on whatever you want to prove from your putatitve source. Sure, you can find "Reliable" sources to say anything but then if there are different opinions, you want to get the prominence right. I would also mention even the guys in white coats get things backwards often, other guys in white coats usually correct it but only after people have died in misguided clinical trials. So, I woldn't take too militant of an attitude, see any of my comments on antioxidants which are militantlu advocated by many reliabile sources but not proven to be "good" in some contexts. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Do you have any links to essays/guidance in this area? Ulner (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

wiki search only finds articles, this may help, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+reliable+medical+sources+primary&aq=f&aqi=&oq= However, never neglect fundamentals for a sanity check and consider the facts and intent of the article. Often, popular perceptions or myths may be encyclopedic merit etc. So, when you talk about drug articles it is likely that scientific results and peer reviewed work will be a large part of that but may not be the only source of relevant information. These comments come largely from a concern about "ivory tower science" when in fact all science has to be evaulated based on how well it describes dishwater(LB films for example) or urine(common fluid of medical relevance). Anecdotes, speculation, folk lore, while often dangerously wrong may be notable and generate leads for scientists stuck with confusing results and seized up by a fallacious belief that is too obvious to question etc. Anyway, as you gather there is a lot to consider here and anything you do will probably make someone upset so make a decision and see what feedback you get. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I would also point out from personal experience that which is probably already known but not consciously considered, it is hard to get people to do science instead of hype. So, I would make clear in an overall article both the science and anecdotes and myths and any related events that lead to better understanding. This is just my personal opinion after watching biotech for a while but even the mortgage and financials suffer from similar problems that just don't happen to invilve chemicals directly. FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Law & Order: Criminal Intent (Season 9)

I tried PROD tagging Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9) first, but the main editor removed the tag and someone else said it should be reported elsewhere. This page consists of largely WP:OR along with Twitter and Blog postings for references where there are any citations at all. Allowing this to go on it is ruining Misplaced Pages in my opinion, since it is very difficult to get any admins to help with it (in Admin defense, I know they are busy with vandals and malicious edits). Thank you for any help that can be provided here. Trista (user name Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article in question is Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, AQFK. I had a problem with an uppercase letter. And thanks for not biting a rank tyro (been here awhile - admit to not knowing everything!) T. TristaBella (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Article is now at AFD. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Family foundation School article

Please review the new addition to the Program section of the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/Family_Foundation_School It is being discussed on the talk page whether the blog posting from the owner of the facility on their child website of their main page can be considered a reliable source. the blog is straight from the leadership team (including owners and administrators) who post responses to the recent controversy surrounding their facility. I think the blog and its contents are extremely relevant to the article and believe that the blog site can be considered a reliable source since it is directly owned and operated by the Family Foundation School administration.

Thanks in advance for your reviewing this. Flyboi9 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the source you propose to add to the article as a wp:RS.

I think you are referring to this source, but I am uncertain.

Further, you have introduced this into the article, though it appears to be unrelated to the subject (no mention of the school). I have removed it (wp:SYNTH), but restored it based on the possibility of input from more knowledgeable editors. You might seek support for that here, but I am very unsure this is the right forum. Since people who watch this board are likely to be interested in sources, one or more might be able to help- Sinneed 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an EL that I had opposed, www.TheFamilySchoolTRUTH.com. It is a strongly anti-school self-published site, and it appears to be claimed as written by one of the editors ( article suffers from possible wp:COI issues on both pro- and anti- school sides ). The EL was warred into the article and I am not removing it again at this time, but I still firmly oppose its inclusion, as I think it fails wp:EL for this article.- Sinneed 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hah, I did not even realize there WAS a Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard. The EL question probably belongs there.- Sinneed 17:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The external link needs to be on the article. Since its inclusion is not in the article, and many editors do not consider it a reliable source (yet) for reference, it should be included in the EL. It is an important part of the article, just like the suicide EL that was fought hard to keep out of the article. In the end, fighting an anti-school site's inclusion in the article is not keeping the article neutral. It needs to and should be included in the article. Flyboi9 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Several questions regarding sources used at Twisted Scriptures

I should state upfront that I have doubts that Twisted Scriptures passes WP:BK. It certainly fails points 2-5, and I'm doubtful about #1. Taking a look at the sources used in the entry have brought forth several concerns I would appreciate additional input on.

