Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crum375 (talk | contribs) at 01:46, 12 January 2010 (→Pioneers of genocide studies: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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.

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?

Um..why we cant ask someone (especially Jimbo) what his/her birthday is and trust them? Ok, now we've taken RS waaaay too seriously.Camelbinky (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Because even notable people sometimes lie about their ages? Don't let the identity of the individual make a difference to you (it certainly doesn't to me, and I think you'd find it doesn't to him, either) - I'm just asking what kinds of reliable sources can be used to determine someone's age. Asking people things isn't considered reliable in any context, so far as I understand.--otherlleft 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is particularly true about models and musicians, I have found. Their publicity agents will lie about their age in order to make them seem to be younger than they actually are. I have no comment on Jimbo Wales specifically, but we should not be asking people directly what their age is and then publishing it on Misplaced Pages, generally speaking. JBsupreme (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is actually a good example why the topic can't necessarily be trusted about this, see all the confusion found at Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate. Amalthea 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So Wales can not write in Misplaced Pages what his birthdate is, but has to tell the news media who will write it down somewhere so that someone else can write what his birthdate is? This operates under the assumption that the news media verifies birthdates. Let us say they do, for Argument‘s sake, all of the time. How do we know that Jim Wales was born Jim Wales though? If he is really John Doe, but looked up and memorized some guy's information, used that name and birthdate, then a birth certificate really does not verify anything. So a DNA test is required. However, what if his parents are part of the scheme, and his parents dropped the Doe name and took up the Wales name to further this plot? A DNA test is useless then. How far back must one go to verify with absolute certainty? Sure, a subject lies sometimes, but to deny someone as an expert on himself seems odd. If you can not quote the subject himself for his birthdate, then how could you quote him for his opinions and other details unless it is verified through such rigor as well? Either reliable source is to be used with reasonable discretion or it will be taken to an extreme in which nothing can be absolutely known. XANDERLIPTAK 06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak, any information that is generally accepted as a fact may be introduced into an article. If you read the thread Amalthea posted you'll see that this is not the case here - his family claims the date is not the one on the birth certificate, there are numerous contradictions, and so on. Step back and ignore who the subject of the article is and apply the reliable sources policy and then let us know if it's really ridiculous. If there wasn't confusion introduced by the subject this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.--otherlleft 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then just write all that in there and leave it at that. It's OK to write that he claims his birthdate it something other than what his parents claim. We don't need to figure out who is right, we can just report what has been said. Gigs (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

Hi! I observed Talk:Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907#Relevant_omissions_in_this_article - There are users who are saying that some sources from Aviation Week and The New York Times are not reliable to use in this article, while another user is saying that Aviation Week and The New York Times are reliable sources to use to interpret findings in a primary source. This concerns a featured article. Would someone mind looking at this? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They're both reliable sources. I don't understand how anyone could possibly claim otherwise. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The author of Aviation Week article is Richard Pedicini, who wrote the article referenced NTSB, Cenipa at Odds over Midair Accident Report. Joe Sharkey, that runs a blog in pilots defense, describes him as “my correspondent in Sao Paulo” and this is how Globo describes Pedicini “The American Richard Pedicini was on Friday (8) to the headquarters of the Superintendent of the Federal Police of São Paulo, , to assist pilots Joe Lepore and Jan Paladino. He attended the Federal Police in a suit, tie and panama hat and a mustache similar to Santos Dumont. "What better time to do a tribute to Santos Dumont?" he suggested. Do we need Santos Dumont spirit to analyze, summarize and interpret CENIPA/NTSB reports? And New York Times is where Joe Sharkey publishes his articles, and is being suited for his blog. Sdruvss (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody answers to my arguments? Sdruvss (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KillerChihuahua. Aviation Week and The New York Times are both reliable sources. It remains however, how the sources are being used to interpret the findings in the primary source. This reliability question cannot be considered alone in contest but only with the primary source finding. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 16:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahuas comments are out of place and make no sense. The question was, in this particular article are the references provided suitable as reliable sources for the topic. The answer that the two publications in question are reliable sources, full stop, fails to answer the question or even to address any of the underlying arguments.

With regards to any source it is not considered to be reliable for everything. Every source is evaluated for it's suitability for specific articles. Some sources are suitable for use in some articles and not others. This is not a matter that can be addressed by a blanket statement that this source is always reliable for everything, for that is simply not true.

It may not be Wikipedias job to examine evidence, but it is certainly Wikipedias job to investigate the sources it calls reliable. Otherwise there is no basis whatsoever for calling them reliable at all. And where a source is shown to differ form the primary sources it references then it is not a reliable source for that subject.

In this case there is serious doubt about the validity of the two sources in question for the purpose they have been used. Doubts which are not addressed by the false statement that they are both reliable for all uses. It is a shame that an honest appeal for assistance in mediating this matter should be met in such an offhand manner. Weakopedia (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish to include some more arguments. One of editors (who also has admin role) is obstructing to include in final report section other reliable sources with the reason: "The New York Times and Aviation Week tell us the CENIPA and NTSB reports are in conflict with each other. Are you aware of any secondary source, in any language, from any country, which tells us NTSB and CENIPA are not in conflict with each other? If so, please provide that source". All recognized reliable sources don't mention agreement neither disagreement of NTSB with CENIPA; they don't discuss this "conflict". When we request the editor to include other sources to summarize CENIPA final report (I don't try because I know it will be reverted), we are told that we are trying to make original research. The editor answer to the request: "No, not OK. The starting point has to be the basic presentation of the section. We have two highly reliable secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, telling us the NTSB and CENIPA reports, which are primary sources, are in conflict with each other, so we need to present them as such. In other words, the logical presentation is CENIPA, NTSB and then the analysis of their conflicting conclusions". This way we can't summarize CENIPA findings using other reliable sources. I don't defend that AW and NYT be obstructed, but it is not a sound argument to obstruct others because they don't say what some reporters of these sources said. We can even keep them. In Gol 1907 talk pages I analyze point to point the sources used in final report section. XX Sdruvss 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: WP reliable source says "Widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it". No other Brazilian newspaper, which are very close to the accident, use the expression "dissenting report" (sic) or mention the "conflict" (sic). XX Sdruvss 12:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason that still eludes me, this one article has adopted a twisted interpretation of what constitutes WP:secondary sources. A primary source would be a pilot's or controller's testimony, a cockpit voice recorder's recording, or a twisted piece of metal. A detailled analysis of any of these things is secondary. The final report as approved by the board of investigation is a mix of secondary analysis and tertiary coverage of facts. Yet this article is treating the final report as if it were primary and needed Aviation Week to validate it as an RS. It's nonsensical. LeadSongDog come howl 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

LSD, if an accident investigation report has a separate 'probable cause' statement, which is a succinct prioritized list of the accident cause(s), we do include that quotation in its entirety in Misplaced Pages accident articles, because in being self-contained it precludes the possibility of original research by Misplaced Pages editors selectively highlighting some causes to the exclusion of others. In fact, in this specific accident article, we do include the NTSB's probable cause statement, since it is reproduced on Misplaced Pages in its entirety. The problem we have is with the CENIPA report, which (unlike most modern accident reports) does not have a probable cause statement. It does include a 'Conclusions' section, but that section is divided into subsections, and each subsection goes into different possible contributory causes in some significant detail and verbiage, without any distillation or prioritization. Since this case is highly contentious and involves living persons, and there is ongoing criminal and civil litigation about the various causes and liabilities, we need to be extremely careful before using any information selectively, esp. from within a list of official causes which are not distilled or prioritized. The top level issue in this accident is that we have two reports, from two accident invesigation agencies, which high quality secondary sources — The New York Times and Aviation Week — have characterized as 'dissenting' or 'sparring' with each other. We therefore need to tread very carefully, and rely on high quality secondary sources to summarize, compare and contrast these reports, to avoid a WP:BLP violation. Crum375 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Crum is criticizing how CENIPA report was done. Only AW, whose author worked for the company that the crew was trained and recently was invited by Embraer to visit its plant, and a freelancer journalist of NYT, that lives in Brazil, are able to summarize CENIPA report. This article, for instance, is not enough. XX Sdruvss 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the NTSB supplement differs. That's why the supplement exists, and why the interested nations are entitled and expected to participate in major investigations. They bring different perspectives, are subject to different legally regulated environments, have access to different background information, and even write for different audiences. We hardly need the NYT or AW to tell us that. The NTSB are not there just so they can say "Ditto" at the end of the lead investigator's report, they have a duty to supplement and improve on it wherever they can. But in no way does the need for an external source to analyze the differences impeach the reliability of either the final report or the NTSB's annexed commentary — they are both at least secondary sources. LeadSongDog come howl 15:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

LSD, I fully agree with you that both NTSB and CENIPA are highly reliable sources. The only question is presentation and distillation. The NTSB is easy, because it provides us a self-contained bite-size summary: the 'probable cause' statement. The CENIPA report only has a long 'Conclusion' section, divided into subsections, in which there is essay-style discussion of many possible contributory causes, not prioritized or summarized in any concise way. When you couple that with the fact that CENIPA and NTSB are (per reliable sources) in conflict with each other, we need sources which compare, contrast and summarize the two reports for us, to avoid WP:OR. This is how the 'Final reports' section in the article is structured: it presents the CENIPA report (with top level description, to avoid BLP issues of 'selective' highlighting), the NTSB report (quoting the probable cause statement), and the conflicting conclusions, relying on high quality secondary sources which compare and contrast the reports for us. Crum375 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why this high reliable source, for instance, Estadao article can't be quoted for summarizing causes pointed by CENIPA? It clearly points 9 causes, and AW neither NYT compare conclusions. They just say that they disagree. XX Sdruvss 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the WP article needs to compare and contrast the reports. It's certainly not OR to say the reports differ in their treatment of probable cause. Say so, link to both, and stop - you're done. No need to spell out the differences. What's hard about that? LeadSongDog come howl 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If we have high quality secondary sources, like the NYT and Aviation Week telling us the two reports are "sparring" and "dissenting", it would be a disservice to our readers to leave them hanging, telling them in effect, "You want to know how and why the two reports are conflicting? read the sources yourselves!". Our mission on WP is to summarize and explain (neutrally) what reliable sources have said about an issue, not to provide a dry list of references. Crum375 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why this high reliable source (Estadao article) can't be quoted for summarizing causes pointed by CENIPA? It clearly points 9 causes. Which of these 9 causes raises BLP issues? XX Sdruvss 01:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

NYT reference (Brazil Lays Some Blame on U.S. Pilots in Collision) is an article signed by Andrew Downie and Matthew L. Wald. Andrew Downie is a Scotch freelancer journalist that wrote this article from Sao Paulo reading Brazilian news. He writes about any issue that happens in Brazil. He writes about carnival, soccer, and wines until politics, economy, and business. He lived first in Mexico, where he became a journalist. Sent to Haiti by the Reuters news agency, worked with Larry Rohter. . Rohter published an known article in New York Times titled "Brazilian Leader's Tippling Becomes National Concern", insinuating the Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had a drinking problem that affected his presidency. The article's only quoted source for Lula's alcoholism was Leonel Brizola, a sworn political enemy of Mr. da Silva. The article caused consternation in the Brazilian press. Rohter's visa was temporarily revoked (and quickly reinstated) by Brazil's government, an event which overshadowed much criticism of Rohter's reporting. . Joe Sharkey is also a columnist for the New York Times. NYT is the single one and only source saying "dissenting report". As Crum well said, "on WP we need better sources than some reporter copying things from a press conference". XX Sdruvss 11:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see more information in A possible comprimise. XX Sdruvss 01:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Regulated professional trade publication's reliability

1st issue

I have searched the archives and cannot find anything relevant to this issue: There is a major trade publication Dynamic Chiropractic which has a circulation of at least 60,000, and goes to virtually every DC known to exist on the planet. It is CINAHL listed, and is NOT owned by a DC. The publication is part of a larger group of specialty trade publications and has been around a rather long time. It is certainly "independent" in every way, except that of course, it depends on the profession to read it, and advertisers to support it. They do not publish just anything that comes their way, and they are known (by me personally) to truly check facts, before they print stuff (to some extent anyway). I am NOT talking about press releases, but actual articles their staff published as "news", being used to establish "notability". Their are editors who have disputed that this is sufficient to establish it, claiming that we need to show third party sources, not just trade publications. BUT, pursuant to WP:ANYBIO, criterion 2, it should be sufficient thus to show that the individual, e.g. Tom Hyde has made a sufficient contribution to his/her own field that s/he has left an indelible impression in that profession's history. No? So how correctly to lift that notability flag from a man whose name is known and respected by virtually every DC in the world? _{СДжП,ДС} 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a free publication. While it may be in an index of health care publications, there is no evidence of independence between coverage and subjects. Indeed, one of the articles that is supposed to demonstrate the notability of the individual mentioned above was written by him! This publication—while quite possibly very useful to insiders—doesn't appear to have an editorial policy that brings it into the realm of RS and appears to have significant POV issues. _matic 22:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic Chiropractic has been published since 1983 (Library of Congress records) with 26 issues per year, and is the number one trade magazine for Chiropractors. It has a circulation of 60,000 in the United States, with a slightly different edition having a circulation of 6,000 in Canada. It is reliable enough for the New York Law Journal, as well as the Journal of the American Dietetic Association to cite it as a reference. While it is not a peer-reviewed journal, previous discussions at Talk:Chiropractic have reached the consensus that it *IS* a reliable source, and as such it is used as a reference 4 times in that article. Are you next going to argue that Chiropractic & Osteopathy or JCCA are not reliable because they are free publications? DigitalC (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are using a blatant argument from authority to refute specific claims of the non-reliability of the source. The age and frequency of a publication do not demonstrate reliability. Indexing in the LoC doesn't indicate reliability. "Reliable enough for the New York Law Journal" doesn't give sufficient information about what it relied upon to demonstrate reliability and same with JADA. Likewise the consensus at Chiropractic—a nonrepresentative sampling of Misplaced Pages editors.

As you point out, the fact that it's free doesn't prove the the publication is not reliable, either, but it, along with facts of its editorial policy—such as having individuals write articles about themselves—is relevant to people considering the source's reliability. _matic 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a reliable source in some contexts and not in others. I don't see a problem with a publication having someone write an article about themselves; presumably they apply editorial standards and don't invite just anyone to do so. However, that article would not be a reliable source for self-serving statements about the person. A different article in the same publication might be. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

NO, Bongo appears to argue everywhere that anything Chiropractic per se cannot be reliable, and shouldn't be used to determine reliability, or notability. Just see practically every article I have written, in which he challenges notability and argues against anything positive for chiropractic at all. I posted this here to resolve this once and for all. But the idea that Dynamic Chiropractic is less reliable than similarly listed and accepted publications is per se an unreliable POV._{СДжП,ДС} 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd issue

There is another issue regarding this publication and others, upon which I would appreciate a consensus. There is an ongoing tiff about the reliability of a certain individual, and his ramblings, and the forces whose arguments are bolstered by this person are only too happy to use WIKI's rules to protect him, but: Court documents have very clearly proven that this person is quite unreliable, and not even trustworthy, or "credible" to quote a couple of Judges. My issue is this- I have been stopped from using such court documents when reprinted in an otherwise legitimate and already adjudged "reliable" trade publication, because they are not directly from the source. It is certainly convenient that the Court systems involved, require one to subscribe to and pay page by page for reprints. Thus his sycophants use this claiming that I cannot use a subscription service to prove what is legally public information??? Any idea? _{СДжП,ДС} 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That information, if used at all, would have to come from a non-libelous source and be applied in the right, extremely specific and limited, situation, IOW only to discuss the one court case and that specific situation. It doesn't apply anywhere else. We don't use that information here at Misplaced Pages because it's irrelevant to any our content. We also don't do that here because it is always taken (directly or indirectly) from a libelous source and applied, as you are doing, in situations that are unrelated to that case and situation. This has been tried by numerous others and been discussed intensively and thoroughly. If you really insist on continually engaging in character assassination here, the door is that way. You haven't even got the story right because your sources are flawed. The use of that information has been discussed to death already. I suggest you read the archives. The discussions of this information are very clear there.

The reliability of the person in question has been dealt with extensively here and here. Mainstream sources consider him reliable, while fringe/alternative medicine/chiropractic sources hate him. That itself says alot about his credibility and about their's. You need to make up your mind on which side you wish to stand. You claim that the POV of many of your colleagues is "arcane" (source you noted here), and yet you defend them and attack this author who criticizes them for their arcane views. He's on your side, and yet you attack him! That's odd. You should be siding with him, since he's your biggest friend. He's the one who attacks arcane chiropractic and recommends science based, reform, chiropractic. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you twist my words; (and to be honest, you are very good at that!). I never said, that "many" of my colleagues. I said a "small, vocal minority, of my colleagues". This is vastly different, and indicative of the kind of slant you have been putting on Chiropractic related articles in general.
Moreover, you also draw conclusions in which YOU are pointing YOUR finger at a specific individual. I was pretty careful not to do that; just asked about a principle, not a person.

I did read the archives YOU brought up. (And we are talking about the individual YOU pointed to, only as ONE example of the principal I raised). As you demanded this, I came to the following conclusions:

• The leader of that whole "discussion" seems to me (just my opinion) to have been one individual appearing under two different login names, who also has, apparently in outside sources, been outed as a sycophant of the subject. Thus that person himself has a problem with POV, and should probably have recused himself from the argument on a COI basis. There was another who openly (in his User talk page) supports the defendant accused of slander (against the whole Chiropractic profession) one Simon Singh against the BCA, on the thin grounds that a profession should not be allowed to defend itself against open slander using the legal system. HOW THEN?? (That basis would have allowed the AMA to continue its campaign against Chiropractic). So he too, has a POV slant that should have been admitted, for any such group to come to a fair conclusion, i.e. on fact, not bias. So, the two of them not three as it appeared, apparently calculatedly and cleverly dominated the whole discussion process.
  
• The subject's self-published BIO which has been determined in, as I understand it, more than one Court, to not be credible; and the number of MEDICAL publications which have used his diatribes are the sole basis of the group discussion finding him overall to be a RPOV. And, even with that apparently (superficially) sterling basis, still only on a "case-by-case basis" (so the group, despite being lead down a garden path, still saw though this enough to have had reservations?).
• No one took into account (because no one brought it up) that the AMA was under a permanent injunction Wilk v AMA to cease this kind of constant slander of Chiropractic. And thus there was a proven HISTORY of these publications doing EXACTLY this. (and it looks like Singh simply exported that behavior to Britain. So, consequent to Wilk, there may have been those who thus disgruntled, would have been motivated "under-the-table" to keep the (now illegal) process going? Thus, I should think that the fact that IF even one Judge found in one of this hailstorm of what I understand were failed slander suits, as I recall, in this one in California, that
  
• a: the individual possibly had financial ties to the AMA, (and, I understand there was an admission to that under oath) and
  
• b: that he "was profiting from his testimony in these cases, and was thus motivated to keep filing them", should alone put the whole RPOV issue back on the table. But we can;t show the public record Court documents to prove this, because they are pay-per-page???
  

But, no, the argument was that since the journals which are published by the very agencies convicted in Wilk of this conspiracy against Chiropractic, still use this guy as a reference, this makes HIM more credible. I would argue quite the obverse, i.e., that doing so, simply makes THEM less so, and perhaps in violation of Judge Getzendanner's injunction. I think that people with objective knowledge of the facts, should be consulted to truly elucidate whether this a fair result emanated from that whole brouhaha of a "Discussion". I personally do not think so.

