Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 68

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

Primary vs Secondary sources

On three other forums these questions have come up: If the FBI does an interview with Dr. X, who is the "primary source" and who is the "secondary source"? If The New York Times does an interview with Dr. X, who is the "primary source" and who is the "secondary source"?

Here is Wikipedia's definition of "primary source" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source :

"Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.[1]
"In historiography, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. If created by a human source, then a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.
Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.[2][3]"

I don't see anything in this which says that when the FBI does an interview of Dr. X, the FBI is the "primary source," but when the New York Times does an interview of Dr. X, Dr. X is the "primary source."

That is the claim on other discussion pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2001_anthrax_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic_situation_at_2001_anthrax_attacks EdLake (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Oke, well I read all the discussions (including the one on the original research talkpage, where I was planning on referring you at first). Some points:
  • The article for which you are writing seems to be more about the FBI investigation than the actual Antrax attacks. I think it is therefore correct to see most of the FBI report as a primary source.
  • Any newspaper article describing the FBI investigation is a secondary source.
There is some dispute about this, where a newspaper article contains no collation of facts, nor any analysis, but merely regugitates a press release. In such a case the newspaper article may be considered by some as a primary source.
  • An interview can be a primary/secondary source depending on the subject and the interviewee. It makes no difference who the interviewer is or where it is published. If commentary is also provided by the article writer we are back to the previous two cases.
More importantly, The primary/secondary source issue seems to be a red herring and not the reason why your edits to the 2001 anthrax attacks article are being reverted. Editors on the articles talkpage have stated repeatedly that you can use the FBI report as a source. The main problem seem to be that your writing style is not encyclopedic and not compliant with the manual of style. I would actually suggest you read a few Featured articles to get an idea how a wikipedia article is supposed to look. Furthermore editor North800 has shown to be willing to help you improve on the articles talkpage, so please listen to his advice and ask for more. I can also review a section of text for you if you want to, if you do please leave the section on my talkpage and I will have a look at it. Yoenit (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. Government departments like the FBI are primary sources.
  2. Newspapers are secondary sources, except for statements about those newspapers.
Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
What is your rationale for saying a government department is a primary source? I would say it depends on the subject. Yoenit (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not whether it's a government document or a newspaper. That doesn't matter. What matters is what it is in relation to. An FBI interview can be a primary source for one topic, and a secondary for another. Yoenit is probably right that it's primary in this instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
FBI reports are primary sources because once they start to investigate they become a participant in those events. Occasionally in investigative journalism the reporter will cease to be a secondary source if his actions start to become a part of the story. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is confusion between colloquial uses of the term "primary source" and the actual literal definition of "primary source" used in dictionaries and by anyone in science, journalism, research, analysis and/or almost any other field.
If I casually ask someone, "What is your primary source for what you just said?" The guy might point to a newspaper article. But the newspaper article could literally be a tertiary source, i.e., a report on an FBI report which contained an interview of a suspect. The primary source is the suspect. The secondary source is the FBI's report. The tertiary source is the newspaper report about the FBI report. And the guy who mentioned it to me is a quaternary source.
Colloquial uses of "primary source" can mean anything. If you rely on colloquial uses of the term, you can have NO firm rule and NO firm definition. Anyone can make up any rule they want. That seems to be what's happening.
Yoenit - The reason Cs32en gave for deleting the "hidden message" section that started all this was "Sorry, but you have to take *information* from the secondary sources." And that was his argument for DAYS. He argued that the FBI's Summary report was a PRIMARY source and I could not use primary sources at all on Wikipedia. He/she never mentioned "style." Only North8000 mentioned style. (At one point on another discussion page, "Crum" argued that if the media ("secondary sources") didn't thoroughly review the FBI/DOJ's Summary of the case, then the case was not "notable" and the entire entry about the anthrax attacks of 2001 should be removed from Wikipedia.)
I'm afraid that if I present a section to someone for a review of my "style" before putting it in the article, it will be the subject of discussion for weeks and months and will never get posted. I'd much prefer that you review my "style" as it is currently seen on the anthrax attacks article. A good one to start with is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#Dr._Ivins.27_.22non-denial_denials.22 It already contains a comment that I used "improper synthesis." From my point of view, I just summarized things to make a clear point. Am I suppose to dig through every article about the attacks looking for some newspaper reporters' words that are similar to what I wrote? EdLake (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I thought all your changes to the article had been reverted. I will create a new section on the article's talkpage about it. Yoenit (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone just added a note that I use "too many quotations." But, if I don't use quotations, the complain will be that I "synthesized" something. It appears there is no way to satisfy every editor. EdLake (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
EdLake, when I wrote "Sorry, but you have to take *information* from the secondary sources," this was in response to one of your edits in which you simply added a sentence that said "Newspapers X, Y, and Z have commented on the issue." You merely mentioned the reports (which are not opinion pieces, by the way), without using any information from them. And interviews, whether by TV stations or by the FBI, are primary sources, of course, because nobody else but the interviewee vouches for the accuracy of their content.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to the "too many quotations." tag. I disagree with the placement here. That specific section does not contain too many quotations, although other sections do (especially the comments from X stuff, which should be removed). I have therefore removed the tag. @Edlake, Instead of quoting somebody you can paraphrase them if needed. Yoenit (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en - As discussed at length, the newspaper articles I listed are brief, often totally wrong and nearly worthless as "information." The SECONDARY source, i.e., the DOJ/FBI's Summary report is the complete version that the newspaper reporters were attempting to summarize. EdLake (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yoenit - I'm not positive by what you mean about "X stuff," but I think you have no idea how controversial some of this stuff is. Any attempt to delete things will bring an UPROAR from the conspiracy theorists and True Believers who have dominated the postings to this article for YEARS. EdLake (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion page for the article about the anthrax attacks, you'll see someone tried to delete the section about the "Chile letter." But it was put back. It was then deleted again, and it was put back again. It remains, even though it has NOTHING to do with the article - other than that some people think it does.

There's also a section about Dr. Philip Zack. As far as I can tell, Zack was only considered to be a "suspect" by neo-Nazis because they thought he was a Jew. (He's acually a Catholic.). Plus, the links in the section are either meaningless or they point to Dr. Assaad, not Zack. Delete it at your own risk. EdLake (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete it at your own risk. Risk of what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Risk of other editors reverting me. It's not a threat, just pessisism resulting from previous clashes about content. It's been over 10 hours now since I removed 30% of the page and no reverts yet, so I seem to be lucky. Yoenit (talk)
The comment above seems to have been posted by Yoenit. He's right. But I seem to generate automatic reverts from others. People have to think a bit before reverting things others did. They know who I am, they may not know who the others are. But, all the conspiracy theorists and True Believers do not examine the article about the anthrax attacks of 2001 every day. It may take them awhile to notice the deletions. Or maybe they'll figure they're not worth fighting over. Either way, they were good deletions, IMHO. EdLake (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, forgot to sign indeed. My bad Yoenit (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion occurred in several places where I participated; I did not know this one existed and it was pointed out that I did not post here. The FSI/DOJ report is an compendium of work by hundreds of people acting in may different roles. IMHO, with respect to this article, it is a mixture of primary and secondary sources. And that any claim that it is entirely a primary source could not be substantiated. Further it is by far the most reliable and comprehensive of the available sources, and IMHO it should be used. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Watts up with that

Is the web site Watts Up With That run by Anthony Watts a usable source for Watts opinion? Specificly this edit [1] which has been edited out? mark nutley (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Forgot to say this was discussed before and consensus at that time was it was ok to use for Watts opinion [2] mark nutley (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB is pretty clear on the subject. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, provided they meet the following five criteria:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or entities);
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Points 1 to 3 are irrelevant here, as the source is only used to support he said something. I don't see a problem with the last two, so yes it is a reliable source for his opinion. Yoenit (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that really works. It's not a "web site", it's a blog. Marknutley is attempting to use a blogger's comment to support the notability of a YouTube video. As such it clearly falls foul of point 2, since it's being used to support the contention that the video is "hilarious and extremely well produced" - a claim about a third party. It does not fall under the exemption under which blogs can be used as sources about the blog or the author of the blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It is being used for Anthony Watts opinion on the video, there is no claim about a third party, just what he thought of the vid mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The claim about the third party is what is being cited - that the video is "hilarious and extremely well produced". You cannot cite bloggers' claims about third parties, pro or con. Suppose you had a blogger giving his opinion that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim with a forged birth certificate. You cannot cite such a source with the excuse that that's "just what he thought". -- ChrisO (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't believe that "a video" can be construed to be a person, an organization, or an entity (in the sense clearly intended, i.e. a legal entity). --Rush's Algore (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The link presented seems to be to a discussion about a totally different topic. Could I ask Yoenit how far his proposed principle goes - if I were to start blogging, could someone insert my opinion about any and every wikipedia article just by putting "Hipocrite blogged x" in front of all my opinions when editing them into wikipedia pages? My understanding was that blogs were not acceptable sources unless they were otherwise reliable - are they now acceptable sources if we just write "according to (random blog)" in any article? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Which link? the one which has As for Watts - IMO, his blog is a reliable source for his opinion, as well. Obviously. Guettarda (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC) in it? If a person is notable then their opinion carries weight, so yes using a blog of a notable person for their opinion is fine. @ Chris0 you are wrong, Watts is giving his opinion, equating his opinion with some conspiracy theory is silly mark nutley (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
One opinion in an unrelated discussion about an unrelated site is not a "consensus." Claiming it is is bad faith. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is clear from that discussion that the use of a blog for the opinion of a notable person was fine, that was the consensus, please redact your bad faith remark mark nutley (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Forget about conspiracy theories, forget about Watts. The principle here is simple: is it permissible to quote the views of bloggers about third parties? The short answer is that it is not, and point 2 of the WP:SELFPUB restrictions was enacted specifically to prohibit doing that. Otherwise you open the door for citing anyone's views about anything and abandon the principle of reliable sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity which part of opinions on a video falls under it does not involve claims about third parties (such as People, organizations, or entities) a video is none of those things is it mark nutley (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop the wikilawyering, please. You are simply providing more diffs for the current arbitration case. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Redact your PA, and answer my question please mark nutley (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain how it is you feel that "a video" could be considered to be a "third party", because this seems quite a stretch to me. A "third party" in the sense it is being used is a legal entity with rights and obligations. A "video" has none of these things. --Rush's Algore (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are absolutely reliable for the opinions of their authors, per WP:SPS. I don't see any valid objections to using this source in the manner that it is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The question asked was is the blog in question a reliable source for Watts opinion. I answered that question and it is obviously a yes. All the source does is support that Watts made a statement, whatever is in the statement is irrelevant. Whether Watts opinion should be included in the article is an entirely different question and one that belongs on the articles talkpage, not on this noticeboard. Yoenit (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not as simple as that. This is a self-published source from a blogger who is not any kind of an expert in the subject area (climate science), nor has any publication record in the relevant field, nor has been published by reliable third-party sources. It is being used to make claims about a third party. These are exactly the circumstances in which self-published sources must not be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This isn't an article about climate science. It's article about a video, which is not a third-party. I still don't see any valid objections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
A third-party entity, as stated in the policy. Even if you accept the premise that it isn't about climate science, Watts is not a videographer, nor does he have any publication record as a videographer, nor has he had anything on that subject published by reliable third-party sources. It still fails WP:SPS. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This clearly runs afoul of WP:SELFPUB#2, as ChrisO points out. It's also doubtful whether the view of someone who isn't particularly notable, that a video is 'hilarious', is relevant to an encyclopedia article, but that discussion isn't for here. First Light (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Chris, I think you're misinterpreting SPS. Bullet point #2 is about people or groups of people ("such as people, organizations, or entities"). This is an article about a video, not a third-party. No, Watts is not a videographer but he's not being mentioned for any expertise in videography. Instead, he's mentioned because his opinions are notable in relation to the Climategate scandal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Bullet point #2 is about people or groups of people ("such as people, organizations, or entities"). This is an article about a video, not a third-party.
You appear to be erroneously re-stating "bullet point 2" which actually reads...
...it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or entities).
Using your suggested paraphrase, it should read...
Bullet point #2 is about people or groups of people or entities
A "video" is also an "entity". Either I'm missing some nuance here or your assertion, IMHO, doesn't appear to hold water. Can you expand or clarify? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can explain it any better than I have. Bullet point 2 is about people or groups of people. A video is NOT an "entity" in the sense of what it's talking about. IOW, you're missing the context of what it's saying and taking a single word out of context to make it mean something that it doesn't. Look at the whole sentence. It's about people. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That's simply not supportable. You are paraphrasing the "bullet-point", removing "entities" supplied by the original as an example of a "third-party" reference, then claiming that "third-party" solely relates to "people or groups of people". Yikes! JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, we can't cite Stephen Hawking's blog on the universe because the universe is an "entity". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Except for the fact that Hawking is a published expert and all, expressly exempted in WP:SPS. Could you please review the policy you are professing to comment expertly on, please? Hipocrite (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
But that's not the argument being used. The argument is that the universe is an "entity". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
My observation has nothing to do with arguing the admissability of the suggested content under WP:SPS consideration, only that WP:SPS, by definition (bullet point 2), is pertinent to a consideration of that admissability. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


I agree that the universe is an entity. As such, if Hawking were not a published expert, we could not include his opinion about the universe. Since he is a published expert on the universe, we can include his opinion. Perhaps you should use a hypothetical that illustrates only the issue you would like to focus on, as opposed to highlighting your misunderstanding of the policy. Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. The issue here is whether a claim is being make about a third-party. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is not even remotely about Mr. Watts. It has zero relation to Mr. Watts. He is not the author of the video, nor is he in the video. His relation to the video is that he commented on the video. Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec, you keep changing your argument. In any case, his opinion is notable because he's involved in the Climategate scandal and global warming controversy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not. There are two ways to put an SPS in an article. The first way is if its an expert. Watts is not an expert on viral videos. The second is if they are closely involved with the subject. Watts is not closely involved with either Climategate or this viral video - you argue he is closely involved with Climategate. Even if he were, this is a viral video, not Climategate. Another source has commented on the video and is just as involved in Climategate - Dr. Connelley. His opinion is not in the article yet - why not? Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, "Closely involved" is a matter of personal interpretation and it's not in WP:SPS anyway. The simple fact is that a blog is a reliable source for the opinion of its authors and no claims are made about any third-parties. Start a second discussion if you want to discuss a second source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I am being quoted (or rather, quote-mined) let me clarify things: yes, WUWT is a reliable source for Watts' opinion - in a place like Anthony Watts (blogger). When the article is about Watts, his blog can be used. But it's not a "reliable source" for factual information - Watts is not an expert in this context. Guettarda (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda is almost correct. The information is not presented as factual information in this case, but as Watts opinion. WUWT is a reliable source for Watts' opinion, no matter on what article. but if he is no expert on the subject his opinion carries no weight and should not be included in the article.
This is probably my own mistake for pointing out those rules and then stating they were not relevant, should never have done that. Lets try to explain it one more time with an example. Say my grandma has a blog and it is established that it is not a fake written by somebody else. Now say grandma writes on her blog: Monkeys evolved from pancakes. Grandma's blog is now a reliable source for stating "Grandma said: Monkeys evolved from pancakes". This does not mean grandmas blog is now a reliable source for the evolution theory nor that her statement should be included in wikipedia articles. Yoenit (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, this is not an article about science and WUWT is an involved member in the Climategate scandal. The situations aren't the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
is it permissible to quote the views of bloggers about third parties? No, per WP:SELFPUB as ChrisO says. This is an attempt to sidestep WP:RS, per Hipocrite. Guettarda's summary is correct. Verbal chat 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not being used to make any claims about third-parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Watts has worked as a broadcaster, he could be said to be an expert within the field of media and as such he would also be ok to use mark nutley (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying that his work about the field of media has been published by reliable third-party sources (as per WP:SPS)? Source for this claim? Guettarda (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
No i`m saying he has worked in the media for years and might just have picked up a thing or two along the way, use your common sense please mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The policy is clear. If you want to re-write our policy on self-published sources, this isn't the place. Guettarda (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
...and no claims are made about any third-parties.
This assertion, contrary to your earlier point, has considerably more merit. The issue, IMHO, hinges on resolution of the question as to whether the content attributable to Mr. Watts is from a "third party" or a "second party". Hipocrite's query as to the admissability of (and thus far uncited) observations of WMC are most relevant. IMHO (and not being particularly familiar with relative notability of CC "identified" personas), I believe a valid case might be made that both Watts and Connelly observations on this video are both admissable as "second party" observers and also might afford counter-perspectives of interest to any prospective reader. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • claims in WP:SELFPUB (points #2 and #3) refers to factual claims (and analytical claims only insofar as they relate to or rely on facts, stated or implied). The purpose of a "reception" section is to get a sense of the opinions of anyone influential regarding the subject of an article -- it helps readers understand the position of the subject in relation to the wider world and helps readers learn something about both the subject and the wider world. Watts is an influential, even "expert" opinionator regarding the climate change debate. The most prominent people on the denialist/skeptic areas of the debate as well as on the other side (and any influential side) should be mentioned in the "Reception" section. It seems to tell us something about the reception of the video that Watts likes it while William Connolley doesn't. It also tells us something about the polarized nature of the climate-change debate, and probably something about Watts and Connolley as well. These are encyclopedic reasons for keeping those responses in the article. And none of these sources could possibly be unreliable about their own opinons. And reliability is the kind of thing this board is here to discuss. No one thinks any reader will be mislead by any inaccuracy in any way by inclusion of these reactions. What does that tell you? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a farrago of nonsense, and you know it - your approach drives a coach and horses through the reliable sourcing policy. Blogs are not reliable sources except in a few very limited circumstances, none of which are met here. Watts is a blogger with no expertise in the topic area - whether videography or climate science, whichever you claim it to be - and no history of publishing in reliable third-party sources. Connolley is a bit better in that he actually has some published expertise in science, though obviously not in videography. Neither of them meets the very limited criteria set out in WP:SPS: "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" You haven't demonstrated that Watts is "an established expert" on the topic of the video in question. You haven't demonstrated that he has any publication record, let alone one from reliable third-party publications. The SPS exemption was created to allow blog posts by experts on topics of their expertise - e.g. Richard Dawkins commenting on evolutionary science on his blog - to be quoted. You are trying to take this very narrow exemption and lever it open to allow, essentially, anyone who has commented on anything on their blog to be cited as a source. Under your reading of SPS, a blog post by any random 9/11 conspiracy theorist or an Obama birther could be used as a source, since your reasoning would deem them to have prior "expertise". That is a completely self-defeating approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You are incorrect about the policy. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That's right, but the use of the source in this question is to give the blogger's views on something else, not himself. So that exemption doesn't apply, as you know perfectly well. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
I dunno about that. It is certainly arguable that both are quite studied in the methodoligies of propagandizing their respective positions in the CC controversy...which this subject directly addresses.
You haven't demonstrated that Watts is "an established expert" on the topic of the video in question.
A reasonable and examinable assertion, but is it true if the subject of the article is about the propagandistic nature of the video in question? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
So? There's no rule against that, AFAIK. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
So that exemption doesn't apply, as you know perfectly well.
Perhaps so, but only if Watt's is a "third-party" source. I don't believe (pending further discussion) that either Watt's or Connelly have been definitively established as "third-parties" for the purposes of this examination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we all get a grip? The subject of this article, up for AfD, is a non-notable here today gone tomorrow Internet meme. But just say for a minute it was a published movie. Then would a review of it on a blog be RS? Probably not. We look for reviews in the mainstream outlets. The argument that an SPS is RS for someone's view comes up here fairly often, but nearly always when the SPS is written by the subject of a biography. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Listen to yourself, ChrisO: the topic area - whether videography or climate science We're talking about a frickin' propagandistic, light-as-a-feather Internet video here. Climate science is not the "topic area", the politics of the public climate science controvery is the topic area. It sure as hell ain't "videography". This video exists within the climate change debate. No. Where. Else. It ain't art and it ain't science, and you very well know it. Watts is one of the most relevant "experts". Jeesh. And the WP:CIV violation at the beginning of your 20:39 post doesn't help. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the tone of your comment it would be best not to take others to task for "WP:CIV violation." Model the behavior you want to encourage. Itsmejudith's "Can we all get a grip?" is the best comment so far. It's getting a bit tiresome to once again see the usual people on the usual sides arguing about the usual stuff. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to follow me around from page to page and shake your finger at me, Boris, please shake it in the direction of editors I'm responding to who are making comments that are far worse. But thanks for the pointer; I'll keep it in mind. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online