1. Is it problematic to use blurbs or reviews posted on Amazon.com, by Amazon (as a marketing tool to sell books) as evidence of the "reception" of a book? The entry creator is arguing that Midwest Bookreview is open about the fact that their "reviews are also available through Internet bookstores such as Amazon.com" (from website). If Midwest Bookreview is a notable publication, and if the independently published review is cited I would not be asking this question, but the issue is that Amazon.com is being linked instead, and their use of this material is, in my mind, equivalent to cherry picked quotes used by publishers on back covers. After all they are just trying to sell the book.
2. If someone wants to use information from a footnote of a book or journal article how should this be done? See just below for the text in question. The problem here is that the journal author being cited does not ever mention Chrnalogar or her book (Twisted Scriptures) in the body of her article, but uses it, along with another author to exemplify a point in a footnote. The quoted text below is from the footnote. I find using footnote text like this dubious in general, but if it is allowable doesn't it need to be qualified heavily? When I read this I expect that Wong is discussing the book directly. Indeed it adds a lot of credibility to the notability argument -- but alas its just an example used in a footnote.

   Chrnalogar points out that mind control does not need to occur only with sever tactics, writing: "All that's needed is an environment where the information can be controlled, and more importantly, the way people perceive that information." She cites mind control characteristics identified by Robert Jay Lifton, and asserts that only six of his "psychological themes" are required in order to manipulate followers in a cult.

3. Does anyone know what What Magazine is? Since it is being used as a primary source for the "reception" of the book I'm not entirely sure that "reliability" is the issue, but notability certainly is. Should reception criticism published in non-notable sources by non-notable authors be used to establish notability? Especially if there is no indication that the publication or the author of the criticism have any expertise in the relevant fields?

Thank you for your comments. Another set of eyes on this entry in general would be appreciated because, like I said, I do not believe it meets WP:BK but this is only evident when one digs deeper into the sources and how they are used.PelleSmith (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Question 3

What? seems to be a self-published site.- Sinneed 17:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that is the same What Magazine. This one is indexed by findarticles, highbeam research, and Infotrac. Cirt (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I should have noted that I came across that online mag but it appears to be a different publication. Besides Highbeam's indexing I've found zilch on this publication. The fact that Highbeam indexes it is of little value as well since they are a for profit business.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm but findarticles links to www.whatmagnet.com which is dead and for sale (warning links to an advertisement-to-sell-the-site).

Appears to be "What! Magazine" published by "http://www.gale.cengage.com/about/" - looking at the copyright at Highbeam.- Sinneed 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

:I see this article which mentions the book and the author. Most of the other refs I see through google for the book are "author speaking at" types of things.- Sinneed 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic.org

Please advise if the site Anglo-Celtic.org.uk here can be considered a reliable source - in general, and specifically for the inclusion of 'parts of England' in the sentence "Limitation to these six is sometimes disputed by people from Asturias, parts of England, and Galicia – territories that have also retained some Celtic cultural traits." in the second paragraph of the introduction on Celtic nations. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no indication at all on the site who writes it or maintains it, it's impossible to assess their reliability, therefore I would say it cannot be treated as a RS. Barnabypage (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's no way to assess the reliability of the site. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Thanks for your time and consideration, Daicaregos (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

British national party

I objected to this addition , well to the citations actually..are these wikipedia reliable....

In an audio message Nick Griffin and Simon Darby claimed that the EDL was a “Zionist false flag operation” and added that “This is a neo-con operation.”. They went on the say that this was an attempt to provoke a low level civil war.

Ones a blog and the daily star, well, it shouldn't be considered a reliable source for anything excepts titillating tabloid commentary....the star article if you can call it that, starts with the neutral .....

BONKERS Nick Griffin has decided who is behind all his troubles – this newspaper. The blundering BNP leader bla bla....

Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Blog is Simon Darby's own blog, I think he may be a notable expert on what he says. As to the star, as far as I am aware it is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by involved user The Star is an RS for the purposes of citing a direct quote from a politician. The blog of the Deputy Leader of a political party is an RS for the purposes of citing direct quotes made on behalf of that party. --FormerIP (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the possible insertion of the comment and the citations can be found here . Off2riorob (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The key here is to phrase what is being discussed in terms of being the opinion of Nick Griffin and Simon Darby, and not phrasing it as being accepted fact. Whether their opinions are noteworthy enough to mention in a specific article depends on who these men are and the topic of the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Mr Griffin is is leader and Mr Darby it deputy Leader of the BNP! it safe to say their views are notable on this subject (the BNP!). Well its the section mof teh BNP article that discuses links between tehr BNP and the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Still looking for some more comment regarding these two citations. Are these two citations the really type of thing that we as writers of an encyclopedia should be linking to in order to support our content? Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone specify what statement these two sources are intended to serve as citation for ? Abecedare (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

At present the BNP article says: In an audio message Nick Griffin and Simon Darby claimed that the EDL was a “Zionist false flag operation” and added that “This is a neo-con operation.”. They went on the say that this was an attempt to provoke a low level civil war. --FormerIP (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So Mr Darbey's Blog is Being used to souurce Mr Darbey's views.14:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is this... (apparently) the EDL (English Defence League) is alledged to be tied to the BNP (as a "front" organization)... and the quoted material was Griffin's and Darbey's response to this allegation. In this context, I think we have to say that the sources are reliable self-published sources. The alternative is to not mention the allegation about the EDL (in which case there is no need to include their response). Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See ]. If its removed from one page it woould have to be removed from both.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The Daily Star article does support the statement cited by FormerIP, and since we have the exact audio, there are no WP:REDFLAG concerns here, which would have made us deprecate a "tabloid". I don't know enough about the subject to comment on due weight. A few of minor corrections:

• Use "said" instead of "claim" (see WP:WTA);
• The statement about "low level civil war" precedes the statement about "Zionist false flag operation" in the audio, so we shouldn't say that "they went on to say". Can simply say, They also said ..."
• Shouldn't the statements be attributed to Griffin alone ? Can say something like, "Ina recorded conversation with Darby ..."

These are minor issues that don't affect the substance of the content, but we should get it right anyway. Abecedare (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Daily star does attribute the comments to both men.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But we can tell from the audio that the relevant parts selected for quotation in the article were all spoken by Griffin. --FormerIP (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This Daily Star article (rightly) attributes the comments to Griffin alone and doesn't even mention Darby. Am I missing something here ? Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Opps sorry. This was origional found on the Hopenothate site, which does use the Griffin/Darby line. when it was inserted that was gopouing to be the source. Anyway the page was changed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of journal articles as sources for MigrationWatch UK article

An editor is arguing at Talk:MigrationWatch UK that an article from a peer-reviewed academic journal should not be used as a source since members of the public don't have free access to it. It would be good to get a third-party perspective since it's just a discussion between the two of us at the moment. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See wp:PAYWALL. LeadSongDog come howl 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've quoted this on the article's talk page. It would be helpful if someone would back me up there as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and NewsHounds

Are any of these sources indicators of WP:DUE by themselves? I know this has been brought up many times on the page but I can't seem to get a definitive answer and it keeps coming up. I am of the opinion that they're good for fact-checking but need something like the NYT, Washington Post, or LA times to substantiate their weight. After all, MMFA was created counter conservative bias and are thus going to go after the same targets (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News, Republicans, anyone who uses the right turn signal too much, etc.) while HP and Newshounds are primarily blogs. Soxwon (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is any of their news false or outright lies? How are they less a news source then what you want to use?