Most of all, in this answer, you conveniently fail to address the key question I asked, which is how to use legitimate Court documents if the Courts require that one pay-per-page for them, even though they are public records, when conclusions are being drawn like that one you cited, which cried out for the appearance of those documents??? Can we use them if they are bought and re-published (perhaps with an affidavit that they are true and exact copies)in an otherwise normally acceptable RPOV journal???_{СДжП,ДС} 16:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If the only information we had about an author was in court documents, we might use those to help decide whether the author was a reliable source (without using the court documents themselves as a citation in the article). However, BullRangifer says that mainstream sources consider him reliable; if that's so, we have to go with that and not overturn it with OR. If the author is accepted by mainstream sources and hated by alternative sources, then the author's statements should be given plenty of weight, but not reported as if they are universally accepted fact if they're contradicted by reliable alternative sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to comment on one issue raised by Drsjpdc and to clear up his misunderstanding. It is the one about the decision by Judge Getzendanner. While she recognized and wrote that the AMA was justified in their beliefs that chiropractic was an "unscientific cult", she also found that the AMA used too harsh methods to curtail the unscientific effects of the profession. The case was filed for "restraint of trade", and she found them guilty on that point ALONE. Drsjpdc keeps mentioning "slander", but that wasn't an issue, and continued opposition to the currently existing unscientific and unethical aspects of the profession is not slander and are not covered by that decision, but are covered by the generous free speech laws which also allow chiropractors to continue their long history of slanderous attacks on medical science, medical physicians, the medical profession, vaccinations, antibiotics, surgery, etc. It's cultish behavior and it is still alive and well.

No, criticism isn't slander and it isn't covered by her decision. I've heard this specious argument before and it doesn't hold water. If it were true, then chiropractic would be the only profession protected from criticism, an obviously absurd situation. Justified criticism of the "fraud, abuse and quackery, which are more rampant in our profession than in other healthcare professions" isn't illegal or a restraint of trade. You should welcome it, rather than try to whitewash it from Misplaced Pages. It is well-sourced in this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about WrestleMania 23

There is a content dispute taking place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#IP opinion pushing on Wrestlemania 23. Essentially, the majority of reliable sources (many of which are almost identical) give the attendance figure for the event as 80,103. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter, accepted as a reliable source per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Sources, gives a different figure for the attendance, however. One side would like both number mentioned in a neutral manner ("The majority of sources give the attendance as xx,xxx. Wrestling Observer Newsletter editor Dave Meltzer states that the correct attendance was xx,xxx, however."). The other side wants only the 80,103 figure mentioned, as they believe that having more sources makes the information correct and the opposing viewpoint not worth mentioning.

The big problem centers on different understandings of WP:V. One side says that since Misplaced Pages is about verifiability (information supported by reliable sources) rather than a pursuit of truth, information about both numbers should be included. The other side states that one number having more sources to support it makes it the only verifiable figure.

I am hoping that we can get some outside input from people familiar with policies on reliable sources: should it be noted that one attendance figure is supported by the majority of sources and that one source disputes that number, or should the dissenting reliable source simply be dismissed altogether? Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is, which side are you on? (It seems from the discussions on the talk that you want that one source to be put) Misplaced Pages Verifiability of sources is not about what is the truth, but what can be verified. If one source, however reliable, is telling something that seems untrue, it still should be reported within the project - but with the exact weight in which it has been reported in the media. In other words, if you write a line saying "Majority of sources give xxx figure, but Meltzer stats yyy figure", that is wrong as that gives equal weight to Mentzer's viewpoint. Therefore, the line should be, "A majority of sources give xxx figure (see footnote for other figures)." This is much better than Mentzer's view being relegated to a Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 10:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is about verifiability. That is whether a statement is able to be verified by reference to a reliable source. It is quite possible for two mutually exclusive statements, "A is true" and "B is true" to pass the verifiability test. The apparent paradox is cured by observing that the statements are just shorthand for "X says A is true" and "Y says B is true". Where this happens, the first stage in practice is to reconsider carefully whether X and Y really are reliable sources for this information. If they are - and from what you write this seems to be the case here - then WP:V ceases to be in point. (As an aside, the number of sources pointing in each direction does not, of itself, show the other source to be unreliable, though it would be useful to try to understand why they might say different things.) Returning from my aside, Simce WP:V is no longer in point (the apparently contradictory statements both being verifies by reliable sources), then it cones down to editorial judgment as to whether one statement, both statements, or neither statement is mentioned. Hibbertson (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Having looked now at the talk page of the relevant article, I now have formed the view that the real issue is not as set out above. It seems the WikiProject behind the article maintains a list of "reliable sources" for wrestling, and the alternative figure mentioned by the single source is from such a "reliable source". Based on this, an editor is suggesting that both figures are mentioned. The underlying problem is that no source can be considered as a reliable source for everything. Even Homer nods.

Too much credence here is being given to the WikiProject's "reliable sources" list. Project members should not view it as an absolute arbiter of reliability, but rather as a guide as to what sources can usually be considered reliable about wrestling. In this instance the singular source clearly has no detailed personal knowledge of the attendance figure, but is instead suspicious about the official figures supplies by the promoter. The official figure should be given, and then it should be considered whether this wrestling commentator's personal opinion about the reliability of the figure is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Hibbertson (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Can be used to source this statement: However, Stanford has stated "Neither the Stanford Graduate School of Business nor the office of Stanford Executive Education has ties of any kind with IIPM." --NeilN 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Has that document been uploaded to MBA Channel by the site's publishers/editors (in which case it is a reliable source), or by some user (in which case it is not) ? Do you know of a page on the website that links to the document ? Abecedare (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for prodding me to investigate further. It's linked from here --NeilN 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since that article is written by Bärbel Schwertfeger, an employee of the publication, and is not some user-submitted content, I think it is reliable for the claim. Abecedare (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is written by Bärbel Schwertfeger who is the part owner of the site. Her web site in question is a commercial career portal whose main aim is to be an MBA Directory (see the web page description on the main page at the top). Even if it is a self-published career portal (as Barbel is the part owner), "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.". But Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Flaws#OS:_Self-publication would advise us to wait in this case as the attribution of Stanford backing out is an exceptional claim, and if it is reported, then it should have been printed by other sources. Having said that, I'll also on the other hand suggest that a secondary source that might have reported the same could be used.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You say the Stanford claim is exceptional, I say it isn't. Plus, the website hosts a Stanford's document refuting IIPM's claim which can now be used since it's referred to by a third party reliable source. --NeilN 14:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim here is not that Stanford backed out, BTW. The claim is that they never had a partnership in the first place, contradicting what IIPM said in their ads. As I recall, the only place where a partnership with IIPM and Stanford has been reported is in IIPM's advertisements and websites. Isn't that a primary source of the school talking about a third party?(retracted, see below) Schwertfeger is a respected journalist with many publications about MBAs and business training; she is an expert in the field where IIPM provides education. Her reporting is what led me to Stanford's statement. I see no reason to believe that she fabricated the Stanford document.

Just so everyone here is clear on my involvement--I'm the editor who originally used MBA Channel as a source, and who replaced it with Stanford's direct statement after Wifione challenged MBA Channel and removed it. I want to be transparent so you can all take my potential bias into account. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NeilN, you say the career portal MBA-Channel source is a third party reliable source. I have shown how it is a self published source as Barbara is the co-owner. Under Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Flaws#OS:_Self-publication, we should consider the fact that "editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources. " Given that, as mentioned I would suggest a search for secondary sources that quote Stanford's association with IIPM, like this. Or on Stanford's site, like these.. Given that you consider Barbara as a respected journalist, WP:SPS would suggest we maximum include the link as an op-ed column in the IIPM article than as a straightforward reliable source. I'm alright with that. What do you say to that? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that the Tribune India report, which is cited in the article already, is a secondary source; I had forgotten about that and retract my earlier statement about it only appearing in primary sources. However, the CV and faculty bio of professors at Stanford do not support the already-cited Tribune India report that Stanford is partnering with IIPM as an institution. They support that individual professors who teach at Stanford have taught seminars, but that doesn't constitute an institutional partnership.

I'll let others weigh in on whether respected journalists constitute self-published sources. Wifione and I have already gone round and round on this topic regarding another source, and I'm interested in what others think. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quoting an essay not a guideline. The guideline states: "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". The material in this case is directly supported by a primary source. --NeilN 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NeilN, an essay is a guiding thought which has some weight and defines guidelines in examples. I'm ok with the self published article's Stanford point being included if even one external secondary source has confirmed the same. In case you are saying that we can use a self published article's statements without even one external reliable secondary source confirming the same, then it'll be a critical move away from suggested styles of editing Misplaced Pages articles.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm saying the source fulfills the guideline. Again (since you haven't seemed to address it): "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" --NeilN 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NeilN, I agree with your interpretation of the guideline (which, of course, has much more weight than an essay). But I think perhaps User:Makrandjoshi has provided us with a secondary source stating the same thing in Der Spiegel. It is by Schwertferger, but I think anyone would have a hard time arguing that Der Spiegel isn't a reliable source. That article states: "Bereits 2007 distanzierte sich die Stanford Graduate School of Business deutlich von falschen IIPM-Angaben." In English (my translation), this says "Already in 2007, the Stanford Graduate School of Business distanced itself from clearly false IIPM statements." Wifione, does this meet your request for "one external reliable secondary source confirming the same"? Can we agree that this source is reliable now? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A google search on Schwertfeger's name is enough to establish her credentials as an expert. She regularly writes articles in major newspapers on business education. And as WeisheitSuchen pointed out,. I have given a link for the same fact from Der Spiegel, which is undeniably WP:RS. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Der Spiegel article is an opinion piece by Barbara who doesn't work at that magazine. Can we therefore reach a consensus then that both her self published MBA-Channel news and the Der Spiegel source are RS opinion pieces? In other words, if they're used, we'll have to use them as opinion pieces clearly mentioning her name. Acceptable? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these are opinion pieces; it would not be appropriate to label them as such. In major news magazines like Der Spiegel, opinion pieces and editorials are clearly labeled. This is a regular article, not an editorial. Her name isn't necessary in either case. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not an opinion piece. If it were, it'd be labelled as such on the Spiegel website. And if you read it, it is more of an investigative column, where she has contacted different schools and gotten their reactions on tie-ups with IIPM. It is very clearly not an opinion piece. Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As we've accepted the MBA-Channel article is a self published "RS" source, it automatically becomes equivalent to an opinion piece as the common sense assumption would be that it would not have undergone an "independent fact check", irrespective of how investigative the article might seem. A quick look at the RS discussion that Makrandjoshi raised on Maheshwer Peri's column in his own publication would clarify this thought. Therefore, the MBA-Channel article should surely be considered an opinion piece.

• The Der Spiegel article by her would also become an opinion piece as she's an 'autoren' (author) in Spiegel and not an editorial reporter. . ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• WS, You could also compare the current opinion writers in Speigel and check whether their names come in the Autoren section. That could support/reject this context. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Peri article is an opinion piece because it is specifically labeled as "opinion." Look at the heading right above the article title for that source. That's what we don't have in either case with Schwertferger's sources. We should not conflate opinion pieces and editorials with self-published sources, contradicting Misplaced Pages policy. In addition, the fact that she is a freelance journalist does not imply that her article did not go through editorial review with Der Spiegel. There's nothing in Misplaced Pages policy that demands treating freelancers in reliable sources any differently than staff writers. Do you have any arguments from Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines that say these sources should be considered opinion pieces? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WS, maybe this link helps WP:ASL. One line could be helpful from this, "By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean a matter which is subject to dispute". Also, can you please show the place where Speigel puts its opinion articles? As it's a German site, I'm not able to traverse properly. If I get the link, I can check the authors who are mentioned there and compare the points. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 09:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione. It is not an opinion piece. It is a news article. Go to the google-translated version of the page here Look at the top left under the banner and tabs how the article is classified: News -> UniSpiegel -> Study -> India. Spiegel classifies it as "News". Hope this is enough to put your mind to rest. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, if we labeled this as an opinion piece when the source labels it as news, wouldn't we be engaging in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? When Der Spiegel publishes an opinion piece, they label it clearly at the top to differentiate it from their normal news reporting, as they do here. In German, the word is "Meinung." I don't see a section just for Meinung at Der Speigel the way I do at Zeit Online, which may mean that Der Speigel just doesn't regularly publish opinion pieces, only news and investigative reporting like this example. I am strongly opposed to labeling a source an opinion piece in direct contradiction to the source itself. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is village voice a reliable source?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

An editor with apparent conflict of interest has deleted important biographical details from the article John Rosatti regarding his criminal record due to "unreliable source". The source that was cited is this article "The Wiseguy and the Wetlands" by William Bastone, The Village Voice, June 2nd 1998. I believe this qualifies as a reliable source. Any feedbacks ?

If the true details about the person are to be hidden, does the subject of article even qualify as notable? This article currently contains nothing but self promotion.

I believe Administrator intervention is required. Marokwitz (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly The Village Voice is a reliable source in general. There could of course be some reason this specific article has been discredited. Barnabypage (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to explain what its subject is notable for. Someone can't be notable just for running a company that itself is not notable. You could take advice at WikiProject Business as to whether the company is notable, then if it is, start an article on the company and redirect this article to it. I doubt if the VV material, if it was only published there and so long ago, indicates notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found other sources including the Palm Beach Post and the Philadelphia Daily News which support the information in the Village Voice. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Two sources are needed, but being published in 1998 in no way disqualifies its use, or makes it any less than an article published this week. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Village Voice is reliable. Where does the "two sources" rule originate? If there is a reason to believe that in this case the Voice reported something inaccurately that should itself be sourced and resolved by the editors on the talk page. patsw (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Village Voice has a degree of reliability. It's probably one of the most reliable free alternative weekly newspapers. On the other hand, it wouldn't be considered as reliable as a large circulation, non-free, daily newspaper. Jayjg 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with patsw and Jayjg. MastCell  20:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is also being discussed at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Rosatti. Additional sources which support the VV are:
• Bunch, William (26 October 2004). "Perzel playing with the 'numbers'" (Subscription required). Philadelphia Daily News, archived at LexisNexis. Philadelphia Newspapers. Retrieved 2009-12-31.
• Lambiet, Jose (24 October 2004). "Is John Staluppi Saving Riviera Beach?" (Subscription required). Palm Beach Post, archived at LexisNexis. The Palm Beach Newspapers. Retrieved 2009-12-31.
• "United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Nos 922, 979, 980 August term 1996S". FindLaw. Retrieved 2009-12-31. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

When the criminal history of a subject comes into question, never default to newspapers. Default to police documents. This should be policy.— Dædαlus 09:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"?

Yes, there are medical organizations that say it's a great site (most of which are companies/organizations that rely on drugs or drug sales), but the only thing that Quackwatch does is bash alternative medicines. It has no positive information about alternative medicines and is completely biased against them. I'm thoroughly confused as to how this can possibly be considered a reliable and unbiased source whereas almost every other biased website that I've seen cited here has been shot down as "not RS". Can anyone explain this to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burleigh2 (talk • contribs)

See Quackwatch and the numerous refs cited there. LeadSongDog come howl 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see all the citations as I mentioned in my original question and that's already been covered. Most of those may be praising certain aspects of the website (eg. uncovering fraudulent companies), but the site in general bashes virtually all alternative medicines regardless of effectiveness, verifiability, or usage of the various categories. I have read articles on their site before that were practically ranting about certain supplements that they claimed didn't work and were ripping off people who used them, but they didn't mention a thing about the dozens (or in some cases, hundreds) of studies that have been done and published by various organizations (many of which have been published in PubMed, the Lancet, JAMA, and other reputable organizations). That spells the very definition of "biased" to me... am I missing something? Burleigh2 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Quackwatch. However, in principle, the fact that a site dedicates itself to finding medical quacks and fraud does not automatically make it unreliable, just as an attorney general who dedicates himself to finding criminals and does not bother to praise good people is not automatically unreliable. The real question is whether or not Quackwatch does a good job of identifying quacks and frauds or not. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True, it does some good things like exposing frauds, but then it also bashes all the rest including some of the most well respected doctors not only in their field, but even in their local areas in some cases. Burleigh2 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we try to be fairly careful and circumspect about Quackwatch as a source, but consensus has repeatedly held that it is acceptable under certain circumstances. Is there a specific usage that concerns you? MastCell  23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I pointed the editor to this noticeboard on their talk page after undoing their edit on Alternative medicine. --NeilN 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Virtually every source has some kind of bias. If we insisted that reliable sources have no bias, we'd have no sources left. What we require instead is that sources be verifiable, and that they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. If an established publisher in the modern world starts publishing junk (about people, products or organizations), they will quickly be sued or fined out of existence. In the case of Quackwatch, when using them as a source, we should be sure to wiki-link the first instance, and use in-text attribution ("According to Quackwatch, ... "). If there are other reliable sources which contradict Quackwatch, they should be mentioned too, unless they represent a tiny minority. Crum375 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true that every source will have some sort of bias... even saying the sky is blue would be biased based on the time of day. The reason I even ask this is that Quackwatch is very overly biased against any alternative options. After too many searches to want to count, the only "alternatives" I have seen in a remotely positive light are multivitamins and I think only prenatal ones were shown exclusively in a positive light (while some of the articles said multivitamins in general were useless). I would hardly call such an overly-biased website "reliable", even if they do some good work to expose frauds, which is what most of the lauding of the site comes from... does that really mean everything on there is reliable? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All good points. NPOV requires we cover all significant sides of an issue using reliable sources, and reliable sources will usually be biased from some particular POV. That doesn't exclude them from eligibility as sources.

This issue has been discussed to death in many venues here at Misplaced Pages. The conclusion is that the use of Quackwatch be judged on a case by case basis, just like every other reliable source we use. There is no RS that's allowable in every situation, so context is important. It would be rather odd to allow positive sources in an article on alternative medicine and exclude the largest, best known and most highly recommended (and hated!) database on the internet for skeptical information on the subject. That would violate NPOV. Nearly any article without negative or controversial content likely violates NPOV. Lack of such content is a red flag for possible policy violations.

Here are a couple places to read up on the subject:

• Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery

• Request to amend prior case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

As to the reasons why QW criticizes alternative medicine, they just happen to be right. They don't work, otherwise they'd be called "medicine". Read this section carefully, especially the part about where the NCCAM hasn't found evidence for efficacy after ten years of large studies:

• Relation to evidence-based medicine

Happy reading, and Happy New Year! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. I totally agree that Quackwatch should be judged on a case by case basis. After all, if there was a great humanitarian that robbed a bank just once, would he get off because of all the other good stuff he did or would he be tried based on that robbery? I think the point of being judged on a case by case basis should be mentioned on the RS entry for it, but I'm not sure if that is implied for all RSs or not. There have been a number of articles I've seen on Quackwatch that were bashing certain treatments, saying they shouldn't be used and/or didn't work, but they are some commonly recommended treatments by more Naturopathic doctors because they work... just one example of why not all of it would be a RS. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Use on a case by case basis applies to all RS, not especially to QW. As to your mention of certain unnamed treatments that you believe NDs recommend because they "work", well, if they really work, then they're EBM and Quackwatch and Barrett wouldn't be criticizing them. Note two points: (1) Not everything that is recommended by an ND is quackery. They actually do some good things. (2) Being recommended by an ND is a red flag, since they also recommend many things that are unproven or even disproven. Some of their most used methods are horrendously pseudoscientific, such as homeopathy. Whatever the case, your objections on this basis really have nothing to do with the use of QW as a RS, but only are a difference of opinion as to whether QW is wrong and NDs are right. The mainstream EBM position, IOW the evidence, sides with QW, which again shows that QW is a notable source that backs up whatever is current mainstream science and opinion. If the evidence changes, so does QW, and that's the way it should be. Barrett and the other authors who write there are educated in thinking using the scientific method, and they judge things through that prism, which is a good thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured (and was hoping), but I've come across a few instances within Wiki where the argument was made that QW as a RS for statements that could be seen as completely unnecessary for the context. One example is in Alternative Medicine where the statement is listed "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" (and cited the general website, not an article on it)... in other articles, that could be seen as spam/advertising for that website, but when I removed it saying it wasn't appropriate, another editor put it back saying Quackwatch was RS so it belonged (which was the main reason I asked the question here).

