Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Geographic.org

We have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles solely based on geographic.org [1], an ad-filled database of geographic names, supposedly coming from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. While this is a government institution, the database in itself is highly unreliable (for at least the US, Belgium and Aghanistan, I haven't checked their entries for every country). I have listed some examples at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dara-I-Pech.

The question is whether I am correct to believe that given the number of obvious errors, we shouldn't consider geographic.org as a reliable source. Fram (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To add another example: Khvoshi. I can't find a single reliable source for this location which isn't based on the same database. I can find sources for Khoshi, also known as Khushi, which seems to be an administrative center of Khoshi District, and which is located in Bala Deh. I presume Khvoshi is an error, and this is supposed to be Khoshi/Khushi. 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a more directed question—with a more actionable answer—would be, "is geographic.org sufficiently reliable to be the sole source for the existence and location of populated places?" If I'm not mistaken, the issue arises with respect to stub articles about populated places, where no other references are cited at all (not merely no other place data is cited, but no other reference is cited even with respect to the existence or type of the place).

It would be helpful for editors wishing to formulate opinions to have a brief summary of evidence for the ways in which the source suspect, or reasons to believe the source is reliable. ^Bongo_matic 13:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Allright. The reason I think the source is suspect is because, when checking some entries, I couldn't verify them. This could be explained away for e.g. Afghanistan with a lack of online sources, and transcription problems. However, when I did the same for the US, I noted that it clearly contains glaring errors, like the populated place "A Sherton", which is an error for Asherton, Texas[2]. Or Mayes Addition Colonia, a populated place in Rancho Alegre, Texas next to Hawks Addition Colonia. These may be historical place names, but they can't be very old, considering that we have Airport Addition Colonia as well, and many other similar neames. The sad thing is that the only "Additional Colonia" I cound find reliable sources for, was Sparks Additional Colonia, which is not included in geographic.org. Fram (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick interjection. Based on the edit summaries here, terms are being confused... "primary" does not = "unreliable". Some primary sources can be extremely reliable, and some secondary sources can be completely unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No one discussed this distinction, as far as I am aware, and I don't think it is relevant here. Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fram states: the database in itself is highly unreliable yet other than antedotal onesy-twosy examples, there is no criteria or statistical evidence that supports that. Geographic.org claims 8 million + geographic names. What % of those must be in error for it to be highly unreliable? And indeed, what % of the total data is in error? And how are those errors being validated, against what other Reliable source. I can say for sure that GNIS and UKGeonames contain some % of errors. Whether or not we should be sourcing articles from Geographic.org is a good question, but lets establish some realistic and verifiable criteria for highly unreliable before we jump too far. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

there are, even in very well mapped countries, many geographic names which may or may not represent a distinct place, as compared to an isolated house (frequent on UK Ordnance Survey Maps) or an indistinct district, as I've encountered many times in the US. There are additionally many example all over the world of settlements, some of even with populations of hundreds of thousands, which have exactly the same name, and are located in different provinces or districts, or US states. As an additional difficulty, there are many instances where the same name is used for a settlement, and also the district containing it--New York and New Jersey have particularly confusing systems, so I assume that parts of the world I know less well, such as Afghanistan and Nepal, may be similarly complex. The solution is to give what information there is, and attribute it to what sources there are. No source is completely reliable for all purposes. Typographical and transcription errors occur in all. A reasonable degree of accuracy is all that can be expected in the world. The principle at Wikipedia is that our multiple contributors will fill in the gaps and resolved the difficulties. If we wait until they are resolved, we will have very little content in most subjects. I would not necessarily reject in most subjects a source with even 10% errors, if it was the best available. In my own subject, the very best sources have between 1 and 5% errors. The ones that are compilations from many sources (such as WorldCat) have relatively higher rates of inconsistency, but they also have multiple components to cross-check. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I don't think anyone here has made arguments on either side that touch on primary/secondary/tertiary issues.

Mike Cline / Fram, I agree with Mike that there is no evidence that the database is "highly unreliable"—rather, there are some entries that have been shown to be highly suspect.

DGG, what threshold of error is acceptable for topics where it is possible that no other sources will exist to verify the information? Is this the same threshold as for topics that are likely to be easy to find multiple sources on? Does it matter that here, it is is quite difficult to attribute lack of other sources to (variously) incorrect versus obscure information? ^Bongo_matic 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

While "highly unreliable" may be too strong, the percentage of problems I have found by spotchecking is too high to be acceptable to me. Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question: if I would use geographic.org to create articles on all populated places in the US listed in that database that don't yet have an article, would you consider that acceptable? If not, why not? Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fram, absolutely acceptable (although doing so would be pointy if the sole purpose was to expose errors in the source). Given the existence of multiple reliable sources related to geographic names, geo-locations, elevations, et. al., any error that geographic.org data might contain would be easily rectified by data from another source. Especially considering the online mapping we have today, geo-locations are extraordinarily easy to validate. Geographic.org may not be a perfect (error-free) source for geographic data, but neither is GNIS or PCGN (UK). That said, a great many NY Times articles contain factual and other errors when viewed in the light of history and new evidence, but does that make it an unreliable source? No. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The comparison with the NYT is not instructive. NYT is a publication with robust, if imperfect, editorial oversight. geographic.org cannot be said to be subject to editorial oversight at all, so (now I will raise the issue touched on by Blueboar) it's not clear that it even falls within the bounds of a secondary source. ^Bongo_matic 22:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A small random sample

I just did a random sample of various places in different countries where I've spent some time (sorry if that looks like OR; but personal experience is an extra datapoint to add to what atlases say &c).

1. Mkuze: First search result on Geographic.org places it over 1000km away (and in a different country) from the correct location which is attested by multiple atlases &c. Careful reading through search results with the help of a different - reliable - source will get the "real" mkuze but with a variant spelling and a mere 100km from the correct location.
2. Woluwe-Saint-Lambert: This is a district of Brussels. You'd expect a national intelligence agency to have a rudimentary understanding of the city where NATO is based. Geographic.org gives a coordinate in a different district of Brussels.
3. Lytham St Annes: Geographic doesn't know it exists, although it does have reasonable coordinates for "Lytham" and "Saint Annes".
4. Coeur d'Alene: Geographic seems to get this one right.
5. Kornelimünster: Geographic is almost right on this one (compared to Google Maps) - the coordinates are for a field a mile from the town centre. Presumably this is a rounding artefact; if Geographic don't actually have data accurate to a millionth of a degree, the extra digits they present are somewhat misleading.
6. Lacanau: Same as Kornelimünster.
7. Bobo-Dioulasso: Same as Kornelimünster.
8. Dakhla: Same as Kornelimünster (it's a coastal town; Geographic gives coordinates for a location which Google Maps reckons is 10km offshore, and I'm inclined to trust Google Maps in this case)
9. Sabratah: Looks reasonably accurate.

So, I would not trust it as a source of geographic information any more than I would trust, say, fallingrain. bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've seen a lot of quirks in transcriptions of placenames from non-English languages &c, as well as the fact that Geographic seems to have a lot of entries for things which aren't actually settlements, per se. Therefore, if Geographic alone says that a settlement exists, I simply wouldn't trust it as a sole source- because there is a significant probability that it's not actually a settlement, or that the name on Geographic is just a variant of some other name which is better evidenced elsewhere (and may already have a wikipedia article &c). Based on my first example, if you took Geograph seriously as a source you could create twenty new articles for places that look a bit like "Mkuze", "Mkhuzi", "Mkuzi-Suid" (a random bit of uninhabited land an hour's drive to the south), &c plus the mysterious "Mkuze Estate" which is - in reality - a random point within a differently-named nature reserve... bobrayner (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fallingrain mirrored the GNS/GNIS. The rounding "artifacts" are obvious if you simply convert back to deg. min. sec (most that I looked at some years back were accurate but not precise - this is a fairly old database). In terms of using the DB as a source for co-ordinates, it is citable, and in some cases it seems to be the best we have. In terms of using it as the sole source for a stub article, this has been looked at many times, and generally the response has been "well you could, but unless the stub was wanted anyway, it might not be a great idea." Rich Farmbrough, 14:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC).

Poll

Should articles be created using only geosource.orggeographic.org without additional editorial input including searches for other sources?

• No, for reasons articulated above. ^Bongo_matic 22:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• No (assuming you mean geographic.org - or are they related?). This is because we don't have sufficient confidence that any given entry in the database is accurate and unique; too much potential to create duplicate articles for spelling variants, or for other secondary landmarks near the "real" landmark, &c (and an entry in this database is not a very good assurance of notability). bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• No, it can obviously be used as a starting point for a personal list of potentially missing articles, but needs checking with other, more reliable sources before an article is created. Fram (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As another, blatant example of an earlier run of geographic.org articles: Bona see Buna. This article is comparable to the venerable Dord... Fram (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • That's really quite impressive. We can't rely on such sources for new articles; this is a project to build an encyclopædia, not a race to create as many placeholders as possible, expecting somebody else to come along later and remove all the mistakes. bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOT ala WP:IINFO, and Wikipedia:Notability There appears to be too many problems for any article to based on this one source and the source seems to used to do an end run around Wikipedia:Notability.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• not a vote, a discussion, but no source not reliable for claims and unable to establish notabilityFifelfoo_m (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographic.org

Everyone is invited to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographic.org, a discussion about over 2,500 articles. Due to the unusual character and the potential impact of the discussion, I believe that more participation than usual would be beneficial to get a true sense of the community's opinion on this. Fram (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Benedict XVI blessing statue of Our Lady of Medjugorje per YouTube video

In article Our Lady of Medjugorje, and elsewhere(?), it is claimed that Pope Benedict XVI publicly blessed a statue of Our Lady of Medjugorje. The source for the claim is a YouTube video[3] made by people (Movimento Gospa)[4] who believe the apparitions are real. See footnote 11 and click on YouTube to see the video. Does the video meet our reliability standards? Kenatipo ^speak! 17:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We usually don't consider YouTube reliable (we have no way to know if the footage shown has been manipulated in some way) - the exception to this is when the video is hosted on a dedicated media sub-channel (such as the BBC's youtube channel). I am sure that the pope did in fact bless the statue... but we need a reliable source to say so. So... we should find another source for the statement. (I would be willing to bet that the Vatican issued an itinerary for the Pope's activities that day... perhaps in the Observatore Romano?)