For those reading Soxwon is only asking as he is one of the right wing editors here that keeps removing anything negative about Rush, Fox, etc… and these sources have printed true stories against his POV. He wants to be able to remove things that are backed up by them. Look at his edits and it’s pretty clear. His pretext that he is trying to work things out is false and his agenda should not be supported. --Marlin1975 (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm such a biased editor, that's why I asked Blaxthos to comment on this before anyone else. I ask that you refrain from making personal attacks and instead actually contribute to the discussion. Can you back up your claim that I wish to use equally biased material as sources? Can you point to where I said that what they printed was false? I have simply stated that they represent very partisan viewpoints and don't necessarily warrant coverage unless they are commenting on something that has already been established as notable. Soxwon (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I did contribute by pointing out you have not shown any false and/or lies that would show these sources as bad. The only thing you have done is show they do not support your POV and you don't like it when they point out bad things from your biased POV. These sources are good and meet the reliabile requirments by even Wiki's standards. --Marlin1975 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point, I never said they were factually inaccurate, merely that they perhaps blew incidents out of proportion that received little attention from MSM publications. I could easily have included Free Republic and World Net Daily into this but they aren't the sources being discussed at the moment. Soxwon (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a definitive answer here. I think it certain cases they might be reliable, others not so much. If they're being used in criticism sections, I likely think they are okay, since they are staffed by valid and well known political commentators. AniMate 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the question here... WP:UNDUE is a content policy with the intent that specific cited information is given the proper weight - a source in-and-of-itself can't be evaluated under WP:UNDUE; the policy, as I understand it, is only applicable to specific issues. Perhaps the question is better presented as Do MMFA/FIAR/whatever qualify as reliable sources? For those answers, each source listed needs to be evaluated individually. FAIR, MMFA, and Huffington Post are all widely cited by a plethora of third party sources (especially the mainstream media)... I personally don't think NewsHounds qualifies in most circumstances, but the other three certainly do with regards to media accuracy and criticism. Lately there has been a large push by editors who seem to ideologically disagree with those sources to exclude them using various rationales, the most common being a claim of "biased source", which indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. RS require sources to have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy", NPOV requires that Misplaced Pages presents the issue neutrally (not that the source itself be neutral), and UNDUE requires that the source be presented with due weight. Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that AniMate's answer will have to do. Each source will have to be judged on an individual basis. Blaxthos, what I am referring to is that do HP, FAIR, and MMFA, by themselves, qualify as Op-ed pieces on issues that may or may not warrant coverage, or are they on more of a level of say the NYT, WP, or USA Today. Soxwon (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, thank you for clarifying. Singular criticism in any one of those sources I mentioned isn't prima facie evidence that the relevant incident is inherently significant... so to answer your question directly, no I don't believe that "just because MMFA published a criticism, that criticism qualifies for inclusion in Misplaced Pages." However, in most cases their criticisms are either republished or referenced by other reliable sources, or that criticism is raised separately by other organizations (for example, MMFA and FAIR and HuffPost often seem to all criticize the same things). Both of those circumstances would generally indicate sufficient weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Material which is editorial in nature is RS only as to the fact that the source has an opinion. This includes most of HuffPo and similar sites. Where a factual claim is made within an editorial, best practice is to find a non-editorial source for the fact. In most cases, HuffPo provides proper links for citing facts - but where they do not, it is not proper to give HuffPo as the source. Collect (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

All of those media outlets can be cited if their work is sourced and they have proof of their statements. There should be caution when pulling the opinions from partisan organizations, but there is absolutely no reason not to use any of those organizations as reliable sources if their material is true. DD2K (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not remotely the case. This relates to their use in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, an article on which the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people policy applies. WP:BLP#Self-published sources is clear on this point: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not call the Huffington Post "self-published" (except possibly for material that is actually written by Ariana Huffington herself)... we have long understood that there is a difference between a personal blog and award winning news commentary sites that publish in "blog format". Yes, the material there is political commentary, and so should be presented as being "opinion" and not "fact"... but it is reliable when used as such. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) It's quite possible that an individual article on the Huffpost would be reliable -- say, a sober, neutrally written piece on an uncontroversial topic, written by an expert. But most are opinion pieces, scandal, breaking news, gossip, etc. In addition to the liberal bias, another problem (I think - I may be wrong) is that they don't do any fact checking or editorial oversight on their articles. It's basically user-submitted content, with some very high profile users. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(before ec) I agree with Soxwon and to some extent ChrisO on this. Even if it weren't a BLP, blogs... and most reliable sources for that matter... don't bootstrap themselves above the threshold below which WP:UNDUE says they aren't noteworthy enough to mention at all. To make an extreme example of it, suppose the North Grand Rapids Chess Club Beacon reports that President Obama is a lousy chess player. Yes, for purposes of verifiability we can look to the publication itself to back up the statement "Several local papers, including the NGRCC Beacon, reported that Obama was no good at chess". But looking directly at the source does not lend any weight to the statement. On the other hand, if the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist, and Le Monde all said that "several local newspapers, including the NGRCC Beacon, made negative comments about Obama's chess playing", then that gives it some weight. That's without the BLP layer of analysis, just the sourcing part of things. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with that and believe it's a misreading of that policy. The Huffington Post is not 'self-published' and hire journalist to write, edit and fact-check much of their work that is published. Most definitely The Atlantic can't remotely be considered any of those on the prohibited list for WP:BLP. As for the Huffington Post, like I wrote, it depends on what's being reported. Without one of the staff at that establishment there would never have been any 'bitter-gate' controversy. Since it was Mayhill Fowler who not only broke the story, but provided the audio. Are we suipposed to ignore obvious credible information coming from a news outlet because some people don't like that outlet?