Obviously, that example could be argued on both sides of keeping/removing it depending on your bias, but listing the website in general and no specific article is definitely not RS material from what has been said thus far (case-by-case basis and all). It's the potential edit-wars like this that bring to mind the old quote "can't we all just get along?"... but if it was removed again, I'm sure the same member would undo the removal without something more than "that's the intent" stated. Is there somewhere that says RS is on a case-by-case basis that I can point to for inappropriate citations like this? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As is mentioned in the links provided by BullRangifer, Quackwatch is supposed to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The problem is that the majority of articles are written by Barrett, and they are not peer reviewed. So, it should not have the same weight as an article published in a peer reviewed journal. stmrlbs|talk 09:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Many of the articles written by Barrett himself are opinion articles based on his opinion, but a number of them are exposing frauds which some feel gives more weight to his opinion about everything else. Regardless of how good my mechanic might be with my car, I wouldn't ask him what medical treatment I should take just because he's so good with my car. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Barrett's opinions are notable opinions from that POV and are used as opinions, not scientific facts. Some articles are much more scientific in their nature and can be used to source facts. Others are commentaries on various issues related to consumer protection and fighting health fraud. Most use extensive sourcing and sometimes we choose to use those sources, rather than the article itself. All its articles and documents are different in their nature and should be used in the appropriate situations. No rule at Misplaced Pages would consider the use of a source to be reliable in every situation. No one has ever argued that QW is somehow immaculate or unlike other reliable sources we use. It's just the most notable website of its type, the largest database of skeptical sources related to its subject matter, and thus not to be excluded as an often usable source. Just use common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. That should go without saying to anyone who understands our sourcing policies, as you should by now. When dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific facts, the WP:MEDRS guidelines take priority. They prefer scientific research, so Quackwatch isn't normally used for such details (except for the scientific articles it hosts), although it always agrees with them. Since it usually agrees, it thus demonstrates that it truly is "reliable" in the traditional sense of the word. So, per MEDRS, we still prefer scientific studies for such details, while QW is usually used for other aspects of the subjects.

As far as it not being "peer-reviewed", that's a red herring. Websites aren't expected to be peer-reviewed, and QW never pretends to be a scientific journal, so that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Only one website is peer-reviewed, and that happens to be a medical journal that is only published on-line. We still allow the use of myriad websites as RS for information, even though they aren't peer-reviewed. It all depends on which details are being tied to which sources. Just connect the dots properly.

While numerous articles are primarily written by Barrett, he does have a very large group of experts who aide him and review as necessary the articles. While this isn't exactly the same as the peer-review process used for journals, it's still far better than for most websites. Vetting, fact checking and review by multiple experts is a good thing. Many articles are also written by other authors. There are definitely articles at QW that wouldn't be suitable as sources here. That's why the use of QW is already done on a case by case basis. Just use our normal sourcing rules and common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true... but unfortunately, not many people in the world understand the sourcing policies here. Yes, those who edit a lot here would likely understand and know most/all of them, but the common man typically doesn't. I also note in the "Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery" part that was referred to above, it points out that Quackwatch has been sourced in reliable 3rd party publications... but does that automatically mean that everything he posts on his site is reliable? I mean, by that standard, you could use a magazine or newspaper source and make a quote from the opinion section as being reliable because the paper/magazine is so well respected... that's basically what people are citing because Quackwatch is listed as RS (not necessarily just on Wiki, but on other sites as well). Am I the only one that sees that as more than disturbing? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The principle on which organizations such as Quackwatch operate is the Scientific Method, and all of its umbrella principles (falsifiability, testability, the Peer Review Process, predictability, etc.) which is the method utilized to evaluate the empirical validity of scientific claims. Organizations like Quackwatch do not "bash" or have a "bias" against alternative medicine; They simply evaluate them based on whether they follow proper empirical methodologies. Personal belief systems aside, so-called alternative and complementary medicines do not have any scientific validity. Those that do aren't called "alternative" or "complementary" medicine; they just called medicine. This is a point that is not only unknown by the general public, it is also unknown by many who work in these fields, which is why they are advocated even by people with PhD's after their name. But whether someone of repute advocates an idea does not mean it has empirical validity. To argue it does is a logical fallacy called Argument by Authority.

As for unbiased, Misplaced Pages's policies on Reliable Sources do not, and cannot, gauge such a thing, because all sources, even reliable ones, from the New York Times to the Village Voice to FOX News, have biases. Reliability is predicated on criteria such as whether the organization in question has proper editorial controls for its content, whether its staff has the pertinent expertise, etc. Complete lack of bias cannot be a criterion, because no source exists (nor any writer working for one) that lacks some type of bias. Nightscream (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent summary of the situtation. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is a generalisation arrived at without consideration of the arguments on this page or the article about Quackwatch or Quackwatch itself. To assert that Quackwatch is an organisation operationally adhering to the scientific method and all of it's umbrella principles is not only unfounded but demonstrably wrong. The discussion in this section already shows that Quackwatch is to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and shows the reasons why. Attempts to elevate Quackwatch to the standard of a scientific institution adhering to all the principles of the scientific method are unfounded and a clear attempt to imbalance the situation by introducing the "Argument of Authority" the author wishes not to see in Misplaced Pages. Weakopedia (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weakopedia here. QuackWatch is basically the blog of Stephen Barrett, and it is wild to suggest the the blog adheres to the scientific method. It has already been determined that QuackWatch should be used on a case by case basis, and should usually be balanced with an opposite viewpoint. DigitalC (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these two as well. Is there an option of listing a caveat on the Quackwatch listing on the RS page that it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, not as gospel truth? Or is that implied on everything on the RS page (so others take it as gospel truth if they don't know about that implication)? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The default implication in the RS policy is that all sources be judged on a case by case basis. QW is no exception, nor under any special scrutiny. Most sources are written from some POV or other and we just have to use common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're picking and choosing to find something you can object to, rather than noticing I repeatedly state things we both believe. Note that it was myself who clearly stated that it should be (1) used on a case by case basis, and (2) that scientific research is preferred to Quackwatch when dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific and medical facts. Other editors agreed. That's in agreement with the MEDRS guideline. Do you disagree with that? I don't think we really disagree on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed considered the arguments on this page, and you have not provided any evidence or line of reasoning that I have not. The original comments that I was specifically responding to were the notions that it "bashes" alternative medicine, has a "bias" against it, and that it does this even despite the advocacy of some of these ideas by "well-respected doctors", and my response was sound: Pointing out that alternative and complementary medicine is without empirical validity is a fact, and is not a "bias", nor "bashing", and the degree to which a doctor advocating an idea is respected is not the basis upon which ideas in science are properly vetted. If you can invalidate this, then do so.

Burleigh mentioned studies published in Lancet, but he never provided any examples, nor did he mention whether these studies survived Peer Review or have achieved wide acceptance in the scientific community. (Remember that the vaccine-autism hysteria, for example, began with a 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield published in Lancet that was later found to be bogus.) And again, if these studies have been validated by Peer Review and widely accepted, then they're no longer complementary or alternative medicine. They just medicine. Complementary and alternative are essentially just euphemisms for "non-scientific" or "ineffective to any degree greater than placebo." Have any of the ideas criticized by Quackwatch been so accepted? If so, where are the examples? If Quackwatch's adherence to the Scientific Method is "demonstrably wrong", where's the demonstration? The determination that it should be used on a case-by-case basis? I assume that's not the demonstration you're referring to, since that's a Misplaced Pages editorial decision, and in no way makes a statement about whether Quackwatch understands and accepts the SM. I haven't considered the arguments here? How so? Which ones? And how do you know this? Nightscream (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like an example, the link for one has already been given. One of the last times this was brought up (at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery ) that cited http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-06-22/news/doctor-who/ "Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. Former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine Peter Barry Chowka states that: He seems to be putting down trying to be objective... Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours. In a critical website review of Quackwatch, Joel M. Kauffman evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. -- Levine2112" Burleigh2 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer has stated a workable compromise that is in line with the consensus reached in previous discussions. If someone wants to suggest a different general guideline for the use of Quackwatch, then do, but otherwise we need to move on to improving the various articles. Following a question on WP:NPOVN I had a look at the Quackery article. It has multiple problems quite independent of any perceived bias. So there is work to be done and people need to be able to work together. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The link you mention, Burleigh, shows the vast majority of editors agreeing that it is reliable, and should be vetted on a case-by-case basis, which I agree with. As for Peter Chowka, the fact that he is an advisor to an "Office of Alternative Medicine" makes it clear he too, may not understand the scientific skepticism with which scientific ideas are properly distinguished from non-scientific ones. It seems odd to argue that Barrett has a "bias", but that someone who works in capacity promoting A&CM does not. I would find a scientifically-informed "critical website review" that reported on numerous errors fundamental to Quackwatch's abilities to be more reliable, but you did not link to that one, interestingly enough. I agree that unless such information can be provided, each bit of material from Quackwatch should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and that we should move on. Nightscream (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

TheSmokingGun.com

This site's reliability was discussed here previously, but I don't think any clear consensus was reached on its value as a secondary source. I think there was strong consensus in its value for collecting primary source materials, but I'm hoping to get a better sense of its use secondarily.--otherlleft 16:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The documents on TSG are primary sources, not secondary. The only parts that could be regarded as secondary sources are the synopses of the documents. Is that what you're asking about?   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what you are looking for? The main "secondary sources" found on The Smoking Gun appear to be the commentary/explanation accompanying their primary sources. But I would still find that to be acceptable as a source given that TSG is still part of the Time Warner empire (which means that they are able to consult with lawyers to avoid getting themselves sued, and that they have an incentive not to get sued due to their deep-pocketed owner). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The concerns expressed by Jayen466 get to the heart of the problem - some editors believe the site is a suitable secondary source and others do not. I'm hoping to get a clearer consensus in either direction.--otherlleft 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the specific material that you're asking about?   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Researching sources for the John Rosatti article I came upon this. I don't know if the commentary provided at this and other entries is sufficiently distant from the source to be considered secondary, and also reliable. So that's the impetus, but now I'm interested in the usefulness of the site for Misplaced Pages overall.--otherlleft 23:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The commentary summarising the primary source content is not a RS for a BLP. Scans 3, 4 and 5 there quote from testimony (?) of someone who clearly was implicated himself. We have no evidence to judge if his testimony was considered reliable, well-informed, misinformed or mendacious. If his testimony led to any kind of conviction of the BLP subject, then there should be evidence of such a conviction in reliable sources, and we should quote these reliable sources instead. Generally, if a primary source like an affidavit or witness interview transcript contains accusations and we cannot find any RS evidence that the person accused was found guilty of any such wrongdoing, then we should not quote the primary source. If there is RS evidence they were found guilty, we can quote the RS and, perhaps, use the primary source for added detail, with care. --JN466 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2

TheSmokingGun.com hosts primary sources. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, we are not at liberty to use primary sources in BLPs if they have not been commented upon in secondary sources. I would say that a paragraph of text on TheSmokingGun.com accompanying a primary source hosted there does not in and of itself rise to the level of secondary-source coverage required by WP:BLP.

(Editors should note that there is a related discussion at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Rosatti.) --JN466 21:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding only the reliability of The Smoking Gun -- it has been compiling and disclosing information regarding arrests and convictions for years. Is there a case where it has been inaccurate, or where TSG was tricked into posting something false? That would be their smoking gun for non-reliability. Also, the only primary source for an arrest record would be a government agency. A Misplaced Pages editor using TSG as a tool could perhaps locate online the official government record for an arrest and that would be the primary source. In most cases that is not possible, so our usage of arrest record is via TSG as a secondary source. For data only available on TSG, the added value of TSG's comments or labeling might be unimportant to the Misplaced Pages editor, but TSG is nonetheless the source. patsw (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

TheSmokingGun.com is a secondary source that happens to host primary-source material. This means that even if the editors of TSG only write a sentence or two followed by a primary source, that sentence or two represents attention from a reliable secondary source, and allows us to include TSG's material as well as the primary source they cite, even in a BLP. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk page to join this discussion. TSG is a reliable place for primary sources. As far as using TSG as a reliable secondary source, I would suggest doing a search in Amazon or Google Books to see how many books have used TSG commentary as a source. If the number is significant, then TSG commentary could probably be used as a reliable secondary source. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly satisfy part of the requirement, but what would be the position with regard to quoting directly from a primary source hosted on TSG (such as an arrest report, for instance)? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What Jayen466 said. If the arrest hasn't been discussed in a reliable secondary source, then a primary source can be used, with care. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear on this: We should not use such documents as sources for our BLPs unless their content has been reported in secondary sources. If and only if they have been mentioned in third-party sources, then it may be okay to access and cite the primary source for details. This thing is a can of worms: TSG for example hosts affidavits from divorce cases that are often dripping with acrimony (famous person X was an inconsiderate, cruel, violent and drug-abusing man / a neurotic, money-grabbing, duplicitous and alcoholic wife, etc.). Giving such primary sources room in our BLPs is WP:UNDUE unless they have attracted coverage in reputable, high-quality sources. --JN466 00:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I reject as an assertion without evidence that TSG is not a reputable, high-quality source. The material edited into the Misplaced Pages needs to be identified as originating with the police or prosecutor's office and in some infrequent cases a complaining witness. There are BLP issues here, but TSG is qualified as both third-party in that they exercise their own judgment what to post to the web site, and reliable as I discussed above. patsw (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not make that assertion: TheSmokingGun is a reliable source for primary sources; no more, no less. --JN466 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Daily News makes routine use of material from TSG. See http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/TheSmokingGun.com patsw (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem citing New York Daily News, and that is exactly the sort of secondary source coverage that would legitimise an editor's accessing and citing the corresponding TheSmokingGun.com content, but TheSmokingGun.com by itself does not amount to a "reliable secondary source" in the sense envisaged by WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPF, or the "multiple, highly reliable sources" demanded in WP:NPF. --JN466 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect - The Smoking Gun is a site owned by Turner Sports & Entertainment Digital Network that hosts scans of various documents and comments upon them. The primary sources are the documents, the commentary is a secondary source. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify - Jayen, when you say TSG is not a reliable secondary source, are you referring to the documents or the commentary? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Both. The commentary, where there is any, does not rise to the level of a reliable secondary source within the meaning of WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPF, or WP:N for that matter. Let's look at some examples: There is no way such pages should be used as sources for Misplaced Pages BLPs if not a single newspaper has commented on their content. Where notable crimes, arrests etc. are concerned, there is coverage in more reputable sources which puts charges and accusations into context, citing counterclaims and defences, reporting outcomes of actions etc., as proper secondary sources do. --JN466 06:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

TSG is both a secondary source and a host of primary-sourced materials. If it makes statements in it's own voice, those statements are secondary sources. I do not comment on their reliability or notability. They also host documents. Those documents are primary sources. Primary sources are sometimes acceptable sources, but they are not acceptable for information about people who are relatively unknown, and should be used with greater care with respect to people who are well-known. Specific examples would lead to specific answers. Hipocrite (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether it is a secondary source within the meaning of WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPF. Please read those two BLP sections and let us have your opinion whether the presence of a commentary on TSG, such as in the examples I linked above, fulfils the requirement for a reliable secondary source referencing primary documents that is expressed in WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPF. Do you think no other secondary source but the TSG commentary is required to comply with the letter and spirit of WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPF? --JN466 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So, by that you mean that sources like those below which cite Smoking Gun or law enforcemnet officials or the VV are OK?

Singer, Stacey (26 August 2008). "Big Donors Bundle Bradshaw Contributions". Palm Beach Post, archived at LexisNexis. Florida: The Palm Beach Newspapers. Retrieved 2010-01-03.

Nelson, Jonathan (14 February 2008). "Christensen, New Zealand firm OK deal". The Columbian, archived at LexisNexis. Vancouver, Washington: The Columbian Publishing Co. Retrieved 2010-01-03.

"Dubya gets wiseguy vote, and wiseguy bucks". United Press International. Washington: UPI. 25 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-01-03.

Bunch, William (26 October 2004). "Perzel playing with the 'numbers'". Philadelphia Daily News, archived at LexisNexis. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Newspapers. Retrieved 2010-01-03.

Jezhotwells (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions about several professional wrestling sources

I nominated a Featured Article candidate, but I ran into problems with several of the sources being questioned. I was wondering if I could get some feedback on them here.

• Wrestling Title Histories - this was considered a potential problem because this site lists it as the only book by this publisher. I believe that it should be considered reliable. In support of this belief, industry expert John Molinaro (a regular columnist for the wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer, which is considered one of the best reliable sources for wrestling articles) calls it an "essential resource" and the "authoritative book on the history of wrestling titles" (). The research methodology of Gary Will, one of the authors, is also discussed (here).
• WrestleCrap - the specific page is here. I used this ("Timothy Well and Steven Dunn are proof positive that bow ties and thongs do not match") as a reference for the statement "They wore bow ties in addition to wrestling singlets with thongs over top. This led wrestling author RD Reynolds to state that the team was "proof positive that bow ties and thongs do not match"." I believe that WrestleCrap should be accepted as a reliable source, as the site is run by RD Reynolds, who is accepted as an industry expert and has published several wrestling-related books (Wrestlecrap:The Very Worst of Pro Wrestling, The Death of WCW, and The Wrestlecrap Book of Lists, all published by ECW Press).
• The History of WWE (Main page). My belief that this should be accepted as a reliable source comes from two main reasons: (1) The website's feedback, as seen here shows that it has received positive reviews from many industry experts, including wrestlers and wrestling journalists (book, magazine, and website); several of these authors, whose work is considered a reliable source due to the publications for which they write, refer to The History of WWE as a valuable resource, and (2) Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper): "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." Graham Cawthon's work is considered so accurate that it is included as a feature in both WrestleView () and Wrestling Observer Newsletter/Figure Four Weekly (), both of which are accepted as reliable sources for wrestling articles.
• Solie's Title Histories I do not believe that this should be accepted as a reliable source in general, but I was wondering if it would be considered reliable to support a statement such as "The Solie's Title Histories website reports that the title was vacated after an inconclusive rematch on September 9; the Southern Rockers regained the belts one week later, although this information is not supported by Royal Duncan and Gary Will's Wrestling Title Histories book.".

Thanks in advance for any clarification I can get here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking your points in turn (and at face value):

Wrestling Title Histories appears to be a quotable source (that is, one that can usually be considered to be reliable). The ISBN look-up site that is referenced does not, in any way, pretend to list every single book that has been published, and there's nothing about it that appears to me to be a determiner of whether a given title is unreliable.

WrestleCrap appears to be a reliable source for the information it is being used to verify, and so should be an acceptable reference.

You don't say what you are using The History of WWE to reference. If it is one or two small facts, then that ought to be reasonable. I wouldn't expect a website source such as that to be used to reference a large portion of an article though (still less a featured article) - as better sources ought to be available.

Solie's Title Histories ought to be a reliable source for the information that you wish to use it as a reference for. However, if it is generally considered not to be a largely reliable source, I would question why you would want to have the statement in the article. I wouldn't expect a featured article to contain the sentence "An unreliable source says X, but two reliable sources say this is wrong". Hibbertson (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can a POV Source be presented as NPOV if a neutral person quotes it?

Does a publication which itself could be regarded as neutral but in which the relevant information is merely a quote from a third party source (which isn't neutral) qualify as a neutral source?

For example on the Falun Gong page a lot accusations against Falun Gong are sourced with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Falun_Gong#cite_note-Tong-84

The article costs 30 Euros or something so i can't look it up, but in the free preface of that source it already clearly states that the source of the relevant accusations is the Chinese Communist Party. Mentioning the Communist Party's point of view is certainly important but shouldn't it also be presented as coming from the Communist Party (clearly a POV source) instead of disguising it as a NPOV source? --Hoerth (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to discuss what non-neutral sources have to say on a topic... as long as we do so in a neutral tone. Attribute the POV to those who hold it, present any opposing view points (attributing those view points as well), don't state or imply that any POV is right or wrong. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no such thing as an "NPOV source". All sources are assumed to have some POV, and the concept of NPOV on Misplaced Pages refers to our own efforts as editors to summarize the existing views about a topic, as published by verifiable and reliable sources, in a way which fairly reflects their relative prevalence. Crum375 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

China Quarterly is listed as peer reviewed by Ulrich's. The article is available at JSTOR for those lucky enough to have access. Reading the Abstract, the author evaluated both regime and falun gong sources. The article was peer reviewed. It is a Highest Quality reliable source (in terms of FAC / MILMOS criteria). The source is excellent and reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Fifelfoo: you don't understand... i am not questioning the reliability of the source itself... merely the fact that this source isn't the source for the accusations it is used as a reference for - those accusations merely get quoted there and the source already says that the actual source of the accusations is the Communist Party, so shouldn't the Communist Party be named as a source? That's all i am saying... --Hoerth (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotes inside another source should not be used: locate the original. If the original is PRIMARY, as it probably would be here, you should be using the article's author's opinion on or judgement of the source, "Foo finds that the CCP's claims that "Bar" are credible." If Foo is utterly credible (Peer reviewed Journal, yes), and considers the claims to be correct, then the claims can be paraphrased and simply attributed to Foo, as Foo is the guarantor that the claims are true. If its disputed amongst many credible academic sources, then attribute, Foo finds X; Bar finds Y. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You can quote the NPOV source, but you have to attribute the original material as POV. This happens quite a bit. Suppose you have a report from BBC Monitoring that translates an obscure government-run newspaper in Africa, for which you couldnt get the original. You would attribute the opinions expressed to the African newspaper, not to the BBC. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:Springer (orca)

Hi everyone,

We could really use some community input on the Springer (orca) article. This article was stable until about three weeks ago when a large amount of content that I consider problematic was added to it, by a contributor with a conflict of interest. That contributor has apparently stopped editing, however at present the COI content is mostly still there and we need to deal with it somehow. At question are: processes for dealing with content added with COI, whether to revert to a version of the article that existed before the COI content was added, reliability of sources, due weight, and style issues. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2009-2010 Puerto Peñasco coup d’état attempt

This article is poorly sourced... it relies on Facebook entries that reference the Misplaced Pages article. At User_talk:Ariconte#2009-2010_Puerto_Pe.C3.B1asco_coup_d.E2.80.99.C3.A9tat_attempt you will find my previous attempt to get extra eyes on the article (see the talk page and User_talk:Hermosillo123 also). I tagged it with {{notability}} twice and other editors deleted the tags. It looks like a local political issue - but I am not sure, in particular see the most recent addition. Request more experienced intervention. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not even convinced from this article that the government against which this coup was allegedly attempted even exists. One of the members of the governing council of La Jolla de Cortés is described as a woman known only as "TEH". And the most promising-looking sources, articles from El Imparcial, are completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. One of them is about the murder rate in Nogales, a city more than 100 miles away from Puerto Peñasco, and another is a gossip item about Mariah Carey. I'm going to try to get this article deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Veromi.net

I've been trying to determine the true birthdate of actor Martin Landau. Some sources list 1928, others 1931, some even go as far as 1934. One source I use to help me find people is http://www.veromi.net which is a people finding source that utilizes utility records, employment, relatives, etc. to find people. I have found it to be scarily accurate.

Would Veromi be considered WP:RS?? Thanks for any opinions. --Manway (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does the website get its information on births from, and how can you be sure that you are looking at the info for the right Martin Landau (rather than a namesake)? If you can answer those questions, then the answer to your original question would be clear. Hibbertson (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The information is gathered from municipal sources, such as utility bills, and the like. I know it's the same Martin Landau because it shows him as having been married to Barbara Bain. So I'd say it's reliable. Thanks. --Manway (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Without any information about its editorial oversight, I'd say it's impossible to evaluate how reliable it is. Jayjg 23:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It lists her as a possible relative (not that they are married), that hardley sounds to me like they are even confident of their facts. Also I find it odd that they do not list mr Landau as an actor (but working for something called THE ABRADAU CORPORATION). He also lives in west hollywood, which does not seem to be on this list for this Mr Lanadu (but does appear for another Mr Landau). This seems to be very poor.Slatersteven (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No. We generally don't cite people-finder services for information on BLPs. He's famous enough that his year of birth should be covered in multiple secondary sources. Just cite the most reliable ones. If even the top tier of available sources disagree then cite both versions. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Firefox.org/news/

A discussion over at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Romeo x Juliet that http://firefox.org/news/ is not a reliable source because of its open submission policies. This is in particular referencing reviews for various works of fiction. I bring this here as there are a number of other articles outside of WP:ANIME's scope that are also using Firefox News as a source for reviews and opinions. —Farix (t | c) 14:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable: no editorial oversight. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat disappointed in the lack of comments on this subject, despite the extent that the website is used on Misplaced Pages. I had notified the comics, film, and TV Wikiprojects, but the discussion is still too thin. I guess I should just start tagging links with {{rs?}}. —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Question... is this another case where parts of the site are reliable and other parts are not? (ie do we need to distinguish between the parts that are user contributions, and the parts that are under editorial controle? Is there a way to do so?) Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks to be entirely user generated content with no "vetting" process over the contributors. It is essentially a glorified blog under the guise of a "news" website. (P.S. I've has a couple of {{rs?}} tags reverted under the claim that opinions don't need to be from reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethnologue

The data retrieved by the above website is heavily used in language related articles regarding the number of speakers of different languages as a FACT. However this data seems heavily and totally fabricated. There are internationally recognized organizations such as the UN which should be relied upon on such matters not a website with this description on its article: A Christian linguistic service organization, which studies lesser-known languages, primarily to provide the speakers with Bibles in their native language.

It is in no way a reliable source! I demand the ban of use of this website's data on language related articles.--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. The data retrieved by this website, specially about Persian language is ridiculous.--PHoBiA (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it's Christian makes it neither reliable nor unreliable. It appears to be fairly widely cited or referred to on Google Books. Jayjg 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is unreliable because its reports are fabricated. Compare it to official figures of the UN and governments of several countries. But the fact that, it is a religious website, makes it 100% unreliable for scientific reliability. It has to biased based on religious beliefs, as it is obvious by the data it provides! And there are so many organizations that are widely cited all over the Internet. Does it make them reliable? I think we are not here to count how many times something has been cited. Also don't forget that religion is in the opposite side of science. These guys still believe that God has created the whole universe in 6 days! :) --Professional Assassin (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication that its estimates regarding language speakers are based on any religious beliefs. Ethnologue appears to be widely recognized as an authority in this matter. It would qualify as a reasonably reliable source for this information. Jayjg 17:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, Ethnologue is so recognized in the field that they were awarded the ISO contract for language codes. --Bejnar (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember this coming up before but can't find it in the archives. My recollection is that Ethnologue is not considered perfect but acceptable unless other sources indicate that it is in error. If there are completely different estimates then those should be presented alongside Ethnologue. UN figures should take precedence. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

While there are official statistics by governments and also the UN, why rely upon Ethnologue for such crucial data, which Ethnologue has very strong motives to fabricate?--Professional Assassin (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

religion==bias? : Is this for real? Your only basis for "fabricated" is descrepancy with some official sources? Certainly both may be worth citing if they are prominent and disagree but I don't see basis for concluding one has more merit without more details on methodologies. Sure, they have a bias but consider the example I used before, commercial chip vendors handing out data books or related educational literature with their own logo and products featured. Bible translation has driven a lot of relevant language work and probably much of it is good by scholarly standards. I know nothing about this source or the topic under discussion but I can't see "religion==bad" as a reasonable criterion. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the Ethnologue website has changed it's statistics in a radical manner between 15th and 16th edition and the main editor , Mr. Ray Gordon , could not locate the original source of editions as it is written in his e mails : . Same problem is mentioned by Conrad Hurd about the editions of 1996 to the 2000 and 2004 editions .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, again, if they don't have a documented methodology then you could argue about merit but why are they cited by others? If they are cited elsewhere you probably don't want to ignore them but there is no reason to take their numbers as gospel expecially if alts exist. I just don't think that you can say catagorically an expression or religious affiliation means that source is unworthy in some aspect. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am no longer willing to continue this discussion. It is better to be closed now and users continue to use the mentioned website as a source. Reasons are withheld. :-) --Professional Assassin (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

reliable sourcing and use of author's work

G'day all - I've begun work in wiki-fying and generally tidying up etc. an article about chinese immigration to sydney, written by one Dr. Shirley Fitzgerald, and released under an appropriate 'CC' license - Dr. F is also the author of what I consider to be a reliable source 'Red Tape Gold Scissors: the Story of Sydney's Chinese, 2nd edition, Halstead Press, Sydney, 2008' (it's ref.d in the article, though I've failed to date to grab a copy).

User:Orderinchaos mentioned here that there's some question over the use of the author's source in the article - hence I'm bringing the issue here for a bit of advice on the general principle (whether or not an author's words when used under an appropriate license can be considered 'reliable' in terms of sourcing) - and indeed on the specific use at the linked article. My feeling is that it's the credentials of the author and the ability of the reader to verify cited information which is important, so this source is wholly appropriate - it's also wonderful to try and engage and promote academia in some small way in the free culture movement - a likely fringe benefit in my view :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please supply more details about which sources in the article have been questioned, and what these sources are used to demonstrate? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Who creates the citation is really irrelevant. So, I don't really see what you are asking about. I assume that you have digested Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or you wouldn't be here. Most essays are not written in encyclopedic form, so simply reusing them doesn't work well. Also, in looking at the article draft, it is not well-rounded, possibly from relying upon a single source and its sources. Please see my additional comments on its talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the talk page comments, Bejnar - re : fifelfoo - the basic question is 'can we use 'Red Tape Gold Scissors: the Story of Sydney's Chinese, 2nd edition, Halstead Press, Sydney, 2008' as a reliable source' - the interesting bit is that it's the author's own words (in part) we'd be sourcing to the author, because they've been released under a free license. Is that any clearer? Hope so! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing Halstead's website, I had unanswered concerns. I have made direct contact with Halstead Press by email regarding their publication process in relation to Red Tape Gold Scissors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

your thoughts on the principle involved would be interesting too :-) - I believe that it can be workable to use such a ref. if the material meets sourcing criteria generally speaking..... Privatemusings (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh definitely. I'm not concerned in using a RS "Foo" to support material taken from an appropriately licensed piece of content rewritten to Misplaced Pages standards, where the appropriately licensed piece of content was also written by Foo. My concerns relate solely to a more general reliability question regarding the press / work in question. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! There are no authors of Misplaced Pages articles. I suspect that most of what the essayist wrote will need to be rewritten. Regardless, it is not an interesting question, since the book in question needs to be evaluated on its own merits. The mere fact that he cited his book in the essay that formed the basis for your rewrite of the information is irrelevant. --Bejnar (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I privately contacted the publisher. By email they assured me: The book was published as the second edition of a previously commercially successful book, and published on a commercial basis due to the first edition's success. No inducement was made by the author for the book: commercial considerations held. The author, when writing the book, was employed as the official historian of the City of Sydney. => Reliable Source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The essence of the problem is that the claims being made rely on the second edition (not widely available) of a (somewhat more widely available) book which makes claims which are literally novel and groundbreaking in Australia (and broadly speaking considered "fringe" within the historical academic sphere), and given that the person is a historian and not an anthropologist, and given that the theory has no coverage whatsoever in academic sources, then by using the author's own book to substantiate the author's own words, we basically end up with an APOV instead of a NPOV (and one very, very removed from the mainstream, at that.)

In essence, I'm saying a reliable source is such only for claims which it has the authority to make. When it is advancing a novel theory and that theory is not widely accepted in the academic literature, then more mainstream sources with appropriate academic gravitas should be sought. Orderinchaos 08:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a WEIGHT/FRINGE issue. Or, you could use ] to make the argument that the absence of an academic press on this monograph means that it is not of the standard expected for history articles making unusual claims regarding voyages to Australia. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Please could you look at WP:Help desk#Referencing sources inside sources (back again). Should the text also be moved here? Simply south (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And it closed before i could answer. Simply south (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Apollo Movie Guide

My question regards THIS review by Cheryl DeWolfe for Apollo Movie Guide. With Ms. DeWolfe also reviewing for Rotten Tomatoes, it would seem she has the genre-expertise to be accepted as reliable for a review of films. Further, and related, accepted experts of the Online Film Critics Society write for Apollo Movie Guide, and the guide is itself quoted by reliable sources such as The Evening Standard and The Times. Does usage by other accepted reliable sources and tend to confirm a Cheryl DeWolfe review in Apollo Movie Guide as reliable enough for Misplaced Pages to be used as a film review for King Cobra (film)? Schmidt, 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Apollo Movie Guide does not have a reputation as a fact-checker, so I suppose that it would depend upon what purpose you were using them. If it is for opinion, then so long as it is marked (indicated) as opinion, it would be fine. If it is for a fact, I would look for a better source, if one is available. --Bejnar (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have marked it as opinion in the above-mentioned article. Thanks. Schmidt, 01:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable. For example, Their about link 404s indicating a clear lack of editorial oversight and responsibility. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Apollo Movie Guide has no inherent notability. Schmidt, 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, your "404" error gave me a concern... so I found the correct link to their "about" page... but it was not useful. Schmidt, 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My question is about the expertise of the author Cheryl DeWolfe to write on the subject, not about where she offers it. If for some strange reason Roger Ebert had something at Apollo, I believe we'd accept due to the author and not the website. Conversely, I don't think anyone would even question it if the Cheryl DeWolfe review was on Rotten Tomatoes. So... how about the author herself as expert enough in this instance... as yes, it is the reviewer's opinion, and not proffered as a fact? Schmidt, 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Reliability inheres in the publication, not the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. The cloud has lifted. If Roger Ebert had something at Apollo Movie Guide, his review would never be RS as it is only opinion and on a non-RS site. An opinion, even if offered by an expert in the genre, never itself qualifies as a reliable source, as it is simply an opinion.. the "source" is the media carrying the opinion, not the opinion itself nor the author. My bad in bringing this here, as I should not have confused the source with author. They are not the same. So as User:Bejnar comments above, an opinion must be attributed as the reviewer's own opinion and not that of the source where it is offered. Where then might I pose the question as to this reviewer's expertise in offering her opinion? Schmidt, 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FRINGE related perhaps? The standing of the author would go to the WEIGHT in the article, so WEIGHT related might be good. Of course, the Apollo published opinion shouldn't be used: its not reliable. The problem with source versus author is most clearly seen in Academics who avoid publishing academically, and use popular presses to offer ideas that would not survive peer review. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for homework about WEIGHT. I do note that DeWolfe having over 120 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes tends to show a decent standing as a reviewer there at least. Thanks for the assist. Schmidt, 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to reliability, both the source and the publisher are factors. An expert in a field may be considered to have a degree of reliability, even when self-published - though even then one should avoid using the material except for non-controversial statements. That said, editorial oversight is the more important factor. An otherwise non-notable staff writer, writing for The New York Times or Washington Post, is presumed to be a reasonably reliable source, because those newspapers have good editorial oversight. In this case, DeWolfe does not appear to be a recognized expert in the field, nor does the Apollo Movie Guide appear to have strong editorial oversight. Therefore, the reviews would not be considered reliable sources. Jayjg 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google News Archive and Google Books search shows "Apollo Movie Guide" or "Apollo Guide" (near "movie" or "film") referenced for fact a good number of times, and it's been publishing reviews since 1998. I'd say if it's good enough for newspaper movie reviews to cite, it's good enough for Misplaced Pages. It may be published by a small business, Apollo Communications Ltd, and it may use freelance writers, but it may technically meet the requirements for a published source.

While the material from the review added depth to our article, these were pretty uncontroversial claims, and don't require multiply-redundant sourcing. We don't have to get wrapped up in academic standards over a movie about giant snakes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for info on the longest-running Passion play in the U.S.

I'm looking for non-self-published sources for the assertion in the Passion play article and Union City, New Jersey article that the Passion play performed in that city's Park Performing Arts Center is the longest-running in the U.S., since right now the only source I have for that is the Center itself. Can you tell me if the following are reliable:

New World Encyclopedia At first I thought that this article was a mirror of Misplaced Pages, but upon examination, I see that it's not only distinct from WP's article, but that at the bottom of that site's main page, it says that it is "Written by online collaboration with certified experts." Is this a reliable source with editorial control, or is it just another wiki?

This source at Knoxville Tours (html) (pdf) Nightscream (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

New World Encyclopedia is a wiki-based encyclopedia which contains carefully selected articles that are rewritten and supervised by a team of editors with academic and literary qualifications. New World Encyclopedia has the same ease of use as Misplaced Pages, but differs based on an editorial policy that includes a more rigorous article selection process, editorial review process, and its wholesome values orientation.

— http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Project_Vision

I would consider this a reliable, but tertiary, source.--otherlleft 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And the second source? Nightscream (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

New York Times news articles not RS?

At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes one editor states "Newspapers articles are not of a sufficiently high quality for this article, please see WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which covers History project articles. Secondly, please see WP:SYN as your paragraph is a perfect example of SYNTHetic reasoning. The grounds for this article's current editorial direction arose in discussion on Talk:, not at AFD. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)". The examples which were given were all news articles from the New York Times. Is he correct that the NYT is not a reliable source for statements on the topic of people being killed, and the trials of some charged with mass killings as covered in the New York Times? He also stated it was SYN to list 8 references on the Talk page - which is amazing as only direct quotes from each article followed the bracketed URLs. As for the assertion of "editorial direction" - the claim appears to be unsubstantiated entirely <g>. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reasonably reliable source. A peer-reviewed publication in a history journal would be more reliable, as would a book by a relevant historian printed by a University press. Jayjg 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)NYT is generally good, but it's true that many of those who edit history articles consistently demand use of academic history texts only. It might depend on dates, as one would expect a story of a massacre to be broken first in the quality press and only later to be written up by historians. The historians would dig deeper and use a wider range of primary sources. If the NYT got details wrong in their initial reports then that would not affect their standing. One would expect the details to be corrected later. Haven't looked at the related article yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a small part of an ongoing claim that "no RS sources exist" in order to claim the AfD should have been closed as "delete." I trust, moreover, that SYN is not even close to an issue on the Talk page? Collect (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the WP:NOR/N board, where issues of synthesis are discussed. That said, I haven't looked at the particulars here, but it's easy to construct a synthesis from newspaper articles, or other reliable sources; that's how it's usually done. Jayjg 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Um -- I listed 8 sources on the Talk page, and make no comment other than actual quotes from each (to identify what is in each). Impossible to get SYN that way <g>. And rather hard to claim OR when the person presents not a single word not precisely found in the source as a quote. Collect (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this not the WP:NOR/N noticeboard. That said, simply listing material can be a synthesis, if the intent is to advance a specific thesis. Misplaced Pages:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations gives more detail on how this is sometimes done. Jayjg 21:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it not clear that this was a simple list of sources placed on the Talk page for the article? Seems rather impossible for how a list presented as such can be OR <g>. Especially since they were all found in simple searches on the New York Times to begin with. Collect (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect: you could next time provide a specific link, such as WP:RS/N#New York Times news articles not RS? on the Talk page of the article as a courtesy, possibly also notifying my Talk page as I'm the "one editor" and its an expected courtesy :). As an involved editor: I assert that The NYT is unreliable for Mass killings under Communist regimes as the NYT does not meet the standards of WP:MILMOS#SOURCES, and, that MKUCR is covered as a history project, and, that newspapers do not meet the required standards of reliability in editorial or writing process of academic publication and that this is a fundamentally academic topic. To the editor who suggested WP:NOR/N, thanks for the suggestion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have created WP:NOR/N#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes to discuss article SYNTH issues with uninvolved editor experts. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

www.codoh.com and www.jdl.org - reliable sources for WP:BLP?

On the article David Cole (revisionist), I've removed links to www.codoh.com and www.jdl.org as unreliable sources in general, much less for a WP:BLP. However, another editor has restored them, arguing "Sources not otherwise usable for BLP can be used if the document that actual statements of people or organizations from their their own words." In my view, regardless of whether or not a source alleges it is quoting someone, if it is not reliable, it's not reliable, and cannot be used. This seems trivially obvious to me, but I'd like other views. Jayjg 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither the jdl nor codoh is not a reliable source for anything. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure your statement can be accurate. The BLP apparently is about a holocaust denier. Just as reliable statements can be made about astrology and astrologers, sources which are not reliable for some purposes can be fine for others. "Astrologer A says foo" may be realiably sourced from material which has no value at predicting the future or past. However, that doesn't mean you can site people who just make up stuff about astrology. A site controlled by the subject may be reliable about his own statments. IF he has achieved notability, it is likely that unreliable statements have been noted by others. Even astrology often appears in newspapers as horoscopes for example. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The codoh site, however, is not Cole's. The only place where I think it could possibly be used would be on an article about CODOH itself, and even then, only for non-controversial information. Jayjg 20:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been informed my statement is unclear. Both the codoh and jdl are extremists (to the extreme). Neither is a reliable source for anything but themselves. Since the CODOH is unrelated to anything but the CODOH or Bradley Smith, it should not be used as a source for anything but those two entities. Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Linear programming#theory unpublished dissertations and an on-line manuscript

Unpublished dissertations and a manuscript are given unusual prominence by an editor (or editors with very similar IP addresses). The editor has not replied to questions or objections, but has stated that "Warning: Editing war: References to Bruni, Jalaluddin and Nguyen are repeatedly removed and WILL repeatedly be put back in again". Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On a topic this well known, you'd think there would be plenty of published and open source stuff. Theses can be good sources of literature review and may be helpful but you'd probably need some reason to single one out as the primary source for an article. You could probably go to goog books or citeseer and find some better full text published works. Esoteric or speculative ideas related to the topic may not be notable or worth significant mention in such a broad topic ( lots of reliable textbooks). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

While this may not be the most desirable source, searching at the University of Houston shows the thesis is available and the PhD was granted, so this is a reliable source, and is considered published since anyone who visits the University of Houston can get a copy. I would be surprised if it wasn't also available through University Microfilms International. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you suggest not turning this into a directory of related theses? Or is that even a bad thing? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you know some other alternative source which is published in an (peer-reviewed) academic journal, that source should be prefeered - but until such a reference is found I think the PhD thesis reference should be kept. (For that case the thesis can be kept as an alternative link as well, especially if the thesis was published before the article). Ulner (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I do not have access to the theses, I can't judge whether it is really necessary to cite all three of them. This does not seem to be a controversial topic, so I would think one citation to a reliable source would do, if it was comprehensive enough. That said, I have not done an linear programming in a long time, and I was rather pragmatic about it; I didn't care too much about the theory. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick responses.

I agree that Wikipeidia should list good textbooks and monographs (Dantzig, Dantzig & Thapa, Padberg, Wright, etc.) rather than unpublished manuscripts and "write only" dissertations.

It's objectionable to include one-person's manuscript work (and its 2-3 unpublished predecessors) when there are so many serious publications around that are not discussed. Somebody around 1990 did a count on interior-point articles and found 3000 publications. The article doesn't discuss criss-cross algorithms of Wang and Terlaky, or von Neumann's algorithm!

The manuscript is unpublished and is far below the level of a good dissertation---for example, it is very hard to see what the original contribution is, because much of it is a paraphrase of standard results; the computational problems shown are trivial and there are no problems from standard test sets. Yet this manuscript is given a prominent link in the middle of the article---it's listed in the right margin!

Misplaced Pages dissuades editors from questioning conflicts of interest or self promotion, because "outing" is objectionable of course. How does one raise the question of self-promotion in a civil Misplaced Pages way, especially when this editor seems not to respond to queries----at least from me? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not about the conflict, its about the article. You ought to be able to argue this from an article quality standpoint without much regard for COI. Maybe the editor is familiar with this work or this author for whatever reason, maybe it is the first work he found on goog filling blanks no one else bothered to fill. Who knows. If you a better source then contribute it. In the mean time, in the absence of anything better, what's wrong with leaving it and just moving it into a smaller spot until or unless it is removed for relevance?

At least in my neck of the woods and discipline being awarded, held in library, and abstracted / filmed doesn't count as "academically published". But it does count as "Misplaced Pages published" or "available for consultation and not subject to ongoing revisions". Reliable source per the recent thesis changes as the thesis meets the criteria of available for consultation and awarded. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, unless some fields have formal exceptions, most journals do consider PhD theses as citable. In some fields in the humanities, important work can often remain in this form for many years. But this isn't one of the topics--in most fields of science, if the work is of even moderately acceptable quality, it gets published. It shouldn't be seen as a question of whether the source is a RS; it is not as R an S as a fully published work, and better sources should be found. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the issue is what are you trying to prove with a citation? AFAIK, most theses relate to several papers published during the study time and presumably these represent the work product of the original part. The thesis however may have a good literature review that makes sense for an encyclopedia. Now, if I had an automated script to format all the citations in the thesis into wiki format, then it wouldn't be a big deal but a literature review in a field without other review articles could have a lot of appeal. If there are online textbooks, that would be fine. Personally I would like to cite online lecture notes and stuff as I have found these to be very good ( see for example MIT OCW http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm ) but they don't include citations and many aren't long lived. So, certainly introductory and review material could be part of an encyclopedia but I'm not sure I would just start removing useful things like theses without a better quality replacement. And, sure, sometimes I'll just plop in the first reliable thing that comes up on google where a cite is needed. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Drzzinfo

Hello,

drzz.info is a pro-israeli blog and newscenter. I would like to know if the following pages can be used:

• http://www.drzz.info/article-exclusif-david-littman-honore-par-le-mossad-39576124.html
• http://www.drzz.info/article-23534939.html

which document the awarding of David Littman, at the highest level, by the Mossad. The articles contain photos and a video of the event, and the event itself seems not documented elsewhere because of the "secrecy" surrounding such awardings; note that some Mossad top-executives are masked in some photos. Being a blog, drzz.info is containing pro-israeli bias but this is not the point here. I don't want to use it as a source on the israel/palestine conflict in general, only to document the prize reception, and the info is valid.

Thanks

TwoHorned (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant person is David Littman (historian). I would say not reliable, not because of bias, but because you say it is a blog. I'm not sure what "newscenter" means. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a pro-israeli blog. I wouldn't use it for general articles on the ME, but only for documenting the award. The fact is right, but I'm unable to source it more scholarly, just because it's not. But the award is real, and puts Littman into "perspective". TwoHorned (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith. A blog is not an RS for this type of information. If the fact that he received the award is not reported in any "proper" publication, then it is not notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Incidentally, the current lead sentence of the article is the funniest thing I have read today. --FormerIP (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Skeptics Dictionary

The Skeptic's Dictionary has been cited on the Global Consciousness Project. The Skeptic's Dictionary is a collection of cross-referenced skeptical essays by Robert Todd Carroll. Carroll states that the book is not meant to present a balanced view - see Skeptics Dictionary. In the introduction to his website Carroll states "My beliefs are clearly that of a hardened skeptic." and "The hardened skeptic doesn’t need much more in the way of evidence or argument to be convinced that any given occult claim is probably based on error or fraud." I'm concerned that the use of this as a source will affect the neutrality of the article. I'd be grateful for views Gonefishingforgood (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Dictionary is a strongly reliable source for criticisms of occult / religious and pseudo-scientific topics by skeptics. If used for the purpose of demonstrating those criticisms it is certainly a reliable source. In the case of the Global Consciousness Project we have a clear example of a skeptical criticism of a pseudo-scientific topic. Considering that the GCP is very unimportant to the scientific community and has attracted little attention one way or the other your motivation to delete this source seems mostly to insert a pro-GCP bias into the article by silencing criticism of it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to what Gffg is asking. The article is supposed to have a Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view but sources of criticism used within the article don't have to be unbiased. Also, Carroll speaks of "probably" in the quote above, which would belie total bias, and a preponderance of evidence and argument that occult claims are usually based on error or fraud is pretty much inarguable (a bias in favor of reality)... it might be helpful to see Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories on "Evaluating scientific and non-scientific claims" and "Notability versus acceptance." This doesn't seem to be an issue of RS? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think there is a tendency to conflate prominence with merit or "what the audience should think" ( in short, POV pushing for a good cause). And indeed, reliability and prominence can be quite subjective. With some, a conception of science is treated almost as a religion in contradiction to scientific method but in any case innovation often comes from questioning that which is too obvious ( right or wrong ) to question. In this case, having only passing familiarity, I'd ask sceptics if cuckoo clocks can communicate in any meaningful way? Of course, if you put two of them on the same wall you may observe they synchronize- my point of course is that small things can produce observable effects and things like a "global brain wave" can't be dismissed. That doesn't mean that every time you hav deja vu it is due to brainwave syncrhonization with a cosmic event source. So, my point here is just not to militantly ignore notable efforts that have prominence in some community, even if you are convinced they will go the way of astrology. Maybe they will, hard to know, but we want to document things that didn't work out too if they meet criteria. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the views by different skeptics currently expressed in the article is notable (relevant for an encyclopedia), and should be included. When a certain viewpoint is described, a reference to an opinion piece is acceptable in my opinion or a reference to some permanent notable webpage. For this case there is no need to have a reference to a reliable source. Furthermore, I agree with Simonm223 that deleting this source is in effect silencing criticism of GCP. Ulner (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally I'm not arguing against inclusion of any sources but the quote above does sound like the author is a bit prejudiced based on his own experience. The source needn't be reliable for more than his own opinion if stated as such, "perennial skeptic joe thinks this is stupid" but certainly he doesn't seem to be a reliable source for affirmatively debunking something. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's fair to characterize him as a "bit prejudiced" "perennial skeptic" who "doesn't seem to be reliable source for affirmatively debunking something." Carroll's positions are likely pretty typical of the scientific community generally, not just the skeptical community. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An attitude is not an affirmative proof- there is nothing wrong with being sceptical and questioning methods and results, just that again it is an attitude and you can't argue it to prove anything. I guess in that case, you could just say something like " many people think this is garbage" Certainly attitudes help reflect the overall situation of human understanding on a given topic and need to be included but they aren't data and you don't change fact with a vote. So, I guess again the issue if leading with data if you are concerned with merit and if you want to use this one source as a spokemen for people in white coats everywhere I guess there could be some issues with how you determine that. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether using it affects neutrality depends on the context in which it is used. If you want to define a pseudoscientific idea as a matter of fact, particularly points within it that are subject to dispute, relying on a neutral source or the statements of the leading purveyors of that idea (perhaps even a combination of the two) might be better. If, on the other hand, you want to define objections to that idea by the scientific community, then Carroll's dictionary would probably be a good source, at least as one example. In the same vein, so would the books of Michael Shermer, Robert L. Park or James Randi. Nightscream (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ethiopian review

I have noticed there were a few editors trying to add this from Ethiopian Review as a reliable source to include the PM of Ethiopa in the List of heads of state and government by net worth‎ article which the majority of editors (me included) have a consensus on the talk page that it is not a reliable source, Can someone make it official (so to speak) that it is definatly not a reliable source? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you may explain why it is unreliable, it would help. Ethiopian Review seems a respectable source, at a glance. --Cyclopia 13:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In Talk:List of heads of state and government by net worth‎ here and the 2 sections below it, it gives the consensus reached by the editors and gives the reasons there as to why it may not be used as a reliable source The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Talking of "consensus" on such page is pretty stretched, since it's basically a 2-vs-1 argument (you and Xanderliptak vs. Enawga). The Enawga guy sure isn't always very collaborative, but this is tangential to the reliability of the source. That said, I hope someone expert in Ethiopian matters can help you. --Cyclopia 16:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

According to google books, it seems ER is widely cited as a source by scholars. This makes the case of Enawga stronger. Source may be biased, and perhaps the information quoted should be indicated as cautional, but I would be careful to dismiss it as a RS. --Cyclopia 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The argument that the ER is not a RS because the head of the ER was charged by the Ethiopian government does not seem valid to me. It is perfectly possible for a news media to be RS even under such circumstances, however I do not know enough about Ethiopian politics to deem whether that is true in this case. It is difficult to find any information on the methods and agenda of ER on its website, so it is not easy to assess how the news-articles are made. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the best thing is to check the books abovelinked, if possible. If ER is good enough for scholar studies, is good enough for us, too. --Cyclopia 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two Ethiopian Reviews. One was a news journal from the 1940's that went under at some point in that decade I believe, while the other was this web blog begun under the same moniker in the 1990's or 2000's. The latter is not the successor of the former, rather it chose the old name to invoke the memory of the historic journal. One of the issues that I have with the site is that it refers to this edit war on List of heads of state and government by net worth. First, the site makes the claim that Meles has $1.2 billion, then Enawga added the information to the Misplaced Pages page and then Ethiopian Review cites the Misplaced Pages article as proof its information was valid. The blog effectively cited itself as evidence that its figure was true, a circular argument. Also, this article on the site made me wary of Ethiopian Review <http://www.ethiopianreview.com/content/11785>. It claims that those editors who wish to take the information off the article are "Adwa Mafia (a clique within the ruling Woyanne junta that is mostly composed of close family members and friends of Meles", which is rather a ridiculous claim upon itself, and which had no evidence provided for such an outrageous accusation. Then again, perhaps I am, as the site claims, a Mafioso. ;-) XANDERLIPTAK 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough comment! Yes, the tone of the article may be suspicious. However, there must be a third ER, then, because in the gbooks linked above I see references to ER dated 1992,1993,1995: too old for a blog, way later than the 1940's. What is it? --Cyclopia 18:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I am not sure. The early 90's is really too early for many websites. So there must have been another published journal before the blog version up today to have sources from early in that decade. The blog does not keep normal copyright information, only citing the current year rather than the date range that should be listed. I never even knew there was this blog version until this argument started on the Misplaced Pages article, I only ever heard of the 1940's version. The original incarnation is revered much like John Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln are in the United States. I would not be surprised that there were several dozens of news journals, editorials, political entities and so forth that used the same name or something similar over the last 60 years to invoke some of the original passion. XANDERLIPTAK 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting development. It's possible that the early-90s version could have converted to a blog format; many newsletters and "zines" went that route. I'd suggest checking those cites for publisher/city and ISSN or OCLC numbers, checking those out on Worldcat, and possibly checking if they had staff writers in common. It likely some librarian out there has already teased apart the difference between these publications, and your findings could be added to our article on Ethiopian Review. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Challenging DEFSOUNDS.COM as a reliable source

There are, as of this moment, 167 pages linking to DEFSOUNDS.COM according to LinkSearch I roughly estimate that 30% of the links found are being used as sources in biographical articles, the remainder being using in album articles or discussed on a talk page for either. My question is this: is DEFSOUNDS.COM a reliable source? When I visit their main page and click on "Who is Defsounds?" it says NOT FOUND BITCH. Wow, really? Then why are we citing this ANYWHERE on Misplaced Pages? JBsupreme (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's possible they were hacked, or that an RS can have a bad attitude, but apart from that, indeed it doesn't appear to be an RS. It looks like a blog site anyone who becomes a member can post to. The couple articles from the linked list I looked at it was being used for CRYSTALBALL-type articles about unreleased albums. I did a cursory search to see if there were Google Books, Scholar or News citing defsounds.com, which might speak to their notability or reliability, but didn't find any. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe they were hacked, I think this is how they have their HTTP 404 configured, tasteless as it may be. Some of the other links do actually work, but they're mostly credited to pseudonyms like "Miss Information". So, what should be done with all these links? Remove them? JBsupreme (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably so, though the editor(s) who added them might not like it. Misplaced Pages:Preserve#Try to fix problems: preserve information would suggest trying to find a RS for the same information, or adding a citation needed tag, I think (is there an RSbot that can do that kind of thing?). Or if the info is more questionable, removing it to the talk page, or deleting it entirely. I looked at another case where it was cited, Eminem#Shady Records and D12; that article states Bizarre did an interview with DefSounds, which might make them more notable or reliable... but then when one checks the reference, it doesn't indicate an interview was done with him by "Jokesta" for defsounds.com, just quotes from an unnamed, undated interview by an unnamed interviewer from an unnamed source or perhaps just invents it. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DefSounds is a user-generated content site with no editorial oversight or anything else WP:RS. The linked pages appear to be nothing more than users posting and discussing rumors, the latest Dynastyesque feud or news reported elsewhere. The existing links should be reviewed and removed/replaced as discussed above, and the website limited so only experienced users may add a link. Flowanda | Talk 07:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The wiki software isn't capable of preventing the adding of certain links, is it? I'd never heard that it could. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually we do have a "blacklist" of banned websites, and I believe the software gives you some sort of error message saying so if you try to link to them. I am not sure of the exact criteria for inclusion in the list, but I do know that simply being unreliable is not one of them. So if DefSounds is deemed unreliable, then it would be up to individual editors to remove citations to it by hand... both currently and in the future. Blueboar (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Strict reliability of defsounds.com apart, I guess WP:DEADLINK is a relevant how-to in this regard. In short: Do not remove information or links only because the link is currently dead. --Cyclopia 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine and well Cyclopia, but you are going off topic (see header). If the link was deemed to be unreliable in the first place, the website is still up, and the 404 tells you "NOT FOUND BITCH" that is a different question. That is what we're discussing here. Not what to do with dead links. JBsupreme (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Muncie Free Press

Content that sites the Muncie Free Press is being taken down from John Annarumma due to Omarcheeseboro opinion that the Muncie Free Press http://www.munciefreepress.com is not credible. Rigga101 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the Muncie Free Press does not appear to be a reliable source. Its content does not indicate that it is a mainstream professional news site; rather, it appears to be a site that accepts amateur journalism and press releases. For example, John Annarumma is a minor-party candidate from Congress in Florida. He has no connection to Muncie, Indiana other than the fact that the Muncie Free Press happened to accept an article that was basically a press release from his party. That was not an independent source, and even if it was considered desirable to cite a press release from the party, it would be better to cite it directly from the party's web site than to cite it to this not-particularly-reliable-looking web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Holland

hi, Tom Holland, a writer who usually writes fiction etc, whether he be considered reliable or not when quoted for size of persian and greek armies at Battle of Thermopylae ? His estimates is the controversial 200,000 persian army. While almost all other academic scholars estimates between 60,000-100,000 some as low as 20,000. any thoughts ? His book is Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0385513119.

While another one is of Osprey Publishers Thermopylae 480 BC: last stand of the 300 By Nic Fields. which says 60,000-70,000 persian army.

For estimates of size which is reliable ?

