Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

→

Archive 130

A picture is worth a thousand words, or is it?

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

User:Albert14nx05y insists on adding the following sentence to the article: "During the Vietnam-era, Levin served as a sergeant in the Air National Guard in Reseda, CA." His reference in support is here. He's acknowledged in a rather difficult discussion on the Talk page that there is no support for the Reseda part. However, he bases the Vietname-era/sargeant part on the uniform Levin is wearing in the image. I'm not sure if the uniform even supports his interpretation of it, but I pointed out that the image is a primary source that requires interpretation of what it means and is therefore not a reliabl source for the assertion. What is needed is a secondary source saying that Levin was a sergeant and served during Vietnam. That has fallen on deaf ears and has provoked a threat to delete images from Wikipedia.

Putting aside the threat for the moment, comments on the sourcing?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope that some others will check it out and say what they think. But so far it is just myself and Bbb23 doing all the talking. My position is that the picture is what it is, and it shows Levin in a Vietnam-era Air National Guard uniform. Levin said on TV that he was stationed in Reseda, CA. i con't find any print sources that say that, but his duty station is a minor issue and it is certainly not something that could harm the reputation of a living person, which is what the BLP policy is all about, right? It is to address contentious materials. According to Wiki policy, "Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject." So it seems to me that Bbb23 is crying BLP. Albert14nx05y (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Under the photo, the caption says Levin served in the air national guard. The source is TMZ. Is that considered reliable? I would say without the caption, the picture is not sufficient for the factual assertion. How do we know he wasn't in a play or borrowed someone else's uniform? But the caption does say he served. I am just not sure if TMZ is recognized as reliable.Coaster92 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

TMZ is owned by CNN, which is owned by Time-Warner. Largest media comapny in the world, I think. Besides, does it really make sense that he'd be dressed up for a play or something, yet posted on a list of all the major movie star veterans? I'd think someone would have called BS on that years ago if it wasn't true. Albert14nx05y (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In any event, I think that this policy statement here applies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_zealot and this one, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_%22BLP!%22 Albert14nx05y (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think drawing conclusions from photos is OR. Especially if we aren't certain of the circumstances which these photos were taken under. If we can't find something that mentions his rank or his service, so be it. Something might come along later. I think it's better to have a little discipline and leave out unessential factoids gained from iffy sources that could be false. In the end, all the photo proves is that someone took a picture of him in a uniform. I agree with Bbb23.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Then let's delete ALL photos on Wikipedia since none of us can be certain under what circumstances they were taken. Again, too much BLP crying.

Try to understand that drawing conclusions from an image is different than merely presenting an image.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It is OR. Don't do it. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The picture alone is NOT RS for the edit above. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 07:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

discussion of editor profiles

A note to all who want to toss their two cents in here and claim to be "experts": A 2008 United Nations University survey of 130,000 Wikipedia users exposes a surprising profile: the average age of a contributor is 26.8 years (10 years younger than the average age of the general population in ‘more developed’ countries), 87% are male, and at least 46% are not university educated. Even with this relatively young age and education profile, 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts”. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/

That's nice. I see that the United Nations University "undertakes research into the pressing global problems of human survival, development and welfare". It's good to see that these include the age and education profiles of Wikipedians. I haven't read their report yet: I hope they remembered to thank us youngsters for providing a resource that they surely use every day. Andrew Dalby 08:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that it seems more and more that I end up debating against 'children' (those under 25) who primarily rode the short bus to school and who now who seem to act like they know it all. I am 44 years old. I have a JD from Harvard Law School and a Master's in Public Adminstration from Harvard, as well. Yet I find nothing but cornballs who want to debate whether or not a guy in a picture wearing a uniform can be interpreted to actually be a picture of a guy in a uniform. The lack of thinking here makes my brians want to leap out me skull and start stabbing folks.

Oh, and speaking of stupid study topics, the GAO has started a new one" Gov’t Issues Study of Study of Studies http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-kidding-govt-issues-study-of-study-of-studies/ -- Albert14nx05y (talk)

I'm 44 with a VA scholarship that paid for my degree in History, and the picture still isn't RS for that statement. Well, unless this is RS for the fact that Spartans walked the street in Atlanta in 2007. It's RS for the probable fact that he wore it and he was in the Air National Guard. Anything beyond that in the edit is not supported by this source. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hiding as this noticeboard is for discussing reliable sources for citations, not editor profiles. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Images may be used as illustrations without citation. If they introduce new material then they need to be reliable sources of that. They need to be from a reliable source and be produced to show the fact or have the fact pointed out by the reliable source. Here the only real question is whether TMZ is a reliable source or not for this, and if they are okay then they should be cited for it. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Wonderful. I agree that this is fine. We just make the notation that Harvey served as a sergeant in the Vietnam-era Air Nation Guard - and leave it at that. That seems fine with me, since this adds nothing more then what was said and shown in the TMZ article.

I would again like to remind everyone that this is not a contentious issue. The Wikipedia police clearly states that, ″Contentious should be narrowly construed. Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject.″ None of the complainers here has even bothered to read this policy. LEVIN'S MILITARY SERVICE IS NOT A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE!! Contentious issues should be NARROWLY construed. Stop with the BLP crying. I am glad that someone has finally come to their senses. Albert14nx05y (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dmcq, I can't follow what your saying. I understand your first sentence, but the issue here is whether an editor can include material in an article based on that editor's interpretation of an image. Although whether TMZ is a reliable source may be an issue, it is a different issue. As an aside, Levin is the founder of TMZ, but I am not necessarily saying that means we can't use TMZ as a source for information about Levin.

@Albert, I don't think anyone, but certainly not me, is saying that the material violates BLP, so your comments about the policy is distracting. Also, please be more temperate in your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if a fact comes from a picture then either the picture must have been produced to illustrate the fact by a reliable source, for instance a map by London underground shows that there is a link from Matrlebone to Paddington via the Bakerloo line. Or else the picture can have a commentary from a reliable source, for instance a picture of an underground train travelling overground when commented on in a reliable saying many underground trains travel overground for part of their route can be used for saying what the text says - but in either case one should cite the reliable source. For facts cited elsewhere editors can put in their own illustrations provided these do not introduce new facts and seem to illustrate the facts faithfully. For instance if some reliable source says many London underground trains travel part of their journey overground then an editor can put in their own picture of an underground train doing that to illustrate the fact cited in the main body of the article. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If TMZ is considered reliable, at least the information in the caption under the photo could be used, ie, that he served in the air national guard, nothing about his rank or where he was stationed, but at least that much. I have been searching for another source about his rank and location but could not find anything. One comment said Harvey made a statement about his service on air on 3/8/11 but I could not find the video.Coaster92 (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If the picture is accepted as being from a reliable source showing a person when they were in the army then I believe it can be used to substantiate their rank if the insignia are clearly visible. Rank is something that is supposed to be obvious and noticed rather than something needing original research like the colour of a persons eyes. Dmcq (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree... anyone can put on a uniform and have his picture taken in it. For example, I have a picture of me dressed up as a US cavalry officer... it does not substantiate that I ever actually was a US cavalry officer (I wasn't). A picture does not "substantiate" anything except the existence of the picture. As was mentioned above, images should be used as illustrations of what is stated in the text, not as sources for that text.

Something else to consider... all this may be a moot point, as we may not have permission to use this particular picture... Re-publishing it in our article may violate copyright laws. Blueboar (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No reliable source has published a picture of you as a US cavalry officer and said you were one. We can't reproduce the picture but for things which are pointed out we are allowed to read what a picture obviously says. There is no distinction between words and pictures that way except we have to be extra careful with pictures not to read more from them than was reasonably intended. Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The source say that Harvey Levin served in the Levin Air National Guard. It doesn't say anythinge about where he served, his rank, or Vietnam era. Why not just say, "Harvey Levin served in the Levin Air National Guard." and be done with it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To respond to everyone's latest points. Coaster, I agree that the prose under the three pictures can be used. The problem is that if the only thing we say in the article is "Levin served in the Air Guard", it's almost meaningless. It has no context, no time frame, nothing. Thus, if say only what we can say "reliably" we don't have enough material to use. Blueboard, we are not putting the picture in the article, so your point isn't relevant in this case. Dmcq, as to what we can interpret from the picture, that's a judgment call. The more "obvious", as you say, the easier it is to justify. I don't know how obvious rank is from a uniform, but let's assume it is. Did you look at the picture? Can you say he's a sergeant? There's no insignia on his uniform I can see. The only thing that might indicate something is the hat he's wearing, and I can't see it well enough, nor do I know what it means. Do you? Finally, with respect to Blueboar's other point that anyone can dress up as they please, I don't think that's fair. If we accept TMZ as a reliable source (as everyone keeps repeating), then we have to assume that they vet text AND pictures, not just text and that they aren't using a picture that misrepresents a fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors cannot reasonably infer a time period from a picture, as dating pictures is original historical research. It is that simple. Dating pictures is a complex process of inference and cultural understanding. It is not a basic and simple calculation exception to the original research standards. Dating a photograph requires the concerted application of original thought. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that picture is certainly not worth a thousand words if we can't easily tell the rank. The only thing that can be cited is what it says in its caption. Dmcq (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Fifelfoo, that may be your situation since you do not know what you are looking at. But that is not anyone else's problem. Albert14nx05y (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's not what the rules say. A primary source may only be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of fact that any educated person without specialist knowledge will be able to verify. See WP:PRIMARY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As to interpreting the picture

If one wanted to be a stickler about interpreting the picture, one could only deduce that someone was photographed wearing a particular style of US Army uniform at some undetermined point. There's no provenance, no date, and no assurance that it's even him. To the degree that one can deduce rank from the uniform, the person might have been a buck private, but there's no indication of any higher rank; there's no indication of a particular unit. There's no firm indication that it was worn in an official capacity. About the best one can get out of the website is the page's assurance that Levin served in the army, and since it's his website saying that, it's not exactly a great source. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is that the picture cannot be used as a reliable source. I will remove the material and the source from the article. Thanks for everyone's comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the picture is not a reliable source. The text in the TMZ article is fine. IOW, the part about the location where he served, his rank, or Vietnam era can't be sourced to the picture. But the statement that "Harvey Levin served in the Levin Air National Guard" can be sourced to the TMZ article text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Lonsdorf

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

This article [1] states that the subject appeared on several talk shows, on National Public Radio, Voice of America, TV-MD (PBS), the Geraldo Rivera show, CNN and The Donahue Show. The sources used as references are the subject’s professional page on Ayurvedic.net [2] which appears to be her own website, and a second Ayurvedic health website [3]. Both confirm the talk show appearances. Alternate verification does not appear to be readily available. Is this sufficiently reliable for the sort of information reported? Thank you.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

ayurveda-ayurvedic.net appears to be an issue with WP:SPS, which can be usable, if they pass all the criteria, I thnk this fails on point 1 of SPS.

vedichealth-ct.org has a copyright page that denies even the non-personal "use" of their information, so that could be a problem. It also says, MVED intends the information contained in this Web site to be accurate and reliable. However, errors may occur. Therefore, MVED disclaims any warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, as to any matter whatsoever relating to this Web site, including without limitation the merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. There is no policy for fixing errors, and no indication what should be done, and no source for the material it lists.

I don't find either of those sources to be RS, however, the "About the author" section of this book does seem RS to me. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a great suggestion and a good solution. Thanks also for the in depth analysis of the source, it really helped in my understanding of the sources. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

fallingrain.com

Is fallingrain.com (in general) considered a reliable source for geographical and statistic information?--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's vague and why you asking for diff-link. The question states explicitly in general. I'm asking for a general assessment of that source for geographical and statistic information. To be a bit more specific here, things like: Is its population information reliable? Is its geographical information reliable (coordinates, altitude, classification/type)? Does anybody know where they actually get their data from?--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

fallingrain.com is a broken link. Either the site is dead or the it's temporarily down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(Page is up now) I don't really see a way to properly assess this site, here's what it says on their credits page:

"The Global Gazzetteer is based on many public sources of information. These are not yet all listed here. January 1, 2010."

That doesn't fill me with confidence. I picked a country, and a town, the bottom of that page also says:

"Presentation Copyright © Falling Rain Genomics, Inc. 1996-2010"

I can find no source for their data, and therefore can't say it's RS. Is there something else I should be looking at to assess them? At the very least, it seems their data is 2 years out of date. There is also no other site listed for "Falling Rain Genomics" that might shed some more detail on this. There does seem to be a lot of information there, but I don't see how it falls under WP's definition of reliable. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Despayre. I have had doubts about this source for a long time but, alas, it is used on a huge range of articles. Although the raison d'etre is almost certainly is different to that of the Joshua Project, can we really consider it to be any more reliable? - Sitush (talk)

I'm just looking for some feedback beyond my own first impression, which is rather bad as well. I checked their population information for a few specific towns, where official information is easily available for comparison and in some cases it was off by a factor 3. And yes after looking into it my concern is as well that there seems a widespread rather uncritical use of it. Most of its geographical location information might be more accurate than the population figures, but even for that we have much authoritative and better suited sources (for instance official geo servers like GEOnet Names Server or even Google map/Google earth).--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

saddle

Hello, this web site [http://www.limebrook.com] is being used as a reference for information in the saddle article, the web site is maintained by a private horse stable as far as I can tell, I just want a third party opinion as to the validity of using information from this site as I believe it does not qualify as a valid reference for Wikipedia artiucles, thanks. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. This is just a quick overview and no good for serious history. Look for better sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I just wanted another opinion to avoid any controversy when I remove this and similar references.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not RS. And I would think from the detailed pictures that it was copied right out of a book on saddles, I would look for that book if you want that info, it seems correct, but the source is not RS for WP. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 02:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

anti-fluoridation groups

The question is a simple one. Are anti-fluoridation groups reliable sources for material in the wikipedia tone? It is being used as a source in a BLP article here John_F._Ashton#Views. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we are talking about current Reference 21. I find it to be a dead link. It is only used to say that a particular book discusses the question of fluoridation, and I don't think there is much problem with that. The publisher's jacket blurb would be an alternative source, or even the book itself can be used as a source for the neutral presentation of the issues discussed. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the large, well indicated instructions at the top of this page and in the edit window page notice next time. It means I don't have to spend minutes of my life doing what you should have done for me and for other editors. If you want RS/N to comment, please don't make us do your work

1. Amongst other sources, Wilson, Bill (1998). "The Perils of Progress". Fluoride (International Society for Fluoride Research) 31 (2): 102. A link to the work is available The item appears to be sadly miscited as it is a book review.
2. is used in John F. Ashton
3. to support the claim, "In the 1990s Ashton coauthored The Perils of Progress with Ronald S. Laura (with foreword by Charles Birch). This book discusses electromagnetic fields, radiation poisoning, microwaves, gasoline, sunscreen, food additives, polyunsaturated fats, chlorine, fluoridated water, aluminium, sound pollution, artificial light, and sick building syndrome."

Flouride (ISfFR) is a peer reviewed (Ulrich's) journal on "on biological, chemical, ecological, industrial, toxicological and clinical aspects of inorganic and organic fluoride compounds". Book reviews, however, are not peer reviewed in the common RS/N sense.

The claim that Perils of Progress discusses some of these items exists in the book review, and there is little reason to not believe that the book review provides an adequate summary of the contents.

(Reliable for the claim that these are discussed in the book, a trivial claim). Fifelfoo (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is possible to give a general answer to this general question, but only in a way which proves Fifelfoo's point and shows why more information is needed: the community is very unlikely to accept any general rule which says that all sources of a particular point of view can never be reliable. WP:POV and WP:RS are quite distinct in their logic and aims, and WP:POV is not about telling us we can not use some sources. (It is about how we present them and balance them.) So please indeed give more specific information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fringe journals have dubious peer review. Also, here is the text:

In the 1990s Ashton coauthored The Perils of Progress with Ronald S. Laura (with foreword by Charles Birch). This book discusses electromagnetic fields, radiation poisoning, microwaves, gasoline, sunscreen, food additives, polyunsaturated fats, chlorine, fluoridated water, aluminium, sound pollution, artificial light, and sick building syndrome.

This source [4] from a questionable fringe group [5] is being used to give due weight to the paragraph. 1. Is it a reliable source for this purpose, does it give due weight? Particularly relevant Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources: Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Supply citations when referring to sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean. I linked to the source directly. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo's link worked for me and I have read the source. We could discuss how this book review is placed on the fringe continuum, possibly as a minority scientific viewpoint. It definitely isn't what we normally call an extremist source. But I don't think we really need to discuss that anyway. This review is reliable for the trivial information about what is in the book. But your simple solution is to replace it with a description of contents sourced to the book itself. By the way, you aren't using the phrase "due weight" in the same way as WP:WEIGHT does. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As I previously explained at length: links to sources are not sufficient, by not citing a source when you mention it you are showing laziness and disrespect to your fellow editors. In particular, by indicating links rather than citing sources, you waste 5 other editors time such that each of them has to reconstruct the bibliographic data of the item you linked. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see no such requirement. I can see no discussion in RSN which obeys your requirement. In fact the top of the page just says: If it's an online source, please link to it, which I did. IRWolfie- (talk)

Fluoride journal is a fringe journal which is known as an outlet for fringe anti water fluoridation view, and may not exactly be an ideal source for BLPs, as it is not a mainstream scholarly work and the subject of BLP may not want to be associated with fringe positions. Certainly if Ashton has prominent anti fluoridation views, it can be sourced to a better source. Yobol (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In reference to Andrew Lancaster, it's very difficult to come up with a "always not RS" answer. I thought for a while that this could be so (a couple of months ago), but it's more difficult than I thought. Just about all sources are good for *something*, not always what they want to be RS for though. Sometimes it just proves they exist. So no, I don't think we can give a blanket "NO" (or "YES"), to all anto-flouridation groups. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nearly all sources could be good for something. That something might not be notable of course, so not all sources have a place on Wikipedia. But the RS policy is not intended to be used to block whole classifications of sources. By the way, referring to a common misunderstanding, even primary sources are often quite acceptable and there are even situations where they are preferred. This is why Fifelfoo is so concerned to ask that people post more about the context of sourcing discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the weight issue, Ashton and Laura (1998) Perils of Progress: The Health and Environment Hazards of Modern Technology, & what You Can Do about Them UNSW Press is worth discussing in an article specifically about one of the authors. UNSW Press is the University Press of an Australian Go8 University, a University that ranks 3rd to 5th amongst Australian Universities on a consistent and regular basis (a pool of 40+ academic institutions). Scholarly books are a big thing in the Australian academic community, they're a core element of academic biographies. The review in Fluoride is being used to assist in summarising the contents of the work. It seems fine, particularly as this isn't a medical claim, or claim regarding the validity of Ashton and Laura's findings. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Adal Sultanate

a user keeps reverting reliable sources that indicate the capital of the sultanate was first "Dakar" and instead includes zeila which was not the capital during the sultanate..source used [6] Adal Sultanate.

Adal. Its capital was first Dakar, and then in 1520 moved to Harar.

. Baboon43 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does he have a reliable source for saying it's Zeila? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

his reliable source says that zeila was an independent monarch city under a larger ifat sultante also the article itself in the infobox says zeila was a monarch city and than it says when it switched to dakar it became a sultanate. his source [7] Baboon43 (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a little bit of a technical issue, what is the difference between an emirate, and a sultanate? And content aside for a moment, do you have a problem with the RS-ness of his source, or just the interpretation of it? Your infobox says 1415-1577 as dates the Sultanate existed, if that is correct, Zeila being the capital in the 10th century (as his source states) is irrelevant as the Sultanate didn't exist. However, if it was the capital in 1415, it's correct to use it. It's unclear from his source if "early in the fifteenth century" means 1415 or earlier, in terms of moving the capital to Dakar, and that seems like a key point to clear up. My personal interpretation is that it should say Dakar not Zeila, but I would try and find more sources to support that, it's iffy whether his source says what he says it says, but it's not black and white that he's wrong either. Both sources seem RS to me. The way I read it, yours is straightforward and clear that it's Dakar, and his doesn't specifically say it's not Zeila by 1415, but does say that earlier and up until *About* that time, it was the capital. Tricky tricky. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Emirate in those days was a monarch revolving around one city whereas a Sultanate had control of larger parts of the region..Zeila was an emirate inside the larger Ifat sultanate..the dates are abit off depending on the sources but at the killing of the last sultante of ifat his children escaped to Yemen and than proceeded to Dakar a few years after to form the Adal sultanate. [8] His argument is that the concept of Adal existed and it was situated in zeila even thought it was NOT a sultanate. Baboon43 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's outside the scope of this board, you may want to try it over at WP:DRN, but if what you say is accurate, If Adal didn't exist before the kids went to Dakar, and they claimed the creation of the Sultanate at that point, the fact that the port of Zeila used to be the capital of the Ifat Sultanate doesn't seem relevant. Capitals are not Capitals of ideas, they are Capitals of specified territories. Whether the concept existed or not, when it came into being, it sounds to me like Dakar was the capital. Without question, your source states that Dakar is the capital as well and that seems RS to me. It is also clearer than the previous text you supplied from the other editor, who's text is a little bit nebulous on its dates, and therefore does not contradict yours.-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Rob Bowman American filmmaker fact correction

Rob Bowman (filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As stated and verified by www.imdb.com, it needs to be included in Mr. Bowman's entry that he and his wife, Dusty welcomed their first son Jack in 2006. You may contact me personally to verify this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustybowman (talk • contribs)

Personal correspondence is never reliable, including personal correspondence with Wikipedians, or what a Wikipedian "really does know." Someone else can answer regarding imdb.com biographies. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal knowledge is Not RS, not by a long shot. IMDB does not strike me as the source I'd turn to for geneology news either. That information is user-editable I believe, and IMDB offers very little oversight for something like that, since you're allowed to post your own bios, ergo not RS. I suspect there are better sources out there, but it may be good enough for inline attribution since the claim doesn't seem overly conentious, as in "IMDB says Rob and his wife have 1 son, borm in 2006, blah blah blah". -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dustybowman: Wikipedia's rules on sourcing require that this information be published by a reliable source. IMDB isn't considered reliable because it's user-edited and there's no real review process. We can't use your personal statements either because it is not published.

Do you happen to have a newspaper article that says this? Generally speaking, newpapers are considered reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about this film-maker's family has to be included. Only occasionally is it really important to mention family. People need to know that JF and Bobby Kennedy were brothers, but beyond that... Itsmejudith (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Highschool.rivals.com

Is this site an RS for claims about people being cheerleaders in college? [9] looks from here to be "cheap features to fill in Yahoo! Sports". [10] makes clear that the site's main function is providing discussion about player recruitment - unsigned features do not appear to have "fact checking" etc. AFAICT. The site is aimed at people seeing that young Johnny from Oak High School is being watched by scouts. Collect (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have sourced Reagan's cheerleading to the NYTimes and the United States Sports Academy. One could also source it to his autobiography ([11]), but I don't own the autobiography, and I don't like using snippets. Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to doubt the RS-ness of rivals.com, Yahoo is the parent company and I have no reason to believe there is a problem here. However, the look of the site does not lend itself to credibility, I'll give ya that. In reference to Hipocrite, the autobiography would be an excellent source for this, not owning the book is not a good reason to not use it. Go to a library. Ask someone in school to get it. See if there's an online version. Consult with our sources desk. I *seriously* doubt no one has his autobiography, who is also on WP, but it seems simple enough to go the library. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

From his autobiography:

Although my grades were higher than average, my principal academic ambition at Eureka was to maintain the C average I needed to remain eliglible for football, swimming, track, and the other school activities I participated in-two years in the student senate, three years as basketball cheerleader, two years as yearbook features editor, and during my last year, student body president and captain and coach of the swim team.

-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Business Insider

I'm working to assist an editor on finding sources for an article that hasn't been created yet. One I found was this article from Business Insider. The source seems legitimate but it is so negative it is hard to believe in its legitimacy. Still, in the interests of NPOV I thought I would ask here and if it is reliable, then I'll find a way to incorporate it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the author's about page for the benefit of others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Business Insider is a recently established group blog. It does have some form of editorial oversight, but seems to pride itself on being "edgy" (in this case, relentlessly negative) rather than dispassionate and objective. I would use this source with caution, particularly in a BLP. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks a legitimate source and we're using it all over Wikipedia[12] which suggests that other editors believe that it's reliable. I would say, if in doubt, use in-text attribution. What article are you planning to use this in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Masters The author doesn't want to use it stating that the article is based on opinion. (note, working with him on IRC) Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is used all over Wikipedia too, and general consensus is that it's a very poor source. Unfortunately, there's no strong correlation between the quality of a source and how widely used it is on Wikipedia. I would continue to urge great caution in using this source in a BLP, particularly in a low-profile BLP where there are unlikely to be many other sources with which to balance it. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ryan Vesey: Well, you're under no obligation to use a source if you don't want to. Are you saying that you want to use it but the other editor doesn't? Can you link to the discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a huge preference. I'll wait until the article is written now. It was the first source I found. If the article makes no mention of any criticism, I'll probably push for inclusion to combat POV. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The blog is an edited news and opinions blog, and the article appears to be a mixture of journalism and opinion. One issue would be drawing out the difference: using the journalism for fact, and the opinion for attributed commentary. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Pew Research Center

The question: Is the Pew Research Center a reliable source for describing media reaction to the shooting of Trayvon Martin? The specific source in question is here. I believe that the Pew Center is reliable for this indication; it's generally respected and bipartisan (it's chaired by Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State in a Democratic Administration, and John Danforth, a former Republican U.S. Senator), and specializes in looking at this sort of issue.

The discussion to date: See the bottom of this thread at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. At least one editor has objected to using Pew, calling them "determinedly ignorant" and accusing me of "insist[ing] that garbage just like that remain planted like a turd in article text because there is a 'reliable source' for it." ([13]) I would appreciate outside opinions on the reliability of the Pew Research Center for this material.

A request: More involvement on Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by editors familiar with this site's sourcing guidelines would be incredibly helpful. In my view, the article and talkpage are dominated by editors with a clear idea of the material they want in the article, but a very poor understanding of this site's sourcing guidelines and policies. Even removing patently unsuitable personal blogs requires a federal case. In lieu of opening a new thread here for every issue, more eyes on the article/talkpage would be useful. I don't care whether you agree with me or not; as long as you have some basic grasp of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, please contribute. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know the exact content that it's being used to support, but generally speaking it's a reliable source, and appears to be frequently cited by other reliable sources in relation to the Trayvon shooting such as the LA Times, Miami Herald, Politico and numerous others which demonstrates a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That Pew link is perfectly suitable for use in the article to describe the public reaction via social media and blogs, and in the broadcast and journalist media. Anything Pew sets down in this form is utterly reliable, such that it trumps any contradictory source of lesser scholarship. Calling the well-researched Pew source "determinedly ignorant" is determinedly ignorant. Quite ironic. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Pew is eminently reliable for such content; I concur with Binksternet's note of the irony involved. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The source in question is, "Journalism.org: Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, (2012-03-30) "How Blogs, Twitter and Mainstream Media Have Handled the Trayvon Martin Case (Special Report)" As a corporate author Journalism.org… has a clear expertise through its directorial board. An excellent source for media analysis. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of the Pew Research Center (Pew, pew! ), or anything about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, after looking at Pew's website, this source seems extremely RS, I also note the irony mentioned above as well. It's one of the most impressive internet sources I've seen brought here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Video Game Manuals

Are video game manuals considered to be reliable sources? They appear to be first party sources but are only are likely, and not certainly, objective. I'm not sure why they would lie about facts in the game (or be less accurate), I thought it better to ask. Sazea (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how you use them, but generally speaking they are reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AIP Advances

Background: I am mediating on a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 31#Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley discussion. Also see Wiley protocol and T. S. Wiley.

In the discussion, there was a question about the following:

http://aipadvances.aip.org/resource/1/aaidbi/v2/i1/p011206_s1?bypassSSO=1

The theory of modulated hormone therapy for the treatment of breast cancer in pre- and post-menopausal women by Teresa S. Wiley (Wiley Systems, Santa Fe, New Mexico) and Jason T. Haraldsen (Los Alamos National Laboratory).

http://aipadvances.aip.org/resource/1/aaidbi/v2/i1/p011206_s1?view=fulltext&bypassSSO=1

AIP Advances, (American Institute of Physics)

First, is this considered a peer reviewed scientific paper that is suitable for use as a citation on the Wiley protocol page? If so is it possible to see the peer reviews?

Second, I am concerned about the statements "it is our goal to present an alternate theory to the standard of care for treatment of midlife and onward breast cancers" and "the standard of care for the treatment of breast cancers may be inherently flawed" in the paper, Sounds a bit fringy to me...

Third, is it just me, or does it seem weird reading about hormone replacement therapy in a physics journal instead of a medical journal?

Fourth (unrelated to whether this is a RS) did my tax money pay for this? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

AIP Advances (2158-3226) is peer reviewed according to Ulrich's serials directory. AIP Advances claims to operate in the area of applied physics. It is not possible to see peer reviews of scholarly papers, unless you raid the journal's archives in 50+ years time. The paper itself doesn't appear to meet MEDRS requirements, as this is a "primary" medical source, even if AIP Advances is an appropriate place to publish medical research, which I suggest it isn't as it is an applied physics journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

An article that is published outside its area of expertise (a medical article in a physics journal? really?) is a huge red flag. This paper is probably a primary study, which should be avoided per our guideline for appropriate sourcing on medical claims. Certainly this one study couldn't possibly be used to justify changing the standard of care for breast cancer. All very dubious. Yobol (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The only reason this would be in a physics paper would be because of the extremely technical methods used to proceed with the work. As such, it would be RS if you were discussing medical technology, but I think that medical standards is outside the scope, and therefore this would not be RS for those claims. I strongly suspect based on the Acknowledgments section of that article, that there was a lot of computer modeling time required. Los Alamos in particular is one of the 2 biggest computer clusters in the country (they normally use their supercomputers to model nuclear warhead blasts/yields/designs etc). It does say in our article here that Los Alamos also has a major research program in "systems biology modeling". Since everything done at Los Alamos is physics related, it's not totally surprising, but despite all that last bit being conjecture on my part, I don't think its RS anyway for this context. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A blanket reference to record label

Resolved

I'm at a loss what to do about Valhall (band). It has not apparent references, and the issue is whether is satisfies WP:BAND or should be deleted. I had originally prod'ed it, but the prod was removed and the notability issue was addressed by simply adding record label names to the three albums that this group has released. I wonder if that is sufficient in itself. Identifying the label on which an album is released would address the criterion of the notability guideline for musical groups which reads in part "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels". Should there be a demand for more formal referencing. If so, how should that be presented? __meco (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard is probably a better venue for this question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah... I wasn't aware of its existence. I'll take my issue there. __meco (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Den of Geek television reviews

The article Squeeze (The X-Files), currently at FAC, makes use of this and this, from the website Den of Geek. One is a review of the episode the article is about, the other is an article about characters which mentions the episode's villain. The articles are used to source the following piece of text:

Writing for Den of Geek, John Moore listed Eugene Tooms as one of his "Top 10 X-Files Baddies", noting that the popularity of both "Squeeze" and "Tooms" "was largely responsible for shifting the emphasis of the show away from concentrating on alien-related conspiracies and onto the 'myths and monsters' format ... ", while fellow columnist Matt Haigh wrote that the character was "a skin-crawlingly brilliant villain; the sight of his yellow eyes glowing in the shadows is truly spine-tingling ... ".

The question is whether the site is considered reliable enough for its reviews and opinion pieces to be used in an article. I believe so, as the site is operated by Dennis Publishing (operators of Fortean Times, Bizarre and Maxim, etc), and has listed (albeit in a joking manner) its editorial staff on the site. The contact address for the website is at Dennis Publishing's editorial offices which to me shows a dedicated editorial practice is at work; this isn't a personal blog or small operation. However, the content which the sources are being used to support isn't crucial to the article and it could be removed without any real bother if the consensus is that the site isn't reliably edited or overseen. Additional comments would be appreciated. GRAPPLE X 15:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of denofgeek.com (there goes my geek credentials!) but almost all sources are reliable for their own opinion. Since you're using the source for reviews in the reception section, it's perfectly fine from a reliability standpoint. One can argue that other opinions might be more notable - I don't know - but I think it's probably fine. If the article was on a play by Shakespeare, there are scholarly opinions that can be sourced, and denofgeek.com would be inappropriate. But for an X-Files episode, it's probably fine.

I do, however, think you should change the word "noted". The difference is subtle, but "noted" basically repeats the opinion as fact in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest "said" or "stated". There's also WP:WTA#Synonyms_for_said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Having just read the FAC discussion, I see now that the issue of whether it's a notable review was raised. It's probably a judgement call. Different editors may have different opinions. I'm not sure there's a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

DNA India - news source

Noida double murder case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many Indian media sources use unattributed and poorly attributed sources, not to forget plain plagiarism of their competitors. Probably that is the way of the world, and I tend often to overlook it for that reason. I'll accept [The Hindnu]] and (sometimes) [The Times of India]], but really would prefer that all the rest that I have come across were binned. However, Redif and DNA India have always struck me as being particularly problematic. This one, from DNA, might bear closer investigation and I would welcome opinions regarding reliability and WP:MIRROR. Compare the DNA article here, published on 14 May, with our article at 11 May, and in particular our article section "CBI Investigation". Can we really trust a major news source that appears quite blatantly to have copied our content? Or am I misreading things due to it being darn near 0100 here? The article in question is Noida double murder case, but the principle extends well beyond this and so I am going to drop a note at WT:INB about this query. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic or the source, but generally speaking, newspapers are considered reliable sources. WP:CIRCULAR says that we shouldn't use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing. But can you be a little more specific? Which part of the newspaper article do you believe is based on Wikipedia's article? Again, I'm not familiar with the topic, so you'll have to spell it out for me so I can understand. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to declare DNA not for use due to CIRCULAR on the basis of this plagiarism. I suggest you contact them for an official response though. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I'm seeing it.

Wikipedia:

“ In addition, the police allowed doctors, not specifically trained in forensic pathology, to conduct the autopsies of Hemraj and Aarushi. While it is established procedure to lift fingerprints (of both murderers and victims) from the skin of the victims.[8] the doctors entrusted with the autopsies neglected to call forensic scientists to lift fingerprints from the cadavers. ”

DNA Daily:

“ In addition, police allowed doctors not specifically trained in forensic pathology to conduct the autopsies of Hemraj and Aarushi, he said.

While it is established procedure to lift fingerprints from the skin of victims, doctors entrusted with the autopsies neglected to call forensic scientists for the job, the sources said.

”

I'd presume that that article and anything written by that author (Rajnish Singh) to be unreliable. I'm not sure I'd extend this to the entire newspaper. This might be an isolated incident and I would bet that most newspapers have used Wikipedia as source at one time or another (although this is pretty blatant). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Drowned in Sound

Resolved

Is this a reliable source to use in the Sweet 7 article? I have seen Drowned in Sound used in other articles, however the actual review appears to have been written by a user. [14] Till I Go Home (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Per Drowned in Sound's Terms and Conditions 10, "We accept no liability in respect of any material submitted by users and published by us and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy." this makes the review unedited. As an unedited review on a user-submitted content site the review is unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I removed it, thanks. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

NASA work on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

In the article Cold fusion section "Subsequent research/Ongoing" I want to add "The Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at NASA Langley Research Center".

This is a direct quote from: this article by Dennis Bushnell. It is further verified by this NASA video.

Both sources are WP:ABOUTSELF. Nasa tells about their own work in their self published media.

So I think this is all perfectly reliably sourced.

I would really appreciate some comments.

Thank you. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks RS to me. I don't see any problem with that source for that statement. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Allison family -- Use of private papers as primary sources

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

Proposed uses of sources have been rejected by the community of RS/N editors. Proposing editor has been repeatedly counselled regarding Wikipedia's procedures and policies, and displays WP:IDHT behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

---

An editor, User:Tjtrower, insists on re-adding (now five times in a few days) a large section of material that is supposedly sourced to some private papers. This seems to be the importation of some dispute among Titanic history buffs, and he claims to be an expert Titanic historian. No amount of pointing him to WP:RS and WP:V seems to work. I'm sort of worn out arguing over it and am losing interest, so some other eyes on it might be worthwhile. Bad Gopher Gear (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The use of private papers in history articles constitutes original research; and is therefore unreliable. The conduct appears to be disruption and IDHT. Other venues are appropriate for conduct related dispute resolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, just as a reminder: things that are unreliable sources may make excellent external links. Consult external links policy in this regard. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, website is not RS. Editor seems to be exhibiting WP:IDHT behaviour, and the reference section seems to indicate some primary documents (depositions and briefs), I suspect those are out as per WP:PRIMARY as well. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh you all DO know that website in question is actually referencing the TV show "Titanic's Final Mystery" on the Smithsonian Channel, right? Did anyone here actually READ that link?!? Because you are all basically saying the Smithsonian is not reliable and that is TOTALLY MAD AS A HATTER INSANE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If people want to reference the a TV program on the Smithsonian Channel they need to reference it, not some random website. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, please do not shout or suggest other editors are insane in future. It disrupts the purpose of this noticeboard and in future contributions that suggest that other editors possess certain characteristics will be hidden archived to prevent board disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Two things here. TV.con not a "random web site" and given the time period it occurred in makes perfect sense to site that. Second, Fifelfoo, you do NOT WP:OWN this board and WP:NPA#WHATIS states "Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages" in of itself is a personal attack. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." WP:NPA is no more a magical censorship hammer then WP:BLP is, do not treat is as such.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, your choice to contribute here is welcome, more eyes on RS/N is always good. I did not accuse you of vandalism. Arguments you make, and especially valid and important arguments you make, will be lost if you use all caps and suggest other editors are insane. As I would prefer to evaluate your arguments without having to read all caps, can I suggest you avoid using typographical emphasis, or use the much more standard typographical forms of ''italics'' and '''bolding''' which don't offend readers in the same way that all caps does. Similarly, not suggesting other editors are insane helps to advance your argument. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where 'TV.con' ( http://www.tv.com/ ?) is coming from, but the only URL in the edit under discussion is http://www.titanicslastmystery.com which appears to be a completely random non-RS website as far as I can see, being an apparently partisan site with no obvious editorial policy or professional editorship. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Appears I did a oopsy (http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.titanicslastmystery.com%7Ctitle%3DTitanic%27s+Last+Mystery). Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing it out, Stuartyeates.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there are some recently-made strong claims in this doco. Maybe those claims are true, maybe they're not. I suggest that some text be written on the talk page and not made live until six months after the oroginal screening of the doco, so other independent parties can assess the evidence. While we're here, the article as a whole relies entirely too strongly on encyclopedia titanica. Other sources sohuld be used. Some of those sources may be in the encyclopedia titanica references list. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So it would appear the rush to label the editors here as insane was perhaps...ooh.. what's the word... . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 04:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My name is Timothy Trower, Wikipedia user ID Tjtrower; when an editor writes this, and I quote, "for a variety of reasons, Wikipedia articles must be cited to reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are generally not acceptable" then I, and the rest of the world of academia, laugh and give Bronx cheers to Bad Gopher Gear, the unfortunate author of this quote. Is anyone actually serious that original research is bad? If you are, I sincerely pity you whilst simultaneously viewing you with the disgust I generally reserve for dog droppings tracked across a clean, white carpet.

When I research and write, be it a murder that occurred in Springfield, Missouri, in 1956, a ship named the Oceanic (III) of 1928, or the death of Barbara West, Titanic survivor, I'd better damn well get my facts straight, and that means interviewing eyewitnesses, relatives, finding and viewing original source documents, tracking down original photographs (it's a shame what people do with Photoshop these days), and then writing it in a well organized, well written and cognizant manner, heavily footnoted to reflect where each piece and bit of information came from, and finally, publishing it in a reputable journal, book, magazine, newspaper or web site.

The point that I am making, and that Bad Gopher Gear is feebly attempting to counter, is that the source documents in the Allison question exist. What I now charge is that Bad Gopher Gear has a hidden and personal agenda and is repeatedly vandalizing the Allison Family page through his/her repeated pulling of information, written from source documents, and posted for the edification of the Wikipedia community and the web-searching public at large.

To make the claim, whether Wikipedia guidelines or a figment of the imagination, that "primary sources are generally not acceptable" is laughable. No wonder that any college class I've taken in continuing education has a not in the syllabus that Wikipedia cannot be used as a citation for research. Kudos to those wise college and university professors!

The Allison family question is this: Did Loraine Allison die on board the Titanic, or, as Loraine Kramer, did she escape the sinking ship? It is a matter of public record that this topic has surfaced, has been given a great deal of attention in the Titanic community (we who find, rely on, and use extensive primary source material) and, if the DNA testing underway proves that Loraine Allison did not die on the ship but instead died a grandmother, will literally rock the world -- and I do not mean just the Titanic community. Likewise, if the DNA testing underway proves that Loraine Kramer was not the Allison child, then this revelation will finally put to rest the seventy-five year quest by the Kramer family to find out the truth of Loraine Kramer's claim. Either way, this is information that should indeed be made a part of the Wikipedia record so that the casual web searcher will find this information readily available so that they can then read and judge for themselves.

Finally, the line directly below where I am typing this line reads "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." The second section of this line gives lie to the quote from Bad Gopher Gear in which he/she states that "primary sources are generally not acceptable" as reason for the deletion of the 2012 information in the Allison page. Clearly, he/she and everyone else needs to clearly examine what this really means. Right now, I don't have any idea of what Bad Gopher Gear is saying, and I don't think that he/she has any idea, either.

I deal in facts. What do you say? Tjtrower (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As a fellow academic, I have to say that you have missed the point of Wikipedia. One of the reasons that primary sources are generally not considered to be appropriate sources for wikipedia is because they are the basic substance over which we spend our careers arguing. You might think that the conclusions to be drawn from some piece of primary evidence are obvious and you may well be right. However, there is no 'professional historian's licence' on wikipedia, so just consider how difficult things would be to manage if every Tom, Dick and Harry was able to refer to primary sources for whatever conclusion they happen to have extracted from them. By insisting that discussions of primary sources already appear in reliable secondary sources Wikipedia avoids having to review every primary source-based claim that anyone might want to throw into an article. I know this can be frustrating as it does mean that important information can sometimes not be admitted, at least not until the research has been published elsewhere, but this is necessary for the site to function properly. Part of the problem may come from your insistence that you deal in facts; personally I would rather say we deal with interpretations. And interpretations can vary.BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Uh you all DO know that website in question is actually referencing the TV show "Titanic's Final Mystery" on the Smithsonian Channel, right? Did anyone here actually READ that link?!? Because you are all basically saying the Smithsonian is not reliable and that is TOTALLY MAD AS A HATTER INSANE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)"

PLEASE note that the web address listed in this 2012 section goes not to any page dealing with the Smithsonian but rather to the web site set up by Debrina Woods to publicize this new information. http://www.titanicslastmystery.com/

Sheesh. Again, people, I deal in facts, not in suppositions. Did anyone reading this page actually follow the link as posted as a reference? Tjtrower (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that some of you did. Good. That's actually using the old bean. Tjtrower (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tjtrower, you have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is, and is not. As such, your obvious confusion over the central policies in place here is easy to understand. First off, WP attempts to have a general knowledge level of content. Given that, any university or college that would allow it, shouldn't be allowed to hand out degrees at all. They shouldn't be applauded for that bit of obviousness. Secondly, you really do need to read some of those policies before you say things that might embarrass you. I would suggest starting with WP:PRIMARY and then moving on to WP:5PILLARS (in particular, section 2) to start with. I think they will be quite the eye openers for you. The material presented here in this section is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. That does not mean it's wrong, or that we even doubt the content, it means that under the policies in place (which I don't think any editor on this page had involvement with) we cannot even consider what's written there since it fails to meet the WP:RS criteria in the first place. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll also get a kick out of WP:V. If you want to bitch about a policy that seems idiotic, that one's a little bit like fish in a barrel. But hey, we're just here on *this* page to interpret the rules, not create new ones. That's a separate page here. Feel free to get involved with it. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I dunno how long some of you have been "editors" but I've been a user and editor since the mid 2000s (I think 2007) and am a) not a Johnny come lately and b) am someone who deals in facts, not suppositions and the vagaries of those who know nothing of the subject of which they write. That is why I have limited those areas I've contributed to to those of which I have actual knowledge of -- not using a scattershot approach that leaves me, and my contributions, open to scorn. Wikipedia is created by and edited by its users. As an editor and user, I am doing so. That so-called made-up rules that cater to the informed and lazy are present simply means that those rules, wrong as they are, should be changed. Tjtrower (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The "so-called made-up rules"?? They're called policy. I would have thought you've been here long enough to know them, and you should also have been here long enough to know, that if you don't like it, you should try and fix it, not grumble about it on the wrong page. Those are the facts. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to serve as Tjtrower's publisher. No matter how factual, no matter how well researched, the information must be taken out if it is not already published. What part of "no original research" do you not understand? The rule is foundational, not optional. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Webb Garrison A Treasury of Titanic Tales No location: No Publisher, No Date

I shall pose a question to all of you reading this discussion. As a source for the Titanic, do you consider the use of the book "A Treasury of Titanic Tales" by Webb Garrison to be what you term as a secondary source? I seriously ask this question without prejudice -- and I'd love to see your answers. Tjtrower (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, while Garrison's book has a reputation for containing a number of errors, it meets Wikipedia's requirements for a "reliable source". Such are the intricacies and vagaries of Wikipedia. Better that you cite a better source, however. The website you link to, [www.titanicslastmystery.com "TitanicsLastMystery.com"], is a personal website created by someone purporting to be the descendent of the subject of the Wikipedia biography (and entirely different from the TV program "Titanic's Final Mystery). Such a claim is entirely unverified, and you are importing a dispute from your Titanic history-buff websites to here, which is decidedly not welcome. As a couple of users have pointed out, please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and related policy pages. Bad Gopher Gear (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Kindly watch the accusations of importing a dispute -- for all I know, you are a descendent of the Allison family who is dead set against the even remote possibility that Loraine Kramer was Loraine Allison. As you seem to be maintaining a vendetta against this page with the most thinly-veiled intentions, I seriously wonder at your motives and how they seem to go far beyond the norm. For the record, I am not even related to any Titanic crew or passengers, and I've looked hard. Can you say the same? (Mind you, I am willing to be identified, but you hide behind the cloak of an Internet handle that reveals nothing.) Tjtrower (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please present a full citation of the work, including place, publisher and date; and, possibly characterise the work briefly? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd have done so sooner, but the Pharisees and Sadducees that infest this message board saw fit to stifle any discourse. "A Treasury of Titanic Tales" by Webb Garrison, Rutledge Hill Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1998; the book is a collection of stories about the Titanic collected and edited by the author.

Since, according to certain editors on this message thread, this book meets the criteria of a "secondary source" and as such can be used as a primary reference for Wikipedia, the so-called rules governing the use of Primary Source Material are proven to be worthless, pointless, ridiculous, malicious and farcical. You would use absolute trash and garbage, but deny the right to use a letter by a passenger on board the Titanic as he tells of his experience in using the Turkish Bath -- because, according to your rules, "Titanic Tales" is useful and worthy of praise, but a letter -- a primary source document -- written by a passenger about a specific part of the Titanic cannot -- according to your rules -- be used because it is, indeed, a first-person account, is an original source, and is, according to you, valueless.

If I call this policy moronic, you will certainly understand why and no doubt agree with me. Tjtrower (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Source books and collections of primary sources, including autobiographical accounts are not historical works in the meaning of WP:HISTRS, they are primary works. The use of primary works to produce knowledge is the production of original research. Original research should not be included in wikipedia articles. If you have original research regarding the Titanic, I suggest you publish it in scholarly or reviewed historical journals. For example, The Titantic Communicator which your user page indicates you have had some measure of involvement with, appears to have some measure of editorial control, and would be an acceptable source for simple facts, or unextraordinary analysis. It would be a suitable place to publish original research.

Documents contained in Webb Garrison A Treasury of Titanic Tales Nashville, Tennessee: Rutledge Hill Press, 1998 are not reliable for historical articles on wikipedia as their use would constitute original research.

Your invective is not welcome on this board, or generally on wikipedia. Though your considered editing within Wikipedia's policy is certainly welcome and encouraged. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, hello -- finally woke someone up. "Documents contained in Webb Garrison('s)" book? What? Have you a copy of this tome? Have you read it? I've a copy right here -- feel free to test my knowledge of its contents . . . I feel pretty sure that you are just trying to sound authoritative without having actually read or even looked at the contents. First, the lot of you say that a primary source document has to be published somewhere in order to qualify as a secondary source document. That has been accomplished with the Garrison book. Second, however, since I point out the obvious fact that (to a Titanic historian) that this book is riddled with error, you now claim that it is, indeed, a primary source and as such, cannot be used on Wikipedia.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Just as discussion and, yes, conflict was stifled through your censoring of my right to speak, now you attempt to add a restriction that clearly isn't in your rules just to attempt to look and sound authoritative. Frankly, I don't think that the lot of you truly understand any of this -- you are out of your depth when dealing with facts and how to use them.

So -- the Constitution of the United States of America is a primary source document. Are you telling me that it cannot be used as a reference on Wikipedia? The Bill of Rights, and the other Amendments to the Constitution are primary source documents. Again, are you then claiming that they also cannot be used as a source for a Wikipedia article? Tjtrower (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Constitution of the United States of America requires interpretation, as do the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We rely on legal scholars' exegesis of rulings, not on the constitution. Both the Constitution of the United States of America and the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States of America are primary legal documents and should not be used on wikipedia to substantiate facts and interpretations in legal articles, as to do so would require original research. Your abusive tone is not welcome, please cease using it. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Then, for instance, I strongly suggest that you remove all use of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from the appropriate places; I've spent a bit of time looking before typing, and according to you, there is inappropriate content that must be removed. Please be sure to explain to the other editors why you are removing this content. Tjtrower (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I am still waiting for your justification on now not allowing the use of "Titanic Tales" on Wikipedia. My copy is still right here, and I await your questions. Tjtrower (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a compilation of Primary sources, use of it would constitute original research, as you have been repeatedly told. If you are unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy, then perhaps you should consider contributing to projects other than this one. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The pop book, A Treasury of Titanic Tales, was published by Rutledge Hill Press in 1998. I can see from WorldCat that there are copies of it in a few public libraries in California where I live, but hundreds of miles away from me. The author, Webb B. Garrison, is prolific. He's written some lexicography works including What's In A Word?, a bunch of books on Civil War topics including Brady's Civil War, a guide to the Bible, and various other popular books. The Titanic book by Garrison, even though it describes itself as full of "fun" facts, is what we at Wikipedia would typically call a WP:Reliable source. However, a specific "fact" appearing in Garrison could be unseated by a more scholarly source which contradicts it, especially if the scholar explains the difference between, say, popular or assumed knowledge and documented facts.

Why do you ask? There is no citation to the book at Allison family where you have been edit warring to insert a collection of facts that you researched cited to unpublished papers. Are you expecting to use Garrison as a source? Garrison is also not used as a source at the Titanic article, but he is cited, often as a Civil War or military historian, at Benjamin Huger (general), James Oglethorpe, Archibald Butt, Stephen D. Lee, Choctaw in the American Civil War, Charles Pomeroy Stone and Foods of the American Civil War. I wonder what point you are trying to make? You appear to be tilting at the windmill of Wikipedia's iron-bound WP:NOR policy, and only one of you can win. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that Garrison's Titanic book is considered by editors (well, not this one) as a secondary source belies the flaw in Wikipedia -- although, I will point out, that the Titanic community is remarkably well-policed, and I suggest that is why his book will never be taken seriously, let alone used by anyone with any knowledge of the Titanic, as a source. And yet Wikipedia accepts it's use. I love the thought that someone has used another of his works on the Archie Butt page -- wait until George Behe or Doug Willingham hears about this one! Point is, Garrison's work is, almost without exception, badly flawed . . . and yet you support its use as a source for Wikipedia.

Now, you claim that Wikipedia has an "iron-bound" policy, and yet I point out that Wikipedia, by its nature, is created by its users. That includes its rules. So, Garrison stands, and the Constitution is out. Yep -- makes perfect sense. Tjtrower (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Tjtrower, you asked for an opinion, you got an opinion. Stop whining about it. You seem to be unhappy that you didn't get the opinion you wanted. Bummer for you. It doesn't change the policy. If you want to change the policy, you're in the wrong place. If you don't understand the policy, you're in the wrong place. If you just want to whine about our interpretation of the policy, you're in the wrong place. If you want to continue to argue for it as a source in an article, guess what? You're still in the wrong place. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Poor baby -- when challenged with facts, you resort to ignoring my points and issuing boilerplate. Grow up and learn that the real world respects fact, not filtered pap from the likes of your kind. And especially take note of the fact that changes (or revolutions) come from within. Perhaps you are threatened because you know that in a properly-run Wikipedia, you would have no platform for your grandstanding. Tjtrower (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The solution to this is to read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR several times. Understand why they are as they are. Once you have done that you will be in a far better position to not only understand the likely reactions you will get from using certain sources in certain ways, but to actually use the sources you want to use to convey the information you want to convey. One of the key reasons for restricting the way sources are used is that Wikipedia is not edited only, or even mostly, by published academics, nor is it peer reviewed. The purpose is to make available the current received wisdom on notable subjects. By realising this and going with the grain it is often possible to include far more useful information than would be the case if you were to attempt to write a section as you would for academia or journalism. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Well, as I understand it, what is trash is considered, by you, as useful, but what is considered the Gold Standard by responsible academia is considered trash, by you. I am so NOT impressed by the collective IQ displayed by those Pharisees who rule this site. Tjtrower (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Thrash Hits.com

I want to use an article from that website to add the genre "post-metal" to the infobox of the band Deftones, the source says:

they released their third album, White Pony in 2000. Chino Moreno was also working on Team Sleep at that time, lending to a definite shoegaze metal sound. This new sound meant that White Pony grabbed everyone’s attention...[15]

I have to point that a source from the post-metal article in wikipedia states that shoegaze metal and post-metal are sinonimous.
Now, there is another editor [16] saying that the site is not reliable and that failed to stablish notability once, but that was in 2008, the site is much more prominent and important now, it's colaborators also writes for music magazines.[17]

What does the people at RS/N think?

Thrash Hits homepage: [18]

-Trascendence (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No editorial policy listed, no editors listed per article, this does not seem RS to me. It *may* be popular enough to cite for non-controversial things with an inline citation, but if anyone disagrees with the content cited to it, I would say they would be within their rights to remove it as not RS. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that thrash hits can be reliable because, it was founded by Raziq Rauf, he have wrote for the Guardian [19] he seems to be a very competent writer, he also wrote the site's about page: [20] Trascendence (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be correct, if you could prove he vets every article on the site, or that he wrote the article in question. Neither of those facts is true though. Ergo, not RS (there are other reasons too, but I don't think we need to hit you with a hammer here . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

He is the chief editor, of course that he vets every article. that's his work. Trascendence (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that's quite possibly what he *should* do, however, without any of the other policies in place for that website, it's hard to justify that assumption on its own. He should also have all those other policies listed too, that's also his job, but that's not done either. It's not about what we can assume (assumptions are never usable here), it's about what we can verify, as per WP:V and WP:RS. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Genre classification is inherently controversial. He seems to have been a casual writer for the Guardian, and not staff: I'm not seeing that as established expertise in the classification of metal. It is too controversial, it is clearly SPS, and there's no expert exemption established for the SPS status. Not reliable for the (highly controversial) area of musical genre classification. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Its self published, and therefore should be avoided for sourcing any controversial topics, including genre classification. — GabeMc (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wim Dankbaar - Is this a notability issue or is this a reliable source issue?

Charles Nicoletti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chauncey Marvin Holt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In Charles Nicoletti, I found the following statement:

It has also been alleged by a number of sources that Nicoletti was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.[21]

The unformatted citation links to the website of Wim Dankbaar. A Google search indicates that Dankbaar appears to be relatively notable within the "conspiracy community" (i.e. he is referenced in what appear to be various self-published works) and his views have been incorporated into a few Wikipedia articles, especially James Files and Chauncey Holt. His book is published by TrineDay. (Trine Day has been discussed in RSN previously here.) His website covers much of the same material, but appears to be self-published and very heavily into promoting his book. Although he is a reliable source for his opinions, do those opinions have to be mentioned in other reliable sources in order to be included in Wikipedia article? Or does his notability need to be determined elsewhere to find out if his views can be included per WP:RSOPINION? Thanks! Location (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wim Dankbaar's website and book are not reliable sources per se. There is a provision called WP:ABOUTSELF which allows you to use questionable and self-published sources for information about Dankbaar if he is notable enough to have an article. But there are 5 criteria which must be satisfied:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It must pass all 5 criteria to be used and it definitely fails criteria #2 and #3 for those three articles. (I'm not sure about criteria #1. It apparently has changed since the last time I looked at it.)

I did, however, find an article at Playboy that can be used instead.[22] Warning: that web site is NSFW. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Not suitable for Wikipedians? Andrew Dalby 09:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the Playboy article, should this be cited with or without the url if it is used? Location (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

With. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin - is about.com an RS for a transcript?

Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a bit of a train wreck (eg should we really be doing our own timeline?). At the moment I just concerned with this link being used as a source for a transcript [23]. Over at [24] it has already been said that a website that has been able to download directly from official sources isn't a reliable source as it is self-published, so is this about.com site a reliable source? Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

what's the text it's being used to support? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

One: it is a primary source. Any use of it in a journalistic subject is almost certainly going to be original research.

Two: about.com and William Deutsch are not professional records officers or archivists. There is no indication that either about.com nor William Deutsch have the capacity to maintain documents.

Three: as expected, the actual use of the transcript, and this "copy" of the transcript, are OR, coatracking and synthesis of the worst kind.

Pull the source, pull the content. It isn't reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised to see how poor the quality is of such a high profile article. And a lot of that is down to misunderstanding of what sources to use and how to use them. The case was surely reported enough in the mainstream media for there to be no need to do any further original research (34 articles in Le Monde). Itsmejudith (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a problematic sign that at this stage of the project, with finely developed policies, systems of editorial support (like RS/N), and a core pool of experienced editors that Shooting of Trayvon Martin happens like it does; especially with the amount of attention heaped on the article. It is also kind of problematic that experienced editors on that article require RS/N's analysis due to contention amongst the general editorial community of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable but you can use this instead: Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not for use [113c] which it can't substantiate. And uses [113a & b] are fairly transparent synthesis and OR. A Quest For Knowledge's suggested version should be used if a reliable use can be found for the transcript (for example, fact checking existing citations in secondary sources). Fifelfoo (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion of the RS issues about sites like these. But as others agree, the article is a problem, should it be reported to BLPN and NPOVN as well? Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo: True regarding [113c]. That sentence has 3 other sources so this can be fixed by simply removing a reference to the transcript.

@Dougweller: This has already been reported to BLP/N at least twice. I'm not sure about NPOV/N. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Four archive references in BLPN. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

← Shooting of Trayvon Martin is a Superfund site of an article. It requires a federal case to address even the most blatant and unequivocal violations of this site's content policies. It's a function of the editor pool active on the article; over time it has become increasingly dominated by editors with strong personal viewpoints on the incident, most of whom edit little or nothing else on this project besides the shooting article. Meanwhile, most of the more experienced editors and those with less personal investment in the incident have given up and fled the article. It's like bizarro Wikipedia at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and spending too long there will make you question your own sanity.

Eight case studies of sourcing insanity. For the nutshell version, see [25]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Case study #1: Here, it takes a massive effort simply to remove patently unsuitable blogs. These efforts are resisted tooth-and-nail by some of the most active editors at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin; when I point to a consensus at WP:RS/N against using these blogs, I am reverted because the editors at the shooting article recognize no outside authority: "no such consensus among editors of this article". Case study #2: The same editors who routinely cite right-wing blogs as sources turn around and reject the Pew Research Center as a reliable source, calling it "determinedly ignorant". Third-party input is likewise rejected: "Who should we believe? The reliable sources noticeboard or our own lying eyes?" Even now, some editors continue to grumble that citing Pew is simply an "attempt to demonize Fox using an unreliable left-wing blog". Case study #3: Here, an attempt to encourage marginally appropriate sourcing standards devolves into a surreal argument about the etymology of the word "blog". Case study #4: A piece from the Orlando Sentinel is rejected as "another probable turd from a 'reliable source'", because it doesn't match an editor's personal recollection of stuff he'd heard somewhere. Case study #5: Forensic-medicine experts say that the level of THC in Martin's blood at autopsy is not indicative of acute intoxication ([26]). However, these reliably sourced expert opinions are rejected because it conflicts with one editor's recollection of something he heard in biochem class. This is seriously the level at which most discussion on the talk page operates. Case study #6: We can't describe Martin as "unarmed" (although, of course, he is universally described as such by reliable sources). Because "unarmed" doesn't mean "not armed"; it means "totally defenseless". Or something. Case study #7: here, material sourced to the New York Times is cut because, as we all know, "NYT is retailing Crump spin about SPD screwing up. As with the complaint about nor drug-testing GZ, it's BS." So long, New York Times source. Case study #8: According to the Orlando Sentinel and other reliable sources, the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. But that's not acceptable to the editors at the Martin talk page, because... well, I'll just link the thread, because I can't wrap my head around it. I'm sure there's an excellent reason why we should once again ignore a reliable secondary source in favor of pseudonymous single-purpose accounts' interpretations of primary sources.

Occasionally, of course, the mask drops and it's evident that we're simply dealing with agenda-driven editing. But mostly it's too much of a slog; if it takes multiple trips to WP:RS/N to address even the most basic content-policy violations (after which the article's editors refuse to listen to outside input and keep reverting anyway), then there's really no way a sane person can justify investing time in fixing the article's more substantial problems. MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The proper place to expose walled gardens of improper conduct to light is probably the administrator's noticeboard with a proposed community sanction regarding the article or editors. If you do go down this path, please leave a note on my talk page so I can comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirm the sources reliablity

The article Muhammad Iqbal, contain some doubtful sources, I am listing few of those please advice if these are Unreliable sources to claim in the article.

• 1 Is www.brightpk.com this reliable to claim;

  Entire the first paragraph of Muhammad Iqbal#Political.

"He was a critic of the mainstream Indian National Congress, which he regarded as dominated by Hindus and was disappointed with the League when during the 1920s". and...

• Last half of the second paragraph of Muhammad Iqbal#Political.

"He supported the constitutional proposals presented by Jinnah with the aim of guaranteeing Muslim political rights and influence in a coalition with the Congress, and worked with the Aga Khan and other Muslim leaders to mend the factional divisions and achieve unity in the Muslim League."

• Entire section of Muhammad Iqbal#Patron of The Journal Tolu-e-Islam

"He also dedicated the first edition of this journal to Iqbal. For a long time Iqbal wanted a journal to propagate his ideas and the aims and objective of Muslim league. It was Syed Nazeer Niazi, a close friend of his and a regular visitor to him during his last two years, who started this journal. He also made Urdu translation of The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, by Sir Muhammad Iqbal."

• 2 Is www.brecorder.com and dugg.pk are these reliable to claim;

At the last sentence of the lead section of Muhammad Iqbal.

"His birthday (یوم ولادت محمد اقبال‎ – Yōm-e Welādat-e Muḥammad Iqbāl) is a Public holiday in Pakistan."

• 3 Is www.studysols.com a reliable source to claim;

At the first sentence of the second paragraph of Muhammad Iqbal#Biography which claims;

"Iqbal's father, Shaikh Noor Mohammad, was a tailor, not formally educated but a religious man".

At the first sentence of the last paragraph of Muhammad Iqbal#Biography which claims;

"In 1895, while studying Bachelor of Arts Iqbal had his first marriage with Karim Bibi, the daughter of a Gujrati physician Khan Bahadur Ata Muhammad Khan, through a arranged marriage."

• 4 Is en.qantara.de a reliable source to claim multiple issues at the section listed below;

At the first sentence of second paragraph of Muhammad Iqbal#Higher education in Europe, which claims;

"During Iqbal's stay in Heidelberg, Germany in 1907. His German teacher Emma Wegenast, taught him about Goethe's "Faust", Heine and Nietzsche. Iqbal had feelings for her, but no relationship developed". and...

At the last sentence of the third paragraph of Muhammad Iqbal#Literary work;

"In his first visit to Afghanistan, he presented his book "Payam-e Mashreq" to King Amanullah Khan in which he admired the liberal movements of Afghanistan against the British Empire. In 1933, he was officially invited to Afghanistan to join the meetings regarding the establishment of Kabul University.

At the second sentence of the first paragraph of Muhammad Iqbal#Urdu;

The poems he wrote up to 1905—(the year Iqbal left for England) reflects patriotism and imagery of nature, that includes the Tarana-e-Hind (The song of India).

there are some more to be listed, :) Regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

1. bright.pk describes itself as "an online news portal". Not reliable for historical biography. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Sources are poor, but public holidays in Pakistan are common knowledge, so quality of sourcing is not a major issue. Try finding an official government website (could be in Urdu) or failing that an international listing of public holidays (UN? OECD?). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

3. News report. Not reliable for historical biography. I expect the same information is available elsewhere, because the journalist who wrote the report had to do the research somewhere.

4. This looks fine. Signed by an academic and hosted on a serious cultural website. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

1. BrightPK.com - Not RS for any of those statements (whether they are correct or not isn't the issue). The article doesn't even list an author (and I really enjoyed the 14 popup ads too...)

2. Brecorder.com - Seems RS for this statement.

2a. dugg.pk - I don't like this one. Not RS. However, the statement seems non-contentious, so unless there's an argument about it, it may be "good enough". Certainly seems easy to verify either way.

3. studysols.com - Not RS, no expertise in that field. However, I note that your article has other references for that point anyway, so this may be moot.

4. en.qantara.de - RS. Here is the author's CV, which definitely gives him credibility for his statements. (however, the source doesn't say there was no relationship, it says it "remained correct throughout", a tweak there might be suggested)

4a. There is no mention in the source of meeting the king, or giving him a book, however, the source does mention he helped found the university of Kabul

4b. the source only mentions poems that deal with romance, and nationalism, I don't see anything that reflects "imagery of nature", unless someone is taking some poetic license with the fact that he was heavily influenced by the Romantic poets of England at the time. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Validity of Sources for Super Kid Icarus

I added a paragraph to the Legacy section of the Kid Icarus page regarding a fan game called Super Kid Icarus. The sources I used to establish notability were from Joystiq , Siliconera and Screwattack . There is a debate around if these sources are valid for establishing notability of the fan game and I have been accused of being biased for having only edited related to Super Kid Icarus on Wikipedia. As such, I wanted to reach out and get some external opinions from the sourcing gurus. Thanks in advance. PeterAmbrosia (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are a WP:SPA or not isn't really relevant as to whether the sources you're using are RS or not. It may be that they are RS and fail for many other reasons, such as notability for example. It seems to me that the video games project here was keeping a list of useful sources they could use for game info, you may want to look there as well. As for your question, it seems the article is in a state of flux, I'm unable to find the edit you'd like to support. Can you provide a diff for your sources? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The paragraph in question, that the sources are supporting and which has been suggested to be removed is currently contained in the article at the very bottom of the Legacy section and begins with "In May 2011..." You will also notice a heated debate currently taking place on the Talk page for the Kid Icarus article under the "Unauthorized Kid Icarus Game" heading. Basically, the past 17 edits on the Kid Icarus page have been related to this matter. I am not all that familiar with the list your referring to, would it maybe be possible to include a link and I can have a look? When determining notability, I considered that there is a lower standard for including a paragraph in an existing article and I also looked at other fan games and video game websites to see what they were using and, Joystiq for example, has been used to establish notability by itself with no other sources in some instances. Please let me know if I can clarify more. PeterAmbrosia (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've now read that paragraph, it does read like puffery and advertising, and has borderline wp:copyvio issues as well, so you're going to have a tough hill to climb to get that into that article. None of which is why you're here. In relation to the sources:

• the comcast page (presumably yours) should be ripped out immediately as not RS.
• the ScrewAttack page is from a blog by Jennero Rossi (Rossl?), not RS.
• SilconEra - the quote from Jonathan Leung might be RS if you can prove it's him (may even help with weight and notability). Other than that, I don't find this site RS.
• Joystiq - is RS, but not sure it's going to cover your WP:weight or WP:notability issues.

If you can get past all that, I don't see the problem with mentioning it in your article, *briefly*. It's quasi-attached to the nintendo game, and it isn't likely to ever merit a page of its own. But that's just my personal opinion, and outside the scope of this board. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. Could you help me understand how sources from Joystiq, Boing Boing, Slashdot, and Attack of the Show are sufficient to establish enough notability for an entire article for VGMaps. Further, there was a discussion regarding illegality and copyright concerns regarding VGMaps on the VGMaps talk page as well and the editors were instructed that "If you add anything about copyrights in it needs to be specific about this site and it can not be your personal interpretation of anything. This is not the place to discus copyrights in general there is an article about that. This is not the place to offer your personal interpretation about whether they are in compliance or not." Finally, on the VGMaps page, could you help me understand why an article written by the site owner was a "RS" in regards to establishing the site launch date, but is disallowed for Super Kid Icarus. Note: I am not the creator of Super Kid Icarus or the website, if that is relevant in any way.

High level, I am curious if there are hard and fast rules regarding any of this or does it simply come down to whoever vocalizes their opinion the strongest and the number of people that care one way or the other on a given topic. PeterAmbrosia (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your first paragraph at all, as your original question had almost nothing to do with VGMaps. If you have another question about VGMaps, I would suggest creating a new section on this board for any RS questions you have about it. In regards to your second paragraph, I would say no, it does not come down to whoever vocalized the strongest, it comes down to consensus on the evaulation of policy, for this board in particular, Starting with section 2 of WP:5P, also I think you need to have a very solid grasp of WP:RS in its entirety, WP:BLP, WP:SPS, WP:OR, WP:NOTABLE, WP:SYNTH, WP:CS and occasionally WP:UCS, as well as a few others (including WP:IAR). Generally, if several experienced uninvolved editors are of the same opinion about a source (or sources) that's probably a reliable basis to continue from, but nothing is carved in stone, people sometimes leave here and keep right on tilting at windmills . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My original question didn't have anything to do with VGMaps so I agree there, but don't think it matters at all. I also apologize you had trouble understanding what I meant, I will type more clearly. I was comparing how similar sources were deemed as acceptable to establish notability for an entire article in one instance, and not another. In my opinion it is completely relevant to a discussion on the validity of sources. Isn't it a common step to compare what has been used to establish notability of other video game related articles? However, if you don't wish to address my questions in this section, and prefer I create a separate section then I will do that but it feels like red tape. Finally, how is people fighting imaginary enemies relevant in any way to this discussion regarding sources? That is what tilting at windmills means right? Or at least as written by Miguel de Cervantes in Don Quixote. PeterAmbrosia (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In reverse order, haha! Not quite. It's a story about a man trying to take on forces that he has no hope of succeeding against because he's misunderstood what they are (In his case, the wind...ooor the ... windipedia? lol... never mind...) either way, in a question about video games, it seems relevant too . On to your next question... It keeps things tidy to keep separate questions in separate places, however, if you think that's a burden, I'll answer you here instead.

Referring to comparing notability from one article to the next, sort of. It can be a step on your path, but source reliability is strongly linked to context. I believe I already said Joystiq was RS for your question. I haven't looked (you haven't supplied) the other references for the article you're asking me about, but specifically, if a blog post from ScrewAttack is used on the VGMaps page, I would say it's probably not RS there either, and no one has gotten around to bringing the question to RSN. The site owner of VGMaps is RS for his site's launch date because it's his site. He's not RS for much about kid icarus, because he's not involved in the project (except for that background tiles issue, which, again, I already said above might be something for your article). BoingBoing (specifically Cory Doctorow) is a well known popular culture site, a reference there is probably at least *slightly* notable. Also, BB's notation isn't full of hyperbole and exclamation marks, it just makes a simple statement and provides a link for further verification. Slashdot and AotS were not in your original question either, but Sd in particular has been around for a very long time, and has a habit of tossing out unworthy material. Having said that, the article there is only a link to Joystiq anyway, I don't see why it's used as a source. AotS is only used to provide notability, not content. Hope that helps. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, that vaguely addressed some of what I was asking, I mean you are saying the web site owners own article is ok to use on the VGMaps article to establish the launch date of VGMaps, but a page from Super Kid Icarus cannot be used to establish the release date of Super Kid Icarus and "should be ripped out immediately as not RS." I was simply asking because a complete understanding of the differences would help make me a better editor. However, as a resolution to this particular section/discussion, I will remove the paragraph about the fan game from the Kid Icarus article because it appears it is the opinion and interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines from four Wikipedia editors that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability for its inclusion in Wikipedia and I will respect that. Though I am adamant that most Wikipedia editors edit articles because they have an interest in the subject and not because they are neutral parties editing an article they don't care about and that this leads to varying interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines which are not hard and fast rules. For example, I am interested in Super Kid Icarus and that is why my edits relate to it. Take care. PeterAmbrosia (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You asked, I answered, I don't need the attitude when all I'm trying to do is answer the questions you asked. your question re: the website launch date was:

"could you help me understand why an article written by the site owner was a "RS" in regards to establishing the site launch date, but is disallowed for Super Kid Icarus?"

Are you now telling me that you got your pronouns confused, and you are referring to different site owners? Because I answered the question of why J. Leung would be RS for one, and not the other, which is what your question asks.

Referring to my "ripped out" comment, the url starts with "http://home.comcast.net", my understanding is that's a personal website, not corporate. As such, it is immediately not RS for that. If it's not a personal website, that's another matter (but I'm pretty sure comcast corporate accounts don't start with a home. url).

I agree largely with your assessment of why ppl edit here, however, I have never heard of anything about your article before now, I only gave you my interpretation of policy, including my already mentioned opinion that a *brief* mention of the game would probably be warranted, but, as with everyone else, you're welcome to remove the whole thing if you want to. The reason there are boards here like RSN are for exactly the reason you suggest. Uninvolved editors are much more likely to give you an unbiased opinion on policy interpretation. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

thestopbutton.com

thestopbutton.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I noticed an anonymous IP sytematically adding film review blurbs from thestopbutton.com to many articles about films. The pattern of edits gave the appearance of someone trying to build traffic to the site via refspam. After a quick search for news references to either the site or its author Andrew Wickliffe and finding no signficant coverage in reliable sources, I determined that this film critic is not notable, although he seems good at self-promotion. Therefore, I blocked the IP user and proceeded to remove all those references to thestopbutton.com.

Due to the pattern of spamming I was considering adding the site to the blacklist as well, until I noticed that a few articles have had these references restored by User:Bzuk with the rationale: this review is listed in the Turner Classic Movies website which is a moderator-controlled website.

I don't see this as a valid rationale for including a review by a non-notable critic. An example of being "listed" is here. It's simply a link. That doesn't constitute significant coverage, and doesn't confer notability, and doesn't really meet the WP:BURDEN for supporting the inclusion of thestopbutton.com as a reference in Wikipedia film articles. I'd like to see the community's thoughts. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Indexation in an edited collection is not an indication that the original material was edited. There is no editorial control over thestopbutton.com, an unedited blog; therefore thestopbutton.com's reviews of movies are not reliable. Using this exemplar (Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)) there's no indication of editorial control being exercised over thestopbutton.com by Turner Classic Movies: TCM is acting as a link aggregator. I can't find an EXPERT exemption to save Andrew Wickliffe's reviews. Even if Wickliffe was EXPERT, I don't see how his reviews are WEIGHTable in an article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Very involved editor chiming in. It's so tough to find contemporary reviews of classic films and when the moderator-administered Turner Classic Movies (as opposed to IMDb entirely volunteer- and fan-run) had provided the link to a review site, it is an endorsement of the site, not simply being as commented above only a link aggregator. TCM also lists Leonard Maltin reviews regularly as well as The New York Times and Variety reviews. Repeating a comment I made before: I first noted that Turner Classic Movies lists this site in their "other reviews." TCM is a moderator-controlled site that is very different from fan sites such as IMDb, and even Rotten Tomatoes, which allows a wide variety of user contributions. When there are so few reviews of classic movies available, having Turner Classic vouch for this site by listing it. No one is driving traffic to this site, it is a bona fide entry at the Turner Classic Movies site. The number of mentions are few and selective, but when so few reviews are available for obscure films, the use of any valid source is appreciated. The few times I have referenced the site has always been in the context of providing a quote and only when the commentary is in line with other reviews. FWiW, if you wish to document the particular concerns that you have characterized as blogspamming directed to whom, per say???, that would also be appreciated. As to the credibility of Andrew Wickliffe, he has been quoted, linked and mentioned in many sources, to the point that his reviews have attained some notice in the other world. FWiW, I would find it extremely difficult to replace the Wickliffe reviews in the few articles in which I have used his commentary. Bzuk (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Moderation of links is not editorial control. The claim of EXPERTise by citation needs to be established by showing examples of film experts citing Wickliffe's work favourably. Could you supply links to, and citations of, multiple works by film experts who appraise and praise Wicklifee's work? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As stated in my initial comment in this thread, my concerns about blogspamming are directed at an anonymous IP. The pattern of edits seemed fairly clear. WP:DUCK and all. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with using quotes from thestopbutton.com to support article text. As I understand it, the problem is using it to support claims of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Wickliffe is the author of 250 250 Word Film Responses: Volume One available in a Kindle version. AFAIK, the Wickliffe reviews are also never the sole review listed by TCM, but complement other reviews. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

Please list the publisher of 250 250 Word Film responses: Volume One, as its title and subject matter and publication modality don't look like EXPERTise. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The book is published by Andrew Wickliffe, and is a compliation of "251 movie reviews from the film review website, The Stop Button, over a two year period," it isn't an indication of EXPERTise. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that there is "EXPERTise"[sic], nor is the notability of the reviewer relevant in the least. These are not being used to establish or confirm notability, they are being used as examples of reviews of these films, showing what is thought of them. The "notability" of the critit is utterly irrelevant, a critic doesn't need to meet the WP:GNG in order to have their opinions given as examples of opinions regarding the film. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this issue yet, but I think I'm confused by what Bushranger just said, a critic/reviewer doesn't have to be notable to have a quotable opinion? I'm not notable, does that make me a quotable critic/reviewer if I show you my self-published book where I mention Star Trek II being the greatest movie ever made? That *can't* be what you're saying here... -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 06:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As a WP:SPS an expert exemption is required for this to be a reliable source for a film review. An SPS by a non-expert bears no WP:WEIGHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 07:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, claiming that "the notability of the critic is utterly irrelevant" makes no sense. If the notability of the critic is irrelevant, then any film review posted by some unknown doofus on his personal blog, or comments posted in a discussion forum, are fair game to cite as an example of a review. That is simply not true. See WP:SPS. If a Wikipedia article is going to quote someone, then the source needs to be notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Bzuk, aside from the sub-plot going on directly above, the fact that reviews for older movies is hard to find, unfortunately, does not mean the standards change, it just means it's more work for you to find sources that do meet the requirements. I can find no indication from Andrew Wickliffe's wordpress/blog site (thestopbutton.com) that he is any kind of expert in this area, I can find no corroboration anywhere else either. I do not find this source to be RS. Sorry, I understand the difficulty you're dealing with, really I do (but unfortunately the policy doesn't change because it's tougher to find any in this instance). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As indicated before, the reviews are accepted by Turner Classic Movies, a moderated and RS website, which does indicate an acceptance of the value of the reviews, which is what I believe The Bushranger is stating. The original contention of the challenge was that postings of Wickliffe's reviews were amounting to blogspam, even though the submissions were, in some cases, ones that I had added in trying to expand some movie articles that had very few reference sources listed. The Wickliffe reviews are not cited for information on background or other aspects of the production, but as examples of later-day reviews of the film. Although the above posts are decrying the use of the reviews, they have risen to a level above a "fan site" and are the basis of an anthology. I have yet to find any of the Wickliffe reviews to be anything but well-considered, researched and written out in a suitable way. The search, however, continues to find some verification for Wickliffe's status. FWiW, Andrew Wickliffe is currently listed as a member of the 2012 Grand Jury adjudicating the Beneath the Earth Film Festival; he is also listed by IMDb as a reviewer, is listed as the #1 contributor to Four Word Film Reviews, but again as a product of a digital world, his resume and portfolio is just emerging. Bzuk (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Without his notability established, his reviews should not be taken as examples of anything, that's the problem. Again, I fully understand that it is difficult for you to find reviews other than his, of these movies, but that doesn't affect interpretation of the policies here (of course, you can always fall back on WP:IAR, as long as no one objects, but that's outside the scope of this board). The film festival itself doesn't seem notable, although I see they did have some interesting guest judges last year. IMDB gets slapped around on this board a lot, your argument is generally stronger if you don't mention them . What does it take to be a reviewer for IMDB? As far as I can tell, you have to sign up for their IMDB Pro, and review things. Can you point me to a qualification process for that? and Uhhh... your 4 word film reviews? It's a link to Amazon.com (wanna fix that?)...??? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If "his resume and portfolio [are] just emerging," it is difficult to accept that he is an established expert in the field. Once he does establish himself, then we could use his reviews. Not sooner. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just because Turner Classic Movies decides to include a link to Wickliffe's blog, that doesn't make him quotable. We can't quote people "just emerging"; they must have already arrived, and done so without any help from Wikipedia references. Bzuk and Bushranger need to demonstrate some policy backing to their arguments. Bottom line, no matter how well-considered Wickliffe's reviews are, he is not (yet) a notable critic, and not (yet) quotable on Wikipedia. He may be notable someday, but potential notability doesn't qualify. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

newforestpony.com

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

---

I need an opinion about the use of this website as a multiple reference (at least 14) for New Forest pony. This article has been nominated as a featured article candidate. I have some doubts as to the validity of this website as a Wikipedia reference. I brought the matter up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Forest pony/archive1 and one of the supporters of the articles nomination made this comment,

("that is the website for the breed registry, which is obviously a recognized expert on the breed (not to mention this is not exactly contentious information). This is not some backyard breeder's blog, it is the website for the government-recognized organization in charge of the breed that has been in place since, I think, 1905. Breed registries have been found to be a reliable source in many previous FACs and GANs - I can point you to specific links if you want, but there are a lot of them. Dana boomer")

This is an example of the information that is being used as a references in the article, [History of the New Forest Pony], there is an authors name and date at the bottom of the article but no footnotes and no mention were how this particular author obtained the information used in the article.

Here are two examples were this web site is being used as a history reference.

Ponies have grazed in the area of the New Forest for many thousands of years, dating back to before the last Ice Age.

As part of ongoing efforts to improve the hardiness of the breed and return it to a more native type in the 20th century, animals of other breeds (notably Welsh, Hackney, Fell, Dales, Highlands, Dartmoors, and Exmoors) were introduced to the Forest, but since 1930 only pure-bred New Forest stallions may be turned out.

The website is used as a reference on its self about the history and work of the website as in this example, which may be a justifiable reference but I feel that this website should not be use a reference for other types of information.

The Society for the improvement of New Forest Ponies was founded in 1891; they organised a stallion show and offered financial incentives to the owners of good stallions to run them on the Forest.

According to my understanding of WP:SPS this is a self published web site for the registering of a certain breed of horse and as far as I can see there is no personal information listed on who owns and runs the web site or their professional qualifications . Can someone take a look as I could be wrong about this particular situation but this website is quite similar to other so called professional web sites that were not recognized as being valid Wikipedia references, thanks for any help in this matter. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I must say, generally, that website does not instill me with confidence. However, the author of that article you linked to does have a published book available on amazon, about this type of horse here. So I think that would give credence to her claims, she is also listed on the nationalponysociety.org.uk website, and has written at least one article there (here it is) as well. She's apparently been awarded an MBE, congratulatory letter here. In the end, I'll give this one my RS seal of approval (but I do wonder how she knows what those ponies were doing in the last ice age...). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

For the article linked, not the website in general. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Despayre, aside from the fact that a national breed registry is generally a RS for information on a horse breed, though with the caveat that they may also have some information that is promotional as well, be aware that this user is doing some very troll-like behavior in the horse articles. See here. Montanabw^(talk) 16:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I resent this personal attack on me, this particular editor recently reverted some edits I made as vandalism and this was reversed in my favor by the very administrator that the editor went to when complaining about my edits, this type of personal attack has nothing to do with the conversation here.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not come across anything that indicated they were the national breed registry, do you have a source for that? Thanks for the heads-up anyway though. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Despayre, see here - they are the breed society, holder of the stud book and British passport issuing organization for the breed. This is definitely the national breed registry! Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have had a look at the statements about "the last ice age" in the source and in the quote from the article you give above. They don't match. The source says that New Forest ponies have been in the area since the end of the last ice age, while you give "before the last ice age". Since the end of the last ice age isn't unlikely, as that is when the ecology of southern England started to take the shape it still has today. Whether ponies were present as soon as the ice sheet retracted could be possibly be deduced from research into how much tree cover there was, or perhaps bones of ponies dated back then have been found. For FA, and for this particular statement, a reference to an academic paper in historical ecology would be preferable. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that this issue is posted here, wouldn't it make more sense for the discussion to continue at the talk page of the article? Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment on the validity of the site in question posed by the OP. A real quick glance here would lead me to believe that if these folks are having books published .. then their work is not just some "blogish" BS - but rather people who are familiar with the subject. Just IMHO. Chedzilla (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Who publishes it though? Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. - SudoGhost 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See above. It's been explained. Montanabw^(talk) 18:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yup .. and Microsoft, AP, CNN, Newsweek, etc. "pay" to have stuff published on a daily basis. I'm just saying, if you research the websites credentials a bit (things like being registered with CDREX - it's pretty easy to see that this isn't some teenager sitting mom and dad's basement just making things up. Look - I don't know diddly about the subject matter - but maybe if everyone sat down at the "Project" level and discussed the matter, ya'all could find some agreement. Sudo - guessing you have a Unix/computer background - think about McAfee.com or Norton.com/Symantec.com .. would you consider them a reliable source on virus information? IJS. Chedzilla (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My point was only that selling books they wrote does not give any validity to the reliability of the website, but the comment was without regard to any reliability shown through other means. - SudoGhost 18:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - and ok. Let's consider this though. As far as SPS - the "horses" are not creating or publishing or posting websites - but rather it's a secondary source (people who DEAL with those horses) who are providing the information. If "John Doe" says on johndoe.com that x=y .. then yes .. without a doubt - better to find a different source. I'm just saying that in this case - some give and take could work wonders. Chedzilla (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone asked above, why is the discussion being carried on here and not on the article talk page. The answer is: so that you can get input from editors interested in sourcing issues. To get maximum input you need to phrase your questions carefully and then sit back and let the board regulars respond. We are used to answering questions about whether books are self-published or from normal publishers. Despayre has already worked out that Dionis Macnair is a published writer on the topic, and I can confirm that her book was with a minor natural history publisher and not self-published. I have already commented on the "ice age" question. Unless you get comments from other regulars, which would be welcome, the consensus is that this website is generally RS for the topic. It may be overused in the context of FA candidacy, though.Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• If the author of the article has written a book on the subject then why is the book itself not used as a reference, anyone reading the article who checks on the references provided would have no way of knowing the validity of the website as they do not post any credentials as far as I can see and the author of the article does not post any information as far as their expertise on the subject and the average reader of a Wikipedia article does not have the resources to investigate the validity of websites like this. This is certainly the place to ask questions on the validity of references as people involved with an article would not necessarily have an independent view of the subject let alone the knowledge of mirror publishers and self publishers etc which there seems to be more of every day and this is a featured article candidate in which the creators are openly asking for scrutiny. More Wikipedians should watch the discussions taking place here as they could learn something that is as important as writing an article, that is ensuring that the article can stand up to the harsh criticism that Wikipedia articles are subject to at times due to badly referenced information. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Then let me be a bit more direct. "Teh Readers" care about "content" - our "project" cares about sources and references. Instead of looking, asking, collaborating, and trying to be helpful - you're stirring up a fuss about ZOMG what is a "tack" .. "That Ref doesn't have proof that it's reliable right out in front". If you would look beyond the end of your nose it would be quite clear to you that the site IS a reliable source. If you personally want to subject any article to "harsh criticism", then I suggest you go create a blog or join one of the many "anti-wiki" sites available to you. If you want to be a part of this project - then dial it down and check your attitude at the door. People here will work with you - but not if you continue to be so confrontational. Chedzilla (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused at which part of the above comment is at all useful. That was a bit more direct? What information in this discussion has made it clear that the site IS a reliable source other than your bolding that it is? There is nothing wrong with questioning a source. This source might be good. This source might be bad. I see no clear evidence either way from what has been provided here. Certainly, nothing to make it 'quite clear' has been offered. Your attitude can stay at the door as well. I'll keep mine on me, since I'm not planning on hiding behind being 'right' in the discussion. The idea that someone is anti-wiki just because they question a source is laughable. --Onorem♠Dil 04:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@Samurai, it is not up to the readers of Wikipedia to be entrusted with "knowing the validity" of a website used as a source (however, for the ambitious readers, all sources *are* listed), it's up to the editors here. That's been done in this case, Chedzilla is correct (although I will say it wasn't quite *that* obvious for this particular website). If you have other questions about other content and it's sources, please don't hesitate to bring them here. But in the meantime, please take this quarrel elsewhere as it is off-topic for this board. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Despayre, I have not brought any "quarrel" here, I asked a legitimate question about the validity of a reference, that is what this notice board is for, I did not make this personal, I wanted clarification on this issue and I am not responsible if other editors can not behave appropriately when discussing an issue here. Thanks for the input on this issue.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Extent of ice sheet and sites of prehistoric horse remains in the UK

I'm going to make my input here just at this moment very brief, as I have far more serious stuff on my mind at the moment (see my talk), and I apologise for not having thoroughly read everything up above before posting.

I strongly suggest that those in doubt about the presence of prehistoric horse in this area actually read the rest of the section, and also read History of the horse in Britain, and take note of the fact that the presence of Ice-Age-and-before equids in southern England has multiple and extremely reliable achaeological sources. Please also be aware that the area of the New Forest was not under an ice sheet during the last Ice Age - the ice sheet didn't come down that far.Though the official Breed Registry site (and the NFPB&CS is a registered charity in the UK) states "since the last Ice Age", it is readily apparent to anyone who actually reads the sources on the archaeological records (and has no axe to grind and a smidge of nouse) that there can be no question that, for example, horse bones dating to 500,000 BC have been found in the immediate area. FYI, User:Samuraiantiqueworld and I have crossed paths before, and he/she is one of only two editors in my more-than-17,000 edits whom I have had to ask not to post on my talk, as a result of battleground behaviour. (The other one has been reprieved).

Editors who know me will know that I am notorious(?) for taking WP:AGF to extremes, rather than otherwise, but in this instance I simply cannot do so. Pesky (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm just going to paste this bit in, straight from the article. I'm not feeling very charitable towards Samurai, and I'd hope it's clear to everyone here, once they've read this bit, that this issue has been predominantly a point-scoring exercise. It takes a vast amount to make me angry, but this has done so. What a waste of a lot of people's resources.

"Spear damage on a horse shoulder bone discovered at Eartham Pit, Boxgrove (only about 50 miles from the heart of the modern New Forest), dated 500,000 BC, demonstrates that early humans were hunting horses in the area at that time, and the remains of a large Ice Age hunting camp have been found close to Ringwood (on the western border of the modern New Forest). Evidence from the skeletal remains of ponies from the Bronze Age suggests that they were similar to the modern Exmoor pony. Horse bones excavated from Iron Age ritual burial sites at Danebury (about 25 miles from the heart of the modern New Forest) indicate that the animals were about 12.2 hands (50 inches, 127 cm) – the same size as the smaller New Forest ponies of today."

References

Additional comments/New Forest Pony

As to the original question about the source: Breed registries are generally considered reliable sources for information on and characteristics of a breed. This one says."The NFPB&CS is the Official Breed Society and holders of the New Forest Pony Stud Book. We assess eligibilty of New Forest Ponies for inclusion within the Pure Bred or Part Bred Registers, and issue Passports accordingly." This means that information on the site has the oversight of experts in this area and per Wikipedia can be considered a reliable source. (olive (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC))

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

Need help on an articles reliable sources...

Resolved

I started a wiki for my old boss Rick Hendrix. I have attempted to maintain it even after I left the company. We have been in an out of many edits, vandalism's and folks that have discredited him and myself. I am only writing it and feel horrible it keeps getting hit with not being reliable. When Mr Hendrix received these awards the Internet was just getting hot. The newspapers that carried the articles archives only go back to 97. These clippings I have go back to 1994 when the award or honor was given. I have copies of the awards and copies of the clippings. What can I do to get these items added back to this wiki page? Please advise, I am exhausted with it.

68.84.91.197 (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Dale

• Cited material need not be online. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• You can also think of offline sources such as books, journals, etc. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

• If you have everything you need to create the proper citation from your clippings, and they are RS sources, you should use them. Difficulty in confirming offline sources is not a reason not to use them. If you feel you need to scan them and post them somewhere online for some other editors to read, that is ok too, but certainly not required. Just make sure you don't go over the line citing things that don't match up with the source. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 07:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Weather2travel.com

Resolved

Is Weather2travel.com reliable? It is used in this edit that adds a weatherbox to Munnar but I cannot spot where the source is obtaining its information (and rather suspect that we should be using whatever that may be). - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...there's some favorable press from other reliable sources:

• The best travel websites: part two
• "(weather2travel.com) is the best place for further research."
• 'One of the best sites is www.weather2travel.com"

That would suggest to me that they have a good reputation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

From their "About Us" page:

Weather2Travel.com is committed to providing appropriate, effective, and impartial climate information that can be accessed by travellers all over world. We are an independent organisation focused on providing a valuable travel resource that is both fun and easy to use.

Our guides are produced from meteorological and academic data sources that employ only the highest standards of data processing, for example the United States National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

Unless you have a specific reason to doubt them, they look fairly RS to me too. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my thanks to both of you for checking it out. There are so many of these weather/population etc websites that I find it difficult to determine which are ok and which are not. I suspect a massive amount of plagiarism going on but I'll never be able to prove it. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Officer Down Memorial Page

Resolved

In general, I am wondering whether or not the website of the The Officer Down Memorial Page is considered a reliable source. It appears as though readers can submit additional information, however, there also seems to be some sort of editorial review process before updates are made. For a specific example, I am wondering if this page is a reliable source for San Francisco 8. The information appears to be presented neutrally and jibe with what I have seen in newspaper reports Thanks! Location (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What kind of claim are you proposing to support in San Francisco 8? ODMP's only known editorial policy is, "Submitting a fallen officer to the Officer Down Memorial Page does not guarantee the officer will be added to this memorial. All officers submitted to ODMP are evaluated against our criteria for inclusion using information compiled from user submissions, media accounts, and correspondence with the officer's agency." It isn't staffed by historians, but rather is a memorial project with an intent to lionise its subjects. They appear to get copyright waivers and/or write fresh all material. I would be reluctant to suggest that this be appropriate for historical contexts and analysis, but that it might be barely adequate to support facts that gain their weight from another source. It isn't an appropriate source to derive notability from. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would likewise be very cautious using this site. I would not say this is *likely* to be RS for anything, but there are certain contexts that it *could* be RS for. So without knowing exactly what edit you would like it to support, I don't think I can give you an answer yet. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I found the website as I was searching the victim's name for more information on which to build the article. I had no specific use in mind, but I saw that it gave a good summary of the case. Recognizing the possibility of bias (or perception of bias) I thought I would run it by this forum before spending too much time with it. Location (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com interview

I want to use this interview with Cory Edwards- http://fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html#!/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html - as a reference for the Hoodwinked! article, and maybe include a quote by Edwards from the interview as well. I know that blogs are not generally accepted as reliable references, unless maintained by a professional journalist, and I do not believe that that is the case here, even though the blog is full of interviews with famous people. However, I can verify the authenticity of the interview since it is mentioned on Cory Edwards official website; see here - http://coryedwards.com/?p=95

Would this be an acceptable reference?--Jpcase (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I would use it and link both references to show that it is corroborated by Cory's site. However, strictly speaking, you're right, the blogspot site itself does not meet requirements for RS following the rules here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I am hoping to get Hoodwinked! to GA status, and maybe someday, to Featured Article status. Do you think if I use this source and corroborate it with Cory Edwards' website, it will stand in the way of the article reaching these statuses?--Jpcase (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If it does, it will come up under the peer review, and you will have to go find better sources then. I don't think it rises to the level of scrapping your entire application for GA or FA status though, so no harm done. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat and Nobel Peace Prize Nomination

Is this video (link here, at the 2:40 mark of the second video) a reliable source for the claim that Prem Rawat has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Willax.tv is an edited news channel (despite their horrible video interface :( ). The interviewer says (by the official subtitles) that he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. This is an extraordinary claim that a soft-soap interview is not sufficient for. (It is also a specious claim as a journalist is not an appropriate source for this, particularly given the nature of soft soap interviews). The claim itself tends to unreliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "soft soap"? And I also am not sure I follow what you mean by "the claim itself tends to unreliability", can you explain that more as well please? -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The genre of a work supplies reliability information. The video is not an investigative journalistic interview, but a "puff piece" or "soft soap" interview: an interview which lionises the interviewee and predominantly uses prompts and information supplied by the interviewee themselves. Thus, unlike a news piece or an extended investigative journalism video, the quality of reporting is low. Secondly, the claim itself is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary proof. A soft soap interview is not sufficient for an extraordinary claim of fact. Thirdly, the claim itself has one natural reliable source: 50 years after the fact the Nobel committee itself makes available the actual information. In such circumstances there is a presumption against claims to have been nominated. Unless Rawat was nominated in 1961, there is no reason to believe anyone's statement that he was nominated. Finally—this kind of statement, that X was nominated for a Nobel Prize is specious and weightless—anyone can be nominated for a prize by a parliamentarian or academic. The weight is in the award, not in claims to have been nominated. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the names of nominees are not released, there can be no reliable source for anyone in the last 50 years. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your opinions/comments. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the list of those entitled to nomminate a candidate for the Peace Prize is very large ("members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute")[27], the fact of nomination is not really very significant. I'm sure that, if I really wanted, I could persuade a friendly MP or sociology professor to nominate me. So this may indeed be true, and reliably sourced, but still not worthy of inclusion in the article. RolandR (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This comes up so often that perhaps we should have a section at WP:RSEX on the general question of reliably sourcing claims about nominations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

LupinEncyclopedia.com

Source: *[28]

Would this be labeled as a reliable source? The source is used in alot of the Lupin III articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it looks like a fansite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Despite being a fansite, I believe it should still be considered a reliable and accurate source. While a fan site, like Nausicaa.net, all the information provided on the site are accurate. The value of this site is great, as it provides cast information and production staff information for all specials and TV series, as well as information on games, manga, music, and recent news. The reviews section may be the only section that may not qualify as usable for sources, but everything else is accurate and reliable. Reed Nelson, who provided audio commentaries and detailed notes for Lupin III DVD releases by Diskotek Media (see here andhere), sources the site on his website lupinthethird.com. Nasuicaa.net, an accurate and useable fansite, is already considered a reliable and accurate source by WikiProject Anime and Manga --AutoGyro (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, see this article from an industry anime magazine, verifying the reliability and usefulness of lupinencyclopedia.com (see last paragraph).

Luis A. Cruz self-publishes lupinencyclopedia. There is no editorial control. Despite a single paragraph in a low grade US otaku magazine suggesting that readers look at the website, there is no recognition in a community of expertise of Cruz as an expert. SPS, no editorial control, no expert exemption: unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, Otaku USA is currently the ONLY anime news magazine in North America. I wouldn't consider that low grade. --AutoGyro (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As above, this site is not RS. But the issue has nothing to do with its contents. It has to do with the things it doesn't have (already laid out nicely for you by Fifelfoo). Even if the information on that site is 100% correct, it fails to meet the criteria of RS as per policy for WP. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced and endorsed by Reed Nelson of LupinTheThird.com, who provides audio commentaries and detailed notes for Discotek Media's Lupin DVD releases, which would qualify Nelson as an expert on the subject. Luis Cruz is also published on The Fandom Post, a web site with editorial control, whose editor in chief is Chris Beveridge of Mania.com, an industry website also with editorial control, where Luis Cruz isalsopublished --AutoGyro (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a link at www.lupinthethird.com indicating Reed's endorsement? I was unable to verify that there's anything relevant there.

Fandompost.com does not state any editorial review process or editorial expertise, I would not consider this site RS either. Also, neither Luis (nor sprack) are listed on the about page under contributors. His content on that website appears to be nothing more than user-based input, of a blogging style, with no indication of editorial control. Where do you see that this site has any oversight policy listed?

Mania.com does seem like it would be a generally RS source for anime news, but I'm not sure how that helps you. The fact that Chris Beveridge edits there does not mean that the rules from there also apply to Fandompost.com (or from there to the site you're asking about).

Luis' content there is a user-submitted review as well, at the bottom of his review there's even this link: "Submit Your Own Review". His review consists mainly of what the DVD layout looks like. The content I was referring to that would be generally RS from this source would be from the team of employees only, not from the user-submitted sources, such as the 2 reviews you list above (both almost 10 yrs old btw). Sorry, but I don't see any of this info as a game changer for me. Still not RS. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Luis Cruz's reviews on Mania.com were back from the AnimeOnDVD.com days, and were not user submitted content as available on Mania.com today. Mania.com user content can be distinguished from authentic staff content (see here, particularly "When searching for reviews, those that have a URL format of http://www.mania.com/*title*_*somenumbers*.html and that follow the original AoD review format are written by staff reviewers and are considered reliable and usable for articles. "Maniac" reviews written by users which are not RS can be detected by the lack of structured format and a URL in the form of http://www.mania.com/*username*/review/*title*_*somenumbers*.html"). Also, see here, particularly, "The version of the FAQ Pearl hosted was actually a conversion of the original text version to HTML which was coded by our own Luis Cruz. The FAQ would eventually be reborn as an actual living website (Lupin III FAQ HTML version), and later as the Lupin Encyclopedia, both dutifully and masterfully maintained by Luis Cruz with some early contributions by ex-Lupin fan Bruce Osborne." This FAQ was originally maintained by the late Steve Pearl, who would also be considered an expert in this area. Lupin III Encyclopedia is found on LupinTheThird.com right under the home link. By the way, I really appreciate taking the time to verify all of this! I'd really like to make sure that the Lupin content is well sourced, and it's important to have accurate and reliable sources to help us improve all the content in the Lupin III category, so thank you (and thanks to Fifelfoo, too!) :) --AutoGyro (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll play along for a minute... I'll give you that, 10 years ago, Luis was on staff at mania.com, and wrote 3 reviews, which largely consisted of physical characteristics and technical formatting of a DVD. Now what? (BTW, thanks for the link explaining the old AoD/mania article naming, that was helpful). But what does that get us? are you saying that makes him RS? or Notable? or something else? I'm not clear on what contention that supports yet. Also, lupinthethird.com is a borderline call for RS-ness, and only that, because of the blurb at the bottom of the FAQ, but again, for the moment, lets assume it's RS, just because I want to know what dots you're trying to connect here that will change my mind that a website with no policy for oversight will suddenly become RS through this chain. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 03:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the criteria state to avoid "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority, " so I'm trying to establish that Luis Cruz would be considered an expert on anime, and particularly Lupin the 3rd, and thus a recognized authority. Also, he wrote more than three reviews, which follow the standard AoD format by reviewing technical features and packaging, followed by a review of the content (you can check all the linked reviews, they all end with a review of the "content,") but he also reviewed other Lupin III DVDs for the site, see besides the three linked above, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and that's just Lupin-related content, which is several years old because that's when the DVDs were released. He also reviews non-Lupin content, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. There are others, too. Thanks for taking this into consideration :) --AutoGyro (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Expertise, in relation to anime, means something well along the way to why Hiroki Azuma would have an expert exemption; or why Scott McCloud would have an expert exemption; or why Katherine Dacey would have an expert exemption. I'm not seeing this with Cruz. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That would actually go against the established RS-eligibility of individuals on WikiProject Anime and Manga --AutoGyro (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A project's walled garden of delight is not the concern of WP:RS/N—and I can strongly suggest to you that RS/N is much more highly esteemed regarding reliability than the Anime and Manga project is. I checked through the individuals listed there, and most gained an expert exemption by (apparently) long term paid work on publications with an editorial policy (confer: Katherine Dacey's biography). Cruz, again, doesn't show that. I'd suggest that a number of the non-individual "exemptions" look dodgy as hell to me from first impression, but I don't comment on general reliability issues on RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So, then, all his published reviews on Mania.com and the relationship with LupinTheThird.com, which is by a paid Lupin expert, would not qualify Cruz for the expert exemption? Can we at least establish that Reed Nelson of LupinTheThird.com is RS? --AutoGyro (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unknown Author (Unknown date) "Unknown article" Mania.com for use in Unknown article to support unknown claim

• Please supply required material for this RS/N query, refer to the top of the page / edit window for what we require Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mania.com is an industry website written by a team with editorial oversite, see the Web site's About Us section. Mania.com is regularly used as a source in many anime, manga, and comic articles on Wikipedia --AutoGyro (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mania.com is mainly used just for reviews, alot of the reviews are user submitted so you do have to be careful that you get a staff review. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The features on Mania.com area also RS, considering they're written by staff --AutoGyro (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reed Nelson (Unknown date) "Unknown article" LupinTheThird.com for use in Unknown article to support unknown claim

• Please supply required material for this RS/N query, refer to the top of the page / edit window for what we require Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reed Nelson runs LupinTheThird.com. He provides audio commentaries, expert notes, and checks English subtitles for Diskotech Media's Lupin the 3rd Releases (see here, hereandhere). Note that LupinTheThird.com used to be LupinTheThird.net ([see here). He would be used a source for all Lupin III articles. Thanks for your help as we work to improve Lupin III content on Wikipedia :) --AutoGyro (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find anything on the website that indicates the level of involvement or control that Luis Cruz has. That's a problem for RS-ness, I don't find that Cruz's work has risen to a level for an expert exemption. My opinion on Reed Nelson stays the same, he *may* be RS for this topic, he does have a certain expertise here, reviews of his DVD work seem quite favorable. But his small "check out LE.com" comment on his website doesn't rise to the level of "endorsement" for me, in terms of RS-ness. Is there somewhere else that he specifically endorses it, or Cruz? You can always use an inline attribution for non-contentious facts as well, such as "According to lupinencyclopedia.com, blah blah blah", or Luis Cruz of le.com said that "blah blah blah". If it's not contentious, and the view of the editors there is that its "good enough" as a source, there shouldn't be a problem with that. But if there is disagreement about using it, I would still say, take it out. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see this post by Reed Nelson on the LupinTheThird.com forums, particularly, "The version of the FAQ Pearl hosted was actually a conversion of the original text version to HTML which was coded by our own Luis Cruz. The FAQ would eventually be reborn as an actual living website (Lupin III FAQ HTML version), and later as the Lupin Encyclopedia, both dutifully and masterfully maintained by Luis Cruz with some early contributions by ex-Lupin fan Bruce Osborne." The "Pearl" referred to here is the late Steve Pearl, who would also be considered an expert in this area, and who was involved in early versions of LupinEncyclopedia.com, which was then, as Reed Nelson mentioned, taken over by Luis Cruz. Also see here, where Luis Cruz was a guest on Reed Nelson and Michael Davis' Lupin podcast. There's still also the fact that Luis Cruz has multiple Lupin III reviews published on Mania.com--AutoGyro (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, there are no disagreements on using LupinEncyclopedia.com. It's by no means a controversial source. We use it for English translated titles of episodes and specials, release date information, basic facts kind of stuff. The site does have a reviews section, but that reviews section is not used to source any Lupin articles on Wikipedia. The extensive information available on LupinEncyclopedia.com is not available anywhere else in English because there has not been a need to create another source when that one is already available. If you look at the English Lupin community, everyone cites back to LupinEncyclopedia.com, as it's a definitive source for factual information about the series in English (not opinions or reviews, just simple facts, dates, titles, releases). If we can't use that as a reliable source, we'll have to start using Japanese sources. Lupin III and List of Lupin III Part II episodes make extensive use of factual information from that site. One is currently a good article while the other is a featured list.--AutoGyro (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at all that other stuff later, but regarding your last point, there is absolutely no requirement (it's only preferred) that your sources be in english, if you have RS Japanese sources, you should go right ahead and use them, as per WP:NOENG. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you had a chance to review the links above :) Many thanks! --AutoGyro (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been a few days since this has been looked at and without a response yet. I was wondering if you could check out the links I provided above :) thanks! --AutoGyro (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have Japanese RS sources you can use for the same information? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not for all of the information available on LupinEncyclopedia.com (for example, English titles), and things like original air dates would require some digging in, and I'm not proficient enough in Japanese for that. The official Japanese websites list date ranges, and some other information, such as opening and closing songs, etc. It would still be tremendously helpful to have an RS english website for this information, and, based on what I provided above, I honestly believe that Luis Cruz and LupinEncyclopedia.com would qualify. That website is a standard and trusted resource for the English-speaking Lupin community. Please take a moment to see how the site is used in the Lupin III article --AutoGyro (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lexology.com

I've recently produced three new drafts of articles on financial topics, each of which used an article from the website Lexology.com as one of their sources. Since the articles were written on behalf of a client, I submitted them for review by volunteer editors at WikiProject Cooperation, where a discussion has begun about whether Lexology is a reliable source or not. I've seen the source used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and it was suggested to me that I should come here to see if editors can provide clarification on whether it can be used or not.

To provide some more context, I've highlighted below the facts that I have used the Lexology article to support.

Draft for Commodity trading advisor:

On January 26, 2011, following the 2010 enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFTC proposed additions and amendments to the regulation of CTAs, including two new forms of data collection. The CFTC also made a joint proposal with the Securities Exchange Commission to increase disclosure requirements and amend the registration criteria. Due to these changes, advisors managing funds that use swaps or other commodity interests may be defined as CTAs, subject to registration with the CFTC.

Draft for Commodity Pool Operator:

In particular, funds that use swaps or other commodity interests may be defined as commodity pools and subject to registration with the CFTC, where previously they would not have been.

Draft for Managed futures account:

Under the new amended registration requirement, funds that use swaps or other commodity interests may be defined as commodity pools and must register with the CFTC, where previously they did not.

References

I'd appreciate the input of editors here as to whether this is an appropriate source to use, particularly to support the above facts. Due to these changes being very recent, the majority of other sources I've found are similar to Lexology, in that they publish articles prepared by law firms. From what I've seen, all provide essentially the same commentary regarding CFTC rule changes that would increase the number of funds defined as commodity pools. Is there a particular legal source that is best to use for this sort of information?

If none of these are suitable, I've found an article in the Wall Street Journal and one from Hedgeweek that explain this, but not as clearly as the Lexology source. I'm interested to get an independent opinion about the best course of action here. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• As an editor involved in this issue: Lexology exercises no control over the content it receives, and content is written and submitted by members of law firms as "working papers" without the kind of academic or judicial expertise that our meaning of "Expert" would require to exempt a self-published source. Analysis of law has a method of reviewed scholarly publishing: the legal journal. Lexology does not resemble this in the least, and no editorial or peer control is expressed over what is (essentially) a user contribution based blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Lexology does not look RS based on its disclaimer page (how can you tell this site is run by lawyers?!), "The Publishers, Globe Business Publishing Ltd, make no warranty of any kind with respect to the subject matter included herein or the completeness or accuracy of this website...Without limiting the above the Publishers and the contributors shall each have no responsibility for any act or omission of any other contributor...This website may contain technical inaccuracies and changes to the information contained herein may be made at any time". There is no indication of oversight here, or editorial control (just the opposite it seems), and no way to determine the expertness of any given author (btw, I was unable to view your specific lexology PDF as I am not a member, free though it may be). There is a small problem with your WSJ cite, while I did not find it unlcear or confusing, it uses the future tense, so it would seem as of the writing of that article, the law had not passed, ergo that may not be RS for what you want either (I don't know how contentious editors are being in this particular case, but WSJ can hardly be held as RS for events that haven't taken place yet). I do find HedgeWeek to be RS for all 3 of the above statements. It may not be as clear, only because it's slightly more technical in tone, but I believe it speaks to each of the above edits, and is RS for them. You may also like to use this source found via Highbeam, it also looks RS to me and has some coverage on this issue it seems. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Despayre, that makes a lot of sense. I'd read the About language, but had missed the Disclaimer—wish I'd caught that in the first place. Glad the Hedgeweek works, and the Morgan Lewis looks pretty solid as well. I'll replace the cite. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Lexology is not automatically RS for the reasons already stated, and in addition it is password-protected. However, the particular article in question was written and published by Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, a law firm prominent in the field, so it should be RS as the publication of an expert. You should cite to the law firm's publication, here.

The second and third statements above are actually incorrect, because they say that the funds may have to register. It is the commodity pool operator, not the commodity pool, that is subject to a registration requirement. However, that is the editor's error and not in the original Sutherland publication.

HedgeWeek is basically a trade newspaper - RS, but not comparable to peer-reviewed scholarship. If I were ranking these for reliability for real-life purposes, I would put the Sutherland article at the top, followed fairly closely by HedgeWeek, and then the Wall Street Journal considerably below that. John M Baker (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As I noted in my comment, published legal opinion (ie: the professional and academic criteria for expertise in law) is publication in peer reviewed professional or scholarly legal journals. I'm not sure how a working paper from a law firm in any way resembles the acknowledged structure of establishing expertise in law. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the preferred sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications. In the legal field, the most common such publications are law reviews and legal treatises. However, such sources are not always available or may not be up to date. In the case in point, the change is only four months old, and there may not be any law reviews or legal treatises on point as yet. It therefore is necessary to turn to other, still acceptable sources, such as news reports and self-published material by established experts on the topic. Sutherland is a leading law firm in this area. (I don't work for them; they're a competitor.) Law firms put their reputation on the line when they issue reports of this kind, and they use internal vetting processes that generally are better than those available at newspapers (whose editors, after all, are not lawyers and not experts in the area). John M Baker (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, personal "repute" is not an adequate measure of expertise. You'd need to demonstrate it by noting citations in peer reviewed modes of working papers from this firm; or a particular esteem of this firm. Outside of your own opinion regarding the expertise of the firm, how can you establish their expertise (with reference to printed material such that encyclopaedists can establish their expertise without becoming specialised legal practicioners). (As a tertiary point—even a working paper from a firm that regularly handles such cases is not a guide for an encyclopaedia for what the law is, even if it is a guide for a business attempting to comply with the law; at least in a common law jurisdiction). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think I have to go much further than our article on Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, which shows that US News & World Report lists Sutherland as a best law firm and that the firm is included in the Am Law 100 and in America's 250 Largest Law Firms. The article also notes that John H. Walsh, a partner at Sutherland, is a former associate director at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Walsh is one of the lawyers listed in the referenced document as one of the responsible attorneys for it.

I also consider this to be a matter of choosing sources and prioritizing resources. What other sources are available here? Nobody has produced a genuinely scholarly source. There are newspaper reports, which realistically aren't any better, probably not as good. There's the primary source, which is the CFTC release, but primary sources need to be treated with care; it's 200 pages long and it's easy for a non-expert to misunderstand. Then there are reports from other law firms, which are in no better position than Sutherland.

As far as prioritizing resources, I will only say that, if I were to make a list of ways to improve these articles, finding a better source for these points would not be in my top 20. John M Baker (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your other points, but I am sure that you've demonstrated expertise for an exemption for a self-published source for the document in question :) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazian Network News Agency showing video interviews with Houla massacre survivors (plus Syria News)

According to their web page, http://anna-news.info/about, "The Agency has officially registered as mass media in the Republic of Abkhazia, 18 July 2011." The web site is in Russian only, so the above went through Google Translate. Abkhazian Network News Agency (ANNA) has published an article including a video documenting eyewitness accounts of the 2012 Houla massacre that took place on May 25. Here's there article with the Google Translate link:

• http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://anna-news.info/node/6220&usg=ALkJrhiSii7WCjtvbYX5-8-zbPf4WXuH2A

I basically wonder if ANNA and this article can be used in the Houla massacre article to attest to claims that contradict the western and mainstream media narrative of how the events went down that led to so many people being basically butchered. We've had some discussion already at Talk:2012 Houla massacre#Testimony from villagers blaming bandits, but this is a situation where input from this noticeboard will be needed.

There is in addition the ancillary issue of one news report which cites the ANNA news story, from a news outlet called Syria News, both as to whether it strengthens the RS status of the ANNA article and if it is itself an RS:

• http://www.syrianews.cc/syria-what-really-happened-in-al-hula-homs-689.html

As far as I'm able to investigate this site is based in Los Angeles, CA, but that's all I can figure out. __meco (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrianews is a website which takes the "alqaeda narrative" of the Syrian government and has no RS credibility. http://www.syrianews.cc/ Sopher99 (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The ANNA is completely unreliable I should point out. Its a news source only about Syria, made in 2011, only in Russian, and fully takes on the Syrian governments narratives

Here is some of their headlines, translated through google translate

"France must not blindly follow the U.S. in their crusades"

"Syria news: Al-Hula - ordinary fascism, the first witness"

" "Humanists" have once again prepared to attack the chosen victim"

Sopher99 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are arguing the position that since they are arguing opinions that contradict what we "know to be true" they cannot be considered reliable sources. That's not how reliable source status is established. Also, there's this Press TV article which references the ANNA report. I'm of course well aware of the status of Press TV vis-à-vis this noticeboard. __meco (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I am arguing this position because ANNA is a russian conspiracy theory website. Sopher99 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia:RS in saying "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sopher99 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not bring your talk page arguments to RSN, the editors here are quite capable of researching the problem on their own, and speaking for at least some, I don't really want to read your reasonings, I just want the facts, which I had in the first 3-4 sentences. I/we don't have a lot of interest in your views of what is or isn't ok to use. Obviously, if you both agreed, you wouldn't be here, and if someone didn't disagree in the first place, the question wouldn't be brought here. Bickering about it here only diminishes input from others. Having said that, I am examining your sources, and will have some further thoughts shortly (I only get them in short bursts [and none at all yesterday]).-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• For a contentious issue like this, I would get it translated by a Wikipedian, not Google translate, as per preference at WP:NOENG, particularly since some of the sentences don't make sense from google. Translators can be found here.

• Dealing with syrianews.cc first, I suspect they are at the CC domain as there is no free press in Syria, however, the writer, Viktor Reznov is in Syria, and his qualifications list him only as "blogger". Additionally, on the disclaimer page for that organisation, the following snippets appear "SyriaNews.cc does not warrant that any of the materials on its web site are accurate, complete, or current. SyriaNews.cc may make changes to the materials contained on its web site at any time without notice. SyriaNews.cc does not, however, make any commitment to update the materials. ", "SyriaNews.cc has not reviewed all of the sites linked to its Internet web site and is not responsible for the contents of any such linked site. The inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by SyriaNews.cc of the site" (specifically, that would cover the video), "SyriaNews.cc does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials". Further, I can find no page that indicates the staffing, or editorial board, or editorial policy or oversight for this site. I do NOT find syrianews.cc to be RS for this claim.

• anna-news.info - Generally has credibility, it's not great though. This particular author seems to spend a lot of time on Syria-related stories. Their website says that they are accredited journalists, and gives identifiable information that could be used to follow up their credentials if someone had doubts. They claim their objective is "accurate and quality documentation of relevant facts and events of global redistribution ("what" "where," "when" happened)" (there's more, but that's the relevant part). They do claim to want to also offer analysis, I am not so sure they are a good source for the latter aspect of their goal, in WP terms at least. I would like to see some biographical data on these editors, and a more clearly labelled editorial policy, but at least it has one, although you have to read a lot to interpret it. I have some concerns about this website, but, barely, I will put my opinion down as RS for this source for aspects of what happened. I would not say they are RS for analysis (such as the last sentence in the article). You may also run into WP:FRINGE issues here as well if you were planning to use this for anything other than the facts of what happened. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoned input thus far. I see now that I forgot to enclose a link to an English translation of the video news report. Here it is:

• https://www.facebook.com/notes/konstantyn-scheglikov/the-residents-of-tal-dow-and-al-hula-saying-truth-about-massacre-in-village-al-h/420266358007933

I think a central strength of this would-be reference is the video report and its survivor/residents testimony. With those, the merits of ANNA, the news agency, becomes less in the focus I would surmise, instead we will want to consider what the witnesses are saying. From the translation of the testimonies it is clear that these people are from Houla, actually the village of Taldou, one of the two villages affected by the massacre, and equally clear becomes their corroboration of the official government version that the killers are on the side of those rebel/militias which attacked the army checkpoints, with repeated reference to them coming from al-Rastan, a town 20 km north of Homs. I'm not sure the assessment of the (perhaps theoretical) possibility that the media outlet has blatantly forged this video, and abetted fake witnesses presenting a concocted narrative, would be quite the same as assessing the news agency's standing as a reliable source with reference to their otherwise reporting and publishing of news material? __meco (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am unlikely to ever find a person's facebook page to be an RS source (and I don't find it to be so here). You're much better off going to one of the translators I provided you a list of. Without proof that the news agency has forged evidence before, the idea that the video is forged is purely supposition, and would fall under WP:OR. The fact that ANNA does not always have the same view as other news agencies isn't very relevant either, and should probably be included under WP:NPOV, unless they are going to remove it for WP:FRINGE or WP:WEIGHT concerns, but initially, I don't see those problems for this. Being the only source that is providing an alternate POV in this case does not necessarily make it fringe or weight-problematic, due to the scarcity of sources for this in general. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have made the call to three Russian translators with recent edits, so we should expect someone to turn up. __meco (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Other non-involved editors may want to weigh in here too, I suspect it's so borderline that we will probably not have a consensus here, but, we'll see I guess. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Channel 4 have been in the actual town -[29] - the implication if you're saying the ANNA line is reliable is that Channel 4 mocked up the story about their journalist entering the town and asking the villagers about what happened and who they blamed - no-one except the government and their supporters thinks the government line at all plausible as I understand it - you are seriously concluding ANNA Abhazia/Russia is equal RS to Channel 4? Sayerslle (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have been reading someone else's comments, since I neither mentioned channel 4 at all, nor did anyone ask about the RS-ness of channel 4. Aside from that the odd idea of "equal RS" is not what we do here. Additionally, if it's your thought that one RS source will not contradict another RS source, that is not correct. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

its not - this RS says Shabiha , this RS says whoever the regime names - its RS says Shabiha, ANNA (not RS) says whatever the regime says. Anyway, i'm done - i don't get the tone of the thought here - looks like some policies are followed that look ok , but are actually totally politically naif/cynicalSayerslle (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"its not", I don't know what that means (refers to), and I don't know what naif stands for either. I understand your views on the policy, and you may be right with regards to them, as well, since I haven't seen any of the other usual editors here weigh in yet, it may still turn out that there is a consensus of non-RS for this source. However, this is not the page to discuss changing those policies, I only try and interpret them to the issues that are brought here, whether I agree with what the policy says or not, I try not to bring into my decision (everyone call always call on WP:IAR). I have no agenda on this topic, I've heard of none of the involved events/parties (Other than Syria and Russia, generally). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Half-way point

Although I have been mildly involved (I advised User:Meco to go to WP:RSN), when it comes to ANNA I was wondering about one thing. In order for source to be reliable it has to be established by his previous work as having reputation for fact-checking (and should be based on third-party sources, what cannot be always the case). About section claims that this "agency" came to existence on 18.07.2011. Can we conclude that during those 11 months of existence it has reputation for fact-checking? Just quoting from several articles I find interesting

• This one claims that anti-Assad forces has been established as penetrators by UN experts on the ground, yet that is not true, as a matter of fact fingers were more likely pointed towards Syrian government.
• This article claims that Germany and France stole 200 billion dollars from Gaddafi and than used it for financial help to Greece.
• This one uses for the articles sources from www.globalresearch.ca, notorious conspiracy website (oh, and yes Cynthia McKineey, self-proclaimed former UN chief for fight against terrorism) and Press TV, Iranian state TV
• This one claims that 16 French soldiers, including French colonel, were arrested during Siege of Homs. Short version - they were not arrested.

I am sure I would find more had I more time to dig in, but this should give you some picture about it. To me it seems as Russian version of globalresearch.ca, nothing more. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WO! because there is an alternative to the western-centric pvo on WP means its unreliable? thats rot! read any of the cnn/bbc/france 24 and you;ll find their criticism harden against such stances. its blatant! as does a l jazeera, the foreign policy tool of qatar!Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not just a different take on a situation... EllsworthSK is pointing out blatant false information (lies) on this site. Sopher99 (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that is what I wrote. Now, re-read my post where I pointed out several lies by this agency, which do not fall under requirement of WP:RS, think about it for a while and possibly edit your comment. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ellsworth, you may be right about the conclusions, but you have posted no RS sources for your rebuttals, making them all OR (or opinions) on your part. Also, as I said above, it is not impossible, in fact, it's common, that RS sources can disagree on a topic. It's completely plausible that ANNA is RS and is completely wrong in their facts. Being wrong does not make them non-RS, see WP:V for more on that. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct. I posted 4 examples, provided source for one of it, proved that unreliable sources were used for second one and 2 remaining are flagrant conspiracy theories. French officers is claim made by Lebanese pro-M8 newspaper which turned out to be untrue, denied by French government and not ever confirmed by Syrian government. Yet, it is presented as a fact. As for the "Germans stole G money" - article provides no third-party sources, nt verification of facts, it draws conclusion it wants and even lies when it says that "200 frozen billion suddenly became 15 billion". I am sorry, but it is not my job to de-buff conspiracy theory, it is editors job to back his claims by facts and third-party sources. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I just went back and looked at your 4 examples:

• The first one is a report repeating what another photojournalist said. ANNA would be RS for their interview that this person said it. Not that ANNA claimed it themselves. They are merely repeating what they attributed to him. I don't see a problem with that, and it's clear from the story that this is the case (which was not clear from your representation of it). Your Reuters article does not dispute this claim, although, while it says further investigation is needed, it indicates only that it seems likely that at least some of the damage was caused by govt forces.
• Second article. I googled "200 billion dollars from the accounts of the Libyan", and got 1.2 million results, on the first page, at a glance, I see europe/Germany/Greece mentioned at least a half dozen times, I did not check those references for RS-ness, but it tells me that it may not be not utter garbage as a starting point. Having said that, I would not suggest that story was RS for the assertion, as it has no sources, and I don't see any of the economic expertise that would be required for that story (it falls more under the "analysis" concept, which I said above, I doubted would be RS. So we are in agreement on this one.
• Third. The facts of this article are not in dispute, the court of Kuala Lampur *did* find Bush and Blair guilty of war crimes. So now even when they report undisputed facts you have a problem with how they did it? I would not necessarily use this source for that, but the fact that they got the salient points correct is key here. Also, I don't write off Cynthia McKinney quite as quickly as you either.
• This story only seems to have been reported in other sources that I have RS questions about, but I was unable to find any other news outlet that refuted it either, which I would have expected since you picked it out as an example of "slant" to disprove RS-ness of ANNA.

My opinion remains as it was, but I'm not sure you clearly read my opinion either, because I did not say this website was great, I said it was barely ok for some things, with some caveats attached. I don't see anything here that makes me think it's any more or less sketchy than I thought originally. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• You are wrong, read once again the second sentence. It states that This version [killing of civilians by islamists from rank of anti-Assad forces] is supported by UN observers on the scene. That is not sentence said by photojournalist in later interview, that is lead written solely by author. Also other source says completely otherwise But there are also victims from individual weapons, victims from knife wounds and that of course is less clear but probably points the way to the (pro-Assad) shabbihas, the local militia. I can find you quotes by Major-General Moods who attributes guild from close-range executions to no one till investigation is over (hence not what ANNA claims). There is no source that could back the claim made by ANNA editor.
• You clearly missed my point here. I do not dispute that 200 billion was frozen from Gaddafi accounts. On the contrary, that is well known fact. The second part of the sentence which claims that Germany stole 175 billion from this frozen assets and returned only 15 billion to the NTC is completely unsourced. I can guarantee you that no matter how hard you try, you won´t find RS for that. I tried, I failed. It is claim I saw several times presented on various pro-Gaddafi blogs and sites such as globalsecurity.ca. Just as I saw gazillion of 9/11 was inside job theories on similar blogs.
• Once again, not my point. Writing an article about how Kuala Lumpur found GWB guilty of war crimes is all right in my books, what I pointed out were sources which editor used for his article. If source is using notorious unreliable sources as base for its article, what does it make? As for McKinney, that is your choice but I would strongly recommend you to write her off as soon as possible. I have no good word for 9/11 believers and in her case that is just top of the iceberg. The amount of her trash that I and other editors had to deal with during Libyan civil war was unbelievable.
• All right, I thought this was self-explanatory. Let´s take this source as a starting point [30]. First, ANNA claims that those are 18 soldiers. In fact, what was reported are 13 soldiers. Primary source is Lebanese Daily Star, specifically this article. It quotes unnamed pro-Syrian Palestinian source. As you can see in first source it was denied by French foreign ministry. As for Syrian government, you can hardly find what doesn´t exist, especially when SANA official webpage is like from 90s, no search engine, no news archive and site map is not working. And upon trying this web archive it gives me nothing. Even in original Daily Star article it says that Damascus did not comment on it. So despite the fact that French foreign ministry denied the claim, Syrian government never commented on it and after 3 months no one is missing 13 military officers, it is presented as a fact. Other RS at least wrote that it is unconfirmed claim and who the original source is. ANNA did not.

And no need to get defensive, I was not accusing you of anything, nor I intended to. I was simply reacting and point out several examples. As I wrote the first time, I have no problem with searching a little bit more and disproving reliability of this source, I just thought that this will do. The POV pushing from this agency is undeniable, as an examples I can provide you with these articles [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] and fact-checking is little to none. I wrote already a extremely large wall of text, so I should probably let you and other editors to say their view on this matter as well. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

How many hits something gets on google is not an indicator of RS or significance. There could be a million hits google of "why the armenian genocide didn't happen" filled with crazy rants from conspiracy theories, does mean we put such things on the Armenian genocide page.

The notability of the persons in question, such as those interviewed, are also a very important factor. Wikipedia guidelines do not call for the wrong people to be quoted. For example, it is unlikely the wikipedia article for the Jewish practice of Passover will have quotes from hitler critiquing the practice of passover. Sopher99 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Distorting what I said, and then refuting that distortion, is called a straw man argument. It isn't helpful, and doesn't change my opinion of what I said, which was in fact the opposite thing, that it was NOT RS for that claim. I never said that because Google shows some hits that it is RS. Also, congratulations on validating Godwin's Law so quickly. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Godwin's law has very easy applications. I could have used the cambodian genocide - or Stalin and maozadong. Maybe Bosnia and Kosovo, Rwanda? I simply used a controversial topic, an obvious one. No need to Judge me for that. Sopher99 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You could have, and they would all be just as ludicrous on scale alone. And what about the other 5/6ths of what I previously said? Just ignoring that? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ellsworth, you are only proving my original analysis, that this site may be RS for some things, and is not going to be RS for others (anything that has to do with analysis). I'm not going to repeat what I said about the Libyan money for a third time, if you didn't read it the first two times, I don't see a point in saying it again now. If you'd like to deal further with your first example (where you claim I'm wrong), you've inserted "[anti-Assad forces]" but really what it says is "[radical Islamists]" if you read it. The source in the article later confirms that with "armed miltant groups". Is that the disconnect problem you have? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Libyan case - you probably can´t read in azbuka, otherwise you´d know what article claims (175 billion stolen by German government and used as financial aid for Greece - that is the main point, not that 200 billion were frozen by German government after UN sanctions were in place). Good luck in finding RS supporting that claim. As for "[content]" that is something I added to the quotation in order to put it in context. Radical islamists or anti-Assad forces from context of that article bears no difference, it generalize both terms as one and the same. Context of the article is crystal clear - radical islamist anti-Assad forces (for the lack of the better word and NPOV) killed 100+ civies in Houla what was confirmed by UN observers on the ground. And lastly who is going to pick up which article can be used as RS and which not? Will we classify the source as semi-reliable? How would that work, I wonder? EllsworthSK (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@despayre where you write "you've inserted "[anti-Assad forces]" but really what it says is "[radical Islamists]" if you read it" - imo this illustrates what you yourself have admitted - you dont't know anything about the situation , you don't care about the politics of this situation, or understand it . channel 4 news - a RS for sure - have entered the town and spoken with survivors they blamed Shia/Alawite Shabiya - to believe that anna is a RS that just disagrees , or has got it wrong but is still a possible RS - no, bollox.Sayerslle (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@E, AGAIN with the Libyan Money?!?! Seriously?!?! WE are NOT in disagreement about that article, as I have said *4* times now!! Good luck proving I've said anything else other than that. Referring to an actual issue, I know you inserted it for context, but your context was not as accurate as it should have been. That article is not crystal-clear about much at all. You are making this way overly dramatic. In response to your last question, I would probably suggest asking at RSN, that's what it's for.

@S. The situation isn't all that relevant, the question is, "is the source reliable?". Which is why RSN exists, so that non-embroiled editors can offer opinions. You should re-read WP:NPOV (specifically WP:BALANCE) which clearly states that two RS sources can disagree (I have no idea whether channel 4 is "RS for sure" or not, since I've never had to look into them and it isn't relevant here, unless you are going to say they are not equal in prominence). And personally, I've seen it many times. To describe the possibility as "bollocks" shows a basic misunderstanding of WP's core principles, which I cannot fix here. My opinion on the source question asked remains as it was, no more and no less than I said. Arguing with you over long established other policies that you don't seem to understand is not what I am going to do this weekend. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@D well forget about explaining policies to me, - two reliable sources are not disagreeing in this case, a reliable source is being 'disagreed with' by a propaganda source ,bleedin' obvious - anyway, when will you come to a decision? is it reliable? where are the judges? are you on your own? Sayerslle (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

While understanding the policies makes the answers here easier to understand (truth can be irrelevant according to WP:V), it's not necessary to ask questions here. I've given my answer to the question brought here already (up top). I do not see the site as a "propoganda site", although I'm sure they have some kind of agenda, especially in the "analysis" articles. But that doesn't make them blanket non-RS. You may not quite follow how RSN works either, you'll be happy to know I don't make any "judegments". I have presented my opinion here, as someone who has looked at a lot of source issues. Often there are several regular editors here who will leave an opinion, but almost never when other involved editors come over and attack the question and create a wall of text for them to read first. As I said, I will send out a couple of msgs to see if anyone else will comment on their opinions either way. *IF* there's a consensus here (which I said waaaay up at the top there might not be, because this one is a little close to the line), you can take that back to the article and say it appears to be RS. That doesn't mean you can't keep it out because of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTABLE, or even WP:FRINGE if you think they apply. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break II

(I am an RS/N editor, whose opinion was solicited to help clarify the discussion). The article Ольга Драфт [Olga Draft] (2012-05-25) "Сирия новости: рассказывают жители Таль - Дау и Аль- Хула" ANNA is not reliable. It is attempting to rely upon the "eye witness claims" of the interviewees, and not the considered journalism. We do not accept random individual's claims, and attempting to construct an article from eye witness interviews is an attempt to turn an encyclopaedia into a newspaper. We would want to rely on the journalistic opinion, subject to editorial review, of Драфт—but Драфт's statements aren't the subject of the reliability issue: random villager's interviews are, and they're primary sources with no reliability. Meanwhile, even if Драфт did draw a journalistic conclusion, there's no indication that Драфт's article received editorial scrutiny per the About page for ANNA. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to digest what you are writing. Because it appears to me that you are saying that a newspaper article which is written around a collection of eyewitness accounts cannot be reliable as (I'm quoting you) "[i]t is attempting to rely upon the 'eye witness claims' of the interviewees, and not the considered journalism." I'm frankly astonished by that assertion. Would you by that measure also exclude these news articles which are currently used as references in the Houla massacre article?

You go on to emphasize that "[w]e do not accept random individual's claims, and attempting to construct an article from eye witness interviews is an attempt to turn an encyclopaedia into a newspaper." Is this a non-sequitur or has there in fact been an attempt to "construct an article from eye witness interviews"? I can see no such attempt having been made.

You also seem to confuse the definition of what a primary source is. The villagers' testimonies published by the villagers or someone representing them, now that would be primary sources. Recorded by a foreign news agency and published by that agency, as is the case here, clearly is a third-party source. __meco (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have problems with Wikipedia's primary source policies. Republishing an interview does not make this a secondary source.

Regarding the quotations, I refer you to the RS/N request, and to the content of the document in question. The document is a collection of quotes from people purporting to be eye-witnesses: ie, it is a collation of primary materials. Such a collation does not become "secondary" by the act of collation. This is in no sense a third party source, because the only quotable element of these interviews is unedited opinion from involved persons. On top of this, the news-source exercises no editorial control over their "journalists."

If you have questions regarding further sources, please feel free to ask further questions below, changing the title of the section, and providing all the details requested at the top of this page. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the About page,

"The aim of the project ANNA is the true information, analysis and prediction of events that are directly related to the problem of Russia's national security and its strategic allies in the current military-political context of the global processing, the need to protect their own people, territory and national interests, taking into account the global nature and specificity of the third world war. Today, the power division of the world is part of a strategy of direct access neoindustrialnyh countries to natural and raw resources of the territorial colonies, dismemberment, and neo-colonization of the resource, separation and targeted grazing of their people. The specificity of the modern world of global process and reformat themselves wars of the 21st century is to avoid the use of the tank corps and armies as was the case previously, and at the rate of covert intelligence operations, advanced technology of social manipulation and controlled media, the criminal terror special forces and the NATO bombing."

It sounds like an advocacy site, not a legitimate news organization. The site doesn't even have a physical address. Further, the use of tags for articles suggests that this site is a group blog. Not reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Unknown Author (Unknown date) "Unknown Title" Unknown News Source

Meco appears to have concerns regarding the reliability of other sources, but has not specified the source, or claims being made based on the source. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC) If Meco could specify these sources here, preferably one section per source, or initiate entirely new RS/N discussions on those sources it would be appreciated. Discussion two sources in one section doesn't work on RS/N due to the wiki discussion format. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that simply to make a point. I realize there's a consensus opinion disapproving of the ANNA site. __meco (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Digital Fix

Resolved

Is anyone here familiar with the website thedigitalfix.com? The site's music page is being used in the Naked Lunch film article to source the claim that samples from the film were used in the Bomb The Bass single "Bug Powder Dust". The review does source the claim, but I cannot determine whether this site is reliable. I can find no list of authors, editors, or an editorial policy. I would like to hear some other opinions on this, please. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on my reading of this page. I would say that this source is RS for that claim. The page lists a policy for members, warns of things not to do, indicates that they had an admin staff that will moderate posts that are not ok. Provides links for copyright holders to contact them for any material that should be removed. In short, they seem to be doing all the things a responsible website should do for crediblity. I would like to have seen a list of the staff, and their CV's, but hey, I can't have everything. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I read that page too, but it seems to refer only to their message boards, and says nothing about the actual articles, or their editorial policy. At this point, I am ambivalent. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but in light of the non-contentiousness of the information, the fact that the editor is listed in other media capacities when searched for (in google), and the absence of any of the other "alarm bell" cues, along with the public availability of the chief editor/owner (also easily found, including phone numbers and addresses), I think it's more likely that this source is RS, I don't have any reason to believe they would be less stringent with their staff articles than they would be with user content. This one got a "thumbs up" more because it seems to do lots of things right, rather than an explicit declaration on their part. As well as the relatively minor nature of the edit in question. If you choose to claim it's not RS and want to pull the edit, there is an argument to made for that too, it's not a "bright line" case of RS, just seems sufficient in this case, to me. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You convinced me. I have seen this information cited somewhere else, and if I can find that, I may replace the cite, but at this point, it seems good enough. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Lindsay (engineer) jefflindsay.com

Is this self-published writer a reliable source? His website, jefflindsay.com, is used in a number of articles. Most of these are to do with Mormonism, but I've also found Hmong American where he is used although when you check the article on his website it's just his self-published opinion.

More typical examples are at Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Here he's used 3 times. The first time he is attributed, but not the next two times. The 2nd time he is used, rather bizarrely, for the statement "However, critics dispute the existence of figs in the pre-Columbian Americas". THe source, [36] does mention critics but with no names, and I say bizarrely because you would expect a source for this to link to critics, but of course his web page is a criticism of the critics. The next link backs a statement about apologists beliefs, although Lindsay, who is an apologist (singular), doesn't mention any other apologists. And his article says "Richard Abanes, a writer critical of Mormonism, refers to Lindsay's work as "numerous self-published articles, not scholarly, extremely biased, articles often based on misinformation". Some LDS people also disagree with some of Lindsay's viewpoints. Lindsay has no formal education in molecular biology, Mormon history, or several of the other topics he explores on his website." Which raises not just the question of whether he is a reliable source but also if he can be used to represent Mormonism in general.

At Archaeology and the Book of Mormon he is used as a source for a letter from the Smithsonian and at a section on cattle he becomes a 'they' again ([37] is the url cited). I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You have. Jeff Lindsay refers to himself as an amateur "LDS apologist". Combined with the fact that he has no formal education relevant to the fields of history, archaeology or anthropology and is self-published like you mentioned, I see no reason why he should be considered a RS. Unless someone can point to material that was published by a respected publisher, I recommend removing all references to him from the article. - Lindert (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For historical articles and ethnicity this is FRINGE beyond FRINGE, SPS and non-expert. Delete on sight. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Lindsay *may* have an SPS exception for the subjects of IP rights, US Patents, or possibly chemical engineering. Anything outside of those fields I do not consider him RS for. Specifically, I do not find him RS for matters concerning the Mormon faith, any more than I would consider any average Catholic an expert on the Catholic faith. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Twitter counter websites

There is some debate about whether http://twitaholic.com/ and/or http://twittercounter.com/pages/100 count as reliable sources for articles like Justin Bieber on Twitter, Barack Obama on Twitter, Lady Gaga on Twitter and Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. The are desired for citation of current follower, followee and tweet counts. In addition, pages like http://twitaholic.com/justinbieber/ are desired as sources for Twitter account launch dates. Are these websites reliable sources for these types of information?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Twitter puts out a datastream (I think they currently have an API and a RSS feed) which can be used to track these things, you can create your own too if you want to spend the time to do it. As stated at the bottom of twitaholic, "All information is based solely upon publicly available information generated by Twitter.com." So yes, I think they are RS for this type of material. Twittercounter.com also refers to the fact that they collect their info direct from Twitter as well. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

StatsF1

Resolved

Hey, I am having trouble identifying whether [38] is a reliable source. The site is currently used in List of Formula One polesitters, and is a very useful, as it provides a plethora of statistical information, which appears to be unavailable elsewhere on the web. Currently, the aforementioned list is at FLC, and a few reviewers have concern over its reliability. I was unaware of this page before a reviewer mentioned, so i've come here to see what other editors think of the site, cheers. NapHit (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As well done as that site appears, it does not appear to meet RS guidelines. It does have a place to send an email if you see a mistake, but that's about all I can see in terms of editorial policy. I cannot find anything out about those who are writing the stats, whether they have any expertise or not, and at the bottom of the stats page, it seems to back away from the text being authoritative when it says "All the texts present on the StatsF1 site are the exclusive property their authors. Any use on another Web site or any other support of diffusion is prohibited except authorization of or the author(s) concerned.". Do we have authorization to use it even? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Essentially that's a copyright claim, a reminder that if on other grounds we find the information reliable, we still should not go beyond "fair use" in citing it. Heavy use in a single article is a bad idea for that reason.

But in any case I agree with Despayre that we seem to have no way of confirming that this source is RS. Andrew Dalby 08:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ye I agree with what your saying there are no indicators of reliability, just thought I'd get opinions from uninvolved users, which confirmed what I thought, thanks for the help. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)