Media Matters for America was founded by journalist David Brock, and Eric Burns is the President of the organization. MMFA also has a large staff of researchers and fact checkers, whom are very respected professionals. If one looks up the definition of the prohibited sources, none of these meet the criteria and I think there is a misreading of the rules here. For example, Zines doesn't mean that you can't cite any Magazines. The definition is there for anyone to read. You can't rule out citing Time Magazine when it obviously does not fit the definition. DD2K (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

General comment. I'm not sure about the others because they don't come up that often here, but the HP is a reliable source, even for BLPs. They're not the tops for controversial BLP stuff, but they are quite good. Maybe the same for the other two. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist

There is a discussion regarding the spam blacklist and the reliability of sources here.--Hu12 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidestar.org

At Kripalu Center, a very great deal of information, including some information about living persons, is being pulled from .

Looking through the press, there seems to be a great deal of credibility placed in the information there, and I am leaving the BLP information (positions of employment, money) in the article on the assumption that this is a strong enough source to carry it. If there is any concern, I would love to know. - Sinneed 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The only citations to Guidestar.org appear to be returns that the center itself filed with the Internal Revenue Service, which would then have been supplied to Guidestar by the IRS. (Nonprofit organizations' returns are open to public inspection under U.S. law, and Guidestar posts substantially all of them.) The names, titles, and compensation of the top officers of a nonprofit organization are required to be disclosed in those returns. As long as the Misplaced Pages article accurately reports the information included in the return, I don't see a WP:BLP problem. The only way I could imagine such a problem arising would be if the nonprofit organization submitted a return to the IRS containing inaccurate information about its own officers, directors, etc. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements

On the topic on global climate change, I would like to cite a report conducted by two climate scientists currently providing input for UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, namely Shaopeng Huang and Henry N. Pollack.

The report can be found all over the web (at least 98 hits when using Google’s search engine (source)), however I am not sure if it has been cited before. The report in its shortest form can be accessed for free in the following link:

• http://www.econ.umn.edu/~arust/images/Environment/Huang/HPS1.pdf

Since I am not totally sure about what standards are required in order for a source to be deemed reliable, I would appreciate any input on this topic regarding the climate report above. Wejer (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we assume that this report is part and parcel of the whole "climate-gate" controversy?... if so, it definitely needs to be discussed... so, I would call it reliable for attributed statements as to what the report says ... but WP:NPOV would require that these statements be ballanced by criticism. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Can we assume that this report is part and parcel of the whole "climate-gate" controversy?" - I did not intend to cite the report for the purpose of the climategate-controversy. However if it is used for that purpose, I agree that added precautions are valid. Wejer (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be usual to add the ref to an article, or discuss it on an article tlak page *first*: that way, you'll get the opinion of knowlegeable editors. I don't think you've done that (I'd expect to have noticed). If this is related to or then I wouldn't be surprised if it was controversial; it would depend on what wording you'd want to wrap around it. It might well be helpful to indicate where you ran across this William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"It would be usual to add the ref to an article, or discuss it on an article tlak page *first*: that way, you'll get the opinion of knowlegeable editors." - I discussed the topic privately with some of my friends. I showed them the article, asked for their opinions, but they said they were not sure and asked me to post it here for input from the community. Essentially, I am looking for a definite answer either way concerning if the article is reliable or not. Wejer (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

1. http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2006/04/hamas-adopts-nazi-salute.html
2. ^ Wong, Catherine (Summer / Fall, 1999). "St. Thomas on Deprogramming: Is It Justifiable?". The Catholic Lawyer. 39 Catholic Law (81). The St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research of St. John's University School of Law. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution