Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 113

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

→

yespakistan.com

Is this a reliable source for information in a BLP? I can find no editorial oversight on the site. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, but it might depend on specifics. The website appears to be published by the Human Development Foundation (a Thai-based charity, which makes the Illinois address listed on the website rather odd). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this one ideasevolved for use in a BLP? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Few body systems

The Asia Pacific center for Theoretical Physics [1] [member countries] recently held a conference on Few-body systems "Fifth Asia-Pacific Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics 2011" on 22-26 August 2011 [2]. On of the speakers was Yeong E. Kim [3], Professor of Physics and Group Leader Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group of Purdue University. In his presentation “Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles” Kim presented how his "Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion (BECNF) in Metal" can explain "the following experimental observations either qualitatively or quantitatively. Experimental Observations from both electrolysis and gas loading experiments (as of 2010, not complete) (over several hundreds publications !)": Coulomb barrier, excess heat, 4He production, Tritium production, nuclear ashes, hot spots and craters, radiation, "heat-after-death", ...

He also discussed his "Generalized BECNF Theory for Hydrogen-Nickel System" The paper for which is in preprint [4] and he concluded "Recently, generalized BECNF theory is used to make theoretical predictions for BECNF processes in hydrogen-nickel systems." In the speech at the conference (proceedings) and the preprint paper Kim is directly referring that his BECNF theory can be applied to the Energy Catalyzer.

Is this enough RS for a mention in the article Energy Catalyzer that Yeong E. Kim has recently proposed a theoretical explanation for the device. ?

By all means few body systems is not fringe, is it ? --POVbrigand (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is my question unclear, or is this the wrong noticeboard ? Just let me know, Thanks. Or am I just too impatient ? :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough question, and I misunderstood it at first. The Few-body systems article seems a complete red herring, that's not where you want the source used. Let me rephrase the question, maybe that will make it simpler for others to weigh in too.

“

The Energy Catalyzer is a supposed cold fusion heat source. Yeong E. Kim,[5] Professor of Physics and Group Leader Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group of Purdue University wrote and presented a paper[6] that proposes preliminary theoretical explanations of the reported results of the device. Can the paper be cited in our article on the device? See also article talk page discussion.

”

If that is the question, I'd say yes. The relevant part of Wikipedia:Reliable sources is Self-published sources: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Given his titles and positions, I'm assuming that Kim has been published before on Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion, and though I don't claim to understand the physics of his paper, it does seem to say it might explain the Energy Catalyzer, then that is certainly a relevant field, so he is an established expert on the topic. So WP:RS is met. Now the question is of due weight. The paper is mostly or completely dedicated to explaining the Energy Catalyzer, it's not just a side mention, so we're not overplaying the weight of the EC in the paper. And our article Energy Catalyzer is huge, with many statements about it by other scientists, so a sentence would not seem to be overshadowing those. So I'd say it's OK. --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The first paper about the theory has been published in the peer reviewed journal Naturwissenschaften in 2009. I have found a few seminars at universities discussing this paper and within the field the theory is notable (see for instance this abstract). The above mentioned presentation at the conference on Few-Body Problems also show exposure of the theory in the non-fringe field. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a pity that I won't be able to edit this into the article, because hordes of anti-fringe-POV-pushers will find a reason, any reason to delete it again. That is the sorry state of wikipedia when it comes to editing fringe articles. The common sense editors have long abandoned the controversial topics and I can't blame them. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are supposed to be against POV-fringe-pushing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, ALL editors are supposed to edit NPOV. There is nothing in the policies that prohibits explaining the fringe position in an article about a fringe topic. Editing the above proposed line into the article does not equate to POV pushing. Deleting it for whatever reason is not in line with WP-policy. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Could we reach a consensus whether we can add a line to the Energy Catalyzer article referencing Kim? POVbrigand added a line which has been removed by Binksternet (see diff [7]). For some reason, Bink seem to think Prof. Kim is not notable and that the paper is not relevant. Perhaps that reasoning can be explained here? 62.30.137.128 (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps IRWolfie would like to explain his reasons for reverting the use of this source? 62.30.137.128 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The self-published paper is clearly not a reliable source as it is not published in a peer-reviewed reputable journal; it is self published. It seems unusual to have a paper that only references his previous work and a technology website. It is ok to use for the opinion of Yeong E. Kim. The question is then of due weight. There is no notability attached to Yeong E. Kim from what I can see and this would need to be shown for his opinions to have due weight. BECNF seems also to be fringe/not well accepted, I see no mention of it on springerlink for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't try hard enough: Springerlink^{[dead link]} --POVbrigand (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

They are all by the author himself. A mainstream acceptance of the theory would return hundreds of results. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd draw people's attention to the abstract:

"Generalized theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) is used to carry out theoretical analyses of recent experimental results of Rossi et al. for hydrogen-nickel system. Based on incomplete experimental information currently available, preliminary theoretical explanations of the experimental results are presented in terms of the generalized BECNF theory. Additional accurate experimental data are needed for obtaining more complete theoretical descriptions and predictions, which can be tested by further experiments".

Further, the conclusion states "In order to explore validity and to test predictions of the generalized BECNF theory for the hydrogen-metal system, it is very important to carry out Rossi-type experiments independently in order to establish what are exact inputs and outputs of each experiment". It seem self-evident that Kim is proposing a hypothetical mechanism, based on incomplete (actually, almost non-existent) data. It looks to me to be exaggeration to state that this is even a "preliminary theoretical explanation" for the Rossi 'results', as POVb wishes to claim. It is little more than a hypothetical explanation for a hypothetical scenario, and Kim doesn't suggest otherwise - so neither should we. Including a non-peer-reviewed pdf which effectively states that it isn't based on any 'evaluation' of data that will allow its conclusions to be validated is totally undue in a section entitled 'Evaluation of the [Rossi] device'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The assumption here is that this PDF file has not been peer reviewed. Usually it is true that papers presented at a scholarly/academic conference are usually considered to be a reliable source.... precisely because they are peer reviewed and that there is some editorial control over what gets presented at these conferences by the conference organizers. Perhaps it isn't quite as tight as what happens with professional or academic journals, but there usually are presentations that for one reason or another are rejected, and complete cranks and fringe theories usually aren't accepted unless the whole conference is organized by members of a fringe science group (I could give examples, but that is pointless for this example). If you want to attack the conference itself, that perhaps is useful, and I really don't know the reputation of this particular conference, but it does seem at first glance like this paper might be deemed a "reliable source" and deserves inclusion in the article. Usual issues like WP:UNDUE and other factors ought to be considered, but judicious referencing from this paper certainly seems legitimate and does not deserve to be removed from the Energy Catalyzer article simply because it espouses a POV you don't agree with. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please also note that Kim had previously published 2 papers on the BECNF theory in regular peer-reviewed journals to which this paper explicitely reference:

Y. E. Kim, “Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Mechanism for Deuteron-Induced Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Grains and Particles”, Naturwissenschaften 96, 803 (2009)
Y. E. Kim, “Theoretical interpretation of anomalous tritium and neutron productions during Pd/D co-deposition experiments”, Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 52, 31101 (2010).

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Journal of Nuclear Physics, despite the benign sounding name, is a fringe publication and not a reliable source. Articles published in EPJ AP and Naturwissenschaften are generally reliable sources, however. a13ean (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confused about the reference? Journal of Applied Physics is very distinct from the Journal of Nuclear Physics. Attempts to rubbish Kim will not work, he is notable and his most recent pre-print is very relevant. 62.30.137.128 (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is also a question of how primary sources should be used, and what we are talking about here is a primary source. BTW, I agree that the Journal of Nuclear Physics is not a reliable source, but we are not talking about that particular journal in regards to the document being questioned here nor do I see where that particular issue was being raised in the first place. Is there a specific problem with the PDF file based upon a presentation at this particular conference, where the pre-print which is publicly available from one of Purdue University's web servers? --Robert Horning (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The | PDF file that everyone's talking about has the same title as a paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics. This article is not a reliable source. It also appears to be a paper associated with a conference presentation. In general, these are not reliable source, unless they are published elsewhere in a normal peer-reviewed article. This is because conference presentations generally don't undergo a peer review process (like conference papers). For example, for APS meetings non-invited presentations are selected for inclusion based only on their abstract, which can later be changed. Unless this PDF file relates to a peer-reviewed publication in a non-fringe journal, it's not a reliable source. On Kim's own web site it is referred to only as a pre-print. Anything that's actually published in the Journal of Applied Physics, however, is probably notable. a13ean (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with this paper is that it's a hypothetical explanation of what is imagined to be happening in an untested device. So that by itself makes it a fringe thing to be avoided. But if a reliable source cites the paper then I guess it should be included Bhny (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If secondary reliable sources discuss the Kim preprint then those sources can be quoted. I do not think that individual papers are appropriate for the article if they are not discussed by others. In that regard, the relevant guideline we should follow is WP:UNDUE. Let's wait until Kim is described by reliable secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Note : I gave up on contributing to the Energy Catalyzer article. The final straw was related to the Kim article ... which was a pre-print of an INVITED paper (by definition, Invited papers are NOT peer reviewed : the preprint being on his official Purdue website) by an acknowledged expert in the subject area. (Bose Einstein Condensates). The reason that my last attempt to admit Kim was deleted : there is no "proof" that the eCat contains Nickel and uses Hydrogen (despite the ISSUED patent, and every single article or discussion on the matter, including even the lead paragraph of the wiki itself) , therefore the paper by (reputable) scientist Kim is irrelevant. The proceedings of the (reputable) conference are to be published in the next issue of the (reputable) Few Bodies journal. But now Binksternet asserts that even THAT won't satisfy him: "Let's wait until Kim is described by reliable secondary sources." Alanf777 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It is through the use of reliable sources that we decide if something has due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The BECNF theory is part of the scientific discourse, it has been presented at these universities:

University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri - Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion* - Vice Chancellor for Research Seminar Series - 29 May 2009 - Based on a paper published on-line - Naturwissenschaften DOI 10.1007/s00114-009-0537-6 - (14 May 2009)
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign - NPRE 596 Grad Seminar: Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions in Micro-Nano-Scale Metal Particle - Speaker Dr. Yeong E. Kim, Purdue University - Date Oct 11, 2011
Mitchigan State University - Bose-Einstein Condensation of Deuterons and Nuclear Fusion in Metals - Yeong E. Kim, Purdue University - Wednesday, March 16, 4:10 PM - Nuclear Science Seminar - Biomedical & Physical Sciences Bldg., Rm. 1400
Purdue University - "Nuclear Fusion in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles" - Professor Yeong E Kim - Thursday March 04, 2010 - 4:00pm PHYS 203 - This is a joint presentation sponsored by Department of Physics and School of Nuclear Engineering

--POVbrigand (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand what it is to be part of the scientific discourse. It is not merely being published or presenting your work but other reputable scientists talking about, working on, critiquing your work and using your work as the basis for their own work. Anyway this is irrelvant, as has been highlighted by others with the due weight issue and the non-peer reviewed non-published nature of the article that mentions the Energy Catalyzer. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect about Kim's paper; it does have due weight - it specifically mentions Rossi, is written by an expert who has previously been published in the same field. It's blatantly obvious that it should be included! 62.30.137.128 (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Note GRuban's comment above (my emphasis): The relevant part of Wikipedia:Reliable sources is Self-published sources: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." 62.30.137.128 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification:

We are not discussing the technical details of Kim's theory. We are not presenting the theory AS FACT. We are presenting the fact THAT a theory has been proposed by an expert in the field.
As per Yeong E. Kim's University webpage, the paper is in preprint. The fact that the paper is also hosted on a non-RS blog called "journal of nuclear physics" is not relevant.
The underlying physics BECNF theory was published in peer reviewed journals Naturwissenschaften and Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys
As announced during the conference, the proceedings of the APFB2011 will be published as an issue of Few-Body Systems [8] - Journal Few Body Systems: http://www.springer.com/physics/particle+and+nuclear+physics/journal/601

Reply to these comments:

AndyTheGrump: "It seem self-evident that Kim is proposing a hypothetical mechanism, based on incomplete (actually, almost non-existent) data." self-evident by AndyTheGrump == OR
AndyTheGrump: "preliminary theoretical explanation" ... as POVb wishes to claim." -> Misrepresentation of fact. "preliminary theoretical explanation" as per verbatim in the paper: "Based on incomplete experimental information currently available, preliminary theoretical explanations of the experimental results are presented in terms of the generalized BECNF theory."
IRwolfie:"self-published paper is clearly not a reliable source as it is not published in a peer-reviewed reputable journal;" -> self published by Yeong E. Kim who is an expert on BEC physics, see WP:SPS. BECNF has been published in peer reviewed journals.
IRWolfie:" BECNF seems also to be fringe/not well accepted, I see no mention of it on springerlink for example. -> springerlink^{[dead link]}

--POVbrigand (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Spin it how you like. To claim that the Kim paper is a reliable source for an 'evaluation of [Rossi's] device' is totally undue - the author is hypothesising about a general principle, and has made explicit that it isn't an 'evaluation' based on the information necessary to arrive at any conclusions regarding Rossi's device: That isn't what he sets out to do: "In order to explore validity and to test predictions of the generalized BECNF theory for the hydrogen-metal system, it is very important to carry out Rossi-type experiments independently in order to establish what are exact inputs and outputs of each experiment". Kim is discussing testing the hypothesis, and is seemingly not proposing testing any device actually made by Rossi at all. Science depends on experimentation, and not just on hypothesis. Kim appears not to have performed any experiments, and is claiming no results in his paper. His conclusions don't state anything in regard to 'evaluation' of the E-Cat, and it is synthesis to suggest they do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments seem more to be based on WP:JDLI. The importance of its inclusion is that a notable expert in condensed matter physics is of the opinion that Rossi's device could be operating due to the formation of a Bose-Einstein Condensate. This is as equally important an expert opinion regarding the possibilty of the device being real, as Randi's is of the device being a con. For some reason, you are unwilling to see both sides. 62.30.137.128 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

He's not notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The comment from Andy shows his mode of arguing, he writes: "It is totally undue to claim that the Kim paper is a reliable source for an evaluation of the device". Andy argues that the Kim paper does not belong in the article, because it is misplaced in the "evaluation" section.