That said, I have to ask why we mention the blessing in the first place? The statement is part of a section about the Church's "official position" on the apparitions... and in this context, there is an implied connection between the Pope's blessing and the Church's position. Is there a source that connects the blessing to any sort of "official position"? if not this may be Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit, and I agree that YouTube is typically not an appropriate source because the footage can be manipulated. And in fact, I agree with Kenatipo's concerns on the talkpage of the article that this particular video may have been manipulated, with the framing of the photos in the video altered to exclude the other statue seen in the video footage following the stills shots. It's actually worth looking at to see.[5]

Note that Pope Benedict is a living person and per BLP we need to use the highest quality sources; a youtube video, especially one's whose accuracy is questioned, is not one. There is an article in the Croatian Times that mentions the blessing, but it is review of a book written by believers in the visions and appears to me to simply be quoting them. In fact a poster in the comments section also questions the accuracy of the statement about the statue blessing. In my view neither source is reliable for a claim that a living person (and by extension the Catholic Church) has to some extent have accepted the apparitions, which they clearly have not, to date. I will be removing the content per BLP, RS, and OR. --Slp1 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Croatian Times was, unfortunately, quoting our article with the word "publicly" removed. (Things done in St Peter's Square by the pope tend to be public). I read the Holy Father's remarks at the audience that day and there is no mention of Medjugorje or the Queen of Peace. His address was about Pope St Gregory the Great (part 2). VISnews also did not report anything about Benedict blessing statues before or after the audience that day. I haven't researched Osservatore Romano yet. I agree that the sentence in our article should be removed as a violation of RS and therefore, also BLP. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is correct that the Croatian Times copied Wikipedia, since the newspaper article was published before the information was added to WP. Nevertheless I am not convinced that the Croatian Times has enough of a reputation for independent fact-checking to be the sole source for this information. --Slp1 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The offending sentence was added to our article by an IP on 28 August 2009, removed, and re-added on 4 October 2009. The Croatian Times article is dated 9 January 2011. (Oh, and thanks for beating up that big bully for me!) Kenatipo ^speak! 06:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

referral service website used as a source for information about West Ridge Academy

On this page West Ridge Academy a self-published website/blog is being used as a reference (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ridge_Academy#cite_note-strugglingteens5382-2). I feel like this reference falls into the "self-published" sources category, and should, per Wikipedia policy, only be used to describe itself. I think that the POV of the website is more than obvious, and does not at all contribute to the article positively. Additionally, there is nothing stated in the West Ridge Academy article that needs to be referenced by this single source, and for which a better, primary source is not already available. Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. --EarlySquid (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the source that EarlySquid is questioning is StrugglingTeens.com. Strugglingteens.com belongs to a company called Woodbury Reports. They say they have been online since 1995; the current domain name was registered in 2001. It's a complex website, including promotion for the business and advertising for other entities. The content that is most often cited on Wikipedia is mostly found in archives of a company newsletter (at http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives/index.html -- the archive spans the period 1998-2011) that includes articles about various special schools and therapeutic programs for teenagers. Since the website names its owners, who are a business with a reputation to uphold, and most articles name their authors, I see the website -- especially the newsletter -- as having the kind of "meaningful editorial oversight" mentioned on WP:V. When I searched yesterday, I found that strugglingteens.com is currently cited as a source in 35 articles on Wikipedia. In West Ridge Academy it is cited as a third-party source of some pretty basic descriptive information about the school (the newsletter had a "visit report" on the school, which is the specific item cited). In general, it is cited in Wikipedia articles as a third-party source of information about various programs, as well as a republisher of press releases about these programs. I consider it a pretty reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Orlady... I think that it is a reliable source. Whether it is the best source for the information is another issue entirely. We encourage editors to improve articles, and finding better, even more reliable, sources is one way to do so. So my advice: leave the current source as "good enough for now", but also look to see if you can find a better source for the information... if you find one, replace the current source with the better one where appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The source is not RS and if RS is not available then we should question if the information is even worthwhile. I would lean towards common sense saying video shows something so we should try to find RS but a quick Google News Archive search came up with nothing, and someone else already expressed concerns about possible manipulation. It all leads back to WP:VERIFY not being met for the line. Plugging WP:VIDEOLINK Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

irc-junkie.org

Four books on computing and the Internet use http://irc-junkie.org, an IRC-related blog, by either paraphrasing, citing, listing in a web-bibliography, or explicitly recommending it to readers. In my opinion, per WP:N, this seems to convey notability, and a liberal reading of WP:RS suggests that such use establishes or improves the reliability of a source.

Per discussion of reliable sources at Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Article blanking and "sources", I've boldly created WP:WikiProject IRC/Sources listing the sources mentioned, as a rationale for treating http://irc-junkie.org as a reliable source.

Is there any policy or guideline against inheritance of reliability?--Lexein (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Can irc-junkie.org now be considered reliable per above? --Lexein (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• irc-junkie.org has an editorial policy, and an editor. However, its chief author is also its editor. You would need to clearly establish the expert status of Christian "phrozen77" Lederer of 92237 Sulzbach-Rosenberg. You ought to note that the publication's title is IRC-Junkie.org: your daily dose of IRC related news and that its place of publication is Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Germany. For example, to cite the current top item: phrozen77 (pseud.) [Christian Lederer] (20101117) "A Day on QuakeNet" IRC-Junkie.org: your daily dose of IRC related news (Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Germany), unpaginated. Is phrozen77 an expert? Shelly and others (2007) says no, "You can learn more about IRC clients, networks, and channels at sites such as IRC-Junkie.org" is not an expert recommendation. Neither are the other three sources. Scholars regularly cite non-expert material as evidence, scholars have the inherent capacity to transform through analysis unreliable sources into elements of their own reliable texts. You need to find instances of citation which consider IRC-Junkie.org to be equivalent to scholarly or expert works—mere citation as factual evidence is insufficient. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the analysis. I see the point about full author name, and full publication name. I agree that Lederer doesn't seem to be cited as an expert by name. I would suggest, however, that the statement in the Shelly et. al. textbook actually is a straight-ahead recommendation of the site, neither weak nor strong, implying that expertise will be found at irc-junkies.org, and it is listed first. Kshetri selected the "Help! I'm being DoS'ed" (from archive) irc-junkies.org article to quote and paraphrase, out of all the available (legion) sources on Denial of Service attacks; to me, this also seems to acknowledge a level of expertise at the site, rather than non-expertise. Given the rationale and our discussion here, would you go so far as to delete content in a list which cites irc-junkies.org and a primary source? --Lexein (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Is the textbook (Shelly et. al.) aimed at post-graduate coursework or research students or post Masters certified (or equivalent) professionals? Seek this in the introduction, preface, and bibliographic page. This does matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It's a college textbook searchable under the publisher's Higher Education catalog - there's even a "College Bookstore Wholesale Price = $68.25" listed. It has supplementals for instructors. So it's definitely not targeted for mass-market. Seems to fall under WP:SOURCES. What guideline were you alluding to? --Lexein (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I can't currently recall. In previous debates on RS/N textbooks aimed at a post-graduate audience have found appreciation as scholarly sources—they are aimed at professional in practice and trainee scholars. This also follows Australia's HERDC collection advice on what constitutes a scholarly book as opposed to a non-scholarly book (undergraduate and schools textbooks are excluded). Being cited in an undergraduate textbook as a worthy resource isn't an indication of expert status to my mind; it is not being cited as a scholar in the literature of scholars. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, at least Dr. Kshetri's collection of essays was scholarly, quoting irc-junkie.org. I'm not convinced the website is unreliable, and feel that it's reliable enough for very careful use in a limited way. Note that its use is limited: it's only needed for one claim, in one list/table; we don't need it for any of the other IRC clients in the Comparison. I appreciate your input, and will certainly apply it to marginal sources in future. --Lexein (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
          • To be honest, this source doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. However, I believe this source is reliable due to expertise. The rules are standing in the way of the encyclopaedic project, and therefore, following Ignore All Rules I support this source being used very carefully as a reliable source for limited claims about irc. Where available, other sources should be used. Hopefully, eventually, irc-junkie.org will be cited in other scholarly works, further clarifying the expert element. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Oh, well that's alright then. I feel the same way. Haven't used WP:IAR yet, but maybe this is the time. --Lexein (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

IMDB

I wrote a stub about a film writer (Ben Ripley) as an article proposal, and it was denied. One of the reasons given was that IMDB is not a reliable source. The link given was to the general reliable source page, which gives no reason why IMDB should or shouldn't be a reliable source. IMDB is a standard listing on Wiki film-related sites, so I was really surprised to see it called a not-reliable source. Can any-body help here?Kdammers (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

IMDB lacks editorial oversight and control. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources and WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for directing me to that, but I am still unclear. The RS/IMBD says

Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. One exception being that certain film authorship (screenwriting) credits on IMDb, specifically those which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable."

Credits, including screenwriting credits, are not trivia (neither in concpet nor in listing). The second quoted sentence is unclear to me as to whether it is referring to all of IMDb generally or just to trivia on it. "One exception" is unclear: the only exception, or what? And how can one tell if WGA has provided the info. What is the information source for the statement that IMDb does not have adequate control? Kdammers (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

iMDB has user-generated content, not unlike a wiki. For this reason, it's not considered reliable. Yes, I think "one exception" means the only exception. WP:RS/IMDB says this: "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged." TimidGuy (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think it's pretty clear that the community consensus is that IMDb is not reliable for anything other than WGA credits - so the burden of proof as regards reliability falls on those trying to establish its reliability. For what it's worth, though, I know from personal experience that Doctor Who episodes regularly feature hoax entries that get past the supposedly "expert editors". Here's an account of one of the earliest hoaxes, deliberately done by a blogger to show how easy it is to fool IMDb. Further references to IMDb's lack of reliability: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a reliable news source even sourcing a rumour from IMDb, much less any definitely factual information. Maccy69 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You can tell if the WGA has supplied the writing credits on IMDb because it says (WGA) underneath the heading (example: [13]). Here is the IMDb description of the partnership. Anything else that would be included in an article here can't be sourced from IMDb (the only other partner providing information is the MPAA but ratings aren't included in Wikipedia film articles, as far as I can see). Maccy69 (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ben Ripley has WGA credits listed on IMDb for Source Code and Species III but not for the other two credits they have listed for him. Maccy69 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your proposed article it really does need a lot of work. I advise you to look at existing articles and read the relevant help sections. It may be worth joining the film wikiproject and asking for help there. There seem to be plenty of non-IMDb sources out there (a quick Google turned up [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] ). I think your best tactic would be to forget about IMDb as a source (you can still put it as an external link though) and concentrate on working out which of the many online sources meet WP:RS. Given how far your current article is off, I'd suggest putting a copy in your userspace and asking experienced editors to help you get it into shape before re-submitting. Maybe use the Article Wizard? Whatever you decide, you shouldn't be relying on IMDb. Maccy69 (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

More specific projects to consult about this: WP:FILMBIO and WP:SCREENW. The screenwriters project lists this Featured Article as an example of what to aspire to: William Monahan (EDIT: actually that's been downgraded to a B-class article, Aaron Sorkin is a Featured Article and Melissa Rosenberg a Good Article). Remember that WP:BLP applies as well. I don't think there's anything more to be said here about the general reliability of IMDb (in general it's not reliable and the point isn't worth arguing) but those projects could help you find reliable sources for your article. Maccy69 (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all this great info. Hope the original poster is appreciative. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The IMDB is standard external link for movie related articles (hence the template), but usually not a reliable source (for the resons already stated above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Snooker sites - WWW Snooker / snooker.org and Chris Turner’s Snooker Archive

Steve Davis and a good number of other snooker articles use WWW Snooker / snooker.org and Chris Turner’s Snooker Archive. They are both self-published, but appear to be respected - WWW Snooker lists a number of awards, including a recommendation from the BBC (though I have been unable to verify this), and Chris Turner writes for Yahoo. Do they pass WP:SELFPUBLISH so they can be accepted as reliable sources. This is a particularly important question for the Steve Davis article as it depends largely on these two sources and is currently under GA review. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is pretty clear on this: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." These are clearly self-published websites. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. Thanks for that. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

South End Press

I'm wondering what the view is about using sources from a "political" publisher like South End Press. On their website it says "South End Press is a nonprofit, collectively run book publisher with more than 250 titles in print. Since our founding in 1977, we have tried to meet the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change."[31] This might be interpreted as a self-admission that they promote "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" - ie a "questionable source" under WP:RS. They even have a tagline of "Read. Write. Revolt". On the other hand, they've got an extensive catalogue, and their seems to be a level of editorial control, but you'd have to wonder about the NPOV of their fact checking, particular in older works from the 80s. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icerat (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things. One is that "radical social change" is not exactly the same thing as "extremist". The other is that we separate fact-checking from POV. Writing could be entirely factually correct but still advocate a viewpoint. This publisher seems to have published the work of some quite prominent scholars, although it is not a scholarly press. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How would you suggest their material be used then? They're quite upfront that they're pushing a particular POV, which when dealing with controversial issues I feel should be noted, but on the other hand pointing out the POV of the publisher along with statements from a book could be considered POV pushing in itself and a violation of WP:SYNTH couldn't it? --Icerat (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It very much depends on the book, its author, and what statement it is being used to support. If you can give some details, we can give more useful advice. You are right that it isn't normally appropriate to cast doubt on the veracity of a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Itsmejudith. If you could give an example of its use to support a statement, in relation to a particular work, we could help. Some partisan presses like Homocult have published works which are notable for their POV, such as Andy Anderson's thesis that The enemy is middle class; though, in this case Anderson is an expert in the area. Conversely, many partisan presses (such as AK Press) publish works which are considered the standard scholarly references regardless of their POV or the publisher's status as a politically engaged text. It depends what you cite, for what fact or opinion, in which article. Anderson's Enemy is probably worth citing in Anarchism in the United Kingdom; or, Theories of the middle class; but not worth citing for Middle class itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's 1985 book on Amway. It and some Mother Jones articles (also a left-wing publication, albeit clearly RS) were used to support an extensive Politics & Culture section in the Amway article. I've since cleaned it up a bit with some other sources and clarifications so it's no longer quite the "hit piece" it looked, indeed apart from one quote this book could probably be removed as a source completely. Still the combination of self-admitted POV sources in this section is worrying. I think most folk reading an article that said "FoxNews reported" would know they're getting a certain bias, but with less known publications that's not so apparent. Some additional eyes appreciated. --Icerat (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

POV and RS are two different concepts. There is no requirement to use NPOV sources, merely to write NPOV articles. TFD (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that's kind of the question - how do you right NPOV articles using non-NPOV sources without noting the POV of the source, especially when the sources are limited (ie no "opposing" POV available)? --Icerat (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The article involved here seems to be Amway, which uses references from the obviously "biased" Amway itself to support many statements. Icerat, do you think really each of these should note "the POV of the source"? No, as others have pointed out we use the best available, most reliable sources available. In this case, South End Press is a reputable press, and as an indication of the book's reliability and significance. the book itself has been cited over 100 times in other reliable sources including scholarly journals, books and newspapers. Many of the points made in WP's article are echoed in these other secondary sources. --Slp1 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you right NPOV articles using non-NPOV sources? By neutrally presenting all sides of the issue, citing sources with different viewpoints (giving each source its due weight), and attributing in the text so the reader knows who says what. Our WP:NPOV policy explains this well. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And if there are only sources with a certain POV, you need to explain what that POV is (if the authors in that tendency themselves explain it) and simply present that POV. Because when there is only one scholarly or journalistic POV, this means that this is all we can write about. For example, when discussing "Fred Studies" which is dominated by the "Jane School" and the "Jane School" authors identify this as such in their introductions or literature survey, you say as such that "Fred Studies is covered by the Jane School of analysis which describes itself as..." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit confict, and replying to Blueboar's post) Yes, though I'll just emphasize that attributing a viewpoint is not always required or even desirable; it depends, as Blueboar says on giving the various sources due weight, and the statement at hand, but attribution in certain situations can be a means of introducing point of view, by implying doubt. e.g. "According to an Amway press release, the court case was dismissed." In this case I note that many of the critical remarks about Amway are already attributed. --Slp1 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Attribution doesn't really help when you say for example "According to Joe Bloggs" when nobody reading the article has a clue who he or his motivations or POV are. In an area of few sources you can't get "balance" by citing opposing POV, and explaining POV as per Fifelfoo's example seems to me to verge on OR/SYNTH. I've had a similar example on another company article where Forbes was used as a source for a quote, essentially denigrating the company, but a moments research discovers that the person Forbes quoted actually owns and runs competitor companies. That's pretty important when assessing POV! But Forbes didn't mention this, and us digging it up and mentioning it would I think be SYNTH. --Icerat (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) If necessary, you can add a brief descriptor to the attribution: "Whatsisface, which also manufactures widgets, said..." or "Joe Bloggs, a self-described radical socialist, said..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But once again, doing so can be an attempt to marginalize, diminish and discredit Joe Bloggs and Whatisface's opinion. I've seen editors do this time and time again in order to push their POV. It's probably worth noting that Icerat edits mainly in the area of Multi-level Marketing, with a particular perspective that he acknowledges on his userpage. --Slp1 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that's "worth pointing out", unless you're indulging in a little SYNTH yourself :) In any case it seems we mostly agree - adding descriptors could be SYNTH and considered POV pushing and that opens a whole range of other problems. It doesn't matter what POV we're talking about. If your quoting a company about itself then it's RS, but everyone knows there's a clear COI. If you're citing FoxNews then it's RS, but most readers know there's a certain bias. But there's a legitimate issue here with relatively unknown sources. Elsewhere on this page is a discussion on The Long War Journal, which apparently has a particular POV that is known to those with knowledge in the field. It's a legitimate RS source, but has a POV that ideally needs to be considered by a reader when interpreting information sourced from them. Without that knowledge I'd read an article citing them and just accept what is said. Another example - a companies products have been certified "banned drug free" by an ostensibly independent testing agency. But that agency is actually partly funded by the company. Now, I'm aware this type of POV source problem is an issue not just for wikipedia, but is there perhaps some standard approach we can come up with to help alleviate it? --Icerat (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A publisher/publication's POV has nothing to do with whether it is an RS. We don't disallow the use of the NY Times or Fox News just because of their pro-corporate, capitalist, U.S. nationalist POV. What disqualifies something as an RS is a poor record for fact-checking, lax editorial controls, self-publication, etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The issue is how to appropriately deal with such POV sources, in particular ones that have a self-admitted bias (so there's no dispute). I suppose I should have posted this in RS/Talk, I was using a particular example because they'd explicitly called themselves "radical", which might be interpreted as an RS problem according to the guideline. That's already been cleared as OK, and so South End Press today appears to be an RS publisher (no idea at the time of Butterfields book) but it also has a self-admitted POV. Same with, for example Mother Jones, or The Heritage Foundation. The Long War Journal, discussed elsewhere on the noticeboard, is another example with a well understood POV for those who work in the area, but not for most readers. Some editors suggest adding some descriptions about the source is appropriate, others feel this is SYNTH. --Icerat (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask... if all the sources take the same POV, what makes you think there is a different POV to discuss? Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@Icerat: If this has nothing to do with WP:RS, then it doesn't belong here. Perhaps take a look at WP:NPOVN. However, you've really provided nothing other than a quote from their site that says that they publish books on a certain topic (i.e. books about "radical social change"). This does not say that they are "biased" any more than a medical publisher is "biased" for publishing in a single topic area. South End Press is an established publisher whose publications are often cited in scholarly literature. They easily satisfy RS, and unless you can show via other reliable sources that a specific fact cited to a South End Press publication is at odds with the majority of other sources available, then you really have no basis to claim that there is a violation of WP:NPOV either. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the "World's Oldest Britons" website a reliable source?

The opinions of experienced, disinterested editors who are WP:RS-savvy is needed here. Please help guide the World's Oldest People Wiki-project to a policy-based discussion. David in DC (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

detail on the talk page in short its not upto date re:Claude Choules IMHO caution should be execised in what information is used and how. Gnangarra 01:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

On the page in question, it's the sole source for biographical data about four living people. I've argued on the talk page that WP:BLP almost requires deleting these sole-source refs, and replacing them with citation needed templates. But I'm not feeling particularly WP:BOLD about this this morning. I would if it were sole-souced for derogatory info. Then BLP would require the course I suggest. Immediately. In the absence of derogatory information, I think the talk page discussion should continue. But we need more disinterested participation. This is an issue that will cause a lot of dissension among World's Oldest People WikiProject members if it's not backed by the strong, disinterested guidance the Longevity ArbCom decision directs project members to seek. David in DC (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it turns out that 15 items are sourced to Oldestinbritain.webs.com (OIB, for ease of reference.) I've reviewed all references on the List of British supercentenarians that cite to OIB or to the web pages of the Gerontology Research Group. What I've found is curiouser and curiouser. David in DC (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC some people involved in GRG were also involved in WP. Again IIRC there was an Arbcom case and they were sanctioned. IMHO GRG was a reasonably good source, and the main problem was perceived conflict of interest. I would suggest that wherever possible news reports would make a better first line of referencing, partly because they tend to include more information of interest to those not simply seeking a birth and/or death date, and partly because these are likely to be GRG/OBs sources for all but the very old. Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Public Multimedia

Who is Public Multimedia and why would it be WP:RS? Seems to be highly dubious. There website is dead. IQinn (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC) T

Well the article tells you who they were/are. Having said that, I can't find anything to suggest notability, basically no mentions except on the The Long War Journal, which is an affiliated website. Who and how is someone trying to use them as a source? Or is someone wanting to use The Long War Journal? It seems to be considered a reliable source by other news media [32] --Icerat (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The current discussion is here. Unfortunately, IQinn forgot to note in that discussion that he was asking for outside opinions on this board. Me and at least one other editor who regularly edit that article feel that the Long War Journal is reliable, because it gives sources for its information, is used by other media as a source, and appears to be very knowledgeable in the subject area. I welcome outside opinions. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Long War Journal appears to be staffed by experienced, recognized journalists[33], appears to have editorial oversight, and it and it's journalists are regularly cited by other mainstream media. It may have a particular POV but, alas, so does pretty much every other source. I made some comments on the Public Multimedia/Long War Journal talk page, you might want to do some work on that article. If there's sources talking about the journals "bias" then it might be possible to point that out there. --Icerat (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@Icerat, "appears to have editorial oversight". How? This website has no editorial oversight.

just one example where it is used. All information in the article Public Multimedia are either self-published written by Bill Roggio himself or original research. How about the reliability of LWJ? In a nutshell Bill Roggio blogs about the "War on Terror" in a pro US way and because the US army liked his blogging they invited him and feed him with whatever information they want to be out and Bill Roggio blogs more pro US military articles. That was liked by the right wing neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies who start the website "The Long War Journal". The LWJ website is a product of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies there is no editorial oversight for this website and the website is not WP:RS. It is just a website nothing different from other websites of blogs. Nevertheless people use it as it would be the truth what Bill blogs on this website. I am very concerned about this. IQinn (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said on the article talk page. Bill Roggio is a established expert on war on terror who has been quoted by numerous WP:RS. I have seen no criticism of his reporting in any RS. generally his commentaries are very insightful and accurate. that Iquinn thinks these are biased is just his POV. Iquinn you need to stop Forum shopping and start listening to what other experienced editors are saying.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping? Ridiculous. It is not about bias it is about the reliability of the information and we can not guarantee the reliability of the information they publish on their website. While the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are newspapers with a strong editorial oversight and a long track record we can rely that the information the published is correct. What fhe LWJ or other websites or blogs write on their website or blogs might be correct but we can not guarantee that. That's why websites and blogs are not WP:RS and we do not use them. You will easily find reliable sources for the information if it would be notable and true. IQinn (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not argue amongst ourselves over the source here. The purpose of this forum is to seek outside opinions. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, here's a profile of Bill Roggio and The Long War Journal in the Columbia Journalism Review. Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well seems to be a strong critic of him. Did you read the full version? IQinn (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's an older (2007) interview in the Christian Science Monitor. IQinn, I'm providing these links for the regulars here at this board to peruse at their leisure. Let them give their opinions. We can argue about it amongst ourselves on the article talk page. Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

2007 article in the Las Vegas Review Journal. That article states that The Long War Journal as of 2007, was getting about 10,000-20,000 readers a day. Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And, I found in Infotrac a 24 October 2008 United Press International wire story which uses Roggio as a source. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a CNN report from a couple of weeks ago using The Long War Journal as a source. Cla68 (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Another in The Times of India. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"US terrorism analyst Bill Roggio from the Long War Journal says..." from The Australian. Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What does the CSM article tell us? It tells us that he is a milblogger something we already know. A blogger and there is no objection to use what he publishes in secondary sources. To think anything he publishes on his website would be WP:RS is not given as there is no editorial oversight and a lot of is is simply commentary. There are many blogs that have more that 10.000 - 20.000 readers but that does not make these blogs WP:RS. And that parts of his work is used in WP:RS does not follow that everything he publishes on his website is reliable or the truth. Often what he writes is simply commentary like in some of your examples and it is not the truth and the information and commentary needs to be attributed to the source. As said no objection to use what has been re-published by WP:RS. That might be a good rule and it needs to be attributed to the source.

Well i started the discussion here and i will surely continue to take part in the discussion on this page here. Thank you for the suggestion. :) IQinn (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from IQuinn, I regularly hit this exact same issue myself (indeed am in a discussion on this board right now!). The thing is that reliable sources consider The Long War Journal a reliable source. The Journal also has multiple contributors, not just Roggio, and it appears to have editorial oversight. The lead story on the site at the moment is credited to Thomas Jocelyn, and a moments search find he is published by other media sources as well. Having said that, he, and Roggio often seem to be cited or published in opinion pieces rather than as reporting fact. Perhaps the middle ground here is to use TLWJ only as a source for opinions, rather than facts? Attribute statements to them and ensure there's an article written about the TLWJ that lays out their perspective and any criticism so that readers can make their own decisions about veracity. There seems to be enough sources (both pro and con) to do that. --Icerat (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your argumentation sounds intelligent and correct as well as the suggested solution (middle ground). To attribute their statements to them seems to be the solution. Let's see if the other party can agree to that. Best wishes. IQinn (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The question here is if LWJ meets the criteria for WP:RS or not. like Icerat says it does and seems to have editorial oversight. I do not see why we should not treat LWJ exactly the same as any other WP:RS. you cannot pick and choose only the RS that you like and that suit your POV and try to malign others. that is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. That exactly is what Iquinn is trying to do.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If a single source is being used for any information, I don't think it's a violation of NPOV to request attribution of that source in the text. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

no but trying to malign a RS and call it biased and say that we should not use it just because I don't like it is. That is what exactly Iquinn is doing. I have no problems attributing Roggio's opinions to him like we would do with any commentator. But I dont see why we cant use LWJ in the same fashion as any other RS like BBC. I would like to use factual info about the drone strikes ( date, number of dead , location etc) without having to look and try to find another RS to corroborate. that is an unnecessary waste of my time when I could be doing other useful things on WP.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill Roggio as factual as the BBC? There is no indication for that and there is nothing that proofs that he is as reliable as the BBC. No it is not a waste of time at all to reference important information as war reports to reliable sources. Not that is not a waste of time at all - that is exactly what we should do. As we can not risk to be wrong in case of such important information. IQinn (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes he is. he actually is an expert on terrorism unlike BBC which is a general news provider with no exceptional expertise in matters relating to terrorism. multiple RS have quoted him as such ( check the talk page for refs I have provided). both LWJ and BBC are of course WP:RS. again the problem is you are too focused on WP:TRUTH. we report what is said in RS and not worry too much about (our) version of truth. Like I have said especially in case of Drone strikes in the ungoverned Taliban infested FATA there is no way of knowing the 100% truth. we have to go by what RS say and try not to cherry pick the RS that we like.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be better you would base your argumentation on policies not a "humorous essay". I heard your personal opinion about him but there is simply no proof that he is as reliable as the BBC and that he is an "expert". There is proof that he blogs a lot about the war on terror but that does not makes him an "expert" and does not ensure that everything he publishes on his website is correct. If the information would be notable or it would be true than we would find it in the BBC or the NYT's or in books. We do not need to rely on an "expert" of this sort. There is no proof that he is an reliable "expert". Does he has a degree in journalism? Has he been published in an academic environment, was there any peer-review of his work? How many books did he publish? IQinn (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

yes he is an expert. look at the number of RS who quote them. is wikipedia an encyclopedia?? how many copies were printed at the last printing ?? just because he does most publishing online does not mean he is any less valuable to us. Has anybody ever criticized what he says ?? we can go on and on. that we are interested in verifiability not TRUTH is a well established policy not a humorous essay. I strongly suggest you read WP:V as it sounds like you are unaware of this core policy. just reading first sentence will suffice.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well i read our policies many times and we have discussed this point already. Is that all you can come up with? Right "verifiability not TRUTH" but only in the case you attribute it to the source. (you may also have a look at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering No.2 + 3) for this.

There is no proof that he is an reliable "expert". Does he has a degree in journalism? Has he been published in an academic environment, was there any peer-review of his work? How many books did he publish? What do the peers in this field write about his books? You are unable to answer these questions. Bottom line non of this seems to be true so he is simply not what we call an expert. IQinn (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The "expert" issue really only arises if you consider Roggio articles on TLWJ to be self-published. While he is the managing editor, I don't think it would be considered WP:SPS. So the publisher under consideration is TLWJ rather than Roggio per se and TLWJ fits as an RS. In terms of facts and figures types of data, how are other RS considering the data from TLWJ?--Icerat (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

But in many of the used references Bill Roggio is the author and he is the publisher and the editor. So how can that be editorial oversight? IQinn (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

he is called an expert by many RS[34] and LWJ is widely cited by our RS. and you are exactly right LWJ fits our criteria as an RS. Iquinn is the only one arguing incessantly that it is not. West Point publications routinely cite LWJ/Roggio[35] and consider what LWJ says reliable too.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

as do the Marines [36]--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the US military feeds him with the information they want to have out and it is no surprise that the US military West Point promotes him as an expert for this information. NO you have to show us evidence that comes from an independent academic body or peer-reviewed papers or books to proof he would be what we call an expert. IQinn (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Independent of what??? why do you think Telegraph identified him as an expert. are they promoting him too. look at the RS that cite him [37]. You seem to have problems with anybody who uses him and you are indulging in pure unadulterated OR when you say US army promotes him. Let me just say one thing we are going to use TLWJ as a RS in the same fashion as any WP:RS any article we wish on WP as that is the firm consensus. and Icerat has very clearly said that up above. It is clear to me you have serious POV issues and will never agree.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well you have one newspaper article that calls him an expert but he has no journalist education he has not published anything in an academic environment there was no peer review nor did he published any books. No surely not enough to say he would be what we call an expert. I think you are paraphrasing what Icerat said. There is more to it and he has described a solution (middle ground). Why don't you agree to the solution to attribute the information to him? What is wrong with that? If he would be an expert than it would just add weight to it. Something to hide? Try to work towards consensus. IQinn (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

IQinn is right, just because the media quoting someone as an expert or calling them an expert doesn't mean they are. They may just be very good at promoting themselves. Some other standard is necessary, which is why WP:SPS requires them to be "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". So two new questions have arisen - (1) is an article published by the editor of a journal in that journal an SPS? and (2) has Roggio had his "work in the relevant field" published by other RS. Note that IMO his "opinion" being published is not the same thing. Hopefully another editor might weigh in on those questions but I think (1) is going to be a tough call, making (2) irrelevant. I suggest you try to come up with some consensus using attribution where stuff is clearly opinion. Do you have any hard examples under dispute? (btw - note that quite a few articles on TLWJ are classified as "blog", which adds another layer of doubt in) --Icerat (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

well the original question was whether TLWJ is a RS or not wasnt it ?? assuming for a moment that Roggio is not an expert as per the legal requirement on WP how does it change the fact that TLWJ can be used on WP in a similar fashion as any RS. I have no problems attributing his opinion to Roggio if it is just that. that is standard policy on wp. we would do the same for an opinion piece from New York Times and washington post. for other info we should treat it no differently any other RS. like you yourself said Icerat WP:SPS does not apply to TLWJ since it meets criteria for WP:RS and has oversight etc. so simple info on drone strikes ( date, number killed location etc) should not require attribution whether we use TLWJ as source or BBC since both are RS. In addition LWJ articles usually have hyperlinks to multiple RS embedded in them which makes them even more comprehensive and useful for readers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well still you have not proved that the LWJ is as reliable as the BBC. If Bill Roggio is the author of an article, he is the editor of the website content and he is the publisher and he is not a proven what we call expert and had no peer review. Where is the "editorial oversight" that ensures that all facts are true? Does he has the reputation of the BBC :) surely not. To claim this website has the same reliability for fact checking as the BBC is simply without proof and almost ridiculous. It may be but it may be not there is nothing that could guarantee that everything published on his website is RS as said a lot on the website is commentary and some are blog posts. There are mechanism like editorial oversight in the case of the BBC that ensures that facts in their news section are reliable. There is nothing similar for the LWJ and the LWJ does not have a reputation as the BBC. There seems to be nothing wrong in attributing the information to the source even it would be better to reference to the BBC and cross check with other secondary sources. Facts that only can be found in the LWJ and in no other source need to be attributed to that source as one single source is not enough to present something as the truth. Even if the BBC would publish something that could not be found in any other source than we would attribute this information to the BBC. Why shouldn't we do that with the LWJ? So as a compromise let's narrow the attribution to the LWJ to three cases so that we can make some progress and we might might find consensus.

Attribution to the LWJ is only necessary in the following three cases:

1) The information comes from the blog section of the LWJ.

2) The information is commentary by one of the authors of the LWJ.

3) In cases where the LWJ is the only source for information and the information can not be found or verified in any other reliable source whatsoever.

These are rules we usually apply to the BBC and all other sources so i hope you can agree that we also apply these minimum rules to the LWJ who surely does not has the same reputation for fact checking as the BBC or the NYT's. To play by these rules seems to be a reasonable request. Can you agree to these rules so we can find agreement and can continue to fix up the article? What do you think about it Icerat? IQinn (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

what you have come up with after hours of wasting every bodies time are standard operating guidelines on wp. exactly the same guidelines for attribution would apply to any RS including NYT or BBC. please keep your opinions about TLWJ and OR to yourself. they are unsubstantiated in any of our RS. I would be really leary of putting info in an article which I just found on BBC or NYT only without attributing just like TLWJ. so thanx. I agree.--Wikireader41 (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well your reply once again sounds very rude to me to a point where it almost becomes uncivil. Well it is a compromise and not a very good one in my opinion but it is obviously that you would not have agreed to anything less and Wikipedia is all about compromises. No what i said about TLWJ is verified in many sources and i am going to fix up the article about Bill Roggio and the LWJ according to what Icerat has suggested earlier so that it becomes clear to every of our readers who is Bill Roggio and who is behind the LWJ. Anyway that will take some time as i am busy at the moment so no objection if other people start working on these articles. Anyway, thanks for agreeing to the 3 rules as i think this will avoid further disputes in the article Drone attacks in Pakistan and i will stick to them and i hope everyone else too. @Icerat, thank you for your insides and help. IQinn (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

FilmThreat.com

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film § Film_Threat

Reviews and commentary about films at Film Threat have been frequently cited in deletion discussions as reliable sources for articles about those films, with the result that some films relying on them as a reliable source have been deleted while others have been retained. (For examples, see the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Con_Games_(movie), which gives links to other discussions.) Though, according to the Wikipedia article Film Threat, Film Threat has developed from a fanzine, to a commercial paper publication, in its current reincarnation it is a website. They have announced that they are going to resume commercial (paper) publication in late 2011. With film reviews the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" element of a reliable source may to some extent replaced by a consideration of the reputation and national recognition of the reviewer, see the film notability guideline, but even then the guideline says, "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist: 1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." (Emphasis added.) There has been, as far as I can find, no past substantial discussion about the reliability of Film Threat and it would be beneficial for future discussions if the community could decide whether the Film Threat website is or is not a reliable source for retention of a film. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• The reliability of a source depends on context, and each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. When the topic is a film article, we look to those sources that deal specifically with or about film topics, look to see how they are themselves considered within their field by their peers, and consider if they have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. For information about films, we look to Film Threat for their established expertise in that field. We do not look to them for expertise on the Natonal Football League or election campaigns in Singapore, as the reliability of a source depends on context, and contextually speaking, FILM is their field of expertise. They have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the respected reputation within their area of expertise to be themselves repeated quoted by and referred to by other sources within and outside that field.[38][39][40]
• So, and while apreciating that User:TransporterMan has brought the question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for input from other editors, Film Threat has indeed been long-accepted as reliable enough in context to teir area of expertise. Here are diffs that support the wide consensus that Film Threat is generally reliable source for film articles... some of them as early as 2004: [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] and there are many, many more. Even in discussions of film articles that were subsequently deleted for one reason or another, Film Threat has been repeatedly acknowledged by editors as a suitable RS source for films. Not for sports.. not for politics... not for cooking... but definitely for film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional input would be welcomed on this. Schmidt's comments are not, per se, a response from the noticeboard because he was involved in the discussion in which the issue arose. I do not mean to imply that his voice shouldn't be heard or taken into consideration, but only that I would hope to get broader community input on this question than just from those who have already been involved in the debate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the closing sysop, SilkTork in this AFD discussion, which spawned this inquiry, has expressly taken the position that Film Threat is a reliable source. That, of course, does not necessarily settle the matter, but should be taken into account. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Court Judgements as Primary or Secondary sources

A court judgement is a primary source for itself, ie the judgement and case that it is about. I've encountered a situation where an editor is using statements made by the judge about related, but uninvolved parties, ie they did not participate in the court case or hearings. This would seem to me to be using the judgement either as a secondary source for this information, or perhaps as a primary source for the judges opinion. This situation isn't really covered in WP:RS, but either way it doesn't seem an appropriate use of the source. More details here. Thoughts appreciated. --Icerat (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Court judements are tricky... they are reliable primary documents for findings of fact relating to the specific case... but they are secondary documents in regards to how the Law should be interpreted in connection to the case. A side comment about an unrelated third party would a primary source the opinion of the Judge, but not a reliable source for a statement of fact about that third party. Blueboar (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They are primary sources. Note that when errors of fact appear in reliable secondary sources, they may be corrected through newspapers, revised editions of books, or by subsequent scholarship. But the facts in judgments are almost never subject to appeal and harmless errors are not corrected. Also, facts which only appear in court judgments lack notability. TFD (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that decisions of a court pf general jurisdiction, which weigh and evaluate witnesses and documents, should be acceptable as secondary sources for the parties and facts involved in the case, not treated the same way as trial transcripts, docket sheets, etc. However, a judge's passing mention of people or matters not involved in the case is "dicta" and should not receive the same respect. In this particular instance, someone wants to source a statement about company A to a court decision involving company B. I don't think the decision is a reliable source in this instance. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Blueboar is technically correct about the classification, but you're asking the wrong question. The policy says, "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question." The issue you need to be considering is whether this is an appropriate source for the content in question. A passing comment in a court document will almost never be an appropriate source for information about uninvolved parties. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, an appellate court's opinion is a secondary source on a lower court's original decision.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Appellate opinions are tricky because they are an amalgam of different things. For example, generally, appellate opinions don't make findings of fact, whereas trial courts do. Another example, appellate opinions evaluating a lower court decision may be secondary, but an appellate opinion can also make law, in which case it is probably primary. I'm not sure how much any of this matters. I'm more of the view that what's important is the particular context in which the opinion is being used as a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If an appellate opinion says "the lower court rejected the motion to quash the subpoena", then that's a secondary source. If the opinion says "quashing subpoeanas is appropriate in these circumstances", then that's a primary source.   Will Beback  talk  12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"In this particular instance, someone wants to source a statement about company A to a court decision involving company B. I don't think the decision is a reliable source in this instance." In the context of the actual edit/source Icerat / Insider201283 is referring to here, I'm not sure the above statement is relevant to this edit. To clarify, the court document mentions "company A" by name, and company A (network twentyone) and company B (amway) are inextricably linked. The decision is not on A, but it is very much involved.

This is all a bit grey, but isn't a judge's verdict a tertiary source?

Policy states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." which I feel is what was done in this instance, however pro-MLM/Amway editors often edit/re-interpret the court statement, removing phrases such as "pyramid", such interpretation of course is forbidden, or want to have the whole statement removed, which is what Icerat is seeking. Financeguy222 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Network21 was not a party of the case that is beeing cited, but it's buisniss practice was a central part of said suit. So we can assume that the court has made an effort too check the facts of said practice. The sourcing is this case is adequate no matter if we consdider the source as primary or secondary. This because the wording is lifted more or less directly from the finding. Copyright might be an issue, and the statement in it's current form should be treated as a quotation. Meaning that attribution is needed. I would say the problem is more about POV than about Reliable sourcing. Taemyr (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the judgement? The judge explicitly stated that the suit wasn't about the businesss practices of companies like Network 21, let alone "a central part" and they were not party to the case. We can safely assume the court has made no effort to check facts about them. Indeed, as I noted in talk, the statement is factually incorrect. --Icerat (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Do the sources in an article count as third-party sources?

In the article Olympic class starship, which is currently at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic class starship) there are sources. I am unsure if these sources count as third-party sources per WP:THIRDPARTY#How to meet the requirement. They are not published by the subject, since the subject is a fictional starship class and cannot publish anything. I am also unsure if they count as promotional or not. Since the sources were written by production staff of the TV show, I think it can be assumed there is an interest in promoting the show. On the other hand, these books are not kind of a sales catalogue for products. I would appreciate any help on this. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Any source produced by the production company or broadcaster would be considered a primary source. A secondary source would be a source unconnected (i.e. third party) to the production of the show. Betty Logan (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to conflate different issues here. The distinction between Primary/Secondary is not the same as the distinction between Connected/Independent, and neither of these is the same as the distinction between wp:reliable/wp:unreliable. I think something like The Star Trek encyclopedia: a reference guide to the future is very reliable... and it is clearly a Secondary source, not a primary one. However, if it is true that the authors of these sources were all involved in the production of the show in some way, then there is a case to be made that they are not independent. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you, but I'm not understanding your rationale either. If the Star Trek producers produce a book detailing their fictional universe how is that not a primary source? Isn't it just an extension of the original primary source i.e. the show? I think this distinction is important because I don't think the issue is the reliability of the sources, it's whether the sources are in a position to establish the notability of the subject, which of course can't be done via primary sources, it has to be done via secondary sources. Betty Logan (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary is more than just "who wrote the book" (although that is part of the consideration). We also have to use some common sense and look at the circumstances behind the writing and whether other sources were used in the writing. We also have to remember that Primary/Secondary isn't always a clear cut issue. Let's take the example of a war correspondent writing for a newspaper. He is posted with an Army unit, and witnesses an attack. His report contains his own own observations, but it also contains accounts of the attack that he obtained by interviewing soldiers (things he did not personally witness). Is his report a primary or a secondary source? It is actually a mixture of both.

The same is true for something like The Star Trek encyclopedia. Michael Okuda (the author) did indeed work on the show. He was a scenic artist and "technical" adviser (advising script writers on how the fictional technology of the Star Trek universe supposedly worked), so his recollections of some aspects of Star Trek are indeed primary... but, in writing his encyclopedia he went beyond just his own personal recollections, looking at scripts, production notes and other primary material written by other people. For that information the book is secondary.

As for notability... mere inclusion of something in a secondary source is not enough to establish notability. Notability can only be established through somewhat extensive discussion. I don't think Okuda's book devotes enough time and space to discussing each individual "class" to justify having a stand-alone article on each one. I think the topic of "starship classes" is justified (and this is why I suggest a merger... one article, which would probably include a chart, to discuss all the different "classes" as a broad concept.) Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm following you, thanks for taking the time to explain the distinction. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem... Source typing isn't always easy and our policies and guidelines tend to be written with clear cut cases in mind (I guess they have to be to illustrate the point). A few of us are currently trying to write an essay to explain the gray areas... to give a fuller explanation of the distinctions between primary and secondary sources; where it is appropriate to use each, and where it is not appropriate to use each; and how they impact (and are impacted by) our various policies and guidelines. We are just starting, so don't expect anything "soon".

By the way... in the interest of complete honesty, we often get into debates over whether works are primary or secondary. I have given you my inexpert opinion, not a definitive ruling. Others may come along and tell you I am completely wrong. Don't listen to them :>) Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Betty Logan, you can safely assume that Blueboar is correct on this point, unless he's disagreeing with me.  ;-)

You might like to read WP:Party and person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Toshio Yamaguchi, it's possible that you would also find WP:INDY helpful. However, the correct place to settle this question is at the AFD, not here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Improper synthesis and paraphasring of sources on Amway

There are some new edits on Amway that are clearly based on poor sourcing, inaccurate paraphrasing, and WP:SYNTH – the issue is now bordering on tendentious editing. There are two examples, and they are precipitating an emerging edit war with the user who who made the edits (Icerat), who happens to have quite the history of POV pushing and, shall we say, less than ideal conduct on Amway-related articles.

Example 1: Quote from -- Maryam Henein. (November 28–December 5, 1997). "The Revenge of the Amdroids". Philadelphia City Paper. Retrieved 2011-05-11. http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/112896/article009.shtml.

Original text reads:

“Philadelphia City Paper correspondent Maryam Henein stated that “The language used in motivational tools for Amway frequently echoes or directly quotes the Bible, with the unstated assumption of a shared Christian perspective.”[Source Henein 1997]

Revised text (by Icerat)[67] reads:

“Philadelphia City Paper correspondent Maryam Henein, referring to motivational materials produced independently by distributors Dexter Yager and William Britt and sold to other distributors in their downline, stated that “The language used ... frequently echoes or directly quotes the Bible, with the unstated assumption of a shared Christian perspective.” [Source Henein 1997] (newly added text is indicated in bold)

Note two things here: Henein’s quote included in the original article’s text was taken -- verbatim -- directly from the beginning of a section of the City Paper article entitled “The Lord’s Way” in which she introduces a new discussion about the promotion of Christianity within the Amway organization and about a book by Steven Butterworth that addresses this theme. First of all, note that the edit replaced a key portion of the quote (“in motivational tools for Amway”) with ellipsis ("...") to make it seem as though the author did not refer to Amway specifically – in other words, purposeful obfuscation. Secondly, the section of Henein’s article that the original quote was taken from, verbatim, mentions absolutely nothing about Yager or Britt, and it is misleading on Icerat’s part to represent that the author was “referring to materials” specifically produced by Yager/Britt. This is WP:SYNTH and non-neutral POV -- the apparent aim of the edit was to make it seem, rather deceptively I would have to say, that Henein was not referring to the Amway organization but rather to only two these 2 individuals specifically.

Example 2: Alleged 1982 Dexter Yager interview with CBS.

The second example of contentious editing/improper sourcing by Icerat was the addition of new material to the Amway article that allegedly was based on an alleged 60 Minutes interview in 1982 with Dexter Yager. This material was added immediately following the Henein quote to create the misleading impression that it is Yager alone who is responsible for the promotion of Christianity in the Amway organization. The text added by Icerat[68] was as follows:

“Dexter Yager, interviewed on 60 minutes in 1982, admitted that he promotes Christianity through his Amway group, but stated that this was not the case in other Amway groups.”

Icerat cited the source for this simply as “Soap and Hope. 60 Minutes. CBS. 1982”

No link was provided to any transcript, video, or any official source that confirms that this show even existed let alone that it included comments supportive of the text Icerat added to the Amway article. No air date was included in the citation nor was an access date included to confirm that the source was in fact verified by the editor in question. When challenged on this edit, Icerat replied[69] as follows:

“As for the Yager quote, Wallace, following up on Yager talking about his christianity, says ‘I see overtones of religion in Amway’. Yager replies ‘In my Amway, not everybody's Amway, everybody has their own Amway’. Wallace then goes on to talk about the talk of religious overtones he's encountered talking about Amway in Charlotte (where Yager lives and is being interviewed) and Yager again says ‘well, that's me, I'm a Christian’.

