Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

AccessDeadline Hollywood

I noticed this source [1] is being used to support this claim "although the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences still holds Letterman in high regard and has repeatedly asked Letterman to host the Oscars again." in the David Letterman article. While I have little knowledge of the reliability of Hollywood media sources, it hardly sounds the most reliable source to me particularly since what it says is "But I heard over the weekend the truth is that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences asks Letterman EVERY year since to host the Oscars, and he declines" (really, heard from who? everyear? you mean David Letterman is one of their first choices every year or do they just ask a bunch of people and then decide based on who says yes?) The blog/whatever has numerous comments from people who similarly appear unconvinced by the claim. Anyone else feel the source is questionable and the claim should at least be reworded to be less decisive or perhaps removed totally? Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First off your title is misleading as she doesn't have anything to do with Access Hollywood.And no I didn't think the source is questionable .Nikki Finke has good sources of information in Hollywood ,very informative as an example during the writer's strike .However for obvious reasons she can't always reveal where the information is coming from.
However I think it would be best to frame the claim in the Letterman article as being said by Nikki Finke as I'm sure she does get some information wrong like most journalists .Garda40 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry must have got confuseed at some stage. Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Are any of these three sources reliable?

I would appreciate it if a WP:RS would look at these three sources and tell me which of the three are "reliable" under Wikipedia standards.

Scoop.co.nz
Countercurrents.org
Opednews.com

Thank you for your attention to this matter. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately on this noticeboard you will not get an opinion from a Reliable Source itself but only from one or more "editors interested in sourcing issues". On that basis, my prima facie opinion is as follows:
1) the point of Scoop.co.nz is to supply breaking news as it happens. Wikipedia can wait a day or so. If the story is a notable event then the mainstream papers and broadcast media will pick it up. Scoop may not have the fact-checking apparatus that the most renowned papers have. Choose alternatives when you can.
2) Countercurrents is a collection of essays. Many of these authors are well known and write for a variety of publications. Reliability in these cases derives from the author, not the publication. Here we are in the territory of opinions, not facts. Can be used if you are looking for an expression of a notable viewpoint. Be careful to attribute appropriately.
3) Oped seems to be open to contributions from anyone. Not reliable.

If this doesn't fully answer your question, post again. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The other thing is a lot of stuff on scoop.co.nz is press releases and the like. Press releases are useful in some instances but need to be treated with care and it is usually best to just link directly to the organisation who made the press release. Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WiiNsider Interview

Resolved

I know that the usage of blogs as sources is generally discouraged, but I am curious if this can be considered reliable. The interview appears legit, but I plan on using it to only cite the fact that the video game the interview is about will support a 16:9 aspect ratio, and nothing else (since everything else but the ratio has already been mentioned by other sites). In this case can the source be used, or should I wait for confirmation from another more reliable source? -- Comandante {Talk} 06:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be legit or it could be made up, theres really no way to know since the author does not cite his sources, a copyright issue, and he doesn't identify himself. I would just wait until you get a reliable source. If you put it your article put an inline (need source) template. -- $user log (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Much obliged. -- Comandante {Talk} 15:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is IMDb a reliable source?

Is The Internet Movie database considered a reliable source, especially for an actor's birthdate? I think not, as most material is submitted by site visitors, according to their FAQ. Another editor thinks IMDb trumps the NY Times as a reliable source, and this is leading to edit wars. From their FAQ: However keep in mind that our service is provided for the information of users only. It is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes." And: "Though we do some active gathering of information, the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you." Please weigh in. Jeffpw (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good god, no, the IMDB isn't worth the pixels it's written in. Like they said, it's written mainly by the editors, but more importantly, they don't check anything. I have seen the most obviously false crap about people on the IMDB which has been added unquestioned. I certainly wouldn't trust it over the NYT. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Chiming in with the general no, and NY Times is definitely a more reliable source than imdb in general, but in this case, (you are talking about the Kim Delaney article right?) looking at the specific page referenced [2], it states "From All Movie Guide", and it is unclear if this is for the prose biography only, or for the birthdate as well. (and I can't find a clear-cut editorial policy for all movie guide: "AMG gets information from a variety of sources. We look for any pertinent information available on the packaging of videos, promotional materials, press releases, watching the movies, etc."[3], pretty vague.) I would probably mention both years with sources given. (Also, there's a proposal here: Wikipedia:Citing IMDb that failed to reach consensus, but still contains some useful tips, specifically that imdb is more reliable for credit info than biographical data.) Siawase (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the Kim Delaney discussion page, you'll now see that there are manifold refs from reliable sources giving or implying she is born in 1961. In one of JesseeJames'revisions, he cut the actual NYTimes article which stated her age as being consistent with a DOB of 1961. Both Times articles are now included as refs, and if necessary I can insert the refs from AP, UPI, Cincinnatti Post, San Francisco, et al, though that would seem overkill. Jeffpw (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that NYT article would be under their normal editorial control and as such a highly reliable source. I would also consider including the AP ref as they are one of the few sources specifically mentioned in WP:RS, but I might be reading too much into that. Siawase (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable?

This web page from amnistia.net is being used in the article on Propaganda Due, to support listing names of supposed members of the organization. Here is a diff showing how it is being used. I have two questions... first, is it a reliable source in general (it does not look like it, but I can not tell for sure, as I do not read Italian)? Second is it a reliable source for the statements it is being used for?... I am especially concerned about listing all these people... some of them are still alive, and so there may be BLP issues involved. I think we need high level sources here, and I am not at all sure we are getting them. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Amnistia.net is actually a French site, and has a French WP entry here [4] which describes it as a subscription website/electronic magazine run by journalists that publishes material that is often barred by more mainstream media. It also hosts extreme right and holocaust denial material, apparently. Having said that, the existence of the list and many of its specific details, (including some of the reported names) appear to be well authenticated. [5] [6][7] [8][9][10][11] It also appears that fact that the list has officially been published.[12] . Slp1 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

World gazetteer: is it a reliable source?

Is World Gazetteer a reliable source?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but it's a tertiary source. (See their description of source data.) We should try to use primary or secondary sources. Looks like it's used by tons of Armenia and Paraguay stubs, lots of other articles too. This is probably benign, but I would try to upgrade the individual references if anyone challenged. Cool Hand Luke 02:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed captioning as a reliable source?

I've seen (at least once) insistence that closed captioning text for television was reliable enough to source. I disagree, but I'm not sure if my disagreement is valid. Most of the CC I've seen is often error-prone, and it would appear that the CC'ers are not reading from any official transcript, but going mostly "by ear". I figure live broadcasts, like news programs and such, would have to be done "by ear", but that doesn't account for discrepancy between the CC text and audio of other regularly scheduled programs. I hope I'm making some kind of sense here. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you there. The closed captions I've seen always contain at least one, and usually several, gigantic mistakes. --Masamage ♫ 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that no matter how well done the CC text is, there is an issue of verifiability. If there is no archive of the CC text on a reliable site (say, at cbs.com for a CBS program) then there is no way to verify that the CC text said what is being claimed for it. A copy of the CC text at someone's blog wouldn't qualify as reliable. Conversely if there is an archive at e.g. cbs.com then you are really just using e.g. cbs.com as your RS and the fact that it's an archive of the CC seems to me to be fairly moot. Jeh (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the CC version of a TV program should be treated like an edition of a book. With books, there are often differences between editions: errors that were contained in one edition are corrected in the next, for example. You can not say that one is more "definitive" than the other (unless the author has issued a statement saying such). All you can do in note the differences. The same holds for when there is disagreement or notable differences between the CC version and the non-CC version of a TV program - all you can do in note the differences: "According to the text of the closed captioning the main character says 'blah', but this differs from the audio where he is heard to say 'blah blah'". And if you are just going to use the captioned version, say that this is the version you used in your citation (just as you should give the edition/publication date when citing a book) Blueboar (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it's verifiable. The CC will read off of each identical disc the same; any person can verify it without interpretive skill. Remember that verifiable does not equal "accessible online." Blueboar is exactly right about sourcing the DVD in particularity though. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it depends. If it's a DVD, that's a published medium and you can cite the caption, or the audio dialogue itself. If it's something like a documentary or talk show, that's verifiable as most of those have transcripts available from the show's web site or you can buy them through Burrelles. However, if the show doesn't publish a transcript or DVDs then it's not a verifiable source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Broadcast CC should not be considered verifiable. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Are these reliable to use as sources or as external links?

Are these reliable to use in the Tommy Raudonikis article? [GPoint Marketing and http://www.geocities.com/ball91au/rl/ . Bidgee (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The geocities is a personal webpage and as such unreliable. Gpointmarketing seems to be a marketing firm, and as such I would treat it as a self published source by the subject. Taemyr (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogs

Hi,

I recently got changes I made to Wiki undone because I link to this website - www.urbanreview.co.uk - I maintain that while it is in Blog format, it has now evolved into a full music website. it gives reliable information which has been sourced & backed up, so I fail to understand why it cannot be regarded as a good source of information, it is one of the biggest Urban music sites in the UK?

Also, I have seen other sites, which are clearly in blog format & contain opinion, used as references & they remain intact (www.concreteloop.com - www.rap-up.com). I wonder if this could be explained to me?

I am not trying to change the world, just get some closure?

Thanks to anyone who helps me out.

Pulsetech (talk)

That website does not meet any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia Reliable Sources. If you see similar sites being used as references, you should remove them. Corpx (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Be cautious in removing references, even poor references. (Incorrect references are another matter). This is a tactic all too often used by editors who want to delete an article without following due process. It works like this:
    • Find a notable, referenced article that you don't like. Popular or Outsider culture from the pre-Web era is best.
    • Claim the references are "unreliable". You don't need to defend this, it becomes the citer's problem to prove that they are.
    • Delete the "unreliable" references.
    • Tag the article as unreferenced.
    • Tag the article as non-verifiable (because you've removed the refs that verified it)
    • Tag the article as non-notable, because notability without verifiability is hard to demonstrate.
    • Delete the article
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with due process. If a reference doesn't meet WP:V no editor is under any obligation to leave it intact. Any reference that doesn't meet wikipedia's requirements should be removed immediately because it gives a false impression that information or an article have reliability when they don't. Your assumption of bad faith is disturbing.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not an assumption of bad faith. he's simply detailing a procedure to get a referenced article deleted by eliminating references. He's not arguing that particular editors do this or that all editors do this. IF someone brings an article to AfD in that fashion and the discussants at AfD don't do diligence on the article, it can very well be deleted in error. Once deleted, prior compliant revisions are hard to find. Protonk (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this should linked to the above talk Urban Review Agungsatu (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica and the Issue of Open Sourcing

There is currently a discussion on the Encyclopedia Dramatica talk page regarding the citation of ED's "About Us" page. (Apparently, I am unable to link directly to their site from here).

One editor argues that it is a reliable source because it is described by ED editors themselves. I have some strong reservations about using an open source wiki -- any open source wiki -- to cite anything reliable for Wikipedia purposes. I notice the "About Us" page can be edited by anyone. To my mind, that invites instability to our own pages in the long-run, not to mention the issue of what exactly we should be citing on the "About Us" page (but that's a separate matter).

Originally, we cited the much more reliable New York Times description of ED. That is still in the article (I hope), but the issue of what to do about the ED open source is still pressing. What do uninvolved editors here think? I look forward to reading your comments. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would an acceptable solution be to sample their self-description at two or three dates and to make sure that the reference says "version of .... (date)" ? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a wiki and not usable as citation. Anyone can change it at any time and taking a static version in the form of a diff introduces editor bias to supporting anyone version. The long and short of it is that it shouldn't be used as a citation period.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the logic of that. Self-published sources are acceptable for description of their own views. OK, this is a slightly unusual situation in that the content can change very rapidly back and forth. But to a lesser extent this is also true of the notable blogs that have articles. Of course the article must make it very clear that ED is a wiki and can therefore change by the minute. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Bingo. Just cite a specific revision of the about us page and go from there. as long as the SPS is not used to verify contentious claims or add to notability, it is not a problem. Protonk (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database Bio Pages

I know that the main pages of movies, shows and creators on imdb are considered reliable, but are the biography pages, like this one, considered reliable? They're based on information supplied by readers, and are often poorly written and organized.

Also, the Jasmin St. Claire article gives her real name as Rhea Alexandria Scarfazzo Calaveras, and gives "USPTO trademark filing # 78463547" as the source. How can this be verified? Is there an online resource for checking trademarks? And how could a trademark establish a birth name? Nightscream (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

PTO applications are publicly available [13]. Although I don't see that birthname anywhere in there. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you use that page to search for it? I can't see a search field on it. Nightscream (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know nothing on IMDB is considered reliable, not even the main page. It is 100% user generated as far as I know including the main page which lists which movies/shows/etc they have been in. IMDB can be linked as further reading, but that is it. Randomly looking up an actress last night I noted many omissions from her front page.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
there are some past discussion on RS/N about IMdb. I've linked those and the SPS consensus here. Basic rundown is that production details are likely marginally reliable but anything user editable is not reliable (bio, trivia, goofs, etc). Protonk (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

renaming Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation

Recently this article was renamed, twice. Subsequently to the second renaming I was blocked due to my persistent protests.

The short version of the story.

The article was named Operation August Storm for years although no such operation ever existed, and the name was taken off the book title, and repeated in may other books over 25 years. Had anyone read the referenced texts, they would have realised this.

I changed the article title after proving, including contacting the original author, that the Operation August Storm was a fictitious name suggested by an 11 year old daughter of the author.

Immediately on me renaming the article with a correct name, a straw poll was conducted to rename the article again because one user thought the new and correct name "sounded lousy". Subsequently, rather than doing an RM, the article was moved by a vote of less then 10 people to Soviet invasion of Manchuria although the name is used as an idiom in the works that deal with the Second World War in the Pacific in the same way that the Operation Barbarossa can be called German invasion of USSR and Operation Overlord can be called Allied invasion of France.

In essence, renaming an article was conducted despite the article having been written to reflect the actual historical operation and its phases. The article has not been amended by me on purpose when I realised what was going on, and it still says that there was a "the greater invasion would eventually include neighboring Mengjiang, as well as northern Korea, southern Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands." which is of course laughable because a "greater invasion" of Manchuria can not have included territory which was not a part of Manchuria. In any case, what is a "greater invasion"? I could only find less then 6,000 hits in Google, and none (in first 10 pages) dealt with military history. I did find several references in GoogleBooks to "greater invasion" in the one larger than the previous one, but not one where the reference is made to the larger extent of the same invasion, commonly referred to as a strategic offensive operation in the case of a war between states. That this is so can be easily verified in the references cited late in the straw poll [14] because not one is itself referenced to a secondary or primary source, and therefore can not be said to be "scholarly" as the individual who cited them thought. Even a cursory reading of the freely available original 25 year old research on the subject will show that the only way to include the different parts of the operation is to name it what is was, a strategic offensive against the Japanese, and not an invasion of Manchuria, given Manchuria as a state did not have any significance to the course of the war.

The question is therefore, can an article be renamed regardless of its content because a set of Wikipedia editors don't like how the title of the actual event sounds when translated into English?

This is important because I have already been told several times that English translations of Soviet wartime operations can not be used because

  • They are too long
  • They are "Russofying English Wikipedia"
  • Users don't understand what a "strategic offensive" is

The problem is that many are only referred in all sources by their full names, and some have been "cropped" despite provided references, including in English--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar, Annexation and the Backpackers' Guide as a Reference

At the Gibraltar page, I am disputing the neutrality of the term "annexation" in the following sentence: "The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain." The party who is strongly in favour of the term has placed The Backpackers Guide as a reference next to the term because it says "the Spanish have made repeated overtures to Gibraltar regarding annexation". As far as I am concerned, this completely fails to be a reliable source. WP:RS says:

  • "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process..." : what is the publication process at Backpackers' Guide?
  • "...their authors (doesn't even name the author) are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.." : is an anonymous travel author authoritative about whether the term "annexation" is neutral?

Thankyou. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering i had a case with an article on here Darren M Jackson which had various questionable sources and included an anonymous author in a journal, which was considered an accepted source by fellow peers. Then i think you have to accept a back packer’s guide, which gives a flavour of the situation on the ground by Gibraltarians as an acceptable source.--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
http://www.the-backpacking-site.com/countries/gibraltar-overview.html is not WP:RS. An academic article, book or at least a newspaper article would be better. --Soman (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Soman, what makes you say that the site is not RS?... it seems to be a reliable published source, with editorial oversight, etc. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What is your evidence for that, Blueboar? Can you name the author? Can you demonstrate what his or her area of expertise is? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's not be silly. The Backpacker's Guide is very far from the best source we could use to source something like this. Check through Google Books or Google Scholar and use the phrasing that is used in high-quality sources. If such sources agree with the Backpacker's Guide, fine, but by itself it's not an RS for something like this. Jayen466 17:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I have previously quoted references from the Gibraltar Chronicle the worlds second oldest daily newspaper, but this particular editor removes all references and complains that anything from Gibraltar is biased. The Backpackers guide seems well written and has a better grasp of things than for instance, the Encarta article on Gibraltar, which contains several glaring errors. --Gibnews (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
We appear, from the above, to be quoting the position of the British Government ("The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain."). Even if the relative clause is not meant to be part of the quote, the reader may well assume it is. Now, if the British Government can be shown to use the term "annexation", then fine. If they prefer other terms, then we should use those. --Jayen466 23:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's meant to describe the views of Gibraltarians. But you make a very good point about the bad wording. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The underlying dispute seems to be in part about using the word "annexation". It is completely synonymous with (extending, acquiring) "sovereignty" which seems to be OK with people, as far as I can see. "Annexation" doesn't have any positive or negative connotations; the example adduced from Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs on the article talk page is not to the point - it was the act of (clearly) saying "it's ours" (parts of the Sinai) that he noted was controversial then, not the particular word used. A serious objection to using the word would be if the Spanish already claim sovereignty, which doesn't seem to be the case. Or if some kind of shared sovereignty scheme is being discussed "annexation" might be inappropriate because it is inconsistent with "sharing." Of course if one wants peace at the article, using synonyms is another choice.John Z (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Whilst this is not really on the subject of the noticeboard, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion about the quote from Rabin's memoirs though? The statement was: "We do not employ the term 'annexation' because of its negative connotation". That's pretty black and white to me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


(unindent) Gentlemen the topic here is not the use of the word 'annexation' but whether an article in the 'Backpackers Guide' is a suitable reference. As a Gibraltarian I note that they have got their facts right. I suggest people read what they actually say which is concise and one of the better short introductions to the subject around from a company with 100+ web sites and 2.7 million subscribers.

I also feel that unilaterally removing the reference from the Gibraltar page based on the discussion to date here is wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think a travel guide is not a good source on what is essentially a political question. Shouldn't it be possible to find an official government statement or a major newspaper covering this? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There are a few travel guides which I would trust as authoritative on the basis of their being written by acknowledged experts in the history and culture of the areas concerned (the Blue Guides, Michelin and Bradt guides being cases in point). The Backpacker's Guide clearly doesn't fall into that category; if you tried to cite it in a term paper I wouldn't give you high marks, to put it mildly. Note that WP:RS expresses a clear preference for scholarly works (see WP:RS#Scholarship), suggesting either literally academic works or, as you say, official statements from the government(s) concerned. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I did that and quoted a reference from the Gibraltar Chronicle but the editor in question removed it on the grounds that it emananated from Gibraltar, so the reason to quote the 'Backpackers Guide' was that it did not. --Gibnews (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That seems a bit odd. The place it comes from isn't necessarily relevant to judging its reliability. I take it the Chronicle is a mainstream publication? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hang on a sec, we are blurring two different things. The reference was originally added by Gibnews to support its neutrality. As it comes from the very partisan press in Gibraltar, clearly not a neutral party, I removed it. Gibnews has since adopted the view that annexation reflects the view of Gibraltarians, which is both a change of position and a change of wording. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. In that case, I would say that removing it altogether probably wasn't the best thing to do. It sounds like it could be useful for supporting a statement about the Gibraltarian point of view. Obviously it can't be used in a way that presents the Gib POV as a fact (WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves."). I would suggest restoring it and finding a counter-balancing source that gives the Spanish POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If I restore it, it does not support the wording. This was why I removed it in the first place. Furthermore, if we did restore it and change the text, generalising statements such as "Gibraltarians believe that union with Spain would be annexation" are impossible to prove, unless that was the wording of the referenda or some opinion poll conducted. All that can be said is that it is referred to as annexation in the press. But then what value does that add? There is enough already that shows they are totally opposed to Spanish sovereignty of any kind - the referenda for example. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Might it not be enough to say that Gibraltarians want to remain British, and in a referendum have rejected any kind of power sharing between the UK and Spain? That can be sourced easily enough (BBC). --Jayen466 10:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You'd think. This proposal has been floated many times and each time Gibnews blocks it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


[unindent] Sadly you are all being taken for a ride. This discussion really should be about the validity of the 'Backpackers Guide' as a reference.

Now, if you want news about Botswana a good source would be a daily newspaper from Gaborone. The Gibraltar Chronicle it old enough to have had a scoop reporting Nelson sinking ships at Trafalgar, and has high standards. My Gibraltar references were removed on the grounds of being too local and this thread is about trying to ignore a non Gibraltar based reference.

Yes, Gibraltarians believe that union with Spain would be annexation are impossible to prove, if someone deletes all the references that support that, however the only union with Spain would be a unilaterally imposed one, or what is otherwise known as ... --Gibnews (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar.gov.uk, in describing the 1967 referendum (commemorated by National Day), does not use the term annexation: [15] According to google, the word annexation does not occur anywhere on the Gibraltar.gov.uk website: [16] (at least not in the sense that we are discussing here). Jayen466 23:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW Jayen, there is ongoing discussion at Talk:Gibraltar. As it is quite a claustrophobic article (same editors always regurgitating the same opinions, me included) outside opinion is always welcome. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Tx. I've added the above comment there, plus the following:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/global1.htm

Resolved

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/global1.htm has been written by David Ludden. He is a professor at Pennsylvania who specializes in comparative world and South Asian history. Here is his homepage http://www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/ludden.shtml
Is it reliable?KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 16:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

short answer: No editorial control or selection, so no. Long answer: It may depend on what the subject is and how extensively you are quoting this reference. It may also depend on the content of the source AND the ambitiousness of the claim. Protonk (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as the area you're citing him on is more or less in his area of expertise I would say it's probably ok for uncontroversial claims. I'd also say if you happen to have any of the guy's books available then that would be much better. --TexasDex ★ 16:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It is used to cite only some part the following sentence The Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta, who had visited the town in 1342, referred to it as Manjurun or Mandjaur, and stated that the town was situated on a large estuary. basically that he did visit Mangalore. And that appears in the page. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
My first thought is probably not. That is a factual claim, not a statement of opinion, and while I have no idea how contentious it may be, it could be contentious. Does this webpage rehash material from previously published works? Is there a better source for this? I commonly use academic webpages as directories to better sources and that would be how I am inclined to treat this. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your suggestions. I have found a better Ref (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/ibnbatuta) which is an online reprint of a book. That site may not be reliable. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion there is to attribute it like I did here, noting the original source and the source of the quote. this kind of sourcing is done in academic circles when original sources are translated or otherwise unusable, but it is totally appropriate here. An editor may, on a case by case basis, object to the accuracy of the quotation, but that can be dealt with on the article talk page. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Implemented your suggestions. Thanks, KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

World Gazetter (http://world-gazetteer.com/)

World Gazetter (http://world-gazetteer.com/)

  • A page from the Princeton University which recommends World Gazetteer for population data. (http://www.princeton.edu/~shawatw/interne1.html)
    Where is the recommendation on that page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    Well if you check under the heading World Gazetteer, you'll find a sentence (the last sentence) There is no doubt that this Web site is the best source on the Internet for getting location information of any place in the world. It can be grouped as a "very good" Web site. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The Frequently Asked Questions of that site. The below mentioned Question is from that page.
    What are the data sources of the World Gazetteer?
    If possible, official data sources are used. In many cases however no official figures are available. In that case, secondary sources such as year books, encyclopediae, atlases etc. are used. I have also received data from other stats lovers.
    Well that means World Gazetteer incorporates data from municipal corporations, books, encyclopediae, atlases etc. which I think all are considered as reliable sources.
  • A page from the Cornell *University which also relies on World Gazetter (http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/maps/gis/world/meta04/gaz.htm)
    There are many more universities which rely on World Gazetter for statistics.
    Can World Gazetter be considered reliable?KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 16:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be useful to know about the company that publishes the WG, and their reputation. The mention that they receive data from "other stats lovers" is rather suspect, and since I can't find out the name of the company that publishes them I'd try the sources that they refer to first. The fact that they are referred to in academic writings lends some credibility but I'd want a bit more than just that. --TexasDex ★ 16:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LewRockwell.Com articles as sources

I just put together a listing of source and issue discussion archives from this noticeboard which I will announce shortly. However, I didn't notice a LewRockwell.Com discussion and since that site is often used (including by me) or debated on talk pages, I thought I'd summarize what I consider its reliability to be. Correct me where and if wrong:

  • Reliable source for reprints of articles from noncontroversial reliable sources
  • Articles they publish written by academics, experts, ex-government officials/researchers/agents and others usually considered reliable sources with good fact checking are OK for opinions and, depending on the issue, facts in their area of expertise, including on WP:BLP.
  • Opinion pieces by less well known individuals usually considered reliable sources for opinions about their own activities or those of organizations they represent.
  • Blog entries??
  • Any other relevant categories? Carol Moore 17:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

IMDb - is there any common result if IMDb is reliable or not?

IMDb - is there any common result if IMDb is reliable or not?

Hello! 1. Is there any stable information anywhere on Wikipedia that has established if IMDb is a reliable source for Bios of Living Persons or if it is not?

2. If there is no established result, is then there any stable and established guideline anywhere on Wikipedia if a not finally discussed source like IMDb could be used for such Bios?

Please give links to Wikipedia-pages for question 1 and 2, if you say there are any final established results!

I posted this on the discussion page of Biographies of living persons, where this specific topic is better located, but there noone answered so far.

Greetings

IMDB is a very commonly debated source, although I'd rather not go hunting through the archives to look for them. There is Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, a failed proposal for a guideline on the matter. In summary, the common outcome of debates is that IMDB is reliable for raw facts about movies (cast/crew, release dates, run time), but not for its user generated content. I'm not sure about IMDB biographies though, as I have not personally witnessed a claim on that matter before. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to chime in with a resounding NO, no IMDB is not a reliable source. Please check out the Zachary Jaydon hoax for a great example of the perils of sourcing to IMDB. Anybody can add their name to an IMDB article and then come claim that they were in the movie or tv sho. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Which is weird since it isn't the situation I encountered .To add information about a possible new movie for Sarah Michelle Gellar IMDB wanted proof of sources mentioning it ( and Variety did ) and they still wouldn't list it immediately and when they did she was listed as rumored .Garda40 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
IMDB biographies are written by IMDB registered users. Why would they be more reliable than registered Wikipedia users? For example, the same IMDB user, freemca, rewrote the IMDB biographies of a bunch of African-American actors like Will Smith, Jada Pinkett, Regina Hall, etc. and included "of both African American and Native American descent" in all of them (Is that true beyond the wishful thinking of this person? Who knows? It's certainly not verifiable in any reliable source). Then, Wikipedia user Mcelite went around and added "of both African American and Native American" descent to these same actors' Wikipedia entries, citing either the IMDB or random websites that copied the IMDB's bio. Neat. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
IMDb is definitely not reliable in terms of what they choose not to include; I've twice submitted to them a major error on the Thunderbirds (2004) DVD, which claims that Thunderbird 3 (the spacecraft) has a top speed of 5,000 MPH (in flat contradiction to established scientific fact; TB3 would need to go at least 25,000 MPH to even be able to get into space), but they keep rejecting it. -- 92.40.122.216 (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I think IMDB should only be considered a reliable source if the information in it mirrors the information in other sources also (that is, a cursory Google search turns up no contradictions). Generally speaking, they are reliable for well-known movies/actors. Their reliability with more obscure information is more spotty. Basically I wouldn't rely on IMDB if it is the only source you have. Esn (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If however, the information is found in other sources, then just cite the other sources. There is no need to use IMDB. I would even go so far as to suggest that claims sourced to IMDB should be tagged {{cn}} and the IMDB cite removed. IMDB is open for all to edit just like a wiki and should not be used for a source. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Publication as source of information regarding Polish German history  ?

Hi, I have a question regarding a source I encountered in the article Settlement Commission, which is about an institutions that aimed to increase number of Germans in Polish parts of German Empire. Recently a source was added with no date or location of publishing that claimed some of people settled by Commission were native to those territories. The source was only named as : Baron Galéra, Deutsche unter Fremdherrschaft, Band I, p.37

I started to search out of curiosity who that was. After a while it appears that the person involved published books for Nazi regime and was a pro-nazi propagandist.

His works are recorded in "Nazi Collection Research Resources in the Archives and Special Collections Research Center" Under:

Galéra, Karl Siegmar, Baron von. Deutscher Reichsspiegel: Männer und Bewegungen im Kampfe für Reich und Gegenreich. [The German Reich Mirror: Men and Movement in the Battle for Reich and Anti-Reich.] Leipzig: Hesse & Becker Verlag, 1936. Nationalistic survey of Germany’s greatest eras intended to instill pride in the Third Reich. DD89 .G3 1936A

Galéra, Karl Siegmar, Baron von. Österreichs Rückkehr ins Deutsche Reich; von Kaiser Karl zu Adolf Hitler. [Austria’s Return to the German Reich: by the Kaiser Karl to Adolf Hitler.] Leipzig: Nationale Verlags-Gesellschaft, 1938. Attempt to show Hitler as the fulfillment of the Austrian wish to be part of a Greater Germany. DB96 .G3

In [17] Ball State University Library.

He is also mentioned in collection of Nazi Propaganda Literature: [18] in the Library of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research: Source Materials on Modern German Anti-Semitism, National Socialism and the Holocaust


He is named as "antisemtic, pro-Nazi Baron von Galera" in Jewish Currents by : Morning Freiheit Association published in 1956.

I also found the book itself that is used as source[19]. It was published in 1933. Its title is longer and translated as History of robbed German territories. Poles and Balts in their war against German people. Which has obvious bias and indicates POV.

Throughout the book several statements are made praising Nazi movement. Several racist statements are made against Poles for example on page 25 it says Poles hate Germans because Germans are good workers and disciplined while Poles are culturally inferior and unable to create anything.

Page 93 calls Poles barbaric.

On other page the region of Poland is called "more German then Polish"

On page 273 the author states that Nazis want peace with neighbours of Germany.

On page 279 the author states that Nazis thanks to determination found a way to end suffering of Germany.

Several more such statements can be found.

I don't believe the book can be used as reliable source for information about history of German presence in Poland and Polish-German relations, I do have serious doubts if the author wouldn't present the presence of Germans and reduce the importance of state colonisation to support nationalistic claims against Polish territories. This a pro-Nazi, extremist publication. It use as source is unnacceptable. I believe that as Nazi publication the book should be removed as a source and a better one provided. Comments ? --Molobo (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


It's only usable as an example of Nazi claims and propaganda, not as a source for anything factual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Btw, I'd like to see an article on Karl Siegmar Galéra; we need more articles on Nazi "historians" (like Walter Frank). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The author is cited in the Settlement Commission article not for his views of anything, but for a statistic he surely did not work out by himself: Number and origin of the settlers. The total numbers cited by G. are the same as cited by the other sources (engl and polish) given in the article, so it can be taken for granted that G did not exaggerate. G was used as a source as he does not only give the total, but also the origin of the settlers and the ha size of the bought farmland. I do not see a reason why this particular informations should not be trusted. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


I think there will be a concern if you don't see a reason why Nazi propaganda is not to be trusted. Use other non-Nazi sources.The claims of Nazi propaganda literature that German settlers who were to Germanise Poland were in part native to Poland are not reliable. It's obvious they would claim that. Furthermore we shouldn't encourage people to take Nazi propaganda literature seriously. Why did you used it as a source. Did the fact that the authro praises Hitler and makes racist remarks didn't warn about reliability of the author or did you not know who he is ? --Molobo (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Watch your tongue. I can no longer assume good faith if you turn my statement I do not see a reason why this particular informations should not be trusted into don't see a reason why Nazi propaganda is not to be trusted.. You call me a Nazi?! I regard this highly uncivil, mind you are out here on parol. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about you but about the author who is listed as Nazi propagandist. I have no reason to believe you are him, so please don't change the topic of the discussion. May I ask for explanation why you put Nazi publications as source for Polish-German history--Molobo (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Molobo ??? What Molobo claims in Wikipedia and what was actually written in the book

]


Yes, this is clearly not (only) about the source or what's taken from it and was trumpeted into the world. Instead of bringing it up on the article's discussion page first, a whole campaign was created for publication here, at WikiProject Poland, at the talk page of the admin who had given Molobo another last chance and finally at your talk page. I fear this is about implying "I am just fighting Nazism, so help me / don't block me" and is not new of him but effectively flies under the radar of the filters including the most explicit one. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I contacted an admin who dealt with me so that he might be able to deal in constructive way with this issue, I also contacted the board who is involved in Poland related issues. In addition I contacted Durova who is an uninvolved admin that I know from arbitration cases and I believe him/her to be a constructive issue solver. I see nothing wrong in contacting people who are constructive Wikipedians so that they will be able to solve that issue and engage in fruitfull discussion. This is how the process works Anyway you dodged the whole main issue that is the fact that an editor is using Nazi era publication which praises Nazi movement, Hitler and so on to source facts about Polish-German history. Obviously this is a problem--Molobo (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You're confirming my very point. The main issue to you is actually the editor (guilt by association against Skäpperöd and honor by association for you). And you've just extended the campaign to trumpet it to yet another admin (Durova). I highly doubt that Skäpperöd knew much about the source, which is online and without any information about the date or any other disclaimer and nor is it typical of Skäpperöd to use such sources. This is just how you portray editors as having Nazi sympathies and is very typical of you. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the fact that I contacted Moreschi and Durova, do report it. I contacted Durova because he is an uninvolved admin and has expertise in solving Wiki disputes. If the Skapperod didn't knew about the source,he shouldn't have use it. However after I informed him that the source is a Nazi publication he once again used it as a source[20]. I will repeat this-Nazi publications praising Hitler and making racist remarks about Poles can't be accepted as a source about Polish history.The source can only be used as presention on Nazi views.--Molobo (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not use the source again after you "informed me" ( and half of wiki) about the Nazi stuff in the book. I introduced a new source to a sentence and moved the old source out of the section backed by this new source. Who follows your link will discover this, who just reads your accusations might either think I am a stubborn Nazi (do you want this?) or "Why is Molobo so eager to make Sk look like a stubborn Nazi"(do you want that?). Stop your attacs like that.Skäpperöd (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with the fact that you contacted Moreschi and Durova per se - you're putting words in my mouth. I have a problem with unfairly playing the Nazi card against Skäpperöd and for you. I have a problem with how you even beat about the bush, "I am not talking about you but about the author", and in the very same breath try to assert it: "May I ask for explanation why you put Nazi publications as source for Polish-German history" (nice generalisation). You're explicitly claiming that this is common behaviour of him and no, this is not what upright process is like. And no, Skäpperöd didn't continue using it as a source - on the contrary: in the very diff you're citing the only thing he did was replace for half a sentence the source with a good one. Sciurinæ (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway how it will look like when Nazi propaganda literature where Nazi movement is praised is used by Wikipedia as reliable source for claim that German colonists in Poland came from Germanised territories ? --Molobo (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What claim? Neither I understand what you mean, nor is there any claim in the article connected to the cited statistics.Skäpperöd (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course there is, the claim by the Nazi author is that thousands of German settlers were native to Polish lands inserted by you[21] "35,000 people were German natives from West Prussia and the Province of Posen, and about 5,000 families were Germans of the other parts of the partitioned Poland, Congress Poland (Russian province) and Galicia (Austrian province)<ref>Baron Galéra, Deutsche unter Fremdherrschaft, Band I, p.37."Please find a source that is not a Nazi propaganda that claims German settlers in Poland were native to those lands. I would also like to know why you decided to use Nazi propagandist as source of information regarding Polish-German history ?--Molobo (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
And why do you think that this is untrue? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2008
I don't think any explanation is needed why Nazi propaganda is untrue. The article can state that Nazis claimed German colonists were native to Poland, but it shouldn't be presented as fact.--Molobo (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2008
The about 5000 native families from Poland outside the Prussian part mentioned by G. are backed up by another source I presented in the article. Up to now, I do not have a source backing up the number of families just moving inside Prussian Poland, but now I see even less problems regarding these particular statistics cited by G., even though there certainly is Nazi propaganda in the book. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Nazi publications can't be trusted, its obvious they would claim German colonists were in fact native inhabitants of Poland.--Molobo (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The source did not claim that German colonists were in fact natives of Poland. The source said ~22000 families moved in, that is backed up by other sources. The source said, of these ~5000 families were Germans from Prussian Poland and ~5000 Germans from Russian and Austrian Poland. The latter is also backed by another source, which proves you wrong stating there were no German natives of Poland among the colonists. If the statistic would be manipulated by propaganda, it would state a higher total number of colonists and a lower number of German Poland natives. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I repear-Nazi publications aren't acceptable source of information. The Nazi propagandist can just as well make such distinction to make the claim more believable. Use a reliable, non-Nazi source and please remove Nazi propaganda literature.--Molobo (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, all Skäpperöd said was that if the numbers in a Nazi source agree with numbers in reputable sources, one can take those numbers to be reliable. No one is espousing Nazi propaganda as truth.
   If you look at ethnolinguistic distribution in Europe at the start of the 20th century, majority German inhabitation reached to within 100 km west of Krakow, with pockets of Germanic majorities extending throughout central and eastern Europe all the way to the Black Sea and up into Ukraine. Those are facts. What someone does with them is something else.
   You've obviously put in a lot of time to investigate the source. That doesn't mean you should now invest time in looking for a fight when there's no cause. —PētersV (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that, given the research Molobo has done here, even if the source is not wrong in this case, it is still not reliable for Polish German history. Everything it says would have to be fact-checked against other sources, and at that point, those would be the sources we would want to use, anyways. Antelan 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Not to mention that even Nazi statistics are suspicious. Are there any modern expert publications confirming those statistics? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The statistic in question (German families settling lands in Prussian Poland 1880s-1910s) was not a Nazi statistic, but from an earlier period. The problem is, that this statistic is cited in a Nazi era book also containing propaganda. There are other sources each in part confirming the statistic (in particular: the total numbers of settlers, and the number of settlers from the Russian and Austrian parts of Poland). What is still missing is a source confirming the number of settlers that moved in from other parts of Prussian Poland. I would appreciate such a source to be provided, but I think if the other parts of the statistics are right, why shouldn't this part be reliable, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
On the whole, I think we can avoid books published in that era. If he is using earlier data, can we not directly examine the reliability of that data?
More generally, I see that

Lucassen, Leo (2006). Paths of Integration: Migrants in Western Europe (1880-2004). Amsterdam UniversityPress. p. 99. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) backs up the 22,000/5,000 from Russian Poland figure, but no backup for the 'Polish Germans' figure. A possible source of the confusion: according to Berghahn, Volker Rolf (2004). Imperial Germany, 1871-1918: Economy, Society, Culture, and Politics. Berghahn Books. p. 388., Poles took advantage of the fact that they were German citizens - and technically German under the law - to found credit cooperatives to purchase land for ethnically Polish peasants. Amusing. Incidentally, the methods of the Commission (consolidated lending to purchase bankrupt estates then turned profitable by setttlers with technical improvement) were being closely observed by Zionists in the German Empire. I love Wikipedia sometimes. I would never have known that otherwise. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Input

If the above description of this work is true, and I have not seen anyone challenge that, then this source is clearly not reliable for describing Polish German history. Certainly, better, neutral sources can be found for this subject. Antelan 15:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to follow the long arguments above has given me a headache, but I will say this: Nazi propaganda is of absolutely no use as a source, either on its own or to corroborate other sources, except as a source of what Nazi propaganda says. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, weighing in here with a couple of clarifications. First, I am not an administrator; second, I'm a she. Molobo's research on the subject in question is a bit more accurate. I tend to edit more on French history than on German history, but I happen to have actually done more formal coursework on German history and I speak German, so please bear with me through a short background.
The dominant trend in nineteenth century German history was political unification. At the start of that century German-speaking peoples had lived in some 300 separate states, which got overrrun by Napoleon and then reorganized into 15 separate states after Napoleon's fall. Over the next several decades Prussia unified those states and initiated an expansionist policy to annex provinces with significant German-speaking populations from other countries. Some of those annexations remain part of Germany today (Schleswig and Holstein used to be southern Denmark) and some of them aren't (Alsace and Lorraine have returned to France). At the risk of some oversimplification, to Europeans of the mid-1930s Hitler's foreign policy appeared to be a continuance of that tradition--and in a sense it was, although so radicalized that it's barely recognizable as such in retrospect. This is why it's possible in the early 21st century for a well-meaning editor who is not an apologist to mistakenly suppose the statistics this type of source can somehow be separated from the racism: under the Nazis playing fast and loose with the facts in the service of politics was not only permitted but encouraged. They actually had an effort underway to rewrite the history of science and exclude contributions by Jews; a little fudging of population data about a country they wanted to invade anyway is trivial by comparison. This is why Nazi era sources by Nazi sympathizers aren't generally useful as anything other than documentation of Nazism. Occasionally other independent sources corroborate the numbers; they didn't always lie. But when that happens, just quote the other sources. DurovaCharge! 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Two points made by Durova above and about supposed reliability:
Durova: Prussia unified those states and initiated an expansionist policy to annex provinces with significant German-speaking populations from other countries. 1. Some of those annexations remain part of Germany today (Schleswig and Holstein used to be southern Denmark) and some of them aren't 2. (Alsace and Lorraine have returned to France)
Should it not rather state more historical facts, such as:
1. Schleswig and Holstein have a many centuries old agreement, that they are one Schleswig-Holstein, ruled by dukes. The dukes became later also Kings of Denmark. Schleswig-Holstein remained governed by Schleswig-Holstein Dukes. It did not 'used to be southern Denmark', it was not 'an other country', but the dukedome of Schleswig-Holstein with German-speaking inhabitants. Just like any border region, people could speak both languages and often intermarried.
2. Wasn't Alsace and Lorraine or Elsass Lothringen for about 700 years German HRE Empire, only from 17th century taken over by France until 1871, returned to German Empire, forcibly taken by France after "Treaty of Versailles"
An Observer 13 July 2008
As expressed above, my summary oversimplifies somewhat. Any discussion as brief as this necessarily oversimplifies (yours does too). DurovaCharge! 20:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Baron Galéra would indeed seem not to be the most objective source on the subject of this article, and would best be replaced by a more neutral, scholarly and reliable source. Nihil novi (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This PDF reference is in a matter of fact a valid reference, since it comes from educational site www.bsu.edu. But it shouldn't be used to document an article about Polish-German history. It should be used to document an article about Nazi propaganda. Imagine an article called simply "Slavs" or "Gypsies" with a statement in its lead like this: Slavs/Gypsies are Undermenschen (inferior race) than Germans also known as Übermenschen (of superior race)[Ref 1]

---References---

  • [1] "Mein Kampf" - Copyright 1924 Adolf Hitler, Landsberg am Lech,

Fortress Prison Verlag 1

"Mein Kampf" is definitely a notable book, but it shouldn't be used to prove someone's point Slavs or Gypsies are of inferior race in English Wikipedia, as per WP:NPOV. greg park avenue (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Molobo ??? Wikipedia Reliable sources

What Molobo (see above page 25, 93, 273, 279) claimed of Dr.Karl Baron Galera’s book

What the book [22] actually says (check out pages Seite: 25, 93, 273, 279):

Page 25 [23]

Galera (translated): ‘’The persecusion of the Germans seem to be explainable only due to hatred and jealosy of Poles. The hard working Germans… The woiwode Stephan Garczynki in Posen said that quite openly in 1751.’’

Page 93 - ------------ ( states nothing at all about barbaric)

Page 273

Galera quotes the new Gauleiter Albert Forster and Dr. Rauschning, Hermann Rauschning, representing the NSDAP in Danzig as saying:

1. (that they) have the wish to have peaceful cooperation… 2. (that they) are willing to acknowledge the treaties… 3. will adhere to the constitution guaranteed by the Voelkerbund (League of Nations)

Page 279

Galera describes the terrible strains and hardships Danzig has to endure under the enforced Polish Customs union… Danzig wants to have it voided. Galera (translation): ‘’The Nationalsocialists found, just like in torn-apart Germany, also in the deadly-sick Danzig the strength and perseverance to end this misery’’…

What is the justification for Molobo and others at Wikipedia to defame Dr Karl Siegmar Baron von Galera ?

Wikipedia User Molobo posted (above) a "Nazi-Propaganda List" of the Ball University shows besides books by Dr Karl Siegmar Baron von Galera the following:

In other words, Molobo (and a number of other Wikipedians) failed to check and to inform , that the Ball University site states: ’’’The Collection documents the era of the Third Reich in German history’’’ Nowhere does the University say , that all the books on the list are Nazi-Propaganda, as Molobo tries to make Wikipedia readers believe. The university states, that these are research materials for the Nazi ERA. All these books on the list were the property of a Robert Wire, who donated them to the Ball University.

The truly discusting thing is, that a number of Wikipedia people agree with Molobo, and fail to check facts about Karl Siegmar Baron von Galera. Wikipedia fails to check facts in so many other instances and rather starts or picks up and continues rumors.

It is particularly sad when one realizes, that Baron Galera was a victim of Nazism himself, as can be read in Halle University, where he tought: ‘’Dozentur wurde 1943 aufgrund der nicht-arischen Abstammung des Inhabers Siegmar Baron von Galera fuer erloschen erklaert’’ [24] In 1943 his license was rewoked because of his none-arian extraction.

He wrote regional history of cities books and bios.

A number of books by Baron Galera show up on amazon books on eBay and in antique book stores, a number of books were reprints in the 1960s and 70s. An Observer 14 July 2008

Bell University wrote about his books: Galéra, Karl Siegmar, Baron von. Deutscher Reichsspiegel: Männer und Bewegungen im Kampfe für Reich und Gegenreich. [The German Reich Mirror: Men and Movement in the Battle for Reich and Anti-Reich.] Leipzig: Hesse & Becker Verlag, 1936. Nationalistic survey of Germany’s greatest eras intended to instill pride in the Third Reich. DD89 .G3 1936A

Galéra, Karl Siegmar, Baron von. Österreichs Rückkehr ins Deutsche Reich; von Kaiser Karl zu Adolf Hitler. [Austria’s Return to the German Reich: by the Kaiser Karl to Adolf Hitler.] Leipzig: Nationale Verlags-Gesellschaft, 1938. Attempt to show Hitler as the fulfillment of the Austrian wish to be part of a Greater Germany. DB96 .G3 --Molobo (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Stubs created on two authors named Gal(l)era

We have now stubs about

I strongly suggest to discuss these two persons at their articles instead of extending this mess here. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to {{db-author}}, these two stubs are now gone. Ashes to ashes. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That he fell out of favour in Nazi party is hardly argument to claim he couldn't be Nazi.Ernst Rohm was murdered by Nazis yet was still a Nazi. Likewise that some town honoured him is no qualification he wasn't a Nazi in 1933-Heinz Reinefarth was responsible for murder of up to 100,000 Poles in Warsaw Uprising yet people of Westerland voted him to become mayor after the war and later elected him to Landtag. So this claims are not in any way supportive of him being non-Nazi. From Galera "Hate of the unfree race against German Masters(...) that seperats Germans from other people of Europe "-can we end the discussion if he is reliable with this fragment ?
Um so tiefer aber wurde auch die Kluft zwischen den deutschen Herren und den Litauern, Letten und Esten. Es wuchs ein Haß der unfreien Rasse gegen das Herrrenmenschentum, jenes typische psychologische Moment, das seit den Tagen der Reformation die Völker Europas von den Deutschen trennt. page 46[63] --Molobo (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you obviously don't understand German properly. Second, your interpretations violate WP:NOR. Third, participation of editors at the stubs is disappointingly low compared to the heated discussion here. Is looking up sources and writing proper content so boring? -- Matthead  Discuß   10:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Communist-era fiction more reliable?

In 2005, a quote from Wolfgang Schreyer's book "Eyes on the sky" was added [25] to Area bombardment. This author is discussed above at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wolfgang_Schreyer.E2.80.8E. The quote is still the basis of the article Bombing of Frampol started in 2004, and attempts had been made [26] to add it to Strategic bombing during World War II. I wonder why users who worry very much about Nazi era German sources seem to be much less suspicious about communist era East German sources? -- Matthead  Discuß   17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to provide reliable sources that prove this is a work of fiction; there is nothing to say that Schreyer has not written this book as a work of non-fiction. It is not uncommon for an author who has written works of fiction to also write reliable works of non-fiction.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Piotrus, for these two sentences of reliable non-fiction. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
No, its not. Particularly not with regard to the German-Polish history. The People's Republic of Poland was marked by "hostility towards Germany" (Polska mysil zachodnia, Tomczak, Poznan 1993). Characteristic for the political culture in the PR Poland was the "connection of radical Lefts and Polish nationalists" (Die fremde Stadt, Thum, München 2003, page 279), and the official perception of history was "nationalistic" (Thum, page 280). Responsible for this "perception of history was the historical science of Poland" (Thum, page 281), which worked as a "legitimation science" (Geschichtswissenschaft als Legitimationswissenschaft, Peter, Frankfurt/M 1997). The propaganda of the PR Poland "defended its territorial demands" (former Eastern Germany) with "rhetoric means and historiographical methods" which were similar to methods which were used by the German science and propaganda during the Nazi years (Thum, page 290). Karasek (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Plenty German books printed in Bundesrepublic contain anti-Polish propaganda, both before the unification and today. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don';t see this as being primarily about Communists. I would be reluctant to make general rules about german-polish reciprocal claims of hostility in any period. I think we need to know the reputation and general acceptance of this particular book, and other sources for the incident. That even the most staunchly non-communist Pole might have a similar POV to a communist Pole over German actions with respect to Poland in 1939 would seem pretty obvious. If the key issue is whether it was a legitimate military target, that might be distorted in either direction just as in such disputes in all other wars. And as to the general question of whether Nazi propaganda can ever be right, see Katyn. DGG (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Katyn article is a very bad example for your thesis Nazi propaganda sometimes might be right. Of course, propaganda is not always lies, see the definition of propaganda. But you can't depend on it to document the facts. In case of Katyn the facts are documented by NKVD/KGB files, not by Nazi propaganda, not by Soviet propaganda and not by Allies propaganda. Actually, this article is very badly written and inclusion of Nazi propaganda in it distorts the basic historical facts. For example: it has been said in it that Wladyslaw Sikorski relying on Nazi propaganda tried to break the alliance of Soviet Union with Great Britain, however, it was the other way around. It was Winston Churchill who advertised it, while Sikorski, as the only one Polish leader who didn't buy it, tried to make peace with Soviets. That's why he had to die, because on Churchill's agenda there was no place for sovereign Poland after the war. Half a year after he was coveniently killed, Poland, without any interference was sold to Stalin in exchange for some concessions to British during the Tehran Conference 1943, and later at the Yalta Conference 1945. greg park avenue (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Frampol cannot be a military target in any political system and any war. Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Polish Historiography

Perhaps some insight into the value or lack of value of Polish historical works from the era 1945 - 1990:

--Stor stark7 Speak 19:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Stor stark7,

I just read 2. Between Continuity and ... 3. about Place Name Changes. Excellent descriptions

Wikipedia should have articles about these topics.

3. Speaks of Stalinization of Polish Historiography , that historians were quick to discover that the switch to Marxism was now a sine qua non precondition of their continued participation in scientific life.

Stefan Kieniewicz defined Polish Historiography in the 60s and 70s by a state of sui generis schizophrenia... official (Polish) historiography full of falsifications , equivocations and half-truths, of Doublespeak an so on...

That explains a lot. Seems to me, people in Poland try to clear their country of this type of Stalinist Polish historiography. Polish-Wikipedia bans the Cling-on Followers of Stalinist Polish Historiography, now they have saturated the ENglish Wikipedia. An Observer 17 July 2008

As I have indicated some time ago, both Polish and German historiographies were biased (Talk:Bloody_Sunday_(1939)#Polish.2FCommunist). It is obvious that Polish historiography is as biased towards German as German is towards Poland, and when using one side's sources in reviewing their history, such bias should be controlled for. For more about German historiography, see for example the article on Historikerstreit. The problem, of course, lies not in the historiographies - but in the editors, who believe that their favourite side's historiography is perfect, and the other side's work is nothing but propaganda.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"It is obvious that Polish historiography is as biased towards German as German is towards Poland." While possibly true, this is not true simply by assertion. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
All national historiographies are biased. Just see historiography and nationalism. Or this book--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are. My objection was to the implication that they are all "equally" biased, which implies that some form of NPOV requires equal representation. This is not the case. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is possible to rank bias in national historiographies. Things that cannot be ranked are more or less presumed equal. Anyway, this discussion veers of to pointless semantics, I am afraid. The bottom line is that both Polish and German historiographies have their biases, and a common part of it is the Polish-German history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It remains possible that certain historiographies are more mainstream than others; that "German" or "Polish" sources may use more modern techniques as part of their historiograpic projects; and several other possibilities. Which is why a "ranking" per se might not be possible, but that does not at all mean that sources are to be weighed equally because of our opinion about which historiography they are part of. That would mean, for example, that some might say our most reliable sources are "Western" in historiographic orientation, and thus should be balanced. This is unacceptable, which is why focusing on historiographies rather than reliability here is a mistake. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I second that. Historiography is hardly a reliable source, especially if it's coming from the so called new historians attached to the countries previously involved in the conflict. But old records are reliable sources, even if these came from KGB, Wehrmacht or Western agencies. greg park avenue (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
To answer Piotrus remark: there's a difference between the Polish historiography and Western German historiography: the Polish historiography was controlled by an authoritarian regime, the Western German historiography was not. The Western German historiography was and is marked by a wide range of thoughts and public debates. The historiography in all Communist states on the other hand, for example also Eastern Germany, acted as a legitimation science for these regimes. The historiography in Eastern Germany tried to construct a continuity between Thomas Müntzer, the Peasants' War and the GDR (and in the 80s tried it even with Prussia and Frederick the Great!), in Czechoslovakia the historiography tried to construct a everlasting antagonism between Czechs and Germans and interpreted almost every conflict in Bohemia (Hussites) this way, and the Polish historiography tried to explain the new borders with 1000 year old claims. I would therefore stay away from sources of that time when they address these topics, but otherwise accept them. Karasek (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

www.kamat.com

Resolved

http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/itihas/abbakka.htm
There are may books which recommend the site. http://books.google.com/books?id=lR2LoYwR3IwC&pg=PA37&dq=Kamat%27s+Potpourri&lr=&sig=ACfU3U22WIQoJCsgCxU79j6B6f9DbRjUsg (Venture Into Cultures: A Resource Book of Multicultural Materials and Programs by Olga R. Kuharets) (http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=Kamat%27s+Potpourri&btnG=Search+Books) lists all the books which rely on www.kamat.com (Kamat's Potpourri)
Can it be considered reliable? KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is used to cite a claim which is contentious. Hence, that makes it unreliable. Thanks, KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mangalorean.Com (http://mangalorean.com/index.php)

Resolved

This is basically a newspaper (e-paper). The fact that it is well known can be found here (http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2007/05/12/stories/2007051250850100.htm). An entire article dedicated to the newspaper. I think according to Wiki policies, Newspapers and news services (BBC) can be considered reliable. But still is it reliable. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if one article in The Hindu (essentially an "of interest" piece announcing that that Mangalorean.Com exists) qualifies it as being "well known". But ultimately that does not matter. Its acceptability as a RS e-news site really has more to do with its reputation for journalism, editorial fact checking and accuracy. If it has a good reputation, then it should be considered reliable, if it has a poor reputation then it should not. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It has a good reputation. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The Hindu is a reliable source. Consider a few things, though. First, the hindu does subdivide regional interests quite narrowly, so this should be treated as an article in a regional paper (even though the masthead is the hindu). Second, the nature of the piece is to be taken into account. This isn't an opinion piece but it isn't really a hard hitting piece of journalism. So here we are using the reliability of the hindu to attest to the the reputation of Mangalorean.com. Remember that the piece in the hindu doesn't attest to the structure or editorial control of Mangalorean.com, just to its owner and its creation. Key for reliable sources are third party verification and selection. This is always hard to judge (especially so in websites). Basically, we have to ask whether or not Mangalorean.com has a reputation to protect that may only be protected by diligence and accuracy in reporting facts. Once we answer that in the affirmative, we have to ask if there is a mechanism in place to unsure that happens AND if they have a track record of this. So the piece in the hindu doesn't speak to that particular set of criteria. What kind of claims were you planning on sourcing from Mangalorean.com? Protonk (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You can't just say it's got a good reputation...From looking at the website, I can't find any information on the site's editorial practices, or how it selects its journalists, and the hindu article doesn't give any insight on that. Unless it can be demonstrated to be well respected by undoubtedly reliable sources, I'd advise against using it for any contentious claims unique to their website. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Protonk and Someguy1221 for your replies. It has been used to source only and only some local events in Mangalore. I knew it from the beginning that the site cannot be relied upon for contentious claims.

Here are the events which have been sourced by Mangalorean.Com

  1. Colourful Kodial Theru
    Kodial Theru is a local festival of Mangalore. Observed only and only in Mangalore. The news article is just used to cite this sentence Kodial Theru, also known as Mangaluru Rathotsava (Mangalore Car Festival) is a festival unique to the GSB community, and is celebrated at the Sri Venkatramana Temple). The news Article just gives a coverage of how the festival was celebrated in 2008 in Mangalore. No contentious claims involved at all.
  2. Nagarapanchami Naadige Doddadu
    Nagarapanchami is again a festival celebrated in Mangalore, though not unique to the city. It has been just used to cite this sentence Nagaradhane (snake worship) is performed in the city in praise of Naga Devatha (the Serpent King), who is said to be the protector of all snakes. The news Article again just gives a coverage of how the festival was celebrated in 2007 in Mangalore. No contentious claims involved at all.
  3. Mangalore: All India Fide Rated Open Chess Tournament takes off
    All India chess tourney in Mangalore from July 19
    These 2 are just used to cite the following sentence Mangalore is headquarters to the South Kanara District Chess Association (SKDCA), which has hosted two All India Open Chess tournaments'. The news Article again just gives a coverage of how the tournament was organized in Mangalore. No contentious claims involved at all.
  4. Pilikula - Perched for higher growth
    Pilikula Nisargadhama is an integrated theme park in Mangalore. It has been just used to cite this sentence Pilikula Nisargadhama, an integrated theme park, has a fully functional 9-hole golf course at Vamanjoor in Mangalore. The news Article just gives a coverage of the facilities available at the Park. No contentious claims involved at all.
  5. Mangalore: Channel V4 to offer Conditional Access System
    It has been used to cite Mangalore is currently not covered by the Conditional access system (CAS); however, a proposal to provide CAS to television viewers in Mangalore sometime in the future has been initiated by V4 Media, the local cable service provider. Again, no contentious claims.

If you observe these all are news articles related to the happenings in the city. I think Newspapers , news channels and e-papers are the best for such sourcing purposes. It's not all used to cite historical claims etc...So is it reliable?KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. You appear to have a keen eye for what is a good attribution. IMO, an important component to the RS question is the use. In this case, a local "webpaper" is the best source. If we are to simply assert facts of local interest, then it may be the only source. In the Us and Europe were are lucky enough to have large news organizations with local bureaus so this question is moot here (Of course the hindu has lots of local sections but I find they are of marginal help). You might want to consider guide and travel books. I don't think much of the online ones (there is a good book out from a former lonely planet travelogue writer who faked most of his year to year entries), but some of the printed ones might help substantiate factual claims pretty well. here is just one g-books search. Protonk (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz

This BBC article [27] as a source for the newspaper being 'left-wing', the source reads "Mr Sharon, previously viewed as a champion of settlers, first revealed his intentions for Gaza in an interview with the left-wing Haaretz newspaper." --neon white talk 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the newspaper described in various places as "liberal", "left-wing" and "moderate" - take your pick. The BBC is a pretty good source, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue here isnt whether the BBC is a reliable source, its an issue about how Haaretz is characterized in an article about Haaretz. The majority of source characterize it as liberal; however, one editor is intent on characterizing Haaretz as "Left wing" by hook or crook. Look in the article history and see how he constantly scours the net for any source to present that (his) opinion, ignoring the majority if WP:RS's that describe Haaretz as liberal. We dont include every last iota of information available on the net to characterize a subject. Finding one BBC article on an entirely different subject that uses the term "left wing" does not need to be included just because its the BBC. And note that a separate BBC article that is used, which actually is about the press in Israel, does NOT use that characterization. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, you are making the dispute into a personal battle and ignoring that the BBC is a reliable sources. 'Scouring' the net for sources is not against policy in fact it is how the vast majority of wikipedia is created. If something can be reliable sourced then there is no reason to censor it. Liberalism is left-wing so to use both the terms together is fine. --neon white talk 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
There are far more instances of the BBC describing Haaretz as liberal for eg here and here and here and here and here and here just to name a few compared to the one isolated instance it cites "left wing". Although it is sourced to a reliable source (the BBC) it clearly does not represent how the BBC generally characterizes Haaretz.Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
That doesnt really matter both can be attributed to a sources so both are valid views. We cannot decide how the BBC generally characterizes anything, i'm sure they do not have a policy on such things and it is not up to us to attribute one to them. --neon white talk 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether the BBC is a WP:RS. I think we all agree that it is. It's whether an off-hand mention of Haaretz makes the BBC article an appropriate RS for an article about Haaretz. The article, which is about Ariel Sharon and Gaza, also mentions "US President George W. Bush", but that wouldn't make it an appropriate source for the fact that Bush is president of the United States. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If the BBC is a reliable then it would be completely acceptable to be used to cite that the president of the USA was George W. Bush. Again read WP:V, it mentions no limitations on where reliable sources can be used. --neon white talk 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Classic UNDUE in action. If the BBC calls Haaretz "liberal" 6 times as often as it's called "left-wing" (as we're having demonstrated), then it would be seriously POV of use to use the latter term. PRtalk 11:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with reliable sources

I'd be grateful for views on an odd issue that has cropped up on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. (I have cross-posted this to the reliable sources and fringe theories noticeboards as it presents overlapping issues.)

A disagreement has arisen about a statement sourced to this article from the Australian newspaper The Age, concerning an individual named Nahum Shahaf, who has been in the limelight concerning claims that a vast international conspiracy staged the death of a Palestinian boy in 2000. In the context of a critique of Shahaf's views, the source states that Shahaf "has no forensic or ballistic qualifications". Several other newspaper sources say that "Shahaf concedes he is no authority on ballistics", that he is "not an expert" and that he is "known mainly as an inventor". He describes himself as a physicist. It's not clear if he has any formal qualifications as such, since nobody has yet been able to find any sources which describe his qualifications. There is, in short, nothing to suggest that the statement that he "has no forensic or ballistic qualifications" is in dispute by anyone, not even by the man himself.

A relatively new editor, User:Tundrabuggy, disagrees with the source on two grounds. First, he states that the reporter is "considered by some to be highly biased [against Israel]" (i.e. a few pressure groups and individuals have criticised his reporting) and has requested the removal of his use as a source - see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Challenge on one of the reporters. Second, Shahaf himself has said that his expertise is based on his having "finished all the stages necessary in learning this topic", "read the scientific material" and "consult[ed] with several experts", but has not at any point that I know of asserted that he has any qualifications in that area. On that basis, Tundrabuggy argues that Shahaf is qualified and it's therefore wrong to state that he has no qualifications. Here Tundrabuggy seems to be elliding the distinction between having knowledge of a subject and having qualifications in that subject. (I have knowledge of the daily struggles of being a man, because I'm a man. I don't have qualifications on that subject because I've never passed an examination on gender studies.)

The rather tedious discussion can be found at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Nahum Shahaf.

It seems to me that this is an example of (a) would-be censorship - if we removed every source that someone disagreed with at some point, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia left; and (b) original research, since Tundrabuggy is essentially arguing on the basis of his personal belief that Shahaf has "qualifications" and it's therefore wrong to cite a newspaper report which says he doesn't, even though the man himself isn't known to have made this claim. I'd be interested to know what people think of this from a reliable sources perspective. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion personal antipathy towards sources should be dismissed without prejudice as they are not part of policy. However if the publication is considered extremist by reliable sources then that is a different case, remember the publication is the source not the writer, it is the publication that is required to pass WP:V. As the claims in the first paragraph seem to well sourced, i cant see any reason to not add them, however, to comply with WP:NPOV, i suggest adding Shahaf's personal comments (if they are secondary sourced) as well. A good compromise, if sources are opinion pieces is to attribute the opinions to the publication and author. For example this journalists wrote in a publication that.... whilst another journalist in another publication writes... --neon white talk 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. In this case The Age is a major, long-established Australian newspaper, roughly equivalent to (say) the Boston Globe or The Scotsman. The article in question is a regular investigative news report, not an opinion piece, and as such we have to assume that it's gone through the usual fact-checking and legal clearances (I believe Australia has fairly strict libel laws). With regard to NPOV, I'm mindful of the fact that it deals with "conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." That doesn't really apply in this case. The "conflicting perspective" appears to be sourced entirely to the mind of one Wikipedian. No reliable source I know of contradicts the article - there's no source that says "yes, Shahaf does have qualifications", and the man himself hasn't asserted that. So what we have here is a fairly straightforward, editorially reviewed assertion of fact with wihch no other source is in disagreement. I'm not sure that a qualifying statement is needed in that circumstance. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Can Shahaf's claims be sourced? I think they should be included but as i understand it he isnt claiming to have formal qualifications so it doesn't contradict the sources that say he doesnt have any. The Age is a reliable source and as far as i know, is not known to be extemist in any way so i'd say it is a strong source for info involving a living person. If this is not an opinion piece then it is likely to be subject to editorial policy and as The Age is a well established newspaper then i cannot see a problem with this source. --neon white talk 00:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
His claims are sourceable to his own statements, made in interviews in other newspaper reports. We can't necessarily confirm their veracity, of course, but then again we don't attempt to verify the sources of our sources. You're correct on the other points you make: he doesn't claim to have formal qualifications, so there is no contradiction of the statement that he doesn't have any, and the source is a news report subject to editorial policy, not an opinion piece. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This article Media Watch under fire over ‘Jewish pressure’ claim might be of interest to anyone following this discussion. It demonstrates a couple of points. 1) O'Loughlin is no longer working for ' 'The Age.' ' 2) The so-called 'pressure groups' are Jewish groups including Australian MP Danby 3) the concern regarding O'Loughlin has been for bias ("“systematic bias against Israel" - "a talented journalist who brilliantly distorts facts and substitutes opinions for news” - "grave concerns about lack of balance") as opposed to personal prejudice. Considering that O'Loughlin is the only journalist who claims that Nahum Shahaf has ' 'no qualifications' ' in ballistics or forensics, (he doesn't say 'formal' qualifications), and considering that the claim in not elaborated upon, I think it appropriate to find difference source to make what I consider a BLP argument and an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources. The issue is under mediation here [28].Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
In point of fact, ChrisO is mischaracterising my points. I never "requested the removal of his use as a source." I specifically say: "So my point is, I don't think this is a good source used alone, and vote to strike anything that is backed up by his word alone." (Italics added for highlighting) 2) The concerns ChrisO addresses regarding qualifications are addressed here [29] in a section I initiated July 23, to address the question of qualifications [30] On July 24th, I also initiated a request on this issue at the ongoing mediation page here: [31] --Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with being an SPA, single purpose account to policy, I'm one myself. However, this counts against me when it comes to the community's judgment on what is acceptable behavior on my part. In particular, I'd never be excused for wasting huge amounts of the time of very experienced editors fighting to exclude what would appear to be an RS in every normal sense of the WP:POLICY.
Even provably false assertions made in RS are sometimes treated as belonging in articles (supposedly, we have to do this because of "verifiability not truth"). So the assertion that Shahaf has no qualifications, which appears to be "proven" to a far higher standard than usual, undoubtedly belongs in the article. I can't even be sure why User:Tundrabuggy isn't faced with a disciplinary for marked and persistent tendentious conduct. PRtalk 11:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

iTunes

Resolved

Can iTune be used as a reliable source? Someone added the fact that Brianna Taylor's debut album was the #42 most-purchased album on iTunes. I checked iTunes, and this in indeed the case, but because there is no permalink or similar way to provide a record of this (that I know of), how will this be verified after that album eventually drops from the charts, particularly in a way that will satisfy WP:V? Should that passage be removed from the article? Nightscream (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By finding reliable sources that mention it. [32] and [33] These might be blogs, but should be reliable enough for such an innocuous claim. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Such info is usually considered trivial and is best avoided. --79.68.33.70 (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No dispute to report, just peer review solicited

If any seasoned RS-assessors would care to give some feedback to the Anarchism task force's attempt at writing a context-specific reliable source guideline at WP:ANCITE, feedback and suggestions would be most appreciated. Sincerely, Skomorokh 11:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Toll Roads News - RS?

Resolved

Question - would [34] be considered a reliable source? --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks self published to me (check contact info, copyright, etc). WHOIS records point to the stated proprietor as the owner of the domain. Largely not considered reliable with some exceptions seen at WP:SPS. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog-posted interview needed for development information

Resolved

Hello, I want to use this interview posted on a blog to cite development information on a videogame I'm writing an article for. The problem is, the only definitely reliable source for this info I've found is this on Gamezebo, which basically says "we went around a chocolate factory". Now compare it to the source I want to use. :/ There's also this which I'd deem reliable anyway, but again the depth of information isn't there. There's another more in-depth interview, but it's on a site no more 'reliable' in a sense the than the first link. Some help please? Someoneanother 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Brief History of Amateur Radio in Calcutta

This is to do with a very niche segment, where published sources would not be so common. The topic is Amateur radio.

Brief History of Amateur Radio in Calcutta, by Missra, Avinash (1996) Hamfest India '96 Souvenir. I would like to include this as a reliable source for the topic "History of Amateur Radio in India".

  • This was published by a senior amateur radio operator. (callsign VU2EM) google
  • Was published at a hamfest where amateur radio operators gather annually. So likely to be peer reviewed by amateur radio operators in India.
  • Published sources on the history of amateur radio operators in India does not exist.

As per WP:RS:

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
As an amateur radio operator licensed in 1970 source, Missra would be authoritative. He is also the president of the Bengal Amateur Radio Society.
"How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."
It was published during a hamfest, the publication would be reviewed by the amateur radio community.

Much of the materials available in the above book, (but not all) is also mentioned in the published book:

Regal, Brian (September 30, 2005). Radio: The Life Story of a Technology. Greenwood Press, 77/152. ISBN 0313331677. Retrieved on June 30, 2008.

I would like to know about the reliability of sources. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Some points to ponder:
  1. Information on amateur radio published by a considered RS, such as a newspaper may not be very reliable as there could be little fact checking going on. Whereas this source, for a closed community topic might be considered reliable.
  2. Had the author published it with an ISBN number, and a named publisher, would it be considered to be "more reliable"? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also the issue of WP:V, or the verifiability of sources. To cite something, it has to be published somewhere, whether in paper form or online. If it was only a pamphlet passed out to attendees at a hamfest, that's not a published source. However, if many libraries in India were given copies of this, then it would probably be considered verifiable, ISBN or not, though you'd still have to deal wth whether it's a secondary, primary, or self-published source. If only one library has a copy of it in some semipublic archive, then it wouldn't count as verifiable. We often run into this issue when dealing with public records, etc.

If it was checked and rechecked by multiple experienced hams at the hamfest, and then printed up, it might qualify as peer reviewed. If it was written up by one person and simply handed out at the hamfest, then no.

However WP does allow self-published works by experts in certain cases. I've considered the idea that someone who's a licenced ham, especially with a higher license class, may be considered a "recognized expert". I agree that some of the self-published material about the hobby is often of better quality than mainstream news articles, especially when dealing with highly technical subjects such as building repeaters. Also note that technical articles are much more tolerant of expert selfpubs than biographical, science, or humanities articles, such as religion or philosophy, for multiple and valid reasons.

If both have the same information, why not just cite both the published book _and_ the souvenir article? P.S.: Why did you include a "retrieved on" tag here when citing the printed book? Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, its not a pamphlet. All books published in India are available at the four National Depository Centres. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

CanadaFreePress.com

On second thought, never mind. Picabu (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC) This is a bit complicated, but:

    1. CanadaFreePress.com is a website and has a Wikipedia article about it: Canada Free Press
    2. It's cited as a source in some, not many Wikipedia articles; I haven't looked into those citations
    3. It's very opinionated and has had some problems with reliability in the past, as its WP article notes
    4. If I say what the article is that I'm thinking about using as a source, it just may start a fight here on Wikipedia (the subject is very sensitive), but an article mentions some government testimony and quotes quite a bit of it. I can't get to the testimony otherwise. The article also mentions a book long out of print and quotes from that. This is very contentious material not reported elsewhere and it says negative things about a BLP. The author of the article is an opinion journalist with a pronounced point of view and this article and these quotes advance that point of view. I think the author is prominent enough that he'd be very embarrassed if he got the quotes wrong or was seen to be taking them out of context.

Sure, no one can give me a definitive answer without seeing the material, but is it acceptable to use the quotes? I suspect it isn't, but maybe someone here will surprise me. It's guaranteed that some editors will object to it and other editors will defend it if the quotes are put in the Wikipedia article. Picabu (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulk removal of references to Sourcewatch

Java7837 (talk · contribs) is bulk-removing references to Sourcewatch. See edits between 06:25, 27 July 2008 and 21:23, 30 July 2008 (over 100 edits). What's the consensus on this? Does this need to be bulk-reverted? --John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert all but the BLP articles. Wikis are perfectly acceptable as EL's if they are well-regarded and have a history of stability. The articles seem to only be using it as an EL and not to cite facts to. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, reverted seven of the articles. The bulk removal of Sourcewatch references seems to have ceased. --John Nagle (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Promotional or reliable

Please comment if you consider this particular website www.purebhakti.com a promotional site or a Reliable Source. You impartial view and opinion will be highly appreciated. Some editors mainly User:Syamadas and maybe User:John Z‎ appear to suggest it is. But I would welcome a broader consensus on it, and its non-notable sources. Kind regards, Wikidas, 16:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In the "About Us" section it says all material is copyright "Gaudiya Vedanta Publications". I've never heard of that company, and can hardly find any reliable sources about them on Google, so I'd say this is not a valid source. --TexasDex ★ 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe I've ever said anything about it outside of the context of Bhaktivedanta Narayana. As it is his and his followers' website, I noted it should be OK as a source for his uncontentious biographical details, like his date and place of birth, where he lived and travelled etc. The relevant material was picked up by www.vnn.org (Vaisnava News Network), which I believe is considered a decent source in this area, and the site is cited, unfortunately on a restricted page, in the article on him in the Bryant - Ekstrand Columbia University press book. If we rejected sites that sell stuff, we would eliminate the New York Times and any Jstor journal.John Z (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with JohnZ that for bio details its an acceptable source, and for other it is not. Wikidās ॐ 20:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Mission page says it's there to promote his teachings; I would agree that treating it per WP:SELFANDQUEST seems best. Jayen466 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

mm-agency.com

Resolved

Is this a reliable source for information on upcoming seasons of The Real World? It claims here to be written by Michael Martin, "who has and continues to work with the Real World & Road Rules cast members booking them for appearances since 2001." Nightscream (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Borderline, probably no. Definitely no for contentious claims or notability concerns. This appears to be simply a self-published source from a source that claims to be related to the subject of the article. I could see using this to support non-contentious factual claims about the show itself, but I would be cautious in doing so. My guess is that the agency is "doing its job" and promoting their clients. That is another reason to be leery of using this for the encyclopedia. Just my thoughts. Protonk (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. But can you give examples of contentious and non-contentious claims? Do you mean stuff that may be aggrandizing or denigrating, or which may carry a positive or negative connotation? Right now, I and others would like to add information on the location of the upcoming season's residence, based on that source. That's not contentious, right? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
sure. I can probably give sets of examples, rather than a clear classification. A contentious claim is one where a reasonable person could find reason to reject the statement. Specific factual claims may be contentious, especially if those claims are novel or not in agreement with previous claims. "the earth is round" is far too general and widely accepted to be contentious. "The earth has a surface irregularity of X feet from equator to pole" is specific enough to be contentious. Since MOST claims on wikipedia can be claimed as contentious in a general sense (as no editor can appeal to authority) we have to think in a narrower sense. If the claim you are forwarding is one that may be disputed by a reliable source, then the claim is probably contentious. The examples you are suggesting (assuming they are not the only source on the page) don't seem to be contentious in that sense or in any sense that WP:V would recognize. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

UtahRails.net

I'm not sure about this one. The author, Don Strack, has been published in reliable sources, including several books. He generally cites his sources after every paragraph: [35] Several years ago, I was told (on this noticeboard, I think) that a similar case, the PRR Chronology, is reliable. --NE2 02:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a tough one. It really is a class act, isn't it? Protonk (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. some thoughts. First, the 'resources' tab is a gold mine of primary and secondary sources even if we couldn't use the site itself. Second, I am seeing a general consensus that published authors with a specific area of expertise can generate "reliable" works outside of the publishing system (like our website here) for use in very narrow cases. This seems to be a sufficient source for information on non-contentious claims with regard to rail in Utah. That is a narrow enough topic field and a narrow enough set of claims that I don't see a problem with it. "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field previously has been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." from WP:SPS provides some canonical guidance here. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue with simply using what he cites is that he's done a fair amount of research, for instance with Interstate Commerce Commission reports, newspaper articles (a lot of which actually are online), and corporation records. I have been citing what he uses where I can access it, but sometimes that's impossible for me. --NE2 03:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, like I said, if he's authoritative in the field apart from this website and the information is used only where the source is a subject matter expert, WP:SPS says go nuts. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Raw Story

Are articles posted on the Raw Story a Reliable source? Are they reliable enough to be used in biographies on living people?Counteraction (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


perhaps you could provide a link to make it easier for us to form an opinion. Agungsatu (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Raw Story does do its own independent reporting, though most of the stuff on their site covers stories from other sites. Though, I guess every news source does this. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Terra Nova as a Reliable source

Resolved
 – seems like I didn't read WP:SPS very closely before submitting this :) Protonk (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm noticing a running consensus here on the noticeboard that blogs are dealt with as Rs on a case by case basis. I'm looking to seek out some consensus on whether or not Terra Nova (link to Wikipedia article on the same above) may be considered a reliable source on articles in the field of games studies. The blog is (strictly speaking) a collaborative work, but editor selection (and thus publication selection) appears to be very careful--currently posting is limited to the founders, editors and named contributors, all of whom work or publish in the field of games studies. So what does everyone think? Reliable? Generally reliable? bunk? thanks for any input. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If any of the writers are widely published elsewhere then maybe. --79.68.33.70 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that some of the writers for Terra Nova are academics writing about their area of expertise who have been published elsewhere, I believe that this blog falls under the exception to WP:SPS, which says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." This blog seems much more reliable than the typical blog, but the self-published sources policy indicates that it should be used only with caution. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that analysis. The thing to remember is that the blog itself is always going to be deemed unreliable because it is self-published and there is no guarantee that it is peer reviewed. However, certain author that contribute to the blog may be considered reliable because of previous work and expertise. --neon white talk 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

Resolved
 – we appear to have reached the conclusion that the suggested draft is an appropriate use of this particular source. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is a well-known mainstream magazine that has been published bimonthly since 1967. Its journalists have received several Pulitzer Prizes for their work in the magazine.[36] On the other hand, it has been involved in at least one libel case (involving Stephen Glass (reporter)), though that case was dismissed.[37] It is currently referenced or used as a source in over 8,000 Wikipedia articles.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] The range of articles we use it for obivously includes many performers, bands, albums, and songs, but it also includes important topics such as 2004 United States election voting controversies, Stop-loss policy, 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference, Columbine conspiracy theories, David Miscavige, and countless others. Is there any reason it should not be treated as a highly reliable source for events among youth-oriented movements in American popular culture? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • None whatsover. Individual articles and journalists may be disputed and (where appropriate) evidence suggestion RS is wrong may be introduced on the article (e.g. RS says X, but The New York Times reported X did not happen). It is a lefty (and in cases of drug policy, libertarian) publication and their political works can be considered more polemical than strict journalism, but they have a reputation to protect and editorial control over submissions. tl;dr answer: yes, Rolling Stone is reliable but check the POV. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Rolling Stone has a definite POV which makes then less than reliable on some topics, especially religion.Momento (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wrong. A common misunderstanding, however. Please correct it. A slight bias has nothing to do with reliability in general. (Not true, for example, for advocacy sources.) --Relata refero (disp.) 08:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it'll help if I present the precise circumstances of the current content discussion. The article on Prem Rawat is subject to mediation; any proposed edits undergo a process of drafting proposals on pages in the mediator's user space. (The page housing the proposal we are concerned with is here).
  • Editors have proposed a draft that includes the following sentence:

    According to Richard Levine in Rolling Stone a premie described that in the early 1970s Rawat fired a pistol at a number of prized vases in the backyard of the L.A. Residence "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions."

  • This is cited to a Rolling Stone article that includes the following passage:

    Occasionally, the lila take a more ominous turn. Jacques Sandoz, a Swiss premie who heads Shri Hans Films, tells about an incident that took place at the Divine Residence in Los Angeles, where he held the end of a balloon between his teeth while Bal Bhagwan Ji stood on a balcony 40 feet away and shot at it with a BB gun to test his devotion. Another premie describes the time the Guru fired a pistol at a number of prized vases in the backyard of the L.A. Residence "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions."

  • Note that the person referred to in the previous sentence, "Bal Bhagwan Ji", is not Prem Rawat, the subject of our article, but Rawat's brother (also considered a holy person by movement members at the time, but not usually referred to as "guru", a title reserved to Rawat himself, and applied consistently to Rawat throughout the Rolling Stone article).
  • The anecdote is ascribed to "another premie" (i.e. an unnamed member of Rawat's movement). It is not clear from the text of the article whether this anecdote was recounted to Levine, the author of the piece, by the actual eye-witness of the events described, or whether it is hearsay that Levine was exposed to in the course of his research.
  • Editors have researched and are working with hundreds of sources concerning Prem Rawat. This 1974 Rolling Stone article is, to our knowledge, the only available source that mentions this alleged incident.
  • The Prem Rawat article is a WP:BLP, and as such subject to the stipulations governing biographies of living persons. We are required to be conservative in our writing and sourcing.
  • The question to be addressed here is not, "Is Rolling Stone magazine a reliable source for Wikipedia or not".
  • The question to be addressed is, "Is it good WP:BLP practice to include a report
    • ascribed to an unnamed individual,
    • possibly based on hearsay,
    • possibly referring to the subject's brother mentioned in the preceding sentence,
    • not present or repeated in any other source, to editors' knowledge,
    • published in a source that has a documented history of having included fabricated statements in its articles on at least two occasions,
  • or would that make us fall foul of
    • the basic WP:BLP stricture that says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.", as well as
    • the WP:BLP requirement to source conservatively,
    • WP:DUE policy and
    • WP:REDFLAG, which requires that exceptional claims require exceptional sources; an encyclopedic requirement which in my view is not satisfied by the reproduction of an item of hearsay in a 1974 Rolling Stone magazine article.
  • Given the above, I believe this inquiry may be better placed on the BLP noticeboard than this present one (and I may transfer it thither), but I would still be interested in editors' comments here.
  • I posted this here because you said that the Rolling Stone is not a reliable source. I believe it is highly reliable. Do you have any more comments on the reliability of the magazine or do you acknoweldge now that it is sufficiently reliable for the purpose? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but I said yesterday that even if there had never been any fact-checking problem with Rolling Stone, it wouldn't make any difference to me. The issue is not about Rolling Stone, but more about the notability of this story, which is ignored by the entire, and very copious, literature on the dude. Jayen466 19:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If you agree that it is a highly-reliable source then REDFLAG, if it were even triggered, would be satisfied. The other issues may not be dependent on the quality of the source, but that one is. Can we scratch that one off? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me my ignorance, but I can't see how redflag applies to the claims we appear to be discussing here. IMO, redflag kicks in if we say he lives on the moon or invented mayonnaise. It doesn't apply to an accusation that he might have shot some stuff in his backyard in the 1970's. I think everyone in LA did. the source and the nature of the accusation (in that it is hearsay) merit some strong scrutiny from the BLP side, but it isn't a redflag claim. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have mentioned REDFLAG if we were going to say that the guy had shot tin cans in his backyard, rather than "prized vases", which is likely to make everyone think, "What an arsehole". As it is, the whole new paragraph that includes this sentence makes a not-very-subtle point. We should not make that point by selecting all the most extreme and suggestive bits we can find, and assembling them in one paragraph for good overall effect (however tempting that is if you take a dim view of someone). We should summarise criticisms made in reliable sources. Jayen466 20:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a WP:NPOV issue then rather than a question of the reliability of sources. --neon white talk 21:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Groan. :-) That occurred to me too. Do you think we should post it to WP:NPOV/N as well then? Jayen466 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a totally valid criticism and one that I can agree with. but it doesn't make the claim that someone in the 1970's shot up priceless vases an exceptional claim. I agree that it fits the second example reasonably well, but that example is the weakest of the three. Invoking redflag means that we would need the most unimpeachable of sources to claim that this guy did this. That isn't necessary in order to argue that hearsay published in rolling stone isn't sufficient to make the claim. I personally disagree with the argument you are making for a few reasons: one, the claim we are debating would presumably go in this section and it would be among much more 'outrageous' claims. Two, this is not a private or semi-private figure. We are not dealing with the case of a marginal blp where a scurrilous rumor can destroy the subjects primary online representation (that doesn't mean that established BLP's don't need to be protected from rumor, it just means that we should be more careful with marginal BLPs). Three, while the primary source is obscured, if we treat Rolling Stone as reliable, we have to accept that they followed some journalistic practice in this biography. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for sources to be anonymous and this seems to be a case where those reasons apply. Protonk (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought REDFLAG might come into it in terms of the reported statement being potentially "embarrassing" in the given context. The fact that the subject made other outrageous claims at the time shouldn't lower our thresholds for inclusion to an "anything goes, it doesn't matter, he's nuts (or worse) anyway" kind of thing. That is a slippery slope, and we could end up looking silly or irresponsible ourselves.
  • If I read you correctly, you're saying that the argument that hearsay reported in Rolling Stone may not be sufficient to make this particular claim can be debated on its own merits, independently of whether REDFLAG applies or not.
  • I agree that there are often good reasons why journalists do not name their sources, but in this case it involves some speculation on our part as to why the reporter did not give any name – he had, after all, no compunction about naming the other source, in the preceding sentence on the brother's balloon-shooting exploits. We'll never know why he didn't name the source – it may indeed be that he wished to protect the source, or it may be that he never spoke to the actual person originating the story.
  • There is one thing I don't understand in what you wrote above – what is the "second example" you are referring to? Cheers, Jayen466 22:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
When I said "second example", I was referring to the three basic cases of "redflag" claims in WP:V. The first is suprising or important claims not covered in mainstream press (a new car that gets 150 mpg, etc). The third refers to claims so sweeping and important that their truth would dramatically alter public perception of the subject. The second, and weakest, is "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended". Even if we accept that what one may view as 'potentially embarrassing' can fall under this category, we would have to view as this classification of redflag claims as the weakest of the lot. In this case, we should read the entire 'category' in context.
I don't buy slippery slope arguments on wikipedia. Just look at the conversation we are having. Hundreds of sentences are being exchanged between people with equal power to edit an article over the inclusion of a sentence. NO PART of this conversation would result in the elimination of this process. If, at the end of the day, we decide it is acceptable to treat the rolling stone as a sufficient source for this article, we will not be required to publish libel or eliminate BLP restrictions, EVEN ON OTHER PARTS OF THIS ARTICLE. There is no slippery slope. Consensus discussion will continue as it has before. Whichever side "wins" this argument, it will be hard fought and no other argument will be made easier in "winning" or "losing" today.
As for the speculation about the anonymity of the source. I accept this as reasonable skepticism but I implore you to think about the accusation you are making. Most (not all) newspapers and magazines have a procedure for sourcing claims made by anonymous actors. Some of these procedures are more strict than others and some organizations (see Ny Times in 2002-2003) do not follow these procedures in the clutch. But odds are some sort of exchange occurred between the reporter and his editor where the reporter showed his editor who the source was and they both agreed that the protection of the source was more important than identification of the accuser. That process is at the core of why and how we declare things to be reliable sources. Furthermore, Rolling Stone is a lot of things but it isn't a tabloid rag. They don't make their business in publishing celebrity rumors or gossip (although they publish more of it than, say, Time magazine). If we really want to pull the string on the accusation of falsified claims, then we should look into Richard Levine himself. Does he have any libel cases raised over his work? Does he have any pieces corrected heavily after publication? Etc. I'm not comfortable resting this on the assumption that a reporter would have just as easily lied than reported something truthfully. What would have been his motivation? What would have been the motivation of the editor to allow the claim about the BB gun (which we presume is true because the source is named?) AND a fake claim about shooting vases? Isn't the accusation that the subject shot at disciples with a bb gun more damning than shooting vases?
I don't like having my arguments misinterpreted. When I make the claim that the subject is not a marginal BLP and that the subject is also not a choir boy, I do not mean to say that "anything goes" with the article. I mean, specifically, that we have context within which to make nuanced statements or balance statements out (as he is not a marginal BLP). I mean that in an article where the subject has been accused of running a jonestown style cult, spending millions of dollars, and various other unsavory deeds as a teenager (an article, mind you, that handles the subjects with kid gloves. This line especially is interesting to me). We have a source which asserts a relatively minor accusation and we are treating it as if this is the only time the subject has ever been criticized.
To sum up. I can see where you are coming from. I don't think our views on this are diametrically opposed. But I don't reach the same conclusions as you. Given the nature of the subject and the source at hand, I don't have a problem with the 1 line draft proposed above based on the article in Rolling stone. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your feedback. To be fair, I checked into Levine to the extent I was able to, and I found no sign of controversy over the more than 30 years elapsed since he wrote this article (which is a long time). I am not saying I think Levine would have lied, as Glass did writing for Rolling Stone, but suspected that he might have thought it fine to include a second- or third-hand story told him, of the "a friend of mine heard that once upon a time ..." type. And one correction: the person shooting at the balloons was not Rawat, but his oldest brother. Jayen466 23:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
To be fair to Rolling Stone, the offending material that Glass printed was largely in The New Republic. While he published articles in rolling Stone at the time, no one has found specific fault in those articles along the lines of his TNR falsifications. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, their fact-checking did not detect Glass' fabrications. But following the same line of thought you put forward below, I also came to the conclusion that the author we're concerned with here appeared basically trustworthy. It remains a fact that according to both scholars and UN reports, media reporting on cults has often been grotesquely distorted, especially in the time period we're concerned with here, but at the end of the day, I think I am prepared to go along with your and Will's judgment on this one, based on the discussion to date. Jayen466 00:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
When I suggested to look for controversy I meant that perhaps the author had a history of falsifying information. Often (just like plaragism from students), it is hard to commit such a cardinal sin only once. Eventually the bad apples get found. I don't think that is the case with Richard Levine, but all we can say is that he hasn't been caught for flagrantly violating some professional ethic. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding REDFLAG, the more important point is that the subject did outrageous things. Other sources report him pushing followers into swimming pools pool repeatedly, trying to run them over, closing power car windows on their necks, spreading mortar on their faces and applying tile, etc, etc. We don't need to report all of that in the article, but it is sufficient background to show that the incident was not out of character or surprising. As for the unnamed source, I can't see a reason why he'd name a mere member of the movement. He names another follower who holds a position of importance. The reporter was covering an event attended by something like 20,000 people; I expect he interviewed many people, if only briefly. His article, perhaps the most comprehensive coverage of the festival, is already more than 16,000 words. It's easy to imagine the editor taking a red-pencil to a relatively unimportant piece of information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

His followers bask in his jocularity, feeling privileged when the guru pushes a devotee into the swimming pool. Or looking for the message when he grabs a mason's trowel and tiles a follower's face.

  • CARTER "The Guru Who Minds His Mother", MALCOLM N. CARTER. Associated Press THE STARS AND STRIPES, November 4, 1973 Page A6

I thought you had a copy of that source - I think I sent it to you a while back. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I do (I remember the title), but it's obviously one I haven't read yet. ;-) Jayen466 00:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Like most wire service reports, the individual newspapers edit for length and add their own headlines. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
On the narrow issue of whether Rolling Stone is an RS, the answer is yes. It's a relatively prestigious, fact-checked pub that publishes reputable stories. IronDuke 04:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Prometheus Books

Resolved

We are having a discussion as to whether this publisher is a reliable source and an academic publisher here. Input is appreciated. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Prometheus (like many publishers) publishes some academic books, and some non-academic books. The academic books are reliable sources, as a rule. The fiction books (e.g., the Pyr imprint) are, well, fiction. Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Prometheus has an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Particularly relevant to this case, they are very well-regarded in the humanities for their publications about social phenomena. Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Prometheus is absolutely a reliable publisher and very well regarded. DreamGuy (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

microworks.net

Resolved
 – Protonk (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have two sources for which I would like a second opinion on because they have been questioned at an rfa I'm involved in:

I can confirm independently that the information present in the table at the bottom of the second link is reliable, but as an involved party I would like a second opinion before claiming these two to comply with the RS criteria. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that as it is self-published, there would have to be some outstanding reason (great reputation or known scholar in the field etc.) to treat this as a RS. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Off the cuff, no. Here's why: there is no shortage of easily available sources on Iowa class battleships specifically and the USN in the pacific war generally. Thousands of books, articles, journals, and movies exist documenting the subject. I would say that RS exceptions should be carved out in the case that no other source exists or that the non-RS source is the best source on the subject available to the editor. Neither of these two conditions happen to be the case here. From a naval history standpoint I contest about 50% of the author's suppositions in the second link. His interpretation of the value of the Iowa class and the reason for their repeated recall is not accurate. I can't speak for the information at the bottom of the table but that kind of stuff doesn't lend credibility to the source. Protonk (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So in summary the link(s) need to go. Is that correct? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, before I send you off with just a "RAWR, that source sucked!" response, let me suggest a few options:
Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It helps immensly. I have Iowa class battleship up at FAR at the moment to help locate and fix these little FA 1c violations, and every unreliable source id'ed and removed is a net benifit. Although most of the sources you have provided here have been added to the article at some point or another there are a few I was unaware of, so thats a net gain for article R&D. Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

animepro.com and jumpland.com

Is this blog by the artist good enough to suitably reference a statement saying an artist attended a convention abroad (Germany)? I'm not too well versed on the policy on blogs.

http://www.jumpland.com/blog/?author=6

Itzjustdrama (drama?) 01:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

b.baidu.com

I used http://b.baidu.com/ as a reference for an "inline citations". One editor deleted the link and claimed that b.baidu.com is not a reliable source. According to Wikipedia:External links Important Point 1. the guideline does not apply to inline citations, which appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. I believe I am using the external link according to the guideline and the reference should not be removed.

I was also threatened that I would be blocked from wiki if I used that external link. Can somebody shed some light?—Preceding unsigned comment added by E intelligence (talk • contribs)

Ok, first, you've violated the three revert rule. I'd suggest you step back from that page. Second, while you may technically be correct about what WP:EL applies to, baidu.com doesn't 'look' like a reliable source (granted, I can't read chinese). In that case, removing it as not reliable is in line with a very widely agreed upon policy, WP:BLP. I don't think you are spamming, but you need to back away and bring your discussion to the talk page. coming here with questions about the source is a good step. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the link you're really looking for, Protonk, is Baidu Baike. The article states that it is (1) an "Internet encyclopedia espousing equality, collaboration, and sharing" (w/cite at end of statement) and (2) "The articles are written and edited by registered users and reviewed by behind-the-scenes administrators before release." Although the site claims that it is not a wiki, a statement of particular note is the following: "Amongst its wiki-like functions, the site supports editing, commenting, and printing of articles." As explicitly stated in WP:SPS, which applies to inline citations, "open wikis [...] and similar sources are largely not acceptable."
To prove that Baidu Baike can be edited by anyone, and is essentially a wiki, I created an account on the site, because only registered users can edit. Fine. So I hopped onto a page about the age of the universe. Screenshot Notice that I put a red box around four random Chinese characters. Let's take a closer look. Screenshot of closer look Those two words in Chinese mean "edit" or "modify". If you dont' believe me, what better place to go than Chinese Wikipedia? I randomly went to a page, and got myself to an article about India. Great country. The red box in the following screenshot shows where the edit tab is on Chinese Wikipedia. Screenshot (If you still don't believe me, take a peek at Chinese Wikipedia, click a random article and see which one leads you to the Edit box.) If you compared image 2 to image 3, surprise, surprise, they match, thereby proving the point that Baidu Baike is basically a wiki, and per WP:SPS, it should not be cited. Pandacomics (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. that pretty well closes the door on the WP:RS issue. E intelligence, is there anything else we can help you with? Protonk (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Impact factors

Resolved

Hola,

Anyone know of a quick and easy way of establishing the impact factor of journals, and in particular comparison with other journals in the same discipline? I'm trying to use scimagojr but it's less than intuitive. Any suggestions? WLU (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be warry of impact factors. They have the potential for abuse. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I dunno easy ways to do it without linking to web of science, a website or doing some OR. There are some papers in certain fields that attempt this kind of analysis formally. My guess would be find those and cite them. Protonk (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's for a discussion of whether a topic (satanic ritual abuse) is WP:FRINGE; part of the discussion is whether the "it's real" side is still being reported and discussed credibly in peer-reviewed journals and in my mind high impact journals. If it's fringe and ignored by the mainstream, it's undue weight to give much emphasis as the mainstream of psychology, criminology, religion and sociology have moved on and no longer give it attention. It's a tough problem - when the mainstream has started ignoring something, how do you prove it? WLU (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not an easy problem. Fringe issues don't usually get scholarly attention, because most scholars won't write an article saying "X view is out of the mainstream". My suggestion still stands. There should be some research (usually by lazy academics who need to publish for tenure) ranking the journal. If your source appears in a journal that is ranked somewhere above the bottom, you can use that study (the impact study) to vouch for the reliability of the scholarly work you are quoting. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • More to the point, here is an answer. The Social Science Citation Index is an index published on the Web of Science. Instructions on how to search it can be found here. A precise link to the index is here, now titled "Journal Citation Reports". Some follow-on research can be found here. that paper is probably not accessible to someone outside the field but the abstract explains the basic idea. The method used in the paper allowed the researchers to break down the Social Sciences into largely distinct groups (with little formal interaction) and to provide a method to map citations and citation weight within those groups. Arguments AGAINST using impact factors or variants on impact factors are out there, most notably Seglen. Be advised that those arguments largely talk about naive use of impact factors as a measurement tool and the research by Leydesdorff is meant to provide a better solution. If you want to use the impact factor itself and not the various complicated methods above, instructions on how to do so (without relying on some external academic to do it) can be found linked from here. Does that help? Protonk (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to review before I can say if it solves my problem or not, but a better place to look alone is a huge help. Thanks very much, I greatly appreciate it. WLU (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
As Opthof 1997 (PMID 9059521) says, "the impact factor does not permit quality assessment of an individual paper" (emphasis in the original). So I don't see how journal impact factors will provide useful information for the discussion WLU refers to. Eubulides (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what he's doing exactly, but if he is attempting to determine if a journal is mainstream or not, the impact factor will be a sufficiently good judge for our purposes. If he wants to track individual researchers or papers, some of the other methods linked above might work. I assumed from his question that he wanted to 'vet' certain journals as reliable before using articles from them as RS for fringe discussions. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how that sort of "vetting" is compatible with the point that Opthof makes, which is that the impact factor does not permit quality assessment of articles. The impact factor rates journals, not articles; it is not designed for rating articles, and (as Opthof notes) there are good reasons for saying that impact factor is not suitable for rating articles. Eubulides (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Impact factor will not determine the "quality" of any given article. Absolutely correct (but neither will "peer-review" or "academic publishing house" determine the actual "quality" of a given source--they only suggest that we can trust certain sources more than others). What impact factor can suggest is how mainstream a given journal may be, and in a debate which pivots precisely around whether or not a certain POV is mainstream such a determination is entirely apropos. I guess I'm not entirely sure what the relevance of the above disagreement is to WLU's question. Please elaborate.PelleSmith (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Impact factor correlates with how often-cited a journal is, but that is not the same as reliability or as "mainstreamedness" of the journal, much less of the individual articles published by that journal. Sure, journals like Science are both highly-cited and mainstream, but if one uses impact factor to argue that (for example) Kumar et al. 2007 (PMID 17141968) is more reliable than Kung et al. 2008 (PMID 18544277) because the JCR impact factor of Medical Hypotheses (1.276) is much higher than that of Clinical and Investigative Medicine (0.475), then one will be sadly mistaken. Eubulides (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That is why I said it may "suggest" how mainstream a journal is. It is clearly not the same as "reliability" nor is it the same as a measure of how mainstream something is (to my knowledge no such measure exists in any way that is also applied systematically to a majority of peer-reviewed journals in the social sciences). My contention is simply that impact factor is the closest thing we have to such measures ... the best way to suggest that one journal may be more mainstream than another. We may infer that it is read more widely and/or at least that its findings have a higher "impact" within the field than a journal with a much lower rating (clearly individual articles may deviate from the mean). It clearly isn't perfect. There are other troubles as well, when in this debate we have several publications from fields with journals that are measured for impact (various psychology related subfields, social work, criminology, nursing, anthropology, sociology) and then others that are not (history, folklore, religion). Impact is only factored within the journals (and subfields) included so if what seems like a rather obscure specialty journal in psychology has a "higher" impact factor than what seems like a mainstream journal in sociology its says much more about what is included in the database than about actual impact across the academy. So I guess I'm doing a bit of a 180 here. The idea of the impact factor is still useful, but in our particular situation it may just cause more problems than it solves.PelleSmith (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above and more to the point, as editorial control and third party review are the cornerstones of RS, I presume that asserting that the venue for publication is reliable is a proxy for judging the reliability of the article, if only on wikipedia. Once individual articles are used, we may judge them on their merits, but getting them in the door by mentioning the impact factor of their publication venue does not seem inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input all, I would not use the information to adjust the mainpage based solely on an impact factor. It's more to feed the discussion on the talk page. I've ended up realizing that three very reliable sources point to the discussion on that particular topic being over more than 10 years ago, so IF may be useful but ultimately there's already better sources there. Eub - I'm completely in agreement with your point, I would not use the IF to compare individual articles and discount them on the basis of that alone. It's the aggregate of where the newer publications are showing up that is more of interest to me. PelleSmith covers my concerns and thoughts here, I don't see much else to add or discuss. Thanks again for the suggestions and links. WLU (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization

Hello All,

Can the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO, unaffiliated with the united nations) be considered a reliable source when it comes to alleged human right violations? Apparently, it is a well-sized NGO with representation for a very large amount of minorities. One would expect it to be well-versed in these issues. please see [48] for more details. MiS-Saath (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I know that isn't the answer you wanted but it is the answer I've got. We can treat UNPO like Greenpeace, another NGO that has a strong research staff and worldwide reach. Leaving aside POV issues with greenpeace, the research documents they produce are on the borderline of reliability. Like the American Enterprise Institute, they exercise control over who publishes but they clearly have an interest in what the result is. their research is cited so far as their the reasearcher is an expert in the field, but generally a piece of published research would be preferred. They certainly have a stake in not producing drek (Greenpeace, AEI and UNPO, that is)--their reputation in their respective fields as a publisher of research is on the line if they produce a blatantly false report, but that is not the same as independent editorial control. So I would cite it in limited fashion and on issues where there isn't another source available to verify the same claims. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That's actually quite a good answer. What would you say to using UNPO to replicate UNPO's claims? i.e., adding the information "UNPO alleges that..." while taking due caution not to present it as fact? Human right issues are anyway almost never represented as factual incidents, but rather as allegations, as they deal with multifaceted and very complex material. MiS-Saath (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That is sometimes ok, as long as we aren't using that as a replacement for solid sourcing of criticism. The use of phrases like that in an article is less a reliable source issue and more of a wording/NPOV issue. I would use that sort of claim sparingly and when I used it, I would say "UNPO, a non-governmental human rights organization, alleges that..." Always valuable to characterize the source of an accusation. Protonk (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with human rights reporting is that it inherently multifaceted. I don't think i have ever seen an article where human rights issues are stated as uncontested facts. MiS-Saath (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, but criticism from this organization is not different (from a wikipedia standpoint) from criticism from any organization with a feeler in world affairs. The point I was trying to make is that the inchoate nature of human rights should not be read as an invitation to introduce criticism from marginally reliable sources. It is probably ok to use this source but be mindful of the fact that UNPO controls what they publish, so when printing it, we should characterize them, note that the statement is their 'opinion' (broadly defined) and make sure not to lend it undue weight. Something like "UNPO, a non-governmental human rights organization, alleges that..." (what I wrote about) would do that. the questions of where and how often this sort of statement should be made are better solved on the article talk page itself or on WP:NPOV/N. We can't really give a blanket declaration on that part of the question. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I found a gross historical fabrication in UNPO which I have responded with sources here: [49]. They claim that the name Khuzestan was adopted in 1936, where as it has been a named that has been continously used. Furthermore, I note that UNPO does not provide the author's name for its content. It is unclear who wrote their articles and what academic credentials they posses. --Nepaheshgar 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Citizen journalism website?

Resolved

I had a question concerning the usability of a 'citizen journalism' website called OhMyNews International [50]. A rather inflammatory article in that website is linked and used as a source in Wikipedia Review. My view is that this is self published content prohibited by WP:SELFPUB and that this site also falls short of the requirements of WP:V. However, the opposing view is that since there is 'editing' of content, this is not self-published.

My thinking is that edited self-published content is still self-published content. The reference to editing can be found in the FAQ of the site [51]. When one submits an article to this site, it is edited 'thoroughly' for grammar and usage and then published if it is not libelous. I don't feel this comes anywhere near the requirement of verifiability, in terms of fact checking and such. Essentially this is just a very nice, nay laudable, venture that lets people speak out on the web. But I don't see it being allowable as a source for Wikipedia articles. Am I mistaken on this at all? Cheers, Janeyryan (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OhMyNews is not a reliable source, by any stretch of the imagination. It's the equivalent of a water cooler conversation or some random blog by anyone off the street... a little bit of copy editing doesn't magically make any of the people writing for them notable, reliable, experts, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Open publishing sites, such as OhMyNews, Indymedia, and Slashdot are not reliable sources. WP:RS requires an established mechanism for fact-checking and accuracy, which these sites do not have. I am aware that OhMyNews stories have occasionally been picked up by mainstream Korean media, in which case the secondary media reports could be reliable sources, but this is (I assume) not one of those cases.

A definite no-no for all articles and information, not just such information as is covered by BLP. (I'd guess I know what its being used for, and it should be removed post-haste.) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, we take information from a wide variety of sources and while there are some caveats on the use of self-published materials, they are far from being completely prohibited as a source. You could also argue that the article selection process of these citizen journalism sites is not entirely different from that of an academic journal, and the clause that is sourced is the sort of obvious prose that nobody would challenge if it was simply written with no cite. We don't want to get into a situation where an "alternative" source is worse than no source.
However, the cite is really a WP:EL to something that's about a specific matter and is "only indirectly related to the article's subject", and it should be removed for that reason. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"You could also argue that the article selection process of these citizen journalism sites is not entirely different from that of an academic journal" Not and be taken seriously. Academic journals don't print anything and everything and any topic anyone submits. The only situation I can see where something on that site could be a reliable source was if it was by someone who was a reliable source in a book or paper or journal or etc., and in which case why would they use such a crappy site to post their stuff when they have access to publication methods far superior to that? DreamGuy (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Different only by degree. For instance the example of Slashdot; they are sent hundreds, maybe thousands of articles a day, but they only choose to publish a dozen or so. You could make a case that the editors of Slashdot are experts and consitute an "editorial board". I am of course referring to the short articles themselves, not the comment pages. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As a comment, there are plenty of situations where an "alternative source" of this nature IS worse that no source. If all we have is an unreliable source for a claim (in, say, a BLP), then we remove the claim entirely. Lots of stuff only gets published in "alternative press". some of it will NEVER be published in a mainstream press, even if it is accurate and true. That sucks. that's part of how the world works--a part that is influence by bias, inertia and close mindedness. Despite that, we aren't in the business of rectifying that particular problem with the world. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In your example of the BLP, we would also remove the unsourced claim. What I'm referring to is the situation when we have something so minor, maybe a choice of adjective or preposition, that nobody would ever ask for a source for, but if you add a footnote to a self-published source that goes into more detail on the idea, then is that somehow worse than so source at all? ( Assuming there are no other problems with the linked article such as being inflammatory, copyvio, etc ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, we source contentious statements, so if a source is there, it is certainly there for a reason. and in the case of sources like this, no source and no claim or no source and a {{fact}} tag is better than sourcing an unreliable source. In this case, this is an unreliable source, so we are better off leaving it out. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It's also possible to have both a cite and a "fact" tag to encourage people to find a better source. However in the original case the cite is really camouflage for an inflammatory external link, which isn't directly about the article, subsection, or the clause being footnoted, and I support its removal. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Circular sourcing at Luna Park Sydney

A little while back, an anonymous editor added information on the appearance of the Luna Park Sydney amusement park in the television series Number 96 (TV series). Not being able to find any independent, published material about this appearance, I tagged it as {{citation needed}}.

What the adding user has done is created a blog entry about the tagging, and then used this blog entry to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luna_Park_Sydney&diff=229775337&oldid=228335908 source the article. I'm not sure that creating a blog entry for the specific purpose of providing citations is in the spirit of WP:RS, but I want someone who knows about it all better than I to make the call and advise me what to do next. -- saberwyn 02:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Circular references are a no-no. Remove it and replace the fact tag. Even if it wasn't a circular reference, blogs aren't reliable sources without some exceptions listed at WP:SPS. Protonk (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the source, added a note on the user's talk page, and a more detailed explanation on the article's talk page. -- saberwyn 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my sincere apologies, Saberwyn. I thought I was doing a useful thing. I was the person concerned who added the original piece (but certainly not anonymously, as far as i knew - although you've now delated my real name from my footnotes). I originally added the material many months ago and, because I wasn't able to create a footnote properly at the time, I added my source (ie. the DVD set, with its full publication details) into my text segment. Yesterday I saw that my entry had been tagged "citation needed", but so too had the title of the DVD. (So how does one cite a DVD? A link to the publisher wouldn't confirm that Luna Park footage was in it; you still have to see the DVD footage to confirm the information.) I didn't link Wikipedia to the Youtube footage (linked on my blog, though) because I figured someone had put that on Youtube (from the DVD) without copyright permission. Also, I'm saddened to realise that blogs are not acceptable for sourcing information. (I've had numerous occasions where other Wikipedia editors have linked to my blog entries, on a range of media topics, and usually without my permission. Should I now go and remove all these citations too?) I run the online official "Number 96" home page (since 1996, recognised as a socially significant website by the Pandora Archive of the National Library - but then, it doesn't get independent review process either.) It runs with full permission of the show's production house, but I've run out of room on my webspace, so use my blog to create updates. Are you saying that if the information on this 1976 television appearance of "Number 96" characters at Luna Park was on my website, instead of my blog, that it would be acceptable? I have my unpublished book manuscript on "Number 96"; what a shame it was eventually rejected by publishers in the 90s, because then I could have referenced that. Therin of Andor (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A few things: no one needs permission to link to anything on the web. It's uncool to hotlink images or media but wikipedia doesn't have the ability to do that. As for hyperlinks, no permission is required or expected. Second, blogs are to be used in an extremely limited fashion because they are just another form of self publication. WP:SPS offers some exceptions to this rule of thumb but by and large it is to be followed. Lastly, citing a DVD is quite common, you may use {{cite video}}. I hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotha

Can anybody tell me if the 2003 Almanach de Gotha (186th edition; ISBN 0953214249) would qualify as a WP:RS someone has tagged it as an unreliable source in the Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia article. To me it would seem to be acceptable to cite from the book. - dwc lr (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The accuracy of the recent editions of the Gotha has been called into question. I doubt it would be appropriate to use for contentious claims, except to indicate what one side of a dispute says. On the other hand, it is a reference work, and it can't be wrong about everything. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. This is all I've done in this case just cite two dates for the Romanov Family Association recognising Nicholas Romanov as senior male I didn't think it was controversial. Seems a bit harsh to rule the book out completely as a source which I believe was implied from the edit summary and being tagged as an unreliable source. - dwc lr (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Citing Kennedy's Almanach de Gotha in support of the contention that he is the senior member of the Romanov family is unacceptably contentious, for five reasons: 1. Nicholas is an admitted rival with Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia (and perhaps others) for headship of the Romanov dynasty, and the book is being cited in a way that tends to bolster his claim relative to hers in that rivalry 2. The Kennedy book has a reputation for being inaccurate which, in a reference work -- whose only function is as an authority on dynastic data -- renders it unreliable ipso facto 3. The datum for which this book is cited relates to headship of the House of Romanov, yet the Kennedy book's stance on that issue has been questioned. Specifically, how and why it makes the claim that it does has been the subject of an open, online dispute among genealogists, monarchists, and historians such that there are at least two contradictory allegations about the provenance of its position, one claiming that the book's editor was told the information by Nicholas and his brother, the other that the book's allegation derives from the publisher's a priori bias. How are we to know who to believe about the book's contents? (see links on the Nicholas Romanov talk page, cited in my edit summary on his article). Since the Kennedy book is cited as source of the claim that two votes were taken declaring Nicholas Romanov the senior member of the Romanov family by the Romanoff Family Association, yet that Association's website states that its by-laws have always forbidden it to take sides concerning dynastic claims to Russia's defunct throne, the allegation of such a vote is an extraordinary claim for which Wikipedia requires extraordinary substantiation -- beyond what can be provided by a source with a reputation for inaccuracy. 5. Wikipedia's rule is that the burden of substantiating the reliability of a challenged source rests upon the person who cites it, not upon those who challenge it; I called for an unrelated, reputable source to verify the claims for which the Kennedy book is cited, yet no back-up source has been offered. Therefore the Kennedy book can't be deemed reliable in this instance or acceptable for this purpose. Surely there's got to be a better source that we can agree is reliable for these two claims? FactStraight (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So effectively your issue is with the "exceptional" claim and not the source which is more than acceptable generally. I will respond to your points more thoroughly at the Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia talk page where you are citing from a newsgroups to dismiss the reliability of the source. - dwc lr (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. No. My fundamental objection, as we've discussed at Talk: Almanach de Gotha, is to the misappropriation of the gravitas of the original Almanach de Gotha -- which built up a par excellence reputation for dynastic accuracy & authoritativeness over a period of nearly 250 years -- by and for the Kennedy version (published 1998-2004) which is riddled with errors and anomalies to a degree that is notoriously inconsistent with the original's reputation. Here it strikes me that the original's reputation is again being misused to bolster a claim supported by Kennedy's Gotha in direct opposition to the position taken in the original Gotha's final publication (1944), as well as in opposition to the position taken (in 1968) by the publication which is widely considered by genealogists and monarchists to be the Gotha's real successor, the Fürstliche Hauser series of the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. The point is not that Nicholas's claim is untenable, but that the Kennedy AdG has no business being cited in Wikipedia in support of that claim.
  2. Newsgroup commentaries in general may not be cited in Wiki articles to substantiate an allegation, but there is no ban on their use as sources of information on the reliabilty of published sources. Whether or not a source is reliable is significantly dependent upon its reputation among experts & scholars. Alt.Talk.Royalty (ATR) happens to be where several of them have expressed their opinion on the source in question. In this case, ATR (and gen.medieval.genealogy and, perhaps, rec.heraldry) was, until a few years ago, a place where some of the most respected and published royal genealogists and monarchists habitually analyzed and debated royalty-related matters. Your ATR cite, at Talk, of the distinguished royal genealogist William A. Reitwiesner is a perfectly germane and valid defense of Kennedy's Gotha. The problem is that WAR's opinion is outnumbered by most other reputable genealogists who've expressed an opinion. Most not only consider Kennedy's Gotha unacceptably error-prone, but several have enumerated examples of inaccuracy, sloppiness and unprofessionalism. Posted on ATR immediately above the Reitwiesner comment to which you chose to link, is a typical critical comment by the much respected royal genealogist Daniel Willis, whose works are often cited in Wikipedia's royalty articles.
  3. Experts often disagree with a non-fiction work's conclusions while still considering it a reputable effort. That is not the case with the Kennedy Gotha, which is criticized predominantly for excessive errors of fact. Still, if you dismiss Guy Stair Sainty's critique of the book as biased because he disagrees with its entry on the Romanovs (although he contributed to many of its other articles), you must also dimiss William A. Reitwiesner's -- who also contributed to the book and minimizes criticisms of it because it takes what he calls a "non-standard" position on Russia's dynastic rivalry. That only cancels out two "critics". But Kennedy's Gotha has also been rejected as a reputable source by several regular editors of Wiki's royalty articles (see here and here and here), whereas its reliability has been asserted mostly by, well, you. We're all entitled to our opinions, but this work's reliability has been sufficiently challenged that other less disputed sources should be relied upon -- particularly to substantiate controversial claims -- rather than an attempt be made to compel acceptance of this particular source.
  4. The peculiarity of the Kennedy Gotha's reference to the status of Prince Nicholas is illustrated by the alternative sources given on the talk page to substantiate Kennedy's usage: neither, in fact, does so. Kennedy's Gotha states that the Prince was twice elected as "senior male representative" of the Romanoff Family Association (in which he already held the elected office of president) by that organization's members. But the Belgian Knights Templar website (and, in self-contradiction, the Kennedy Gotha's website) states rather that he was chosen "head of the imperial house" (chef de la maison impériale), while the French Genroy website says that he was chosen "claimant to the Russian throne" (prétendant au trône de Russie). Yet these are 3 different assertions. The confusion was inevitable (and deliberate?) given the vagueness of the phrase "senior male representative", which sounds like the usual term for a dynastic and genealogical concept/position which is, however, inherited and to which one cannot be elected. That's why extraordinary substantiation for this "election" is called for, given the Association's by-laws forbidding it from favoring any one claimant to the Russian throne.
  5. Finally, in light of the above challenges to the Kennedy Gotha's reliability as a source, the burden of evidence in defence of its suitability as a Wikipedia source rests upon whoever cites it -- not its challengers. Asserting that one personally considers it reliable is neither convincing nor sufficient. FactStraight (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this has been resolved the book can be cited but if something proves contentious (such as the dates in this case) other sources should be provided as well. - dwc lr (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can the image be OR?

User:Krzyzowiec keeps inserting this image [52] into the article National Revival of Poland with the description "The Nazi and EU flags being burned by NOP members" and references with statement with this source [53]. Problem is that, the link provided does not give any description to this image. So we don't have any reliable source that these people are even NOP members (there are no distinctive NOP symbols such as Falanga visible in the picture) or that they are indeed burning this flag (we might guess it but we don't see it in picture yet). Another problem the source of this picture - it is an article from student website, written by person who apparently is known for antisemitic remarks such as "Moze i jestem antysemita ale moj antysemityzm skierowany jest przeciwko cwaniakom izraelskim ktozy mysla ze moga reprezentowac caly swiat zydowski" ("Maybe I am antisemite, but my antisemitism is directed at Israeli bastards who think that they represent the whole Jewish world"[54]). IMHO this picture and its description is WP:OR and violates WP:RS and WP:V and should be removed. Opinions of uninvolved editors are eagerly awaited. M0RD00R (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The source definitely seems to be an unreliable source. To be specific, it seems to be a self-published source that does not qualify for our use of such sources. It also seems to be an extremist source making it a NPOV concern. On another note, the origin and creator of the image appears to be unknown, making the use of such a non-free image problematic. Vassyana (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Primary sourced images should always be avoided in my opinion. If the picture does not appear in reliable sources then it should be removed. To quote the relevant policy WP:NOR, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." --neon white talk 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Karnac Books

Anyone know anything about Karnac books? Reliable? As with all my other posts to this page, it's a concern over satanic ritual abuse and the weight given to the existence of the phenomenon (in this case, it's the weight given to testimony of patients uncorroborated by forensic or criminal evidence/investigations; this is a significant concern voiced on that page). WLU (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Karnac has a reputation for republishing both influential and controversial works of psychology. They tend to drift towards towards the fringey and controversial side. They are most strongly associated with the field of psychoanalysis, through which they have been associated with the fringe field of recovered memory. That said, some of their published books are certainly reliable and authoritative within their segment of the field, but this is largely limited to reprints older works by "big name" authors. I should note that if the publisher's work is being used as representative of the psychoanalysis/recovered memory view, it is almost certainly reliable for that purpose. Vassyana (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think questions of reliability should primarily fall to the publisher, unless the publisher is known to be highly unreliable. Many are going to have a number of books that are reliable in general and unreliable in general, depending upon author, and of course reliability largely depends upon context. Karnac overall looks hit and miss, like a lot of publishers. Would such a book be a reliable source to the idea that some author made a claim? Sure. But does that make the claim itself reliable, notable, realistic or free of WP:UNDUE weight concerns? No. You can have a reliable source proving someone said something without it meaning that that something belongs in any old article, or any old wording. Certain people want to try confuse the issue and say that anything that can be cited must be in an article and then word it any which way they want... that's not how policies work here. DreamGuy (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That interpretation pretty much matches what I've seen of the reference and how it's used. DreamGuy, I'm of the opinion that publisher is key for reliability, but I also think it would be undue weight to place much emphasis on how it's used on SRA (basically another "believe the children/patients" rallying cry) but it does have a place...right next to the other "believe the children/patients" references. A source can be reliable but still have undue weight placed upon it. I have no doubt that every effort will be made to place a lot of weight on this source, but I am certainly of the opinion that it's not the majority. WLU (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with a dangerous fringe theory published in a reliable source?

This is not a hypothetical matter; I know of two cases, independent but somewhat related to one another, where a fringe theorist has managed to publish in a legitimate scientific journal by - in one case - making claims regarding data in their possession, but not actually including that data, and - in the second case - submitting false data. The lack of judgment by the reviewers in both cases is regrettable (they were reviewing something outside their expertise), but that's besides the point. The issue is complicated by one VERY important thing: virtually all of the subsequent refutation and condemnation of these works has taken place in online discussion groups (in one case, a co-author of one of the papers disavowed the work, essentially claiming he'd been tricked), and no one has bothered to publish the criticisms (basically, the fringe theory is so bizarre, and so obviously false, that no reputable journal would waste space on any refutations). As such, what we have are reliable sources that have published unreliable information, but there are no citations that can be given to the expert opinions that this information IS unreliable. I should also emphasize that this is not a trivial or purely academic issue: to give a hypothetical but very similar example, imagine if someone published a study that "demonstrated" that an "unknown species of moth" is going around at night and laying eggs in people's nostrils, producing larvae that "migrate to the optic nerve and cause blindness". It constitutes a public health scare, first and foremost, and also has other potentially severe negative side-effects, such as if people start saturating their homes with pesticides to keep these imaginary moths at bay. If no one in the scientific community bothers to refute such a fringe theory, should the proponents of the theory be allowed to use Wikipedia policy to insist that since their theory appears in a reliable source, and since there are no reliable sources contradicting it, they should be allowed to insert their "findings" unopposed in the moth article? Like it or not, most scientists DO NOT CARE what appears in Wikipedia, even though more people read Wikipedia - and BELIEVE what is written there - than read or believe scientific literature. Myself, I would like to believe that when public health is at stake, that Wikipedia could be more conscientious and responsible than simply allowing crackpots to alter articles because their theories snuck past peer reviewers who were asleep at the switch, and have not been contradicted in print. How, EXACTLY, should responsible editors act in such cases? Is there anything in Wikipedia policy that we can use to justify the exclusion of unrefuted falsehoods? Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't just happen in science-related article and it would be nice if dissenters would write with encyclopedias in mind! However, didn't anyone even write a letter to the editor? Since those ARE approved by editors, they should pass muster. If you are on these lists you might encourage someone to write something on a scientific blog which also might pass muster. Carol Moore 18:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Just because one paper has sneaked in under the radar of peer review does not mean that we as editors must be credulous about it. Our own reliable source policy says a LOT about how to look at primary sources (and indeed this is what you are describing: a case of WP:PSTS) and also when to apply incredulity (WP:REDFLAG). POV-pushers are not allowed to game the system simply by trumpeting singular publications. They must make the case that their proposed wording/text/ideas are widely known and discussed before we can include them (see WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE for more). If no one in the scientific community has bothered to comment on an idea (even if said idea has appeared in ostensibly peer-reviewed journals) then the idea is not notable nor is it prominent enough for inclusion in Wikipedia except, perhaps, if it is in an article that is devoted to the fringe topic itself and then it must be determined that the fringe topic has received note from either popular press notice or through some sort of controversy, for example. The only way it should be included in a "mainstream" page is if it is determined that the idea represents a more-or-less "legitimate" minority idea within an academic community, and this should be done by showing that someone who doesn't support the theory has noticed it enough to comment on it. Even if we have a legitimate minority theory on our hands, we must take care not to over-indulge the proposal more than the treatment it has received in the sum total of sources. You bring up an important point here: a fact/idea/quote/opinion/issue may be reliably sourced, but we are under NO OBLIGATION to include everything that is reliably sourced at Wikipedia. Sometimes a reliable source may turn out to be inappropriate for a particular article. Sometimes the source may appear superficially reliable but may have other reasons for us to discount it. Responsible editors should resist the fringe proposals as much as the fringe proposals are resisted in the preponderance of other sources. Singular sourcing is poor sourcing and should be strongly discouraged. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters for America

Does Media Matters for America meet the requirements for a Reliable Source? MMFA does not appear to have any accuracy issues with its transcript reproductions, so I don’t think that there is an issue with using them as a primary source in support of a secondary source, but using them as a secondary source, especially in BLP does not seem appropriate.

This issue has been raised before on this notice board, but there was resolution. If the RfC route is a better avenue for this let me know. CENSEI (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the Huffington Post a reliable source?

Resolved

This is particularly in regards to the recent edits by Maxmarginal at Vets For Freedom; diffs are available here. I am leery of printing allegations from partisan bloggers about political organizations that have not been picked up in more traditional sources, but figured I'd ask. I'm posting here after a request on the talk page didn't attract much attention. RayAYang (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This question has been covered here before, so I don't know what the consensus is but my vote is for no. They print mostly opinion pieces (the 'news' segments are almost exclusively wire reports) and they have an obvious political slant. I don't consider them a news organization in any sense. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I remember Pajamas Media being rejected at one time, and I don't see HuffPo being any more reliable than that.
That said, if the article is an interview with a notable figure, and you want to report on that figure's opinion, then that seems fine with me.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a good caveat to my rather blanket claim above. Despite huffpo's dubious nature as a news organization and reliable source of factual information, they do serve as a selective outlet of opinion for otherwise famous people. If you want to report the opinion of someone who gets a guest column there or gets an interview, then that is probably ok. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Huffington Post is a good place for opinion and little else, certainly not facts, and we all know what opinions are like. Huffington post might be good for another supporting source, but if the material cannot be found somewhere else more notable then its not notable enough to include here. CENSEI (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It is similar to other current affairs periodicals in containing a mix of opinion and straight reportage and so it should be used in a similar way, distinguishing the two. Its FundRace feature, for example, seems a reasonable source for reporting campaign contributions. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog from Glasstire.com

Is a blog posted on Glasstire.comto be considered a reliable source for art criticism in an artists BLP? Thanks David Starr 1 (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Self published sources are generally never appropriate sources for criticism, out of concerns of both reliability and undue weight. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a self-published source. What David Starr 1 failed to point out is that the author of the blog (art critic Titus O'Brien) is a regular contributor to Glasstire, which has editorial oversight[55]. As this footnote at WP:SOURCES says, interactive columns published in blog format are acceptable under such circumstances. Someguy1221 is correct that the issue is to avoid self-published stuff, not anything called a blog. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Podcasts and BLP

Currently material is being removed from Calpernia Addams which is sourced to an episode of a podcast. While WP:RS does not specifically mention podcasts, the editor removing it is citing WP:BLP, labeling the material as "poorly sourced" and claiming that the podcast, Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern, is the equivalent of a "video blog." Since the podcast is not video, it is clear first of all that the editor in question is not familiar enough with the podcast in question to make an informed judgment about its suitability as a source. Second, the podcast in question includes an interview with Addams herself in which she freely disseminates the information that the editor is seeking to remove. The deleted information, on such topics as how Addams chose her name and her performance in various productions of The Vagina Monologues, is neutral and verifiable. I seek consensus on whether an interview with the subject of a Wiki article may be considered reliable regardless of the source of the interview. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a look at the site and the podcast, I'm inclined to say no in general but yes to this specific use, only because the podcast contains an interview with the subject. I would cite it as "...in an interview w/ Jonny McGovern on his podcast, Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern, Addams said..." That would probably reduce some of the confusion and acrimony. However, in general, the podcast does resemble (however popular it is) a video log (or more chronologically correct, video logs resemble podcasts) insofar as there isn't independent editorial control and there is no structure in place to fact check claims. Protonk (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually don't have much of an opinion about the facts about the subject. I came in, because I saw a classic case of a BLP subject edit warring with editors, who were being hostile to the subject . In such cases, it's appropriate to strictly remove everything that's not clearly sourced reliablely, and then build it up again, with rigid sourcing standards.
  • At best such a podcast could be treated as a "self-published source" (though not literally published by the source). But this entire bio, for whatever reasons, is contentious with the subject and policy says we can't use it for things that are contentious. Also, let's note, the issue isn't "truth". I don't contest the truthfulness of anything. This is more an issue of privacy and notability. This is a marginally notable private person (trying to stay private), so we must only publish that which is clearly made public in reliable sources. If we allow this, we set a dangerous precedent. Anybody can just record a conversation with a BLP-subject, upload the audio to the web, and declare it to be a legitimate "source" for the article.
  • Otto4711 has violated 3RR and BLP. Clearly administrative intervention is called for. --Rob (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I recognize the issues in general but we have to be realistic here. We face a blurring of definition in new media. Just as we make case by case determinations of the existence of editorial control for blogs, we should be able to make case by case determinations for other media. As such, it isn't helpful to equate a regular podcast (which also happens to be notable enough for an article on both it and the author) with "just recording some audi of the subject." This was an interview. It wasn't surreptitious. It wasn't hidden from the subject. It certainly was better than some NY Times interviews. BLP considerations force us to look for reliable sources and force us to refuse to include rumor and innuendo unless it is absolutely necessary. They do not (under normal circumstances) dictate that the subject have wide editorial control over the article or that ostensible facts reported be disclaimed at the subject's request. If the article itself violates BLP, this is not the venue for it. for my money, the article is a textbook BLP1E violation, but that doesn't change my opinion about the source. Likewise Otto's 3RR violations don't have any bearing on whether or not an interview on a widely disseminated podcast may provisionally be considered reliable. Protonk (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the notion that Addams is "marginally notable." She has been a key part of the life of Barry Winchell, her life story has been dramatized in the critically-acclaimed Soldier's Girl, she has performed in numerous productions of The Vagina Monologues, she has been featured in the documentary Beautiful Daughters, she uses her celebrity to promote LGBT rights by appearing in public service announcements regarding hate crimes, she has published an autobiography, she has appeared in a nationally televised reality dating series Transamerican Love Story, she has released at least one song for commercial distribution, she has appeared in numerous television series in pursuit of her acting career, she co-owns and operates a media distribution company and she maintains a promotional website. Hardly the acts of a person shying away from the public spotlight and certianly someone who is far from being marginally notable. Addams is unquestionably notable and this has been confirmed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams when she sought to have her article deleted and consensus was overwhelming to keep.
  • Upon reviewing her website, specifically her biography page, much of the material that she supposedly finds so damaging for being on Wikipedia is right there on her own site! Her being a fiddler, her Navy career, her meeting with Jane Fonda, her participation in The Vagina Monologues, all right there where anyone who wants to see it can see it. Indeed, the information she has chosen to reveal there is far more damaging to her privacy than anything that has been in her Wikipedia article. The details of her military service are so detailed that anyone with even rudimentary research skills would be able to discover her birth name in about 15 minutes. It is disingenuous at best to claim that Wikipedia is violating her privacy when she has self-published the exact same material and discussed it in interviews.
  • As for the precedential value, I disagree that it is "dangerous" to allow interviews with the subject to be used as sources for the subject's article. We are not talking about some random "conversation" that someone uploads to the web. We are talking about a formal interview freely given by the subject and disseminated nationally through a very popular podcast. Unless it is being suggested that Addams is lying both on her personal site and in the interview, it is ludicrous to assert that this source can't be considered reliable for the information it is sourcing. If she'd given the exact same interview to, say, CBS News on Logo to be broadcast on its podcast, no one would be arguing it. And if we do consider this to be self-published, that applies to "contentious" material. What is contentious about the fact that Addams served in the Navy? What is contentious about the fact of how she chose her name? What is contentious about her appearance in The Vagina Monologues or Transamerican Love Story? Clearly Addams doesn't believe these things are contentious or a violation of her privacy, since she has them on her own publicly accessible website. The sourcing of this non-contentious, neutrally-presented material to the podcast does not implicate any aspect of WP:BLP or WP:RS.
  • I apologize for inadvertently doing a fourth revert. It was late, I was pissed and I lost count. Otto4711 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue with interviews, whether in blogs or the New York Times, is that they are semi-primary sources. So-called reliable publishers or broadcasters may edit interviews to change tone, alter questions, or even answers. (60 Minutes was criticized for alleging changing questions). On the other hand, an unedited interview may include information which isn't really notable. For example, if it had't become so notable in its own right, the question of whether Bill Clinton preferred briefs or boxers was verifiable but not notable. Getting down to the specifics of this issue, I haven't heard the blog so I don't know if it was edited, but I presume that isn't an issue here since no one mentions responses taken out of context or anyting like that. So that means the material is verifiable. The next question is whether the facts it references are noteworthy. In this case the proposed material appears to be basic biographical facts - mostly which jobs she held in the past - and not trivia. Furthermore, if it is information currently contained in websites or resumes published by the subject then the information is not an invasion of privacy. Lastly, though not directly concerning the podcast interview, the subject's media career is one of her reasons for being notable and should be given proper weight. As it happens, I recently saw the end of an episode of Transamerican Love Story while channel surfing and there is no question that the subject played the leading role in that show, both on- and off-screen. Anyone who appears, much less stars, in a reality show wilfully gives up a certain amount of privacy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The comment immediately above slightly misconstrues the current situation with "reliable publishers" when the stuff is on line. For example, if the NYTimes publishes an article which is significantly distorted, unfair or inaccurate, the source will ordinarily request a correction or clarification, which is then typically granted. The correction is then appended to the on-line article. For various reasons, sometimes this doesn't happen, but that's the typical policy of many reliable publishers. Also, the comment suggests that there's no such thing as a reliable publisher, which itself is problematic when taken to its logical conclusion.Calamitybrook (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

burjdubaiskyscraper.com

A debate is raging on the Burj Dubai article about whether burjdubaiskyscraper.com[56] is a reliable source. The world's tallest building is under construction, the architects, developers, etc. are keeping tight-lipped about the current height, and commonly reliable sources (news outlets, etc.) seem to rely almost exclusively on reports/interviews from the developers. So some wikipedia editors are chomping at the bit to report a higher current height than is available from any universally agreed upon source.

burjdubaiskyscraper.com fits the bill, because it lists the current height as much higher than the "official" current height. It also has many pages of photos and detailed architectural renderings, etc. But it appears to be a fan site, in blog format, with no reference to who writes their reports, nor how they get their info. Nor are they cited.

Anyone who can weigh in on this will help resolve our argument. Thanks in advance!! Fredwerner (talk)

I think it's better to avoid using blogs like that, especially if the credentials of the authors are unknown and the blog is not linked to some reputable publisher or organization. PubliusFL (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Shalomim y. Halahawi and the Aryan race

I'm sorry to even bring this here, but a recalcitrant editor has been unrelentingly adding the following to the Aryan race article. Since his last revert stated " It's not up to you to say whether the source is "worthless"; go ask wikipedia" [57], so here I am.

Rabbi Shalomim y. Halahawi writes: "So don't be deceived in anyway about the ignorant Aryan Nation skin heads, the Nazis of Hitler's regime or the European invaders of India. All in their own ignorance just want to be great like the Dark-skinned people of India who lived in what they said they were through works, not skin color or empty words. In this sense, the Modern Aryan wannabe's are the true failures at being Aryan".[3]

The reference points to "P. 307 The Way! the Prophetic Messianic Voice to the Path of the Edenic Kingdom Redemption by Rabbi Shalomim y. Halahawi".

The pattern of editing and referencing strongly suggest that the contributor, user:SapnaMadheshi, is none other than the multiply banned user:Goldenhawk 0 aka user:Maleabroad. This editor gets his sources by keyword-trawling google books, and this appears to be no exception. [58]. However his identity is another issue. The paragraph is incoherent and is footnoted to a "rabbi", who appears to be a self-published fringe theorist, possibly a Black Hebrew Israelite. The publisher is listed as "Lulu.com" (as self-publishing company which I can't link to because it is blacklisted). According to the "rabbi"'s website (which I also can't link to because it is blacklisted) "Dr HaLahawi, Founder of Edenic Light Natural Health Consultants and Holistic Medicines Research Foundation, is a prophetic Ethnic Hebrew pioneer in restoring the Mizrahi (Eastern) Netzarim Edenic and Holistic Roots to Ancient Israelite Culture and faith."). I realise this is hardly worth troubling your wisdom, but I'm just sick of reverting. Paul B (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Lulu.com is a vanity press, so the book counts as self-published material. I'd say definitely not appropriate for any kind of contentious claim, especially outside of an article about the author himself. PubliusFL (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces or factual journalism?

These articles are involved in a dispute at Talk:Lindsay Lohan: The Times, The LA Times, and The Guardian. Given these sources, can the article include statements like The Times reports that "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with Samantha Ronson"? Or is different language necessary, because the articles all contain some opinion and commentary?
Kww (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The latest proposal was a slightly more neutral In July 2008, The Times published a piece stating "Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam.", but maybe the wording needs to be different entirely? Siawase (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the pieces we are quoting are indeed opinion pieces, but the part we are quoting is a fact that has been included to establish the context of the articles (which are all about how no-one is very bothered about the fact that these lovers are women), and as opinion pieces are subject to the same fact-checking policies as the rest of the paper, the assertion of facts within op-eds can be used as reliable sources in the same way as news reports can. We cite various statistics and facts all over Wikipedia using opinion pieces printed in reliable sources, I don't see why we shouldn't do here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments, please. It probably isn't obvious, but the only comments this section has received are from the editors in the dispute. I would really like to see some outside views on this.
Kww (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as we adequately identify our sources, and the fact it is merely opinion, there is no reason to exclude information; even opninion. 13:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of the question: I believe the question being asked here is whether information stated as a fact, within an article identified as "opinion", published in an otherwise reliable source (e.g. NY Times), can be accepted. Cmadler (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

At best, the sentence should be something like this:
Name of person, a [brief description, such as "gossip columnist" or "conservative analyst"], said, in an opinion piece published in the New York Times, that X was Y and Z.
Saying "The New York Times published a piece" implies that the Times did fact-checking and other review of the piece, similar to what it does for news articles; that implication is false. The Times pretty much lets its opinion writers say whatever they want, short of clear libel. And yes, the above is a long sentence. But otherwise Wikipedia would be allowing opinions like "X has shown himself to be incapable of Y" to appear in articles as if it were fact, or at least NYT-endorsed fact, when the words are simply of a person who is allowed to write an opinion piece. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Using Google Books as an appropriate reference

on Peterloo Massacre, an editor has edited out most of a reference, leaving it in a deficient state here using an edit summary of "(Cite Originals NOT Google Books! (Don't Deep Link Google Books!))". I was unaware that one should not give references to Google Books' copies of reliable sources, as were the editors of Peterloo Massacre, and apparently those who reviewed and awarded it Featured Status, and so I thought I should ask a question here about this apparent rule. It does seem to go against the rule of being as accurate as possible in one's description of the references one uses, and I wonder if anyone can shed light by pointing to an appropriate rule or guideline about this. Since the editor concerned (User:Sfan00 IMG) has edited out and thereby altered the references on a number of articles today using the same reasoning (see here), it would seem a good idea to clarify the matter. So, is a link to a book using Google Books acceptable or not, and, if it is unacceptable, where does it state this in any guidelines or policies explicitly?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly no ban on using books encountered at google books as a references. The 'cite originals' appeal could, however, be in contradiction to WP:OR. --Soman (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I believe the citation should be from the book itself. However, the URL is a perfectly acceptable convenience link and may be used, in which case format = Google Book Search is appropriate. This means that the cite should be of the {{cite book}} format and not a {{cite web}} as it is the book which is the source, but the url may link to googlebooks. -- Avi (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of our citation templates for books include a URL line. If the cited page of the book is visible in its Google Books preview, I think it is a service to the reader to include the URL. It adds value to the ref. I am aware some editors object to this, but can see no good reason why they should, as long as all the relevant publication data (author, publisher, year, ISBN etc.) is present. Jayen466 16:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget {{LCCN}} -- Avi (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In the case that drew my attention to this (Peterloo Massacre), the reference is to a book published in 1853, and which therefore has no isbn number, though it passed the more rigorous checks being made for reliable sources now in the FA review, which it passed and was awarded.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, in the case of Peterloo Massacre, Already reverted, as was another link in a simmilar sitaution. Of course if the underlying work is indeed PD, it should really be on Wikisource.

My reason for NOT liking deep links is that it's not easy to quickly see if the work IS PD, without downloading. Linking to the description page would enable a browser to quickly determine what the status of a work is, as well as possibly providing an abstract that could be used to determine if the source is of further interest.

In respect of links to Google Books, I agree with the points made that the citation should be to the original work. I also having read the above don't nessacrily object to linking Google Books provided it'sclear what the (C) status of a work is.. If someone can link the official Google policy it would be appreciated, so that another zealot doesn't go on spree.

With respect to link removals, I will review the links removed or recoded, In some cases I've been able to expand upon the original ref listed, and include an ISBN. Because of the way ISBN's are handled by the MediaWiki software, a Google Books ref + ISBN ensures that for most practical reasons, all the major book/library sources would be linked.

In respect of links to scans more generally, there needs to be a further debate, because of a US ruling that makes it contributory infringement to link to 'copyright' materila hosted without permission. It is understood that the specific ruling I think applied to software, but could equally apply to scanned copies of magazines ( recent removals of links to the Amiga Magazine Rack for example) or of books where the permission of the original copyright holders or publishers was not sought. (This doesn't apply in respect of Google Books though, as I've been led to understand they were actively seeking permissions.)

It is of course infuriating that copyright laws don't allow an 'archive for preservation' defence in respect of infringement claims, especially on older works. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • So, to be clear, your concern with deeplinking scanned pages of books on google books is based on copyright considerations with respect to the foundation. Is that a correct reading? Also, would you mind reformatting your post so that it is more readable? Protonk (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
See reformating. And yes the deep linking issue is related to copyright concerns. Obviously, if a work is in PD then there is less concern, but it's nice to confirm it is actually PD, before downloading. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, checking our article on this google service – Google_Book_Search#Opposition_and_perceived_shortcomings – it appears there are pending copyright claims against Google. Perhaps that explains some editors' reluctance to deep link to Google Books scans of copyrighted works. We should research that a bit further. Jayen466 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Google books are also a help when it comes to the {{Harv}} style. I use Google Books for referencing quite often (under {{cite book}}). Leonard(Bloom) 17:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, how does Google Books help with citations? Is there an easy way of converting their (slight odd) citations scheme into our citation templates? (When I've got an ISBN then the Wikipedia template filling is handy.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The "About Book" page on Google Books provides all of the information needed for the {{citebook}} template -- so cutting and pasting the requisite information is an easy affair. I've frequently used the Google Books URL as a convenience link for whomever may want additional depth, however, I will be careful to not deep link any longer. Incidentally, I rarely link to the actual page (id est, page number of the book) as frequently there are multiple pages cited throughout the book. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say google books are completely appropriate as a link in a reference. I agree with most of the above (cite it as the book and provide the url for convenience) and want to reiterate that scanned copies are pretty legitimate and honestly represent most of where our research comes from. Some editors own the books they are citing, some have them sent by inter-library loan. But most find them on google books and cite quotes from excerpted pages. To me, that is appropriate. Protonk (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support use of Google Books. I have a further question - should articles on books use and quote the number of citations picked up by Google Scholar? (With the date last checked, of course). Some books seem to be quite well known and even quoted quite often in blogs etc, but haven't been cited very often - this may or may not be a good indicator of RS or non-RS. PRtalk 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support use of Google Books I've been uncertain what policy/guidelines say, but book details + convenience deep link are an extremely useful combination: targeting the exact passage (often possible if only limited preview or snippet view is available) is far more informative than merely waving citing the overall book. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the use of Google Books.. but with some reservations... First, under WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT you should cite the website and not the book. Second... results in Google books can be deceiving. Often the result will give you only one or two pages of the book (depending on your search parameters). This can result in a statement being taken out of context. For example, in a Google Books search, it seems as if Author X is saying "Y is true"... However, if you had the hard copy book in front of you and could read the passage in full context, you would discover that the statement is actually part of a rather lengthy outline of Author B's views. And a few pages later you would discover that Author X actually ends his discussion of Author B's views with an equally lengthy discussion of why B is wrong. In other words... contrary to what it looks like on Google Books: X does not actually think "Y is true", he says "According to B 'Y is true' but this view is rubbish". Thus, it is important to make sure that any citation to Google Books is examined closely to make sure it is being taken in context. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep - certainly agreed if there's the possibility of POV cherry-picking going on. If not, I can't see a problem. For instance, here is a deep link to a 19th century text talking about the making of sand pictures (gumming sand to paper). Common sense should apply. Unless somebody else comes up with up proof of a radical contradiction - citations saying they gum it with the blood of sacrificed virgins - there's no reason to doubt the citation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, in my personal experience it's a heckuva lot easier to flip through pages than to wait for Google Books to load up the scanned copy. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We should cite the book, not the website. I don't want to see nothing in the footnotes but a cryptic URL and that "retrieved on" silliness. It should be a full cite to the book, with title, author, copyright year, edition, page number, and ISBN or OCLC. After all, we don't suggest that people using LEXIS-NEXIS or pay-per-use newspaper archives say "I bought the article on such-and-such date", why is it when something is free online we treat it like a website instead of an archived and published medium? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
??? the book normally IS cited. {{cite book}} has a url field so that we may point to an online source or copy for the book. If anyone is citing books puled from google books as a 'webpage', they are wrong. Protonk (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that Google Book results don't give you the entire book as an online source. Just the pages containing text that meets your search perameters. Perhaps the solution is to cite both the book and the Google books parameters that were used ... or something that would tell readers that the editor who added the info did not actually check the entire book for context, contrasting statements, etc. I think we do need to give a nod to the intent of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT here. Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No. needlessly complicated. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is designed to stop people from citing web versions of PD books as the original c. 1659 or whatever. Google books isn't "another version" of a book, it is a scan of the edition in question. I don't see any reason to treat a scan of a book as any different from a book--I wouldn't cite an article downloaded from JSTOR as "jstor scan", I would cite it as a journal and link to the source. The same with any other academic scanning service. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Book urls have a short shelf-life, making convenience links to Google Books a headache for cleanup, rather than a useful convenience. Very few Google Book limited preview urls remain valid longer than a few months at the outside. Also, the ISBN link pages on Wikipedia already provide a link to Google Books at the top of the list. In the case of materials in the public domain, there are a large number of websites specializing in archiving PD material with interfaces that allow easier viewing of the books with much less impact on the end user's system. Linking to Google Books sounds like a great idea, but it's a poor practice due to the time-limited usefulness of preview links, the redundancy with the existing ISBN link service on Wikipedia and the availability of much better resources in the case of public domain books. Vassyana (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17&oldid=1259647014"