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

More detail is given on this subject here. Hammond is not a source I think should be too heavily relied on, but his summary that modern academic opinion is that the forces at the Battle of Thermopylae were around 250,000 is useful. He's not perfect, but he does the summary well: "Most historians, forced to make an estimate, would put the army under Xerxes' command closer to 250,000. See for instance Cook (1983) who settles for 300,000 for Xerxes' land forces; Hammond (1988) who goes for 242,000; Green who opts for 210,000 and Lazenby (1993) who havers between 210,000 and 360,000, before finally plumping for 90,000. In short...we will never know." (Holland, p237 & p394). Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Doubleday doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. Use better sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GradeSaver

Most of Misplaced Pages's film articles contain a plot summary of some kind; when used properly, a short summary can place the real-world production information in an appropriate context. Usually, these sections go uncited—more accurately, they tend to lack inline citations, as the plot of a film can almost always be verified from the primary source: the film itself. I'm OK with that, as long as the plot section adheres to WP:PSTS—only making "descriptive claims, the accuracy of which verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" and not "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". However, if a good secondary source presents itself, I'd obviously prefer to use that. Few ever detail enough of the story to be useful, but I have found a source for the plot section of the article I'm currently working on, American Beauty (film). The potential source can be found here (full text online here), and is from GradeServer, which claims to be a collection of study guides written and edited by Harvard students. A casual trawl bears this out, and the site claims editorial oversight in its statement that it accepts "only the very best" of the papers submitted to it. GradeServer appears to be used already in several articles, though none that I can see that are featured-quality, and a search of the RS/N archives throws up no hits, so I thought I'd throw the question out to the floor. At the very least, would it be useful as a convenience link to lend support to the summary constructed by watching the primary source? All the best, Steve  23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was initially worried it would be a Essay mill, but it doesn't appear to be that exactly and it does get given as a further reading reference in some books that would presumably know better than to list it if it was like An Invitation to Political Thought edited by Joseph Fornieri and Kenneth L. Deutsch and published by Cengage Learning. Maybe since it is only lending support to easily verifiable descriptive claims it might be OK in a pinch, but using it should not be mistaken to be understood as accepting it as an entirely reliable source; for anything more than that I'd say definitely not. Then again, it is listed on a number of high school and college sites as both a source of plagiarism by students, and a site which is not acceptable to use as a source for papers even when acknowledged (it gets classed with Misplaced Pages, actually and it does even copy content from wikipedia e.g. http://www.gradesaver.com/rebecca/wikipedia/plagiarism-allegations/ ). So in terms of raising Misplaced Pages's credibility or its own ambitions to become a RS (if it has those), it would be undesirable, and it might be embarrassing to proliferate links to that site beyond what has been done already. It doesn't really meet the standard of an RS. The plot summary there is considerably longer than it would be desirable to have here. It doesn't appear the author of the plot summary is given, and the editorial oversight sounds to be writing-quality oriented rather than having any expertise in film studies specifically. And while the staff is allegedly composed of Harvard Students, it does carry the notice "Not affiliated with Harvard College." There must be other more reliable sources that are as readily available, particularly for so popular a film. Reviews by film critics usually offer some degree of plot summary, but as more general references maybe Allmovie might help, or perhaps filmreference.com. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I was leaning "probably not", but I think you're right that it might not do for credibility's sake to cite as a source something that is discussed outside Misplaced Pages in the same disparaging terms as Misplaced Pages sometimes is. Thanks for the detailed response; I'm sure I'll be able to find something else. Steve  08:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say its probably pretty excellent for settling disputes about "how much primary-source plot summary can I use". I wouldn't worry too much about whether educators allow their students to cite the source; above the 6th grade level teachers frown on citing encylopedias and other tertiary sources in general. Remember, we're striving to become the best source of information, not to gain admission to the professor's smoking club. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Likelike Dolls Magazine

This was originally submitted to the Reborn doll article. I trimmed it down a bit. But now I am unsure if it can be considered a reliable source at all. Their "About Us" page can be found here: and they describe how they handle submissions here:. Any opinions? Thank you. Siawase (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers and magazines are generally considered RS, and shouldn't be any problem for an article about dolls. This seems to be an actual print magazine, while it will obviously have a point of view towards doll collectors, it should be fine. I'd suggest a very trimmed-down version of the wording, something like "people have the dolls for reasons ranging from A to B to /therapy for Alzheimer's patients/(cite) to C," and so on. The article doesn't need to dwell too much on the fact that there were special issues about reasons given for doll collecting, a simple citation will do. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, that was pretty much exactly what I was leaning towards. The reason I asked was that I don't have experience in dealing with these types of niche hobby magazines. The editors are hobbyists and appear knowledgeable in their field, but with no other publishing experience, and from what I can find, no backing from any larger publisher. But I guess as long as I only use the magazine as a source about the hobby itself it should be ok? Siawase (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies as a source for Juan Ponce de León y Loayza

See Talk:Juan Ponce de León y Loayza where the IP basiclly says I'm on a soapbox. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically? She used those exact words! And, for the record, Menzies is a RS for one topic only: what Menzies thinks. He is not a reliable historian by any definition of the word. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Menzies' books are extremely unacceptable sources for pretty much anything, except to explain what Menzies claims. The whole dispute is a little absurd. ClovisPt (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna Rated R single

Hello,
can I have some quick input/opinions about the sourcing of the following bit from Rated R:

The second worldwide single (third in the U.S.) will be "Rude Boy". It will be released in the U.K. and to U.S. radio on February 8, 2009.

Thank you, Amalthea 10:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Inc Icon Group International a reliable sources?

I dot know if it was brought into attention previously (please indicate if so), but is Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Inc Icon Group International can be considered as reliable source; especially then it is used to reference same WP articles, which are by default primary source of Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases passages for instance - . Thanks for the answer, M.K. (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it ever would be, certainly not when Misplaced Pages is the source of its content. I see it's used in a few articles (at least) presently: Ugrasrava Sauti, Illyrian warfare, Music of Minnesota. Places where it is discussed (negatively):

• Misplaced Pages:Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi#Icon_Group_International

• Misplaced Pages:Edit_filter/Requested#Icon_Group_International

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#ISHA_books_and_other_circular_references

• Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles#Icon_Group_International

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Unreferenced_Article_Cleanup#Icon_Group_International Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not, Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases is not a reliable source. It is a mere compilation without any fact checking. Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases is not related to the products of Merriam-Webster. A number of firms use "Webster" in their titles in an attempt to gain credibility. --Bejnar (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• They also take quotes from wikipedia articles, making it a self-reference source, and making no checks for the validity of the quotes. So, no, don't use it ever. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarifications and insights. M.K. (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Rejection of reliable secondary sources based on alleged inadequacies in primary research

There is a debate ongoing at Talk:Sinn Féin about numerous secondary sources which say that the current party known as Sinn Féin was formed following a split in the original party in 1970. (I'll list the sources below.)

One editor (Scolaire) is arguing that the sources should not be used because "a reliable source in relation to a particular fact can only be accepted if it is clear that the author had reasonable grounds for stating the fact, which means that he or she had access to primary documents.

I, on the other hand, say that it is not the role of Misplaced Pages to reject what secondary sources say because some of us believe the primary research engaged in by the author is inadequate. Rather, if we are not happy with what the secondary sources say, we ought to find other secondary sources which disagree.

I'd be interested in some views on this interpretation of policy.

For information, these are the sources in question:

• Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press
• Jonathan Bardon (2005), A History of Ulster. Blackstaff Press Ltd
• Brendan O'Brien (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the IRA: From 1916 Onwards, O'Brien Press Ltd
• Ed Moloney (2007), A Secret History of the IRA, Penguin Books
• S. J. Connolly (ed.) (2007), The Oxford Companion to Irish History, Oxford University Press
• Thomas Hennessey (2005), Northern Ireland: The Origins of the Troubles, Gill & Macmillan
• Brian Feeney (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the Troubles, O'Brien Press Ltd
• W.D. Flackes and Sydney Elliott (1994), Northern Ireland: A Political Directory 1968-1993, Gill & Macmillan Ltd
• CAIN Abstracts on Organisations
• BBC Fact Files
• Agnes Maillot (2007), New Sinn Féin: Irish republicanism in the twenty-first century, Taylor & Francis
• Marianne Heiberg, Brendan O'Leary, and John Tirman (2007), Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts, University of Pennsylvania Press
• Jonathan Tonge (2006), Northern Ireland, Polity, pp.132-133
• Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens and Robert W. White (2000), Self, Identity, and Social Movements, University of Minnesota Press
• John Plowright (2006), The Routledge Dictionary of Modern British History, Routledge
• Kevin Rafter (2005), Sinn Féin 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Gill & Macmillan

Mooretwin (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Often you do find editors who jump to merit based decisions to save the reader from confusion or deception. However, a prominent opinion is likely to be one that the reader will encounter and it seems in line with wikipedia and reader objectives to present all prominent POV's which means citing many sources that may be of questionable intellectual or moral value to us. So then the question is just how you cite them and make sure they are reliable for the claim made. At this point, you end up with a merit diecussion unless you write everything as "he said but she said etc ". At that point, you are probably back to the article talk page. So, even a source based on fantasy, if it describes a prominent view on a relevant issue, probably gets mentioned somewhere. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested an edit which I believe will give Mooretwin's sources due weight: "Many authors say that a new party, which they refer to as 'Provisional Sinn Féin', was founded by the Caretaker Executive at this time .<ref>For instance, English (2004), p. 107; O'Brien (2007), p. 75; Moloney (2007), p. 72</ref>". Would you consider this a fair enough use of the quoted sources? Scolaire (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If it said that "Most neutral commentators{insert ref} say that the party known today as Sinn Féin, was founded in 1970 by the 'caretaker exective' of a breakaway faction associated with the Provisional IRA, whereupon it became widely known as 'Provisional' Sinn Fein", then we might have a version that is verifiable. --Red King (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss re-wording. The question is whether my proposal constitutes reasonable use of RS or not. Scolaire (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Numerous reliable secondary sources have been presented which Mooretwin seems to be ignoring, this is not an issue for this page none of the sources provided by both sides in this content dispute are disputed as unreliable. BigDunc 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not what the Reliable sources/Noticeboard is for at all. This is not an issue on weather a source is reliable or not but a simple case of forum shopping. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer48 is right, this is not the place to be discussing content, so Scolaire's, RedKing's and BigDunc's contributions here aren't relevant. The question being asked is about Scolaire's own policy re. reliable sources, i.e. he wishes to reject secondary sources because - in his opinion - he is not satisfied with the primary material upon which secondary sources are based. So far, Nerdseeksblonde is saying that all secondary sources ought to be taken into account, and therefore Scolaire's attempt to rule out those with which he doesn't agree based apparently on his own personal assessment of their research methods is not in compliance with policy. Other views welcome. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire has made a documented attempt to rule in those sources, in line with Nerdseeksblonde's comment that such a source "probably gets mentioned somewhere". Please can we keep the infighting at Talk:Sinn Féin? The chances of us getting another neutral response are falling with each attempt at point-scoring. Scolaire (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nerdseekslonde made no comment about any particular sources, so there is no basis for you to imply that his reference to sources that may be of questionable intellectual or moral value referred to those sources with which you wish to disagree. He was talking in general terms. It's curious that you don't apply the same standards to the sources with which you do agree! Mooretwin (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all the uninvolved editors who gave views on this question. It's been overwhelming. Mooretwin (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

www.cubanuestra.nu

The opinions of hispanophones are welcome to determine the reliability of this website and in particular this article for use on these articles Salomon Isacovici and Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer). According to this post, it provides an alternate viewpoint to that by other articles/books currently quoted in the article. --Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I read through it, and I don't think it is an appropriate source. Cuba Nuestra seems to be a website of Cuban people living in Sweden. There is nothing in the website or this particular article to indicate that it is reliable for information about an academic authorship dispute. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That was my thought too. If others have comments, I would welcome them, however. --Slp1 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

netdial.caribe.net

Hello. I would like a third part opinion about the use of this webpage as a source for the article on María Luisa Arcelay.

I'm worried because, for what I can tell, that is just a webpage belonging to some user called "josebru" in the web-hosting service netdial.caribe.net. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 04:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Damiens. The site in question appears to be just a personal web page that does not even include its author's name. So I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree that it is not reliable. Note that it is probably (broken) school website for the Maria Luisa Arcelay School, based on this. See the web archive version. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr. giveing medication thats causes alot health problem and may be permanent

Please any doctor can help me or advice call me at (removed for privacy) or email me at (removed for privacy)

Sincerely

Bonnie Whatley

• Misplaced Pages is not a good place to get medical advice. If you need medical help, contact a real live doctor (as opposed to some unidentifiable person on this web site) or go to an emergency room. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Daijiworld Media

Is Daijiworld Media http://www.daijiworld.com/ reliable for news and other article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.40.201 (talk • contribs)

• I believe it was deemed reliable in past discussions here at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Daijiworld.Com .28http:.2F.2Fwww.daijiworld.com.2F.29 and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 36#daijiworld.com, although in the latter discussion nobody ever got around to explaining what the actual dispute over its notability was. Could you please indicate where the dispute over its notability is taking place? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

iI m sorry sir for wasting ur time. I didnt know a discussion had already taken place. I am here for the first time. there are absolutely no issues. The site is extremely professional, accurate, reliable and well known in the media. some newspaper articles found from the Daijiworld Media article which i expanded. . 122.169.31.146 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say it can be treated like a local newspaper. Good for news about the Mangalore area and Konaki community, probably also for interviews and film/book/TV reviews. Anything beyond that we would have to consider on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with somebody bringing up a source for discussion again if there are actual questions about its reliability. Why did the original poster ask whether Daijiworld was reliable? Did somebody say it wasn't reliable? If so, who said it, where did they say it, and what reasons did they give? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Official site

Hi there. At Jacquie O'Sullivan, a user (and some IPs) has been adding a site and claiming that it's the official site; other users don't think it is. On the talk page, there has been some discussion on the issue.

How do we determine whether an official website is an official website? Some sort of communication from the site via OTRS to us, but what would they need to say. I realise that this isn't necessarily the best place for this question, but it's the best I could think of at short notice. GedUK  15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You need the external links noticeboard. For what it's worth, it doesn't look like a pop star's official website to me. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd not heard of that board. It doesn't to me either, but I've seen rubbish official sites before. GedUK  21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

counterjihadeuropa.wordpress

Is this site wikipedia reliable in this case presently it has been used in a BLP to support this comment .. Littman is one of the people listed as an expert at CounterJihad Europa , a website acting "as a clearinghouse for national initiatives to oppose the Islamisation of Europe, with a focus on policy initiatives, legislation, legal test cases and political activism.the conference website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 17:24, 8 January 2010

The website, CounterJihad Europa, is hosted by wordpress.com. Wordpress.com is a weblog hosting provider. Thus, one can assume that CounterJihad Europa is a blog. According to WP:SPS, material found in blogs can only be considered reliable

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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Prima facie, then, the material at CounterJihad Europa would not generally be considered to be from a reliable source.

However, on a case-by-case basis, it may be that certain publications there may be acceptable, as per WP:SPS. That is, an individual essay/paper/article published at CounterJihad Europa that is from an established expert in the relevant field, notwithstanding being essentially self-published, could satisfy WP:SPS. Conversely, an individual essay/paper/article published at CounterJihad Europa by someone who is not an established expert in the relevant field would not satisfy WP:SPS. Finally, if all the writings at CounterJihad Europa are by one author, and that author is not considered an established expert in the relevant field, then the writings would not satisfy WP:SPS. — SpikeToronto 09:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments Spike. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The article Aircraft in fiction has multiple issues with sourcing

This article, aside from other problems, relies very heavily on some questionable sources. If this were one or two sources, I'd just remove them and handle it. But this article cites 50 "sources" and I think that at least 29 of them don't pass RS. So I wanted to get some other opinions before I removed them. One of the primary sources is Counter-x.net . Another that I find questionable is TFU.info . The article also uses imdb.com for a reference about aircraft types. IIRC, imdb can be used for things like credits, but not for trivia, as this is user added info. Other questionable ones are mastercollector.com , cliffbee.com , gamespot.com, a tripod.com site , cobraislandtoys.com , robot-japan.com , toyarchive.com , vimeo.com , Ben's World of Transformers and concordesst.com . He also uses other Misplaced Pages article as references. Does anyone find ANY of these pass WP:RS? I'm also not terribly comfortable with Hasbro.com being used as the source for their own products. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Referencing other Misplaced Pages articles is definately a no-no, as far as reliable sources go. The others you mentioned (aside from Hasbro) don't appear to pass in my point of view. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 08:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Although it is a website, concordesst.com, does appear to do some fact checking. It would not be my preference for a source, but I wouldn't call it inherently unreliable. Its forum does provide for feedback on its site. Some of the toy sites might be reliable, just as a person's own resume might be reliable, about facts about their own toys. It depends upon how they are used. --Bejnar (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since we don't allow one to use their own resume as a source, I'm not sure that example bolsters their credibility a lot. Lol. I'm ok with leaving Hasbro, as they are a large, established company with no motive to lie about a toy they stopped making. That's why I mentioned it totally seperate frome the other list. I'm not as comforrtable with concordesst.com though. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe one more opinion? Could use the help. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

For such details as what aircraft a toy or game piece is modeled after, I would accept any well-recognized hobbyist source as well as any game or toy producer's site. There probably are some cases of controversy, but I would guess that for those in this sort of subject the hobbyist/producer sources are more likely to be correct than most published books, unless theauthor is a recognized expert. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC) .

• The problem is, these don't appear to be well-recognized hobbyist sites. Like I said, the manufacturer site would fly (no pun intended). Niteshift36 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Metalunderground.com

Would metalunderground be considered a reliable source? I personally see the website as similar to blabbermouth.net (widely considered a reliable source), as it has an Alexa rank of 66,146 (slightly above blabbermouth's homepage's rank of 66,986). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it's a fan-made site. It can't be reliable.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes you say it is fan made? To clarify what I meant, "fan" can mean enthusiast of any hobby, thus music reviewers (for sites like allmusic) can be considered "fans" in one way or another. And how is it any less reliable than blabbermouth.net? As for the issue at hand, I found a better site (MTV UK), but I still think metalunderground is reliable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not relevant what the word "fan" means. Allmusic and Blabbermouth, which also received numerous positive feedbacks from other reliable sources, are sites that are maintained by professional music journalists with editorial oversight. Metalundergound is a bunch of semi-random kids with laptops in their bedrooms. See WP:Reliable sources - there is a lot of information about what "reliability" exactly means.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pioneers of genocide studies

In order to remove material from wikipedia it has been claimed regarding

• R. J. Rummel (2002). "From the Study of War and Revolution to Democide—Power Kills". In Totten, Samuel; Jacobs, Stephen L. (eds.). Pioneers of genocide studies. Transaction Publishers. 153-178 at 168-169. ISBN 0765801515. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)
  

that "Transaction is not an acceptable publisher as it pushes an ideological line with a direct connection to the article's purpose. This work is not acceptable as it is..." . Any comments? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And instead inserted an extremely pov edit with original research. I see no evidence for his claim, and if he wants to make it he'll have to find a good source and get consensus on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Having a POV is not a reason to reject a source- indeed most experts have opinions and research groups get funding by advocating opinions. The hope would be that tenuous but notable opinions have been refuted in other usable sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Both the author and the publisher satisfy Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. The author is an expert in the field, and the publisher is a respectable publishing house that specializes in this kind of material. Jayjg 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup. There's some pretty disruptive editing going on in that article. It might be exhausting to deal with, but hang in there, we're with you. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Transaction Publisher publishes on the basis of putting forward a political line which is directly related to issues in communist studies, and does so to the detriment of quality of works. Citing them in relation to an article on communist studies would be as credible as citing the International Communist League on this matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Termer failed to notify appropriate editors and the article of this RS/N request. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The full quote was, "Transaction is not an acceptable publisher as it pushes an ideological line with a direct connection to the article's purpose. This work is not acceptable as it is, at best, a practice reflection collection, and at worse, a stable of hobby horses. Finally, Termer, three paragraphs in an unrelated article is not an adequate theorisation and does not relate to the object at hand: the expression is not relevant. He's published Monographs which have received appropriate review. Go to your library and read one in its entirity. Also, you have been repeatedly warned about the quality of your citations, and until you can realise that separately authored chapters in edited works should be cited as such, I strongly counsel you against editing the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)"

I also draw RS/N editors to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which governs the acceptability of sources in the article in question. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This source is clearly reliable by WP's standards. All sources have a POV, and if having a POV disqualified a source, we'd have no sources. There may be a question of WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE if there is consensus that its views are those of a tiny minority, but after a casual inspection I would consider that unlikely. Crum375 (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Transaction has, "a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." It "expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on ... personal opinions." and is a Questionable Source. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite a mainstream source which has classified Transaction as having "a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight"? And can you cite a mainstream source which has classified it as "extremist"? Crum375 (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Euan Hague, Edward H. Sebesta "Neo-confederacy and its conservative ancestry." In Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction Euan Hague, Heidi Beirich, Edward H. Sebesta eds., University of Texas Press, 2008: 33-34 at endnt62 (p44); 23 at endnt1 (p40); 25 at endnt12 (p41); particularly in the context of Sebesta's blogged claim regarding his practice as a historian, Transaction Publishers is one of my major sources of Neo-Confederate books. is the best general discussion of Transaction's poor quality I've located. Neo-confederacy's position as FRINGE should be self obvious. Other discussions of quality are work specific. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are using a blog as source to evaluate a publisher? Is that your definition of "mainstream source"? Please review our sourcing policies carefully. Crum375 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I was using a chapter in an edited collection from a University press to evaluate a press, and clarifying the point by reference to a summarising quote from a blog. Please read, "Euan Hague, Edward H. Sebesta "Neo-confederacy and its conservative ancestry." In Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction Euan Hague, Heidi Beirich, Edward H. Sebesta eds., University of Texas Press, 2008: 33-34 at endnt62 (p44); 23 at endnt1 (p40); 25 at endnt12 (p41);" carefully. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please quote from your source what they say about Transaction? Crum375 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Endnote 1. " A sampling of paleoconservative views can be found in Sotchie, Joseph, ed. The Paleoconservatives: New Voices of the Old Right. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1999). Sotchie is a neo-Confederate sympathizer, has been a League of the South member, and is closely associated with paleoconservativism. He has published essays in Southern Partisan that are hostile towards immigrants In a positive Southern Partisan review of Scotchie's The Paleoconservatives 19 (4th Quarter 1999): 37-39), William J. Watkins Jr. explains that the book "is part history and part manifesto"."

   In the opinion of Hague and Sebesta, Transaction publishes FRINGE views, and have demonstrated that holders of these FRINGE views consider Transaction Publisher books to be manifestos, ie: FRINGE opinion.

2. p25 en12 is a passing quote of Scotchie from the same on standard paleoconservatism, as opposed to neo-Confederacy, and is used as a primary withing Hague and Sebesta
3. p33-34 discussing a joint conference between Mises Institute and neo-Confederates on the theme of secession in 1995, "Secession, State and Economy," at Charleston SC is discussed through sources at en62. "This information comes from a pamphlet distributed to Mises Institute supporters. Another pamphlet contained a review of the "seminal and auspicious" secession conference (p. 9). The conference's papers were collected into a book: Gordon, David, ed. Secession, State and Liberty. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998), which contained essays by prominent neo-Confederates Clyde Wilson and Donald Livingston."

   Same basic argument: they publish FRINGE opinion for ideological reasons.

4. Later in the same edited collection Euan Hague and Edward H. Sebesta's "Neo-Confederacy and the Understanding of Race" contains an en88. "Rushton, J. Philippe. "Race, Aids, and Sexual Behaviour," Chronicles, 20.1 (1996): 39-40. Rushton advises readers to examine his book, Race, Evolution and Behavior (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1995). He also states that as a result of his findings, he has been subjected to "ferocious attacks," criticism by Canadian authories and his employer, the University of Western Ontario."

   Sadly I ran out of Google book previous before being able to cite that end note in context; but, I think this substantiates my argument that members of the Academic community view Transaction Publishers as a press associated with and dedicated to the publication of FRINGE views which fail to meet academic standards such as those of the University of Western Ontario and that the community served by Transaction Publishers views the publication of these views as a "manifesto" in attributable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The only way an academic publishing house could be "black listed" by WP as non-RS would be if there were a clear consensus among multiple mainstream sources that it is an "extremist" outlet or has a reputation of publishing inaccurate and erroneous information. I see no quotes above which establish this even from one mainstream source, let alone a consensus. You can't declare a source non-RS because you don't like what it says. You could potentially show that its views represent a minority, or even a tiny minority, per NPOV and UNDUE, but that's not a RS issue and does not belong on this page. Crum375 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Transaction Publishers is not only RS, I would point out with a Keep result. ". The publisher, Transaction Publishers, is likewise an established and reputable academic publishing house." operating internationally with other academic publishers. Cited as RS in about a thousand WP articles. And most editors who have themselves used RS/N keep it on their watchlist. Collect (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Transaction is run by Irving Louis Horowitz, a notable and influential sociologist. From a 1988 New York Times feature on Horowitz and Transaction: "Today, the name Transaction identifies a leading publisher, based on the Rutgers University campus in Piscataway, of social-science books and periodicals." --JN466 22:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I consider Transaction a reputable publishing house, with a tendency towards publishing politically controversial material of various sorts. I do not consider them extreme or incompetent or careless; though they are not one of the very highest quality academic publishers, they are not among the dubious ones. Their material is not primarily Fringe, though some few of their books may well be Fringe; as is true with most publishers, they include a range of views. To blacklist it as a RS , one would have to show that essentially all their titles were disreputable. Their books would have to be judged individually on the merits. \.. This is not my own personal opinion: most librarians feel the same way, as shown by the record of their books in WorldCat--the first few books I checked at random , , have from 500 to 1000 library holdings each in worldCat. Any claim that they as a publisher are not accepted in the academic world is contrary to fact. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept the opinion that Transaction does not have a general taint for Misplaced Pages's purposes on the basis of the above argument. The issue is, in Mass killings under Communist regimes are two paragraphs from, R J Rummel (2002). "From the Study of War and Revolution to Democide—Power Kills". in Totten, Samuel; Jacobs, Stephen L.. Pioneers of genocide studies. Transaction Publishers. 153-178, reliable for either this claim, with a qualification that Rummel's methodology and competence to draw ideological conclusions have been attacked, that Rummel claims, "that all communist killing is a result of the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology in the context of millenial utopianism which placed the Communist Party of the Soviet Union above the law" (this diff would obviously need to lose the opinion on Transaction); or for this claim, without qualification of the attacks on Rummel, that Rummel claims, "the killings done by communist regimes can be explained with the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology - Marxism.. (Please note that the later diff is Termer's words, with a correct citation). The subject of Rummel's chapter is a self-reflection on methodology, its topic isn't the structure of causation in genocide, and the line is an undemonstrated throw-away line. Additionally, the text, "Pioneers of genocide studies." explains its purpose in xiii, xv-xvi in the Introduction, "In order to emphasis the fact that we were interested in a personal versus an academic essay, we informed our contributions that "All authors should approach the questions in a personal way, thus crafting an essay that reveals one's individual voice, passion(s), writing style, scholarly perspectives, and the most relevant details of one's life. In doing so, each author should include personal stories that illuminate his/her thinking, experiences and work. Indeed, each essay should epitomize scholarly autobiographical writing at its best." The concerns are: the source is focused on Rummel's personal practice, not an assessment of genocide in Communist societies (a throw away line), that the work is not checked by its editors (commissioned essays, "should epitomize" not checked, basic subediting problems "emphasis" in the Introduction), and thirdly, that its an autobiography not scholarly research. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Transaction Publishing is used by academics who wish to push a neoconservative point of view without submitting their "reasoning" to academic scrutiny. If you believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was behind the 911 attacks then this is the publisher for you. Otherwise, it is just another publisher of fringe theories. The fact that it is located on Rutger's campus means nothing. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no question Transaction is a RS. There is a question of how mainstream the opinions of the authors are, and whether they are a minority or tiny-fringe minority, per NPOV and UNDUE. These are issues which need to be resolved by a consensus of editors on the article's talk page, not on the generic RSN page. Crum375 (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can Sify be considered reliable for movie reviews, news?

Can Sify be considered reliable for movie reviews, news? Examples

Sify is a reputed company.

This comes down to determining who wrote the review. A review by an employee of Sifi would be reliable. User contributed reviews would not be. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would consider the second one, however I would try to find the review on moviebuzz instead since that is where the cite is. On the other, since it is not noted who did the review, it is not reliable. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

thankyou for your reply, arcangel. But moviebuzz is not an independent organization. It is a part of Sify. I have no idea who that person is. or it may be a group of Sify professionals. What matters is Fact checking by Sify. In case something is not published or checked by Sify, they clearly mention a note saying, "The views expressed in the article are the author's and not of Sify.com." like

members.tripod.com/~blueflower

Hello. I would like a third part opinion about the use of this webpage as a source for the article on Héctor Andrés Negroni.

I'm worried because, for what I can tell, that is just a webpage someone on the family tree of the article's subject made about his family members, in the free web-hosting service members.tripod.com.

I've raised this question (together with other sourcing problems) on the article's talk page, but that apparently went unnoticed.

Thanks, --Damiens.rf 17:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a page on a free webhost that can be used by anyone to create a website. Although it may well be genuine, it cannot really be termed reliable. Anybody could have posted that content and there's no way of checking its provenance. --TS 18:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the source and tagged (along with another, similar one)... asking for a more reliable one. The information is not at all contentious, so there is no rush to verify. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, how is removing a semi-reliable source and leaving the facts completely uncited better? I'd suggest leaving the questioned source in, but with a refimprove tag. You can also check who links to that site and see if anyplace vouches for its authenticity; if it came from the family, it may be a reliable primary source. Another alternative may be to lessen the article's reliance on it, and just make it an external link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I left the material in the article per WP:PRESERVE... I, personally, do not know enough about the topic to challenge the accuracy of the informatin being presented, so it would be inappropriate for me to remove it. The fact that the sources were unreliable allowed me to remove them, but as far as I know there may be other, reliable sources for the information. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be treated the same way as any WP:SPS. Jayjg 06:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that this isn't in any way reliable. We've no idea about its provenance, nor that it was self-published. --TS 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a source that can be included, because this falls under WP:BLP. We do know that it is self published, as Tripod invites folks to "create your own website for free" on its home page. For BLP issues, it is better to remove unsourced information rather than include poorly sourced information.--otherlleft 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that there is reason to remove the material, then do so... just because I felt it was inappropriate for me to do so, does not mean you can't. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Brain & Mind "magazine"

I'd like comment on the "online magazine" Brain & Mind http://www.cerebromente.org.br/. The articles carry little or no sourcing, and where sources are listed they are in bibliography form and it's impossible to tell what statements come from which sources. Some articles are simply copied from elsewhere (e.g. ). There is no evidence of peer-review or other quality controls.

Several Misplaced Pages articles are largely copy-pasted from Brain & Mind (e.g. compare EEG_topography and ). This was apparently done by the author of the articles, Renato Sabbatini, who was an "editor" of Brain & Mind and wrote most of its material. The "editor-in-chief" of Brain & Mind turns out to be Sabbatini's wife, Silvia Helena Cardoso (). It was "a publication of e*pub" (see bottom of http://www.cerebromente.org.br/) and in his self-written Wikipeida bio () Sabbatini says he "created and acted as technical director to the first Brazilian project of scientific electronic publishing, the e*pub Group." Elsewhere in his bio Sabbatini describes Brain & Mind as a "website."

Sixteen "issues" (online only) were posted between 1997 and 2002 and though the lights are still on at http://www.cerebromente.org.br/ nothing has been added since. Although the "magazine" has been completely defunct for eight years, Sabbatini continues to describe himself in his bio as "associate editor of the section on the history of neuroscience in the Brain & Mind magazine...," and this is consistent with his longstanding habit of using Misplaced Pages to inflate his image as a scientific "pioneer" ( ) and to promote his commercial ventures (e.g. ). I believe everything on the Brain & Mind website should be considered self-published and unreliable. Any comment?

(In the past Sabbatini has tred to use his credentials to strongarm other editors into accepting his violation of guidelines and policies, which is why I'm asking for comment from others before going to work on the existing material based on Brain & Mind.)

Upsala (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick initial point: EEG topography includes "reproduced with permission". I believe something official needs to be on the talk page to verify a claim like that. I do not know the details, but see WP:DCM. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment it is pure copyvio, we will need something formal, nothing on the talk page will do. You've linked to the appropriate guidance needed to get permission. Meanwhile I'll see if the whole article needs blanking or if we can just remove anything copied or closely paraphrased. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put a copyvio speedy tag on it although I could have deleted it myself, and a note on Sabbatini's web page. He seems to have a problem with copyvio images. If you want to start a new article I'd suggest a subpage in your user space. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys are focusing on the copyvio problem, and yes it's serious. But I'm more worried that, if articles are deleted for that, Sabbatini will recreate them by just paraphrasing his Brain & Mind material to avoid the copyvio problem. That's what I want to prevent, because I believe Brain & Mind is not reliable, and that's why I'd like you to look at the Brain & Mind reliability question specifically. Upsala (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are of course correct. There's a journal by that name but the references I found to that are obviously not to the website, but a possible cause of confusion. I would say no, although individual cases might be made for individual articles if they are written by people who are reliable sources, ie published in peer reviewed journals, etc. Reliability is not the default, and I can't find the evidence to call it a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ulrich's does not list the publication. It is not academic, nor peer reviewed in a meaningful sense because of editorial board SELF. Not an RS: avoidance of available academic publication channels; SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for lists

I created the List of unofficial observances by date, and it was then tagged as needing sources. At the moment, all the list members are linked to the actual articles, where the sources of the dates for the observances are available. I'm of the opinion that it's really only necessary to put citations for list items that aren't cited elsewhere, but Ironholds disagrees. I'd appreciate opinions and policy commentary at Talk:List of unofficial observances by date. --Slashme (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Or here, as per the normal working of a noticeboard. Essentially, I believe each list should have standalone references, per WP:LIST, which says list info must be verifiable - Slashme interprets this as saying it must be verifiable somewhere on the wiki, which I don't agree with, but we'll see. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Verification for list articles remains an unresolved issue. I would argue that the contentiousness of the list's topic is the most important factor in determining whether a list needs citations or not. If inclusion in the list could be controversial, then a citation (or even multiple citations) should be given to show that the item should be included (even if some other article already has such citations). If inclusion in the list is not controvercial, then (as long as there is proper citation at a linked main article) I don't think we need to clutter up the list article with citations. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The list is "unofficial observances" - things like talk like a pirate day, for example. Would you consider inclusion contentious or not? Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two types of information in that list: the date of the observance, which is cited in the main article, and therefore not particularly contentious, and inclusion as an unofficial observance, which is also not a particularly contentious issue - if it's notable enough to have its own article, and that article is categorized as an unofficial observance, the categorization is a good enough reason to have it in the list.--Slashme (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I could see the arguement that this list would be better handled as a wikipedia category (Cat:Unoffical observances), and I could definitely see questioning the notability of at least some of these "unofficial observances" (but that would be argued individually). But, as for citation, if you accept my "is it contentious" concept, I would say that since this is not a contentious topic, there would be no need to include citations in the list... as long as the dates are cited at the individual main articles. Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That category exists, but it doesn't contain the dates, so I created the list so that you could see when the next interesting holiday was coming up. --Slashme (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

nhluniforms.com

I believe this website to be reliable, since the uniforms are common knowledge. Would this site be enough for a reference or should I back it up with another? I am doing this for a FA nomination of the old Ottawa Senators (original). Alaney2k (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, nhlunforms.com is not a particularly reliable site. Among other things it gets its "Season facts" from Misplaced Pages. --Bejnar (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies

Would this article published in this journal by this man Volkmar Weiss be considered a reliable source for this article Programme for International Student Assessment?

As an addendum, alerted by an edit war, I am now concerned that this article has been the target of POV editing related to the whole race-intelligence issue. If any editors felt like helping disentangle the issue I would be grateful.--Slp1 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The item being supported is that the PISA is an IQ test. The source reads, "In 2002, after the publication of “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002) and the preliminary reports of PISA 2000, Weiss became aware that PISA tests can be understood as IQ tests (Weiss, 2002) and that the transformation of PISA scores into IQ results in very similar numbers (Weiss, 2005, 2006)." (74). The journal (The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies) is listed as refereed by Ulrich's. The source is therefore reliable as used. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your quote only increases my concerns, unfortunately (!); it seems to me that this whole area (including the journal) is a walled garden of very controversial, highly disputed publications about race and intelligence. See our article about the “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” book cited by Weiss above. But you are right that as currently used the citation only cites that some people think that PISA scores may be measuring IQ, for which Weiss may be adequate. There was some suggestion on the talkpage that the two sources covered more of the material in that paragraph. I'm still quite uncomfortable as a source for unattributed facts given the reputation of the author and the publication. I'd be glad to hear the opinions of others. --Slp1 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Its hard to find people willing to attack the foundations of walled gardens, in part, because much academic practice is walled gardens containing wonders cultivated faithfully, where the walls are formed by accidental mutual interest. Better to determine if the other sources support the point more adequately or more specifically on topic, and indicate. Or phrase the opinion, "Foo and Bar of the controversial and much attacked Baz school believe..." Or if you've got attacks on the faithfulness of the Journal or its community of practice, to note these and remove it as FRINGE if the attacks are sufficiently substantive or go to methodological honesty. Reliability does not protect us from unpalatability, unfortunately. Check to see if there aren't any other standards of reliability for sources covering the point? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to decide right now whether or not it counts as an academic source. What I see is a problem with pulling out one sentence that seems to support "PISA is an IQ test". If you read the whole article, you can see that the author knows that PISA is a test of school achievement. He is saying that: even though it is not an IQ test the results are similar to those that are obtained from IQ tests, so for practical purposes it can be treated as an IQ test. If he were an econometrician, he might call it a "proxy" for IQ. He is not trying to present what PISA is, so OECD should remain our source for that. There is a large body of academic literature that draws on PISA data, published in journals of comparative education and journals of economics of education. It would be useful if the article made reference to that literature. This article is on the margins of that academic literature and editors will have to decide whether under WP:WEIGHT it needs to be mentioned at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

David Littman_(historian)

Can I report content regarding David Littman_(historian) from this citation ? Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is an AfD nomination for the article in question here: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/David_Littman_(historian).

My view is that this is an RS for purely factual claims about Littman. However, because it comes from the website of an organisation of which he is an active member, it is not sufficient on its own to demonstrate his notability.

I also think it would be advisable to find collateral sources if possible, because there is a clear NPOV issue otherwise. --FormerIP (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean that in your view it is a RS for purely factual claims about Littman? Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Not for anything that might be a matter of opinion or which is contradicted by another source, although as far as I can see this is not an issue at present. --FormerIP (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing there is contradicted by another source, more or less its the only source for all the content. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I am involved, other opinions would be welcome, though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No. WUPJ Newsletter Issue #372 – 10 December 2009 / 23 Kislev 5770 is not a reliable source for an award received by its spokesperson, "David G. Littman, the World Union’s spokesman to UN bodies in Geneva" due to SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Similarly, the other contents of the document are SELF (and read in the mode of self-aggrandisement). If its sufficiently significant, then it'll be written up in an RS eventually. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Although it might not make much of a difference to the principle, the main claim here is that he was involved in something called Operation Mural (see the source for details), rather than that he won an award.

Does anyone else have an opinion? It would be really good to get a clear, no quibbling answer on this. --FormerIP (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me, none of the content there is reliable source for information about littman. Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that Fifelfoo was being unclear, just that if a few more editors comment then we would be able to either confidently make the amendments or confidently know that there is no way we can do that. Also it is likelt to be relevant in the AfD, so even if the amendments can't be made, at least it can be reported that this has not been determined an RS without people then saying "but only one person commented". --FormerIP (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To Fifelfoo - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources says self-published sources can be used in articles about the subject - which this is. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but notability may depend on the existence of multiple independent sources, and this seems now to be an AfD question. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the AfD, but it is (unexpectedly IMO) attracting some keep votes. So one way of putting this is: can this material be included assuming the article stays. --FormerIP (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the reliable source notice board, not Afd. A question was asked about reliability , and Fifelfoo inocorrectly answered it saying self published sources are not reliable. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as the reliablility issue goes... A self-published source might be reliable... or not... depending on what the source is, and and how you are using it. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll restate. A promotional newsletter from an organisation clearly self-aggrandising is a clear instance of why SELF published materials are untrustworthy, particularly for extraordinary claims involving security apparatus of states. This is not a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far.

"Might" may well be right in this case, Blueboar, but the most useful conclusion to an RSN would be anything but that. Perhaps that is all you feel able to say, but here is some more info...

The source is indeed content from a the newsletter of an organisation in which Littman is a very active member. Specifically, can this source be used to state that David Littman was a key figure in Operation Mural and to give an outline of what that Operation involved? I am less concerned to include the fact that Littman was given an award by Mossad, although other users may wish to do this.

PS Fifelfoo, I completely follow your logic, but would add that the claim does not seem to me to be extraordinary. I think it is probably true, even if it is not in fact verifiable. --FormerIP (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its true as well. Just not verifiable from this source due to source reliability. An appropriate academic could use this source to make the claim, and then it would be reliable: that's their job as Original Researchers. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Who's Who a reliable source?

