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

Use of dictionaries

Re "WP:Not a dictionary" If someone writes "XXX means YYY +ref +ref +ref" and then footnotes three major dictionary sources behind a word to show that this is modern usage, is this OR and can/should be deleted? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not really the right venue for your question (you probably should have asked it at the WP:NOR/noticeboard)... but I will answer anyway... No, it is not OR to give a dictionary definition of a word or term. I think you are misinterpreting WP:NOTDICTIONARY here. WP:NOTDICTIONARY does not mean we "ban" including dictionary definitions in an article (we include dictionary definitions in many of our articles), it means that we should not have articles that consist of nothing but a dictionary definition. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries, in general, are tertiary sources. For any technical definitions, general dictionaries generally make poor sources. That does not, however, connect with "OR" in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you specify what usage these are being cited for? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You cannot draw your own conclusions about how a word is used based on how you see various sources using it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, a WP policy question has now been answered by an editor who is directly involved in content dispute. Jayjg is one of the editors who has just deleted 3 modern dictionaries which I inserted into an article, which is why I'm checking policy first. Surely there's a conflict of interest of an editor who is part of the group who has deleted dictionary refs coming to a noticeboard and answering the question for the noticeboard? FWIW the deleted sentence + 3 refs was verbatim what the 3 dictionaries (which is the sum total of available modern dictionaries) said, and the word in question was the title of the article "XXX is....." but can we not have a policy question answered without the gory details of one local dispute being dragged in? Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I never "deleted 3 modern dictionaries which [you] inserted into an article". Please make more accurate and truthful statements; this is not the first time you've made these kinds of non-factual accusations. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, the sole purpose of this particular noticeboard is to focus entirely on the gory details of a single local dispute, rather than generalized or hypothetical questions.

As a quick rule of thumb—although Blueboar is right that usually questions about "original research" should be asked at the WP:No original research/Noticeboard—if ____ has been published anywhere, then saying ____ in an article cannot be original research. "Original research" basically means "made up by a Wikipedia editor".

That something complies with NOR (a rather low bar) does not, however, mean that it necessarily ought to be included in any given article.

If you want more help in resolving this dispute, you'll need to tell us the name of the article in question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The article I believe is Yeshu. But it's not written at a level that the general reader can understand. That in itself a problem. The dispute sounds like a WP:SYNTH issue: Someone wants to use dictionaries to advance an argument. We typically try to avoid that. Brmull (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Brmull "Someone wants to use dictionaries to advance an argument" - I don't think that's fair is it? I did not write the dictionaries, nor cherry-pick, but used all available; the dictionaries merely state how a word is used, there's no "argument" involved. These are the 3 mainstream standard modern dictionaries. I'm merely asking if dictionaries can be used as WP:sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on how the sources are used, and in what context. In this case, you're attempting to use them as WP:PRIMARY sources, and draw conclusions based on how they use the word. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks. So it has to go into the gory details of the article? In fact it isn't necessarily about the Yeshu article per se as the 3 active editors believe that that existing article is not about Yeshu (name) in the same sense as the Yeshua (name), Isa (name) articles, but about the identity of the Yeshu in two early and one probably not early uses, and consequently in their view dictionary references about the name itself have no place in the article. I have, until now which doesn't mean it is correct, assumed that citation of a standard dictionary in articles where a word/name/term is the title constitutes a WP:source. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Brmull, that's exactly the issue here, a WP:SYNTH problem: "Someone wants to use dictionaries to advance an argument". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, as one of the editors who deleted the 3 dictionary references from the article, you are entitled to your view. But all the dictionaries did was simply say "Yeshu Hebrew = Jesus English," there was no "WP:SYNTH" problem, the problem was the 3 modern dictionaries showed "in modern Hebrew usage" departing from some views about usage in the 13th C. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, as I explained above, I am not "one of the editors who deleted the 3 dictionary references from the article". If you have any evidence of me doing so, then please provide the diff. This is not the first time you've falsely accused me multiple times of doing something I have not done. Please apologize for this false accusation - and a real apology please, not one of your "well, maybe you didn't do that, but you did a lot of other bad, bad stuff, so I'm excused when I make these false accusations". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidently plural editors cannot physically press the same button on a specific delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs)

Is that supposed to be some sort of admission that your accusation was false after all? It's certainly not an apology. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Now can somebody save me the trouble of crawling any further through the article's history, and give me a diff of someone either adding or removing these three dictionaries, so I can see exactly how they were being used? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, WhatamIdoing thanks for asking. here, but I do not wish to attempt to restore this content/these refs at the article in question. I may not attempt to add them back at any article. At this point I'd simply like to hear a third party opinion in evaluating whether these dictionary sources do constitute "original research" as charged. If you'd prefer to stay a million miles from it I wouldn't blame you. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

I would like to ask for some clarification on the reliable of a source.

One editor has insisted that a connection be made between Fawn McKay Brodie (author of No Man Knows My History) and Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (ie. geneticist Ugo A. Perego) be established before the inclusion of any mention of Perego DNA research. That research disproved Brodie theories on the Children of Joseph Smith Jr. Basically the editor is saying that unless Perego research was done because of Brodie then it doesn't belong in the page.

At issue I would like input on is weather this source can be considered reliable, in this case only:

• Perego's 2008 FAIR conference presentation statement where he quite clearly states that it was learning of Brodie's theory of Joseph Smith fathering Moroni Pratt, that caused him to do DNA testing on Mr. Pratt: "After learning of Brodie's reference I agreed to look into this case since I already knew Joseph Smith's Y chromosome profile."

The issue at had is whether FAIR is reliable in this case only. Weather this source shows that Perego did in fact do this research, in part, in repose to Boidies claims. I totally understand that FAIR is not a reliable source for many things, but reliability depends on what kind of information you are citing. In this case FAIR is only repeating the statements made by Perego. It is not making conclusions. Just because the sponsoring organization is FAIR does not mean what Perego himself said at that conference is unreliable. Just because FAIR hosts that transcript it should not be considered unreliable also. It is not FAIR who is making the connection, it is Perego and his reasons for the testing don't require any kind of review, they are his own. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that identification so long as it's prefaced with a statement such as "At a conference of the Mormon apologetic organization FAIR, the Mormon geneticist Ugo Perego said....."--John Foxe (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not the issue at hand. Dose this establish that Perego did the research in response to Brodie claims? We are not attempting to quote him or his statements on establish he did the research in response to Brodie as you keep demanding. To include your statement is inappropriate and bias, since that is not what we are sourcing.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Let us accept that FAIR is reliable as far as what the speaker said. That should be non-controversial. Thus adding "At a conference ..." is superfluous in this case. What remains is the qualification of that speaker as a geneticist - if he is known in the field, then his opinions and findings carry weight. If he is not known, the weight is substantially reduced. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of the things that worry me are that (1) this speech has not been through any established process or editing or verification, and (2) the speech is only posted on a non-permanent website. Just a week or so ago, for example, the speech was temporarily taken down from the site and was unaccessible. You cannot really say that this speech has been "published". Plus, since the speech has not been through an established publication process, we don't know how this speech was transcribed, or how accurately the speech reflects what was said during this particular gathering. In Wikipedia, we don't typically cite transcribed speeches unless the speech was either published in the form of "conference proceedings," or commented upon by the press--in which case, we cite the news organization. COGDEN 21:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To Collect Ugo A. Perego is known.

To COGDEN:

Re: 1. Your applying a standard that isn't part of WP:V. WP:V only says that it must be "published". FAIR publishes threw it's website. Almost every page has links to page that are no longer "valid". This doesn't mean that the reference is no longer "published" or WP:V.

Re: 2. "Published" doesn't mean 100% "accurate". Newspapers make make minor misquotes all the time. That doesn't make the entire article unreliable. In this one case, I find it improper to say "You have to have a source that links Perego to Brodie" while excluding a direct quote by him based on dislike for FAIR. Again in this case only, his statements are at a FAIR, reported on by FAIR and are only being used to establish that Perego did the DNA research in response to claims made by Brodie. To claim that are inaccurate is silly, especially considering how extensively Perego discuses Brodie in his book The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy (Volume 1), which can be found on Amazon.

Lastly, just found a reprint of this article which can be found at josephsmithdna.com a website owned and controlled by Ugo A. Perego himself. He is reprinting it himself.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-published royalty websites

There are at least a couple of self-published websites devoted to detailing the lists of succession to mostly defunct thrones which are cited extensively on Wikipedia. Two that have come up recently are:

• http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ "Genealogical Gleanings" [1]
• http://www.royalark.net "Royal Ark" [2]

We use these two sites for material on living people. Should these websites be treated as exceptions to the rule prohibiting the use of self-published websites as sources for BLPs, WP:BLPSPS? If so, why?   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I think not, unless the case can be made that the owners/authors of the sites are experts in royal genealogy. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that self-published experts can be used as sources for non-BLPs, but that even they are prohibited sources for living people. WP:SPS.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The publishers of these sites are indeed both well-known and respected experts in research on the genealogy, titulature, monarchical history and successions of non-Western dynasties, both reigning and formerly reigning. I don't know if it's appropriate to give their right names on Wikipedia, but neither is "anonymous": those who frequent royalty websites, newsgroups and online forums in which non-Western hereditary rulers are tracked and discussed have been familiar with and/or in direct contact with both of them for more than a decade. More importantly, although there are more monarchies extant in non-Western than in Western continents, very little is known of them and their dynasties. The vast majority of what is written about them is inaccessible to the Western reading public: little is online and what is available is often cursory, what is in print is simply out of reach. Worse, problems of culture, translation, sourcing and NPOV abound (if you've ever read or edited the information frequently uploaded on these topics, you know to what I'm referring. Although every effort must, of course, be encouraged and appreciated, with the best intentions people can only offer what they have to hand, using the tools and English literacy they bring here -- and barriers to sustained, neutral participation on English Wikipedia are often overwhelming outside the West -- except to the most zealous). Yet Wikipedia's content, audiences and reputation are best served if more information about these institutions is made available in English sooner. Genealogical Gleanings and the Royal Ark have the advantage of being published on stable, dedicated, English-language websites, in familiar formats, the authors (whatever their backgrounds -- I've never met or spoken with either of them, although I know the countries of their location) write in concise prose, understand and apply scholarly research standards, strive for objectivity, update their sites frequently, and -- most critical of all -- have built up stores of documented information about non-Western dynasties that simply isn't to be found elsewhere. They also cross-check each other: The author of Gleaningss is especially expert in Far Eastern dynastic lore, while Ark is paricularly known for the dynasties of Islamic nations and the Christian dynasties (e.g. Transcaucasia) which border them. Both strive to bring indigenous African institutions and history to the attention of Westerners. Both are known to solicit information, feedback and crosschecking regarding their entries online. Because of my areas of interest and forum experiences, I personally rely more on Genealogical Gleanings for objective interpretation and on Royal Ark for factual data, but I value and trust both. They -- we -- should not be penalized because long ago they chose to pass on paper in favor of online publication -- where their work is both more dynamic with rewpect to corrections and updates and more accessible to those beyond the West. They deserve to be treated -- with caveats -- as exceptions to our "published sources" rule (and there are lots of other sites which don't, and whcih would draw my silence rather than my advocacy). And by the way, Will Beback, thanks for asking. FactStraight (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Those websites compile information from print sources and official websites. For each national royal house listed, the detailed references for all information are given on each main section page. It's not the same as ancestry.org or a personal website. brilliancetime (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. The two webmasters, Henry Soszynski and Christopher Buyers, are named on their websites. I don't see any books or magazine articles that they've published. What evidence do we have that they are regarded as experts?   Will Beback  talk  04:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess I should probably respond here since you've left messages on three lists that I wrote! I agree with FactStraight that Buyers and Soszynski are both well-respected sources for the more obscure dynasties. I should also point out that both authors cite their own sources quite readily, Soszynski here and Buyers on the opening page of each work. I obviously prefer citing additional sources where possible (there are several online almanachs that are good for this), but there is a distinct scarcity of sources in this area of knowledge. While the royal genealogies of Europe have a steady following, that can't be said for the tribal kings of Africa or the rajas of India. Because of our policies, I wouldn't recommend the use of them as sources for biographical articles where better sources exist. The biographical detail on these websites is the barest minimum; if they were the only sources on a particular individual, we shouldn't have an article on that individual to begin with. If there's a point of contention that is sourced to these websites, and no other source can be found, the point should probably be removed. Having said that, I don't see a problem with using them in lists of incumbents that only include a name and a date. Nightw 05:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that these are well-respected sources? If the best sources for a topic are two self-published websites, then an alternative would be to cover the topic less thoroughly, or to omit the material on living people altogether.   Will Beback  talk  07:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable approach. If some persons are of such limited interest that only these SPS wrote about them, they could easily be omitted from Wikipedia. See WP:EVERYTHING. On the other hand, if these sites cite harder to access sources, like old newspapers only available in microfilm at a library, I'd give that information the benefit of the doubt for inclusion unless there's some actual evidence of unreliability of these sites, like some of their citations failing independent verification. Having had a look at one of those pages [3], they don't seem to cite any of their sources, so I don't think the information there is of any use for Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Soszynski's bibliography is at the link I provided above. Nightw 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue with establishing someone as an expert isn't how many sources they cite, but rather how many times they've been published and cited.

Will, I'm going off the fact that both of them are commonly cited in university theses and other scholarly papers — for example, [4][5][6][7] You can find more by searching them on Google Scholar or the indexes of databases like JSTOR.

One of those was a self-published paper by an amateur historian (and Wikipedia editor). Scholars can cite all kinds of sources that we cannot use, including personal interviews, so that is not a help in and of itself.

The criteria we must use is at WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. It goes on to say, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. [emphasis in original]. In other words, we cannot use either of these websites for any information about living people, and we can only use them for other topics if we can show that they have been published in the field.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder sometimes whether strict application of that rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. We don't want to cite gossipy blogs, but I can't actually imagine a reason why we would not want to include apparently correct information about the succession of a throne merely because it was published by an apparent expert on a website.

The elephant in the room is that (with the important exception of formal media organizations) almost all websites are self-published: Coca-cola.com is written and published by Coca-cola, Inc. Harvard.edu is written and published by Harvard University. *.gov is written and published by American government agencies. Strict application of that rule would prohibit us from using any FDA documents, court decisions, or any other government sources to support a claim that the various government agencies have repeatedly sued Stanislaw Burzynski, even though the fact that he's been hauled into court is undisputed by anyone at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The sites fail rs and should not be used at all. Also, the fact that the information is only found in these sources means that it lacks notability, another reason to exclude it. People who seek the information on those sites can go directly to them. And yes, WhatamIdoing, the Coca Cola website is self-published which is why we do not use it in articles about kings and queens. TFD (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We also need to consider what the site says. The page I looked at (see my previous post here) makes counter-factual statements that some guy owns 300 Indian villages. India may not have abandoned its caste system, but it's no longer living in feudalism either. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To summarize, no one has shown that either of these webmasters qualify as experts in their fields according to usual Wikipedia standards, meaning their self-published sites may not be used for any purposes on Wikipedia. The foremost violation is regarding living people, and I propose that citations to these sources regarding living people be deleted first, and that all other citations be deleted later. I realize this could have an effect, especially on the minor royalty of India. I can only urge editors to find better sources.   Will Beback  talk  11:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to dissent from the above recommendation on a couple of grounds. First, it's presented as a summary of the foregoing and, IMO, is not. Responses to the question initially posed, "Should these websites be treated as exceptions to the rule prohibiting the use of self-published websites as sources" are not reflected in the summary, making its conclusions and the recommendation based on it a non sequitor. Rather, it's been a given in this discussion that the websites are self-published, its authors aren't elsewhere published in print media, ipso facto information found on or attributed only to those sites cannot currenttly qualify as RS -- for any use on WP, let alone BLP. Unfortunately, the points I raised, although backed up by the only other editor in this discussion who appears to be significantly familiar with the authors' work, have been dismissed without focused discussion: 1. Those here who are familiar enough with the subject matter to consult sources on it have, for years, found these sources generally reliable. That feedback's limited, but easily verifiable & always correctable. 2. The authors have built up a treasure trove of documented information about non-Western rulers, dynasties and history that simply isn't to be found elsewhere (and not because that information isn't "notable" -- irrelevant to article citations anyway -- but because the barriers I described had discouraged publishing this material in hard copy and, given the 21st century Internet, it is now more likely to be published online than on dead trees) So finding better sources "somewhere" is an unrealistic alternative. 3. RS for Western dynasties is so abundant that WP's coverage of them is disproportionate in a "global" encyclopedia, so carefully selecting a few sources available in RS-friendly formats helps redress that imbalance, bringing more reasonably verifiable non-Western history and culture to our readership's attention and use. Moreover, it's been acknowledged that these 2 sites are already "cited extensively on Wikipedia". I ask that these sources (or a process for evaluating such sources) be positively considered as narrow exceptions to RS criteria for notable topics that otherwise are apt to continue to remain lost in the "Dark Continent" for longer than need be. FactStraight (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the restriction in this case isn't WP:RS, a guideline on evaluating sources, but WP:BLPSPS, which is part of WP:BLP, which is our policy on what we can or cannot say about living people. Our restrictions on living people are and should be far far more strict than our general restrictions. While there may be a case that the sites might qualify as a narrow exception for general information (I'm not saying that for sure, but I'm saying "Even if..."), trying to make an exception to WP:BLP is darn well near impossible. We're strict on BLP because it has real, demonstrable consequences for real, living people, and while it's important for us to get knowledge out into the world, it's not worth potential harm that we might do to living people by using anything other than the best quality sources to discuss them. The truth is that many many things about Africa and India are effectively unreportable on Wikipedia, simply because the sources are inaccessible, or perhaps don't even exist. It's a fundamental "problem" with Wikipedia, but it's one that there really is no way to avoid safely. One thing I should note about these websites--if all they did was collect information in other sources, and they provided complete citeable information about those sources, and we decided that we could trust the site authors at least far enough to know that they wouldn't fake info in sources (I'd say that's a lower bar than "expertise"), then we could always site the original info directly. However, if they aren't providing full citation info, then we have to question their expertise. Furthermore, I am, in fact, concerned about where their material comes from. Having worked a bit in the India area, people routinely want to provide primary sources, including thousand year old poetry, stone carvings, or religious documents, as proof of one point or another. That wouldn't meet Wikipedia's standards; do we know what the author's of this site consider trustworthy? So, for instance, when you say they're collecting hard to find data, are they also critically evaluating that data, cross-checking it, etc.? I see too many questions here to actually consider carving an exception to WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Qwyrxian said. And a few more points: 1) This wouldn't be a narrow exception; literally hundreds of articles are using these two sites.[8][9] We're relying on them a large amount of material. 2) Much of this material is really highly speculative, in which the webmasters themselves decide on possible lines of succession for long-defunct principalities, give noble titles to people who have never had a reigning sovereign, and adjudicate or suppress disputes. This isn't objective material like the altitudes of peaks in the Alps. 3) If being a count or the grandson of a former king is important then this is important information which requires a higher standard, not a lower one. If any wealth, prestige, or power is gained or lost by these matters then we should be using the best possible sources. 4) This isn't just about royalty. There's a great website with data on elections around the world. It's frequently used by scholars doing research but we can't cite it either because it's also a one-man operation.   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think too be fair these websites present primarily pretty basic stuff, such as dates of birth/death, marriages this type of thing. I have been aware of these websites for years if I was to write an article on a non European royal I would turn to one of these to see when they were born, who they are married to etc in my opinion these websites are reliable. I doubt the websites are that often used on Wikipedia to support a controversial or disputed assertion, I would guess the majority of cites are for very basic facts like genealogical data or who the head of a certain royal house is. If a biographical entry relies solely on these sites and there is no other information out there then there is perhaps the case they are not notable enough for an article of their own. If these websites are forbidden the only ‘reliable source’ in English that I am aware of that covers only part of what is found on these websites is ‘Burke’s Royal Families of the World, Africa and the Middle East’, but this is over 30 years old now. FactStraight has mentioned about publishing this material as a book, these books are not cheap to make or buy, I don’t really see why publishers would put this type of information in print when people would have to pay upwards of £100 for it. If I was a publisher I would be worried if people would buy it as they could get the same information constantly updated for free online at very good websites like Royal Ark and Genealogical Gleanings. I think the fourth point you make Will shows there should clearly be a exceptions to the policy as WhatamIdoing is one to something when she mentions that strict application of the rules prevents people improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I believe especially if the website is a useful, easy access database of basic data such as when someone was born, or how votes a party got in an election. - dwc lr (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What about this book? FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I guess one could use that for the Indian Princely States, but of course its six years old now so I am sure there have been many changes since. We get a preview from Google Books which is useful but to replace cites to the websites someone would have to shell out of their own pocket or try and find a copy of that book in a library. According to Worldcat I see one copy in Germany. For me this is a case of convenience and accessibility . I can either look up when someone was born or succeeded to the headship of a family on a easy to access, free to access, reliable, up to date 'self published' website from my computer, or I can try and find a copy in a library local to me, then have to find the time to travel there and probably pay for the privilege. - dwc lr (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone up-thread mentioned that "The elephant in the room is that (with the important exception of formal media organizations) almost all websites are self-published". To that I would add; as is much printed media deemed entirely acceptable RS for Wikipedia but which is no more than one remove from self-asserted fact and gets zero fact-checking. Why should non-Western content find it so much harder to get its foot in our door. IF WP really wants to absolutely deserve the adjective "authoritative" it would permit nothing to appear that isn't footnoted to a scholarly source (and it's already been pointed out here that dissertation review committees routinely accept sources WP refuses!) The reason we don't do that isn't because that's not an ideal standard, but because it's impractical: it would compel exclusion of too much of the information people reasonably expect an encyclopedia to cover. But no one expects that info to be perfect, or always up to date. Rather, we expect it to reflect the best available sources, neutrally deployed So we set our sights on the ideal standard and meanwhile we largely accept the most accurate, most neutral, most current data we can lay hands on. The criterion of "paper publication" has been a reasonable gateway to screen for that standard -- given that this is a volunteer project -- until it's treated unyieldingly as what it is not: a legitimate presumption that non-publication equals non-reliability. Yes, I assume that the Gleanings and Ark sites have errors, gaps and biases which the future will correct: Name a source which doesn't? But it's also true that "published in print" is an increasingly inadequate and obsolete hurdle to erect for the purpose of screening reliability in sources: it's time to re-consider that standard overall and, here and now, to consider exceptions to it. It's not fair to go microscopic on these sites because I've suggested we explore ways they might be considered as examplses of such. Please, please address the grounds on which I have requested consideration: it appears to be the best information available on a large swathe of historical and political information worth Wikipedia attempting to present to its audience. Under that rubric, all kinds of limitations are possible short of complete exclusion: If BLP standards are sacrosanct, then let's agree that these sites can't be cited for details about BLPs. If Gleanings and Ark don't consistently source every datum (remember, they were uploading findings in widely used formats long before Wikipedia's ever-evolving standards for RS required dissertation-level documentation to state "Shaka Zulu was a man."), maybe they could be encouraged to do so if they knew their work might then be deemed Wiki citable? Bottom line, these sources might be classed "tentatively reliable"; acceptable for inclusion unless challenged for substantive reasons (e.g. contradicted by other sources/data, info unlikely to have been accessible, datum dependent upon another factoid now disproven, etc.) Unrebutted challenges on the talk page, where content disputes about Western dynastic issues are normally resolved, would then be deemed prima facie grounds for deletion of the cite. It's been acknowledged that throwing out this bathwater will dump a lot of Wiki babies. All I'm asking is that we put some thought into salvaging some, rather than summarily dismissing this area of interest and the bulk of the work done in it -- not because we have grounds to believe its sources are more erroneous than most sources cited in Wikipedia, but because they don't meet an across-the-board standard which continues to exclude non-Western far more than Western sources of information. Qwyrxian candidly noted, "The truth is that many many things about Africa and India are effectively unreportable on Wikipedia, simply because the sources are inaccessible", true but some aren't inaccessible -- just rejected. Why not try to do better, rather than resign ourselves to the notion that "better" isn't worth the trouble? In case it goes by unnoticed, I'm asking for help here. FactStraight (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with much that was said above. Sources of this type are typically used in breach of WP:BLP, and to cover topics in much more detail than is done in reliable sources. Wikipedia's coverage of nobility is seriously skewed and often does not follow the norms of the community. This is not an unusual problem. We used to have a similar problem with Pokémon, for example, and numerous other fields with such problems still exist. It appears that the time has come to fix the problem for this particular field. Hans Adler 22:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

FactStraight--the whole point is that it's not better to use information that we have no reason to believe is accurate. If you can provide some solid reason to believe that these people are experts in the field and that they have done good, due dilligenve to verify that the information is accurate, then they would be fine sources. But it's always better to have no information than it is to have information whose provenance we have no reason to believe is accurate. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

EWTN as reliable source on Catholics for Choice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Commenters here have helped me realize that this is more of a due weight issue than a reliable source issue per se, so I'll bring it up at NPOVN. Closing to avoid parallel discussion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Sigh...once again I am compelled to bring a source here, despite the burden being on the users adding it, who perhaps are hoping that majority mob rule will be a substitute for policy-based consensus.

Is EWTN, a conservative Catholic news site, an acceptable source on the "See Change" campaign of Catholics for Choice, a pro-choice Catholic organization? The article in question describes the campaign (whose goal is to have the Holy See designated as a NGO) as an "anti-Catholic attempt to expel the Vatican from the UN," while the same source elsewhere describes CFC as a "militant pro-abortion group" (with "Catholics" in scare quotes in the group's name) and a "pro-abortion Catholic cartel that operates within the Church for the express purpose of creating confusion."

I think it's obvious that this falls under WP:QS and is absolutely not reliable for statements about this third party. One of the users advocating it says it is reliable because it has an independent lay board and reports on Catholic topics. (The other users haven't bothered to explain why they believe it's reliable.)

(Context: material on a House of Reps vote is being added that is sourced to this EWTN article, to a CFC press release, and to a Washington Post votes database. I've argued that the material is covered by no reliable secondary sources - the WaPo isn't a story but rather a collection of every vote, so it's reliable for facts but doesn't confer any notability on the event, while a CFC press release is reliable for statements about CFC but, similarly, we don't write up all their press releases. And the EWTN is, as I've explained, an unreliable attack page.)

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would EWTN be a QS? Surely they are not being disparaged merely because of their religious affiliation? - Haymaker (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they're being disparaged for editorializing about the subjects they're covering -- see Ros's comment above about "'Catholics' for Choice". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh please, don't waste everyone's time by bringing this idiotic strawman to yet another forum in an attempt to smear me as anti-Catholic. If the fact that a significant part of EWTN's website is dedicated to advocating an opposing political agenda wasn't enough to make it QS, its virulent and malicious bias against the article's subject certainly would do so. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You can prove that EWTN has a "virulent and malicious bias against the article's subject"? - Haymaker (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As demonstrated above. Now, do you have anything productive to contribute, or are you going to continue claiming that this is because I just really hate any source that self-identifies as Catholic? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked if you could prove it, not just point to where you said it earlier. You are not, in fact, a reliable source. - Haymaker (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In general EWTN is a reliable source. If something sourced to them is seen as controversal, state in the content that "EWTN published/stated...". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would we do this? If the event is notable, it should appear in reliable sources. If the only coverage that can be found is an attack page from a website with an ongoing campaign against the article subject, it's obviously not notable enough to include. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's DUE is a matter for WP:NPOVN. What we're telling you is that a biased media source still meets the basic requirements for reliability. These are the five factors that determine reliability:

• It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
• It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
• It is a third-party or independent source.
• It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

The presence or absence of "virulent and malicious bias against the article's subject" is not on the list. A source can be virulently and maliciously biased while still meeting every single one of these standards. You deal with bias through your method of presentation, not by saying "unsympathetic right-wing sources not permitted on this left-wing topic". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And can you demonstrate EWTN's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? That's kind of important. (Reprinting this antisemitic rumor is a pretty good indication that this claim will not successfully be demonstrated.) See WP:QS: "Such sources include websites and publications...which rely heavily on rumor..." (one excerpt from a policy whose other parts also apply) It also might help if you provided examples of sources that were virulently and maliciously biased that were nonetheless determined to be reliable.

If you really think NPOVN is the venue, I can try that too, since it's also an obvious NPOV violation to allow an organization that disparages the article subject, spreads misinformation about the article subject, and wishes to "destroy the credibility" of the article subject to determine the article content. But it's also just that the source is not reliable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not buying your characterization of either of those two external links. - Haymaker (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Attribution If the source isn't questionable the way to deal with this is attribution. Just attribute the statement to the source, "according to ..." IMO I don't see any indication of it being unreliable. However, it would be good if someone more knowledgeable were to verify that it does indeed have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the source is questionable, based on its lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and based on its reliance on rumor. Attribution would not solve the problem I described above, ie. we do not let organizations engaged in active campaigns of disparagement, destruction, and misinformation against an article subject determine the content of that subject's article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1) You'r descritpion of what EWTN is "engaging in" seems a tad over the top, IMO. 2) Neutral commentators here don't appear to agree with you about it being a QS. The point of asking a question here is to get exactly that kind of opinion. Insisting that others are simply wrong when they give it is pretty much WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. 3) Why don't you give these individuals some time to answer the question I asked about the reputation of the source? The one example you gave is not proof of what you claim, since all news sources make mistakes. I'd like to hear more from the uninvovled people who frequent this board and less from the disputants. That's how the board should function, though often disputants just carry over their talk page fights here instead.Griswaldo (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to persuade people; it's a discussion. ;) Re: reputation - I think such reputation has to be positively established - the absence of a negative reputation is not enough. The link re: the perennial Protocols of the Elders of Zion claim that rich Jews are trying to subvert Christianity was an illustration of why I believe that this reputation is unlikely to be successfully established, but I think the burden of establishing that reputation for fact-checking and accuracy still rests with those who say the source is reliable, whether or not a failure to fact-check has been suggested or proven. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think that instead of trying to determine whether EWTN is a "reliable source" for coverage of Catholics for Choice, it would seem more useful to treat EWTN as a notable critic of Catholics for Choice. If EWTN has something noteworthy to say about CFC, that can be attributed to EWTN as a criticism of CFC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We'd then have to treat it as self-published, though, which again raises the question of why we let self-published critics determine the article content. This may actually be a better question for NPOVN; I'll think it over and possibly close this and open a thread there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References to soure material added for James Palumbo

Reliable references to souce material have now been added to the James Palumbo Wikipedia page...

How do we go about having the notice requesting reliable sources removed from the top of the page?

Scientist's own articles used as sources for material?

Input from additional editors would be helpful at an RfC on the Leonard R. Brand article. He is a creationist scientist. The main issue is whether or not the article can contain sections describing Brand's research, when the only sources are Brand's own scientific articles (or must there be secondary sources that discuss Brand's work)? --Noleander (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• May I add a related question: A scientist's own work in a peer-reviewed journal often gets cited by another unrelated scientist in a different peer-reviewed article. That scientist describes what the first scientist says, often in specific detail. Is the unrelated scientist's published report a secondary source with regard the first scientist? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Noleander has described the current status "when the only sources are Brand's own scientific articles." His question is relevant to the articles current status. If that status changes, and other scientists' citations of Brand are also included, can Brand's research publications remain in the article supplemented by those other scientists? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The questions DRS raises are valid: Must we find secondary sources that discuss in detail a scientists work? Or is it enough that some other scientists cite the primary authors journal articles? What if the citations are just in passing? And what if there are no other scientists that even cite it? --Noleander (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that the scientist's work be discussed in at least one review article? Even my lame-ass college research projects met that low bar. To use a mention in another primary source(s) to establish notability would be a misuse of that primary source IMO. Brmull (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no distinction between a research paper and a review article that cites something from another source; both are a secondary sources for what is being cited. If a paper published in a peer reviewed journal cites content from another paper, then it is a reliable secondary source for that content as far as I'm aware. There may be other factors that have to be taken into account when deciding to add content to an article, such as neutrality and due weight, but generally if peer reviewed work re-iterates claims or interprets somebody elses results then it is generally considered a secondary source I think. Betty Logan (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been litigated on these pages before. A research paper is going to mention those cites that are relevant to the project. The author is not asserting that those cites are important to the field as a whole. Notability is not established. Brmull (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to delete most of Wim Crusio then. I think this is too high of a standard and not found in any policies or guidelines. As explained on that page, WP:N applies only to whole article topics, not to every sentence in an article. Furthermore, even WP:N doesn't ask for review articles, only sources that are independent. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to give one general rule. To take one extreme, certainly an article which is not cited by anyone would have a hard time convincing typical experienced Wikipedians that it should be mentioned. But on the other hand demanding a citation in something strictly defined secondary source goes beyond what we normally demand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between stating the results given in an article as "simple fact" and stating that "So-and-so in this article stated that he found thus-and-such." This obviates the seeming contradiction in the policies, I suggest. Collect (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wim Crusio is a mess of self-promotion but at least his work has been discussed in invited reviews. As it turns out, Leonard R. Brand's research, at least regarding deer mice, was discussed in a review article. There's no question it's okay to discuss those findings. I also think it's okay to mention his other research interests without going too much into the findings (since notability is uncertain--and by notability I mean WP:UNDUE rather than WP:N). Thus I think the clause "and demonstrated that the burial of the whales in diatom sediment had been a very rapid event" should be deleted. #1 I don't think he proved that, and #2 We don't know whether this is important because there is no secondary source. Also, from reading the paper it doesn't appear that he studied extinct Leviathan whale fossils so that should be clarified. Brmull (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Collect's opinion seems reasonable. Peer reviewed published research by a scientist is clearly reliable enough for those claims by the scientist. What RS essentially boils down is, can we trust the source for accurately relaying information? It makes no claims to the factual relevance of those claims; that is what WP:UNDUE covers. His scientific claims may well be fringe theories, and as such the policy basically says such fringe theories are too negligible to cover on the article covering the actual field. On the otherhand, if the article is about the person formulating and pushing those theories, and they dominate his career then WP:UNDUE would seem to compel us to cover that aspect of his career. As long as they are represented as fringe theories and not a mainstream scientific view I think primary sources are largely ok if the focus is on his career rather than the science itself. Betty Logan (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If only scientifically correct ideas were included anywhere in Wikipedia, we wouldn't be able to report any of the fringe stuff that Melanie Phillips, Lynne McTaggart or Jenny McCarthy promote, even in their own biographies. Clearly an absurd situation. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. I'm not suggesting only "scientifically correct ideas" can be included in WP. I'm saying that peer-reviewed scientific research findings should not be presented without any context from secondary sources as to the significance of those findings. Because it's a slippery slope, especially on this particular topic, where some are using journal citations for POV pushing purposes. Brmull (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Participants on this thread might also like to venture an opinion on a second RfC I've called on this article's talkpage, as a result of an explicit request from a disputing editor: Talk:Leonard R. Brand#Questions on quotes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Research findings should not be presented without any context from secondary sources" is correct. Per W:UNDUE, we report detail of a scientists published papers in proportion to the level of notability they have been given by secondary sources. I haven't looked over Brand's published papers, but if for example Brand's Theory A was published by an academic journal but received no attention from secondary sources, we might simply note in the article that he published a paper dealing with Theory A. If the paper were discussed within academia or received attention from other RS we might report what those sources say about Theory A, and use Brand's own paper on Theory A to fill in relevant detail. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurdica

• Kurdika is not reliable soruces. As long as I understand, members (users) can create articles on this "encyclopedia". For example, this article was written by ku:Bikarhêner:Baran Ruciyar (tr:Kullanıcı:Baran Ruciyar). -- Takabeg (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What article uses kurdica.com as a source? Brmull (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

[10] shows none at the moment, but I agree that doesn't meet our criteria and shouldn't be used. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Source on Jan Lokpal Bill

In an effort to update some very old info, a user recently added a bunch of information the section Jan Lokpal Bill#Complete set of differences between Jan Lokpal and Government's Lokpal bill to this article. I attempted to remove that information because to me the source provided, this document written by the IAC fails WP:SPS, and, specifically, WP:ABOUTSELF. The organization, India Against Corruption (website here, note that midway down the page there's a bullet point with a link to the document in question, which verifies the source of the document) is one of the groups drafting one of the bills in question. If you even glance at the first page of the document, you can see that this is not a neutral recounting, but the IAC's opinions about the various versions of the bill. As such, even though it purports to be a factual comparison of different versions of the bill, we cannot trust their analysis, under the grounds laid out in WP:ABOUTSELF--specifically, this document is both "self-serving" and is about a third party (the government of India); as such, it is my opinion that the document and all information included in it should be removed until such time as we have a neutral third party that makes this comparison. My attempts to explain this on talk (see the latter half of Talk:Jan Lokpal Bill#Complete differences section debate aren't seeming to be understood by the editor who added the content. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor in question here. The aforementioned section is a long one with lots of information. Although I understand the WP:ABOUTSELF issue, I do not understand Qwyrxian haste in deleting the entire section. Taking cognizance of the issues raised by Qwyrxian, I have been trying to add additional neutral links from news sources to each of the 20-odd points mentioned in the table, which takes time. Secondly, unlike Qwyrxian, I am a civilian of the country (India) where the debate in the concerned article is currently raging. I know each of those points to be true and it is only a matter of time before all the text is verified. I have been urging Qwyrxian to have some patience till I do so (I'm already 40% done) and I'd really appreciate if some understanding is shown. Thirdly, the document in question was created by the very drafters of the one of the versions of the bill, it was widely circulated (even among the press) and it'd be silly for one of the parties involved in one of the most important debates in Indian history to fake differences. That is common-sense, but I understand the need for verification. I agree the "comments" section can be POV of the drafters, but there's an additional section which aims to highlight the critique of the drafter's version too. It is important to show both POV (and work and research on it to fill the comments section) to remain neutral and not blanket-delete the whole article as Qwyrxian has been doing. Veryhuman (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth; WP:V explicitly says that we care about what is verifiable, not what is true. Commmon sense has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies. Until you can provide a reliable source, you cannot include the info. The extra sources you are adding verify the opinions of the two sides, but they do not verify that these represent differences in the drafts. Unless that document is shown to be a reliable source, I will remove the section again until you can verify that these accurately represent the differences between the different versions of the bill. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, please keep your cool and listen to reason. Please read the references carefully inorder to understand the differences. If there is an issue, deletion is not the option. This section does not satisfy empirical criteria for [Speedy Deletion]. Be a little more constructive. Deleting this will cause massive loss of good-quality information, which can be bettered in time. Deleting is a simple alternative, but dont abuse it. If you still are adamant, I will ask for Third Opinion. Veryhuman (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion on the article talk page. As things stand, the information is in breach of WP:V, WP:SPS and several other policies/guidelines. Saying that "I know it to be true and it will be shown in time" is a somewhat ridiculous statement. We are writing an encyclopedia here. When things crystallise, as you anticipate they will, then perhaps the information will have its place. Until then it does not. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a via media, Veryhuman. Firstly, I have had a look at the material. Imho, User:Qwyrxian's concerns are genuine. I also understand your POV being an Indian. I suggest that you move the disputed material to a user page where you can keep searching and adding the references at your convenience. As soon as you are done, you can ask for the material to be reviewed by Qwyrxian and if it passes muster, it can be added. If there are observations, they can be addressed. This way the only difference is a delay and review. As such, we should not be eager to compromise the 5 pillars for the sake of eagerness. It is quite possible that the case could be used as a showcase of Wikipedians having POV issues which ultimately will be counter-productive to all concerned including the IAC. AshLin (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks AshLin. This suggestion makes sense. I'd appreciate if Qwyrxian points out which sections are problematic given the current status of the article and updated references. If this solution is acceptable to Qwyrxian, further discussion may be moved to the article talk page. Veryhuman (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A new, reliable source has been found (at least for part of the info); continuing at talk. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

European Respiratory Journal/ European Respiratory Society

Is the European Respiratory Journal from the European Respiratory Society a reliable source or not?
I came across this revert and now I'm curious to know a wider opinion especially because the source is used in many other articles in Wikipedia. --Dia^ (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed scientific journal with an eminent editorial board, publishing papers by academic and professional medical researchers. Absolutely passes WP:RS. Zero^talk 11:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be a reliable source in general, but for medical articles we have a preference for secondary sources (review articles, medical textbooks) because not all studies that are performed need to be included on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Koch Industries and related articles

[11] shows a repeated edit in this article based on "treehugger.com." My opinion was that articles subject to WP:BLP must have claims based on WP:RS complaint sources, which treehugger.com is not, in my opinion. We have Greenpeace currently cited in the article, citing its claims as its opinion. So the question is: Is greenpeace RS for statements of fact in an article related to BLPs, and is treehugger.com also a fact reliable source?

Partial quote from treehugger:

A new report from Greenpeace exposes one of the major, yet little known, financial backers of climate change denial, including fueling the "Climategate" fire.

The blog then proceeds to deal primarily with Charles and David Koch by name. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that Treehugger is a professional blog owned by Discovery Communications, and as such it is a RS. Brmull (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Environmental editor holds an M.A. and states in his bio:

Only by reducing demand though a combination of conservation, efficiency improvements and public infrastructure enhancements will all the exciting work done on alternative energy be able to satisfy our seemingly endless appetite for energy. It’s as much a change in psychology as it is in technology [12].

The "article" cited states:

A new report from Greenpeace exposes one of the major, yet little known, financial backers of climate change denial, including fueling the "Climategate" fire. "Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine" shows how the Kansas-based has spent nearly $25 million between 2005 and 2008 funding, what Greenpeace calls a a climate denial "echo chamber" and become the "financial kingpin in efforts to undermine climate science.

IOW, the blog merely recites something already linked in the article as an opinion of Greenpeace. C.v. for the blogger? After nearly a decade in the world of independent film etc. with a M.A. in "Environmental and Energy Policy" - scarcely a strong resume for such fluff. The blogs are political and social in nature (in fact, being "green"), and are not a "news source" as such.

Ownership by the owner of Discovery Channel != automatic RS. [13],

And of course such RS blogs as [14] there is little difference between the thought patterns of deniers & environmentalists.

In short - same level as the Discovery Channel's programs found not to be generally RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account the author's credentials, the entertainment focus of Discovery Channel, the fact that the source is a blog I have to say exclude this source. If the content is noteworthy it will have been covered in a better source. Also the source isn't used to cite anything to a living person in the article so BLP doesn't apply. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I don't see why Treehugger is needed, except to say that Koch outspends Exxon 3-1. But that's not usable because it's just in the title. Treehugger is written in a very informal style and obviously there's a strong editorial viewpoint but if you read closely they are very careful to attribute properly. The "little difference" quote mentioned above was taken out of context. This is a professional operation. As for the idea that something might not be reliable because it is related to the Discovery Channel, how are you going to make that call? For example Discovery's "Death of bin Laden" special has proven to be one of the most accurate sources for that event. Brmull (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Last Word cited in Catholic League (U.S.)

Page: Catholic League (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User adding source: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Source: The Last Word. May 29, 2009.
Relevant discussion: Talk:Catholic_League_(U.S.)#Youtube used as lousy source in Catholic_League_(U.S.)#Church_child_sex_abuse_issue

Facts

A Youtube video of a radio program entitled Bill Donohue Defends Child Abuse (Youtube) was added by Roscelese. Editors user:JorgePeixoto and user:NYyankees51 objected on reliability grounds. Roscelese conceded that Youtube is not reliable. Editor user:Lionelt objected to the video on the grounds that there was no evidence of permission which violated copyright. The video was removed.

Roscelese then added an unlinked cite to the radio program.[15] Lionelt objected on the grounds that she did not see it for herself. He pointed out again that Youtube is unreliable. Roscelese defended the addition by claiming it is cited on Gorman's (the subject) blog.

Points

1. Youtube has a poor reputation for verifying the integrity of content uploaded. There are no safegurds to prevent a user from uploading an edited video. WP:VIDEOLINK states:

YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video. Editors should also attempt to make sure that the video has not been edited to present the information out of context or inaccurately.

Therefore the Youtube was properly excluded.

2. When Roscelese cited The Last Word she was relying on her personal knowledge of the program based on the Youtube video. The first issue is that we have no way of knowing if that video was complete and unedited, and second Roscelese did not listen to the program herself. This is a violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Regarding the assertion that Gorman's blog authenticated the video, as a self published source it is only reliable about statements pertaining to itself. It cannot speak about 3rd parties, including the user that uploaded the video, and the video itself.

Conclusion

The citation The Last Word should be removed because the editor who added it relied on an unreliable Youtube video and did not listen to the program herself.

Submited by: – Lionel ^(talk) 05:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)