Just confirming is the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online considered a reliable and acceptable source for articles that are Roman Catholic related? [3] LoveMonkey (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer, I think, is "it depends". The information this century-old source gives is quite out of date on matters such as canon law, and citing it with regard to the present situation would be misleading. Some of its articles are opinion pieces, such as the one on use of the term "Roman Catholic". Those on historical matters are generally quite good, at least in relation to the knowledge available in the first years of the last century; but of course they do not outweigh more recent research. I would not classify its articles as tertiary sources: they are signed articles, written by experts of the time. Accordingly, with the limitations mentioned, and perhaps others that have not come to my mind, I think they can be considered sources acceptable for citing in Wikipedia. They have the advantage also of being out of copyright. Esoglou (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I more or less agree, maybe quite a bit less. I found one article that was describing a religious order as though the information was current which was obviously pretty useless. And even for historical issues, you can't get around the fact it's a century old. When I see articles using this as a source my reaction is 'why should I think this reflects what historians say today'? Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference using second-hand information

Article: The Last Airbender
Disputed source: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Last-Airbender-Has-A-Total-Budget-Of-280-Million-19238.html
Section it is sourcing: [4]

My problem with this reference is that it uses an LA Times article as its source for the information which is already used as a reference in the article. I consider the Cinema Blend article wholly unnecessary since it is second-hand information, which we are already obtaining directly from the original source. Apart from being pointless, using second-hand references is often considered bad form and articles are much stronger when the original sources can be used. In my view the Cinema Blend article should only be used in the case of where the LA Times article is unavailable. I would like to know your opinion on whether it is acceptable for the CB reference to remain or whether it would be better to come out. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be cited to the LA Times. I don't really understand why someone would cite cinemablend in this instance. Dlabtot (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Since cinemablend includes the following disclaimer: " CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously." I think we should take them at their word - it is a site intended as entertainment, not to be taken seriously. It can't therefore can't be RS for Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Supper Club fire

Much substantive content is being added to the article, and a lot of it is based upon first-person accounts, as told to, and recorded by a witness to and self-described private researcher and archivist of the event [5]. An overview from objective contributors would be welcome. JNW (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a message to the IP's talkpage about reliable sources, including a statement that unpublished personal accounts are not acceptable. Gonna wait and see if he reacts to it. Keeping an eye on the page for now. Yoenit (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I found this a tough one, because most of the content is credible, and who wants to argue with someone who was at the scene and has devoted time since then collecting accounts and information? Still, there are bound to be issues regarding objective reliable sources and conflict of interest. JNW (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, talk about lack of verification! Eg footnote 30, "^ (wishes to be kept anonymous), Hazmat Instructor, near Utica, Ohio". 33 and 34 " Personal account of David Brock, former busboy, purported arson witness and long-time private researcher and archivist of club records and testimonies. (Personal accounts of former club employees, Wayne Dammert and David Brock, "Survivors for Justice"" - a large number are like that, eg "Additional accounts were obtained from Bruce Rath's son, Scott, who is also a volunteer firefighter at Southgate fire station, Ft. Thomas, KY., and lifelong resident." This is basic policy stuff here, we can't have an article so heavily based on unverifiable personal accounts. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any advise for a course of action? Right now I plan to revert the article to a version from little over a week ago [6] if all of th IPs fail to respond to my messages in the next few days, but I am afraid it will just lead to an editwar and them getting banned. Yoenit (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with that. I've raised this at WP:BLPN also. Your suggestion seems a good one, I couldn't figure out a way to actually disentangle it without a major reversion. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As you can see from my comment on the article talk page, the problem is severe and must be fixed. I support Yoenit's plan, but agree that bad outcomes are likely (which is why I tried to explain the situation gently). Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

After 6 years of being correctly identified in the article, User:Malik Shabazz, (WP:COI), has decided to change the book's authorship, as he prefers Malcolm X to be listed as the author, rather than Alex Haley. I corrected the article, a second time, and inserted a reference, which Malik Shabazz promptly removed.Mk5384 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is here, since it's not a question of WP:RS. In any event, I showed Mk5384 two editions of the book (actually three, because Amazon has photos of two editions) that show the book's authorship "with the assistance of Alex Haley".[7][8] That an article has been wrong for six years doesn't turn a mistake into a fact. And I'm very curious what my conflict of interest is here. That I admire Malcolm X? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Then where should it be? You admit, yourself, in the article that Alex Haley wrote the book. Where it says "with the assistance of Alex Haley", it certainly doesn't say, "by Malcolm X". I also admire Malcolm X. But I don't take it to the ridiculous level of pretending he wrote something that he didn't write.Mk5384 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Third opinion might be more appropriate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point in asking for a 3rd opinion of a fact that is explicitly clear. And like I said; that's one of the problems here. Because you're an admin, I'm supposed to ask for a "3rd opinion" about a fact that was never in dispute, and you just decided to change because you like it better that way.Mk5384 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This does indeed not belong on the RS noticeboard. A better place would the articles talkpage and a Request for comments. That being said I do have an opinion on the matter, though I never heard about the book before. Apparently the bookjacket says Malcom X wrote the book, which seems no more than logical it being his autobiography and everything. If he did not write that the book, than a Reliable source stating that very fact should be presented. In that case the discrepancy should be mentioned in the article. Yoenit (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for a 3rd opinion, as suggested. However, I'm concerned that it will be filled with comments like the one above. Those unfamiliar with the subject may, quite naturally, assume that, as it is an "autobiography", it only makes sense that Malcolm X wrote it. As far as a reliable source, I did provide it. Malik Shabazz promptly removed it.Mk5384 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that Haley wrote the book. What the original edition said is marketing. We need academic sources. Paul B (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
After filing at Wikipedia:Third opinion, it was immediately removed. So it doesn't belong here. It doesn't belong at 3rd opinion. It comes down to what I originally said. As the person who wants Malcolm X listed as the author is an administrator, he gets what he wants, without regard as to the truth. What a joke.Mk5384 (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
My view carries no more weight than yours, except that mine is supported by the title page of the book itself. I'm still waiting, though, for you to show me another Wikipedia article about an autobiography that attributes authorship to the ghostwriter, as opposed to the putative "author". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The title page is irrelevant. I think the debate about relibility does legitimately belong on this page. This is a question of what academic sources say about authorhip. There are many comparable examples, from books said to have been written by Aristotle through to "autobiographies" of air-headed celebrities obviously written by ghost authors. As long as we have clear RS consensus about who the author is we can go with that. Paul B (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
From the articles talkpage:

"Here's a scholarly source: [9]

Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley... Malcolm X told the story of his life to Alex Haley in a series of interviews that took place over a period of nearly two years. Malcolm read the text of the Autobiography, approving and correcting the chapters as Haley wrote them, although he did not live to see the last revisions made in the manuscript. Evidence both internal and external to the Autobiography suggests that Haley kept to the agreement he made with Malcom -- to include nothing Malcolm had not said and to say everything Malcolm wanted included.

That pretty much settles it, in my opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)"

I gotta agree with him, this seems like pretty clear that Haley functioned as a ghostwriter, which are normally not credited as the primary author. Yoenit (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is helpful but Paul McCartney wrote Yesterday (song) but Lennon-McCartney are credited as co-authors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

One way to resolve bibliographic problems like this is to consult a major library to see how they handle it. They are supposed to be the experts at bibliographical picky-pickies. The Library of Congress lists the author as Malcolm X. Zerotalk 00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources I see above are citing the title of the book, which includes the phrase "with the assistance of Alex Haley". These are not sources referring to the book as written by Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley. --GabeMc (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are five scholarly sources who use the phrase "co-authored by Alex Haley":

GabeMc (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are five scholarly sources who refer to Haley as a co-author of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

GabeMc (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why this is here, since it's not a question of WP:RS. In any event, I showed Mk5384 two editions of the book (actually three, because Amazon has photos of two editions) that show the book's authorship "with the assistance of Alex Haley".[20][21]"--Mailk Shabazz 20:13, 23 June 2010

but Malik Shabaz said this when he reverted good faith edits by GabeMc, "Amazon isn't a WP:RS" [22]GabeMc (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Here are three citations of the Autobiography that all attribute authorship to "Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley".123
Here are more than 1100 more books that indicate the authorship was "with the assistance of Alex Haley:
http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&q="autobiography+of+malcolm+x"+"assistance+of+alex+haley"
GabeMc needs to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The three scholarly sources above 123 are actually foot-notes citing the title, not using the phrase "with the assistance of Alex Haley" in a DESCRIPTIVE sentence. They are not describing the book that way, they are including the phrase as part of the title. According to the Library of Congress the "main title" is officially "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley." That is the title of the book, not the author, editor, or publisher giving credit.--GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are not attributing authorship, "with the assistance of Alex Haley" is PART OF THE TITLE.--GabeMc (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you have three recitations of the title while I have over 10 WP:RS referring to Haley as the co-author. --GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are ten MORE sources that refer to Haley as the co-author of The Autobiography of Malcolm X--GabeMc (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a contest of who can find the most reliable sources. This discussion was started because an editor wanted to credit Haley as the main author, a position nobody seems to be defend anymore. It shifted to whether Haley should be called a "co-author" or an "assistant", which is a downright lame discussion. I have little doubt hunderds of sources are available to support both views, so linking all of those is not gonna solve anything. The best authority on the subject are probably the big libraries, which don't seem to support Haley as a co-author. I would therefore propose to keep Malcom as the author with Haley as an assistant, but include that Haley has also been called a co-author with a reliable source (preferably one that also discusses the controversy in question). Yoenit (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What is being missed here is that this not a case of "an editor wants to credit Haley as the main author". It is a case of "the article correctly credited Haley as the main author for 6 years, until 2 months ago, when Malik Shabazz, who owns all articles that mention Malcolm X, decided he liked it better calling Malcolm X the main author." Malik Shabazz is abusing his position as an admin by attempting to bully other users into accepting the version he wants. His comments, like "this is a closed issue", and "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass", are egregiously out of line.Mk5384 (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
No, this is a case where every bibliographic citation of the book attributes authorship to "Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley" but you and your buddy are making a "controversy" where none exists. That an article was wrong for six years doesn't turn an error into the truth. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right that no controversy exists. And you assumed ownership of this article long before you decided to change it. The only error that exists here is your hagiography of Malcolm X, which contradicts your pledge on your own user page.Mk5384 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Please stop claiming Malik Shabazz is "abusing his position as an admin", this is a serious accusation. If you have proof feel free to stand him up for recall (see user:Malik Shabazz). If you don't, than know it is considered a personal attack and can get you banned if you keep making it without presenting any evidence. Yoenit (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I've presented plenty of evidence. And here's one I haven't said yet. It appears to me that he has used rollbacks to revert to his preferred version, even though no vandalism took place.Mk5384 (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I am curious, why are your three sources better then my 20? And one more time I will explain why I think you seem so confused, "with the assistance of Alex Haley" is a phrase FROM THE TITLE OF THE BOOK so your sources are good if you want to confirm the title, nothing more. This is beginning to feel like a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." --GabeMc (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed, no question as to the reliability. The issue here, is that Malik says his sources are the only ones that count, and continues to revert to his preferred version.Mk5384 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

UCLA, Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, and The University of Chicago all give Alex Haley an author credit on the Autobiography.

--GabeMc (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So far, no source has asserted that Alex Haley wrote the book and Malcolm X didn't. Ergo the article would be wrong to cite the book as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, by Alex Haley. At the same time, all sources assert that Alex Haley played a large part in the authorship of the book. Many even describe him as the co-author. So it would be equally wrong to cite the book as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, by Malcolm X. This is not a reliable source dispute, this is a content dispute about the precise form of words to be used to describe a book which was written by two people. You should go back to the content page, and decide between

  • Malcolm X with Alex Haley
  • Malcolm X and Alex Haley
  • Alex Haley and Malcolm X
  • Alex Haley, from interviews with Malcolm X
  • some other permutation of both names.

If necessary, hold an RfC.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That Alex Haley wrote the book is fact. To state otherwise, is duplicitous, and a disservice to our readers.Mk5384 (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
People might like to discuss this with the people working on Shakespeare, a number of whose plays (as generally so described) are regarded by most scholars as involving various degrees of collaboration. Authorship is not a straightforward concept. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Citing an email

I'm expanding several historic browsers with User:Mabdul such as Agora (web browser) and Arena (web browser). I've contacted the original authors of the browsers via email, and they've responded with certain information that isn't in any book, nor on the web. How would I cite an email? Should I foward the email to OTRS and then cite it with the OTRS ticket?Smallman12q (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a personal e-mail should qualify as a reliable source. Please don't think that I'm questioning your integrity or honesty, Smallman12q! Most of what I write is written to APA publication standards and in APA publications you only cite personal communications in the body of an article, not in the reference section. This is relevant because the reasoning APA uses is that other scholars can not access personal communications and use them in their own research. As annoyed as I am by many APA standards, I think they have a good point on this issue and it seems relevant for us, too, in deciding if personal communications are reliable.
But I don't know how we have treated this issue in the past. Anyone? ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You can't cite an email like that. Only published sources that are verifiable. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
What if the information isn't in published sources? I'd like to cite Dave Raggett and Arthur Secret both of which work at the W3C. The information I'd like to cite is concerning now obselete/history browsers Agora (web browser) and Arena (web browser), yet the information is not available in published sources. I don't see how the original program authors can be considered "unreliable"?Smallman12q (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Then you can't use it. The applicable policies are WP:V and WP:OR. Dlabtot (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict, Dlabtot is fully correct, but does no effort to explain why) The core problem is verifiability. People have to be able to check the whether the information is correct. You could put this email online somewhere, but there is no way for us to know whether you changed it before doing so (aka, you are "unreliable", not the program author). Don't they have some kind of official website where they could put the information in question, so we can verify it was really given by them and not made up by you? Yoenit (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Dlabtor and Yoenit are correct. Furthermore, even if they publish the information on their own websites, you must be careful of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't OTRS be used to verify the email, and then perhaps make a subpage copy of it? I'd really don't see a need to further burden the authors with the creation of additional webpages. There is some information best obtained from the original developers themselves, for example, why they chose to name a browser a certain way, or certain technical aspects of the development.Smallman12q (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
My guess is that they would have to receive the email directly - just forwarding it would allow you to intercept the content. The only other solution I can think of is that you would have to give them access to your email account if the email is still on the mail server, and then they can verify that it hasn't been tampered with. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:V only requires cites for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. If this information isn't contentious, you're free to include it in the article and not cite your sources. If you really want to cite this e-mail, publish it somewhere on the internet and invoke WP:IAR: any rule that prevents you from improving Wikipedia should be ignored. Again, I'm assuming the information isn't contentious, controversial, etc.. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your interpretation of WP:V is wrong. The second sentence of the policy: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed.". Information in an email is not attributable to a reliable published source, thus should not be included in articles. You can ofcourse invoke wp:IAR, but that will not make the problem go away, as it will just get challenged again at a later date. Yoenit (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, wording of WP:V has changed since the last time I looked at it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if I were to send a list of questions to a software's original author, and they responded, would that be considered WP:OR?Smallman12q (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see above for reasons why. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
What about if I emailed the W3C and put up their response to the email in a simple .txt faq on their site...this would now qualify for WP:RS right?Smallman12q (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Blog post created by Wikipedia editor as a result of article dispute

This is an interesting case. William Connolley is both a notable person and an editor here on Wikipedia, User:William M. Connolley. Connolley created a blog post as the result of an article dispute which he is involved in. Now that blog post is being cited (by a different editor) in the article (but for non-controversial information). His blog is obviously reliable for the opinions of Connolley, but I don't know if it's appropriate. I have some WP:CIRCULAR and WP:COI concerns, not to mention the fact that a Wikipedia editor specifically created the blog post as a response to the article. I honestly don't know enough about Wikipedia policies and guidelines to make an informed decision.

  1. Link to the source in question: Flaunt the stupidity
  2. The article in which it is being used: Hide the decline
  3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:

    William M. Connolley on his personal blog said of the video, "It wasn't funny, it was dull."

  4. Links to relevant talk page discussion:[39]

Can we have some uninvolved editors weigh in here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone commenting here should also review the section directly above and justify why their responses are the same/different for these two statements. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
My view is the same as expressed above, with the addition that the opinions of Anthony Watts and William Connolley on whether a youtube video is "hilarious" or "dull" are both outside their areas of expertise ("weather presenter" and "climate modeller"). If Roger Ebert ("film critic") gave a similar opinion about a short film, then it might be notable. Or perhaps Bill Murray ("weather presenter" and "hilarious"). First Light (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I consider both bloggers to be experts with deep knowledge of the relevant field: climate-change political bombast. And I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. Really. No, really.-- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this a gag order for the uninitiated? Could you please cite any policy that prohibits posting comments without prerequisite posts elsewhere, or "justifications", or tribal dances? East of Borschov 07:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by not very involved (at the moment) editor. No, no, no, no. Nowhere near Wikipedia, please. None of this is notable or worth including. Not the original video, not William Connolley's comments on it, not none of it. People are trying to run rings round Wikipedia, let's not let them. No. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Are reviews reliable sources?

In Newport_Tower_(Rhode_Island) a reference to a review in what seems to be a reliable source (Baltic Astronomy) of an unreliable source (New England Antiquities Research Association Journal). Does a review in a reliable source suddenly turn that article into a reliable source? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link to the source: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997BaltA...6...71P (Yes, it really does look like that. ;) ) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the article that was published in the NEARA journal was republished in Baltic Astronomy and the link is to an abstract, not a review Yes it is reliable, it was written by a physicist and published in a reliable source (Baltic Astronomy). It is an unusual subject for a physicist, determining whether an ancient tower may have been designed as an observatory, which probably explains the publishing history. TFD (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Aha, then I understand. OK, then it's a reliable source. Now I just need to get my hands on a copy, so that I can verify what it actually says. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. This looks odd. Why is a peer-reviewed astronomy journal reprinting an article that appeared earlier in NEASA? Has BA previously published any articles in archeoastronomy? Or are they simply picking something up because it looks interesting? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

TechRepublic

I have been redirecting non-notable stubs about Space Invaders sequels and spin-offs to List of Space Invaders video games. One of the last ones on my list is Space Invaders Trilogy. However, I've hit a snag looking for a reliable source to add it to the list. The article currently doesn't provide any link that I think would meet WP:RS. About the only good source I found is this page on TechRepublic, which is owned by CBS Interactive. I've never used TechRepublic before and would like to know if this qualifies as a reliable source. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

I wouldn't have a problem with Techrepublic being used as a source, as long as we're talking about articles written by their staff. I use it quite a lot for technical reviews, etc. but the page you linked to appears to be a reprint of a press release that originated with the company that produced the game, so it isn't an independent source. The company producing the software is probably reliable re. the game's existence, but are you looking for more than that?--Michig (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Not really. The game is not-notable because a lack of independent sourcing. So I'm really just looking for a source to add it to List of Space Invaders video games, a Featured list. I want to use the TechRepublic page to source the release year, the developer, and that it is a compilation of three Space Invader games on mobile phones. Basically the bare bones of its existence. Will it suffice? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC))
I would have thought so, unless we're going to doubt the veracity of the company's press release, and I see no reason to.--Michig (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll use the source then. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC))
According to our article, Techrepublic is owned by CBS Interactive. Their white papers are featured at other reliable sources.[40][41] although I'm not sure what these other sites' policies on whitepapers are. There doesn't seem to be an About page for this source, but article authors are named and they seem to have an editor-in-chief.[42]. Looks promising. OTOH, this source isn't cited by very many Wikipedia articles.[43] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek's "The gaggle" blog

A question has arisen about Newsweek's "The gaggle" blog for use in Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please review this diff, this source and Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#The_Gaggle and provide assistance. It would be nice if the climate change standard parties would not respond here, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is. The relevant policy is WP:NEWSBLOG and Sharon Begley is obviously a professional writer. The only problem seems to be whether "the gaggle blog" is "under full editorial" control. The fact a company statement was made via the blog seems a good indication of that and I can't find anything that points to the contrary. The Burden of evidence may lie with the user adding material, but the request made on the Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#The_Gaggle is rather ridiculous. I don't think you can find a statement specifying the blog is under full editorial control for any newspaper blogs, so if that would be required we might as well delete WP:NEWSBLOG. Yoenit (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Is newsweek british owned? If it is then under uk law all online content falls under editoral control. mark nutley (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't. (In any case, the question would surely be where it is published, not who owns it.) Barnabypage (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, that's not what UK law holds. UK law, like US law, states that material published in online blogs is the responsibility of the newspaper publishing them. This is the same between the UK and the US. If "The Gaggle," were to publish libel, Newsweek would obviously be liable, as they are the publisher (not merely the provider of interactive platform). If UK liability laws make all UK newspaper blogs "under full editorial control," just because parent publications are liable for the online blogs, then all US newspaper blogs are as well. Hipocrite (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well then there we go, if they newsweek can be held accountable for the content then they must retain some editorial control, otherwise they`d be screwed. I would say this is a wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This might be a nice example of a major newsoutlet being held accountable for a blog post when their editorial control failed[[44]]. Yoenit (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Given all of this, is it then the opinion of the uninvolved editors here that Newsweek's "The Gaggle" blog is a reliable source in this context? Hipocrite (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, blogs must be under the full editorial control of the publication. Is this blog under full editorial control? I haven't seen any evidence that demonstrates this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I agree that it is a reliable source. I do not agree that the attribution should be to Newsweek as it is in (at least) the first diff, ie articles should not say 'Newsweek' says, but the atribution should be to the author of the blog, adding that it is in Newsweek. WP:NEWSBLOG makes this clear: "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")" Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I accept this compromise, though I don't believe the piece is an opinion piece. Hipocrite (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this New York Observer article settles the question definitively, as it describes the editorial regime for "The Gaggle": [45] It's edited by Newsweek's senior editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that New York Observer article supports the contention that this blog is under their full editorial control, however, Hipocrite has contacted Newsweek and Newsweek has replied that it falls under their full editorial control, so I am satisfied.[46] I do wonder whether that means they mean that this blog should be treated as a straight news story or as an opinion piece. But for the sake of harmony, I won't examine that issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The New York Observer article clearly states that (1) "The Gaggle" was established by Newsweek's editorial staff; (2) it is written by the weekly's reporters; and (3) it is edited by the senior editors. You can't get much clearer that that. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No one's disputing that it's written by Newsweek's staff. Newspapers frequently publish opinion pieces, but that doesn't necessarily make that reliable for anything more than the author's opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a separate issue from the exam question of "is it under editorial control". "The Gaggle" clearly can be used per WP:NEWSBLOG; whether it should be used is another matter altogether. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be a pretty straightforward case of WP:NEWSBLOG. Usually we would treat these as equivalent to opinion pieces in the print version of the paper. I suggested on WP:Identifying reliable sources that there is now a blurred relationship between signed opinion pieces in the good quality press and news, and no-one demurred. As well as news and polemical essays, there is reportage and serious commentary. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

nihonto club and sho-shin

Is sho-shin a reliable source? How about the Nihonto Club; is it a reliable source? For instance this text. I'd also like to make use of other texts on swordsmiths/swords (for instance to connect the signature with the name of a smith and his province) which can be accessed through the meisearch for List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts-swords). However I'd like to know if it can be considered reliable before I delve into it. bamse (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Sho-shin. Owner is named Robert Cole, seems a selfpublished site. There is a Robert E. Cole, who wrote some books about the Japanese industry [47][48]. Two questions remain: Is this the same person (I think so) and are his books considered "in the relevant field" to see him as an expert on Japanese weaponry (I don't think so). I would really like a second opinion on this.
  • Nihontoclub seems also selfpublished, but here the author is only known as "kazarena". There is also a "Paul Martin", who seems to write books, which I can't find on google[49]. Don't have much hope for this one. Yoenit (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll not use these sources in this case. How about The Japanese Sword Society of the United States, is it reliable? bamse (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

NBADraft.net

I'm curious, would http://www.nbadraft.net be considered a reliable source? It contains some good mock drafts and scouting notes on future NBA players. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to in any way meet the criteria of WP:RS as far as I can see. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not getting a sense of reliability. There's nothing on their about page that makes any claims of being associated with a notable person or organization or anything like that. Seems like it might be just a guy with a site, which is WP:SPS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It was cited by USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2010-06-23-2589105885_x.htm ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of their mock draft is cited, but they aren't cited in support of any fact. If the mock draft were relevant and significant in some article, then perhaps they would be RS, but it is hard for me to imagine a valid such instance, since we are not chroniclers of current or future events. Dlabtot (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...their About page gives no indication that they have a professional staff or editorial policy. OTOH, I found favorible reference to it at Forbes[50]. Sports Illustrated says its "visited, at the very least for reference material, by a sizable number of NBA decision-makers. Not the old school GMs, necessarily, but definitely by their tech-savvy underlings and scouts. Said one Eastern Conference evaluator, "It's not like we're on the clock on draft night, scrambling, and then saying, 'Who does NBADraft.net say we should take?' That would be ridiculous. That would mean we aren't doing our jobs. But do I look at their mocks? For sure." "[51] It appears as if Fox News has published some of their articles[52][53]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how much this means, but it's cited by (about) 142 articles[54] which tends to indicate other editors have found the site reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the New York Times, "When they first went online, NBADraft.net (in 2000) and DraftExpress (2004) focused almost entirely on mock drafts. They have since expanded into independent scouting operations, with modest staffs of self-trained experts."[55] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Supplementary sources

Cross posted from: WT:RS#Supplementary sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

At Manchester United F.C.'s recent archived FAC, one thing that came up was that apparently some of our sources were unreliable. The sources in question were: unitedkits.co.uk, historicalkits.co.uk and prideofmanchester.co.uk. All of these sources are essentially fansites, but are excellently maintained and THE place to go to find out information on kits. They were used to reference manchester united's past kits. Anyway, I have been down to the Manchester United museum to check that the information is correct. So my question is, shall I just replace all the sources, or use the manchester united museum as an additional source and if so, how should I do this? Just add a footnote explaining that the sources have been checked at the Manchester United museum or add additional inline citation wherever one of these sites was used? Thanks, Tom 81.159.216.106 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ArXiv.org

Mining Meaning from Wikipedia[56] Any idea of if this is a Reliable source for Wikipedia Related info? Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ArXiv is not necessarily a reliable source. Articles on ArXiv are self-published, and not all vetted by the moderators. I will review the linked article shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That paper, however, appears to be published by individuals who might reasonably be considered experts. Before using any controversial facts from the paper, consider seeking further confirmation. What would you like to use the paper as a source for? Hipocrite (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Noticed that it was in bibliography here and here, as i was unfaliliar with the site i brought it here to learn more Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This paper was reliably published: Medelyan, Olena; Milne, David; Legg, Catherine; Witten, Ian H. (2009), "Mining meaning from Wikipedia", International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67 (9): 716–754, arXiv:0809.4530, doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.05.004. So it turns out to be a reliable source after all; I found this by searching Google scholar for the title, or it would likely have worked to use crossref.org instead. However, in other cases where a reliable publication of the same paper cannot be found, then arxiv papers should be considered as self-published sources: only reliable to the extent that their authors are known experts in the subject of the paper. They do not go through any significant peer-review, only a cursory check by the arxiv moderators to ensure that they are on-topic and meet some very minimal standards of scholarly communication. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dino Felipe

In 2003-2005 "Finese and Runway" formed, gaining notoriety as an Avant-Garde Perfromance art band. The members consisted of Dino "Runway" Felipe, Melba "Finesse" Payes, Jenny-Tambourines and Conceptual Visual/Performance Artist Belaxis Buil( www.BelaxisBuil-PerformanceArt.com). The trio was known for provocative and invasive shows that pushed boundaries as " visceral work"(http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2004-09-23/music/hott-people&page=1). Dino Felipe and Melba Payes later went to perform in Paris. Belaxis Buil continued to develop her own work which has gained international recognition. Rumors of upcoming albums and performances hold fans in suspense...as it is part of the concept with " Finese and Runway"

This is information is not in the Dino Felipe article, nor has the IP in question edited anything before. I don't know why you are posting it on this page. Yoenit (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Transfermarkt.co.uk

I would like to add football player profiles from www.transfermarkt.co.uk to the external links section of footballers wikipedia profiles.

Example: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/frank-lampard/profil/spieler_3163.html

The transfermarkt database is used by many scouts, player agents and managers all over the world as a source for performance data of all sorts of players. (It covers over 80 leagues worldwide with dynamic (statistical) match reports)

It has detailed information about pretty much every player in professional football.

I have been referred to the reliable sources section to have this site considered a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klattius (talk • contribs) 11:46, June 30, 2010

First off, external links don't have to be reliable sources, per the fourth point of WP:ELMAYBE. That being said I don't think it would be a good idea to add it to to footballer articles per WP:LINKSPAM, unless you can provide some evidence the site is to football what say IMDB is for movies. Yoenit (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


Ah ok, I didn´t know that. How would I provide this evidence? I see soccerbase links to almost all player profiles - they are similar, but (in my opinion) not as detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klattius (talk • contribs) 12:34, June 30, 2010

I don't see why soccerbase links should be allowed either. There seems to be some external link spam going on on those articles. I just noticed we actually have a separate noticeboard for external link issues, so I moving the the conversation to there (Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#External_links_on_football_player_articles). Yoenit (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Demonymns for Northern Ireland

The following sources are being used in the info box demonym field for Northern Ireland:

  1. Paul, Dickson (1997). Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. p. 220. ISBN 9780877796169. Northern Ireland: Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or the collective Irish and Northern Irish {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. Martin, Jeanette; Chaney, Lillian (2009), Passport to Success: The Essential Guide to Business Culture and Customs in America's Largest Trading Partners, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, p. 254, ISBN 978-0-275-99716-8, The United Kingdom is made up of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. While all of the people of the UK are known as British, the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish.
  3. Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (Third revised ed.), Oxford Dictionaries, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953296-4, Ulsterman (or Ulsterwoman): a native or inhabitant of Northern Ireland or Ulster.
  4. Belfast Telegraph exclusive poll on United Ireland, 15 March 2010, retrieved 30 June 2010 (last few paragraphs of report, also covered the same day by the BBC - Irish identity tops new Northern Ireland poll, 15 March 2010, retrieved 30 June 2010)

The sources are used as follows:

  • Source 1 and 2 is being used to support "Irish"
  • Source 1 is being used to support "Northern Irish"
  • Source 1 indirectly supports British as it states that it is used in regards to the UK, which Northern Ireland is a part of (as well as the British Isles) (← edited by Mabuska)
  • Source 3 is being used to support "Ulsterman (or Ulsterwoman)"
  • Source 4 is being used to support "British" (← edited by Mabuska)

In particular:

  • Questions have been raised about the reliability of sources 1 and 2.
  • Objections have been raised to Sources 2, 3 and 4 (edited by Mabuska) because the do not use the word "demonym".
  • Objections have been raised as to whether the UK general term in source 1 should apply to localities of the UK, i.e. Northern Ireland. (← edited by Mabuska)

A related question that may invite comment here is whether any of these sources are suitabile to support "British" as demonym for Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC) / Mabuska (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(Additional info: my own view is that all of these sources are reliable, I sourced each of them. However the question is being raised persistently and a number of editor have suggested taking it here for a 3rd opinion. --RA (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

It is important to point out that Paul Dickson, the author of cite #1, is credited by National Geographic as the person who coined the term demonym in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Source two clearly states that all the people of the UK are known as British. The term Irish does not just apply to Northern Ireland, it applies to the whole of the island of Ireland. If Irish can be used despite being about a wider area then why can British not be included as clearly stated in that source the people of Northern Ireland are known as British because they are part of the United Kingdom.
There is only 1 identity that is Northern Ireland specific and that is Northern Irish. If that was the only thing listed in the infobox i would have no problem, but if Irish is listed British must be as well. To discriminate against a large part of the community in Northern Ireland because they only identify as British is unfair and offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is about whether the sources are reliable, it is not a soapbox for your personal views. O Fenian (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I want a neutral editor to confirm the people of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom are British. This is stated in source 2 which is meant to be a reliable source to justify using Irish. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
We should let others decide what the sources back up. Let's wait and see what is said. That's why it was brought here. Jack forbes (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It would help if we all had access to this Dicksons book. The source quoted above fails to cover what is said about the United Kingdom and it is not available on Google Books. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we shouldn't bring the debate over from the N.Ireland talk page and allow others to come in and decide for themselves. Most of the comments here (including my own) don't belong here. Jack forbes (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
people need to understand the full situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, this notice board is simply to ascertain the reliability of certain sources for use within Wikipedia, nothing else. Please raise other issues in the appropriate place. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue is not just reliability of specific named sources. The actual issue surrounding the use of these sources in that article is massive, with many different issues, ranging from PRIMARY to NPOV to GAME to REDFLAG to UNDUE to OR and on and on. It is extremely tiresome that this 'request' has been raised in the exact same manner the whole debate has been conducted by the side that believes 'there's no issue' here - by totally ignoring MASSIVE parts of the objections, and pretending this is just about 'reliability'. Dickson's book is published by a reputable publisher and it has an entry that supposedly says a demonyms for NI are Irish and Northern Irish. Dickson is the guy who invented the term demonym. Yes, everybody understands that. Stop taking us for idiots by continually suggesting the reverse is somehow the issue, while you carry on with the annoying tactic of repetition and willfull pretension. This is NOT the issue in question, and if uninvolved people are just going to post here saying, 'yes, it looks like a reliable source' without investigating the entire issue, then don't bother, because that misses the point of this dispute entirely, although no doubt some will claim such satements of obviousnesses as vindication for their IDIDN'THEARTHAT positions over there. If anyone is interested in what specific issues are, incase they want to give a full opinion, I've raised them a million times on the talk page at the article in question, but all are all distilled into the collapsed box near the end aswell. MickMacNee (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I added in a new source above, number 4, and gave the reason why i was told it wasn't relelvant or acceptable despite the same people allowing a source that went against the reasons they gave me; it didn't state demonymn, despite the fact its a poll on how people identify themselves as, which technically is what a demonymn is suppossed to be. Whilst it is only a poll of 1,000 people, it does show a considerable percentage of people identifying themselves as "British" above "Northern Irish". This shows that in the real world people identify as British as well as Northern Irish and Irish. Mabuska (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I also added in the other issue about source 1 - whether the fact it states British as a denomymn for the UK should apply to its localities. Mabuska (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Mabuska, could you not have made your edits separately to RA's, instead of mixing your text with theirs? WikiuserNI (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
RA already kindly added notes in to what were my additions. No point having them all over the place. Better having them all together in one section. Mabuska (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Better yet not having one editor make changes that look like they belong to another. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Kent Law Review - one specific issue only

There are allegations on the web that the Joyce Foundation (a well known anti gun group with deep pockets) essentially bought an issue of the Chicago Kent Law Review in order to publish material favorable to its position. The Law Review was required to use an outside editor (Carl Bogus) with close ties to the Joyce Foundation who was responsible for accepting what articles went into that issue. The authors were also paid $5,000 each when normally a law review can't afford to pay authors for articles. They tend to be shoe string operation.

Now the question: Would this issue be considered "self-published" as the content was under the full control of Joyce and not the normal law review staff? The issue is used in the Second Amendment article as a "reliable source"

Below are comments found on the web on this issue of the Review.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/joyce_foundatio.php

Why would I say Joyce is at it again? Well, in 2000 Chicago-Kent Law Review issued a similar symposium issue. A bit of inquiry found ... well, let me give you background first. Law reviews are run on a shoestring. They're edited by students themselves, and very proud of that tradition. Editors get paid a pittance (I got $600 a year back in 1975), and authors of articles never, never, get paid.

A bit of inquiry showed that Joyce had done some serious bankrolling. The law review consented to having an outside editor for that issue, who surprisingly was anti-Second Amendment. (And when pro-Second Amendment law professors volunteered to write, he refused to allow it). He got paid $30,000. Authors of the articles in it got $5,000 each for their time. The rest of the grant went for buying a load of reprints to be sent to judges. So Joyce had essentially bought a issue of the review, stacked the deck of authors, and then mailed a load of copies to judges.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080419/pl_politico/9722

But the Joyce Foundation in 1999 awarded $84,000 to the Chicago-Kent College of Law for a symposium on the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to bear arms, but rather only a state’s right to arm its militia.

“No effort was made to include the individual right point of view,” its organizer, Carl T. Bogus, a Roger Williams University School of Law professor, wrote in one of several law review articles stemming from the symposium. “Full and robust public debate is not always best served by having all viewpoints represented in every symposium. Sometimes one point of view requires greater illumination.”

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1112820316.shtml

Was Chicago-Kent at Fault for Publishing This Symposium? Here I think the answer is probably yes. Chicago-Kent, and the journal it publishes, purports to be an academic institution committed to the pursuit of truth. It is not an advocacy group, and it publishes an academic law review that benefits from the perception that it is not an advocacy journal. By mounting a deliberately one-sided symposia it did a disservice to its readers, its academic community, and most especially to its students who were free to attend what was a deliberately one-sided conference.

I also think that accepting funds from a foundation that limits the participants to those holding a particular view is in conflict with its mission as an academic institution. If the Joyce Foundation limited participation to one side of this academic dispute, or if Chicago-Kent did not bother to know that this money could only be spent to fund one side of the dispute, then it made a serious mistake. There are indications that the Joyce Foundation refuses to have any dissenting voices included in its programs. Indeed, it is reported to have protested the appearance at Chicago-Kent of a pro-individual rights speaker within a few weeks of its symposium. The Joyce Foundation also supports the Second Amendment Research Center at Ohio State. When I asked its director, Saul Cornell, in an email exchange if any participants in its academic programs could advocate the individual rights position, he responded that he would obtain separate funding to permit that to happen. I took that as an indication that Joyce does put strings on its funding. (David Hardy quotes and links to the mission statement of the Joyce Foundation here.)

But there is a big difference between the work product of an individual scholar, and the collective work product represented by a symposium sponsored by an academic institution like Chicago-Kent. This issue not only is weaker intellectually than it might have been, but it falsely suggests a uniformity of opinion on the subject it examines. Since the symposium was open to Chicago-Kent students, I wonder if they were informed that the program was deliberately designed to be one-sided. Aren't students (or readers of the law review) entitled to know that they are being provided a deliberately biased stream of information? Here I think the fault and discredit lies entirely with the academic institution. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is proposing to use this as a source, and where? I believe that like most law reviews it is compiled by students and largely not peer-reviewed. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Additional perspective. The core of this complaint that the Chicago-Kent Law Review is not a WP:RS comes from an article published on the blog pajamasmedia.com written by David T. Hardy, senior attorney for the NRA. So there are two parts to this question:
  1. Is the Chigago-Kent Law Review considered a reliable source in this instance?
  2. Does POV criticism from an advocacy group published at a blog play a role making determinations about reliability of a publisher?
And, for what it is worth. The intended Wikipedia use of this Law Review article is to establish that there are more than one points of view seen in significant sourcing. The AnonIP feels strongly that his point of view is the TRUTH, and the citation to Chicago-Kent Law Review was offered up[57] on the Second Amendment talk page as an example of another point of view seen in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I am asking if the "one issue" of that review where the Joyce Foundation effectively bought the right to include content of its choice, and exclude content it did not want, and further paid the authors of the content it included a decent sum for their articles when normally those authors don't get paid, amounts to self-published material. In effect, I see this sort of action as little different from pushing out paid advertising. The only difference being that those who read that particular issue don't know it is paid advertising. Those Chicago Kent articles were also printed in book form - http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Law-History-Constitutional/dp/1565846990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277933196&sr=1-1 Amazon lists the editors as Carl T. Bogus and the infamous Michael A. Bellesiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles. Bellesiles got himself into trouble when it was found he "manufactured" his research. For instance he "purported to count nineteenth-century San Francisco County probate inventories, which had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire". One of the articles in that issuew is further authored by Bellesiles.
SaltyBoatr above is the only person editing the Second Amendment Article who wants to use this issue as backup. If the points raised in those articles are widespread then those points will show up in other articles or books. BTW: The Second Amendment article is currently frozen because SaltyBoatr was engaged in an edit war and to stop it the article was frozen. SaltyBoatr is now engaged in what amounts to an edit war in the discussion page of that article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The standing of the publication as RS is not affected either way by the involvement of the Joyce Foundation. It is not a peer-reviewed academic journal anyway. Articles in it should be judged according to the reputation of the authors. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but I feel my question has not been addressed. The question is whether this issue can be considered to be "self published". The Joyce Foundation had full editorial control and published only commissioned articles. Their control was similar to the of control of publications that they print themselves, instead of commissioning from third parties. From what I can see this issue is nothing more then "paid advertising". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29
We can only make general comments on reliability if we aren't given the info about who wants to use the source, where and for what purpose. An article in this issue or any other issue of the Chicago-Kent Law review by a scholar who regularly publishes in the field can be regarded as a self-published source by an expert. Or slightly better because the article has gone through a selection process and is definitely finished, while the same scholar publishing on his/her own blog may include unfinished work. More details please if you want a fuller answer, and if you want more people to respond. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an agreement by editors of the Second Amendment article not to use material printed by both anti and pro gun groups. That includes the NRA, the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation. If this material falls into the "self-published" category then it falls under that agreement. There is already way too much bickering on that article, and the agreement reduces it somewhat. The material in those articles can be found in other places.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I would not exclude the articles in this Chicago-Kent Law Review issue on the grounds that they are "self-published". There is no reason to think that the academics who contributed to the symposium didn't believe the views they were expounding, notwithstanding the fact that they were paid for their articles. (Also, it should be noted that the CKLR already had an all-symposium format, and having an outside editor select the articles for an issue is standard procedure at that law review.) HOWEVER, I would tend to think that these articles could be cited primarily for the fact that there were academics who held the view that the Second Amendment is a collective, not individual, right. That was their opinion, and it was a notable opinion that could be described as an opinion in a Wikipedia article. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, several years after the CKLR issue was published, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. (See District of Columbia v. Heller; see also McDonald v. Chicago.) Consequently, if the contributors to the CKLR issue were to revisit the issue today, most of them would have to take that into account and probably have to at least reconsider their arguments and conclusions. (It would be desirable to avoid citing the Michael A. Bellesiles article at all, due to the problems that were found in his scholarship from around that period regarding gun-related issues, which led him to resign his professorship.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
From what I can tell this was the only issue ever published under the control of an outside editor, so this issue was definitely not "normal". 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Great that editors have agreed to keep material from advocacy groups out of the Second Amendment to the United States constitution article. But that doesn't extend to opinions of legal scholars, which are professional opinions, not just any old opinions. Take into account the arguments that User:Metropolitan90 makes about the way that legal interpretations and legal scholarship move on. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
See the Volokh.com link cited near the beginning of this section. Randy Barnett wrote in the Volokh.com blog posts that using an outside editor was standard procedure for most issues of the CKLR. What was not standard procedure was having a foundation with a specific point of view fund the issue and having the issue editor only accept articles that conformed to that particular viewpoint. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I missed that comment - Barnett however also said that he offered to wrote a pro gun article and was rejected - When I saw an announcement for the Second Amendment symposium funded by the Joyce Foundation, what immediately struck me was the completely one-sided composition of the contributors. So I contacted a former colleague of mine at Chicago-Kent and offered to participate as a commentator, provided I was given the same remuneration as other presenters. I also offered to recruit some other scholars who would represent some diversity of opinion. My erstwhile colleague said this was not possible. The first reason he offered for this was the supposed lack of civility between pro- and anti-individual rights scholars. When I objected to this reason, it became clear that this was not the real rationale. Later, Carl Bogus told me (as he has subsequently written elsewhere) that the lack of balance was intentional and meant to counter the overwhelming dominance of the individual rights position. The idea, he said, was to work out the alternative paradigm with scholars who were dissenters from the individual rights position and provide fresh thinking: which again is my point. If the issue was free of outside influence Barnett offer would have been accepted - subject of course to space limitations on the issue itself. Obviously Joyce did not want to see its money go to pay for articles opposing its anti gun agenda. Also the outside editor who controlled what go into the article was on the payroll of a Joyce funded organization.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your time and effort. Assuming my last comment above won't change any views, I placed snippets of the above on the Second Amendment talk page. Please check and make any additional comments if you believe those snippets don't cover the above faithfully. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Chicago_Kent_problem_issue 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Crowley Broadcast Analysis

Im looking for opinions on if this chart should be included or not or if it has been previously discussed with a verdict reached. The main article is this; Crowley Broadcast Analysis. It was created today and i got into somewhat of an edit war with an editor who created the article claiming it has passed and/or is allowed but no reference was provided. Anywho what is you take on it. The only Brazilian Chart im aware of that is allowed in articles is the Singles with a specific magazine as a reference. Crowley Broadcast Analysis isnt discussed at WP:GOODCHARTS or WP:BADCHARTS. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB lacking corroboration

These recent edits to the article Noley Thornton by 219.78.50.246 (talk · contribs) are only cited to the IMDb. I'm given to understand that, as a user-submitted resource (akin to Wikipedia itself) it's not a reliable source. Furthermore, I can't find any corroboration of these films (and their association with Ms. Thornton) at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, nor can Google find anything immediately reliable ([58], [59], [60], and [61]). Given the unreliability and uncorroboration of this information, I'm inclined to revert the IP, but I'd like to check myself first before doing so. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's the last time it came up.[62] It appears that opinions were mixed. You certainly won't be the first editor to revert something on the grounds that IMDB isn't reliable. OTOH, it's cited by as many as 100,000 articles,[63] so there's clearly wide-spread community support for it being reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, IMDB appears to cited by over 200,000 Wikipedia articles.[64]
Alternatively, you can watch the movie yourself and verify it by looking at the credits at the end. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Rule of thumb here - if you can only source something to IMDB, there's possibly a problem with that information. IMDB is an easy place for - especially novice - editors to find cites, but really any solid, notable, information there should probably be duplicated somewhere more reliable. At the end of the day a lot of IMDB is still user-generated info and it's not all checked reliably. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Completely reliable for this sort of content which is not user-generated. The frequency with this question is asked is almost as tedious as the inevitable and untrue responses that IMDB's content for cast and production credits is user-generated and not subject to rigorous editorial control. Dlabtot (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't find more reliable sources

The article section I'm composing is a fact, but I can't find a much more reliable source... Can this link be a good reference for Nina Girado#Voice??? - http://www.casttv.com/video/rxgk561/how-other-artists-describe-the-asia-s-soul-siren-nina-asap-sessionistas-at-the-araneta-video Kristelzorina (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the following blogs reliable sources?

This is not resolved, Atmoz i request you self revert mark nutley (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC) S Citizen and Stoat Both are blogs by William Connolley and are used to rebutt statements about Roger A. Pielke criticisms on the IPCC seen here [65] I had tagged them as unreliable but WMC reverted the tags out, i put them back but Count Iblis has now reverted them out, and has not bothered to go to the talk section, [66] so i figure i`d ask here mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem, Mark - I've argued that using sources like this is not acceptable - you can see such at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Watts_up_with_that - where I argue that we can't just shove somebloggers opinion, even if someblogger is a notable person, into articles that are not directly about someblogger. As you may notice, you were on the other side of that discussion. However, it appears from those discussions that we can include somebloggers opinion, if someblogger is notable, as long as we say "Someblogger says." I don't agree with that, but it appears to be what you argued - "It is being used for Anthony Watts opinion on the video, there is no claim about a third party, just what he thought of the vid." In this case "It is being used for Dr. Connelley's opinion on the criticisms, there is no claim about a third party, just what he thought of the criticisms." Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually if you look at Hide the Decline you will see i reverted those blogs out based on what you said, but now you say that these blogs are ok, make your mind up. And yes WMC is making claims about a third party, he is saying Pielke is wrong in his assessment, that is making a claim about a third party mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I say they're not ok, but I realize that I lost the argument. I stopped editing Hide the Decline when I realized I couldn't evaluate it fairly, and was getting distracted by sockpuppets, so I don't know, nor will I check, what the state of that page is. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
None of them are reliable sources in general - both of them can be reliable sources in context. In this particular context both are published scientists (as such) who are discussing a scientific topic, which matches the exceptions for self-published sources and since they are discussing a topic and not persons there is no BLP issue - the issue about whether we should include these or not, is one of WP:WEIGHT. If the WP:BLP issue is real, then both should be removed, since then it is very possible that no neutral point of view can be presented, as only one side of a blog-discussion can be presented. In general disagreement on a topic, is not a BLP issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a blp issue if a blog source is being used to say another guy is wrong, we have Pielke giving his opinion on the IPCC, so no issue there with blp, however WMC`s blog is used to give an opinon on a person, so blp is an issue. mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No, Mark - he is not giving an opinion on a person. He is presenting his take on a particular view. But as said - if disagreement with a person about an issue automagically makes it a BLP problem - then no blogs should be included, since we are then, in most cases, unable to make a neutral presentation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No Kim, To this complaint I do have some sympathy, but RP loses that by ranting. In fact what his post is really complaining about is his failure to get his point of view given primacy in the CCSP report. That is not giving a take on on a view, that is making a statement about a person mark nutley (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, i disagree Mark. We would have had a problem if we used a sentence such as "X replied that Y was ranting about being a failure", but we aren't. (which btw. isn't what Connolley is saying - but shown here as an example of a clear BLP violation). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Your wrong Kim, another part from the stoat blog RP then proceeds to pick up this strawman and run with it This is another statement of fact from a blog post about a living person, as is the one posted above. It would be nice to get some uninvolved editors to opinion on this as i do not see how a blog post ca nbe used to make statements of fact about a person mark nutley (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Stoat is a blog. Scitizen isn't.

Not also that the RP stuff being rebutted is... from exactly the same source: scitizen [In [[blog]] posts, [[Roger A. Pielke]] contends that the IPCC distorted the evidence by not including scientific results that questioned global warming.<ref name="PielkeIPCC">{{cite web|last=Pielke (sr.)|first=Roger A.|title=The 2007 IPCC Assessment Process - Its Obvious Conflict of Interest|url=http://scitizen.com/climate-change/the-2007-ipcc-assessment-process-its-obvious-conflict-of-interest_a-13-1108.html|publisher=Scitizen|accessdate=30 June 2010}} (also see links therein)</ref>]. I've pointed the inconsistency of this to MN, but he won't listen. Note also MN's attempts fake this as a BLP issue: the comments are not on RP but on RP's comments William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is half the article a lengthy quote from a blog post? That's the real question here. Using SPSs to answer other SPSs is an appropriate use for them. But the real question is why? If Pielke hasn't bothered to convert this into a real publication in the last two years, why is it so notable that it dominates his bio? Guettarda (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

These are in use in Global Warming Controversy i have not looked at it`s use in Pielke`s blp mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

AllAfrica Global Media

This website - http://allafrica.com/ - isn't used on any article I have edited. 'All Africa' mirrors African newspaper websites as well as digitising National newspapers from different African countries. I was wondering whether, considering the stability of the website, this mirror could be used when the site/web page that it mirrors isn't available online. Would there be an issue with this? Thanks. Ukabia...tark 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


Stoat Blog

Is a blog post by William Connolley [67] a reliable source for statements about Roger A. Pielke. It is used here [68] Sorry to have to ask this again but the above discussion was closed before the issue with this blog was resolved mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for statements made by William on Pielke. The question whether we want to have William's comment on Pielke in the article is another matter. Count Iblis (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You can`t use a blog post as a source for statements on a living person, i`m going to ask on the blpn board as i am sure this is a blp issue mark nutley (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me, Mark, that you have dropped yourself in something of a hole. You argued previously that personal blogs could be used as a source for statements about living people who you dislike (viz. Al Gore). Now you argue against using personal blogs as a source for statements about living people whose views you like. You can't have it both ways. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC
When did i say a blog post could be used to disparage al gore? mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Its more of a conflict of interest and notability issues, imo WMC is not notable or qualified enough to warrant quoting in our Global Warming controversy article, also as the issues around WMC and skeptic scientists adding his blog and quoting him when there have been a fair degree of controversy surrounding his editing of such articles, this creates a COI issue. I also note that it was WMC himself that was the person that added the link to his blog and this comment "These criticisms have been described as "failed" by William Connolley" in this edit in August 2007. It is clearly not policy to add your own comments and your own blog to wikipedia articles and we would usually place restrictions on editors for such additions. I also notice that WMC's blog is almost at spam level around the wikipedia, there are 151 links to it on this wikipedia but there is only a few in actual articles. I would suggest removing it and the comment from him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't link William's blog here. Incidentally, amidst all the concern for blogs and BLP, can anyone tell me why we should link Roger Pielke's blog in the same paragraph? After all, Pielke's blog post is used to disparage the integrity of individuals on the IPCC panel, which is also BLP material. I'd suggest removing the entire paragraph - both that sourced to Pielke's blog and that sourced to William's blog. MastCell Talk 03:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no Pielke is commenting on the IPCC, an organization and as such BLP does not count does it? At least that is what i was told when i found exxonsecrets.org being used all over the shop mark nutley (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

pogo.org

  1. Is http://www.POGO.org a reliable source? Seems notable - it is cited in LOTS of news sources as contributing to exposure of gov't and contractor misdeeds. Is it a good enough source to include, for an announcement of an award given by POGO Project On Government Oversight to a politician Darrell Issa as seen here?
  2. Is the politician's website a reliable source to cite that the award took place?

Or it the whole thing a house of cards? --Lexein (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reputable advocacy organizations are generally citable with attribution. WP:SPS is the controlling policy concerning a politician's website. WP:UNDUE is a different question. Dlabtot (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Dita Von Teese

I am just following the guidelines here. WP:RS states -- Twitter, facebook. myspace "unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." can be used., which is the case here. Countless celebs are quoted from their twitter here such as Courtney Love

based on information from her Twitter account. I reverted, but the IP editor says that WP:RS says that information from self-published material can be used as a reliable source. Is this correct? It was always my understanding that primary sources were not considered reliable sources. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:PRIMARY?Smallman12q (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and that seems to contradict the WP:RS section which says self-published material can be used. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The specific question is whether Dita Von Teese's Twitter page saying she is part Armenian is a reliable source. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 suggests that a Tweet isn't really a reliable source. I'm inclined to agree. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
There was recently a discussion about twitter usage at Wikipedia_talk:IRS#Verified_Twitter_Accounts. Consensus reached seemed to be that a verified twitter account can be used for information about a person themselfs. Yoenit (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This question comes up all the time. Yes, a verified tweet is usable as a primary source, but should be used with caution. See WP:TWITTER. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an important issue that is going to recur so can we please have more opinions. Summary:

  • This edit at Dita Von Teese adds "Dita has stated via her Twitter page that is part Armenian[ref]".
  • The reference is a Twitter post by Dita Von Teese verified account. The post says "At eurovision, The Armenians are killing me with their hair and especially the fierce cateye liner! LOVE! I am part Armenian, in fact."

My opinion is that such "by the way" Twitter posts should not be regarded as reliable because there is no way to judge whether the author is making some joke, or speaking in some metaphorical sense ("I am a Berliner"). Further, the statement could be simply wrong and might have been corrected a month later (for example, many celebrities would have a staffer write at least some of their public statements, and a stand-in staffer might have been confused). Also, if a fact can only be sourced to a tweet, that fact is probably not very significant and has no place in an encyclopedia. (BTW, the "WP:TWITTER" shortcut was recently removed, although the redirect is still there.) Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, she clearly is not making a joke or speaking in a metaphorical sense. Dlabtot (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the Dita Von Teese to know her sense of humor. I don't get the feeling that she's joking, though I could be wrong. You know, you could try e-mailing her and she might respond. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Huh? There's no point in conducting original research. Lets keep on the topic of the reliability of this source. Dlabtot (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Which part is original research? Concluding that she's joking or e-mailing Teese? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm having a hard time determining if you are joking. Are you seriously suggesting that editors should not exercise judgment and draw conclusions about sources? Or what exactly are you suggesting? Are you seriously questioning whether a private email exchange with the subject of an article would constitute original research? Again, this all seems decidedly off-topic to me. Dlabtot (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not joking. Was it wrong when Hipocrite contacted Newsweek to find out if their blogs fall under their full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Questions of 'right' and 'wrong' are definitely off-topic here. But when editors conduct original research, such as personal email inquiries, it definitely is original research. This is self-evident. I have no more insights into the blatantly obvious to share, so I will have no further response to this thread. Dlabtot (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the reference to Twitter with this article. However, this was reverted (back to the pre-Armenian text), stating that "web articles using twitter as source material are not reliable sources either." Can someone enlighten me as to why that article isn't reliable? I checked the about us part of their website, and they have writers and an editor, and I can't find anything to suggest they have a poor reputation. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the reliability of "ianyanma.com", no, that is not a valid reason to undue an edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say that both the tweet and that article are reliable sources she made the statement. Without more information, I'm not really sure that it belongs in the article though. A one off tweet that doesn't do anything more than say that somewhere along the way in the history of her family, at least one person has been Armenian. --Onorem♠Dil 13:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's not very useful, and it was just sort of plopped down into the article. I am more interested in the broader question of Twitter and secondary sources that quote Twitter. I've checked back in the Archives of this board and there seems to be a mild consensus that a Tweet is reliable if it's about the subject (just like other self-published sources), but certainly not reliable about a 3rd party. I guess my personal feeling is that a Tweet should not be the first choice as a source. As far as self-published sources go, at least with a personal website or even a blog someone is usually sitting at their computer thinking about what they're writing. Who know how much thoughtfulness goes into a Tweet. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Drug Prevention Organization

I have contributed text to the Arguments for and against drug prohibition page but have had one of the contributed arguments for prohibition removed here on the basis that it does not, in the view of another editor, quote from a reliable source. I am hereby looking for advice on the source.

Obviously debates regarding ‘Arguments for and against drug prohibition’ will not be found in peer-reviewed journals because such a debate is not scientific research as such, although it will rely on surveys that are done by reputable organizations. However this debate is found mainly in the political realm as well as between opposing drug advocacy organizations, particularly between drug prevention organizations and drug legalization organizations.

I have added an argument which appears on Australia’s official drug debate website, which is the ‘Drugtalk’ e-mail listserver operated by the peak body representing almost all Australian drug and alcohol organizations, ADCA. The listserver claims 350 participants (see http://ndsis.adca.org.au/e_list.php) who contribute to ongoing debates about national and international drug policy. This debate listserver has its own administrator and is fully archived, accessible via password from the Drugtalk administrator. I therefore would argue that the text I have contributed to this Wikipedia page is from a reliable source, from an appropriate organization that is constantly involved in the drug prevention advocacy area, and which is accessible on the internet as per Wikipedia policy.

I have cited the argument below, which is contributed by the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose name appears under this argument on the Drugtalk listserver. The text reads:

The criticism that the ‘war on drugs’ can never be won (and consequently is of no value) is no more true than the argument that police ‘blitzes’ on highway speeding should be curtailed because they fail to eradicate speeding. While blitzes on speeding very successfully reduce and contain the behaviour, policing of illicit drug use does exactly the same. Removing policing of speeding drivers will have precisely the same effect as removing policing of illicit drugs. No one would suggest legalizing stealing because it has never been eradicated. My source is listed as Drug Free Australia - The Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia Drugtalk drug debate listserver 11 May 2010 12.05 PM

Interested in other observations on this one. Minphie (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we have a direct link to the post itself. Also ADRA Australia appears to be a a Christian, humanitarian agency, not a drug prevention agency, or is there another. This makes me doubt the expertise (and thus the reliability) of the source. Nope its the one, it seems that as well as aid they also provide drug rehabilitation services. But I cannot determine if they are any ore qulified then many other lay church aid gruops.Slatersteven (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The organization referred to is Drug Free Australia with website http://www.drugfree.org.au/. The actual quote on Drugtalk reads:
"Remember, also, in your concerns about prohibition, that 95% of Australian do not want to legalise heroin, cocaine or amphetamines, and 78% don’t want to legalise cannabis. You know we’ve had this discussion before and it’s all found on pp 11,12 of the 2007 Australian Drug Strategy Household Survey. So for the relevant argument about Australia and its prohibition of drugs, I think you’ll find that 95% support for prohibition is pretty close to unanimous, and that the ‘drug war’ as you call it, which is no more a war than a police blitz on speeding (a ‘war’ they will never win, but will be supported by the public every time) in Australia has precious few casualties while hundreds die each year from the INHERENT harms of various of the illicits."
This is signed off with the organization name and address and contact details. Minphie (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This is different from the quote above, which one are you asking avbout. I also notice that you have changed the name of the organisation you are trying to quote. I would have to say that Drug Free Australia looks very much like an advoacy group. I would also again ask for a direct liunk to the post on drug talk.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a link to drugtalk. It is a discussion mailinglist and one must become a member to browse the archive. It should be noted that although Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia is the owner of the site they give "no warranty, guarantee or representation about the accuracy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise of the information contained on the email list Drugtalk" so one can not draw from its credibility. And as with the case of other WP:SPS the status of the poster, if they are experts or not, is paramount to wither it is fit for Wikipedia. So the remaining question rather is can leading figures of an advocacy organization be considered as "established expert on the topic of the article"? I just assume that they have had opinion pieces - "work in the relevant field" - in "reliable third-party publications" but that really needs to fully established. Steinberger (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
In regards to Slatersteven's questions, the URL for the quote is http://www.lists.sublimeip.com/mailman/private/drugtalk/2010-May/006082.html but Wikipedia contributors will need to give a username and password to the Administrator via the sign up page drugtalk before being able to access this post. There is no doubt that it can be verified once you have access. The trouble involved, of course, is no more than for a Wikipedia editor who does not have access to medical journals needing to get student access or something like that before being able to verify a medical journal quote. You have asked what quote I would use, and it is the first-mentioned quote that I had originally contributed to the Wikipedia page, rather than the direct quote from Drugtalk. I believe I have summarized the Drug Free Australia argument correctly though. Also, it is important to remember that Drug Free Australia is the peak body for more than 70 Australian drug prevention organizations, who in turn have memberships of 220,000 Australians, and it is the most authoritative voice in Australia for drug prevention, sought out by the Australian media for comment more than any other drug prevention organization. So again the authority of the organization in this drug debate is beyond question. And of course the 'Arguments for and against prohibition' page is recording the arguments out there, and this is one by an appropriate organization which holds a great deal of logical weight and should be included. Minphie (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Who posted the message? Also it does not matter how many members an organisation has its the qaulity of its work that mattrers not how many people bleive it. In addition perhpas some links demonstating that the the Australian media seek them out mor then any other similar group (by the way they would need top be sought out as experts not just for thier opinions)? Also this seems to be opinion so even if we do accept this you will have top attributre it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The message was signed by Gary Christian, the Secretary of Drug Free Australia, signed with his title, the organization's name, its address and contact details. Minphie (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
In relationship to the credibility of the organization, the Queensland Government has established an inquiry into the effects of cannabis in just the last few months as a direct response to a publication they received from Drug Free Australia, and which they clearly acknowledge in this. Another clear evidence of organizational credibility is a much discussed publication by Drug Free Australia on the Safe injection site page where the Liberal party and Independents relied heavily on this Drug Free Australia publication during the NSW Parliamentary debate for the extension of the injecting room's trial tenure in 2007, for example here. Minphie (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Source of important quote in a national peak body bulletin board archive

I am contemplating adding a small amount of text to the Safe injection site page which refers to important correspondence which is in the public domain between the Medical Director of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) and the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose critique of the MSIC's evaluations has chiefly driven the Parliamentary debate in Australia. One of the two major political parties in that country claim they will close the facility if voted into power at the 2011 election. The NSW Liberal party has relied heavily on the Drug Free Australia critique of the injecting room, which was done in 2007 by a team from Drug Free Australia which included an epidemiologist, an addiction medicine specialist and social researchers who have between them been published in more than 20 top peer-reviewed medical journals on related drug or medical foci.

This correspondence between the two organizations, which is reproduced in full, is sourced from the bulletin board run by the peak body for drug and alcohol organizations in Australia, ADCA which links 1,000 professionals from those organizations within Australia. Called the 'Update' bulletin board, it is administered by an ADCA Adminstrator and is fully archived and accessible via password from the Administrator. The correspondence was posted on the bulletin board because it was of national and indeed international importance.

The correspondence is important because it is the only known source for a claim, by the injecting room's Medical Director, that their own 2003 injecting room evaluators had overstated the number of heroin users in the area surrounding the injecting room. While this argument is cited somewhat obtusely by Parliamentarians in a parliamentary debate about the injecting room, the accuracy of the statement can be better evaluated via a short quote directly from this public domain correspondence from that national bulletin board.

I would like advice on the appropriateness of this source. Minphie (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the actual reference? Can you post a URL, or is it not publicly accessible? In general, what you describe sounds ok, but it really depends on the actual source, and on exactly what text you want to add to the article (be careful not to violate WP:SYNTH by drawing conclusions that are not stated in the source). Also, WP:SECONDARY is a problem for your proposal because selecting items from primary sources could be regarded as cherry picking original research. In conclusion, it all depends. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The quote is as follows: "Meanwhile would you please note that the new estimate for the IDU population in Kings Cross during the 12 months to 31 October 2002 is 1100, instead of the 4 000 IDUs estimated in the 2003 Final MSIC Evaluation Report - not 2 000 IDUs as you cite in the following: The Drug Free Australia determination of overdoses at 36 times the rate of overdoses on the street is indeed measured using the evaluation's estimate of 2,000 users in Kings Cross each day, (injecting an average of 'at least' 3 times a day resulting in 6,000 injections per day in Kings Cross - p 58 of the evaluation)." This quote clarifies that the injecting room's own staff are stating that their own evaluators overly inflated the user numbers around the injecting room, not Drug Free Australia. Minphie (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The question is, is it verifiable? How can a random Wikipedia reader verify the quote? Dlabtot (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (Not meaning to imply that that is the only question...) Dlabtot (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The quote is indeed verifiable, but requires Wikipedia editors to first sign up for Update by giving a username and password to the Administrator via the sign up page Update before being able to access this post. There is no doubt that it can be verified once they have access. The trouble involved, of course, is no more than for a Wikipedia editor who does not have access to medical journals needing to get student access or something like that before being able to verify a medical journal quote. Minphie (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback.com

I've previously raised the issue of pifeedback.com not being a reliable source here in May.[69] However, the single response I got has been challenged by another editor who thinks it merits wider discussion,[70] so here we are again. The pifeedback.com internet forums are used as a source for TV ratings on multiple pages. The ratings at this site are typically reposts from other sites,[71][72][73] and there are currently 283 links to the site from multiple articles. Since apparently anyone can post to the site, it doesn't seem to qualify as a reliable source to me. Comments would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hard to conceive of an argument that would be used to justify this as a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The person (its just one person) I (personally) am linking to is Travis Yann. He posts all of the FINAL numbers. His posts are linked via Tvbythenumbers.com, which is a reliable source. If they link to him, and I use tvtn's as a source on Wikipedia, it would therefore be unreliable? It seems really hard that some guy would sit home on his computer and make up some random numbers that many people (including myself) wait for. The numbers are further proved to be correct by DVR numbers that (mostly) line up with his in some circumstances.02:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

From: Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes

Do you mind me asking a simple question: What is BEST for the articles on Wikipedia in these situations, in your opinion?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I wish I could give a simple answer. I'd never really looked into tvbythenumbers until relatively recently and had let additions to articles slide by. Since there's no definite consensus you can probably use tvbythenumbers but expect the information to be challenged and, if there's a better source available, use it. Pifeedback is definately out though. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
My point is that there are no better sources other than these two, whether reliable or not. Particularly for Ghost Whisperer here, we have no other sources. What would be best for wikipedia in this case would be to keep the sourced ratings, whether reliable or not. Using this method would therefore allow different perspectives of both sources be challenged by the reader only. Presenting the source for them to click on to directly lead to where we have taken the information from can allow the reader to determine if they think it is reliable. In this situation, it is not neccesary for Wikipedia to interfere with the judgements of its readers. Sourcing the information in no different manner than usual, meaning in no special way, or a neutral way, we do not impose whether they should or should not endorse the source where we have gotten the information from.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
If you're going to cite WP:IAR as a reason for ignoring core policies such as WP:V then you should make sure that you follow the links in its single sentence. The first of these, "improving" states, "it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter." The precise wording of WP:V is: "it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". It would be best to use common sense and allow good contributions; being too wrapped up in WP:V is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings, therefore not improving the article in any way. We are not misleading the user in anyway when we predent the pifeedback.com source because the information is clearly there. But that is my opinion, which obviously differs from an averae Wikipedia user. Because of this, we should allow the source and have the reader be able to determine if it is reliable or not, therefore ignoring WP:V and making a dangerous assumption. "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Improving wikipedia would be to provide the ratings. And the only sources for them are these two.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I'm not sure what words of that are yours and what are quotes but, regarding "being too wrapped up in WP:V is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings", ratings aren't sourced if the source is not reliable. If the only sources you have are not reliable, then the information shouldn't be in the article and if you put it in, it can be removed. If you persist in restoring information that has been removed because it's poorly sourced you might end up blocked. You really need to think about whether it's worth losing your editing rights. People have been blocked for far less. I really have to take issue with claims that the ratings are only available from two unreliable sources. Where are they getting them from? They must be available from somewhere. If they're not, then the claims aren't credible. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
He does claim to get them somewhere. But I try to search on Google, Bing, Dogpile, exc. for them, but I don't find anything. The point I am tryign to make is: If it is reliable or not, leave it. When someone wants to see where we got the information from, they click the link and decide for themselves if the sources are reliable. Its simple and resolves the dispute over this issue by Ignoring the rules. And, by the way, since season 2 and 3? is not sourced at all (before your edits and now), we should remov them completely, unless you disagree?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Sorry, I thought I'd already replied but I got side-tracked with another discussion and some vandal fighting. After much research, I can accept the tvbythenumbers refs, only because there is no consensus as to its status as a reliable source. However, in the discussions that I've initiated at WP:RSN, there is absolutely no support for pifeedback.com and, as it's a forum, it clearly falls into the category of WP:SPS, meaning the information from there can't be included in the article. We don't add information assuming that readers will be able to follow links so they can decide whether or not a source is reliable. If it's not reliable, it doesn't go in. As Wikipedia:Editing policy says, "a lack of information is better than misleading or false information— Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable." As for the uncited information from season 2 & 3, yes, that should be gone. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
In the discussion you initiated, there is only you, some other guy, and me. Honestly, that isn't a consensus. As WP:IAR, doing what is best for Wikipedia, is what is right for Wikipedia. In oder to be fair(er?) I will quote some materal from you and I here at the discussion you have started. I'll also ask some people to ontribute to the discussion (without telling them to side with me or you). I'll just give them the link and kindly ask for any feedback they would like to give.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
I haven't read this whole argument because my eyes are dry. I just read the beginning and topic sentences. From what I have gathered: use the original sources. Full stop/period.  Davtra  (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit: Where is this "guy" getting his numbers from? Source wherever he is getting the numbers from.  Davtra  (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Internet forums don't meet the criteria for WP:RS. I don't see why the other regular source on there can't be used. For instance, on List_of_Ghost_Whisperer_episodes#Season_5:_2009.E2.80.9310 where the pifeedback.com ratings have been removed, tvbythenumbers.com gives the rating 10/9/09 (8.60 million) [74]; it gives the rating for 10/16/09 (8.21 million) [75]. For the same dates pifeedback.com gives the ratings to be 8.78 million and 8.05 million, so there is a discrepancy there. One of the sources has to be wrong. Is there a reason why tvbythenumbers.com isn't being used to source the remaining ratings? Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I know I am going to sound Geeky, but the difference between TVBTN and PIfeedback's post is that PFB posts the finalumbers, 24 - 48 (in GW's case, about 72) hours after the preliminary ratings. I have asked Travis where he has gotten the information from and am waiting for a response.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Funnily enough, TVbytheNumbers' reliability as a source has been discussed previously.[76] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The TV ratings can be found on the LA Times too. For those two weeks we have Ghost Whisperer on 8.78 million [77] and 8.05 million [78] which are in line with pifeedback.com. I think this obviously proves the pifeedback.com forum is putting up the right numbers and Chaosmaster's explanation that they are revised figures makes sense. Whether this makes pifeedback a reliable source or not I don't know, but it seems to be reliable in this instance. Personally I would try to source the figures with the LA Times data, and if any can't be sourced then perhaps fill in the blanks with the pifeedback numbers but add a citation needed flag in those cases. If we have the correct figures, we may as well use them - if their numbers correspond with the LA Times numbers then this would seem a legitimate instance to invoke WP:IAR where we have gaps. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
For the two weeks after that (23/30 October) the LA Times gives 8.59 million [79] and 8.29 million [80]. Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion. If there are other challenged sources it may be worth going back and sourcing them all through the LA Times, especially if there discrepencies. If you have the number that you want to source it is easy to find using google using the search term: site:articles.latimes.com "ghost whisperer" 8.29 Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well there's no doubt that TVbytheNumbers gets their data from The Nielsen Company. See the bottom of page with the ratings that say: "Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2010 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved." The forum, I'm still unsure about. Mike Allen 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It is all a matter of fast overnight ratings or the ones published weekly on nielsenmedia.com and apparently reprinted in the LA Times too. Just by looking at the air date of the show and the publication date on tvbythenumbers for ratings of said random show it is pretty clear that most are overnight ratings. The weekly final numbers once all markets are factored are typically the preferred numbers to cite long term with the overnight being a placeholder subject to revision in an article since it is itself a placeholder number subject to revision by Nielsen. However people don't often think to check the fast overnight vs the final numbers for discrepancies once a rating is in an article. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that LA Times do line up with Pifeedback also. And here, I agree with Betty Logan, using the LA times in most cases where we know for a fact that is a reliable source and then using Pifeedback's for the rest with a citation flag sounds fair to me. I do agree with Delarious about people not checking ratings once its published in an article. Many articles state "This show had 5.5 million viewers" one day, the following week there is a more precise number such as 5.48. Its a matter of whether or not you are using prose to explain the ratings or if you have an episode table, in which case the later would be better fit with the precise number.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Would it be okay to use [81] rather than flaging every single rating (which would also cause the table to be disproportinate to the other four)?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Three of the 6 editors who have posted here have discounted use of pifeedback.com outright, as has the editor who replied to the May discussion. Another editor has made no comment on pifeedback.com. Only one editor proposed use pifeedback.com if the figures were not available for the LA Times but prefaced her comments with "Internet forums don't meet the criteria for WP:RS". That editor's "support" was marginal at best. Only you fully support use of pifeedback.com. Adding the disclaimer to List of Ghost Whisperer episodes as you have done breaches WP:NODISCLAIMERS. The information needs to be sourced to reliable sources or not included in the article at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this even being discussed, at this point? Open access forums are not reliable sources, fullstop. Use the ratings as published by Nielsen/LATimes, fullstop. I was pointed at this discussion from my talkpage. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Pifeedback.com is not a reliable source. Wikipedia currently suffers from lack of RS use in the arts and entertainment articles. This is a good topic and may this WP:RS be used for the improvement of such articles. --Sulmues (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment here by User:ChaosMaster16, though (or perhaps because) I have no connexion to this at all. All my opinion is, why can't the figures wait for the LA Times and Nielsen Media figures to be published (as they are both presumably RS)? There's no great hurry. And if the overnight and adjusted figures are both valuable, have them both. Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As a response to Hipocrite, this is being discussed because WP:IAR states to do what is best for WIkipedia. In this case, we should use the source and allow the reader to determine themselves if the Pifeedback source is reliable or not, after using the LA Times article where possible.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Using unreliable sources is not what's best for Wikipedia. I have closed this discussion as it is clear that a strong consensus exists that this forum is not reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
When we have the numbers to list, why not use the source? No other source has the numbers but Pifeedback when LA Times fails to use the numbers.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Furthermore, that is why it is best for wikipedia: We do have the information, and it has been proven to be at least 98% acurate, yet we just ignore the information simply because its on a forum? If the information on LA Times can be used, we will use it, but if not, we should use Pifeedback.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

(Comment requested by ChaosMaster16) There is ABC Medianet, they get there ratings directly from Nielsen and is owned by ABC a trustworthy outlet. But there listings are often incomplete, hard to find, a week after the fact and lacks a bunch of channels. TV by the Numbers gets there ratings sometimes from Nielsen but other posts from Travis Yanan in which they link to his blog and his twitter account as source. His twitter account often links to his post on Pitfeedback, so that would confirm the user. If those posts on TV by the Numbers are accepted so should the ones on Pitfeedback. The best I found from on Nielsen's website is the last week top 10 which is very limited and doesn't seem to have backlog, which would make citing this useless. Nielsen Wire doesn't seem to put concise ratings on the website, with exception of the once in a while top 10 of the month. I frankly don't understand why Nielsen Media Research doesn't just put the ratings on there website like BARB does in the UK. If they do I haven't found it and no-one on wikipedia seems to have either since I haven't seen a single citation to a website from Nielsen for a rating. Currently ABC Medianet is accepted and used for back-in-the-day-shows, TV by the Numbers for recent shows. If TV by the Numbers is globally used and accepted as a good source and it uses Travis Yanan as a source then Pitfeedback should be considered just as good as a source. Does Nielsen post the ratings somewhere users can find them? If so I find it weird that they would be used pretty much nowhere over third party sources such as TV by the Numbers, Pitfeedback, etc. where does the LA Times post the ratings? Deliriousandlost names nielsenmedia.com but that website doesn't load for me. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

the website requires the "www." but it just leads to the weekly top 10. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that, but it's a weekly top ten, and has no archive making it pretty useless for citing. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've also been asked to comment by ChaosMaster16. I don't think WP:IAR applies here, because using a forum as is source simply not what is best for Wikipedia. I think ChaosMaster16 should read WP:V and WP:RS carefully and understand the principles that underlie them. The point is not to provide any old source and leave it to the reader to work out whether or not it is reliable - the point is provide a reliable source, so that they can verify the information in the article. Ignoring the rules in this case would go against the spirit of the encyclopedia. It's about as open and shut a case as I've seen - you can't use a forum as a source. If the viewing figures are not available from a reliable source, they should not be listed. And attempting to assess the reliability of the information from the forum is both original research and something that the reader is not privy to. Maccy69 (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see that pfifeedback.com is necessarily any less reliable than other source of ratings data, short of getting the numbers directly from Nielsen. A lot of the data seems to be posted by Mediaweek's staff writers, and I can't see an indication of bias that would cause them to fudge the original Nielsen figures. Obviously anyone can post to to the pifeedback.com forums, but there's an apparent level of editorial oversight from a notable media outlet. The company's links to Nielsen are also worth noting. I agree that forums are not usually a reliable source, but I don't see that this one is not reliable. katherine_a (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Like User:Si Trew and User:Maccy69, ChaosMaster16 asked me to comment on the matter. Allow me to point out that when students ask their teachers if they can cite Wikipedia, the response in almost every case is to instead use the primary source cited by Wikipedia. I think that we have to do that here. Myself, I see it as something of a slippery slope (or, if you are on the other side of the coin, an evolution) wherein TVBtN is barely inclusive as a source, which opens the door to a far more questionable source like Pifeedback.com. Maybe their info is accurate; it isn't the point. It's a blog run by two guys who - at best - might make a mistake which isn't held up to scrutiny by internal fact-checking. At worst, they might fudge the numbers by a decimal point or a 100th of a percent to favor a particular program.
IAR often fails as a skeleton key in bypassing policies and guidelines, which is true in this case as well. It isn't a valid argument to use here. It doesn't benefit the encyclopedia or the reader if their perception is skewed by crappy data sourcing. That would be like using a source that says that 75% of people think that Obama is a sleeper agent for the Jihadists. If its's sourced reliably, then it can be used. However, if the source is a tea party or some such nuttier group forum, the numbers are clearly being skewed. It's an extreme example to be sure, but the prevailing principle is the same. We present neutral, reliable and verifiable information to the reader, so they can form an idea based upon good information. Fan forums and blogs do not meet that criteria as there is little in the way of provenance for their resulting viewpoints. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
In response to Jack Sebastian, I understand where you are coming from. However, to me, it sounds Unintelligible to know that there information is acurate and not cite them. In all reality, Wikipedia credits reliable sources based on acuracy. If there was a situation similar to yours that stated Obama didn't smoke, but was posted on Jokes.com, a site (for this exapmle) that has a repuatation of posting inacurate information, why would we cite that? If Pifeedback posts acurate ratings, the only ratings for an episode in some cases, and there is no other information given by LA Times, why not cite Pifeedback? If however, someone cites Pifeedback for purposes other than ratings, like a post saying "American Idol was canceled in the spring of 2010," that would be proven inreliable beacuse of the reliable sources we have to prove that it wasn't caneceled. ChaosMasterChat 15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Blogs/chat forums/etc rarely meet RS standards. I'd say get rid this one too. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
As I was similarly directed to this page from ChaosMaster, I have no background on this matter. However, it seems to me that this pifeedback.com does not appear to be a reliable source, and should not be used under most, if not all, circumstances.
"If Pifeedback posts acurate ratings, the only ratings for an episode in some cases, and there is no other information given by LA Times, why not cite Pifeedback?"-- ChaosMaster16
Most likely they won't post accurate ratings, as they've done in the past. LA Times is preferred, and if the only source that we have is largely unreliable, then we don't cite it at all. As you say, we don't post information from sites that have a history of inaccurate information. It is not likely, nor even preferred, for a site to be referenced though the data might be accurate for one instance, and the WP:IAR policy applies to neither WP:V nor WP:RS; it hasn't before, and it won't now. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It is clear to me Pifeedback does post acurate ratings as proven by the ratings currently sourced on here compared to the ratings from pifeedback, here. To make it easier to compare, here is the difference in revisions. There are only two differences: the March 5, 2010 episdoe (Org. had 7.36 vs. current 7.35) and the January 8, 2010 episode (Org. had 9.00 vs. current 8.94). Honestly, wave the March episode, and of the eleven numbers that LA Times posts, ten of them prove Pifeedback as providing reliable information (the January episode is off by .06 million) and if you count March, then nine of the eleven (March being off .01 million). ChaosMasterChat 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking the same thing. If the ratings can be cited by the LA Times or something other than Pifeedback, that would be ideal. But there's clearly no consensus that Pifeedback is a reliable source. Cliff smith talk 03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
In response to both comments: If the forum is proven to be reliable in the past, specifically one user, it should be reliable in the future. And I, again, agree that LA Times should be used where possible. Other than that, I feel Pifeedback has proven reliable, unless there is information that proves otherwise. ChaosMasterChat 03:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
As previously noted, it's a slippery slope, CM; we let in one forum/blog-type site, and the next thing you know, folk will be arguing for the inclusion for a host of other, increasingly suspect sites. It's best to just follow the citations presented in pifeedback to their source, and cite those sources. That way, pifeedback is still useful without messing with the reliability of sources policy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Pitfeedbacks source is Travis Yanan, were this person gets that information from is unknown, but proven accurate, and cited by TV by the Numbers occasionally, which is generally accepted. If Pitfeedback is considered unreliable then TV by the Numbers is also, and then some 75% of all the ratings can be deleted. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Can someone link to this magical LA Times that keeps getting mentioned? Or another source that is considered reliable? I for one have only seen three sources for episodic ratings, TV by the Numbers (most for recent shows), ABC Medianet (most for pre 2007), Pitfeedback (few). I did a search and the last article with an actual list of shows and the ratings was from March. I see no problem waiting a week until final and reliable ratings are in but these ratings appear to be nowhere (except TVbtN/Pfb) except the sporadically averages. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the two weeks after that (23/30 October) the LA Times gives 8.59 million [82] and 8.29 million [83]. Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion. If there are other challenged sources it may be worth going back and sourcing them all through the LA Times, especially if there discrepencies. If you have the number that you want to source it is easy to find using google using the search term: site:articles.latimes.com "ghost whisperer" 8.29 Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the discussion is above (below the first quote box). ChaosMasterChat 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to google the site to find them rather than use the site's internal searchg but LA Times = Los Angeles Times a major newspaper in the land of television and silver screen dreams. Try googling using this format: site:articles.latimes.com/YYYY/mmm/ "SHOW NAME" [84] or remove the month and year if you want all results. The weekly numbers come out i believe Thursday of the following week. For older shows it would be handy but for current episodes people will still want to use the overnight ratings that are well available the next day so as to fill that blank spot in the episode list. Also i seem to have not found any ratings for May 2010 sweeps; maybe bad googling, maybe not published. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I already saw the google trick and know what the LA Times is. I was looking for a site section with the ratings in it. Also see next post. I looked for the ratings for the two last episodes using google search in may, came up with nothing. LA Times seems to be completely inconsistent in there postings. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if that was a response to me, but I already saw that and not really relevant, I'm asking about recent ratings. LA Times only posts ratings (when they actually do) of primetime shows, leaving a whole bunch of shows out. Besides that the LA Times website is just horrendous to find something on. I did some more searches and this is what LA Times has, (didn't search earlier) March 1–7, March 8–14, two missing weeks [?], March 29–April 4 and nothing after that… [?]
Were does everyone get those numbers from? Nielsen doesn't put them on there website, and Travis Yanan is clouded in mystery. What's with all the secrecy? In the UK BARB just puts them on there website (although in an annoying non-hotlinkable form). Xeworlebi (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, it appears that there are two more ratings that were proven correct on Pifeedback by LA Times. In response to you, I was on Pifeedbaack and came across an interesting post by TY, stating that he "gets" the ratings? I could entirely be misinterpreting the message, but it sounds like he is subscribed to a site or some type of information that lists all of these ratings. I just thought it was interesting. And frankly, I think it would be a whole lot easier to have the posts on the site of the company that does the research too, but I think it is because of a deal or a discrepency between NBC and Neilsen that they don't: I think. This is the really unhelpful site for the Nielsen Research Company. And this seems to be the only ratigns on their site, which doesn't help us much at all. ChaosMasterChat 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You buy the numbers from Nielsen, or the access to them. It is their commodity. TVBTN turns what they pay for getting the numbers into a website with some advertising and a lot of business, from well us for one, that appears to more than offset their expenses in acquiring the numbers. In Canada the only thing that BBM seems to make publicly available is the weekly top 30; anything else must be bought. And that top 30 includes the 11pm newscasts too. UK ratings are by far the easiest to find.
So sorry to have bothered to try to answer your query about the magical LA Times. You do know that this page has the no-edit-conflict happening here. I had no knowledge of Chaos' response to you until i eventually saved my post and saw his come in between. If you wanted a site section you could have just asked for that instead of making me think you never heard of LA Times before. Forget searching their site. It is the worst construct of a news/business website i have ever seen. And yes, there has been nothing for a long time now. You might look into searching the paid archives if you really want to find ratings; the abstracts are free. Otherwise the LA Times is just as randomly useless as pifeedback is an unreliable forum. Maybe the WMF would be so kind as to buy us a subscription or whatever to the full Nielson numbers so we can use that :P and get Canada's too! delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 23:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
So that means no matter what Entertainment site we go on, they all pay for it? Meaning they are ALL unreliable? Which also means we would have to deleate millions of TV ratigns from even 12 years ago. ChaosMasterChat 23:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be getting off the track here. The fairly clear consensus seems to be that pifeedback.com doesn't qualify as WP:RS. Are you convinced yet? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
We are not getting "off track". And Frankly, I don't see why I or anybody else would need to be "convinced" on this discussion, which is ongoing. Convinced of what exactly? If you want to convince someone about an issue, Wikipedia isn't really the place to do so. Anyway, if the entertainment buisness pays for their information, there is absoultely no way to confirm what they report, much like Yanan. And even if we can check them with information with more reliable sources, like LA Times, there is simply no way to know if either source is acurate. So, since Pifeedback (rather, Yanan himself) cannot be a reliable source even though their numbers are proven acurate, it cannot be used, just like LA Times, TVBTN, Entertainment Weekly, exc, and therefore all ratings, even just mention of ratings in prose format, should be removed. Of course, I disagree with this and like the consensus agreed upon earlier (use LA Times first and then Pifeedback), I think we should do what is best for wikipedia ignoring select rules and allow all of these sources to be used to report ratings on American televison because the information is an important part of a program and the buisness, whether it be for comparison, research or simply to report how a show gets canceled. I think it would be wrong to ignore these aspects on Wikipedia, and using Pifeedback, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, all sources that are proven to list correct information, we can continue to list the ratings on articles that deal with TV. I personally think the flag would be redundant in this case, and think we should remove that also, specifically on List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, where Aussie reverted edts based on consensus earlier. ChaosMasterChat 16:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"Convinced of what exactly?" - Convinced that the overwhelming consensus is that pifeedback.com is not a reliable source. Obviously you're not. You're still insisting that four editors have agreed that the pifeedback.com sources with citation flags be used when there was only ever one editor besides yourself who suggested that, and even she said "Internet forums don't meet the criteria for WP:RS". Two editors is not consensus when 12 other editors have outright rejected pifeedback as a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Whats your take on none of the entertainment sites bein reliable? ChaosMasterChat 17:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an entertainment site and due to constant bickering about reliable sources and original research it is right up there at the top of unreliable. In my opinion it is the pretence of enforcing reliability that makes Wikipedia not so reliable. If one cannot trust themselves why should anyone else trust them. In the matter that prompted this discussion, for anyone who saw seasons 1-4 of Ghost Whisperer and liked it and who was in jail or war or whatever kept them from seeing season 5 the ratings taking a dramatic dive is the quickest explanation as to why there is no season 6. Removal of all ratings is the utmost counter-productive course and need be avoided at all costs. Honestly, the longer this goes on the more inclined i am to agree with Chaos to the extent that requiring a wikipedia-reliable-source when there is not one is counter-productive to the mission of containing the sum of all knowledge that anyone can edit. All of these policies have at their core the principle of accurate information. Noöne is questioning pifeedback's accuracy that i noticed in the long discussion. This is entirely over what website to reference the information to. Does anyone else recall the good old days when references where essentially a bonus to an article. For what i read i can not think of a single article that is better for all of the policy that has been developed since 2001 but it has resulted in a lot of in-fighting, creation of noticeboards, and retirements. As to ratings being bought and sold i have no proof but hey common sense says a bakery does not give away all desserts if you buy a loaf of bread. Nielsen wouldn't be in the business if there was no 'business' for the business. Personally i prefer to use TvByTheNumbers. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 00:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I am trying really hard to refrain from capital letters, so I'll try to make this breif. This whole conversation is about Pifeedback's accuracy (speciffically Travis Yanan). When I looked at Aussie's initial message that started this discussion, it seems he misunderstood the fact that we are using one user, not the whole page. Therefore, this disussion is about the accuracy of Yanan's post, as he is the one that posts the ratings that are linked to (we do not need to link to pifeedback if they link to something, so its not a discussion about that). TvByTheNumbers is fine, and I agree we should also use that too, but this is a discussion about Yanan's posts on Pifeedback. And I would also appreciate if we used common sense on this issue, especially since this has obviously has gotten to the point where Aussie has to report me for every single thing that I do on Wikipedia. (So I apoligize for anything I am doing wrong in this post) I love your bread example. Travis Yanan obviously isn't just pulling numbers out of his butt, so I honestly do not see any problem with using his posts. "Removal of all ratings is the utmost counter-productive course and need be avoided at all costs. Honestly, the longer this goes on the more inclined i am to agree with Chaos to the extent that requiring a wikipedia-reliable-source when there is not one is counter-productive to the mission of containing the sum of all knowledge that anyone can edit." - That is exactly what I am trying to prevent (removal of all ratings). But if you can't use Travis Yanan's posts, then why use any by any other website? Its the same exact situation, might not be a forum, but we can't prove its right. And if we can come to a consensus for the best of wikipedia, not just because five different rules prevent something from being done, we should go ahead and do it. ChaosMasterChat 00:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't misunderstand anything at all. You can't cherry-pick posts and say these posts from a forum are reliable and these are not. It's the site as a whole that is the subject of this discussion, which is why the title is "Pifeedback.com" and not "Travis Yanan's posts on Pifeedback.com". It's quite clearly stated in the opening paragraph that "the internet forums are used as a source for TV ratings on multiple pages." It's just you that's made it only about Ghost Whisperer. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
What didn't come across so clearly in my earlier posts is that while one person may post accurate information he is not the only one posting information. Forums are open to, typically, anyone. For that reason the blanket approval for pifeedback is not going to happen. Isolating approval for one forum poster to the exclusion of all others would trigger so many issues it isn't even funny to imagine. TVByTheNumbers may at times use Travis' information as posted at pifeedback but the site is not open to posting from anyone. In that sense the group that runs TVByTheNumbers maintains a level of editorial control, site-wide, that is not found on pifeedback. Wikipedia's reliable source approval is not to an author of The New York Times but to The New York Times as a whole. Citing Travis' posts directly opens that can of worms. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
But there is a correct way to present his posts. The difference between this and this is that the first one does not directly link to Travis, while the second one does. The first one would therefore be the unreliable source, while the second one would be just Travis's post. I don't see how we can't use the second one, as the second one is usually the one Tvbythenumbers posts themselves. You mean that the only difference between this and this is that the other is a repost that is not on forums? Travis states himself (also here) "Travis Yanan is an online alias I used to post on Marc Berman's PI Feedback forum." Plus links to his Pifeedback forum posts here (example). The only other thing left for him to do would be to join this discussion. ChaosMasterChat 11:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


visionsofjoy.com at Bates Method

A FAQ from visionsofjoy.com ([85]) has been repeatedly reinserted at Bates Method (e.g. [86]). Given an incipient edit war, I'd like to solicit outside input on whether this is a suitable encyclopedic source. I am of the opinion that it is not, that the material being inserted is not particularly encyclopedic or relevant (if it were, we'd have better sources), and that the inserted text is both contrived and promotional. MastCell Talk 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, (pardon the pun), no content from or citation to visionsofjoy.com could be legitimately used in any way anywhere on Wikipedia, unless in a hypothetical visionsofjoy.com article. Dlabtot (talk)
Well, this is definitely not a reliable secondary source but given the context - that this is an article about the Bates method (which I've never heard of until now, apparently it's some minority or fringe theory), I think it's acceptable as a primary source with all the usual caveats and disclaimers about using primary sources. I mean, we're allowed to cite 911Truth.org in an article about 9/11 Conspiracy theories, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This was previously discussed here, where it was rejected. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge has the right take on this. An alternative solution would be to delete from the article all reference to See Clearly Method, as it has no relevance to Bates Method. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
We're getting off topic here. Comments unrelated to the application of WP:RS should be made on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Not a reliable source. Promotional, POV, website contains the usual disclaimers to the effect that the author is not an eye doctor and shouldn't be trusted as far as they can be thrown, the information is for "educational" purposes only, etc. Warning - off topic: Sam, it clearly states in that section that the SCM contains exercises adapted from Bates although the marketers behind it do not endore Bates "overall". How is that of "no relevance to Bates method"? Famousdog (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

IAE Magazine: Reliable source?

I happened to notice an editor removing a ton of references from articles [87], and while I have no doubt they're acting in good faith I'm questioning whether this really is not a reliable source. From appearances, it looks like a fairly run of the mill entertainment industry magazine that also has a website [88]. Here's their URL [http://www.iaemagazine.com]. Opinions? Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems that the reason it was removed was not due to reliability, but because Newsfeeder (talk · contribs) was using Wiki for advertisement by spamming links to the site all over the place. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure I saw that, but is that enough of a reason to revert what would otherwise be a reliable source? I could see removing them if they were just dumped in the external links section or placed indiscriminately, but based on the Statham ones these actually seemed to help support the material in the article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, it doesn't really strike me as reliable. It seems to be a self-published online magazine, and doesn't seem to have any claim of notability. As to using it for the text in the Gossip Girl article, there are other sources out there that could be used. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I don't feel especially strongly one way or the other but it seemed ok to me. That's why it's good to get other opinions before you go and put everything back. :-) - Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Part of the rationale for the removal was the spamming; the other was because the site itself does not appear to be a reliable source, and would likely not even be accepted as an externmal link even if the spamming wasn't an issue. --Ckatzchatspy 05:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like this is resolved, but I had a look at the first couple of edits and it is classic WP:REFSPAM: add an inconsequential or obvious factoid with a reference that just happens to be a link to your website. If these were not reverted, we would end up with ten fake references in every paragraph in every article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Warchronicle.com and CPRR wrt Stephen Ambrose

I didn't see any substantive resolution to 75.2.209.226's question on the subject prior to its archiving, so I'd like to pose the following followup questions in response to the defense presented for these sources:

  1. Wrt someone's private, self-run non-peer-reviewed non-commercially-published website: Does documentation that a reliable source mentions the existence of the website, or repeats the fact that it made an allegation, prove that said website is now a reliable source?
  2. When said website is the personal ad-funded property of a Wikipedia editor who argues for its continued inclusion, is that not a massive conflict of interest?
  3. When numerous traditional reliable sources are available other than said website, why does WP:IAR demand its inclusion as if it were the only reliable source that can be found?

For the record, I'm not arguing that either "side" in the previous discussion was right or wrong about which nontraditional sources should be accepted as if they were reliable. I'm saying neither should be, absent a logical rationale. And for that matter, I would accept CPRR as a reliable source in a heartbeat for most questions on the Central Pacific Railroad, assuming a dearth of other reliable sources on a field that's mostly of interest only to collectors and buffs. But I don't understand why the website's owner wants to use it as a reliable source on Stephen Ambrose. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