Note two things here. (1) No verifiable source (2) the unverifiable quoted text provided by Icerat doesn’t even remotely support the paraphrased version added to the Amway article. Yager doesn’t admit “that he promotes Christianity through his Amway group”, as indicated in the text Icerat added to the article, nor does he say anything suggesting that “this was not the case in other Amway groups”. It’s yet another example of WP:SYNTH, poor sourcing, and POV pushing. I pointed this out to the editor, but to no avail.[70] Notice also the ironic fact that Icerat prefaced that Talk thread with a lecture about the evils of WP:SYNTH, not using verifiable sources, and POV pushing.[71]

Can we please get some reliable eyes on this so that we remove this dross from the article without it precipitating yet another unnecesary debate [72] and edit war[73] with Icerat. Thanks Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo blogs

Can we have a discussion regarding Yahoo blogs? FACs are dependant on this and I thought that it is better to have them here. Some FAC reviewers are of the opinion that Yahoo blogs, being blogs, are not reliable. I oppose the viewpoint because these are not just some random blogspot.com papers. The yahoo blogs and the threads are written by highly respected music editors, journalists, theorists from the music world, including Paul Grein (former Billboard editor), Caryn Ganz (senior Rolling stone editor), Billy Johnson Jr. (music critic), Lyndsey Parker (Billboard) etc. Just because the term blog is associated with them, the editors are rejecting these sources, which present high volume of information. FAC reviewers are also of the opinion that Yahoo! doesnot have any rights over these blogs, which is codswallop imo, because every page is copyrighted to them. I opened this thread to know the opinion of other fellow editors here at WP:RSN, so that the confusion and the blanket overlap between reliable and unreliable sources are cleared. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Blogs which are published by distinguished/reknowned/notable experts in some field can be treated as self published sozrces an expert (see WP:SPS, WP:USERG). In short they may be acceptable in articles as source, whether they are or not depends on the particular usage and context. However FA may formulate additional criteria which rules them out (I don't really bother with FAC), but this is not really a question for this board but the FA process.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC is not above WP:CONSENSUS I believe, in this case the whole of music board has accepted these sources as reliable. My question for coming here is to look into that consensus, and see, if it is right. If so then I see no reason for FAC to dictate something, I will surely notify them. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG would seem to apply. Pieces written by a known journalist, signed, and appearing in a reputable website should be fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying FAC is right. I'm just saying the consensus of the music board is correct and in line with policies/guidelines as far as articles in general are concerned. Whether FAC should/can formulate additional requirements on sources for its articles is a separate topic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points: first, does Yahoo exercise editorial control over its blogs, as required by WP:NEWSBLOG? Just because it's copyrighted by them doesn't mean that's the case, and demonstrating that it is would help to verify their reliability. Second, the FA criteria demand high-quality reliable sources, which is a more stringent requirement than most other areas of the project. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fox News is an unreliable source

Here is the finest example of why they cannot be used. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Seems you feel "IDONTLIKETHEARTICLE" makes the facts therein false in some way? Sorry - that is not how Wikipedia works. Are you asserting the quotes are fake? You would need a strong reliable source for that claim, and so far I have seen no refutation of the quotes. So you are stuck - sometimes reliable sources print what you know is wrong. Survive. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, a reliable source is a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Does this source demonstrate fact-checking or accuracy? Does Fox News have a reputation for either? More importantly, IRS says that "care should be taken" with sources that "exist mainly to promote a particular point of view". For example, "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." In the case of Fox News, I think most rational people can agree that the Fox News article, while not a journal article, is not considered reliable by the scientific community, except to show the view of climate change deniers. Therefore, Fox News cannot be considered a reliable source on the subject of climate change. This is only one example. The point is, if Fox News has a history of unreliable reporting, we should consider the possibility that they are not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia that endeavors to uses reliable sources. An easy way to determine if this is true, is to look at their record. Have they won awards for their reporting? That's a good place to start. In other words, have they been recognized for excellence in journalism? Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I see the old "most rational people" straw argument rear its head? Show me a false statement in the article. Show me a faked quote. Missourians unite! Chris Wallace, to name just one, - many awards, as is true of a number of the Fox News staff. Oops - just disproved your claim on that sort of carping complaint about a source you do not appear to like. The problem is, we all have to accept sources we do not like. That is how this thing is supposed to work. The premise is that using multiple sources ends up with something approaching an encyclopedia article. And that is the way it is. Collect (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, you are kidding. The entire article is false, Collect. There's nothing "reliable" about "reporting" deliberate lies. They might as well have printed "the Moon is made of green cheese". There is no difference between that statement and their article. According to IRS, we don't have to accept sources that have a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This Fox News source is a great example of such a source. No fact-checking, and inaccurate. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm no fan of FOX News, in fact I consider them partisan hacks, but I'm not sure that we can say they are always an unreliable news source because of this particular example. Sure, they should not be used for climate science, or any science if you ask me, but that doesn't mean they are unreliable for all news.Griswaldo (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, and I followed the last discussion along those lines (was it here or another noticeboard?) However, when a news organization goes to such lengths to publish explicit distortions of facts and evidence, one has to wonder about their commitment to fact-checking and accuracy. As far as I can tell, all of the arguments that say "but they are not always unreliable" amount to nothing but "Hitler was kind to animals" arguments. Fox News might publish something accurate once, but that doesn't account for the 99 other stories they distorted. I'm reminded of the "stopped clock" argument as well. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Again - what is the explicit distortion you assert is in that article? And source for showing it is a "distortion". As for the Godwin's Law violation you just made -- it shows the weakness of your argument utterly and completely. We all "know" which sources are wrong - but that is not how RS works, not how WP works, and not how real life works. Collect (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If a source like Fox News prints 99 unreliable articles and one that is considered reliable, that doesn't mean it has a "reputation" for fact-checking and accuracy. In order for it to have such a reputation, it must actually write accurate articles and fact-check them. It should also be recognized for its reporting, for example, by awards or recognition by journalists. Is Fox News considered the paragon of fact-checking and accuracy, Collect? If not, why are you saying we should treat it as reliable? Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You made a specific charge. You appear not to have any powder in your gun. So you are left with "well I know they have been wrong somewhere, but I can't show they are wrong here" sort of? I fear the "example" you gave is not one, and you run the risk of crying wolf with such "examples." Collect (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

First the Wall Street Journal, now Fox News, what else is next? Do we begin to ban Huffington Post or MSNBC? Nay. Just because editors may disagree with the editorial content of the news sources, or the way that a story is reported, that doesn't mean that all content from the given source is not reliable. Do we as editors, who are suppose to edit in a manor that is consistent with WP:NPOV, suppose to continue to revisit this topic? Again, I am appalled that this even comes up. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Does a journalist have a responsibility to uphold journalism ethics and standards or to maintain and promote the singular viewpoint of its parent corporation or sponsor? Where do you draw the line between journalism and propaganda, between news and infotainment, between fact and fantasy? Facts may be stupid things to some people, but there is a solid ground, a place where we can all start from, a foundation we can rest our heads on and wake up in the same place the next day. Collect and others believe that Fox News has a right to report only one side of the story, and that's just fine, but reliable sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reporting one side is neither factual nor accurate. Viriditas (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could accurately state my position, Your assertion about what I "believe" is orthogonal to the truth. My position is that Wikipedia does not require that all sources exactly agree with what you know to be the Truth. Can that be accepted by you without resorting to personal asides? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: This thread is tl;dr, but please do take into consideration that FOX is the only news organization int eh US which has successfully fought a court battle for the right to publish falsehoods without identifying them as false, instead presenting falsehood as news. The court agreed with FOX's argument “that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102." Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102" FOX can (and does) lie in the news at will. "The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."[74] -- KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That's right, I forgot about that. According to some scientists, the coverage of climate science by outlets like Fox resulted in sustained attacks and threats on climate scientists. Isn't this a potential violation of the fighting words doctrine? Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidcen please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• The fact is, we have a strong consensus that Foxnews should be deemed a reliable source. In the last month we have had no less than three (more?) threads on this topic at various policy pages... and all of them have resulted in the same consensus: Individual Fox News reports can be challenged, but Fox News itself is a reliable source. The continued POV pushing on this is becoming disruptive. Please stop. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That must mean that Fox News has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'm curious, how do we measure a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Viriditas (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• BlueBoar, if FOX was deemed a RS, but has had no fewer than three threads questioning that view, perhaps the consensus is changing. I suggest at the very least that it be recognized that FOX is not universally accepted as an RS; that FOX has demonstrably not only lied in the news but fought and won court battles to protect their right to lie in the news; and cease accusing those who question FOX's status as an RS as "POV pushers" or "disruptive". One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Begins to look like forum shopping to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

May I ask, what forum am I supposed to be shopping this from? Do you know what forum shopping means, Slatersteven? Viriditas (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant this as a general observtion n the fact that this has be raised a nd rejected repeatedly and different users then decide they are not happy with that so raise it again. Perhpas Forum shopping is not the right phrase to use (which is why I say its begining to look like it, its treading into "we will continue to ask the same quesation untill we get the answer we want").Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I essentially agree Griswaldo and I consider Fox for the most part as partisan hacks with little journalistic integrity. Personally I wouldn't use them to source anything, however I see no reason to ban Fox as a source in general, since there are many scenarios where Fox might largely unproblematic (consider topics which are not particularly politicized or partisan such as sports for instance). Moreover this subject has been discussed over and over (see archives) and the result was more or less always: yes Fox is often crappy, but banning fix in genereal is not possible. --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So the bottom line is, you are encouraged to avoid Fox personally and you are welcome to kick out particular low quality fox articles being used for POV pushing and to relativize proper peer reviewed and/or academic sources. But this has to be judged on an individual basis and does not mean Fox cannot be used at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, considering Fox News as a reliable source always seemed to be a US insider joke to me. "Sure they are reliable *wink* *wink*....". Fox, like all large media companies, also reprints or rebroadcasts standard wire service messages, but nothing they report is reliable because it comes via Fox. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

They are no more (and no less) reliable than many other news outlets that have a biase (and no one disagrees they are biasee but are we saying that if biase can be demonstrated that renders a source non-RS?)Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bias and reliability are logically independent (although in practice correlated). In a proper news medium, reporting and editorial opinion are clearly separated. Bias is restricted to opinion pieces and possibly also shows itself in the selection of what is reported. Fox, however, hopelessly muddles news and opinion. That's what makes it unreliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So do any number of other media outlets (many of which are RS). Moreover we have asked for evidacen that FOX has actualy published lies, none have been presented.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. Wildly mixing facts and opinions in an non-transparent way is the hallmark of unreliable reporting. If there are other media outlets that do it, they are not reliable, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As discussed below, Fox news in this instance was openly basing a story on fringe blogs. Not reliable as a science report, but possible as a primary source of fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 15:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So excaclty what is ths being used as a source for? This is not about the mis-use of one story its about an attmept to remove sources whoes POV users do not agree with.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Narrow focus

I'm looking and I'm just not seeing anything unreliable about this article. Just disagreeing with the claims made in the article doesn't make it an unreliable source. Is anyone misquoted in the article? Some editors may disagree with the article's conclusions, but are there incorrect facts at all? Mathewignash (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears Viriditas is using the article to support a view that FOX should not be used as a reliable source, but it is unclear whether he is making the case for Climate articles, in general, or on this specific subject. I suggest either the scope be narrowed or the subject be tabled at this time. Is the article linked to used as a source for any Wikipedia article? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the specific article is not stated false facts, it does however misrepresent topic due to false characterizations and omissions and it is definitely a no-go as a source for contested climate science or politics articles. However I agree that does not mean Fox cannot be used as a source in general nor can a specific article be used to judge a media outlet in general (all outlets produce crap once in a while anyhow. The question how much and with what prevalence and how grave the errors or mischaracterizations are).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Viriditas alleged it was somehow false - but has so far failed to provide any proof that it is false. I am sure almost every news organization has printed falsehoods, but alleging that Fox specifically deliberately does so requires some evidence. BTW, the case about the FCC was not asserting a licence to deliberately tell falsehoods, but was rather broader - does any governmnet have the right to assert that only pravda can be published? In fact, many countries have such "laws" and (for some odd reason) are not considered to have a "free press" as required by the US Constitution here. From my position, requiring "truth" (as defined by the government) would violate the Constitution - and it appears the US legal system agrees. Collect (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has not changed, its just being ignored.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, it are discussions similar to this one that brings the critics of Wikipedia in general, claiming that it has a bias against a certain school of thought in a given nation. If these type of discussions lead to possible editors not joining our community because of a perceived bias it only serves to hinder our communities growth. Furthermore, if these type of discussions, lead possible editors TO join because of a perceived bias that also diminishes one of the core principles of our community. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Conveniently, Myths and falsehoods from the assault on global warming science | Media Matters for America provides an analysis of the claims in the Fox news article. While that appears to be a politically partisan source, in much the same way as Fox news is, it provides links to sources supporting its analysis which are open to careful consideration. Fox also provides links, largely to the Pajamas Media blog which appears to be the basis of its article. That would only appear to be a reliable souce as a selfpublished primary source of libertanian thought. . . dave souza, talk 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice that it also mentions The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, The Washington Times. Are these also unreliable?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The WSJ has a fairly questionable opinion page, but is reasonably RS for facts from its proper news reporting. I don't know the NYP. The WaTimes was the Moonie rag. It's reliability is extremely questionable indeed.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

<ec> Depends on the context. The Wall Street Journal has a track record of promoting misinformation about climate science but is likely to be as reliable as other business papers for business matters, The Washington Times apparently has a reputation for promoting themes congenial to its Unification Church ownership, no comment on the New York Post. However, in this case the focus is on Fox news spreading blog misinformation, as with its promotion of the flawed Anthony Watts (blogger)#SurfaceStations.org claims which went all quiet when a peer reviewed study showed that the supposedly badly placed thermometers recorded less warming than other thermometer stations. . . dave souza, talk 15:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes but its a question about the general rule of RS. If Fox is not RS then any other source that demonstrates the saem tendancies must also be non-RS. The question is is this driven by a desire to make wikipedia more accurae or just an attpemt to make iot present a POV as the truth and reject any dissenting POV ?15:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Agreed, we should be very careful about any source that has a reputation for promoting misinformation and basing stories on fringe blogs. In the same way, we should avoid using the Daily Mail as a source for BLP or science issues. Always best to find a more reliable source. Of course I assume that everyone here is driven by a desire to make wikipedia more accurate, and trust that you'll agree that fringe "dissenting POV" should be shown as such in accordance with weight policy. . . dave souza, talk 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on what its being used as a source for. What is this artciel being used as a source for? This begins to look more like a weight issue then an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters has stated specifically that they are out to discredit Fox News. New York Times News Max. It makes sense then that there is an effort here to discredit reliable source news organizations that have an american conservative editorial lean. That doesn't mean though that it should continue. Nor should reliable source news organizations that have an american liberal editorial lean should not be considered reliable sources. Views should be given due weight, but articles should be edited from a NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV requires giving due weight to majority expert views, and Fox news clearly lacks scientific expertise which is better represented by reputable scientific organisations such as NASA, and by peer reviewed publications. You'll note I was careful to draw attention to the open agenda of Media Matters, and recommend examining their claims with the same care that is needed for Fox news. Your comments on politics are interesting, but when dealing with the validity of science are irrelevant. Of course I appreciate that reality has a well known liberal bias. . . . dave souza, talk 16:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Narrowed the focus

As the OP is not going to I will. Is Fox news RS for climate science?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The content that is supported by Fox News, or other reliable sources, that is skeptical of Man caused global warming should be included; but content supported by it should be given no less, or no more weight, then other content supported by Fox News, or other reliable sources, that support content that supports man caused global warming. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously in error both about reliable sources for science and about our weight policy. You also appear to be misusing the term "skeptical", but that's a common political ploy so understandable. . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Can you specify any specific false statements in the example given at the start of this? Any false quotes? WP does not (repeat - does not) give special weight to "correct science" per ArbCom. The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion. shows the current ArbCom position clearly. Curiously enough, WP:TRUTH is not found in the findings and principles. As for asserting that an editor is using a "common political ploy" I suggest you read WP:AGF. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Collect, please read carefully. My assumption is that, in all good faith, an editor has been misled by a common political ploy which uses "skeptic" to mean "credulous". You request an example of a false statement: the opening line "By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data" is a falsehood. The emails they cite, and link to via download from Pajamas Media, show two responses to Today clarifying that each data set has advantages for specific purposes, NCDC being best for reporting US means, and HadCRUT for global means. As Hansen states, the GISS series uses different methods such as extrapolating polar temperatures which is appropriate for evaluating modelling and showing Arctic anomolies which check out well against other methods. NASA clearly did not admit its records are in "worse shape", they explained to a reporter that the different datasets use different methods for different purposes, and cooperate to understand the implications of differences in the results. All that is available from the Fox web page, but contradicts the Fox spin. Oddly enough, a lot of the "besmirching" of CRU was because they used additional met office records which may well have improved their accuracy, but were not available for republication and hence not included in the other more "open" datasets. . . dave souza, talk 21:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You assert its falsity. Thanks. Now show a source which shows that the statement is false. That was the important half. Frankly if two or more sets of data are used for different purposes, it is reasonable to assert that the data sets do not furnish congruent results. Is there a reason why you would dispute that? I recall in Physics lab courses that we had to play the cards we were dealt - that choosing different data sets was not proper in scientific research. Is that no longer true? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The source linked from the Fox article shows that their statement "by its own admission" is false. To add to the fun, Fox use quote mining when they write "He said 'the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,' admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings." The email states "to get the US means,the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate. If that were our goal, we would proceed in the same way." More accurate for US means is not the same as an unqualified "more accurate". Which is why care has to be taken when using a source like Fox with a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is still too broad. We can not determine whether Fox is RS for climate science, because we need to know a0 which Fox report are we talking about, and b) exactly what statement are we using the Fox report to support. Reliability always comes down to examining the specific statement that we make in our articles, and never can be assessed for entire topic areas. A Fox report (or any other media source) is unlikely to be reliable for a broad assertion that some bit of climate data is flawed... but it would be highly likely to be an excellent source for a statement that some individual has said the data is flawed. Again, this isn't just Fox... Media sources in general are terrible sources when it comes to supporting specific science facts. However media sources in general are excellent sources when it comes to supporting reaction to and opinion concerning those science facts. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Fox, but Fox is particularly bad :-)--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but Fox News is a news agency that does not conduct independent research in the climate science area (as well as in any other). The only thing it can do is to transmit the opinion of some climatologist, or similar expert. Therefore, the Fox is a reliable source for such statement as "An expert X believes that ...", or "Study performed by YYY demonstrate that...". However, in that case why cannot we simply quote the opinion of X, or present the results of the studies made by YYY directly? Obviously, the fact that all of that has been transmitted by Fox does not give more or less weight to these studies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor do ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Reuters, AP, UPI, NYT etc. They report as journalists and not as researchers. The interview people. Scientists do not interview people about such issues as Climate Change. Your point is identically valid for every news organization in the universe. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Therefore, I do not know what is the need to use the journalist report about some research if the result of this research can be taken directly from the research articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes but news agencies and in particular Fox open a way for non peer reviewed publications/opinions of "experts". An old trick to circumvent "academic quality control" (similarly like think tanks, vanity publications, industry sponsored journals), that's why the "reliability" of such publication is of interest of anybody who primarily wants to push POv rather than writing a quality article. In addition publication in news outlets are often easier to read/understand for lay people than the original scientific publications.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

MobileReference

This is just a heads-up that MobileReference, a Boston-based e-book publisher of encyclopedias and reference books for Kindle and similar platforms, uses material from Wikipedia. Where this is the case, their works fail WP:CIRCULAR and should not be cited.

We have a few dozen citations to their works at present; they come up in Google Books, and may easily be mistaken for a reliable source. --JN466 17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Washington bost blog - for a death claim

Resolved

 – asking and answering my own questions - seems to be a WP:RS - Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, is this WP blog enough to support a death claim - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-mortem/post/snooky-young-92-year-old-jazz-trumpeter-dies/2011/05/13/AFtW7p2G_blog.html - it seems to be looking at the about the poster has been writing obituaries for the post since 2004 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postmortem/2007/09/matt-schudel.html - Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing a listing - for a company displaying false/misleading information

Dear Wikipedia

I object strongly to Geoff Lord's entry, as I currently have a CCJ against the company he is advertising - French cosmetic surgery ltd. They have given addresses on their website in UK but is a PO Box and the address in France is a private address (flat) not a clinic.

They owe UK citizens tens of thousands of pounds including myself and I object to them continuing to publicise on legitimate companies.