Another editor has raised a question about Who's Who (UK), the British list of biographies. She queries whether it's a reliable source as its content is generated by the individuals it lists; as our article on Who's Who says,

Occasional problems arise with the publication's reliability as a reference source because the entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects. Some checks are made by the editors but subjects may omit anything they wish and such errors of omission can be difficult to identify. Examples that have been spotted include: the playwright John Osborne did not acknowledge an estranged daughter in his entry, Carole Jordan does not mention any marriage in her article, although her ex-husband, Richard Peckover, does in his. Paxman has also calculated that only 8% of new entrants in 2008 make any reference to marital breakdown, which is far below the national average.

Who's Who therefore effectively appears to be a compilation of mini-autobiographies. How should we approach it - as a de facto self-published source subject to the usual constraints therein? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. WP:SPS applies. It is not a reliable source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as WP:RS requires. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Marquis Who's Who has usually been considered as more or less an SPS. Not enough to prove notability in an AfD, for instance. Usually reliable on the usually minimal facts needed, but not good for extraordinary or unduly self-serving claims. Who's Who (UK) looks better, more careful and selective; something in between SPS and RS. The errors pointed out above are ones of omission, not outright lies. The article at issue seems to be Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.John Z (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that assessment by John Z. SPS-ish. --JN466 22:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Goldhagen

The following sentence keeps on being deleted (5 times in 1 day last week , once just now), based on the claim that Daniel Goldhagen - a fomer Harvard Associate Professor with an international bestseller in the area and a PBS series forthcoming - is not a reliable source. I've asked the deleters to come here and explainwhy they don't think he is reliable, but they won't do it.

Daniel Goldhagen states that, as a result of their communist ideology and their knowledge of Soviet experience, Chinese Communist leaders, as early as 1948, planned for the destruction of 80 million people, including peasants and landlords. This destruction included mass executions, mass incarceration, mass population movements, and other eliminationist policies.

• Goldhagen, Daniel (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. PublicAffairs. p. 608. ISBN 1586487698, 9781586487690. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) p.344.

P. 344 is not that long. Would somebody look at Goldhagen's credentials, and verify that my summary is accurate? Smallbones (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC

I don't know the definitive answer to the question, but would note that the word "controversial" appears in the second sentence of Goldhagen's WP entry. --FormerIP (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The publisher's reliability is moderate. Their about page indicates that aggressive commercial marketing is their primary business, their back catalogue indicates that they are not an academic publisher. Similarly, they're an independent affiliate of a publisher's network that works on a marketing basis only. Not the best, nor the worst, within WP:MILMOS#SOURCES schema. Certainly a work from another publisher would be preferable. Regarding Goldhagen's reliability, Goldhagen is a historian known for his speciality in assignment of guilt in relation to the European holocaust. His assignment was controversial, but the level of criticism was within the standards of acceptable academic conduct. The book is too new to have yet been reviewed academically. One commercial review discovered at Washington Post is not generous, "His ambitious new book, "Worse Than War," springs from an immersion in their sufferings and the heartfelt desire to end it. But even victims -- or, perhaps, especially victims -- deserve books that are clearly argued and clearly written. "Worse Than War" is not that book." (First unnumbered web page.) And goes Goldhagen for academic failures, "But by conflating so many incidents, movements and events -- all of which are (or were) very bad, yet all of which are very different -- he makes the eliminationist concept virtually meaningless. He's like a doctor who thinks it doesn't much matter whether you have cancer or AIDS." (Second unnumbered web page.). However, I'd counsel waiting on academic reviews, strongly counsel this. Goldhagen's specialty is not Chinese history, so he's probably using other sources for those claims of intention and number. 1) Use with caution, if at all. 2) Return to WP:RS/N in six months when the academic reviews have been published for a proper opinion on the reliability of this text. 3) Immediately: seek Goldhagen's footnotes for the claims of intentionality and volume; if non primary, use these instead as they're probably more reliable than Goldhagen. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I consider reinstating the unsourced figure of 80 million as a blatant disruption by Smallbones. I raised this issue here and Smallbones has simply ignored it while continuing to edit-war instead. (Igny (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

PS I can't see the material on Google books. Would it be possible to type out the relevant extract?--FormerIP (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1948, Mao in "agrarian reform" study materials conveyed to the party membership that his schemes for restructuring overpopulated China required that "one-tenth of the peasants would have to be destroyed" One tenth of half a billion is fifty million. In 1948 Jen Pi-Shih of the Communist party's Central Committee declared in a speech to the party cadres that "30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed" The communist leadership's intention already well formulated (and communicated to their ideologically like-minded followers), they began, upon taking power, to implement their elimionist policies in programs of population movement, mass executions, and mass incarcerations of landlords, rich pesants, and other class enemies in the vast camp system they created. The communists exterminated Chinese on the order of magnitude that Mao and Jen had foretold well before they had begun.

Thanks. That doesn't seem to support "...as a result of their communist ideology and their knowledge of Soviet experience..." in any way, and Smallbones also seems to have resolved a conflict between two figures by adding them together, which is creative but not a good use of the source, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The 3 sentence immediately before "In 1948" "For Mao and the Chinese communist leaders, the ideal of a transformed and purified communist society derived from Marxism. The knowledge that they must use violence to achieve it derived from the experience of their mentors, the Soviets. Therefore, the intention to practice thoroughgoing eliminationist politics took shape much earlier than it had with the Soviets, crystallizing in mass-murderous thinking as the communists’ victory over the nationalists and the assumption of power neared." As far as adding Goldhagen's fifty million and 30 million together, yes I can add, and WP:SYNTH specifically allows such simple addition.

Fifelfoo's "WP:MILMOS#SOURCES schema" is irrelevant here. A sub topic of the manual of style on Military History simply doesn't over-ride WP:RS on a genocide article. Fifelfoo has earlier stated that Goldhagen was a very good scholar. Whether somebody calls him controversial or Fiflefoo counsels waiting until all the reviews are in is also irrelevant. Is a Harvard scholar with an international best seller in the area and a forthcoming PBS series based on the book cited, a reliable source or not? By the standards stated in WP:RS, I'd say there is no question that he is. Smallbones (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also see . Smallbones (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're putting it in those stark terms, then no, this book isn't an RS. His publisher is crap and the reviews available to date indicate that this work fails to meet expected academic standards. Reliability primarily inheres in the publisher, not the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Which is why I'm counselling to wait on academic reviews, which will take about six months from now. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is most likely a misreading to add the 50 million and the 30 million together. The dates for the two speechs study materials and the speech are not given. So, either the number shrank from 50 million to 30 million with the target becoming more focussed from peasants in general to landlords and rich peasants in particular, or vice versa.

As for using Goldhagen or not, we have to remember that we are not writing PhD dissertations here. Thus, it is not up to us to determine the source material used by the authors and then vet the authenticity of same. Rather, we are supposed to be writing undergraduate level papers wherein we present articles that survey the literature on a given topic. Thus, whether to use Goldhagen or not depends on how one intends to present his material. Does his analysis fly in the face of accepted scholarship? Then it should be presented as such, presented as an alternative, not-widely-subscribed-to view, and fully cited accordingly. While I truly respect Fifelfoo’s caution, I am not altogether certain that one need wait for reviewers to vet the book prior to our being able to use it. It’s out there. And it presents an (alternative?) viewpoint that ought to be presented to wikireaders to maintain the article’s neutral point of view by surveying the spectrum of scholarship in the subject area. Finally, Goldhagen is notable enough that he qualifies for a wikiarticle, so why would a book by him, a book that is not self-published, not be notable enough to be cited so long as it is cited with due caution? — SpikeToronto 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is obvious that Goldhagen is a reliable source. He is also fairly mainstream - even if controversial in his own way. Mainstream: Chinese Communists killed 30-50 million. Goldhagen: because of their Communist beliefs, Chinese Communists planned to "destroy" 80 million. Note that the 30 million and 50 million are not alternative numbers, they are separate numbers that can be added together. Mao - "destroy" 50 million peasants - one class of people according to Communist theory. Jen Pi-Shih - "destroy" 30 million "landlords" and "rich peasants" (i.e. Kulaks) (two other classes in Communist theory). "Destroy" includes mass executions, mass internments, and mass population movements Smallbones (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, had he been published by an academic publisher, or a commercial publisher with a statement of purpose that was less marketing oriented, I wouldn't be worried. But the combination of an extremely hostile review going to the credibility of the research methodology (claiming it isn't credible research) combined with the publisher issues has me worried. The article in question has a number of issues with academics who publish credible work in academic spaces and FRINGE work in unreliable publishers, or SELF spaces. Checking reviews in academic journals for arbitration would be my normal next step, but the work is sufficiently new to be within the publication cycle of humanities / social science journals in the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking at reviews, you might as well look at the New York Times review "In this magisterial and profoundly disturbing “natural history” of mass murder, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen calls for an end to such willful blindness. As he did in his celebrated and controversial “Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” Goldhagen insists that even the worst atrocities originate with, and are then propelled by, a series of quite conscious calculations by followers as much as by leaders. " Smallbones (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones, I attempted to access that review but got channelled into blog territory. I'd still prefer waiting for full academic reviews before stabilising my opinion, but getting a magisterial out of NYT is sufficient to swing the presumption back in favour of Reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Source is RS by WP standards, and as long as the numbers are cited to the author, it is properly in the article. repeatedly cited by the NYT as an American scholar, so the author is notable as well. It is moreover, not up to us to decide which figures we like or do not like - as long as the numbers are sourced, we have to deal with it. Collect (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The "80 million" are nowhere present in Goldhagen and fall foul of WP:SYN. Goldhagen himself cites Rummel, p. 223, which is visible in google books. Rummel quotes Mao's instruction mentioning the 10% (or 50m), and then adds that "Jen Pi-shih, a party Central Committee member, had also said in a 1948 speech to cadres that '30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed'" (emphasis mine). The placement of the word "also" reinforces my impression that neither Goldhagen nor his source, Rummel, meant for these two figures of 50m and 30m to be added to each other.
• Rummel is much the better source to use here. Goldhagen moves from Hitler to Mao to Serbia in the space of two paragraphs. It is a high-level survey, whereas Rummel's book is actually dedicated to the topic of China. Rummel puts the figure of those killed as a result of these policies at an estimated 4.5 (not 80) million. --JN466 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As for Goldhagen discussing all of this in summary while Rummel deals with the material in detail, I do not think that that is relevant. We are not doing investigative journalism here. Nor are we writing graduate theses and dissertations. We are charged with writing undergraduate level articles that survey the literature. We are only to vet the sources for verifiabilty and reliableness.

I think that both Rummel and Goldhagen can be used so long as they are presented as differing views. My understanding of WP:NPOV is that the article must, on balance, be neutral. To leave out one author’s differing calculations is to choose one view over another, which is not our job as neutral wikieditors. However, it is one thing for the Party to have made estimates of between 30 and 50 million, it is quite another if the subsequent reality is an entirely different figure. I would suggest that Goldhagen’s quote be used to illustrate the Party’s pre-genocide estimates, while Rummel’s numbers be used as a measure of the ensuing genocide. However, I think that one can find many sources that would disagree with Rummel, that his number is too low. I seem to recall reading back in the dark ages when I was at university that the number in reality was much nearer Mao and the Party’s estimate than Rummel’s calculation.

Finally, I still maintain, and agree with Jayen, that the 30 million and 50 million figures are not intended to be added together, regardless of whether WP:SYN would permit it or not. To do so is to misread, to misunderstand, the source. — SpikeToronto 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is no point of fact on which Goldhagen and Rummel differ. Goldhagen simply repeats material from Rummel, citing him. --JN466 20:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that Goldhagen's book has the searchable preview in amazon enabled: --JN466 20:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that Rummel's estimate of 4.5m is for land-reform-related killings only. Rummel himself says that estimates vary widely and gives examples. --JN466 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, both can be cited, Goldhagen for 50 million planned "destructions" and Rummel for 4.5 million actual killings during the land reform program. The "basic addition" exception to WP:SYNTH only applies when it is obvious to everybody that the numbers can be added together. While I think that it should be obvious that Communists would never conflate "peasants" and "landlords" in the same category, I'll bow out on this one (as I made clear on the talk page), so 50 million is the number Mao PLANNED to destroy according to Goldhagen. Does anybody have problems with this? Smallbones (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this section was titled using the name of a writer rather than a reference to the source cited. Goldhagen's academic writings are reliable sources. His popular books are not. The same with all other writers. Smallbones, do you understand what this difference is and why it is important? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting claim - but not one founded in WP policy nor guidelines, nor in any articles on WP. Books which one does not like are automatically not RS just "because"? Nope. Books by academic presses by recognized scholars are RS for WP. Collect (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Partially seconding Collect here (The press isn't academic). Yes he's gone through a high intensity marketing popular press. No, this doesn't mean he's avoiding appropriate review (though in this case its commercial rather than academic review). Popular press reviews located so far are split (NYT: magisterial, Washington Post: not clearly written and argued). This would be different had he gone to a less reputable press, or a small press, or a press where this would be their money spinner for the year on the basis of it having his name on it: all methods of avoiding review. However, its rather obvious Goldhagen's book will be peer reviewed in journals, Real Soon Now. Given that the press isn't shocking, the reviews are split, and he's deliberately bringing his views into a public domain commercially, presumption favours reliability. Avoidance behaviour which would mean he's avoiding academic publication review would be a website, vanity press, micro press who doesn't normally publish in that area, a popular magazine or newspaper etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Famous Why

Is this source reliable for the biographical info on Ace Amerson? The prose does not look professionally written (referring to a season on a reality TV show as a "TV serial"; referring to him as a "famous actor" when he's a reality TV personality whose fame is relegated to MTV viewers; referring to his alma mater as "the Georgia Southern University."; etc.), but I wanted to be sure. Nightscream (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

At the top of that page, there's a link titled "edit biography." Any remaining questions? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg

These books :

• The World's History: South-eastern and eastern Europe, By Hans Ferdinand Helmolt ()
• Chambers's encyclopaedia: a dictionary of universal knowledge, Volume 7 ()
• The Ottoman dynasty: a history of the sultans of Turkey from the earliest authentic record to the present time, with notes on the manners and customs of the people, by Alexander W. Hidden ()
• The International cyclopedia: a compendium of human knowledge, rev. with large additions, Volume 13, by Charles Francis Richardson, Selim Hobart Peabody ()
• The Book of History: Eastern Europe to the French revolution, by Viscount James Bryce Bryce, Holland Thompson, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie ()
• The Standard American encyclopedia of arts, sciences, history, biography, geography, statistics, and general knowledge, by John Clark Ridpath ()
• ...

And these authors:

• Alexander W. Hidden
• Hans Ferdinand Helmolt (Already used as source in Misplaced Pages)
• Charles Francis Richardson (Already used as source in Misplaced Pages)
• Selim Hobart Peabody (Already used as source in Misplaced Pages)
• Robert Elsie (Already used as source in Misplaced Pages)
• Harry Thurston Pech
• Viscount James Bryce Bryce (Already used as source in Misplaced Pages)
• Holland Thompson
• Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie (Already used as source in Misplaced Pages)
• ...

Tell us that Voisava was Serbian princess. Information in Skanderbeg article was deleted, as sources are old.

Did some of those may not be RS, or can be used? --Tadija (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Authors aren't sources. Please supply a citation including work title, year of publication, place of publication, and publisher. If a reprint or translation, please supply the original work's information. If commonly reprinted, please supply the first impression's information.

Not reliable, non expert tertiary:

Chambers's encyclopaedia

The International cyclopedia

The Standard American encyclopedia

Heinemann's World history is 1907, appears to be a chronicle or cyclopedia by another name, and isn't specific. Not really RS.

Hidden's Ottoman dynasty is a rev ed from 1912. It is specifically focused on the aristocracy of the area. A reliable source. But terribly old. Consult modern scholarship as Hidden is not representative of current scholarly consensus. Privilege modern scholarship over Hidden if available. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

poker-babes.com

Is it a reliable source? See . It's used as a source for a number of articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised it had been raised as a spam issue at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Poker-Babes.com Spam but they are assuming it's being used as an EL, but the only articles I've looked at use it as a source. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be because I just removed it from about 100 articles as an external link across the various languages of Misplaced Pages. I was given administrator approval to remove it as an external link in all instances, and I believe I have done so. Now on to whether or not it is a reliable source. I say no. I could be argued that for Shirley Rosario and Steve Badger it is a reliable source, since it is listed as her official site and he is listed as the owner of the domain via a WHOIS search, so they probably co-own the site. Beyond that, I do not find it to be reliable, especially when compared to BluffMagazine, CardPlayer, PokerListings and others who have full time reporters covering the poker world - and Poker-Babes.com is the first hand account of a former Bicycle Casino employee. I request permission to remove this site as a source Misplaced Pages-wide. DegenFarang (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang has engaged in extreme wikihounding regarding me including making up blatant lies. The Poker Babes links have been added by numerous users, with tens of thousands edits between them, including those who added a single one like Absolon and Awinkler, along with a bunch added when when first creating articles like Sirex98 and more often by the two editors most responsible for building out the poker section of the Misplaced Pages Essexmutant and again and again and again and , as well as CryptoDerk and again and again and again and again and again for starters. These editors alone have over 40,000 edits between them, and needless to say all these editors are not me. In addition to The New York Times and Times of London the owner and writer of most of the content of the site has been quoted as knowledgable source by the Associated Press and Cardplayer Magazine. Additionally she has won major poker tournaments, been interviewed by poker websites like Pokernews.com and appeared in the Poker for Dummies DVD with Chris Moneymaker and Barry Shulman. The owner of the site author of most of the articles, and it is plainly obvious she meets the criteria as an expert source on poker gameplay and the poker industry. She is referenced as an expert by general authoritative reliable sources like The New York Times, Times of London, the Associated Press, and also by the top poker industry reliable sources, Cardplayer magazine and Pokernews.com. 2005 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

She may be an expert source for some of the specific games articles, however she is not an expert source on so many different poker players. I have repeatedly stated that you are not the only editor to have included poker-babes.com links - I have simply stated that you are responsible for at least 90% of the total number of links. That other people included a link here and there is well established and we agree on that fact. The source is still not relevant in the majority of places it is used. DegenFarang (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors have added it as a reliable source. I have added refs to dozens of websites, more to thehendonmob.com and pokernews.com and others than poker-babes! In the first dozen links listed Annied Duke was added in by administrator CryptoDerk in 2004 the day he made the article, Barry Greenstein was added by CryptoDerk, Chip Reese was added by administrator Cantthinkofagoodname in 2006, was added by CryptoDerk again at initial page creation in 2004, Gus Hansen added by CryptoDerk again at article creation. Etc Etc Etc. Sure I have added some, but so have many other editors with tens of thousands of good faith edits between them. 2005 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me to be a reliable source. According to the site map pages it contains articles on poker strategy, player profiles, book reviews and a list of contributing writers.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Theplayr.com

user:DegenFarang has been Wikihounding me as noted here. And has opened numerous absurd attacks on me largely due to an orininal conflict over his repeatedly adding nonsense to the to the Amarillo Slim article. As you can see he repeatedly added a link to theplayr.com, insisting a bio movie would be made in 2009. Of course no such movie was made, and there were no plans for it. The movie had been in development for six years but nothing was made. Still, User:DegenFarang repeatedly claimed this theplayr.com knew what it was talking about. Obviously it was unreliable. User:DegenFarang is the only editor to add links to this unreliable website, and it represents most of his minimal content editing. Theplayr.com is an unknown, unreliable, anonymous website that got all of NINE unique visitors in December 2009. The website additionally is horribly mainteained as even most of the links added by DegenFarang are 404 pages. I would remove these myself as obvious junk, but given how he is stalking me I wanted to bring it up here. In contrast to his complaint above about an expert, authority website added by many editors, theplayr.com is a nearly abandoned blog-like site with anonymous, unreliable content, including some attack content Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Constant_Rijkenberg that has only been added by one user whose edits are largely only to add this site. 2005 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not reliable as a source of news. I have reviewed some of the articles published as news by the website. Some material it sources from other websites. Its self-published material is not reliable as plainly it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't see how this article could possible be cited as a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Goldhagen, Worse than War, p. 344

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution