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

Page numbers

I'm having a conversation with an editor who is trying to bring an article to GA status. He or she admits to removing references from the article if they don't have page numbers. I would contend that, since books generally have an index in which the reader can run down a pageless references, removing a ref from a reliable source simply because it does not have a page number is not improving an article but harming it. The editor points to WP:V#Burden of evidence as his justification. It does indeed say that references should have page numbers where appropriate, but my feeling is that a good, legitimate partial ref is better than no ref at all. Could I get some opinions on this? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why providing page numbers should be a problom. Ple explain why page numbers arnt availible.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a question for whomever put the ref in, and is rather beside the point, which is that working on an article as found is it legitimate to remove a reference simply because it doesn't include page numbers? Obviously, if one has access to the source, one should look up the ref and add the page number, and if one knows who added the ref, they can be asked to provide the numbers, but if those options fail, and the reference remains without page numbers, is it a good idea to remove the ref, because it is not complete to the ideal extent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we have an example of such as source? Also I would argue that if its a GAn then it would realy have to obey the rules on sourceing. I would say (as I have now looked at the edit in question) that Yes it is resonable to remove poor sourcing from a GAN. The fact it does not have page numbers (and looks a bit confused, it seems to be refering to two sources so may be synthatsis) I would say that without a page number (or I should say page numbers) are needed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, if an article has a reference which says, for instance, "Dumbroski, Albert. Cucumbers of Northern Australia Cambridge: Notlob Press, 1976.", which tells us where the information cited came from, it improves the article to remove the reference because it doesn't indicate any page numbers, despite the fact that the article now presents to the reader no source for the information? That seems counter-intuitive to me, and goes against the general principle that we don't remove material because it is badly formatted. Since the vast majority of references on Wikipedia that could have page numbers do not have them, you would seem to be advocating denuding the project of a considerable amount of its refs. I don't see that as a productive interpretation of policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He's not suggesting that the article use poor sourcing. He's trying to improve the sourcing. What he's saying is that it would be more of an improvement to find the page, or ask for a page number, rather than removing the source. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where the source is a book, I would say it generally is okay to remove material that is sourced without page numbers, because this material is not properly verifiable. There might be an issue where the result is to make nonsense of the article, but since the editor is aiming for GA this doesn't seem like it applies here. So I think they are behaving properly. --FormerIP (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just use the template, or find the page number in the index? It seems like it would be more productive than deleting information, or leaving an unsourced statement in the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(after reading the last comment) If they are removing the reference but not the information is supports then no, this would not be improving the article. They should remove both or neither. --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Or just add the template or find the page number themselves, leaving us with a more comprehensive article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

My argument would be the opposite - if such a reference is removed, it is then impossible for me to find the book and determine which pages should be included, and then to update the reference. We assume that the editor adding the reference has verified that the source does indeed back the statement, even without page numbers - unless the information is questioned, that should be sufficient. Now, including no reference? Different story. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But the editor is trying for GA. An article that cites books without page numbers shouldn't pass GA, so the editor has a few choices. Either find the page numbers, find alternative sourcing or remove the relevant material. If they are removing the cites but not the material then not only are they not improving the article, but it also probably won't pass GA anyway because it will be insufficiently sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One should only meet a GA standard by improving an article, not by removing stuff that's useful, informative and legitimate but doesn't happen to meet GA standards. If an article has legit refs without page numbers, and the page numbers can't be found, then the article just can't be brought to GA status at that time. (There's nothing wrong with that, most of our articles will never be GAs, including many that are fine, useful articles.) Removing deficient refs isn't fixing the article, it's simply hiding the warts so no one will see them.

Our goal should be to have our articles be as useful as possible to the reader. To the extent that bringing articles to GA status helps to achieve that goal, it's a good thing, but if making an article a GA starts to actually decrease the usefullness of the article by removing stuff that's deficient but still of value, then the intermediate goal of reaching GA has started to get in the way of the ultimate goal, and that's a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The source being there very likely means someone put the effort in to do research on the topic, and it is a shame to waste their effort and lose useful information out of sheer laziness (i.e. "I don't feel like making the effort to find the page number"). This is exactly what the template is for. They should request a page number, or find it themselves. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is plain disruptive nonsense. By this logic, references to online versions of IEEE Spectrum or Die Presse must be removed because they (unlike the New York Times archive) don't provide page numbers of their hardcopy versions. Books from Project Gutenberg and archive org (example: long text with no page numbers or same text) are also banned until the editor... well of course the editor will not storm the LOC, neither invent fake page numbers. That GA rules do not mention any page numbers is, of course, none of your business. You just delete references, delete referenced content and enjoy the sunshine. East of Borschov 20:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not right at all, East of, because guidance only recommends page numbers for sources that have pages. If your source is HTML then the page numbers requirement does not apply. We don't need to argue about the logic though, because it's just a matter of policy (WP:Page numbers).

I think the long and short of this is that any editor, provided they are not being tendentious, pointy etc, is entitled to remove any material that doesn't conform to policy if they want to. The editor is right to point to BoE. Any editor is also entitled to begin preparing any article for GA at any time, as far as I can see. --FormerIP (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And before deleting it and throwing away another editor's contributions, they could say and wait for a few days at least. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I fail to understand why someone would remove perfectly good citations just because they don't have page numbers. Even if the book/journal physically has page numbers, since, as pointed out, many sources don't. If available, it obviously would be a good idea and helpful to include page numbers, and we should. But not to the point of removing them if they don't. I agree with Beyond My Ken that removing citations just because they don't have page numbers (when they are available) actually harms the article. BTW, where is the link to a policy that says pages number are required? — Becksguy (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Page numbers --FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note. The question is whether the editor is allowed to remove this material, not whether that is the best thing to do. The material technically fails to meet policy requirements, so removing it is allowed. It may be a minor defect compared to, say, not being sourced at all, but the main thing is that anyone who cares enough can find the page number and restore the material. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is totally disruptive to remove these references just because they lack page numbers. Make page numbers a criterion to pass GA if need be, add the page numbers if you know them or replace the reference with one where you have page numbers, but certainly don't nuke them out of the article. Readers are presumably smart enough to use indexes and tables of contents if they bother to go to a library to pick the book up. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So go to the appropriate forum and make the case for changing the policy. An editor can't be blamed for following policy. --FormerIP (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that's not "following policy". WP:Page numbers which is a guideline, not a policy, explicitly states "Page numbers are especially important for lengthy, non-indexed books, but they are not required for a reference to the source as a whole, for example when describing a complete book or article or when the source is used to illustrate a particular point of view." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If any of those exceptions applies in this case then fine, but it doesn't look like that is the case. --FormerIP (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Page numbers might not be policy, but Wikipedia:Verifiability certainly is, and that says "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate". O Fenian (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And that "where appropriate" is a clear indication that page numbers are not a "deal breaker" in regard to citations. Also. while it is true that any editor can remove something from an article that goes against policy, that is not the case with a citation without page numbers, which is deficient from what policy describes as the ideal but does not transgress policy. Such a removal is, sorry to repeat myself, harmful to the article and to the reader because it removes information that is valuable even if it isn't everything it ought to be. We should never be making articles less useful to readers simply to honor some mechanical interpretation of policy: we are human, we have brains, and we're supposed to use them to make reasoned judgements, that's what IAR is all about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And where a source is being misused but can't be checked because there's no page number? If there's no page number, the reference should be removed (unless there's a tag I don't know). 'Where appropriate' refers to the majority of cases where referring to the book as a whole isn't what is being done. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It refers to books which aren't indexed, which are a minority when it comes to reference works. If you need to draw attention to missing pages in the ref, just use {{page needed}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you really trying to suggest that WP:Page numbers doesn't apply to books that have an index, Headbomb? You can use {{page needed}} if you want or you can remove the material. There doesn't appear to be a rule to say which is preferable. The tag is really only a notice for other editors saying that material is deficient and may be removed. But the editor here is preparing for a GA reveiw, so we shouldn't expect them to be leaving things for other editors to fix. --FormerIP (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If an editor insists on removing references simply because they believe that references without page numbers will prevent a quick GA, that editor is performing disruptive editing that is harming the article, and the editor should be asked to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's tendentious editing. I'm just saying that books, indexed or not, should have page numbers in most cases, and I'd expect that in a GA article as FormerIP says, we shouldn't be leaving that for someone else, and it is policy to have them. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you exmplain how you think it is tendentious, though. The editor does not appear to be skewing the article. They appear to be engaging in a review process and responding to things raised by the reviewer. In this context, what is wrong with removing poorly-sourced material? --FormerIP (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think if someone is going around just removing citations that don't have page numbers on sight, that's a problem. If, however, they're removing incomplete citations in the course of actively improving an article, for instance by replacing them with new, properly cited sources or reworking the material based on what can actually be verified, that's just common sense.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute seems to have arisen becuase an editor inserted a phrase into the text of the article during the GA review, but the nominator felt it wasn't clear what the phrase inserted meant and removed it on the basis that there was no page number (this is totally understandable, because the insufficiently sourced addition could have meant a GA failure). The nominator also seems to be willing to try to find the page number themselves and re-insert. How are they doing anything wrong?--FormerIP (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, it doesn't appear to me that they are doing anything wrong.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't that specific incident that sparked my question, but the editor's statement that "i am in the middle of removing/replacing all those [refs] that do not give page numbers". Replacing deficient refs is, of course, a good thing, but to my inquiry as to whether they were removing refs simply on the basis of not having page numbers, the response was "Yes i will remove a ref 'simply because they don't have page numbers?". It was this response that provoked my question, and it is this behavior that it appears consensus is saying is not good editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes I think that is okay in itself, provided there is nothing tendentious or pointy about the edit and providing it doesn't make nonsense of the article. We are allowed to remove any material that isn't properly sourced according to our guidelines - otherwise, what is the point of the guidelines? --FormerIP (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the guidelines is to aid us in improving the encyclopedia. Removing "proper" but formally deficient references is not improving the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not so clear. Including a reference that doesn't actually verify gives a false impression to the reader that the material (and citation) are valid. However, a book citation, without a page number, cannot really be verified. Without a page number, there's no straightforward way of checking to see that the source backs up the claim. If a page number cannot be produced, then the footnote will eventually have to go. I'd give editors a little while to produce one, but if they can't, then removing it is best. An unverifiable footnote is worse than none at all; the latter, at least, gives an obvious indication of a problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, an unverifiable or incompleted verified footnote is the best posssible indication of a problem, because it is obviously incomplete or marked as unverified. An absence of a footnote gives no indication whatsoever whether there is a problem, or what the problem is. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

a book citation, without a page number, cannot really be verified. Without a page number, there's no straightforward way of checking to see that the source backs up the claim. Oh my goodness, that's wny non-fiction books generally have an index, and even without an index, any decent researcher can, with the expenditure of a small amount of effort, find a specific reference within a specific book - I do it all the time! The idea that a reference which is legitimate and proper but which is merely formally deficient can be removed is just utterly silly. You've got a source, you just don't have all the information about the source we'd like and prefer to have. That doesn't make it harmful and removable, that makes it in need of being fixed - just as we don't remove sentences because they're badly written or spelled, we fix them. When you've got the editor who added the source on the line (so to speak) and ask them to provide page numbers, if they refuse or can't do it, there might be sufficient reason to be suspicious of the ref (but there's always AGF to consider), but when upgrading an article and refs from some time ago need to be fixed and perhaps the editor isn't active, removal of the ref has got to be considered detrimental to the article, and not an improvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Beyond My Ken on this one. Fixing is the better way. Removing suspicious sources is good, but simply lacking a page number seems a pretty poor practice. The chances of removing a decent source are pretty high. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Indices are often incomplete, and it's not at all an easy thing to find a specific reference in a book of several hundred pages. Such a citation fails WP:V, which states "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone explain why this is an issue for this board? Which source are we being asked to comment on the reliability of? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources without page numbers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources (presumably) have page numbers. It's the citations that don't. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken. When encountered by important information, backed by a high quality source that is only lacking a page number, I think it would be better to use the template, and wait a couple of days before throwing away an editor's time spent researching and writing the content. Or they could find the page number themselves. It's a shame to throw away good work, rather than improving it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers are a nice to have. They may be required for FA, but are not required for GA, per WP:WIAGA. The entire idea of removing non-paginated references is wrongheaded--tag them or fix them yourself, if you want to see things perfected. The rest of us are happy to live in the real world. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The rest of us are happy to live in the real world. Precisely! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers are required for WP:V, which means it's required for all articles, regardless of whether they are FAs, GAs, or simply stubs. Complying with WP:V is also a specific requirement of WP:WIAGA. The "real world" doesn't have WP:V; Wikipedia does. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Again -- nobody is saying that we shouldn't have page numbers. Why does this straw man keep getting repeated ad nauseum? What people are saying is that if a citation doesn't have page numbers, then we should add them or ask someone else to with the template, rather than deleting the citation and wasting somebody's valuable research time. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but sooner or later a page number has to be provided. How long does a tagged citation like that stay in an article - a week? a month? a year? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That essay is basically irrelevant; if material is not properly cited after a reasonable amount of time, then one can reasonably assume that the material is not true or not verifiable and remove it. Editors can disagree over whether or not that "reasonable amount of time" is a week or a month, but anything tagged and unfixed for a year can, without question, be removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are other reasons for suspicion that's a different matter, but where is the policy which says this assumption can be made only based on a missing page number? There are in fact policies which say it can not be made. OTOH the policies you are cite are concerning missing citations. Just to remind what we are talking about here are missing page numbers, not missing citations. Inconvenience or imperfection of verification are explicitly described as things which we may not simply decide to equate to lack of verification. We've all been in situations where we'd like to delete something based on assumptions, maybe because we don't have time to think it through, but we should not work like that and it is incorrect to say that such actions are sanctioned by policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the argument by DGG, I'm changing my argument. Absent Google Books, or an on-line database with page numbers, or walking into a library and checking, having dead tree citations without page numbers are red flags, and they run the risk of being citations that do not support the content. It's possible that the only on-line verification is an abstract, which essentially says the book exists and covers a general area, but does not verify the actual content. If there is any reason to doubt the citation, then follow WP:V and add the page numbers, or if the citation cannot be verified, then delete if appropriate on a case by case basis. However, I don't think we should delete citations just because they don't have page numbers, if there is no other reason to doubt them. As mentioned above, real world constraints are such than not all citations can be checked on any realistic basis. — Becksguy (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The way to judge an edit is simply whether it improves an article, surely? Wikipedia does not demand perfection (WP:IMPERFECT), and it has no WP:DEADLINE, so WP:PRESERVE (also known as WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:IMPROVE make up the basic edit policy. It is therefore hard to imagine any situation where deleting a source because of a missing page number is anything other than a tendentious violation of the basic slogans of the project such as WP:BURO. Making an article worse is by definition bad editing. Arguing that this bad is excusable because of urgency or convenience is not appropriate to WP. And anyway in practice in most cases finding the page number and putting it in yourself will take hardly any more time than deleting material. And if an editor does not have the time or possibility to add a missing page number, the correct thing to do is to leave it and hope someone else will later, just as with anything you see that looks like it can be improved but which you can't do yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Frequently in my experience, i've found that the absence of a page number for a citation from a book whose title seems plausibly relavant is a red flag. The absence of a page number requires someone to read the whole book until they come to the relevant info. Often the info that's purported to be there is not, in fact, there (again, in my experience). The problem may well be that the info is not there. Have no idea about his present dispute, but if an editor has added a citation to a book and when challenged "which page/pages" the answer is "I dunno" you might have a problem. It's hard to judge whether an edit has improved an article or not absent a page number, because it makes it harder to determine if the information is accurately presented. All this said, I agree with Becksguy that we should't delete cites "just because" there aren't page numbers. But in contentious areas, the burden of providing the page number should be on the editor introducing the source.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you do not have time to look up the source, and you do not know the source, and you suspect it, you can tag it. That is a basic WP policy. But also try extending the logic to similar situations: imagine anyone who suspects that something in an article might be wrong in some way, but does not know for sure, can just delete it. Wikipedia could not function if that was allowed, and that is why this is one of the most basic principles of Wikipedia policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew -- You make an edit in an article sourced to a 500 page book. I ask you "What's the page number, i'm going to the library to check." You answer: "I don't know the page number, read the whole book yourself and let me know when you've found what i assert is in there." If we were to have such an exchange, i would have extreme doubts. I think most people would.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that you can not be expected to check everything in Wikipedia easily. Sometimes you'll find it easy and sometimes you won't. But there are other people also working on Wikipedia, and there is no deadline nor requirement for perfection, so you do not need to demand this, and you can't practice a policy of deleting what you personally as one individual find inconvenient to check at some particular time. Once again I ask you to consider what would happen if everyone would practice such a policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. Editor x inserts info and a book citation, with no page number. Editor y asks editor x what page number (since, by his edit editor x is in fact asserting that he's just read the relevant information and has access to the book). Editor X refuses to answer. At this point, it is not contingent on editor Y to read an entire book hunting for information that may well not be there. I've had a number of exchanges just like the one i've described in wikipedia, and have found that when i did seek out the source that editor x was lying. Their refusal to provide a page number is a strong piece of information that they've either made something up or assumed something was present, rather than verified it was present. Providing a page number for alleged information is a pretty low bar (basic scholarship), and if someone can't provide one when challenged, alarm bells should ring.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I really do understand because this kind of problem happens all the time and of course the problem is real. We've all felt the frustration. Wikipedia works despite that, even if not perfectly. It certainly won't work if everyone starts systematically breaking the basic policies. If you really have a good reason to believe material is fraudulent in a particular case then that would be a judgement call, but otherwise the normal rule for cases you can not currently improve are, unless there is something special, assume good faith, WP:PRESERVE, accept things will sometimes be WP:IMPERFECT and that there is no WP:DEADLINE. It would be hard to find a subject for discussion where you could fit more policies in one sentence! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate is exactly right here, and I've been in that exact situation: an editor is challenged to provide a citation for a claim, so he gives a book name. When challenged for a page number, he is unable or unwilling to provide one. That is a very strong indication that there is something fishy about the claim in the first place, typically that the book does not actually back up the claim either in part or in whole. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine cases where a quote looks suspicious, but if the only reason it looks suspicious is a missing page number this is no reason for deletion. An imperfect citation is not no citation, and WP Policy makes it clear that we leave imperfection, not delete it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate is correct. Including a page number in a citation "... is a pretty low bar (basic scholarship)..." And both of us has said that the refusal or inability to provide one is a cause for concern (with flags or bells). And I think that is a pretty important point to emphasize. It's absurdly easy to find basic citation information (author, title, city, publisher, year, ISBN) from Google Books or Scholar, other on-line sources, or the bibliographies usually included in serious books. Assuming AGF, but providing a basic citation does not mean that the including editor has actually read the source. It does not mean that the citation actually supports the content claim. Supporting content is usually not an issue with hot button articles, like anything related to Barrack Obama or the Middle East issues, where every word and comma of every source, and their reliability, is placed under a microscope and dissected. But it's more of a potential problem the less visible an article is. I even understand that there are a few people amongst the great unwashed that delight in introducing subtle vandalistic errors in the more obscure Wikipedia articles, and then wait to see how long before they are discovered and fixed by us. Citations should not be removed "just because" they are missing page numbers, nor should we go on a crusade to eliminate them. However, do challenge them, and if they can't be verified, then remove them per policy on a case by case basis. Content with citations that do not support the content is far worse than content without citations, as having citations implies that the content is more credible. Most readers do not read footnotes, and they rightly depend on authors and editors to be vigilant in this respect. — Becksguy (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The basic idea that a page number is needed is a good one. The process that says someone who won't provide page numbers is suspect is also reasonable. The process that started this thread, which is simply removing references that don't have page numbers, seems not to be the most productive route. If we WP:AGF then we're removing lots of good sources. It's better to ask for page numbers and upon failure to get them, if we can't check the source, then remove or transfer to the talk page for additional research. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Becksguy, if getting a page number is absurdly easy then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. This is fundamental WP policy. You have no right to demand anything from others as if there is a deadline concerning page numbers. I've already said that if you have other reasons to assume bad faith then that is a separate subject (not RS), but you seem to be saying "assume bad faith" should be our basic working assumption concerning all RS questions? I do not think so. Let me be devil's advocate: maybe all the people promoting this idea are just people who like to delete things without knowing the subject they are editing about? Please think about it. WP never worked by promoting the idea that all people are equally able to edit all articles. WP is not a democracy for a reason. If you do not know the subject you can do smaller jobs on articles but you shouldn't be trying to do more than you can. You can only hope someone else who knows the subject will come along, and normally they do eventually. (Remember there is no WP:DEADLINE.) Using rules to edit will never be a substitute for knowledge. (See WP:BURO.) If everything has to be verifiable to everyone then every sentence will need two or three footnotes and all article editing will be held up by wikilawyering forever. Step one will be delete nearly everything in every article? Will this improve WP?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I am saying in various comments here, missing page numbers are not enough on their own to assume bad faith and over-rule various core policies. We all know that there are circumstances where a line has to be drawn and bad faith considered as a possibility, but we all know that WP policy very rightfully tells us to be very careful about drawing that line. Some of the replies and posts here have appeared to imply a position that assuming bad faith should be the norm and deletion should be the norm. Assuming bad faith, and deleting material which might be right are for exceptional cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting info on Koçi Xoxe and Enver Hoxha

Two articles have conflicting info. A guy named Xoxe was executed in Albania by Enver Hoxha and company. In Hoxha's article Xoxe was shot by firing squad. In Xoxe's article he was hanged. Well, which one was it or did they do both to make sure? Special:Contributions/173.67.0.169\173.67.0.169 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2010

Hagelstein's cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften

This section was archived by a "bot" before a significant number of opinions (compared to other requests posted on this page) were offered. Given all the controversy at the cold fusion pages, there are not enough opinions here, by far! CAN the article described below be used as a secondary source for various primary sources? V (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal Naturwissenschaften has published a number of articles on cold fusion over the past five years, some of which are used in that article. However, Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)

Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:

1. "⁴He has been observed in the gas phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced"; and
2. "Such a large amount of excess energy produced with commensurate ⁴He as a product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical process"?

Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a review article, and it does not support cold fusion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Why does it say "REVIEW" across the top of the first page? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not have the style and format of a review article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a general topical review, but it is a wide-ranging review of particular data which it summarizes. Does that make it any less authoritative as a reliable source for the article? More importantly, why would or wouldn't it count as a secondary source for the two claims excerpted above? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a review of helium production in such experiments, and it does not evaluate those two claims. But you seem more interested in wikilawyering than in science. Bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a decent source, but it's not a review article even if the journal decided to paste "REVIEW" at the top. It's more like a commentary. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. They went through 1000+ sources tabulating data for summarization. In the process they noted helium correlations, which they reported along with a summarization of their results in a graph. How is that like a commentary? Ura Ursa (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I "second" that question. Naturwissenschaften was previously argued-about by anti-CF editors here, that it could not be a Reliable Source journal, just because it dared to publish a cold fusion article or three, among all the other types of articles it publishes. The anti-CF editors lost that particular debate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion#Use_of_Naturwissenschaften_article ), so they have since focussed on whether or not particular articles can qualify as sources for used on the main Cold fusion page. I suspect in this particular case, the anti-CF crowd might have to admit that this new article is a Review, which theoretically means that earlier Naturwissenschaften articles might now be allowed to be mentioned in the main CF page, --but that the anti-CF group will also be able to prevent referring to this new article there, because it itself has not been mentioned by other authors in other articles. And, obviously, if this article can't yet be referenced, then the other articles still can't be referenced! My new Question is, then, how may "layers" of reviews of reviews must the rest of the Wikipedia editors wait for, before any of those primary-reliable-source articles can be referenced???? V (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, good point. So let me add another question here:

3. Whether or not it is a review, is it a secondary source for the purposes of including the primary sources it discusses in the cold fusion article? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a secondary source published by a reliable publishing house (Springer Verlag). It's not necessary to clarify whether the article is a review or not. In addition, any original thought in this paper may be used as an expert opinion, but this is a different matter that should be discussed separately from the question of whether the source can be used to present the papers and positions it is presenting.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

??? What could be the problem? If it is a secondary source that references various primary Reliable Sources, then what in Wikipedia's rules could possibly prevent those primary sources from being referenced in the cold fusion article? V (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this be moved to the cold fusion talk page? It looks like it's about to be archived here. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think no. THIS is the place where the Question posed is most appropriate, to await an Answer. (oops, wasn't logged in) V (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a lull in the conversation, I will have a go at saying something. I have never edited (and scarcely looked at) CF articles. The article reads to me like a research paper. Its Introduction is by way of a review of the current state of the art (as is normal in research papers). In part Hagelstein analyses observations gleaned from other papers and so this lends a broad scope to his paper. The claims numbered 1 and 2 Ura Ursa quotes result from only four papers, one by Hagelstein himself. To me this provides rather a weak review of only speculative claims. In claim 2 “can be interpreted” seems to mean “it is possible for it to be interpreted” rather than “is to be interpreted”. The main conclusion of the paper, which is not by way of review, I take as being that any ⁴He does not seem to be coming from alpha particles produced by nuclear fusion: “Efforts to account for excess energy in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment based on models that involve energetic particles are unlikely to be successful in light of the upper limits discussed here”. So, the “new physical process” in claim 2, Hagelstein suggests, is not a process of cold fusion involving energetic particles.

I feel it would unbalanced to report the (secondary) two claims without reporting the (primary) conclusion and to report the latter would be premature. I do not know why the paper is labelled “review” and to me it does not matter either way. The thousand papers part is irrelevant. Hagelstein merely says he surveyed these papers to find which ones had observations enabling him to make his analysis and reach his conclusions.

In answer to question 3, I think the paper is a secondary source for the two claims but that things would need to be put in a clear context, particularly bearing in mind the paper’s conclusion. This makes the whole matter very abstruse and difficult to convey succinctly. So, as an editorial decision, I would not put any of this into the CF article. However, I would not a priori preclude the two claims quoted on grounds of WP:V, etc.

I hope this helps (though I fear it may not!). Thincat (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I must confess that the copy of the article that I have been able to obtain is corrupted or something --can't open it on my local system. So I have not been able to determine if this Hagelstein paper contains references to an approximate replication of Arata's experiment (involving pressurized deuterium and not electrolysis) that was published in Physics Letters A last year --we've been waiting for a secondary source for that --or if it references certain SPAWAR "co-deposition" electrolysis experiments that were also published in Naturwissenschaften (we've been waiting for a secondary source for those, also!). V (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Try [1] but I think the answer is "no". Thincat (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I ran into a paywall...and my funds are tight right now. V (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone else here find out if this Hagelstein article references the RS primary publications that I mentioned three paragraphs above? Thanks! V (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that the "review" article under discussion here appears to mention a number of experiments that detected X-rays. This could be very important! If X-rays have indeed been detected, then despite the fact that they are not the desired gamma rays that hot-fusion physicists have claimed should be produced, they are still something more than ANY ordinary chemical reaction can produce. Nor can any ordinary electrochemical cell, running at just a few Volts, generate X-rays, either. Something really unusual would have to be happening in those experiments, if X-rays have been undeniably detected. V (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcewatch

SourceWatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am writing to take issue with the suggestions that our site, SourceWatch, cannot be considered a reliable source for information about corporate PR and front groups and other topics we cover.

• User:Arzel asserts that the site is a "partisan source," which is incorrect. We are a non-partisan not-for-profit organization, and our sites have presented critical information about both major political parties and policies. Arzel also asserts that we are an "open wiki," but we have had professional editors on staff since SourceWatch's founding, unlike Wikipedia, and we have always had a strict referencing policy, unlike Wikipedia until some of its recent changes. We do allow people to volunteer and add content, which does result in some stub articles and other articles that are not complete, it is not fair to suggest that SourceWatch is an open wiki, end of story. Also, while we do have some older articles that do reference wikipedia, the overwhelming majority of the sources that are cited on our site are not Wikipedia.
• Similarly, User:Niteshift36 suggests that SourceWatch cannot be a reliable source based on WP:ELNO#12, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." But, SourceWatch is one of the oldest wikis and has been a stable site since its founding seven years ago. It is not a mirror or fork of Wikipedia.
• User:Arzel also objects based on our standard disclaimer, which is parallel to Wikipedia's disclaimer. Under this rationale, Wikipedia could never be cited as a source by others. And, as noted above, while there is not fact-checking in the sense of a newspaper site, the fact is that our site unlike Wikipedia has always employed professional editors to try to ensure that our strict referencing policy is followed.
• User:BullRangifer actually libels us by calling us a "hate site," which is baseless and false. We do document extremist groups so that people can understand who is funding them. As User:Squidfryerchef rightly questioned, where is this claim coming from. I object to this spurious statement by BullRangifer. Such a malicious and undocumented claim should certainly not be the basis of any decision by Wikipedian editors.
• User:Richard repeats the assertion that we are an open wiki without any acknowledgment of our long-standing professional editing policy.
• User:BullRangifer claims that we are not a stable site and asserts that SourceWatch is filled with "rants," "libelous material," "unsourced material, etc." In fact, SourceWatch has long had a history of requiring strict referencing, but it is certainly possible for someone like BullRangifer to attempt to malign us based on the exceptions out of the almost 50,000 articles on our site. This is really a smear job. The one article he references includes an example of criticism of the organization at issue. He claims our articles are "more like blogs or social networking sites," another unsupported claim. Here are links to a handful of the tens of thousand articles on our site:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Total_Wall_Street_Bailout_Cost

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carbon_Capture_and_Storage_%28CCS%29

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_United

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sewage_sludge

I'm not sure why BullRangifer has it in for SourceWatch, but claiming that we are a libelous site is simply unsupported by the record (there has never been any such successful suit); that our site is filled with rants--any more than occasionally slip through on Wikipedia before editors catch them and correct them; that our site is filled with unsourced material when we had a stricter sourcing protocol than Wikipedia for years; that our articles are more like "blogs," which is not the case and in fact our PRWatch site is where our blogs are posted, not SourceWatch (although we do link to some of them on our front page); and that our articles are like a social networking site, another ridiculous baseless claim.

• Similarly, User:Jayjg suggests that as a wiki SourceWatch should not even be used as an external link, if not as a source again as a "open wiki." But, SourceWatch has nearly a dozen long-term active editors, including a paid staff of six paid editors.

I hope those who are actually unbiased, unlike BullRangifer, will re-consider his claims and the unfair maligning of our site. LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy, publisher of SourceWatch.org, PRWatch.org, and BanksterUSA.org

LisaFromSourceWatch, the simple fact is that sourcewatch fails wp:rs as it is an open wiki, wikipedia also fails as a reliable source here, so it`s not just your place :) mark nutley (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, please do not blank/hat my comments. All the other sites listed have their comments and discussion intact. We do not fail the tests as a reliable source--we are a stable, professionally edited wiki. Readers of this section are entitled to hear a different point of view than your declaration.LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, it is not appropriate to hide comments in an attempt to forestall discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• - Hi Lisa, although for the most part SourceWatch is as such not a WP RS as this wikipedia is not either there are presently 1711 links to your website from here, so it is clearly not so cut and dried as some comments may make out. I do think people should not demean your site but it clearly has only limited use as a WP:RS to support content here, just as we do not use or claim that this site is a reliable source either. Off2riorob (talk)

Thank you for your detailed response. Much appreciated! LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Lisa -- I think that SourceWatch is an excellent site and a useful resource, and I think many people here would agree. But it does not classify as a reliable source under Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines in WP:RS, so it cannot be used to back assertions in the text of Wikipedia articles. However, what you could do is use the sources from sourcewatch that do meet the criteria for WP:RS and use those to back the assertions in Wikipedia articles. Many of the articles on SourceWatch are very well researched and are backed by reliable sources. All you would need to do is take the information from the SourceWatch article, and include it in the Wikipedia article, citing the source you used to back the assertion in the SourceWatch article (rather than citing the SourceWatch article itself). SourceWatch is a great place to learn about things, and is a very useful research tool for finding reliable sources, but it is not a reliable source itself for the same reasons that we can't cite other Wikipedia articles as sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful advice! I appreciate it. By the way, we have just added some new original material from one of our FOIA requests on the sludge issue, here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SFPUC_Sludge_Controversy_Timeline LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, in fact I was in the midst of composing a comment that said exactly the same thing when I saw yours. Dlabtot (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dlabtot!! LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As an open wiki, SourceWatch quite obviously fails WP:RS, just as all open wikis (e.g. Conservapedia do). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read Lisa's post? Whether the entire site is an "open wiki" is unclear. And comparing the site to Conservapedia is not particularly helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Lisa didn't dispute that it was an open wiki, she just claimed that it had paid editorial staff. Why is comparing it to Conservapedia "not particularly helpful"? Conservapedia is under pretty strict "editorial control". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg my reading is like Boris' that Lisa is saying that she thinks the term open wiki is not consistent with having editorial control. She does seem to be disputing that Sourcewatch is an "open wiki".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What does "open wiki" have to do with the "editorial control"? They are unrelated concepts. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I read the discussion so far this is something not everyone seems to agree on. Indeed you seem to be the only one saying this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where have others said that "editorial control" precludes something being an "open wiki"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lisa wrote, for example, "asserts that we are an "open wiki," but we have had professional editors on staff" and "repeats the assertion that we are an open wiki without any acknowledgment of our long-standing professional editing policy", etc. I can not read sentences like that and then agree that she does not dispute what you are saying she does not dispute. I just wanted to point out that you seem to have misread her.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's unclear what that means; "but" in this case may mean "but we are not a open wiki because we have had professional editors etc." or it may mean "but the fact that we are an open wiki is countered by the fact that we have had professional editors etc." We'll never know now what Lisa actually meant, since any response she would make would be colored by knowledge of this conversation. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll never know? Hmmm. Looked quite clear to me, and apparently Boris read it the same way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we'll never know. Your longstanding dispute with me on my Talk: page, which preceded your showing up in this thread to dispute what I said here, makes it unlikely you could be objective when it comes to disputes with me. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It really did look clear to me. I can't see how you can feel such an assumption of bad faith response can be justified by anything I've written here or on your talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, the important point is whether your staff exerts editorial control over the material that appears on it. Wikipedia's criteria require that any source have editorial mechanisms in place for fact-checking and accuracy. It's not entirely clear, but your comments suggest that some parts of your site are under editorial control while others are not. Is that the case? If so, then it may be that some aspects of SourceWatch are citeable here but not others. Could you point out which parts of the site are under editorial control and which are not? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are also under some sort of "editorial control". Wikipedia has editorial policies, standards, reviewers, etc. It still doesn't make Wikipedia a WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BURO. WP does not have what most people would call editorial control. All Wikipedians are potential editors, and potential contributors to policy discussion, whereas "editorial control" implies a management hierarchy over normal editing as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew! Articles related to our various portals are those we have managed closely or written with our staff or partners. Examples include articles that are in the following subject areas: Climate, Coal, Water/Fracking, Sludge, Economic/Financial Crisis issues, Corporate Rights, Tobacco, Global Corporations, Nuclear issues, and Congresspedia as well as those relating to PR and spin. The articles associated with those topics probably represent the bulk of the articles on our site. LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, I am not taking a position, but taking the question of Boris further, if we assume there is a part of Sourcewatch which has editorial control, this does not end the discussion. I think two questions come up next:-

• Would it be clear to anyone trying to verify a citation of Sourcewatch, whether a particular part was under editorial control or not?
• Not all editorial policies are taken equally seriously in the world, and so having one does not guarantee that a source is reliable according to WP policy. It would make the case much stronger if you could show that Sourcewatch is frequently cited by sources which are themselves strong ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURO is irrelevant to whether or not Wikipedia has editorial controls. And, as pointed out, other wikis, such as Conservapedia, have very tight, top-down editorial controls, but are also not considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. The relevance is, I think, that WP:BURO means any attempt to create what most people would call editorial control would actually be against basic WP policy. Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions, but that seemed relevant to your claim that Wikipedia has editorial control? Concerning Conservapedia I am not familiar with the case but I am interested. Is there a specific policy or RS/N I can read about them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Editorial control" and "bureaucracy" are not synonyms. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone equated those two terms? "X is not equal to Y" does not mean "X is irrelevant to Y"? Concerning Conservapedia, I understood you to be saying that there is a community consensus on some issue which is pertinent here? Can you give a diff or url?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, lots of things are relevant to lots of others, but WP:BURO in no way precludes Wikipedia having "editorial control" of its articles. As for Conservapedia, what kind of "community consensus" are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURO definitely does preclude what most people would describe as editorial control. You just have to read it. It is not between the lines. I can imagine it might be possible to argue it allows something like editorial control, that some people might even choose to call editorial control, but I think that is really stretching things. Concerning Conservapedia, you seemed to be referring to something. You've mentioned it several times as if relevant. I'm just asking what the relevance is. I'm interested to understand what you're saying.-Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As "it is not between the lines", perhaps you can quote what you think are the relevant sentences of WP:BURO that refer to "editorial control". Conservapedia is an example of an open-wiki that is not considered a reliable source, yet it has tight editorial control. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that Wikipedia policy precludes what most people would call editorial control. If you really can't see that right now, then honestly I am not sure how to explain it, and maybe that is just going too far from the subject anyway. Concerning Conservapedia, you are saying it is a similar case and that there is a clear WP precedent, which I suppose must be something you can you give a diff or url for?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, you said "it is not between the lines", so quote the lines. "it is obvious" won't do. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, just for example, "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." Of course I could cite similar lines from policies other than WP:BURO. But basically anyone can edit and anyone can contribute to the consensus which controls that editing. Editorial "control" is only based on WP:CONSENSUS. The controllers are the controlled. The term "editorial control" seems to me to normally imply a distinction between controlled writers and controlling editors. Does that make sense? I am still unsure what your point was about Conservapedia though, and I see you've stopped answering. As far as I can see that citation of a parallel with Conservapedia was your main point, so it seemed important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Those statements say nothing about "editorial controls", and disagreements are often resolved in other ways, including, quite often, but admin fiat, and (more rarely) by Arbcom fiat. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course I just thought you must have a specific fiat or similar in mind. If not no problem of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So putting aside what others have said, what does WP say? Searching around WP space the only definition I could find for an "open wiki" is a wiki where anyone can edit freely. And "editorial control" seems to refer to situations where people can not edit freely because there are fact checkers or reviewers of some type managing the content. Fact checking or editorial oversight is frequently referred to as a critical issue in determining reliability and verifiability. So as far as I can see the two terms are generally understood as being opposites, with one being normally outside RS norms and the other being potentially inside. (Not all fact checking is good enough in practice.) Honestly if there are errors in my comments here I would like to know. I have never wanted to cite a wiki, but more and more wikis appear every year.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sourcewatch could be an external link - that person Niteshift36 is just plain wrong on that one. But it's not a "reliable source" because it is an open wiki. I have an account at Sourcewatch and I have openly edited it. If it were to be cited, one would have to be careful to cite a particular version of it. Anyone, Sourcewatch usually has sources - why not use the sources inside of it? I'm sorry about the vitriol that's been directed at it - this probably has to do with rather conservative Wikipedia editors. II | (t - c) 19:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is it in a guideline that open wikis are good as external links, I don't think so. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't much care about external links in this instance, but it's clearly not a reliable source (it's anyone can edit, or close enough as to make no difference).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ELNO - Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors - personally I wouldn't accept any open wiki as an external and would dispute that any such site could have a substantial history of stability - this wikipedia could not claim that and I don't think any open wikipedia could. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that User:Off2riorob went ahead and changed WP:ELNO to reflect his thoughts (diff), which I reverted. Not saying it's bad to be aggressive, but there's little chance I would accept this change - wikis are an increasingly important source of very well-organized information, whether we're talking about science, video games, politics, or whatever else, and we routinely encourage people to visit other wikis to find more detailed information which is arguably too detailed here (particularly for fictional worlds). II | (t - c) 20:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• We should use Sourcewatch as a helpful resource for finding reliable sources, but should not generally use it as a reliable source itself. It is an open-wiki, and is clearly not considered a reliable source per WP:RS. However, if there is (a) a clear way to distinguish certain parts that have high-quality editorial control by notable experts, from "anyone can edit" parts, and (b) the page is used as a source or considered reliable by other reliable sources, then the editorially controlled parts could possibly be used in some cases as a reliable source, depending on context. For now, the best route in most cases will be to scavenge reliable sources from the Sourcewatch article, and then cite them directly as sources in the Wikipedia articles. The citations directly to Sourcewatch should probably be removed or relocated to the "External links" section. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds logical to me as an explanation of what appear to be the relevant principals to follow without having looked at specific examples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Political blogs for facts about biographical details or suspected crimes or science?

Hi, I thought I understood the reliable sources policy after reading the fine article, especially the part where the policy says, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." The biography of living persons policy says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP," and so on. Yet I have been doing Google searches of Wikipedia articles that cite certain notorious blogs (taking care to choose blogs from "both sides of the aisle" for purposes of illustration), and I find that those blogs are often cited as "sources" for statements about living persons that are very contentious, including accusations of criminal behavior. I'm trying to do a sweep of Wikipedia, with the aid of my Google search results, to delete those statements per WP:BLP section 2.2, but already I'm seeing some deletions I did last night have been reverted, and not by I.P.s but by users with registered Wikipedia editor names. So I'm coming here for a reality check on what Wikipedia's rules are.

Separately, I have observed an editor who has been diligently removing from Wikipedia citations to statements about biology or about biology research from the blog operated by University of Minnesota Morris biology professor PZ Myers, apparently on the general rule that Wikipedia shouldn't cite blogs. Now if it is acceptable to delete citations by a biologist about biology, why is it acceptable to post statements about science that are sourced to purely political blogs whose authors have no peer-reviewed scientific publications and who have no postgraduate scientific training? But I see such blog citations regularly in a variety of Wikipedia articles. So besides the issue of biography of living persons statements from blogs being deletable on sight, aren't statements about science or historical fact from nonexpert blogs also deletable as improperly soured?

Thanks for any advice you can provide. I enjoy compiling source lists to share with other Wikipedians, and as I continue to compile those and begin editing articles more boldly, I want to be sure to be following Wikipedia policy and the best scholarly standards of sourcing statements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very difficult to answer generically here; could you show us a couple of examples of information you have removed that has been contested? — e. ripley\^talk 19:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I found one myself: [2], in which you removed information sourced to Huffington Post. There is some level of disagreement about whether Huffington Post can always be used as a reliable source, but I think most people would agree that it sometimes can. In this instance, what's being asserted is that Joanna Krupa posed nude in PETA ads three times. The Huffington Post piece linked actually has a slideshow of those three ads. IMO this was an inappropriate removal of what appears to be appropriately-sourced information.

Almost always, blogs in the context of "Joe Blow's personal blog" are not going to be appropriate. But, as our reliable sources policy notes, some news outlets also have blogs and those are generally acceptable as sources. I would say in this instance Huffington Post qualifies as a news blog.

As an aside, this is a problem with just blanket removing sources. Often much depends on context. — e. ripley\^talk 19:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In your kind reply, you wrote, "I would say in this instance Huffington Post qualifies as a news blog." I hear you, but I think I should ask for a second opinion here, as that was a BLP article, and the BLP and RS sections seem to point to something more like New York Times-hosted blogs and less like Huffington Post as examples of professionally edited news sources that incidentally happen to appear in blog form. I might have been a lot less inclined to delete there, myself, had the article not been a BLP article. (P.S. How about my other concern, political bloggers making statements about science for which they have neither credentials nor responsibility to an editor?) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say those should be discussed thoroughly, since opinions vary about who has proper scientific credentials and who does not. Another thorny issue. Do you have a specific instance we could examine as an example? — e. ripley\^talk 14:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with E. Ripley. Moreover, I would suggest that rather than targeting a source that you feel is questionable and deleting it, it would be better to mention on the talk page that you are unsure of the source and that if no one objects, you'll delete it, as this will give folks a chance to look for other sources. In the case of Krupa, for example, in addition to PETA's web site, and Fur is Dead, which mention it, there are sources from Google News. Huffington may not be the best source, but it can be considered reliable for many issues, and in this case, there are other sources supporting it. Adding those additional sources would be of greater benefit in this case. Yes, this is a BLP, so if the material were considered contentious, extra caution would be required, but this does not appear to be a contentious issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bitterlemons.org issue unresolved

I would like to redirect attention to the issue of whether bitterlemons.org is a "reliable source" for purposes of citation in articles dealing with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The topic was discussed back on August 24th-27th. Unfortunately, the characterization of that website was seriously in error as presented in the original request for clarification. I was actually the person on the original Talk page of the Wikipedia article who suggested recourse to this noticeboard, but I have been traveling this past week and did not know about, was not able to go on-line, and therefore could not respond then to the highly misleading description of this website made on the 24th and 27th of August. For a fuller description of that website, I refer the editors here to the discussion above, entitled "Bitterlemons.org website," opened 24 August: there I have just today responded to the claims made by earlier contributors, and presented evidence for the reliability of this website.Tempered (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Internal links to the discussion would be courteous to those you wish to spend time on this. Speaking of spending time on this, have you notified the previous participants in the discussion? Again, just a nice thing to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What's to resolve? I couldn't make out much in the wall of text in the higher thread. Bitterlemons is an online journal of opinion that is credible enough that if it says a piece was written by so-and-so, we can trust that it was written by so-and-so (Yossi Alpher is the editor, i believe). These pieces should generally be presented as representing the writers' own opinions and not be used for bald statements of fact (just as with all opinion pieces). The problem then becomes whether the person is prominent enough, particularly in whatever area they're discussing (so, for instance, a prominent neurologist probably shouldn't be used as a source on military tactics), to make their opinions notable and worthy of inclusion. That's an editorial issue best handled at the talk page or with an RFC if you're particularly stuck.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment in large part (see my comments in the discussion section above), but what Tempered is asserting is that this particular site has the sort of editorial controls that would make it a reliable source not only for opinions but also for factual claims. If I'm misrepresenting your position Tempered please let me know. Since I didn't get an answer to my question from the previous discussion section, I'll reproduce it here with apologies:

Can you show us where exactly this site is shown to have "scrupulous editorial review" and "represents authoritative academic and political leadership on both sides of these issues"? Because I don't see it in any obvious place on the website. — e. ripley\^talk 19:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have come in late; I have been responding further at the original discussion just above, unaware of this continuation here. I only discovered this discussion here just now. I thought my opening this new thread was simply an invitation to interested parties to revisit the above thread and continue discussion there, and not to consider it already closed on Aug. 27th and a dead issue. My error only reflects my lack of experience on such "boards": I should have assumed that discussion would continue here. In any case, I gave a full answer there to the issue of editorial reliability raised again here by Ripley, and will not repeat this again here, but please feel free to look up above on the board for the answer.

But Ripley has clarified here what he meant with that query; he thinks that I was trying to establish bitterlemons.org as "reliable" as a source of fact, not just as a significant, responsible and reliably edited site for articles by authoritative figures involved with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but as being reliable like an encyclopedia per se, of impartial and neutral fact. My apologies to Ripley if what I was trying to say was unclear, but he has evidently misunderstood me. I did not wish to claim for bitterlemons.org the status of neutral factuality per se, but simply its reliability as a major resource for authoritative opinions reflecting various views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It is therefore important and legitimate as a record of such views and interpretations by leading figures, and should be acceptable in Wikipedia as a citation source. Dailycare wanted to eliminate it altogether as a citation source for Wikipedia articles dealing with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and thereby eliminate all reference to opinions of figures expressed in it, from sections of the article Israel and the Apartheid Analogy dedicated to presenting the pro-Israel criticism of the "Apartheid analogy." Several contributors including myself cited articles in it to back up statements of views on the "apartheid analogy" by pro-Israel figures. (Of course, it can also be legitimately used by anti-Israel editors as a resource for pro-Palestinian opinion, but the present context involves pro-Israel opinion.) The comments by Bali Ultimate (at 19:17, 2 September, just below) are precisely right about the nature of the site, and therefore, it follows, it is justifiable and legitimate to use the opinion-pieces published there as evidence of the views of their authors. That is really all I wished to establish. Apparently Ripley also agrees with this kind of use of the bitterlemons.org site. So it appears that there is a consensus on this.Tempered (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There are sometimes excellent articles there, and it does carry a range of opinions. But if memory serves, they're almost always, well, "opinions" (very often from the notable and the learned and so on, but opinions none the less). Alpher and his coeditor (a palestinian guy, forget who) "edit" in the way that an oped editor would curate his own pages. They select good stuff to stimulate discussion, generate ideas, and so forth. This is all a good thing. But very rarely, if ever (leaning "never" though i don't know) do they publish peer-reviewed academic work. So, again, articles used from their should be attributed to their authors. Some of those articles may even be used for some kinds of facts (if, say, a famous Israeli/Palestinian gives an interview to one of the authors and he quotes him --the site is reliable in the sense that fabrication won't be going on there), but for others should be used with great care. A binary anwer just aint available. What is the precise edit and source he wants to use? That could help.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, think i understand now. Bitterlemons ran what looks like a Q&A with "Dianne Buttu" who said some things about advice for a group she was working for (got that right?) In this instance, I don't know why you couldn't write an edit saying "Dianne Buttu said she advised such-and-such in an interview with Bitterlemons." (or if it was signed article then "Buttu wrote such and such in an article.") Seems fairly straightforward and not sure why that would be a problem. Am I missing something? Bali ultimate (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

While this seems like a reasonable approach, it does not appear that Bitterlemons meets the requirements of WP:V. Figureofnine (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean ("meets the requirements of V")? If Bitterlemons (which has two editors and is not an open website) publishes an opinion piece that claims to be by Amnon Lord... a senior editor and columnist with Makor Rishon newspaper or by Diana Buttu... a human rights lawyer and a former legal advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team that those identities and biographies are "verified" should be taken as read. The website is a professional outfit. However, that does not mean that everything Lord or Buttu writes has been vetted and care should be taken to attribute their positions to them and not to some entity called Bitterlemons.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree, Bali Ultimate.Tempered (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I see now that there is a second thread on the same subject here. Since Bitterlemons isn't a news organization, would these opinion pieces then fall into the category of self-published sources (a section of WP:V), where per WP:V it's necessary that the author's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", or would these be more along the lines of WP:NEWSBLOG (another section of WP:V) where no requirement of third-party publication is mentioned. By the way, why is there no requirement on third-party publication in opinion pieces? The thinking may be that the editors of the newspaper select the pieces, but newspapers publish opinion pieces by laypersons all the time and we wouldn't want to use them, even with attribution, as sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The opinion pieces are not self-published, and neither is the website, for it is an edited and peer-reviewed one. The articles in it are invited articles chosen by the editors, who are each authorities themselves, because the article authors are leading spokespeople usually either in the political or intellectual/academic circles of Israel or of the Palestinian Authority. It would be odd to exclude those articles from being reliable sources of opinion on the grounds that the authors might not have published academic works elsewhere to their credit: some are politicians whose views shape national policy. The subject is in any case not an academic one which might well require academic publications, but of current affairs and political-historical importance, which does not. Their opinion and views are directly relevant to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. These are not self-chosen nobodies or mere "laypersons," but important and even authoritative voices in the subject area. Naturally, I defer to the expert advice of managers of this Notification Board, but it seems to me that their citation appears to be fully in accord with Wikipedia policy as stated in various policy articles. For example, the article on Wikipedia policy regarding "Identifying Reliable Sources" sums up its policy as follows in its introductory paragraph: "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." WP:IRS Bitterlemons.org fulfills both requirements: it has a properly edited and reliable publication process, vetting authors appearing in it, and its authors are authoritative in relation to the subject in question. So it qualifies on both counts. Furthermore, verifiability in this case seems to me to involve not section 3 of WP:IRS on "Self-published sources" (para. 3.2) or "Self-published sources and questionable sources as sources on themselves" (3.3), but to involve "Statements of opinion," on which see paragraph 4.7 of the above policy article. That paragraph makes clear that opinion pieces can be cited from op-ed columns, web-forums, blogs and the like if the opinion piece is attributed to the author as such and is taken to be an expression of that author's opinion. Specifically, bitterlemons.org seems to fall under the category of a web-forum. But I note that even articles in self-published sources can apparently be cited as evidence of the opinion and views of that source or author according to Wikipedia policy WP:IRS Sections 3.2 and 3.3. There really can be no proper objection to citing bitterlemons.org articles with proper attribution to their actual authors.

Interestingly, the majority of opinion-writers who are cited and used in the anti-Israel portions of the relevant article are political and other non-academic persons, often published on dubious or highly partisan websites or other media, and no objection has been raised about their "verifiability," or "reliability," nor that of the websites their views have appeared in.Tempered (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Random Church websites used to source Theology article

Talk:Catholic–Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences#Using_random_church_websites under this discussion another editor is using random church websites that themselves do not provide their sources, to source an article here. Per the discussion can those websites be used to source the articles content? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A self-published website is generally only acceptable to demonstrate what the publishing organization says about itself. In this case, a church website could be used to document their own take on their own philosophy, if one can establish the degree and level to which the church controls the website. If some inferior organization (diocese, parish, congregation, monastic order, whatever...) owns/runs the website, they can be authoritative for their own perspectives on theology, but not for any other organization's perspectives. That help? Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Jclemens, a church website would usually be a reasonably reliable source for its own beliefs. It would also generally be considered a reliable source for other information about itself (e.g. its address, names and histories of its priests, information about its buildings, educational services, etc.). However, given that literally thousands of books have been written about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and their religious differences, one could easily find significantly better sources for general information on these topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Now Jayjg I think you being reasonable however I think that it is important to note that not all websites can be validated as being "canonical". Also if these random websites run counter to a church's established "spokespersons", spokespersons whom had to receive degrees and formal recognition by the communities, that the church website (especially if they do not name the individual person and author of that website) all of the sudden run counter to, well then there is an issue. This is my point.

In the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences there is a Roman Catholic editor using random Orthodox websites to source statements that run counter to actual Orthodox theologians. Without treating these statements as at best suspect and rather treating them as on par in authority with Orthodox theologians. However I think you Jayjg are indeed already saying this and I am only trying to confirm that, I am not disagreeing nor criticizing your statement but rather only hoping to clarify it. As the editor should be requested to provide more then just a passing random source but many sources validating a given statement or position? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

These kinds of sites should be avoided except for verifying fairly non-controversial information specifically about the organization that maintains the website. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi LoveMonkey. I think to apply the above comments to your case it is important what the church websites are being used for in editing on this article. Are they being used to say that what is official or common or whatever in the whole church, or just what one parish church thinks? (I am not sure why an article like this would be talking about what one parish thinks, and maybe that question of relevance is the real core of the disagreement?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point Mr Lancaster. I don't see how a single parish's site should be used that way and it is. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone is using a parish website to say what the whole Orthodox church says then that would be an RS problem (or possibly WP:SYNTH if that person is trying to put together a big picture by researching lots of parishes themselves). If someone is using the parish websites only as a source for what parishes say then this is acceptable in RS terms, but then possibly you might have reasonable concerns on the basis of WP:DUE and WP:NOTE. These remarks are not based on looking at the discussion itself, just trying to summarize the likely options.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the advice already given to distinguish different kinds of websites. Also, it would seem to be important to identify whether there is an academic theology tradition for this church/denomination. If so, works by academic theologians should be given preference, alongside official statements of the church itself. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am in total agreement Itsmejudith it's just that this editor on the article on one hand wants to use random parish websites to support their opinion but will not allow the use of the Orthodoxwiki. Even though the Orthodox wiki actually has clergy as Sys ops authorizing the content or refusing the content (and yes I speak from experience). LoveMonkey (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither church websites or any wiki should be used for this article. There must be academic sources for it or something similar. If high-ranking clergy have made comments, they could be used so long as they are attributed (and I do mean high-ranking, Cardinals, Archbishops, Patriarchs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Even high ranking clergy can make mistakes. Even the eyes of the Catholic Church pope is not infallable.For those not familiar with the doctrine of Papal Infallability, it is only under specific circumstances, for specific topics (faith and morals) and extremely rarely invoked. But the high level authority, regardless of the denomination, should be still be consistent with the teachings of the church or it should be attributed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Just to make sure I understand, in your response I guess you are assuming that the parish websites are being cited as if they represent the whole church (not just the parish)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Using a parish website as a source for Catholic theology is the same as using a Congressional intern's blog as a source for Constitutional Law. Quoting "high-ranking clergy" is a small step in the right direction (like quoting elected politicians as sources for Constitutional Law). The authoritative sources are the theologians (who may or may not be clergy) who have published in peer-reviewed journals. Alternatively, you can use official Church documents, but be careful -- not every document penned by a high-ranking cleric is official. Wikiant (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. Now what is it that can be done in the article to handle this issue? As again there is an editor who on one hand will not allow Orthodox Wiki as a source but wants to use random websites that contradicting directly what actual theologians are saying in their works.[3] Should I remove them as invalid sources? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

After a first quick look it seems like the sources you mention are being used to say what "Orthodox theologians" say, and even naming them. In strictly RS terms that could be OK. What I think is perhaps a bit more awkward is the way the passage appears to be developing an original theory based on what a couple of theologians say. WP:SYNTH might be relevant. But on the other hand, tweaking the wording could also help make it a bit more neutral? There are a couple of things which look like they can be tweaked uncontroversially, so I'll try it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Second reading. This seems to be the bit you are most referring to? Please confirm.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Other statements of Eastern Orthodox belief in hell as separation from God include that on the website for an Orthodox church: "We will be either confirmed in the life of communion with God (Heaven) or in an existence of separation from God with all the suffering that implies (Hell)";<ref>[http://orthodoxchurchofstandrew.org/faith.html Saint Andrew Greek Orthodox Church]</ref>

Uboat.net

Uboat.net has been used extensively to reference several articles appearing at WP:FAC. Although this website has been cited in some books (which strangely are not used to source the articles), I can find nothing at their "About us" page that establishes the authors as published experts in the field, per WP:SPS, or that speaks to this website's factchecking, editorial oversight, etce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it can be considered a reliable source, in the main part because other published resources about the topic recommend it in their reviews of resources [4][5][6][7] [8][9][10][11][12] using words like "superb", "excellent", "authoritative" "definitive information", "comprehensive".--Slp1 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Without doubt the single most important online resource", by the expert Gordon Williamson, whose books on related subjects fill 3 Amazon pages. Also see the discussion at this FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Were those guys in the links themselves scholars or just other popular historians patting each other? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Single most important online resource" may of course be damning with faint praise. We need to be looking for the highest quality sources regardless of whether they're online or offline. Malleus Fatuorum 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Having watched the slow development of uboat.net I have to agree with Malleus_Fatuorum: uboat.net is probably the highest quality secondary source available on uboats (its statistical information is the result of direct primary research). I'm glad that this is reflected in other sources that have withstood the rigorous of review. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

LOC indexes uboat.net along side scholarly resources here; Dr. Richard B. McCaslin, Chair Department of History, University of North Texas has editorial responsibility for indexing uboat.net as a resource of worth here. It was (according to google scholar) a foot note in one accepted MA thesis. These are indicative, no review appears to have appeared in a scholarly journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The only issue is that, having looked for offline sources, I only have found a few mentions of the ships, not nearly enough to write an article in the current quality that it exists in today. There are one or two books on the subject, but they are extremely rare, available almost exclusively in Germany and to cap it all off, written in, you guessed it, German. I simply cannot pay several hundred Euros for these sources, nor be able to read them with any certainty as to what they are saying.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.thehendonmob.com/

Is this a reliable source for results of a poker tournament? The article in question is World Poker Open, a newly recreated version of a previously deleted article. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem reliable to me. Just looks like a self-published site. Are there really no other sites online where you can get results for an event like that? Another thing I'm concerned is that that entire article is basically sourced to that one site (and some strange forum-esque site, I guess). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Me neither, site is pretty promotional to boot. Check out Google news archives, what's needed is likely there. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mob site clearly trumps anything in Google News, and while official sites are better for specific tournament results when available, it is the most reliable source available in general for poker tournament results. At the same time, statitics are what they are reliable for, not as a source that establishes the notability of something. It's a statsitics database, not a news coverage site. 2005 (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is used by Cardplayer Magazine, which has been the industry leading piblication for 20 years, and is unrelated to the Hendon Mob site in ownership, and has clear editorial oversight. It meets the criteria of a reliable source to the degree it can (it doesn't claim to have the results for every tournament held in some small casino in 1984). And then most obviously, there are several other (less extensive) similar sites which will list the same results, and in the six or so years Hendon Mob database has been used as a reference here, not once has anyone pointed out a mistake of fact. At the same time, naturally if the official sponsoring entity of a tournament has an official results page, that should be used as a source for the results instead of any third party site. 2005 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like any other WP:SPS, with no indication of serious or significant editorial oversight. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As a regular member of the WP:POKER project, when I first encountered the HendonMob, I was a little dubious as well. But after researching them some and looking at the source a little more, it does offer the broadest and best source for Poker Results out there. I can't remember the details exactly, but when I investigated it previously, the Mob was involved in a big court case revolving around its database. They were either accused of copying one of the big poker magazine's databases on poker results or the poker magazine was accused of copying their results. Either way, TheHendonMob actually had to goto court to prove the veracity of their database and they prevailed.found the case, they were sued by another DB and had to remove material that the other site proved was obtained from that page, since then they have joined in collaboration with Cardplayer Magazine. Then HendonMob is now sponsored by FullTiltPoker, so the page is not just a fan page, but actually falls under the auspicies of one of the largest poker sites on the web. It is used by other sources for information concerning poker player results.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC) A quick search and here are some of the sources that cite the HendonMob database: Gary Wise from ESPNGary is one of the most respected poker journalist in the world so both the ESPN and his name stand as testimony to the respect afforded the DB, Poker News daily, Andrew Feldmen with ESPNWhile a blog, I include this again because Andrew is another major name in Poker journalism, several links to NBC SportsNBC used the Hendonmob repeatedly in their coverage of Poker After Dark and in their advertising/coverage of PAD, Pocket FivesPocket Fives is a respected webside for poker enthusiast, it has both a forum and observed content,PRWeb, Cardplayer Magazine, Bluff Magazine (European edition)Bluff and Cardplayer are the two biggest Poker magazines out there), Cardplayer, The New Yorker, Gambling Online Magazine, St Petersburg Times, etc ... In other words, the mob is respected and used by an assortment of reliable sources.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm going to also notify WP:POKER that this question has been raised. There are a couple of people there who might be able to speak more intelligibly about TheHendonMob than I can.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not comforted by the idea that they are a part of a large poker site. Do they have any kind of editorial oversight? Do the people who post there appear in other traditional reliable sources? Do any traditional reliable sources vouch for them? Keep in mind we're not concerned as to how True the data they present is, but rather whether they fit the normal WK criteria for reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You were probably posing your question when I added the links above. But yes, the HendonMob DB is a widely used source of informationand the DB (and articles) do have editorial oversight. It started out as a page for a group of Poker Players known as the HendonMob, but the db has become a goto source for information. In addition to those links above, I could have provided a score of other links from recognized authorities/pros/etc (but ones that I might not consider reliable sources.) It's database is built in conjunction with Cardplayer Magazine (but is actually more complete than Cardplayer Magazine.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, you've convinced me, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, when I first started working on Poker Related articles I wasn't sure about the usage of the HendonMob either... I felt that we should be using PokerPages or CardPlayer Magazine's sources. But after investigating it, I found that the HendonMob appears to be a reliable and respected source, especially when it comes to it's database of poker results. I also learned, from first hand experience, which I know is anecdotal evidence at best, that it appears to be the most comprehensive list (just as it claims to be.) I would find some events that are listed on Cardplayer Magazine's site, that weren't listed on PokerPages---and vice versa. Every page that I've used has had gaps (this is due to the fact that poker hasn't always been what it is today and earlier events weren't as well documented.) But I have yet to stumble upon an event that is covered in another source that isn't already covered in the HendonMob---and I have never found a place where two sources differ (although I have seen places where there are more details in one event than another---but usually in favor of the Mob.) And there is a reason why Cardplayer Magazine has entered into an arrangement wherein the two work together... Cardplayer Magazine sees the HendonMob's DB as reliable. Basically, after 3+ years of involvement with WP:POKER, I've come to trust the Mob more than any other database of results.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Questioning the reliability of several sources

I am conducting a GA review for Ready (Trey Songz album) and there are a few references used where I'm not 100% sure if they're reliable or not: Singersroom.com, Ballerstatus.com, DJbooth.net, and Rapbasement.com. –Chase (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• singersroom.com - traditional editor structure, seems to do original interviews and reporting. Reliable.
• ballerstatus.com - seems connected to singersroom, but lacks a proper masthead and aggregates many stories. I'd say borderline reliable.
• djbooth.net - appears to be a music sharing / peer review site with social networking functionality. They also appear to have a policy of allowing fan commentary to be published. I'd say unreliable.
• rapbasement.com - from their site "The RapBasement.com Network was established in 1999 with a group of fan sites coming together to create one of the largest, most trafficked, fan networks in the world" appears to be a fan network like ign.com. I'd err toward unreliable.

Any of these sites could have excellent content though. Are there specific articles you're looking for an assessment of? Other voices would be appreciated in this review.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva

Note: Prior discussion here.

Is Arutz Sheva a reliable source that can be used without attribution and/or indicating its political background?

As a prior discussion remained inconclusive, as far as I can see, I'm starting this assessment with some quotes from reliable sources:

• "pro-settler news outlet Arutz Sheva" — Haaretz
• "Arutz Sheva, an Israeli nationalist Web site" — New York Times
• "Arutz Sheva, the main pro-settler publication in Israel" — Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Google news archive)
• "unlicensed pro-settler Arutz Sheva station" — Haaretz
• "Arutz Sheva which appeals to the national religious and settlers audience" — Jerusalem Post (Google news archive)
• "Arutz Sheva (Right-wing, pro-settler)" — worldpress.org
• "Arutz 7, which formerly called itself Voice of the Gazelle, was established by the Bet-El Thora institution and began broadcasting in October 1988 from a ship anchored off the coast of Israel. [...] It claims to be "the only independent national radio station in Israel", and says it was "established to combat the 'negative thinking' and 'post-Zionist' attitudes so prevalent in Israel's liberal-left media"." — BBC
• "Arutz Sheva, the popular pirate radio station associated with the most right-wing settlers" — Haaretz
• "B'Sheva, the print journal that is published by the settlers' pirate radio station Arutz Sheva" — Haaretz
• "the settler-run news agency Arutz Sheva" — Turkish Weekly

  Cs32en Talk to me  18:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en: It looks like a reliable source to me. If there is disagreement between sources, then yes, in-text attribution should be used. I'm not sure which article this question is in reference to, but in general, I don't think including a source's political background is a good idea. After all, if the reader wants to find out more about a source, they can simply click on the WikiLink that takes them to our article on the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, attribute it. It is clearly idenfitied as "pro-settler" or "religious zionist" and any use of it should probably at minimum identify "Arutz Sheva" or "Israel National News/Radio etc..." as the source. It has an interesting history -- was founded as the voice of the settler movement in the 80's, ran as a pirate station on a boat for many years (after it openly opposed the oslo accords in 94 or so it moved into international waters but nevertheless was raided by Israeli forces in an effort to shut it down) until it was legalized/licensed by Israel about 10 years ago. If stuff is controversial (that is, if a wikipedia editor complains about something) it's never bad practice to expressly identify the source (though of course this could be taken to absurd lengths, i.e. "President Ronald Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall," the Associated Press reported" would be overkill).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be given a free pass as an RS on all issues. It's not an unreliable source but it's as biased as biased gets on many issues, well, pretty much anything that relates to Israel. Even their review of the recent Israel Museum renovation wasn't immune/spared. If we are attributing for the likes of HRW and Amnesty International we should be attributing for Israel National News. Also, it's a source that is used very extensively in Wikipedia, something that I have long thought needs looking into as it may reflect Wiki political demographics rather than sensible sampling of RS-world. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As this is probably not a question of categorically excluding information based on Arutz Sheva, nor about treating Arutz Sheva as being on a par with Associated Press, a comparison may be helpful. While I don't know whether there is an explicit guideline on this, presenting information in a neutral point of view would probably include that sources of approximately the same status with regard to their reliability and notability should be treated in a similar fashion with regard to attribution or contextualization, as well as in respect to their weight when several sources need to be assessed to determine the due weight of a certain piece of information. A comparison with the following news sources may be helpful to sort out these issues:

• Honest Reporting [13]
• Israel Insider [14]
• DEBKAfile [15]
• Ma'an News [16]
• WAFA [17]
• SANA [18]
• ITAR-TASS [19]
• Fars News Agency [20]
• IRNA [21]

  Cs32en Talk to me  21:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of those are dubious as to their commitment to accuracy and fairness as well and should at minimum be attributed too when used.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is an RS.

This is frankly a very problematic discussion. No one has been informed that it is taking place and a decision can be made here without anyone coming to present another side. Cs32en, allow me to attract attention.

Given that, Arutz Sheva is a media outlet that is in fact "pro-settler" or "religious zionist" and just as RS as Haaretz which is "anti-settler" and secular". Just because many people do not like it (for being "pro-settler" or "religious zionist") does not make Arutz Sheva, a licensed media by the Israeli government, less reliable. FWIW Cs32en, bringing quotes from Haaretz, the NYT, the BBC, and the Turkish Weekly (?!), all of which who are not sympathetic to Israel, does not help your case one bit. --Shuki (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's controversial, attribute it. What's the big deal? The particular publication in question has a strong point of view. Attribute it. Other publications also have a point of view? Attribute them. Someone get's their feathers ruffled over Haaretz? Attribute that. Etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, this discussion is not related to any current discussion on a talk page. The purpose of it is to ask uninvolved editors for their assessment. That is the reason for which I have not notified any of those editors who hold a strong personal point of view on this issue. If you have reliable sources that are stating that Arutz Sheva is not agenda-driven, or that make any other relevant statements about Arutz Sheva, please present this information here.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If Arutz Sheva is judged to be reliable, a decision should be made that every regularly published "news" source is reliable, since there really isn't anything further from the mainstream than this. I've been involved in several cases in the past where Arutz Sheva published clearly false information, not just their standard far-right spin which appears every day. If their claims could be attributed as the opinions of the settler movement, it wouldn't be so bad, but I doubt Shuki will ever agree to that. Zero^talk 03:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite aside from the 'propaganda' angle the most obvious comparison is to something like The Sun (United Kingdom) which I'm pretty sure we don't treat as a reliable source for anything controversial. Journalistic standards alone would rule them out for blp stuff and, for exapmle, matters of fact about their respective countries wars/politics. Anything they discuss will also be discussed in obviously RS media outlets, so we should go with the latter. Misarxist (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A case has recently come up concerning the Gaza flotilla raid, in the Cargo section concerning this source. Arutz Sheva quotes an Israeli military source word for word. The question is whether the reference should say Arutz Sheva quoted him, or whether an IDF source said such and such. Myself, I find that the potential for pro-Israeli POV is already address when the quote is attributed to the IDF source. The only reason for including Arutz Sheva's name would be if we thought there was potential for the quote to inaccurate, and I think there's no doubt of that (see source). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that this particular example is not typical, as here, Arutz Sheva is not reporting something as a fact, but as a statement of fact from a third part. With Associated Press, I would assume that if an article cites an anonymous source, Associated Press would vouch for the source being a person who could make an informed, reliable judgment. With Arutz Sheva, I would not be sure of that, the source could also be an official, or even a soldier in the IDF that has friendly ties with the controversial news outlet. My personal view, also with regard to this example, would be that it's best to attribute the informatoion explicitly to Arutz Sheva, but I understand why an other editor would not make the same conclusion.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In this specific instance, it's unreliable. We would trust the AP to be a little more responsible in granting/using blind quotes (i.e. unattributed). Given the websites very strong point of view on this particular issue (and the failure even to characterize the IDF source -- is it a buck private? A general? Who knows?). If Arutz Shiva had interviewed a named IDF official and had the same info but with "General so-and-so saying" it, I'd say go ahead and use it (this is the sort of thing that no one would be likely to fudge, and if they did so, they'd get caught). But checking that "unnamed person" asserted something (or evaluating unnamed persons own biases, and so on) is impossible. In general, controversial quotes from unnamed people should always get greater scrutiny, no matter the source (publications with no obvious axes to grind get spun when they grant anonymity all the time). They should probably be used very rarely (think of Deep Throat before his identity was revealed; that's one that you couldn't write about Watergate without). It's also important to ask yourself why anonymity is granted for a scrap of information. The Israeli government has been quite public and open with its criticisms of the flotilla people -- why not go on the record with this assertion? At any rate, this is not one of those rare cases where the unattributed quote should get a free pass. This kind of nuance in deciding when its appropriate to use a source or not is something that wikipedia writ large is terrible at. There are no hard and fast rules for sources like this one -- context is everything.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But don't you feel that citing this to "An unnamed IDF source" covers that issue? If the source were presenting facts, I would be with you in questioning the reliability. But the source is used to establish the Israeli POV on questioning the flotilla's motives. There are other Israeli sources that do this, but when it comes to the medicines issue, this one is by far the most explicit. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Me? No. It's basically a propoganda outfit making a controversial claim attributed to an "IDF source." I don't think they're beyond making stuff up in these instances, or violating the basic journlastic standards that would apply to granting anonymity (that the person is identified only as an "IDF source" means he could be a cook a private or someone important). Generally the weaker the anonymous identifier the weaker the claim. (i.e. if it said a "Senior IDF intelligence officer who request anonymity" or an "IDF general involved in the investigation who requested anonymity" we might be more inclined to take a look at it -- at those levels of sourcing interested reporters in ISrael could follow up with official channels and ask -- is this true? If so, why not go public with this claim? As it is there's no way to target what branch/area to even try to talk to). Vague job descriptions for anonymous sourcing is always a red flag, particularly in the case of the use of highly partisan sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Transformers

There have been a recent spate of deletions and arguments about what is acceptable and reliable sources. These sites below have been used as "reliable and independent sources." I feel they are fansites and not reliable thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[22][23][24][25]][26]

• The first link goes to seibertron.com, whose "About" page says "coming soon" and at the bottom describes itself as an "unofficial fansite." I would be skeptical of any information posted here.
• The second link goes to tfsite.com, which appears to be some sort of memorabilia store. I see no reason to think that's a particularly good source.
• The third link goes to tfwiki.net, which as an open wiki is decidedly not a reliable source.
• The fourth link goes to tformers.com, whose articles are written by people with forum-name bylines, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. It says it's run by something called "Entertainment News International" (enewsi.com), which appears at least to have peoples' names attached to the articles on the main page, but I don't know about its quality. Perhaps borderline.
• The last link goes to tfw2005.com, which describes itself as a "fan community related to Transformers toys." I don't think a "fan community" can be considered a reliable source.

These largely seem to be inappropriate as sources, in my opinion. — e. ripley\^talk 23:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you could kindly tell people the people at WikiProject Transformers then "Too much dead wood and no sourced material" Dwanyewest (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The better course would probably be for you to direct them to this discussion. — e. ripley\^talk 01:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem is Transformers articles sourcing the published books, Wired Magazine, USA Today, Toyfare Magazine, etc, are also getting deleted, not just the ones who source fansites. What's the reasoning behind that? Mathewignash (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Are these articles making trivial mentinon of major characters provide examples in USA Today, etc and plus it has to be significant coverage of the subject please provide examples of such claims. I am sceptical of such inclusionist claims. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The debate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source) is a perfect example of mainstream sources poorly and wilfully misused to further an argument. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dwayne, generally it is considered ill form to make the same inquiry on multiple pages, it could be considered WP:CANVASS even though everybody is agreeing with you. See also Identifying Reliable Sources for the same discussion.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

scholarlypublishing.org

There is a dispute at Alger Hiss regarding this. My view is that the admission of "digital publication" should prompt suspicion of WP:SELFPUB. The material at issue is by an academic but someone who is writing outside his field of professional expertise. As a professor, the author would understand that for his work to be considered authoritative it ought to be published in a refereed journal. In this case it isn't even published by a fully arm's length publisher of any sort, since when responding to some of my objections here, the author referred to "my website" (emphasis added). The hosting website is http://quod.lib.umich.edu, and given that it also hosts things like UM Campus Area photos, it appears to be analogous to a university department's server that is largely free to use for faculty without any peer review at all. The assistance of support staff in the "publication" does nothing to resolve the issue, in my view. I've allowed that the matter may be grey enough that I have not tried to purge the article of citations to this source, but some want to feature a sentence cited to this source as arguably the most prominent sentence in the whole article. This while material published by Yale University Press, the Journal of Cold War Studies, etc is fundamentally at odds with the general viewpoint of this author.Bdell555 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but I do not think the mere fact of where the article is hosted matters--many sites can be hosted on the same server--ibiblio.org, for example hosts many different sites. How the author responded to personal correspondence also isn't really relevant, and would constitute original research in any case. The key questions, I think, are the role of SPO, and how to weight the source. It appears that the SPO is an official publishing arm of UM, and thus similar to other university presses, and the author is an academic and has documented his work, so I would argue that the source is basically reliable. That being said, the material is presented as an essay, and as you point out, this area is not the author's area of expertise. Thus to the extent that it does not accord with the findings of professional historians examining the topic, care should be taken to not give this essay undue weight (and using it in the lead would do that, I think). As it stands, the lead in the article is too long--my suggestion would be to move paragraphs 2-4 to other sections below, and keep the lead very small, as that will help ease the problems with weighting. This is apparently a common issue with articles on contentious subjects. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The SPO is not listed as a distributed client at http://www.press.umich.edu/distributed.jsp or otherwise noted as having "academic standards and processes of peer review are reasonably similar to those of the UM Press." Also, if the author calls it "my website" not once but three times, that seems to be me to be directly relevant to a determination of WP:SELFPUB. I have never attempted to contact the author (note how I referred to the the author in the 3rd person in a public post: "You remind the author...") so I don't see how the "personal correspondence" label follows. Even if it did, WP:OR deals with how editors use sources, and the only thing I am doing with this source is noting a statement that the author publicly volunteered. In any case, I find it ironic that material on scholarlypublishing.org is being rejected (in one place) in order to support accepting it (in another): is there truly serious doubt about whether the author described the source at issue as "my website"?Bdell555 (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

for his work to be considered authoritative it ought to be published in a refereed journal. That's moving onto very thin ice. It would certainly eliminate most of the so called "publishing" in the whole McCarthy era/reds under every bed/terrorists around every corner mind set. Coulter would be out. Anything done by Regnery Publishing would be out. (Hey, how about that! Coulter uses Regnery... what an amazing coincidence.) Currently much of the publishing on McCarthy era issues sources back to Venona and collections like the FBI Silvermaster File all of which need to be read with great care due to the nature of their purpose & creation. Example: in the 2009 Klehr, Haynes, Vassiliev "Spies" on page 259 Haynes wrote (Klehr denies knowledge & I seriously doubt Vassiliev cares, so by elimination it must be Haynes) A Soviet operative held the first direct covert KGB contact with White in July 1944. Evidently the referees/fact checkers at Yale Press didn't dig deep enough to learn the 31 July 1944 meeting (as described in Venona 1119-1122 http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/venona/1944/4aug_harry_dexter_white.pdf ) and recorded in the 4 August 1944 Venona cable, the covert KGB contact was in fact a Soviet central bank delegate to the recently concluded Bretton Woods conference. For July White was chief organizer at the 3 week, 700 delegate Bretton Woods conference. I duly note that while Venona sources such as Nathan Gregory Silvermaster attended Bretton Woods, there does not seem to be any Venona message traffic about the conference.

A personal observation about the sanctity of "refereed journals." My trade is software. Twenty years ago I found a research paper from MIT's Sloan School (a heavily research oriented school... you have to write a thesis to get an MBA) which said it was going to write on software maintenance. But when I actually read the paper, the author said that when they examined the refereed literature there was so little mention of software maintenance that the paper would be on a different topic. So the absence of refereed papers on software maintenance means software maintenance is either unimportant or doesn't exist? Huh? Point being: refereed journals are not an infallible source of information. DEddy (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

SPO is a digital repository with little editorial oversight not operating as a traditional academic press. Treat works as suspicious unless otherwise reviewed. Seek scholarly reviews of the work in question in appropriate field specific journals (JCWH for example) reviewing the site. Unless reviews treat it as scholarly, treat as unscholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

References/Sources at UVB-76 Article

There have been some unresolved concerns of sources being utilized at the article for UVB-76; some have come to a very loose consensus as not being able to pass WP:RS, however, others have been up in the air.

At heart, the main references in question are as follows:

• [27] and [28]; these are copies of newsletters for two Amateur Radio groups, neither of which are hosted under the organizations' own domains. From the information I've been able to locate for these organizations--mostly their own websites--there doesn't appear to be anything that would indicate the contributors to these newsletters are necessarily 'experts'; newsletters of this sort, in my view (which has been opposed), would best fit as 'self-published' WP:SPS, but would not pass muster under those guidelines (and others do not seem to lend much help).

• [29], the 3rd item in the References section, is the item most commonly agreed upon; it is a copy of an old Geocities page that has been archived. It is completely unreferenced and unsourced, and most certainly fails. Reference #1 above largely reproduces this page in it's entirety as the sole mention of UVB-76; whether this fact has bearing on either source or not, I'm not entirely sure of.

• [30], the 4th item, is another newsletter from the group who had published Reference #2 above; neither of these newsletters refer to the station as 'UVB-76', but rather its nickname 'The Buzzer', and very little information is present (this more likely is a notability issue, rather than a reliability one).

• [31], 5th item, is a newsletter from a third radio group , about which little to indicate reliability can be found.

• [32], 6th item (start of 2nd column); this is a website that appears to be run by a Brian Rogers; he appears to have some relationship with the group ENIGMA 2000 (authors of the first reference above), as he links to their site (which is on the same domain of www.brogers.dsl.pipex.com). Nothing locatable to indicate his reliability.

• [33]; 7th item, a page from Wired, the content of which seems largely derived from:
  • A Gizmodo post [34] which refers to the Wikipedia Numbers Station page, and originated from a Mixed Martial Arts forum [35];
  • The above referenced Numbers Station page;
  • A blog, at [[36]];
  • The article itself;
  • Other conjecture that was at least once part of the article (relation to the Dead Hand, possible uses of the station, etc).

--Largely, ciruclar references or ones that we wouldn't normally rely on. This also is the only major site that appears to have provided any coverage whatsoever.

• [37]; 8th item; a thread from a mailing list for one of the above radio groups. Makes mention that sources in the Russian government have confirmed it belongs to a Russian Ministry; this is not reflected elsewhere.

The remaining two references would likely be considerable as reliable sources, but #9 only makes trivial mention of the site itself (I've not been able to ascertain this myself, as it is a book); #10 does not specifically reference the station, but the frequency it runs on and how it can be used (likely removable).

Sorry this has been so long-winded, but I wanted to give as much information as I thought would be necessary to help make a determination. Thanks in advance for any assistance that can be provided in fleshing this out. Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Aeternitas827 is right that there are serious sourcing problems. I've tried to trim out some of the poorly sourced content but have been faced with users who reinstate it showing a complete disregard for policies relating to reliable sources and no original research. It seems now difficult to deal with this problem whilst some users are apparently not interested in trying to achieve an article which meets our fundamental policies. I hope we might be able to trim out some of the poorly sourced content and be left with at least something. Adambro (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the difficulty in finding sources shows a lack of notability. There is enough to justify a short article or stub, but of late activity with the station has created a frenzy amongst certain editors to include anything to "justify" the article. I have not found off-Wiki recruiting but suspect that it is happening somewhere. A visit to the talk page shows editor after editor commenting, "But if we remove it, we won't have an article!". This, to me, shows that the article may be unfixable, at least until the excitement dies down. I'm going to restore the Notability template again, but it'll be gone by tomorrow.Geogene (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Library of Congress

I have some issues with regards to accepting Library of Congress as reliable source, need suggestions pertinent to this as few reports of the said organization are roughly contradicting the Pew Research Center, CIA and other reliable studies concerning the demographic studies in South Asia.Humaliwalay (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of all the ones you mention, the LOC, as a library, is the most agnostic. Without some specifics it's impossible to respond further. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused -- are you talking about Library of Congress Country Studies? I don't see any reason why they couldn't be accepted as a WP:RS if properly attributed. The LOC describes them as The Country Studies Series presents a description and analysis of the historical setting and the social, economic, political, and national security systems and institutions of countries throughout the world. The series examines the interrelationships of those systems and the ways they are shaped by cultural factors. The books represent the analysis of the authors and should not be construed as an expression of an official United States Government position, policy, or decision. The authors have sought to adhere to accepted standards of scholarly objectivity.

I take it that some information in this country study conflicts with Pew and the CIA? Generally, when reliable sources differ, the disputed information is summarized. (X says this, but Y says that.) — e. ripley\^talk 05:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My Sincere thanks to both of you, I remove ambiguity here I actually meant Library of Congress and asked about the authenticity of Studies but there was another article on Library of Congress Studies. Please suggest again, as can I take the authenticity of Library of Congress as reliable. Well the Idea of specifying sources helped a lot like X says this and Y says this. Thanking in anticipation. I have corrected the headline. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the that Humaliwalay wishes to remove the Library of Congress Country Studies from Shi'a Islam in Pakistanon the grounds he disagrees with it. Codf1977 (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Codf1977 - I don't disagree with anything reliable hence I asked discussion here, and issue is the claim of Library of Congress doesn't match with any reliable source. Humaliwalay (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Absent some specific argument as to why they aren't reliable, they seem to meet the standard to me. Where reliable sources disagree, we summarize that disagreement. — e. ripley\^talk 13:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me make it easy, Humaliwalay strongly refuses to accept Library of Congress which is located in Washington DC, in the capital of the United States and is the national library of USA. They have a separate section that deals with foreign countries, and under no circumstances can someone say it is biased toward a particular group because USA is a nation of all the people of the world. Wikipedia isn't a fact-finder or a research website, we must accept all reliable sources and anyone who tries to remove such sources from an article will get blocked for vandalism or distruptive actions.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I never stated in any of the discussion about who I am and nor did I generalize another user. AllahLovesYou has generalized me on his assumption which is not appreciated. I hereby request to get this user's actions reviewed. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But you're telling us on your user:page who you are, your edits tell us more. Also, you're the one calling me childish (Humaliwalay: "Don't act childish..."), that's a personal attack towards me because I'm not a child as you can see my writings are obviously not of a child.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so, but so far you incited sectarian hatred is worst than a childish act which can be read above. I have reported this ti administrator and asked for protecion of few articles which is getting distirted repeatedly. Thanks - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Link provided by you is once again ambiguous, I mentioned my name not any Religion or sect. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any purpose for continuing with this. You stated your name as Mohammad Sajjadali Rizvi, "Muhammad" is a Muslim name and "Rizvi" is a popular Shia last name in the Indian subcontinent. See also Sajjad Ali for more evidence.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've protected Shi'a Islam in Pakistan and am wondering if Criticism of Sunni Islam needs protection. This is an alternative to actually blocking someone. Humaliwalay, if you are going to suggest an editor is a sock puppet, as you did at ANI, then you should raise it at [[WP:SPI]. I will add that E. Ripley's comments above are correct - attribute your sources and summarise the disagreement (if they are all reliable sources, and the LOC studies, right or wrong, are reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And let's not discuss motivations, just actions, please. And no speculating about other people's religions. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed my words from this discussion regarding that.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

heffernan

A dispute has arrison ove whetehr a blog entry [[38]] is RS for her caveats about endorsing Watts Up With That?. Based on the fact that blogs canno0t be used as sources about third parties. My popint being is being used as a source for an opinion on her endosemsnt, not about the subjkect of that endorsment.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it can be used, but only in correct context. If you make sure to frame it like "In a response posted by Heffernan on the xyz.com site... insert quote". I would stay away from using it as a source for a claim without this context, it could be construed as misleading. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if any evidence arises to dispute the validity of Heffernan's identity on that site the information would have to be promptly removed from the article without exception until the validity of the claim is confirmed.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only does there appear to be no dispute but the 'retraction' post is in fact repeated on the blog she origionaly endorsed [[39]] so there appears to be no doubt its her comments. In addition the subject of any BLP violation has repeated the material.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. per WP:Bold I'd say insert it, under the criteria above, until anything contrary appears.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is not a blog post, but a comment to a blog post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

repeated by the subject of the comment on their blog.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Quest, that's why I think it can pass as long as it's framed correctly and not used as a simple citation. As a regular cite it goes into the dumpster.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Re: blog comments and twitter feeds, WP:RS states:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is not unduly self-serving;it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);it does not involve;claims about events not directly related to the subject;there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This comment has claims about third-party people, organizations, or other entities and should not be included. Minor4th 17:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So we can use the phrasae "she went on to say she does not endorse its views" as that makes no mention of any third party.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the blog is run by David Dobbs.[40] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To further clarify, where is this being used? I thought this was going into either an article about Heffernan showcasing her views on a topic or into an article about the topic showing this as a citation of critical views of the topic. In the first case it would fall under self-published viewpoint and in the 2nd case it falls under critical review just like a motion picture article. How is this ref going to be used and where?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Torchwoodwho: The article is Watts Up With That?. A lengthy discussion begins here.[41] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Example of the text as it is without the caveat [[42]]. This is the text (with the caveat) [[43]]. Note that if this text is kept (personally I think is fails Undue but there you are) it would go in to the same section as the first Diff.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, not a reliable source at all. Even if you were to make any sort of case, you'd need to show the proposed edit. Incidentally, it's unclear what relevance someone with graduate degreesn in English lit ((Heffernan) has on climate change. II | (t - c) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actualy I agree I bleive that including this womans recomendation fails undue, but that is a different issue.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Having now seen the context in which this is being used I have to say it falls into undue weight. As shown above there are perfectly good examples of when a citation like this "can" be used, and this is case of when it most likely should be left out. This is a good example of a borderline source, but it doesn't do much to solve the disputed edits. Perhaps this talk would do better moved to the content noticeboard?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My take on it is we have Virginia Heffernan who first recommended the blog and then recanted or placed a caveat or whatever. I'd say that using the first one and not the second was a distortion. My preference is for both, and given all the blog post is an opinion I see no problem with that in our guidelines, I feel that using neither is a bit of a nuclear approach but is better than none. I suppose we could move this whole argument there, it sorta falls in two categories really..(groan) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: This is difficult carrying this on in two locations, so can folks keep watch on both pages? i.e. article talk of Talk:Watts_Up_With_That?#Virginia_Heffernan Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Casliber -- this is really where the discussion should be taking place as long as this issue is open and not resolved, as some have declared it. The problem is that anything related to CC is usually avoided by many of the regular noticeboard participants because, as you see on this page, the discussion tends to get overwhelmed by involved editors who do not just show up and state their piece and leave it to others. That reminds me that I should declare that I am involved in editing the article, as are Casliber, AQFK and Slatersteven. This issue has not stabilized and as soon as it calms down, it seems another editor joins the fray and the edit warring begins again. I have listed this article for peer review, so maybe that will help settle this issue as well as others. I urge uninvolved editors to please weigh in. The issue may need to be restated though. Minor4th 00:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, I AM uninvolved, and the issue seems resolved as far as this noticeboard can take it. The source is reliable for conveying the thoughts and opinions of Virginia Heffernan unless there is evidence to question that the statement is not truly hers. I'm glad to see you've taken the issue to peer review, but this board isn't for content disputes, only for the scrutiny of a source's reliability and if that source meets the standard of wikipedia. As I suggested above you may also find good help at the WP:Content noticeboard. Have you also notified any relevant wikiproject to gather additional voices?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

www.answering-ansar.org

User:Humaliwalay is involved in editing Criticism of Sunni Islam and uses this (http://www.answering-ansar.org/index.php) and other similar hate-promoting websites to support his POVs in Wikipedia. For example, Humaliwalay inserted in the article this "The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' (No one can touch it save the pure) but in it is stated in multiple verdicts of Sunni Scholars that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine". I asked Humaliwalay where is this stated and he directed me to a Shia hate Sunni website [44] and called me childish in the process. After checking the link that he provided I noticed the above statement about Quran chapter can be written with urine was simply a question asked by a random online user at the answering hate-site. See question 60 The article Criticism of Sunni Islam was created by Humaliwalay and except the intro which I edited, nearly all the rest of the info in that article fails to be verified. He uses these unreliable sources to back up his POVs but argues else where that the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, (USA) is an unreliable source for information. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Library of CongressI need help in dealing with this article and with Humaliwalay to stop his propaganda, and to stop using unreliable sources. Thanks!--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider that site to be reliable. Their join page says it's a "volunteer project" whose "sole objective is to refute the false propaganda perpetuated against the followers of Ahlíul bayt by todayís postmodern cyber takfeeris." Sounds pretty skewed, so I would not use it to make sweeping claims about the Quran. But that's just my take; anyone else? (Oh, and as a side note, I think that article could be considered a POVFORK, and should probably be merged into a larger criticism article.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an apologetics WP:SPS (albeit a nicely formatted one). There's no indication of the identity of the individual or body that runs it, no information about his or their expertise, no indication of what kind of editorial oversight is used. It fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Depicting answering-ansar.org as a source is a propganada by AllahLovesYou, the website has just carried out the translaton work real source is cited which is kept hidden and not highlighted here the original sources are as follows :

• Fatmaada Aalamgeer Vol.5, Page 134.
• Fatwa Siraajiya, Page 75.

The below link is just translation and not claiming to be the source. Even in discussion with the user having issues it was mentioned to look the translation of the source not source like it was advised here [45] - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_siraajiya_p75.jpg

I concur with HelloAnnyong and Jayjg, www.answering-ansar.org does not appear to meet the basic criteria for a reliable source. Perhaps they are providing an accurate translation, I'm not in a position to judge that, but we cannot assume that either the translation or the jpg are accurate representations. Can you find other sources supporting your claims? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The United States Government

The United States Government is large and complex and produces a lot of material, not always 100% accurate. (Found WMD in Iraq yet?) So can we get a guide showing on which issues which parts of the various governments and agencies of the USA are reliable sources? For example the CBO blog ( http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1028 ) is only reliable to the extent that other government agencies provide them information. And no agency of the United States can be taken as a completely reliable reference to the intentions or full capabilities of any foreign power. ("Unknown unknowns") Hcobb (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The CBO isn't perhaps the best example to bolster your argument, considering that it's Congress' nonpartisan, nonpolitical budgetary analysis arm, and as such has the force and power of Congress behind its requests (just like the GAO). I don't imagine many agencies that want to keep being funded wouldn't provide information to the CBO.

Beyond that, what's the issue? Do you have a problem with some specific information from a specific agency? — e. ripley\^talk 19:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The initial assumption has to be that all official government documents, from the US and other countries, are reliable for the areas they relate to. For example, a summary of tax law, produced by government for businesses to refer to, would usually be a good source for the tax law of that country. In international relations academic research should be preferred, and for current international events, the mainstream media, e.g. Associated Press. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

CBO and CRS are both problematic because they act on congressional requests, which can have a political twist to them, and both groups are required to express statements on foreign affairs. Hcobb (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

CBO and CRS (which, incidentally, is an arm of the Library of Congress) are both nonpartisan. Though members of Congress may request these entities evaluate some item of policy, the resulting reports are nonpartisan and are often cited by national media outlets. Reports from both investigatory bodies are perfectly appropriate to use here qwith the proper attribution. — e. ripley\^talk 21:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Use with attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Dlabtot. Depending on the circumstances, the CBO and other USA government sources can be reliable as to what the views of the USA government are. It all depends on the context. Ngchen (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, e. ripley, and dlabtot are all correct. U.S. government websites generally meet the requirements of WP:RS, and comments about WMD are irrelevant to whether or not such websites meet WP:RS. CBO and CRS in particular are non-partisan, and under a high degree of scrutiny, so their websites would likely be even more reliable than the average U.S. government website. And it's typically helpful to use attribution in relation to these sites. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gathered that US-American reliable media tend to give data from e.g. the CBO or GAO with attribution, usually IMO to underline the reliability of the information but of course it provides good context in any case. We might do the same here. (of course within reason. For example, the projected cost of a weapons system may be given both according to the manufacturer and the GAO. Information on tax laws doesn't need attribution) --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As with any other topic, where reliable sources disagree we summarize that disagreement. — e. ripley\^talk 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Allgame.com

Are articles at www.allgame.com suitable for use as WP:RS? The About Us page is here.

I am particularly asking as I would like to use this article to help show the notability of the game it's talking about. Thanks in advance, Bigger digger (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

From the about us page: as our databases grew, we saw they could be powerful tools for online retailers and entertainment destinations. It's a marketting/promotional site, and not a reliable source.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that in favour of it mentioning all the editors it employs. Thanks! Bigger digger (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...according to our article, Allgame is owned by All Media Guide, the same company that owns Allmusic and Allmovie. Isn't Allmusic frequently cite by our music articles? OTOH, the About page says "Some of our descriptions and reviews are written by the All Game Guide's full-time editorial staff,but most are written for us by off-site freelancers." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily as damning as it might sound (for instance, most major magazines also accept work by freelancers, including big names like Vanity Fair). A freelancer's work would presumably still have to go through whatever editing process they have on-site. Whether that process is up to snuff is another question, but possibly also an unanswerable one. — e. ripley\^talk 12:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Diary of Amr Shalakany on Al-Ahram Weekly

Is this a RS? Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For what intended purpose?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

News obituaries?

In general, do news obituaries meet our standards for reliable sources? By "news obituary", I mean an obituary that is written by a newspaper's staff because they believe the person's death to be important to the newspaper's readership, rather than something written by the family. I'm considering writing an article on archaeologist James L. Swauger, and this obituary seems to be the most informative single source that I can find. Please note that the obituary was written by the staff of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which has won USA-wide awards; it's not some smalltown newspaper with no reputation. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue has come up before. In general, if written by staff reporters (or an "expert" - by this I mean for example The Guardian's obit of Henry Chadwick (theologian) which was written by Rowan Williams) for an otherwise reliable source, I cannot see why not. Some care may be needed with tone, "speak no ill of the dead" is a less prevalent idea than it used to be, but obits do still sometimes err in that direction. David Underdown (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the pointer; I didn't know but that maybe biography editors would think differently of obituaries. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

News obituaries can be a great source of information. I would carefully examine anything that looks a bit too sugary, but in my experience, they're usually fairly neutral. (They'd likely omit anything bad instead of putting a spin on it, anyway.) When in doubt, you can always attribute the source and say "some author/newspaper said of Mr. X..." and let the reader analyze it as they will. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cross-post: New discussion at Fringe Theories Noticeboard

A discussion about the contested insertion of material into the Ludwig Wittgenstein article has been started at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard.--82.113.106.29 (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fred Phelps and American Atheists convention

Collapsed for BLP Reasons

"Fred Phelps' son Nate has alleged violence by his father toward his mother and family, supposedly due to an addiction to amphetamines and barbiturates, which Phelps allegedly used to help meet the demands of law school. The stress of schoolwork, combined with the difficulties faced by the simultaneous use of uppers and downers, supposedly heightened Phelps' "quick, violent, and indiscriminate" temper."

This is currenly sourced to a paper on Atheistsnexus.org called The Uncomfortable Grayness of Life by Nathan Phelps (Son of Fred Phelps) presented at the American Atheists Convention on April 11, 2009 in Atlanta, GA.

If this was a meeting of ASA or the APA or even the AAR, I would have no qualms of accepting the Paper. I admit Atheism associations is an area I am ignorant in. I have no idea if this is a Academic subgroup or merely a social event. Considering the claims made and I can't find him even quoted about in the Google News archives I am very concerned on how reliable this source is for BLP purposes. Whether We should consider it a SPS or What here? Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the above statement with this edit pending this discussion Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Informed the BLP notice board about this discussion Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not reliable for anything but an SPS and even then, WP:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources applies. So, no, I don't think that you can use that source for that content. You might be able to use this article[46] but it isn't very detailed, and you probably want more than one news article before adding this to a BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh doubted It was Reliable thus i removed it. Considering how longits been in the article someone must have thought it was "ok." I am doing clean up there right now, so I brought it here. This article is a mess full of primary and SPS and other junk. Pending Changes is good for Keeping stuff out but we also gotta do scrub downs for stuff already there. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I replaced one primary source with a secondary RS.[47] But I have to wonder, is it acceptable to be citing the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center for contentious information about a living person? I know that these are legit organizations, but I would think you would need a secondary, reliable source for this type of content. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

More sources from Clean up

[[48]] OC Weekly, Sources several statements in there right now. Never heard of it looks like a tabloid and what about Front Page Magazine? [49] Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of ocweekly.com either, but it looks like a legit publication.[50] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

looks like an alternative paper. I still not sure about it especially as it claims the origin of Phelps Anti-homosexual campaign. Which I still can't verify elsewhere Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Front Page Magazine

I'll leave it for then, Thoughts on Front page mag [51] any site has a portion called "Jihad Watch" is questionable to me.. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've never heard of FrontPage Magazine, but it's layout and link to Jihad Watch makes me question it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I Just removed it, I can't find any one else who claims they Went to Baghdad. I can't beleive no one else would mention that. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked as well and didn't see anything. Seems like kind of an extraordinary claim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

yeah the other two uses arent are pretty basic facts so I am leaving them for now. I am probably gonna do some more tomorrow but it looks a lot better than it did. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

National Names Database

[52] "National Names Database" Reliable for an Arrest record? Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I've never heard of NNDB but it seems to have some editorial oversight.[53] Here's what other reliable sources have to say about it: Guardian CNET I'm not sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion about NNDB can be found [54][55][56] [57]. Bottom line: not a reliable source, most especially for any kind of controversial information. --Slp1 (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Slp1: Thanks for those previous discussions. I've removed the source from the article and tweaked the wording to match the SPLC article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Newser.com

Newser.com?[58] It's being used to support that this person called a famous singer a "simple slut" and a "proud whore". I think I'm going to remove this on principle. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it.[59] We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Marinecorpstimes.com

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/04/marine_scotus_040510w/ Reliable? Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Marine Corps Times looks like a legit publication.[60] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/

[61] I think its a wiki? Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like an open Wiki. Not reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am leaving it for now since its not terribly contentious while i look for another source Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Slashfilm.com

Slashfilm[62] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Directors article has more on the movie, the statement in the article is out dated but correct. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Refereed Academic Conference, or Partisan Government Research?

I'm in the process of looking over all of the sources used at Sea of Japan naming dispute. This is a very contentious article, given that its purpose is to explain a contentious debate (primarily) between Japan and South Korea about what the body of water between the two of them should be named. As such, the article includes both clearly partisan sources (like studies and articles written by the governments themselves) to establish what the debate is, as well as academic/journalism article to look more carefully at the "facts" behind the competing positions. Sometimes, those, it's difficult to tell these two apart; the distinction is quite important, because a source of the first type, per WP:ASF, should be prefaced with some sort of statement like "The government of Japan claims...", while the second can be presented as a "neutral" source. My current question revolves around a group of papers from the "International Seminar on Sea Names." There website can be found here. The About Us pages claims that the papers are presented at a yearly "seminar," given in a variety of cities, originally focusing on just the Sea of Japan/East Sea issue, but now focusing more generally on geographical naming controversies. What I can't tell is whether or not this should be considered the equivalent of an academic conference, or if it should be considered a Korean partisan source. The home page indicates that 3 of their 5 supporters are Korean government sources, and another is a Korean partisan think tank. The About Us page uses language clearly indicating that they favor the Korean position. While there are papers from academics in a variety of countries, there are far more presenters providing a Korean point of view than a Japanese one. Again, the problem is that I can't tell if that is because this is not a neutral source, if it's just an artifact of the group being based in Korea (and thus more likely to attract Korean researchers), or if it's because the "wider academic community" has found that the evidence tends to support the Korean position. So I would like the opinion of others how to handle the papers posted on this website--do they count as reliable sources per policy? If so, do they count as reliable academic (i.e., NPOV sources), or do they count only as sources supporting the opinions of the study writers? Or am I drawing a distinction that doesn't even really exist? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication that works published are the result of peer review. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a RS for a section about 'current usage' and 'commonly used'

In the article Political correctness there is a section Current usage which has a list of a few "Examples of language commonly criticized as "politically correct" ". An editor has added "Winter holiday and Spring holiday in place of Christmas and Easter" with a citation to a New York Times regional article [63] about a demand to a school board that the name of the annual Christmas Concert not be changed to Winter Concert, a change the board had already decided not to make. As this is clearly not an example of 'commonly criticized', I removed the citation and added a fact tag. The citation has been replaced but the fact tag left. Does anyone think that the NY Times article is a reliable source for the claim? I don't think the claim belongs here at all because it is about language that in fact isn't commonly used. There have been a couple of high profile examples that have turned out to be erroneous, ie the attack on a Birmingham City Council in the UK claiming it had replaced Christmas with 'Winterval' (ignoring the huge Merry Christmas sign on the town hall), but it simply isn't common, and if I'm wrong (heaven forbid), it needs a more reliable cite than a school board saying it's not going to change the name of a concert (and no mention of Easter). Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a "Paris in the Capital of France" situation where more work needs to be do to find the references to fully support the statement. The reference that is there partially supports the statement, leaving it in a stronger position than about 1/2 of the rest of the article. I left the "citation needed" tag on it. What is the question? Is it already 100% sourced? No. Should it be immediately deleted?: No. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll narrow the statement to simplify the issue. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, no it is not proper to cite 1 primary source usage to verify that a prase "is commonly used". You would want the "source" in question to state "the phrase is commonly used". Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How many Buddhists are there?

Hi, I have objected to "Buddhism" article in that there are just 230-500 million Buddhists. I think there are over a billion Buddhists and that the low figures fail to take into account China as Buddhist and refuse to admit that a Buddhist may also be a Shintoist, Taoist, Confucianist and combine many other religions

Alex. Smith explains it pretty well here: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205002827/http://www.seanetwork.org/article.php?story=20041020143036414

I agree to wikipedia's article in China that states that some 50-80% of China is Buddhist. Here are some sources to strengthen this:

"The number of people who follow Buddhism are over 1 billion (80%)" http://www.justchina.org/china/china-beliefs.asp

"More recent surveys put the total number of Chinese Buddhists between 660 million (50%) and over 1 billion (80%)" http://www.foreignercn.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2929:buddhism-in-china&catid=1:history-and-culture&Itemid=114 http://www.chinabusinessinterpreter.com/Dasiy/16.aspx

"China....80% Buddhists" http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code/1269.html

According to religioustolerance, the number of Buddhists range from 350 million to 1600 million, it would be ideal if the "Buddhism" article were to state so http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Here are more figures that pont out to a much higher Buddhist adherents worldwide than a mere 230-500 million

a billion Buddhists:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050205002827/http://www.seanetwork.org/article.php?story=20041020143036414

books.google.com/books? id=Nhlvvhog7zcC&pg=PA138&dq=billion+buddhist&hl=en&ei=bBSFTMXKGMvGswaW6tCaBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=billion%20buddhist&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=xoawWG7X51EC&pg=PA5&dq=billion+buddhism&hl=en&ei=ABaFTKfbMcfIswb58NSaBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=billion%20buddhism&f=false

http://www.missiology.org/EMS/bulletins/asmith.htm

http://www.indiacgny.org/php/showContent.php?linkid=10

Google Book

http://www.namsebangdzo.com/Beginner_s_Guide_to_Buddhism_Jack_Kornfield_p/10687.htm

a 1.6 billion Buddhists:

http://books.google.com/books?id=69dNpJa-VzkC&pg=PA14&dq=billion+buddhist&hl=en&ei=5hSFTNDWOcTNswa71riaBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAjgo#v=onepage&q=billion%20buddhist&f=false

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/60490,people,news,dalai-lama-joins-ashton-kutcher-and-stephen-fry-on-twitter

a 1.5 billion buddhists:

http://www.thedhamma.com/buddhists_in_the_world.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/forum/story/2008/03/080323_tibet_analysis.shtml

http://www.nrn.org.np/speeches/rmshakya.html

In addition, the World Religions Special Report (1998) estimates there are 760 million Buddhists in Asia alone See here: http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_86.html#617 Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would caution against picking sources based on how close their figure are to estimates derived from other sources. Such estimates often can be considered original research. For Buddhism in China, which seems to be a major issue in this context, I would rather consult a source such as Pew Research, which does not have any stake in the number of Buddhists in China.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)