CPRR.org is a non-commercial, not-for-profit site that does not charge anything to its users to access it or its content. While it has a few sponsored links on a very, very small number of the over 10,000 pages on the site, none of these were solicited and they produce miniscule amounts of revenue all of which goes to help cover a fraction of the operating expenses (i.e., webhosting) of the site. The paper linked to Ambrose article was not produced by CPRR.org, but is only hosted on the site for free because its topic relates directly to the CPRR. (The page also carries no sponsored links.) Also please see the AN/I discussion located here for a full accounting of the years of misconduct, disruptive editing, "sockpuppetry", and Wikiststalking practiced by anonymous IP User 75.2.209.226 on Wikipedia as well as his/her apparent motivation in "challenging" inclusion of the link to the paper in the Stephen Ambrose article in the first place. Centpacrr (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. By using the third person, are you asserting that you are not in fact the owner of the website, which uses ads for funding and therefore profits from increased traffic?
  2. I would ask that you refrain from further false ad hominem insinuations that I'm a Wikistalker or a sockpuppet, whether or not 75.2 was. I'm about as provably innocent as you can get, given that I'm on the other side of the country and leave my IP open for everyone to see. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The above reference to wikistalking, etc, is not to 76.22.25.102, but is instead to 75.2.209.226, the anonymous user who posted the original "complaint" and who has stalked me and many other editors on Wikipedia since at least 2007 using many anonymous IPs (all of which resolve to SW Connecticut or adjacent areas) as well as several named accounts. My posting above is not meant to imply that there is any relationship or connection whatsoever between that user and 76.22.25.102 whose IP appears to resolve to Washington state. I am also not the owner of CPRR.org, but am instead only an unpaid contributor to it who derives no income or other pecuniary benefit whatsoever from the site. The very small amount of income derived from the few persons who asked to help sponsor the site is not based on traffic. Centpacrr (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to match the information located in the page source code (which contains links to akamai), or the site's about page cross-matched to your user page. However, the CoI question is turning into a derail massively out of proportion to its importance in this specific issue.
First and foremost: Why, in the presence of several other unquestionably-reliable sources, should WP:IAR necessitate using either the highly-questionable warchronicle site (a blog which reads like a collection of letters to the editor) or CPRR site (a nominal museum / amateur hobbyist blog with a specialization completely unrelated to Ambrose)? For the record, my primary objection is actually to warchronicle. But the CPRR site seems equally out-of-depth, albeit more properly attributed. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no connection whatsoever with the Warchronicle site nor am I expressing any opinion here one way or another as to its reliability. The only page on the CPRR site (a site with which I have fully disclosed my association on my userpage since registering on wikipedia in 2006) that is linked to the Ambrose article is to a December, 2000, paper that documents more than sixty factual errors in Ambrose's Nothing Like It in the World, his August, 2000, book about the building of the Pacific Railroad of which the CPRR constituted the Western portion built across California, Nevada, and Utah. (The corrections to the errors contained in the paper were all accepted and incorporated by the publisher in the book's paperback edition published in 2001.) By the way, the CPRR website (which has been online since February, 1999), is not an "amateur hobbyist blog" but a comprehensive compilation of period writings, scholarly papers, original source materials, Government and railroad company reports and documents, hundreds of maps, thousands of period photographs, and many other papers, articles, on-line exhibits of artifacts, etc, that relate to the CPRR, UPRR, and Western US railroad history. Altogether the site hosts more then 10,000 separate web pages. Centpacrr (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your forthrightness, but the lack of connection between CPRR and the topic of Ambrose is exactly what disturbs me. If the CPRR site were being cited as a source for the history of the CPRR, I'd probably have no issue with it at all. I don't doubt that it's attracted a great deal of interest from the railroad history community. (Which does make it a hobbyist subject, at least according to these pages [89],[90],[91]. And if it's not being used as someone's main source of income, then it is amateur.) That makes it functionally close enough to peer-reviewed to make me think it's a great RS for non-controversial assertions about the CPRR. But it's not being used as a source for a CPRR article here. It's being used as a source for an article on a modern semi-historian.
Absent spending a ridiculous amount of time cross-checking the paper versions of the book, we have only your word that Ambrose or his publisher accepted and made all of the corrections in the essay cross-posted in CPRR, unless I missed seeing where you have a source which states that. If not, then that assertion needs to be struck from the article as unsourced. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from using this noticeboard to attack other editors, praise other editors, or discuss other editors in any way whatsoever. Please limit your discussion to the reliability of specific sources for specific citations. Dlabtot (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My comment was not for the purpose of attacking other editors, only to point out that the original charges made by 75.2.209.226 against the reliability of the source in question contained misrepresentations and the reasons therefore. Centpacrr (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...Regarding CCRP, their About page[92] says that this is a "family run" web site. I don't seem to see an editorial policy, or any credentials of the authors. However, it does seem to enjoy some sort of following within education circles. According to the National Education Association, Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum "features more than 10,000 files with a terrific online library of more than 2000 19th century pictures, maps and descriptions of railroad construction and travel. It tells the story of the Pacific Railroad in human terms with lots of exhibits and first person accounts. It also has a simulation game for elementary students called The Great Railroad Race."[93] History.com lists it as additional resource in this student handout.[94] PBS recommends it as further reading.[95] The Library of Congress says it has an "Extensive collection of photographs related to building the Central Pacific Railroad, as well as its early years of operation. Includes some now (1997) and then (1868) comparison photos."[96] I don't know. My initial thought is that it is probably an informative web site, but doesn't quite live up to the standards set forth by WP:RS. But I could be wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, and for spending the time to look up more information on the subject. It definitely helps.
Separately, my apologies - I should have made it clearer, but it's being used as a source for Stephen Ambrose's bio page, not the history of the Central Pacific Railroad. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear from the beginning, given that RS-iness often hinges on who knows the most about a specific topic. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the whole matter as to relevance would be completely answered in the affirmative for anyone questioning it simply by looking at the one page on CPRR.org that is linked to the Ambrose article which is exactly on the point of the section of the article in which it appears, i.e., inaccuracies in Ambrose's book on the history of the CPRR and the Pacific Railroad. Centpacrr (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, the very fact that this is the only area where CPRR presumes authority on Ambrose is exactly the problem. If a railfan tells me that Reading Railroad should be pronounced "redding", you can bet I'll take their word for it. But if they tell me that reading aptitude scores in the United States have dropped 37% as a direct result of Obama's presidency, I'll take it with a grain of salt because they're speaking well out of their field of expertise. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
With respect, that's just a straw man argument about giving arbitrary process precedence over provable substance. Read the paper and you will find that is an objective, well sourced, and carefully documented exposition of more than sixty demonstrably inaccurate "facts" in the text on Ambrose's book on the subject of the CPRR, and this is exactly the topic of the section of the Ambrose article ("Inaccuracies and falsifications") in which it appears as a source. Whether or not the authors of this particular fact checking paper were paid or not to compile it has absolutely no relevance as to its reliability, it is the documentation and sources upon which the paper is based that does. The three "railfans" (as you call them) that prepared this paper all have decades of experience in researching and writing about the history of the CPRR and western railroads, and even if they have not done so "professionally", an objective review of their paper demonstrates that they are far more reliable sources on the subject as "amateur" historians than Stephen Ambrose proved to be in this case as a "professional" one. And that's exactly the point that the paper demonstrates. Centpacrr (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This is the third time this IP has brought up this issue, to two different noticeboards. Each time, it's led to a rather lengthy debate. I would not object to the IP having the discussion once. Three seems excessive.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I am not the IP you're accusing me of being. Please note that even CentPacRR has conceded this, and feel free to verify it for yourself as he did. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Further, please note that the IP you're accusing me of being was arguing for the inclusion of warchronicle (if I understand correctly), against CentPacRR's quite true arguments that it wasn't any more of a reliable source than cprr.org. I don't think either of them is a reliable source for this topic. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll accept the assertion re identity, though I would feel more comfortable if your user contributions showed either an interest in Ambrose, the Central Pacific RR, or reliable sources in general.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have an accusation to make, make it. If not, I would ask that you not find cute ways to insinuate it and pretend you didn't. Yes, I know this is practically an invitation for you to get me checkusered, but I don't have anything to hide. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(checks own browsing history) If it makes you more "comfortable", I ran into the discussion at NPOV Noticeboard while checking on my own question there about Chernobyl. After digging a little, I thought that the NPOV allegation was on shaky ground, but not the RS question. While looking up more information on the topic, I discovered that it had been brought here but wound up ignored due to TLDR-ing. (Possibly also due to the absence of the originating editor; I didn't look into the timeline of exactly when he got banned for socking.)
I suspect that if almost any editor went through their own contribution history, they'd find material just as likely to get them accused of being a sock when they wiki-walked into a new topic area. Given only one degree of separation, I'd hope for a little more AGF from someone who's tool-enabled. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge, thank you very much for the collapse. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I do think the historical context for this question warrants some consideration in how it is handled. It was raised by editor 75.2.209.226, who has now been indefinitely blocked (i.e. see his Techwriter2B ID). 75.2.209.226 engaged in severe wikihounding of several editors, including Centpacrr. One aspect of this harassment involved starting threads on multiple forums (I believe at least 16 threads primarily directed at Centpacrr), for which 75.2.209.226 apparently received a forum shopping warning (and he received other warnings as well). This is one of those threads. To further perpetuate this process (which was designed to harass an editor) is, I think, rather problematic. Incidentally, I should mention that I was pretty much a neutral observer in this (never had direct conflict with 75.2.209.226 myself, though several days ago I posted about the situation at AN/I, which resulted in the indefinite block being placed).
On the merits of the question. Centpacrr is neither an author of the paper nor an owner of the website, nor does he derive financial benefits from the website (nor has Centpacrr ever been harmed by Stephen Ambrose). So there doesn’t appear to be a reasonable case for COI here. The contents of the paper appear to be straightforward factual information and quotations of text from Ambrose, with primary sources cited for the material included in the paper (i.e. high verifiability). Importantly, the contents of the paper are limited to the intersection of Ambrose and railroad history, with rail history constituting a topic on which the paper authors (and website) have clear expertise. Your “reading score” analogy is thus entirely flawed. The authors of the paper don’t presume to make inferences regarding Ambrose in other ways (e.g. his health, his political beliefs, his writing style, etc.). They only speak to the accuracy of his statements writing about rail history (i.e. their area of expertise), and the paper is only cited in the WP article in this regard. Eurytemora (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Minor point - I also would tend to disagree with the characterization that the topic "wound up ignored" here when originally posted, since looking at the archived thread I see an intensive discussion lasting over three days (00:58 May 12 - 09:27 May 15) and involving five editors (with 75.2.209.226 commenting heavily for the duration). Also, regarding the speculation that it might have gotten dropped "due to the absence of the originating editor" 75.2.209.226 - he was only blocked on June 23. Eurytemora (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Eurytemora, could you explain why the fact 75.2 brought up the question makes my bringing up the question suspect, unless you're claiming that I'm 75.2? This is getting increasingly reminiscent of the "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians are wrong" argument, a guilt-by-association variant on ad hominem. And it's particularly tiresome because I'm not 75.2, and I'm tired of answering for his/her behavior as if all IPs are alike. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(Struck because I was probably being hypersensitive [after repeated insinuations by other editors] about why Eurytemora brought up the point. I'm glad Eurytemora's present, and wish I'd known to contact him/her via talk page notice or via cross-posting a notice to the Stephen Ambrose discussion board. Speaking of which, I'll go do so - better late than never.) 76.22.25.102 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question "Are Warchronicle.com and CPRR reliable sources on Stephen Ambrose?" I see that another editor said "The paper linked to Ambrose article was not produced by CPRR.org, but is only hosted on the site for free because its topic relates directly to the CPRR." If this is true (and it appears to be) then shouldn't the scrutiny be on the authors of the content? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Publication at CPRR is tangentially relevant (e.g. the paper is not self-published). I should also point out that one of the authors of the paper (Edson Strobridge) has a commentary (on the precise topic of this paper) published at HNN. The various authors appear to have multiple publications concerning railroad history and their work/expertise appears to be cited by others in the field. Eurytemora (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. This discussion, in common with the previous ones, is framed as "the expertise of this website about the Central Pacific Railroad when it talks about Stephen Ambrose". In fact, it is "the expertise of this website about the Central Pacific Railroad when it talks about Stephen Ambrose talking about the Central Pacific Railroad". It is no different than a website about Nixon pointing out errors in Ambrose's bio of Nixon. Self publication, editorial oversight, yes, these are factors we consider pursuant to WP:RS, but those are not the only factors. It is in my view a reliable source on the railroad. Thus, to the extent that Ambrose stuck his nose into the area of expertise, it's a reliable source for that as well. I do not think it would be a reliable source, on an unconnected aspect of Ambrose's life or work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The scrutiny in this case should be on the demonstrable reliability of the facts and their sources that were cited in the paper, not on whether or not the paper's authors are "professional" historians or not. The whole point being demonstrated by the section of the Ambrose article in which the paper is cited is the abject fallacy of blindly accepting statements made in Ambrose's writings as always reliable simply because he was paid to make them and they were then published in a book. Whether or not those who were able to objectively prove that many statements of "fact" Ambrose made in the subject book were false were then paid by a third party to do so -- or, for that matter, whether or not they have the same academic "credentials" as the late Dr. Ambrose -- just has no baring on that question. Demonstrably false "facts" do not suddenly become reliable simply because they were stated, written, and commercially published by an academically credentialed professional, nor does their debunking become unreliable because those who demonstrated them to be false are "amateurs" who did so without without seeking monetary compensation for their efforts. Centpacrr (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There's clear consensus to use CPRR as a reliable source in this case, and no hard feelings. However, part of my question still stands - is warchronicle also a reliable source in this case? 76.22.25.102 (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the warchronicles.com case is very analogous. It’s not self-published, and it appears to be written by a military historian with relevant expertise (specifically USAAF Troop Carrier Historian Randy Hils), whose work is cited by others in this field, and who appears to have articles published in other reliable sources (including HNN). In both cases under discussion, the respective authors did not come through the usual academic route (i.e. doctorate in history), but have gained and demonstrated extensive specialized knowledge in their respective areas (railroad history and military history), have placed a premium on accuracy, and appear well regarded by other historians. Eurytemora (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree. In addition, they accept "submissions" so there seems to be some sort of oversight going on. And I agree, Mr. Hils's credential, while they wouldn't get him in the door at a lot of history departments, are adequate for our purposes. Are there additional questions unresolved? No matter what the outcome, and exhibiting the same neutrality that the IP has professed, I'd like to drive a stake through the heart of this topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you link exactly where they assert that they reviewed his "submission" (or any other), titled "An Open Letter to the Airborne Community on the History of OPERATION NEPTUNE" for accuracy? By its very title, it suggests it was subject to no review whatsoever.
With all due respect, your "No matter what the outcome... I'd like to drive a stake through the heart of this", your simple reiteration of Eurytemora's characterization, and your pejorative description of me, suggests that you've simply decided to automatically "vote" against anything I say and that you've shot neutrality out the window. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
No, sorry, not true in the least. I call them as I see them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Then would you mind providing the requested basis for the rationale you assert, since it wasn't simply a knee-jerk response? 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, per WP:IRS, "the word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." This discussion has really only focused on the website, and discussion above has convinced me that it is run by an authoritative person in the field. The fact that it accepts submissions is at least surface indication that it conducts a review process. As in common with many website, that process is not spelled out in detail, but neither does The New York Times. I therefore feel that the website is reliable enough not to disqualify it, though I feel that close-in analysis of the article and author should take place at the affected article talk page itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"run by an authoritative person in the field" - I'm pretty sure Hils doesn't run it, whether you think he's authoritative or not. Your lack of comprehension of the arguments you're trying to paraphrase, again, suggests that you're "voting". If I'm wrong and you do know who runs it and have evidence that they're "authoritative", I would welcome the information and the correction.
"The fact that it accepts submissions is at least surface indication that it conducts a review process." - I believe you have that backwards. If it rejects submissions, that would indicate it conducts a review process. There are a number of ill-regarded "journals" that accept every submission that includes the "publication costs". And for that matter, on the same page where it says it accepts submissions, it goes on to say "General comments, questions, raspberries, criticism, corrections, and additional information are also all welcome." 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I will add though – when I get a chance, I plan to add a couple of additional references for this section in the Ambrose article (e.g. Philadelphia Inquirer piece in regards to the military material). Eurytemora (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be most welcome. I'm personally of the opinion that the best cure for theoretically-questionable material is to reinforce it. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(Note - this was written without seeing Eurytemora's response) Qualification: They appear to have consensus for their acceptance for their assertions about Ambrose's accuracy. Is there also consensus for "Note: G.J. Graves comments that "The paper back edition has all of our corrections, but we are not given credit."" being repeated as fact, given that even they don't appear to be endorsing Graves' comment, just attributing it to him?
Also, if if it helps, this is the tenor of the writing in the warchronicle "articles", which read much more like letters to the editor: "Would General Eisenhower have expected US Army officers to pull a gun to the heads of British sailors on D-Day? Should American officers be portrayed as thugs, and should British sailors be portrayed as cowards? Are these the type of men who put their lives at risk on D-Day? The reputation of Captain Ettore V. Zappacosta of B Company 116th Infantry Regiment has been besmirched. British sailors from 551 Assault Flotilla, Combined Operations, Royal Navy have been dishonoured. This bad reporting and blatantly poor research has caused great bitterness and resentment amongst American and British veterans. Popular history it may be, but accurate certainly not!" Full links. Supported text, which also includes an incredibly dubious "I saw it on C-Span" cite (23).
Personally, my gut feeling is that they're probably correct, although they're both describing the same incident - but Stephen Colbert's wisdom aside, my gut is not an RS. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The strong wording you note (i.e. with which Hils closes his piece on the coxwains) – in many ways , that’s not terribly different from many good (i.e. reliable source) Gawker or Village Voice articles. The accuracy/verifiability/reliability of the underlying information in the article is the relevant thing here. Also, just to make it clear - the C-SPAN cite is in the WP article (not in Hils).Eurytemora (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reading the articles in question and for the possible correction - I was aware that the C-SPAN cite was distinct from Hils, but I think it's a lot better to hear a correction I already knew than to not hear a correction I needed. My apologies for the ambiguity of saying "Supported text, which includes" - I was trying to draw a distinction between the supporting cite and the section it supported, but it obviously didn't work.
Not a particularly critical distinction, but the strong wording was actually in Elsby's piece. (I'm a lot more glad that you read it and were aware of it than I am concerned by mistaking which piece it was from.)
I've only found the one article by Hils on HNN, and a reference to him in another article written by someone else. Could you point me toward other RS's he was published in? That would go a long way. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes - thanks for correcting me also; should have referenced Elsby (on coxswains).
I looked into much of this a while ago, and found other references to Hils, etc. at that point. Don’t have time to dig into this again right now (perhaps tonight or tomorrow if I can find the time). Eurytemora (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
My point above was that the website qualifies but individual articles might not. Obviously articles which are speculative, editorial, or downright alternate history would not. Source has several distinct meanings, as I quoted. Among these are both the publisher (website) and the article (page). My view is the website is reliable but not everything in there is necessarily reliable. Not everything in The New York Times, a reliable source, may be used on Wikipedia, for example certain opinion columns and letters to the editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Then you might want to look more closely at the articles you're endorsing. That's a quote from one of them. And Hils' piece (the more reliable one) is actually titled, "An Open Letter", while the Elsby piece (the one with the unfortunate wording) is called an article. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don’t know how to ideally deal with the WP Ambrose article ref 23. Looking back into the Ambrose article’s history, it seems that the current composition of the sentence and ref 23 placement reflects the removal of substantive details (in interim edits), which rather muddied the content. Ambrose was using oral histories in his writing, and ref 23 refers to one such recorded oral history (of a Sgt Slaughter) that was discrepant with other information and that was explicitly used by Ambrose. The Slaughter recording was apparently once broadcast on C-SPAN. Eurytemora (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at that one, despite its not being in the original subject. If you saw anything which included verifiable/refutable information at some point in the history (i.e. "broadcast on July 13, 1987 at 1:35 pm"), I'd be much less leery of it. As it is, it comes across as suffering from the same flaw Ambrose seemed to have - if you get called out on giving specific dates that don't match, stop giving specific dates. (For all I know, the editor may have been copying Ambrose's attribution verbatim.) 76.22.25.102 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually found the C-SPAN recording online, and listened to the whole damn thing (it’s the American Eyewitness D-Day Accounts Forum 05/17/1994). And I dug further into the whole coxswain controversy this morning. As written, the current WP text on the coxswains is not technically “inaccurate”, but a rewrite of the coxswain material might be preferable – not sure. Will share more thoughts when I have a chance. Eurytemora (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"I actually found the C-SPAN recording online, and listened to the whole damn thing" - Wow. That's what I'd call "taking one for the team".
I don't know if we have the same issue with the coxswain controversy; I'll toss mine out.
  1. Hils and Elsby are not each describing an incident. Elsby describes both; Hils only mentions the incidents in passing.
  2. To elaborate, Hils says this in a list of Ambrose's and Marshall's other sins: "Marshall's credibility has been severely damaged by the discovery of fabrications related to his accusations of cowardice by British coxswains at Omaha Beach." That's all he says about it. To me, a) that doesn't sound like he researched or verified it himself at all, and b) he doesn't actually say anything about Ambrose's involvement in the coxswain controversy, much less that he copied Marshall. It's likely that he did, but to attribute this to Hils is a synthesis that's missing a few pieces.
  3. Elsby not only appears too emotionally invested in the subject (the quotes I gave actually feature some of the less histrionic terms he uses), he quotes this debriefing as if it proved him right: "Four hundred yards from the shore the British coxswain insisted that he could take the craft no further. He started to lower the ramp but the platoon sergeant Willard R. Northfleet blocked the mechanism and insisted that the boat was going in farther". That's neither an endorsement nor a denial of either the "Nothing of the sort happened" that Elsby infers or Slaughter's gun to the head.
Honestly, it sounds like men under the intense stress of imminent death later embellished their fragmented memories to the story they wanted to remember, and weren't consciously aware that they might have been amalgamating details from other people's stories. There still exists controversy that should be properly documented, but not in terms of which side "claimed" or "denied" anything - I think it needs to be recounted without prejudice as a he-said-she-said (in which Ambrose unwisely took sides).
My suggestions:
  1. Hils needs to be dropped from this paragraph. He doesn't make the claim he's represented as making, and the claim he does make isn't germane to the article.
  2. I'll defer to you about whether Slaughter is verifiably (not synthetically) talking about the Northfleet incident; Elsby omits any mention of Slaughter so I can't say.
  3. I have extreme doubts about Elsby's reliability as a source, and about warchronicle's reliability in general (in the absence of outside qualifications like Hils'). But assuming that the consensus will be to include him:
  4. If Slaughter can be brought in, it needs to be noted that the debriefing Elsby mentions is ambiguous, or simply quote the debriefing - the unsourced "other veterans of the landing have denied that the incident took place" should be struck.
  5. Sales' account of the Zappacotta incident absolutely deserves inclusion, as does the fact that Sales was on the boat in question. Terms that explicitly pass judgment on who's right would be inappropriate, but the witness's qualifications aren't inappropriate in the slightest. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I've continued digging into this. Will try to post something tomorrow. Eurytemora (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to synopsize it for you until you get back (these are my own conclusions which are open to challenge, not final group conclusions):
  1. Warchronicle appears to have little reliability of its own, as a self-published website that posts submissions (or general comments, questions, raspberries, etc) without any apparent editorial review. No one has shown otherwise, only asserted that they "accept submissions" and insinuated that they might therefore review or reject unreliable material, which are the true tests. Warchronicle does not confer reliability, but it does not negate it either in the case of individuals (i.e. Hils) who have unique qualifications that make them RS's independent of warchronicle.
  2. Hils is likely an RS, taking on faith that you've seen other instances of him being published besides the one HNN piece. But it seems to be moot at this point, because he doesn't actually make any claims about Ambrose's role in the coxswain controversy, or about Ambrose repeating Marshall in that matter.
  3. I personally believe Elsby is nigh-worthless as a source in terms of his conclusions. He hasn't been shown to be published or respected as an expert. He omits contradictory accounts, misrepresents sources, and inflates Ambrose from a flawed historian to a Monster who Desecrates the Graves of Servicemen. But he at least appears to give accurate quotes from his sources, given that he's quoting them in language that contradicts the conclusions he draws from them. It would be far better to have original sourcing for Sales and for the debriefing, but I don't think that's possible. What are your thoughts on whether an unreliable source can be trusted to accurately quote a reliable source (such as Sales or the debriefing)?
  4. Reiterating a point, strong consensus appears to be that CPRR is a reliable source wrt their essay, since a majority of the assertions they make therein are directly about or tangential to railroad history. But CPRR does not put their reliability behind Graves' assertion (that their corrections were incorporated), or call it accurate. They're simply repeating what someone told them, and it doesn't touch on railroad history. I didn't see any contradiction to this, but it's worth repeating to allow challenge before dropping it as not reliably-sourced. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The point regarding all corrections to the errors documented in the paper having been incorporated in some later editions of the book is now moot as, in an abundance of caution, I deleted it from the article on my own on July 2nd as not currently independently verified. Centpacrr (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't realize you had. Doing so suggests that I was in error in casting aspersions on your principles - I apologize. I should have AGFed rather than being as cynical as I'm wont to be in cases of apparent economic benefit. Economic benefit and high principles are not mutually exclusive. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm suspecting that now that the discussion has gotten down to brass tacks, it ought to move to Talk:Stephen Ambrose.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I've posted followup at Talk:Stephen Ambrose. Eurytemora (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_68&oldid=1145854532"