The "evaluation" section is a bundle of "what other people have said about the device". The Kim paper equates to a statement from Kim about how he thinks the mechanism of the device could be explained with his BECNF theory, maybe the title of the "evaluation" section should be changed into "opinion from other scientists (and/or journalists)" or something along that line.

The comments above by Andy that Kim did not actually "evaluate the device" are also true for Ethan Siegel who was added by Andy personally to the section.

--POVbrigand (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

One paper by Kim that mention his theory shows the lack of acceptance. A mainstream theory would have hundreds if not thousands of related papers. He also purported to have a mechanism for the Fleischmann–Pons experiment which is also fringe and undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the theory is mainstream accepted is not a point of discussion, nobody claims it is a mainstream accepted theory. Stop arguing with straw men. You write: "...which is also fringe and undue". If you read the comments from GRuban and Robert Horning you see that they have carefully thought about and explained their position that adding Kim to the article is not undue. However you keep bringing up undue, to me that leaves only WP:IDL and WP:IDHT to explain your position. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added the line to the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

How could you conclude from this discussion that you had concensus for the addition? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your action, POVb. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

With insufficient input from other editors, there will never be any consensus here. Personally, I don't have a problem with the sentence that was recently reverted [9] Tmccc (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As has been mentioned already, it's unpublished, non-peer reviewed and undue. The cold fusion article already sums up the fringe explanations: "Many years after the 1989 experiment, cold fusion researchers still haven't agreed on a single theoretical explanation or on a single experimental method that can produce replicable results [150] and continue to offer new proposals, which also fail to convince mainstream scientists.[80]". This seems to apply here, a proposed theoretical explanation when the workings of the machine isn't even known. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at the problem with it: "Yeong E. Kim,[10] Professor of Physics and Group Leader Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group of Purdue University wrote and presented a paper[11] that proposes preliminary theoretical explanations of the reported results of the device". Exactly - it isn't an 'evaluation of the device'. It is a hypothetical explanation of 'reported results', and Kim makes it absolutely clear that he isn't 'evaluating' anything - he explicitly states that his hypothesis can only be tested after experiments are carried out. It is a single, non-peer-reviewed speculative paper that actually asserts nothing concrete at all with regard to the E-Cat itself. Using Kim's paper in the way proposed is a misrepresentation. Wikipedia policy regarding science-related issues is in any case clear over this: we don't use single primary sources (peer-reviewed or not) to 'disprove' mainstream science. If and when Kim's "Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion" becomes accepted by the mainstream, the situation may change - but we follow science, rather than gazing into crystal balls... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As you are repeating yourself. Here is my previous comment: The comment from Andy shows his mode of arguing, he writes: "It is totally undue to claim that the Kim paper is a reliable source for an evaluation of the device". Andy argues that the Kim paper does not belong in the article, because it is misplaced in the "evaluation" section. The "evaluation" section is a bundle of "what other people have said about the device". The Kim paper equates to a statement from Kim about how he thinks the mechanism of the device could be explained with his BECNF theory, maybe the title of the "evaluation" section should be changed into "opinion from other scientists (and/or journalists)" or something along that line. The comments above by Andy that Kim did not actually "evaluate the device" are also true for Ethan Siegel who was added by Andy personally to the section.

Whether or not the theory is mainstream accepted is not a point of discussion, nobody claims it is a mainstream accepted theory. Stop arguing with straw men. If you read the comments from GRuban and Robert Horning you see that they have carefully thought about and explained their position that adding Kim to the article is not undue. To me you complaints only leave WP:IDL and WP:IDHT to explain your position.

--POVbrigand (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:PARITY applies to the quote from Ethan Siegel since it is a mainstream opinion of the work of Rossi. Parity does not apply to a fringe view commenting on the fringe work. You admitted it is not a mainstream accepted theory. It is a fringe theory, The fringe explanation has no due weight on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe we should just delete the 'evaluation' section entirely - given that the device has never actually been 'evaluated' in any meaningful way? You miss the point, however. Siegel and Thieberger aren't using speculative hypotheses about "Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion" to evaluate the device - they are demonstrating how mainstream science isn't compatible with the claimed results - and it mainstream science that Wikipedia must represent, not unproven hypotheses. Like it or not, Wikipedia has to follow scientific advance, not lead it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We can just delete Siegel AND Kim and leave the "evaluation" section to comments from people who have actually seen the device. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Again since you seemed to miss it: WP:PARITY applies to the quote from Ethan Siegel since it is a mainstream opinion of the work of Rossi. Ethan Siegel has also been mentioned by reliable secondary sources. Parity does not apply to a fringe view commenting on the fringe work. You admitted it is not a mainstream accepted theory. It is a fringe theory, The fringe explanation has no due weight on wikipedia. This has already been discussed on the talk page Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#.27ScienceBlogs.27_article_on_the_E-Cat)IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the point of WP:FRINGE of which WP:PARITY is part. "...The fringe explanation has no due weight on wikipedia...." is laughable. Experienced editors here in this talk have analyzed "undue" and concluded that it is not the case. What I am hearing from Andy, IRWolfie and Binksternet is WP:IDL and WP:IDHT. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Kim paper is hypothetical and WP:UNDUE emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the theory is mainstream accepted is not a point of discussion, nobody claims it is a mainstream accepted theory. If you read the comments from GRuban and Robert Horning you see that they have carefully thought about and explained their position that adding Kim to the article is not undue. However you keep bringing up undue, to me that leaves only WP:IDL and WP:IDHT to explain your position. --POVbrigand

The issue of undue weight was not addressed. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand, by undue weight I mean exactly that. The Kim paper is hypothetical conjecture regarding a field of conjectural science. The Kim paper is not proven to be notable in regard to the topic. Secondary sources have not shown it to be significant. Wikipedia is here to explain the main points to the reader, not to expound on little-known hypotheses in a way not reflected in the larger world. If we give the not-proven-significant Kim paper a platform in the article we are violating WP:UNDUE. We should wait until Kim's ideas gain wider notice and comment. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie & Binksternet. See WP:IDHT:

"... Now the question is of due weight. The paper is mostly or completely dedicated to explaining the Energy Catalyzer, it's not just a side mention, so we're not overplaying the weight of the EC in the paper. And our article Energy Catalyzer is huge, with many statements about it by other scientists, so a sentence would not seem to be overshadowing those. So I'd say it's OK. --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC) "

"... Usual issues like WP:UNDUE and other factors ought to be considered, but judicious referencing from this paper certainly seems legitimate and does not deserve to be removed from the Energy Catalyzer article simply because it espouses a POV you don't agree with. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)"

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I got the following message from IRWolfie on my talk page. "You are being quoted as being in favour of including a quote from Yeong E. Kim based on a fringe unpublished non-peer reviewed paper. Perhaps you would like to comment on why you think it has due weight." Yes... just the way any of us would want to start off the new year, I hope you'll agree? :-) Anyway, POVbrigand is quoting me correctly, but it seems those two sentences aren't sufficient. For those who are afraid of TL;DR, your fears are quite justified, as those two sentences do cover it, but for those who aren't:

Just by counting length of text: The article Energy Catalyzer has 5 text sections (lead and 4 subsections). Each one is at least 2 paragraphs long. The relevant subsection (Evaluation of the device) is the longest one of them: 6 paragraphs, each at least 2 sentences; I count 24 sentences but could be off. So 1 sentence, which seems to be what is proposed here, seems to be under 2% of the article, and even under 5% of section. It's hard to make the argument it would overshadow.
Now let's look at the contents of the relevant subsection (Evaluation of the device). It includes such gems as:
- "Skeptic James Randi, discussing the E-Cat in the context of previous cold fusion claims, predicts that it will eventually be revealed to not function as advertised.24" Now I'm very fond of James Randi, I respect him a great deal, I made 7 edits to Pigasus Award back in 2006. He's a great man, a good magician, and an expert in human nature, and revealing hoaxes and scams, and if he were setting up a controlled experiment to test the thing, his judgment would be irreplaceable and invaluable. But he didn't do that, and he's not a physicist, and that YouTube video backing it is published by his own foundation and not peer reviewed either, and even if it were ... it's a prediction. We're in the prediction business now? People above are objecting that the Kim paper is "hypothetical" or a "speculative hypothesis" - the Randi statement is an outright prediction of the future!
- "Kjell Aleklett, physics professor at Uppsala University, said the percentage of copper was too high for any known reaction of nickel, and the copper had the same isotopic ratio as natural copper. He also stated, "Known chemical reactions cannot explain the amount of energy measured. A nuclear reaction can explain the amount of energy, but the knowledge we have today says that this reaction cannot take place."20" That's 2 sentences backed by a link to a blog post. Again, not peer-reviewed; and, I dare say, less carefully written than the paper. Aleklett is a physicist, so presumably meets the WP:SPS guideline "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", so it should stay; but do note it is 2 sentences, so twice as long as the Kim note is proposed to be.
- "Theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel and nuclear physicist Peter Thieberger argue that" ... too long to quote fully. That's the entire last paragraph of that section, 5-6 long sentences, based on a self-published blog.[12] Note the length there; 5-6 times longer than the Kim note is proposed to be.
Fully comparable to Aleklett, Siegel, and Thieberger, Kim is also a professor and a physicist; and in addition, he is a group leader. Purdue is a comparably respected university to Uppsala. And a paper that has been presented at a conference has received at least as much scrutiny as personal blog posts. So similar weight is justified. It looks a lot like the people opposing it are doing so selectively, because they don't like what it says. We don't do that here. --GRuban (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

While not speaking directly to this issue, please note that at most U.S. universities "group leader" is an informal, self-bestowed title. The "group" is typically the professor along with his grad students and postdocs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the other sources are 'evaluating' (or at least 'speculating about') the E-Cat. Kim's paper isn't. He says so. He states that he is testing his hypothesis against 'claims made' regarding the device, not the device itself, and makes it absolutely clear that any conclusions regarding his hypothesis can only be drawn after independent 'evaluation'/experimentation. It is synthesis to represent Kim's paper as an 'evaluation' - and a violation of NPOV to cite his qualifications etc without drawing readers attention to the fact that his 'theoretical explanation' is based on an unproven hypothesis as yet unrecognised by mainstream science. As has already been stated, were Kim's concepts to receive comment in mainstream secondary sources, the situation might well change, but as it stands, all we have is a speculative primary source being misused to imply things it simply doesn't state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Then there seems to be room for compromise. What do you think the paper does state, and would you phrase it for our article? I think if you and POVbrigand do a few rounds on that, you should be able to come to a compromise on a sentence that you would both be able to accept.--GRuban (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I want to edit in Kim in order to give a NPOV together with the mainstream view of Siegel. We should inform our readers that, while the mainstream does not accept the possibility, other established scientists offer explanations based on theories that have been published in peer reviewed journals. I think it is only fair to our readers to make the text NPOV: scientists have explained why the device cannot work according to accepted physics, other scientists have offered attempts at non mainstream explanations. That's why I added the plain wording about Kim offering his BECNF theory. To offer a piece of text that is NPOV. To show that not only the mainstream scientists have become vocal about the device, but also other established scientists have expressed their view, some by getting quoted by newspapers, others like Kim by writing pre-print papers and present them at conferences. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV does not give equal weight to Kim and the mass of mainstream scientists who think cold fusion does not fit any known science. Kim is very much a minor viewpoint, and his theory has not yet been the subject of secondary comment. Bring him in when he is discussed in a reliable secondary source. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're right, Binksternet. That's not our standard. Our standard for WP:NPOV is "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Kim's paper is a reliable source, dedicated to the subject, by a published expert on the subject. It's a hard argument to make that it is so insignificant that proportionally representing it in an article of this length means not mentioning it at all. The article has maybe 100 sentences in it - are there really 200 different reliable sources on the subject of the article, so that Kim's isn't even worth one? If so, please, show them; if they're that numerous, surely the article deserves to have more than the 20 or so it has. If not, Kim's view deserves a sentence at least. --GRuban (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is NPOV to say "according to mainstream physics the claimed effect is impossible, however some scientists have offered non mainstream explanations". Now we can't add exact wording with "some scientists", because as far as I know we only have 1 scientist (Kim) as a RS that explicitely refers to the Rossi device. So I have presented the "non-mainstream" voice with the Kim paper. I am not trying to highlight the Kim theory, he just happens to be the only RS with a non-mainstream view. So I have to use him. I am not tied to the wording of the proposed line, I only use Kim as verification of the existence of "non-mainstream" RS. I have no problem to settle with a wording that does not explicitely name Kim, but puts him in as a reference only for verification of the availability of non mainstream views. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no reliable source that discusses Kim in context with the E-Cat. An unpublished non-reviewed article is not a reliable source. Kim's view isn't one of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Specifically, we have no reliable sources that mention him in context with the e-cat. We have nothing to demonstrate his views are significant. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"An unpublished non-reviewed article is not a reliable source.". It is published on the university web page of a well respected established scientist. It counts a WP:SPS until it gets published in "journal of few body systems". It was accepted for presentation at a non-fringe conference. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That does not mean it is reliable or significant. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It does when the source WP:SPS is reliable and significant. See other people's comments (GRuban, Robert Horning, 62.30.137.128, POVbrigand, and myself). This whole thing is going around in circles. Tmccc (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We should wait until the paper gets discussed in a WP:SECONDARY source. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on what policy or guideline? That seems to be a standard you are imposing that we haven't written down anywhere else, and that you aren't holding the rest of the article to. Can you consider the half the other references in that section against that same standard? James Randi? Kjell Aleklett? What about the whole last paragraph of that section, from Ethan Siegel and Peter Thieberger? (I didn't even have that in my list above, let me add it.) Those last two are both sourced to self-published blogs by scientists. Why do you consider self-published blogs by scientists reliable, and a conference-presented paper by a scientist not? It seems like the main difference is that you like the content of those, but not this. That's not what our guidelines and policies say. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

James Randi is notable, Kim is not. The Ethan Siegel and Peter Thieberger source is discussed by a secondary source, see the talk page, also see the talk page where it was also justified through parity of sources. Kim's view is not discussed in reliable secondary sources, Kim's view is not justified through parity of sources since it is a fringe theory viewpoint on a fringe device. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that argument, notability isn't relevant to reliability, which is what we're discussing here. You can search through Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and not find the word notability. The Weekly World News is notable, but not reliable. And Yeong Kim's paper may not be notable, but it is reliable for this context.

BTW, I went to the "the talk page". Here's what it says. "The blog was co-written by Dr. Peter Thieberger, Senior Physicist at Brookhaven National Laboratory; a reliable source. It was noticed by other blogs (such as The Wall Street Journal's) and discussion boards, and reprinted in the news magazine New Energy Times. The blog is worthy of this article about the E-Cat, and any other article about nickel-to-copper cold fusion schemes. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)"

Well, the WSJ link is just that, a link; it doesn't discuss the article, it doesn't even reprint the article, it just links to it, without comment. From that, and from the header: "(Posted on ScienceBlogs : Combined Feed)" I would suspect it is an automated agglomeration. And the New Energy Times has also reprinted Dr. Kim's paper. http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2010/ARL/Pres/01Kim-BoseEinsteinCondensates.pdf I do believe Siegel and Thieberger's blog post is worthy of mention in our article per WP:SPS (though 6 sentences seems undue weight). But I similarly believe Kim's paper is worthy of mention in our article, and for the same reasons.--GRuban (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another wonderful comment from "the talk page" :

"It's written by two physicists so I don't see why not. As long as the criticisms are attributable that seems to meet the criteria for a fringe article. A criticism of the device is not going to be in the peer reviewed literature because it's not part of the scientific discourse.IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)"

That seems to be from you, IRWolfie. It seems like it should apply to Dr. Kim's paper.--GRuban (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as per parity of sources (which I already mentioned above). The mainstream criticisms are attributable. Parity of sources does not justify the inclusion of a fringe theory onto the fringe topic. Here Siegel is quoted by discovery.com [13]. On your other point above; The opinions of a notable person have more due weight in an article than the opinions of someone who is not notable. This is quite clear, for example, if Stephen Hawking commented on the E-Cat clearly it would have due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me check that I understand you correctly. You are writing that if a scientist should criticize the Energy Catalyst, we should include their statement. But if that same scientist should instead support it, we shouldn't include their statement. Do I have that right? --GRuban (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If a scientist makes an extraordinary claim it requires extraordinary proof. From parity of sources, mainstream opinions are not always in journals; i.e because the Catalyzer is not mainstream and is not published, as such it is acceptable to use the Siegel blog (which coincidentally recieved attention from secondary sources as I showed above). Wikipedia should reflect the mainstream opinion with significant minority opinions sourced from reliable independent sources. What you wish to do is take a fringe theory, and say that it explains the workings of a fringe device, this does not have due weight. Yeong E. Kims promotion of his fringe theory, which is not mainstream, to explain the Catalyzer is an extraordinary claim, but you wish to include it from a mediocre source. It is not a significant minority opinion of the E-Cat. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So that's a "yes"? --GRuban (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The paper does not mention E-Cat so it cannot be included in the E-Cat article. What's needed is a secondary source that connects the dots, saying Kim's hypothesis applies to the E-Cat. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The BECNF theory by Kim is discussed in these papers which were published in mainstream peer reviewed journals:

"Storms, E., Status of cold fusion (2010). Naturwiss., 2010. 97(10): p. 861-881."
"Krivit, S. and J. Marwan, A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research. J. Environ. Monit., 2009. 11: p. 1731-1746.".
"Advances in proposed D-Cluster inertial confiment fusion target by George H Miley et al. Journal of Physics: Conference Series Volume 244 Part 3"
"A possible in situ 3H and 3He source in Earth’s interior: an alternative explanation of origin of 3He in deep Earth by Songsheng Jiang, Jing Liu and Ming He NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN Volume 97, Number 7, 655-662".

These papers are all secondary sources to the BECNF theory. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Links for the above Storms Krivit Miley Jiang a13ean (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

TO quote the first one "The absence of a useful theory is presently a major handicap to progress". The second one has a brief mention of a paper by Kim, along with a large number of other theories. The third one has a single sentence line mentioning Kim. The last one also has a very brief mention, and mentions a reaction from the paper. None of these seem to do much more than acknowledge that Kim wrote this paper, and don't seem to relate it to any particular device. a13ean (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks bad for your argument, POVbrigand. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not bad for my argument Binksternet. We do not write that BECNF is the right one, do we ? The BECNF is not presented as the correct theory, this is not about promoting Kim as the correct theory. We write THAT a theory has been proposed by a credible scientist to add a perspective to the Siegel blog paragraph. All the peer reviewed papers have noted and commented on Kim's theory, some agreeing, some disagreeing. Thus the BECNF theory is discussed within the field (Storms, Krivit) and outside of the field (Miley, Jiang). Your argument was that there is no secondary source, here are four of them, and all from scientists in mainstream peer reviewed journals. A theory proposal by a respected scientist that was peer reviewed and is mentioned in other peer reviewed sources is not something you can just dismiss.

The pre-print paper we are discussing is Kim's proposal how this BECNF theory can also explain Ni-H fusion and he explicitly refers to Rossi's device. We are not discussing a brand new theory that was written after Rossi appeared a year ago. With his pre-print paper Kim expresses that his theory also applies to Rossi's device.

--POVbrigand (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A person unfamilar with the scientific method may think that an idea is significant if it is mentioned in a journal, this is not the case. 2 mentions where J. Environ. Monit. is not an appropriate journal does not make something part of the discourse (2 mentions is actually a tiny mention). You appear to miss the scale of these fields. But the BECNF theory isn't on trial (no matter how fringe a view it is). What is of interest is significant coverage in reliable sources that link the BECNF to the E-Cat of which there is zero. Yeong Kim is not notable, his BECNF theory is fringe. In fact, no reliable source makes the link of the BECNF to the E-cat. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT the place to ONLY present the mainstream science view, read WP:FRINGE. A person unfamiliar with physics may think that the only view on the subject is the mainstream view, this is not the case. As per NPOV, we should not mislead our readers by presenting ONLY a blog entry explaining why the mainstream view thinks the device cannot work. In his interview Bushnell spoke about the Widom-Larson theory and the Rossi device. Kim offers his BECNF theory as an explanation. These are both respectable scientist. I am not interested in highlighting one of those theories, but if we want to have a NPOV article, then we must somehow mention that there is more to it that just mainstream ideas, that non-mainstream physics views regarding the device exists. Currently none of that is mentioned, a clear case of POV editing. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Japanese scientist Ken-ichi TSUCHIYA from Tokyo National College of Technology writes in his 2011 paper "Theoretical study of nuclear reactions in solids using Bose-Einstein condensation model": "In our previous work on Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) approach to the theoretical interpretation of cold fusion [1], we estimated the transition temperature of BEC in palladium deuteride. It was based on the Kim’s work [2] by using equivalent linear two-body method to the many-body problems of charged bosons trapped in an ion trap. In the recent work of Kim et al.[3], they have expanded their theory in order to explain the Rossi’s experiment [4]. In this study, BEC for the two species case in solids and its transition temperature are discussed by using Kim’s theory." [14]

Within the field it is noted and discussed that Kim has "expanded his theory in order to explain Rossi's experiment".

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable that Kim is included; I find it difficult to understand why people keep reverting the one sentence that references him. Tmccc (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good find, POVbrigand. It's not quite what I pictured, some journalist writing an article about the topic, but it establishes that other researchers in the field, ones unrelated to Rossi or Kim, have connected the dots and placed Kim's theory in context with the E-Cat. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We should make it clear that "dots" Storms, Krivit, Miley, Tsuchiya, et al. are all in the cold fusion/LENR "universe". I.e. They are all related. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that we got that out of the way, I will reinsert the original line, please feel free to add or rewrite. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it should be made clear that it is in-universe, the mention is from a cold fusion conference. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Propose to close the discussion here and continue on the article talk page. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WND (WorldNetDaily?, WorldNetWeekly?, not sure what the acronym stands for)

An anonymous user has inserted the following story into four settlement articles (Marion, Alabama; Dover, Tennessee; Red House, Virginia and Commerce, Georgia thus far) from www.wnd.com: [http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/381953/ 35 terror training camps now operating inside U.S. - Government does nothing to impede expansion of 'Soldiers of Allah' network]. I'd say that WND (I'd never heard of it until today) is extremely right wing at very least and so anti-Muslim that it is likely unreliable as a verifiable source for the above story, at least on this particular subject. Am seeking additional community input to avoid bias. Altairisfar (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

From multiple previous discussions, NOT a reliable source. Ravensfire (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Most definitely an unreliable source. Completely useless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Notoriously unreliable, with a reputation for a complete lack of fact checking on even the most absurd of claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Heartily agree. Elinruby (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

...and on that note we should probably do something about this... Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It'd be okay for articles about its own staff, and the bizarre conspiracy theories it promotes, per WP:ABOUTSELF (assuming none of the restrictions in that policy are violated), but I agree that everywhere else it should go. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the (sort of) good news is that of the 851 entries shown, only 301 are in actual articles... Fat&Happy (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess redirecting wnd.com urls to tin foil hat isn't an option... Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd probably get complaints from tinfoil hat-wearers that you were making them look bad by lumping them in with WND. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great. So now I won't have to worry about removing it on sight. Thanks! Altairisfar (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We probably should also take a close look at the sourcing of Muslim Mafia (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an article about a book that has the dubious distinction of being published by WND. Most of the article appears to be a fairly superficial media he-says/she-says, rather than any substantive/expert analysis of the book's sensationalising claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- WND, Canada Free Press, Hudson Institute, Investigative Project, Pajamas Media, ..., ..., oy, it's a goldmine of unreliable sources. And someow I'm not surprised to see that the creator is indefinitely blocked for abuse of editing privileges. You're right, that article seriously needs cleanup. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor on Burlington Township High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to think that WND is okay as long as its explicitly quoted (they also think an unpublished school statement is an acceptable source). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian and CounterPunch are extreme left-wing and anti-Semitic sites that are used as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Another left-wing extremist site regularly used is Haaretz. So I suppose the only reason WMD is not acceptable for Wikipedia is because Wikipedia itself is a left-wing extremist site.

No, you suppose wrong. See WP:RS and WP:NPOV for Wikipedia's policies on sources and neutrality and search WP:RSN for discussions about specific sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. WND is at the edges of what could be considered RS, and you wouldn't use it as the sole source for a contentious claim involving Islam. The way it is used in that article mentioned above, about the school, is likely appropriate, because it is cited critically and contrasted with other sources. Not to mention that it's being used as a source about fundamentalist Christianity in the latter case.

As far as that list of 35 alleged Jamaat ul-Fuqra training camps, there was such a list, but it may be long out of date. It appears to be something the police or prosecutors used in a case involving the group years ago, see the case study Identifying the Links Between White-Collar Crime and Terrorism (ncjrs.gov). The timeframe involved was 20-30 years ago.

As an aside, a commenter on the SPLC's blog says that while JI might have had a presence in Marion, AL at one time, there's an Episcopal church at that location now.[15] Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dwarf planets

We are having an extended debate dwarf planet and related articles (Haumea, Makemake, {{Moons of dwarf planets}}, etc.) about reflecting sources. One side wants to reflect only the POV of the International Astronomical Union, which has not addressed the issue since 2008. The other wants to also reflect more recent POVs from leading planetary astronomers, such as Scott Sheppard and Mike Brown. At issue is whether we say that an object "is" a dwarf planet, is likely to be, or is accepted as such by (whoever). (3 are universally accepted, 2 more are accepted by the IAU, and 4 more by Brown and some others.) This has been going on for months, with a lot of bad-faith edits and personal attacks. These articles are FA, which makes the lack of up-to-date sourcing more egregious. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems more like a POV dispute than a reliability issue. Generally speaking, when reliable sources disagree, we document the dispute without taking sides. However, Mike Brown is not an independent source. From what I can gather, NASA regards both Haumea and Makemake as dwarf planets.[16][17] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"we document the dispute without taking sides": That's exactly what I'm advocating. The other side of this debate wants to take the IAU's side, because they see them as the authority. IMO we should only say an object is a DP when all RS's agree that it is, and otherwise say that it is accepted as a DP by the IAU or whoever. Either that, or say that an object is a DP when any RS says it is. But not say it is if my preferred source says it is, and not otherwise.

Brown is the leading expert in the field, and there are other astronomers who agree with him. Yes, Haumea and Makemake are generally regarded as DPs, due to their acceptance by the IAU, but Sheppard, who co-discovered half the moons in the Solar system, does not accept that as established. He says that they are "likely" to be DPs, the same term he uses for the four others that Brown advocates. Sheppard, the IAU, Brown, and Tancredi have different criteria for which objects it is safe to say qualify as DPs, and come up with 3, 5, 9, and 12 dwarf planets. One side of this WP debate wishes to restrict our articles to the IAU view, and say that all the IAU five and only those five "are" DPs. — kwami (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is a dispute between the IAU and other experts in the field, then you cannot say de facto that anything is something. You have you say that the IAU considers this to be a DP and these other experts consider it to likely be a DP. An short explanation of the different standards that these experts are using may also be required for clarification in the article. But if there is a dispute between experts in the field (and the IAU count as experts, but experts alone and shouldn't be held as definitive on the subject. Our readers must place their own emphasis on which opinion holds better weight, we as editors may not), then you must adequately show both sides of the dispute without being biased toward one side or the other. Silver seren^C 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you say that at talk:Haumea (dwarf planet)? — kwami (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no dispute. kwami simply tries to present it as a dispute by lying about sources. See my detailed answer. Ruslik_Zero 13:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense: Sheppard say there "are" 3 DPs. The IAU says there "are" 5. Brown says there "are" 9. Tancredi says there "are" 12. No amount of sophistry will change that. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheppard (page 7) says Haumea and Makemake are likely dwarf planets in the same sentence that he claims smaller objects are also likely dwarf planets. At no point does he claim the IAU is wrong. Michael E. Brown, Scott S. Sheppard and User:Kheider are not 100% certain Hauema and Makemake are dwarf planets. But we are also not 100% certain we will be alive tomorrow. This is not really a controversy, it is more POV pushing to "upgrade" the status of 4 more dwarf planet candidates in the dwarf planet article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The point, of course, is that Sheppard does not draw the line where the IAU does. That is a real difference. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Two points:

From a pure policy perspective, Brown and Sheppard are not independent sources as they are discovers of some of these objects. We should rely on more independent sources such as NASA and IAU which regard both Haumea and Makemake as dwarf planets. I really don't think that we're in position to overrule NASA and IAU.
From a pure practicality perspective, I doubt if the average reader cares about this POV dispute. We write our articles for the reader's benefits, not our own. I really am having trouble burdening the reader with having to read about whether these are really planets. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Overrule"? Any point in not reporting the sources we have, instead deciding for ourselves which to report and which not to? --JorisvS (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Political science source in climate change articles

Dunlap, Riley E. and McCright, Aaron M. (2011). "Climate Change Denial: Sources, actors, and strategies". In Constance Lever-Tracy. Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0415544785.

Can it be regarded as a reliable academic secondary source? Or is it tertiary? Can it be used widely in articles on the politics of climate change? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Would be glad for any comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

At an initial glance, it seems to be reliable (has someone argued that it isn't? What were their concerns?) ... The principle author appears to be a respected academic. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

On Climate change denial, someone thinks it is too tertiary in nature to be of use. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is a reliable source. What I was saying is that it is a summary of other papers and a tertiary source. And by the way climate change denial is not an academic study of political science. Dmcq (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is the other way round: 'climate change denial' is an entirely appropriate field of study for social and political sciences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone have a chance to look at the paper itself? It doesn't appear to me to be a summary of papers. It does of course refer to the existing literature and brings together many ideas that the authors have been developing over a number of papers. These are perhaps the two most important authors in the new literature on the politics of climate change. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What statement is it being used to support that is at issue? IRWolfie- (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have given up interest in the area. Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of concordats

The article appears to extensively reference the concordats themselves, to make synthetic claims critical of them.
Many of the secondary sources that are in the article appear to be to online publications of uncertain reliability and/or prominence (examples: [18][19][20][21]).

Is there enough well-sourced material here to be worth saving? Or would I be better off merging what little clearly-reliably sourced material into Concordat (of which this article appears to be a WP:POVFORK)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed this article be merged at Talk:Concordat#Merger proposal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is YouTube a RS for Milton William Cooper?

A list of shortwave programs originated by Cooper is featured in the article. The list includes comments on the subjects of the broadcast, all sourced solely to YouTube. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

YouTube isn't a source for anything - it consists of material generated elsewhere, and uploaded to the site. On that basis, the question should be is the original material a reliable source for what it is being cited for (with the caveat that it may have been altered before being uploaded). Then again, material is often uploaded to YouTube in breach of copyright - which is in itself a sufficient reason to be wary of linking to it. Given that the multiple links seem to source nothing but a list of radio broadcast titles, I can see little merit to doing anything beyond deleting the list itself, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy is correct... YouTube is not a source... YouTube is a venue. The source is the person who posted the video to YouTube. There are several issues here...

First, in assessing this source, we need to ask whether we have a reasonable expectation that the YouTube videos are reliable "true copies" of Cooper's original broadcasts. In this case, I have to say: "No, we do not have such a reasonable expectation." The videos were posted to YouTube by an anonymous blogger going by the name "Conspiracy Scope". This anonymous blogger could easily have edited Cooper's broadcasts in some way (so that they no longer are "true copies" of the broadcasts). Indeed, you could say that "Conspiracy Scope" has altered the original... since he has added video to what was originally an audio broadcast.

Second, as Andy has pointed out, we do not know if Conspriacy Scope has permission to post a copy of Cooper's broadcast... if not, we violate copyright laws by linking to it. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I agree with Andy for the most part (saying "YouTube isn't a source for anything" could be confusing to a new editor). A couple of the uploaders at YouTube (axis4peace4 and ConspiracyScope) are not RS as they do not have a proven "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Although it might sound weird, the community has objected to including videos unless it can be verified that they were uploaded from RS since there could have been some modification. There is also a question of copyright but I doubt he had that work copyrighted (unless it is automatically assumed for short wave broadcasts). Also note that even if those videos were from a primary source, they would not assert notability (mentioning since it is up for deletion). Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, under current copyright law, everything is automatically copyrighted at the moment it is created. No copyright notice or registration is required. Whether the broadcast is protected by copyright depends on things like when it was made, whether it was pre-recorded or live, etc. You just can't assume anything that can be copied is free from copyright. In particular, since these broadcasts were made in 1993 and on, they are protected by copyright unless they were explicitly put into the public domain by their creator. Yworo (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights. What would be a RS for the "episode list"? Wait, I think I can answer that: a program listing published by a radio station (in Cooper's case, a shortwave outlet that rented air time by the hour) might qualify as an acceptable source for a list of show titles and broadcast dates. Unfortunately I think SELFPUB Cooper fan sites are where the current info has been gleaned from. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

One further point. Sourcing material may often be necessary to justify inclusion in an article, but it isn't in itself sufficient. The list of broadcast titles tells the reader nothing of any real significance about their content - as I suggested earlier, I think the list itself is of little merit, regardless of issues over sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I doubt the fans won't revert it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the list itself was reverted and explained in an angry note left on my Talk Page saying, "These broadcasts exist. They are verifiable by simply listening to them, whether you listen to them on youtube or not." - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

USA International Business Publications isn't reliable?

I am trying to use USA International Business Publications for a citation and another editor has repeatedly refused to allow me to to cite them but won't explain why they aren't considered reliable or provide a link an article explaining why. What's more a number of articles cite USA International Business Publications. If there is nothing wrong with the group I'd like to report this person's behavior. --CatholicW (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, IBUS is a fly-by-night book-on-demand shop. Their website is not even half configured (try their Shipping & Returns page or their Privacy Policy or their Conditions of Use page). Unless you have good evidence otherwise, I'd call then non-reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your "respectable source" isn't a reliable source because, as you have been told, it is a reprint of a Wikipedia article. Even if you like what it says, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for itself. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And in case CatholicW needs actual evidence of that, try comparing the text starting "In response to the rumours circulating over Kim's health and supposed loss of power" onwards on this page of the book in question with the matching sections of our article in 2009. USA International Business Publications appears to be totally self-published and copying Wikipedia articles, their books should be removed from any article they are used as a source in. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I went through and yanked a bunch right after posting here. Most were fairly harmless: which is the largest in a particular group of islands and such. In any case, they're all "citation needed" now. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Blog by claimed "expert"

In two recent occasions, different days, different IP editors have tried to add a reference to a blog. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. However, as it has been raised twice, I would like the opinion of other editors where the following link is to be considered a RS:

http://www.andrewerickson.com/2011/07/general-chen-bingde-pla-chief-of-general-staff-becomes-first-chinese-official-to-confirm-publicly-that-%E2%80%9C2700-km-range%E2%80%9D-df-21d-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-asbm-is-in-development/

An IP editor claims the person to be a "foremost expert", and I don't have an independent verification of the claim. The individual appears to be an Associate Professor at the U.S. Navy War College; but that doesn't explain the removal of information hosted at a consulate website, which is a reliable source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The expert exception pretty much requires that the expert has been previously published by an independent publisher in the field of expertise. Just saying they are an expert is not enough, ask what books or journal articles of theirs have been published. If they have a reasonable bibliography of published (not self-published!) material, they probably qualify. Yworo (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the blog. Those U.S. Naval Institute Press books of which the expert is the first listed co-editor would tend to indicate that the expert is qualified. Most likely the same information is also in the books. It would be better to cite the books, if possible. Yworo (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Unless the blog is outright fraudulent, the author would seem eminently qualified to comment on the range of Chinese missiles. --FormerIP (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It does meet rs standards for self-published works as the writer is an expert. However judgement should be used. This is really an anomaly in rs. The consequence is the blogs of experts who are politically involved (e.g., Chomsky, Gingrich, Ignatieff, Krugman) become elevated to rs. TFD (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS is clear on this one - a named expert, recognized as such, writing in his sphere of expertise, is a "reliable source." If editors do not "like" a source countradicting what they WP:KNOW then they must, perforce, find sources by other experts with disparate views. Too often we find editors insisting "but that expert is wrong" or "others disagree with that expert" in an attempt to remove writings by a person generally acknowledged to be an expert from an article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The editing dispute appears to be specifically about the maximum range of a missile (either it's 2000, 2700, or 3000 mi.) Since he is a recognized expert, might not there be other reliable sources that echo his opinion? That may help defuse the "sourcing to a blog" problem. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no "sourcing to a blog" problem, since it meets the "expert" exception. Also, the date is most likely also in one of the expert's books. That's where I'd suggest looking for a replacement for the blog cite, even though there is no need to do this. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: The provision for using experts writing in their own field dates to March 2009. Collect (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:James_Kirchick#Kirchick_Integrity

An editor has removed a claim on the James Kirchick article based on a YouTube video by someone named Ben Swan reporting for something called Reality Check. I never heard of either him or Reality Check, and it isn't clear if the person who uloaded the video has the rights to it. See Talk:James_Kirchick#Kirchick_Integrity for a link to the video. I don't think this is a reliable source from which to remove the information from the article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ninjato again

I would put it in the above section, but i'm afraid people won't see the new info. User:Chanbara has added new sources to try to cover the museum info in the Ninjatō article. However, these concern me a lot more than his previous attempt (which was overall still useful, just not for what it was trying to be used for). The sources include these two pages, which at first glance seems like they would be useful, as there is at least commentary with the images, albeit short. But if you reduce the URL to find out what this site is supposed to be, you end up here, a fan site for Christa Jacobson. So...I don't think those two pages are reliable.

Also added was a link to Japanese Warrior, which I have no reason to believe is reliable. There's no listing of who writes it or what the website is being published on. So, anyways, are these sources reliable or not? Silver seren^C 21:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Silver seren^C 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is everyone responding to other sections below, but not this one? :( Silver seren^C 01:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

First one to tripod, no, not reliable. Second one, also no, I see no evidence of editorial control. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :3 I'm still going to wait until 1 or 2 more people respond here before taking any action. Silver seren^C 01:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone else please respond to this section? Silver seren^C 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the comments of Darkness shines

As above, [22][23] is unreliable as it is a self created website [24]

[25] looks like a self published website as well. No indication of reliability nor even who runs the website. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea this board existed. Now that I do, let me ask. What would constitute a "reliable source" for this? There are many different sites which have photos taken by people who have visited these museums and taken photos of the swords (I myself visited the Iga museum in person). How are multiple first hand reports (blogs, photo-albums, etc...) and in-person visits from a variety of different people with similar photographic evidence not reliable evidence? The official Iga-ryu Ninja Museum website has a photo of the display in question, but unfortunately it's very small. Before I attempt to find new "reliable sources", I would appreciate any guidance or suggestions you may have. Cheers. Chanbara (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, the first step is that reliable sources need to be published. The only alternative to that is for them to have been sources made by an expert in the field, which would fall under WP:SPS, but those should be used sparingly. So what you're looking for is published information, such as news articles, books, papers, things like that. A random photograph that anyone took isn't reliable because we have no proof that it is what it says it is. Only if it is known that the person or place where it is being hosted is reliable, with the person being an expert or the place being a published location, then we know it is reliable. Silver seren^C 06:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well I have a few questions then. Is an official website considered a "published" location? And am I to assume that unlike the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words", on Wikipedia a photo (or multiple different photos from different people for that matter) is worth zero words? And also does what you said mean that if I was to find a "published article" talking about one of the museums featuring a photo clearly of the sword the Wikipedia article is about, but not mentioning it by any one of its names, it would be insufficient? What if a published location like this has a photo of the same sword seen on many visitor report blogs and photos (like these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9), calls it by name, and lists "(c)Ueno City Tourist Association" on it? Is that sufficient? I know the Iga-ryu Ninja Museum is not mentioned by name, but "(c)Ueno City Tourist Association" and "Copyright © 2011 Igaueno Tourist Association" which is what's listed on the official "Iga-Ryu Ninja Museum website refer to the same thing (see here). The small photo of the display is here listed under "Ninja Experience Hall" on the official Iga-ryu Ninja Museum website. I assume it can't be used by itself and can't be used in conjuction with any of the other links listed above to coroborate it? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand all the rules. Cheers. Chanbara (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there do exist reliable sources on the topic. The visitor pictures on blogs and self published sources are not suitable. I don't see any indication from web-japan that it is an official website of anything, it seems to be self published as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Which site are you refering to when you say that it's not an official website of anything? The one I listed as being the official Iga-ryu Ninja Museum site? Because it is indicated on web-japan, see here and here. Or do you mean web-japan itself which is "sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)" and also says on the museum section that it's "produced for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by Kodansha International Ltd."? Cheers. Chanbara (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of it being the official Iga-ryu Ninja Museum site; this one appears to be [26]. Web-japan appear to be sponsored by the MOFA but it is not a goverment website. I am unsure if it is reliable; need more input from others. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. I'm not saying Web-Japan is the official Iga-ryu Ninja Museum site, just that they refer / link to it directly here and here. I clearly stated above that the official website for Iga-ryu Ninja Museum was http://iganinja.jp/en which is the same thing as yours http://iganinja.jp/en/index.html And how is it possible that a site about Japanese tourist destinations like museums sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) might not be considered reliable?! Cheers. Chanbara (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have these references for my article yet administrators keep saying they are not relabile enough

Retrieve Date : 2012-01-09
No 1 : http://www.gamespot.com - Alexa Ranking : 429 , Google Page Rank : 8
No 2 : http://xin.07073.com - Alexa Ranking : 3,122 , Google Page Rank : 5
No 3 : http://www.mmorpg.com - Alexa Ranking : 9,362 , Google Page Rank : 5
No 4 : http://www.bbgsite.com - Alexa Ranking : 17,043 , Google Page Rank : 4
No 5 : http://www.onrpg.com - Alexa Ranking : 20,987 , Google Page Rank : 5
No 6 : http://mmohuts.com - Alexa Ranking : 25,108 , Google Page Rank : 6
No 7 : http://browsergamez.com - Alexa Ranking : 80,844 , Google Page Rank : 5
No 8 : http://www.monstermmorpg.com - Alexa Ranking : 87,933 , Google Page Rank : 3
No 9 : http://gameonline2.com - Alexa Ranking : 165,623 , Google Page Rank : 1

The articles used as references

By Ange Perdu (2011) : http://mmohuts.com/browser-games/monster-mmorpg
By Remko Molenaar (Proxzor), OnRPG Journalist Co-Written by Darren Henderson (DizzyPW), OnRPG Editor-in-Chief (10-12-2011) : http://www.onrpg.com/MMO/MonsterMMORPG/review/MonsterMMORPG-Fight-to-the-Top
By Qing Lan (2011-12-09) : http://xin.07073.com/haiwai/539191.html
By GameSpot administration : http://www.gamespot.com/monstermmorpg/platform/webonly
By MMORPG.com administration : http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/731/MonsterMMORPG.html
By bbgsite.com administration : http://gamelist.bbgsite.com/goto/monster-mmorpg.shtml
By browsergamez.com administration : http://monster-mmorpg.browsergamez.com/
By gameonline2.com administration : http://gameonline2.com/online/monster-mmorpg

This was my submission : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonsterMMORPG

Now this is a browser based mmorpg game. It is most fit at this category and same genre with the games there : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_games
When i look the games there listed, 90% of them has lesser authoritative references links than me. I really do not understand how the reviewers are deciding whether a link is authoritative or not.
So i believe that the references are enough to prove that MonsterMMORPG is a notable game to be listed on wikipedia. Thank you.
OnlineGamesExpert (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to tell user ShareToGain, on IRC (#wikipedia-en-help), to focus on the better links (such as this) and dump the less credible references (such as this and this), but ShareToGain is determined to use all of the links. Banaticus (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that some of the generally more notable references (gamespot) have very minimal content (almost database/directory style for this particular game)

Note that it is not particular for this game. GameSpot does not make full reviews for browser games yet (at least it is what i am said) but they do analyze the game and decides whether the game is notable enough to be added their game listing or not. Also there are very good and not very good reference links and what should really matter is sum of the reference links authority to decide whether game is notable or not.OnlineGamesExpert (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Book by Donald R Hale

Hi folks, I just obtained a copy of this book, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source (for this article primarily). Its author has written a bunch of civil war books, but I don't think he was an academic historian--he seems to have been the president of a couple local history societies [27]. The book I have was published by this publisher, it's apparently a Private press. So do you think this book is a reliable source? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

After reading your question, I just reviewed WP:RS again and noticed these policies that might be helpful here: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes" and also along the lines of the citation index: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." It seems like it would be worthwhile to confirm what type of references are listed in the book's bibliography as well. These are a few thoughts I had on your question and as you might have noticed, there are quite a few editors who seem to be extremely well-versed on sourcing issues. Maybe your question will catch their attention as well. Good luck.Coaster92 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Good thoughts, thanks. I did notice that the authors of this book list Hale as a good source in their research. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

From my reading of the Wiki policy, this tends to give reliability to the source because this reflects that Hale's book is considered a reliable source by other authors, at least these authors, according to the full WP:RS guideline on this:

"Usage by other sources Shortcut: WP:USEBYOTHERS How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." There is also this section of WP:RS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." It sounds like you are going in the right direction.Coaster92 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Powerpopaholic: usable as a source?

I'm in the process of trying to clean up an article that's up for deletion (Skeleton Staff) and most of the links were unusable. The sole site that survived is a blog called "Powerpopaholic". I'm almost entirely sure that this blog is unusable as a reliable source, but before I completely remove the article's remaining sources I wanted to double check that this blog is non-notable and not usable as a reliable or trivial source. The blog is only sporadically used on Wikipedia, with most of the links that I found belonging to a similarly titled blog that is now dead in the water. Here's a link to the website: [28].Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

[29] makes it pretty clear that while the person may well be wonderful, the blog falls squarely under the WP definition thereof. Not RS as a source. Collect (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Academic Conferences

Hi all, I've been directed here from Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Augmentative_and_alternative_communication_discussion. There is a dispute at Augmentative and alternative communication (the full conversation is at Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies although it wanders off into a separate dispute as well.

We would like some help resolving a difference of opinion on the answer to the question of "Are the peer reviewed proceedings from academic conferences considered acceptable sources for wikipedia?" (Two pertinent facts may well be that a: both editors would like the article to go to FAC and have the required high-standard of sourcing and b: the conferences in question are often computer science ones that may be treated differently by some editors).

We are aware that this has been covered on this board before, but the results of those discussions are disagreed about. Anyone who wants to comment here, at the dispute thread on the talk page, or at the dispute noticeboard would be very welcome to do so.

Thank you very much in advance. Failedwizard (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can give a straight yes or no to conference proceedings. Some reports of proceedings are very strictly peer reviewed and just as good as any edited collections of academic papers. Others are hardly reviewed at all, and the papers may be tentative work-in-progress. We can be guided by the editor's introduction, by the publisher's policy, whether the proceedings are part of a series, and other indicators. Also on whether the papers have been subsequently cited. If an author has subsequently published a revised version of the paper in a journal, or makes the same point in a peer-reviewed source, then we should use that other source instead. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, mostly. In computer science in particular, high-class conference proceedings (e.g. published by Springer or AAAI) are the primary means of scientific publishing, and are equivalent to good journal articles. They are fully peer reviewed. However, just as with a journals, there is a spectrum of conferences, and some are less reputable. As an example, the proceedings of IJCAR or IJCAI are high-quality sources equal to any journal in the field. On the other hand, everything that starts with "World Multiconference..." is, to phrase it carefully, "less generally accepted". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it truly depends on the conference, and perhaps on the paper and author as well. All of my examples are also in information technology, where I have attended conferences ranging from highly peer-reviewed, to an approval process that did not imply endorsement, to presentations what essentially amounted to "we have released a new version of the software, and here is why you should upgrade." The latter might be reliable for a list of features, but probably not for an analysis of the competitive ecosystem. For example. In other words, maybe. HTH Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends also what it is a source for. Here there are a number of factors:

How remarkable is the claim?
How is it worded? (cf. Foos are bars... X's preliminary study showed foos are bars.... X has been studying whether foos are bars... )
Is it an early result where it make sense to use this reference until something else is available?

Rich Farmbrough, 12:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

Thank you very much Judith, Stephan, Elinruby and Rich - Sorry for not making much contribution - I wanted to make sure that I was getting a community opinion without influencing with my own views. Given that there doesn't appear to be a hard and fast rule in general - can I ask about the specific case? Would you guys have an issue with the conferences ASSETS, IUI, and SLPAT.

ASSETS - Peer reviewed [30] (acceptance rate 37% [31])
SLPAT - Double blind peer reviewed [32] (can't find acceptance rate)
IUI - Double blind peer reviewed [33] (acceptance rate 29%)

being used to support [this] added paragraph? That would let us bring in a lot more modern work in the field even if we restrict ourselves to just those conferences. Failedwizard (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

All seem OK to me but you need views from people who know more about ICT research. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I read that paragraph previously, and there is nothing exceptional about it, it is made fairly clear that the proposed solutions are being researched, therefore I would accept any reference supporting that (apart form a fraudulent grant submission

). The only thing I have a possible issue with is the first sentence, a good AAC may or may not need "new utterances" programming manually (and if so, often not by users) depending on the utterance and definition of "new", and, possibly, the interface. And therefore it is there that I would look for clarification in the reference, and for stronger support for the statement (which is an absolute one about the subject, rather than a meta statement about research). And indeed briefly checking the reference this does seem to have been a rather sweeping extrapolation:

At the simplest level, people with Complex Communication Needs (CCN) can cause a pre-stored message to be spoken by activating a single switch. At the most sophisticated level, literate users can generate novel text using input methods ranging from a single switch to a full keyboard.

(For me, one of the most interesting things for me, about reading papers these days is how much authors say without supporting references, which would be challenged here.)

Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Well, papers are read by reviewers, who are supposedly knowledgeable about the domain, so they can apply an expert version of WP:CK. They are intended for an expert audience. And finally, researchers are expected to present original research, not forbidden from it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a quick point, I think it's actually this sentence in the source that was used for the first sentence, if the paragraph goes back in I'll add the direct quote as a comment.

This results in a situation where new utterances must be prepared in advance either by the user or a carer, with a large time and energy cost.

Failedwizard (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote on my talk page: It's not my field, and I'm really too busy to check this in detail. However, my first instinct is that conferences associated with the ACM should be acceptable. Workshops are not, generally, at the same level - in general, Workshops will also present work in progress, and first results. However, there are some prestigious conferences that simply continue to be called "Workshop on...", so that is not a strong criterion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So if I can summaries this - the answer in general is roughly 'it very much depends', and in the particularly case of these three conferences there are no particular warning bells being thrown up? (Which is lovely, of course). Thank you all so much for your help, my plan now is to take some more advice at dispute with a view to either reinstating the paragraph to see what happens, or reopening the dispute in general. Thanks again.Failedwizard (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian News Websites

Hi all, I am doing an expansion of Chrisye and hoping to bring it to FA in the near future. A fellow editor has suggested that I use several sources to show that numerous acts, including Afgan, Ari Lasso, Kahitna, Fariz RM, Peterpan, and Sherina, were influenced by him. However, we've never had a look into the reliability of these websites. In order to have a discussion to cite, I'd like us to look into them.

First, www.kapanlagi.com is an independent Indonesian celebrity news website with editorial control and paid staff. It is often quoted in more mainstream media, such as here, and has been integrated into the local version of Chrome and is among the more popular sites in Indonesia.

Second, www.okezone.com is a celebrity news website owned by media giant Media Nusantara Citra, also with editorial control and paid contributors. It is sometimes quoted in the mainstream media, like here.

The third, Inilah.com, is fairly popular news portal with editorial control that sometimes has articles reprinted in more mainstream media, like here.

Any feedback would be welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bump. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ludovico Arroyo Bañas

I would like to call in to question the references used to support the content found at the article Ludovico Arroyo Bañas. The two major references used is an essay hosted on Angelfire, and affidavits that I cannot verify the existence of.

I am looking for community opinions as to whether the references used in the article meet WP:RS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Though question. Normally I would say that Angelfire is not RS, but reading through the page I noticed a few things:

The article is well written. The authors are introduced and to me seem to be capable of providing an overview of the topic. Further, the page has a bibliography, indicating that some of the information is from other sources and not primary:

Historical Calendar, National Historical Commission, Manila 1970
Philippine Information Paper submitted to the Trade Union Seminar/conference for Asian Labor Leaders September 14 to October 14, 1978, Federal Republic of Germany
Reyes, Edmundo A., A History of Amateur Radio in the Philippines, Quezon City, 1974
Reyes, Pedrito , Pictorial History of the Philippines, Quezon City 1953
Stevens , Frederic H., Sto. Tomas Internment Camp (1942-1945), Limited Edition 1946
Telecom News, Bureau of Telecommunications, Manila

And finally, the author left his email address, maybe he can be contacted to clarify which parts are primary sourced by him and his co-author and which parts are from RS.

To me those are signs that, maybe, the use of this source should not be dismissed outright. Which doesn't mean it is 100% proof RS, the "unreliable source" tags are absolutely justified.

Finally, I can imagine that free web hosting sites like Angelfire are popular in countries were internet infrastructure is set up differently than in the US or Europe. For the authors, it might be a viable way of self publication. That should be taken into consideration too.

--POVbrigand (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

An official Facebook?

I know Facebook and other social media sites are generally not reliable sources. However, if a post/status is made on an official Facebook or other social media site of someone involved in a show's production, can that be used to source something on the show's article? Specifically, I'm wondering if a post like this one made by Debby Ryan on her official Facebook (or posts to her Twitter or WhoSay, where she has also posted things like the Facebook post I linked to) could be used to source international airdates on the article Jessie (TV series). - Purplewowies (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

She happens to be right, but I'd suggest a source such as this, the online version of the magazine fr:Télé Loisirs. Andrew Dalby 10:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I do understand that if a better source is out there, it should be used. But what if her social media is the only/best source, since she's posted about other countries as well? Or is it still unreliable because it's Facebook/Twitter/etc? - Purplewowies (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Practice seem to be if you can get away with it then... but if you use Facebook/Twitter/etc, an editor will be able to delete with an edit summary that it violates policies and guidelines and to restore would actually invoke burden of proof or an act that can be seen as edit warring. Just because an editor states there is "no other" or "this is best" does not mean it will be accepted anyway. Applicable reasoning:

Reliable, third-party sources.
WP:SOCIALMEDIA
WP:REDFLAG
WP:Notability
WP:No original research
This is just a quick check and there are probably others. Otr500 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense. I won't use her. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

http://sevensixtyeight.com/

I'm wondering if this would be a reliable source to use for this page?--Jamcad01 (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a local pop scene website, desperately looking for writers (even if they don't have any experience). I'd say definitely not for an article of such global subject matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". No evidence for that here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the source is not reliable. Consensus is that sources for that article have to be of the highest standard. This site is far from it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon

Has several sources. I fear that almost none of them may meet WP:RS though as not being sufficiently "on point" to say much about the film. Will someone kindly examine that article? The best of the lot seems to be boxofficemojo.com, but the others seems a teeny bit inadequate at best, or only tangentially mentioning the film. (bcmagazine.net as a source for "as many onlookers claim that Zhao Zilong's armour resembles the samurai's" and asianbite.com for " the costume she wore was made from faux fur instead.[3]") Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

teenage scholars in theology

Is this anonymous, titleless article on a music website, a source that can be cited on the Wikipedia? [34] And what about this anonymous homework paper by a Texas teenage prodigy "noel12"[35]? [36] Amazingly enough, the article was written when the said scholar was 15. Some Wikipedia editors insist that these two sources are valid and are unwilling to remove them from a protected page. Please clarify the matter so that there is no further argument over such an obvious thing.--70.64.86.187 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In principle they might be cited for the opinions of their authors (or, at least the 2nd one could) - but one would need to show that they were in some way qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject, and that their opinion was worth taking into consideration. Otherwise: no chance. But what are they being cited for? We can't make definitive statements in regard to abstract questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not indicate that it was the Judaism article for the fear of word-bricking [sic]. The 10th and 11th citations here were nonsense till someone just removed them.[37]--70.64.86.187 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Naval Memoirs by Admirals of the Fleet

I wish to contribute to the existing very brief article on the Dover Patrol which has serious issues at the moment. The available sources seem to range from brief mentions on non-academic websites on the one hand, to the more or less contemporaneous memoirs of the senior Admirals involved on the other. Specifically: "The Crisis of the Naval War", by Jellicoe published 1920, and "The Dover Patrol 1915-1917" by Bacon (who commanded the Patrol during this period) published in 1919. Having read the relevant policies and guidance, would I be right to conclude the such sources are not considered "primary" but nevertheless are "first hand" and therefore lack the required independence for use as reliable sources in general? But would they be considered reliable sources for basic factual information, such as numbers of ships, dates of events, and roles of the personnel iyou won't nvolved? Might they be considered reliable sources for other material and if so what sort? I assume that other indpendent secondary sources would be essential for such matters as establishing the contribution of this force to the various campaigns and eventual outcome of WW1? Inspeximus (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding looks correct to me. Memoirs should be used with care, but can be assumed to have gotten the basic facts right. As you note, they're note useful for assessing the contribution the forces under the command of the author made, unless you make it clear that it's the commander's opinion (eg, "In his memoirs, Bacon stated that the Dover Patrol had been very successful..."). In regards to sources on this, I think that the official history of the Royal Navy in World War I should have material on the Dover Patrol and is a reliable and independent source. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Jellicoe and Bacon ought to do for certain matters, but bear in mind that one of the reasons Jellicoe was sacked at the end of 1917 was because he was protecting Bacon, whose failure to adequately close the Channel to U-Boats led to his own dismissal at the start of 1918. Hood had been sacked in 1915 because Churchill thought he wasn't aggressive enough, something I doubt you'll find (but I'll check my copy) in Churchill's The World Crisis. Modern secondary sources are necessary to lend some perspective. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your useful responses and guidance. Might I ask if you know whether the official Naval History is available online and if so where? Finally, given the wealth of material on Wikipedia relating to other aspects of the Navy in WW1 could you speculate as to why there is so little in the existing Dover Patrol article itself? For example, is this a very contentious subject that is unsuitable for a novice in such matters? Perhaps this latter point would better be answered on this page Talk:Dover_Patrol Inspeximus (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The official naval histories (five volumes) by Corbett and Hurd will give some details on the formation of the patrol and the actions it took part in. It's not necessarily all that accurate because it was working from most but not all the official British records, and only from published accounts on the German side, which weren't necessarily all that accurate either. Revised editions were published of the earlier volumes only a decade or so later. Volume Two is available for download here. I think the main reason why no one has edited the Dover Patrol page is just lack of interest: I've been on Wikipedia for six years now editing mostly naval articles and don't remember looking at the article once until this week. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the references and online link. It would seem that the official histories are all in copyright still but one volume has slipped through the net. I've contributed a draft of a replacement article via my user space - as explained here: Talk:Dover_Patrol. Inspeximus (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to look at how more recent historians have regarded these memoirs. I was recetnly looking at a WWI history which cited some one's memoirs and referred to them as unreliable. It all depends on how far the author relied merely relied on his own memory and how far on officail records or contemporary diaries. Even then he is inevitably giving his own POV on the subject. Try to use the work of more recent historians, who will have considered the memoirs against other historical sources. Corbett has a good reputation as a historian. A current article may only be short, because no one has taken the trouble to find out about it and write something longer. Be bold, others are likely to be watching the article and will pull you up if you go off the rails. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Illustrious Americans (1896)

The book "Illustrious Americans - Their Lives and Great Achievements" by Edward Everett Hale, published 1896, is used as a source in Thomas Jefferson. I have some reservations about using such an old source, especially in a field where there are plenty of modern sources, but would welcome some additional opinions. There already is a somewhat acrimonious discussion at Talk:Thomas Jefferson#1896_Illustrious_Americans that might profit from some cooler heads, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a very old source to be citing on such an important figure. We have had 115 years of further historical research since, during which historians will have refined theri views on the subject. If writing a book on him, it would be appropriate (indeed usual) to include a historiographic discussion of the changing views, but not in a short beiogaphic article, which is all WP can offer. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Non published article hosted on dropbox.com

[Note: The article is published and was out on newsstands officially on January 10, 2012, with advance copies released a week before. Article links to PDF was removed to adhere to copyright policy.]Expectgood (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is dated for March 2012, in the future, and is hosted by a source not of the Magazine in question. Is this a reliable source? Can this be used to support the content of the article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted previously to RightCowLeftCoast: The article IS ALREADY PUBLISHED. Go to the bookstores and check the newsstands and buy the magazine. Skin and Ink Magazine (http://skinandink.com) publishes in advance, and dropbox.com is an open sharing file, just like how Wikipedia is supposed to be used.

As most print publications are barely surviving these days, the magazine encourages people to buy the publication instead of reading its entire contents online. The PDF page on dropbox.com serves as a reference since the article is not available online. Clearly the cover with the title is on the magazine's homepage (an indication that it's already been published) as on other magazine retailers' site (e.g. http://www.comixzone.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=07447050214203). Expectgood (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please sign additions to talk pages, as requested on your talk page.

Please see WP:BURDEN. It is not up to me to provide a reliable source; I can question the source as reliable. The reason for my posting this concern is that I am looking for other opinions to form a consensus as to whether the article hosted on a third party site is in fact a reliable source.

I have checked the magazine's website and have not seen the MARCH 2012 magazine hosted, so cannot independently verify whether the article in question is published or not. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If the magazine article is a published reliable source, the article can be cited as a reference. However, it is hosted on Dropbox in violation of copyright and the citation cannot link to it. Yworo (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Links to the PDF article has been removed to adhere to copyright policy, including the one posted on this talk. As noted, the March 2012 issue was officially out on newsstands on January 10, 2012, with advance copies released a week before. RightCowLeftCoast: Please do your research before you start flagging away.Expectgood (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is in fact on newsstands, as verification need not be online, it may meet VER, but that doesn't mean that a request to verify cannot be made. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Some academic journals will undertake an on-line pre-publication of articles, someties only to subscribers (e.g. society members). This is a form of publication, as much as putting it on a more public website, but it may be unwise to provide a link to it, as it is liable when the website is altered after it is published as hard copy. Alternaively, you need to watch for that happening to update the link/citation. The fact that a publication bears a date that has not yet arrived is not too concerning: magazine publihsers frequently do this, so that it looks like next week's issue early, rather than last week's out of date one. Nevertheless, a dropbox item may potentially not be the final version, so that you need to be wary. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Majority judgment

There is a "caution, primary sources" tag on the criteria compliance section of Majority judgment. The sources in question are written by the authors of the method, but they are also peer-reviewed academic papers; as such can't we count them as reliable on simple mathematically-verifiable facts such as these? 200.49.190.24 (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In some senses they are primary sources because they are written by the "authors of the method" however, if they are peer reviewed and published in respected journals then they have received editorial oversight that gives them a higher value as sources, even so context is important. If they are being used to support health claims then there is a higher standard and you may want to read WP:MEDRS. Good Luck-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Brett

Are entries and sources from Terry Manners reliable? Manners's biography of this topic is considered unreliable and biased. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia article does seem to overly rely on the opinion in the book. If can find no significant mention of it in reliable sources to ascertain it's reliability. To me it doesn't seem a suitable. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which statements to remove, but must I remove Manners's bio as a source? Would this imply: I must remove whatever is cited by Manners? --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

COLOURlovers and made-up colors

The website COLOURlovers allows its users to make up colors and color names. I've just removed one such from an article, as a spamlink; but thought I should come here to establish some consensus before proceding further. Thoughts? Comments? Seems to me like WP:UNDUE and an excuse to add spamlinks, but I am not always right in my analyses. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you mean this, I'd suggest your removal was justified on at least three fronts:

the content has a promotional tone and certainly does seem spammish;
the content isn't noteworthy unless reported by independent sources;
we can't suggest that "sunny orange" is vermilion just because COLOURlovers, an unreliable source, says it is.

According to our article, COLOURlovers is a social networking and blogging site and shouldn't be used to source anything except, in limited circumstances, articles discussing itself. Rivertorch (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If Pantone (Color of the Year) is able to nominate a color of the year, then I don't see why the users of Colour Lovers shouldn't be able to nominate THEIR own color of the year and have it be identified in Wikipedia like the Pantone color of the year is. Isn't that what Web 2.0 is all about--the users providing the content rather than having content fed to them? Keraunos (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what Web 2.0 has to do with the matter of reliable sources, which is what this noticeboard addresses. The relevant guideline would appear to deprecate COLOURlovers. I suppose that Pantone is a reliable source because they've been widely accepted as one of the leading entities in the field of color management for decades. If you think there's a problem regarding the use of Pantone-related content, however, by all means bring it up on the talk page of the relevant article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that Pantone is recognized around the world as a reputable and hugely notable entity and the Colour lovers website is some nothing silly site with no recognition by reliable sources as having any notability. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that COLOURlovers an unreliable source and back when I used to be a active editor I used to remove it when I encountered it. At one point I tried to put together a guideline on sources for color coordinates Wikipedia:WikiProject Color/Sources for Color Coordinates. Note that a bunch of stuff that probably should have been on the talk page ended up directly in the article page itself. The other issue is that there is a bias towards RGB coordinates and one to one mappings of RGB in many of the sources used even though that really doesn't make sense. Most color terms are vague and represent collections of similar colors. On the other hand their have been concerns with using sources such as Pantone since they are copy-righted. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color/Archive 4#Proposed Wikipedia policy/guideline on color/colour articles and swatches. PaleAqua (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a result of this section I investigated the site and our article about it and decided to put the Wikipedia article up for deletion. So far only one other person has commented. Anybody else want to give their input? DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

www.fansshare.com news articles for Maisie Williams

Hi, this board seems kinda swarmed, but I hope somebody can have a look at this. Basically I am looking for sources to expand Maisie Williams. Now www.fansshare.com has an interesting set of articles on her. The question is are they reliable? So far I have determined the following:

The site doesn't seem to have an "about" page describing how it works and who is behind it
The sites name and slogan ("by fans, for fans") seems to indicate content is user submitted and this is clearly the case for images and comments to news articles.
However, if you visit the job page they seem to have a professional team of editors: "We work out of Los Angeles and require a writer who can commit to office hours on a 8am until 6pm basis, Monday to Friday. You will be working with a team of 10 who are located in-house and externally across the world."
No name or pseudonym is given as author of the news articles.

What do you think? Yoenit (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That site raises BLP alarm bells to me, I wouldn't touch it. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The name alone rules it out, I would think.DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

ffmpeg.org

Hi, can anyone tell me if ffmpeg Hall of Shame direct link (not working) archived version can be considered a reliable source to document a copyright violation? In other words, if the "Hall of Shame" lists program X as being in violation of ffmpeg's copyright can we consider that a "reliable source" and include those claims in the article about program X? My POV is that it is a self-published source, a primary source, with a clear conflict of interest, and therefore not a Reliable source. It would also be a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as we are reporting unsourced accusations and as a consequence cause Wikipedia:Libel problems. Feedback welcome. --SF007 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. It's a cheap-shot attack page. Unless they took the alleged offending parties to court and won or settled out of court, which would be in the news, it's just their assertion, and even if they claim to provide "proof", could not be considered a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely with Yworo on this. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding Huffington Post and relability

A question came up at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrive (film). The question is in regard to the use of a blog on Huffington Post, and whether this is considered a reliable source. What is the general consensus for HP with regards to being used as a reliable source? Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any consensus, but a blog is only reliable for citing the opinions of its author. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking that as well, but it's good to have an involved party chime in. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For this issue (asserting reliable coverage for purposes of WP:GNG), HuffPo is unquestionably reliable. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

HuffPo allows all sorts of people to post blogs there with little or no oversight as long as they are willing to put up free content HuffPo can put ads all over. Being mentioned on a blog page on the site somewhere is nothing like our normal standards for GNG. It's like trying to say if something appears on blogspot.com it must be notable. So I would have to disagree quite strongly with your assertion. DreamGuy (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, nothing on the Author's HuffPo Bio seems to qualify her as a professional film critic, so why does this piece qualify as either a reliable or notability-enhancing source? This is the problem with HuffPo, although some of its content appears expertly-authored, and thus reliable, a good deal of it isn't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Hrafn here. Unless the reviewer has a demonstrated reputation as a film critic, the review does little to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking a view of HuffPo as whole, I would suggest that their editorial oversight is, at best, very uneven -- I have heard of quite a bit of pseudoscientific nonsense being published by it (perhaps because their authors were friends of Arianna Huffington). I would therefore suggest that it might be appropriate to treat it as effectively equivalent of a WP:SPS published by its author: where that author is an otherwise-published expert on the topic it should be considered reliable, where the author is not (as appears to be the case in this example), it should not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Where the HuffPo blog is erratic both in what it covers and when it is written by the author proposed as the source, it is clear that it is a "blog" and not a source which has any notability or reliability per WP policy at all, and is not, in this case, even usable for "opinion." We have no reason here to assign any notability to the author as expert in the field at all. Collect (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the Huffington Post is a "blog" in the sense of being a self-published source, I'm under the impression they have an editorial staff, etc. They may advertise themselves as being a blog, but they're basically a published media source. I would agree that some of what shows up there is erratic, and I'd put it more at the level of the Daily Mail or TMZ than the staff blogs of the Washington Post, but it's still a "published" source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Content on Huffington Post varies widely. Much of it is just pure blog content with no oversight. It may be that after AOL bought them ought they turned it into something more like Examiner.com where basically anyone off the street can get a blog on it than the online publication it used to be. DreamGuy (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the context of why this question is being asked has more to do with notability of the movie, not the reliability of HP. I would say that in this context, HP is an acceptable source in making a determination of this film's notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? You have offered no argument or substantiation to back up your bare assertion. HuffPo does not appear to have consistent editorial oversight, the author in question has no subject-expertise. What basis in WP:RS then do you have for declaring this piece a reliable source (and thus relevant to WP:N's "significant coverage in reliable sources...")? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I try to focus on the big picture of what policies actually mean. The issue here is whether the the world at large has given this topic significant attention. HP is an award-winning and hugely popular site. See Huffington_Post#Awards Yes, one can quibble over whether the HP is a reliable source or a questionable one or whatever. None of that really matters for the purposes of this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The "big picture" is that the internet is chock full of questionable sources (many of them "hugely popular", at least for a time) covering every manner of non-notable topic. This is why WP:N specifically requires reliable sources (and why questionable sources are routinely dismissed in AfDs). This has the additional "big picture" advantage of ensuring that we actually have a bare minimum of reliable sources with which to write an article, before committing Wikipedia to keeping the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your post assumes facts not in evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The only 'facts' (as opposed to interpretation) that I stated above was that there are many popular websites of questionable reliability, and that much of their coverage is on topics which (due to their lack of coverage in more reliable sources), Wikipedia does not find a suitable topic for an article. I would have thought that this would be patently obvious to any, even casual, observer of the internet, but I can give you numerous examples if you think the point requires substantiation -- particularly in the area of bizarre conspiracy theories (an ever-popular, if ever changing, field). If you want substantiation of dismissal of WP:QSs at AfD, I'm fairly sure I can dig up some of those as well. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please provide a link to a discussion where consensus was reached that only unquestionably reliable sources are to be used to determine notability and that's the reason why this specific wording of WP:N was chosen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources in Ensoulment

Look at me, dragging obviously unreliable sources here again because of POV-pushing users who refuse to get the point.

In Ensoulment, we have a recently added section on ensoulment (= the point at which a human gets a soul) in Judaism. The section is already poor, because it was written by an agenda-pushing user without regard for the weight given to various points of view in reliable sources, but I've already committed to dealing with that when I can find time so this isn't about that. What we have is the repeatedly added claim that a text supports ensoulment at conception, cited to these lovely, lovely sources:

"Does the Soul Survive? A Jewish Journey to Belief in Afterlife," a document by a paranormal theorist hosted on a "shamanic healing" website, which mentions the text in a footnote as support for its claims about reincarnation (incidentally, it doesn't support the text this user is citing it for, but when has that ever mattered...)
"Divine Seeding," a PhD dissertation from an evangelical Christian seminary, which attempts to use the text as support for its theories about the virgin birth of Jesus
An 1899 translation (the first such) of the primary religious text

I've argued that when you have to resort to Christian student papers, loopy fringe material, and analysis of primary documents to write about Judaism, what you are writing does not belong on Wikipedia. PhD dissertations have been judged reliable in the past, but all reliability discussions are contextual and the fact that this user apparently can't produce anything by scholars who study Judaism (or, y'know, actual published academics regardless) that discusses this text doesn't say much for the worth of this paragraph he has repeatedly inserted. (And this is completely apart from the weight issue.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The straightforward statement "The Chronicles of Jerahmeel picture the soul as entering into the sperm even before conception" seems to be quite adequately sourced in the words of the book itself and in what a published Ph.D. dissertation says. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Two problems with the Chronicles of Jerahmeel: it's a primary source, and we don't know how noteworthy it is. We require reliable mainstream scholarly secondary sources for both interpretation and to establish noteworthiness so we know how much weight to assign. A dissertation from an evangelical Christian seminary falls far short of the mark here. Evangelical Christian seminaries do not exactly have a reputation for top-notch scholarship. Ph.D. dissertations are sometimes reliable for factual data they may contain, but rarely for conclusions. If the statement about ensoulment in the Chronicles is truly noteworthy, it will have been discussed in far more reliable sources. If the dissertation is all you have, then that indicates that the statement is of little importance in modern Judaism. As far as historical Judaism is concerned, top-notch academic sources are required. In either case, "Does the Soul Survive?" is clearly not reliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, "one of the most important and comprehensive anthologies of Hebrew prose" (The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies), is clearly notable. It is not cited as a primary source for when animation actually takes place: it is instead quoted as "picturing" the soul as entering the sperm, as it explicitly does without any need of an "interpretation". That this Jewish work does picture the soul as entering the sperm is not a "conclusion" reached by the Ph.D. dissertation: it is instead a factual datum that it mentions. Esoglou (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No. "An important and comprehensive anthologies of Hebrew prose" does not mean that it is an authority on Jewish thought on reproduction. As for your "picturing" argument, that seems like a poor defense of OR to me. The noteworthiness of the Chronicles' statement on ensoulment still needs to be backed up with solid scholarly sources. The noteworthiness of the book as a whole is not the question here, but of the statement itself and its relevance to modern Jewish beliefs on ensoulment. Furthermore, the concept of sperm did not even exist until the invention of the microscope, and the concept of fertilization as we understand it was not worked out until the 20th century. Interpreting a pre-modern text in terms of modern biology is OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought whatever was taught nowadays should be given as the major point of view and the others mentioned as other ideas. I've come across that story in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel before and I viewed it then as just a pretty story and still do, it could be mentioned but should have very low weight. The idea of sperm is not a stopper, the idea of the seed has been around for a very long time and that's all sperm means. Basically the weight needs to be got right but I see no problems with anything as a reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The space given to Aristotle, Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc., makes it clear that article is not about modern views. The concept of "sperm" or "seed" has existed for millennia - you must be thinking of the concept of "sperm cell" or "spermatozoon" - and "sperm", from Greek sperma, meaning "seed", is used by the Chronicles of Jerahmeel in its sense of "semen", Latin for "seed", the only sense that the word had then. People did not have to wait until the 20th century to have a concept of "conception" ("fertilization" is used neither in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel nor in the account of it in the Wikipedia article). Again Wikipedia is only saying, as stated in the Ph.D. dissertation, that the idea of the soul entering the semen (let us use this less ambiguous term, both here and in the article) even before it is placed in the woman's womb is found in this Jewish writing. Other views of a human soul as entering with the first breath after birth are also mentioned in the article. Wikipedia is not made to say that the soul does enter the semen before conception. It is not even made to say that this was a general Jewish belief. Esoglou (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq that it should be mentioned though with low weight. Esoglou (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear from the Christianity section that modern views should be made prominent and others noted as historical or apocryphal. The lead doesn't say it is historical. Dmcq (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If y'all want to get into a discussion of due weight, I'd be happy to do that as well, but right now let's deal with the fact that none of these sources are even reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are they not reliable sources for the article? Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Because a website promoting reincarnation and a seminary student paper about the virgin birth of Jesus do not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS that would allow us to cite them when writing about Jewish beliefs. As for the primary source, it's long understood that we can't just cite religious texts - there needs to be reliable secondary-source analysis, that's why we have Template:Religious text primary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese has removed the mention of the Chronicles of Jerahmeel, alleging an agreement on this noticeboard that the cited sources are rubbish. Has it really been agreed here that the half-line mention in the Judaism section of the Ensoulment article of what that book says is devoid of reliable sources? Esoglou (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for mentioning it at all unless it has been mentioned in serious academic sources. The secondary sources used are clearly unreliable, and the use of the primary source borders is basically OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the section "Judaism" offers several different Jewish views on the timing of ensoulment. From an outsider point of view every possible timing of ensoulment is more or less mentioned. The Chronicles add one more timing to the collection, the timing of ensoulment in the sperm before conception. The Chronicles of Jerahmeel is, as I understood, an accepted primary religious source. Primary sources should be used with great care, for religious primary sources maybe with even more care, I don't know. The sentence in question: "The Chronicles of Jerahmeel picture God as making the soul enter the semen even before conception." correctly reflects what the primary source says and it is correctly attributed to the source. I think that there is no original research or synth in the representation. The next question is whether the view from the Chronicles is worth mentioning or undue. As the whole section lists up different timings of ensoulment and this accepted primary source merely adds another one, I would say that it is not undue to make a tiny mentioning. I believe that my opinion is backed up, because this timing has also been mentioned in a dissertation. A dissertation may not be a good source to state something as fact, but in this case the dissertation is only used to show that the timing of the chronicles has been noted and discussed in a scientific paper. So I think that it is no problem to mention the timing from the chronicle and that only the dissertation should be used as proof for "noteworthiness" of the timing, the other secondary sources are not neccesary. Generally, I agree with Dmcq. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"How the section currently looks" is not a very good barometer because the current section is poorly written with the aim of promoting the view that Jews believed in early ensoulment, in contrast to the weight given to different views in reliable sources, as I elaborate on the talk page. I'm meaning to get around to overhauling it in a NPOV fashion but time is a constraint. With this in mind - keeping in mind, I mean, that the gist of the section, once written properly with reference to reliable sources, will not be "Jews' beliefs about when ensoulment happened were all over the place, but they liked the idea of ensoulment at conception, just like us Catholics" but "Jews did not develop a unified theory of ensoulment and what we know about Jewish philosophers' thoughts on it generally comes from other contexts and from when something does not have a soul; the earliest pseudo-consensus was for 'formation' at 40 days, but the prevailing view is ensoulment at birth" - it's even more evident that this section is Esoglou trying to shoehorn in something that more closely suits his beliefs, regardless of WP:RS. As Dominus Vobisdu has pointed out, student work from an evangelical Christian seminary does not meet the academic standards we consider when talking about RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely the phrase can only be judged in its actual context, not in line with some non-existent hypothetical context pictured by Roscelese. Roscelese's hypothetical context is not the only one that could be presented. Even today there are Jews who say: "According to the Divine Plan, G-d infuses each microscopic drop of semen with a soul. This soul is a living vitality of its own, the source of life, and cherished by G-d, who has commanded us not to waste it. ... Each drop of semen is more than a "potential" life - it is already a living soul. For this reason, the willful sin of spilling semen in vain is considered like the spilling of blood - like taking the life of a person." And there are Jews who say: "It is forbidden to discharge semen in vain ... It is stated in the Talmud that the offender incurs the punishment of 'death by heaven' as these actions are considered the equivalent of murder." So this idea, which existed among Jews in the time of the Chronicles of Jerahmeel, also exists among Jews today. And so this is an alternative hypothetical context that would show up even more clearly than now the unreasonableness of Roscelese's deletion of the mention, even just as something in the past, of the existence among Jews of an idea of ensouled semen.

I agree with POVbrigand and Dmcq, who have rightly said that in the actual existing context, the context in which all of us except Roscelese are judging it, the statement, "The Chronicles of Jerahmeel picture God as making the soul enter the semen even before conception", is reliably sourced. Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm having OR issues here too. I do not get any sense of how the Jerahmeel statement represents anyone's view other than its author. Even our article on the work doesn't give a sense of that. We need some secondary source for how much this viewpoint was accepted. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet, it is demonstrably a historical Jewish view (one moreover that exists even among today's Jews), like the historical Jewish view of ensoulment at birth and the historical Jewish view of ensoulment when the child first answers "Amen", for neither of which is information given on how widely or narrowly it was held. These views may have been minor ones, but they were Jewish views. Esoglou (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And the Secret Gospel of Mark may or may not be a historical Christian view (the jury is still out on "historical"). But it's inarguable that it's unimportant in the history of the mainstream of Christian theology, because there's is next to no ancient reference to it. We need to know whether these things were minor or not; if nobody discusses them, then it's safe to assume that they are minor. In Judaism, the rabbis discuss the heck out of everything, so if ensoulment is even an issue for them, the Talmud should discuss all the options. Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesn't seem to be a real issue because there isn't this idea of original sin. They discuss things ad nauseum when it might matter in actual life, not angels on the tip of a pin sort of stuff. Dmcq (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Although the intention was just to present the view of the Chronicles of Jerahmeel, discussion above has gone instead to whether that view was shared by anyone else. For that reason I have now added information on ideas in other Jewish sources. Esoglou (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism

Are Christopher Hitchens' works, including ones specifically on Terrorism, not RS for the reasons proffered on Talk:Terrorism, to wit that he was not an "expert" in the field (He was not an expert on terrorism or anything else for that matter), that Getting a BA with a C average and being a popular journalist with the Trotskyist and popular press does not make one an expert. The fact he co-authored an instant book on Callaghan and wrote an alternative narrative for Cyprus do not make him an expert either and that Hitchens' opinions on terrorism as just not notable. I suggested RS/N as a good place to ask this question, but do not think it likely the other editor would do so expeditiously. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? He was certainly a reliable source for his own opinions (of which he had plenty), but what exactly is it proposed he be cited for in relation to the Terrorism article? Clearly, not every source on a subject needs to be written by an 'expert' - but some things probably should be sourced to those recognised as having relevant expertise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor said he was surprised that the article Terrorism did not mention Hitchens' 1986 Harper's magazine piece "Wanton Acts of Usage - Terrorism. A cliche in search of a meaning". I replied that Hitchens "was not an expert on terrorism or anthing else for that matter". Collect then replied that he was "a British Trotskyist" who studied at Oxford [he had a third class BA degree] and had a career in journalism. But as I explained to Collect, the issue is not an issue of rs, but of weight. How much weight does Hitchens' article have in terrorism studies? Collect has not even explained what part of the article he believes should be added to the article. There is no evidence that this article has become part of the study of terrorism, and the editor who mentioned it was doing so in order to point out the contradiction between Hitchens' views in 1986 and after 2001, which may be important to an article about Hitchens but is irrelevant to the article about terrorism. TFD (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please actually deal with what I wrote instead of possibly misleading people here about what you claim I wrote. The words you ascribe to me were clearly a quote from a source which I clearly indicated, and were not a claim made by me whatsoever. [38] The sources clearly also indicated that Hitchens was a major journalist who had written on topics about politics etc. and chopping words from the sources and acting like they were claims made by me personally is a quite irresponsible tactic in a post here. Cheers - but please when you are quoting a post, be sure not to imply that the editor wrote what he has quoted from a reliable source! Collect (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would hope that everyone would agree that 'former Trotskyist' was more applicable in Hitchens' case, and yes, he seems to have changed his mind on the issue of terrorism, so maybe he can't really be cited for his own opinions either. ;-) The point remains though that without further details, it seems difficult to answer this one way or another - though the fact that Hitchens changed his mind is clearly more relevant to his biography than to the 'terrorism' article. I'd suggest that unless someone makes a concrete proposal, we leave the matter undecided - there really isn't any point in doing anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there's doubt whether he's a recognised expert on this subject, one way we find out is by verifying whether his views on this subject are cited and taken seriously by confirmed experts. That would also apply to any older article by him: if recent reliable sources on that subject cite it and take it seriously, we have reason to cite it too; if not, not. Andrew Dalby 11:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is a source necessarily reliable if a secondary reliable source uses them?

An article I'm editing has a press release sent out by the article subject's company, it was copied almost verbatim, and made up the entirety of, articles distributed by 2 other news providers/aggregators, with credit for the info going to the subject of our article listed at the end of the articles. It was not independently reported on by either 3rd party news provider. If either of the news providers are deemed to be reliable, does that then infer "reliable" status onto the primary document/press release? (If it's relevant, the 2 secondary sources are www.prnewswire.com and www.thestreet.com) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this depends on the concrete context/case and what reliable refers to exactly. If you mean that content of the press release becomes automatically "factual" if a few newspapers more or less copy it verbatim, then the answer is no. If it is just used to give a reliable description of the company's position, the press release alone might be good enough and the news providers don't really matter much.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The news item in question deals with an event, and notability, if these secondary sources just push out the press release without any other journalism attached, does that make it notable? I will paste the actual links here, but I'd rather get opinions that can't have any subject bias attached first. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In reviewing the sources you provided it seems to me they are mostly press release distributors. If that is the case, I would think that until the story is picked up by a news agency such as the AP or AFP, or Reuters, to name a few, it is not yet published and therefore neither the original press release, nor the reproduced ones can be conspired reliably published by a secondary source.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A press release is only usable as a WP:SPS. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

But keep in mind that if the information is truly worth reporting, secondary sources would have reported it. So, yes, they can be used, but they should be the exception, not the rule (so to speak). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Urantia Book

I am new here so please forgive me if I express something not entirely clear. There is a long discussion about reliable sources for The Urantia Book article on Wikipedia. The neutrality of this article has been disputed for a long time. The Urantia Book, over 2000 pages in volume, is basically religious-philosophical book but contains also information from all areas of human knowledge. One of the most quoted sources in the article is Martin Gardner critical book "Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery" - Prometheus Books 1995. Credibility of this source as well as it accuracy was often questioned in discussion. Is this book reliable source for all critical statements in The Urantia Book article? Below I attach all opinions on this subject from discussion, including mine opinion, in chronological order:

I understand from reading the archives that you consider Gardner to be a reliable and credible published source. At one point you seemed to say that referencing ubthenews would be like referencing ubhoax.org - and the thought came to my mind that Gardner's book is the equivalent of ubhoax. It does not pretend to be neutral. It ridicules and has a rude tone toward the book and movement. It is not of the tone that you would find from an academic scholar. Gardner may have a reputation from previously published works, but it is still possible that the quality, and thus credibility, of this work was not very high isn't it? When you called him third party, (I believe it was you in the archives) you make him sound as if he were neutral towards the book, and not in the 'pro or con' parties. But reading his book shows that he is clearly in the 'con' party. How many verifiable major blunders would it take for you to see that his book may not be all that well researched and that it often stretches and does not stand up to close scrutiny from someone who knows about the book? Maybe we could start a list, because Gardner, for example, even talks about Jesus' having traveled to India in his book, which he did not do in the story in the UB. In reviewing Gardner's book, the credible and neutral third party source, the Library Journal, in its April 15, 1995 issue, said "Given the lack of scholarly distance from the subject, the patronizing tone, and the gross editorializing, it would be difficult to recommend this book to any library." Gooch was much more neutral toward his topic of study, and he seemed a bit perturbed by how unfriendly Gardner was toward the book. He calls Gardner's book 'scabrous' (p. 48) and Gooch finds it worth mentioning that Gardner 'admitted' to him (in a telephone interview) that 'The Urantia Book is remarkable among these types of books claiming divine revelation, in that it is occasionally well written...', Gooch goes on to say that 'This response mildly echoed the much harsher appraisal in his book...' (page 22). His book was written for a skeptical publisher by a skeptic who set out to debunk the book, in stark contrast to the neutral perspective of the sociologist or historian of religion etcetera that lends credibility. It is more in the 'anti-cult' genre, like ubhoax, than the neutral. Do you think it might be considered to add a remark about Gardner's having aimed to discredit the book from the get-go, or about his many inaccuracies (which I imagine myself and others here can be demonstrate if you wish), or about his 'lack of scholarly distance from the subject,... patronizing tone, and ... gross editorializing' as noted by a very credible reviewer? (and which is also clear to anyone who reads his book). Best regards... Mwcm1975 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin Gardner published in Scientific American for a quarter of a century and has been writing works about scientific skepticism for over half a century, including perhaps the most classic work in the field. Gardner is a valuable and fully WP:RS published reference. Not only is he a good representative of skeptical POV, he did collect a lot of factual historical information, as well as evaluating science and plagiarism claims, which are useful to the article's criticisms sections. When you say things like Gardner "aimed to discredit the book from the get-go", you need to back that claim up with a reference from a reliable source, otherwise it's just hearsay. While Gardner's tone and writing style in his book weren't what would be considered WP:NPOV on wikipedia, the information he published certainly can still be utilized and doesn't need to have caveats alongside it about him. I'm not sure even if you have a specific dispute with anything the article currently says, do you? Wazronk (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The main source of criticism in this section is Martin Gardner book - Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery. Sandra Collins, SLIS, University of Pittsburg, wrote in the conclusion of her opinion about Martin Gardner book [Library Journal/April 15, 1995]: “Given the lack of scholarly distance from the subject, the patronizing tone, and the gross editoralizing, it would be difficult to recommend this book to any library”. I find this article about The Urantia Book rather far from neutral point of view. Jaworski (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin Gardner was intimately involved with TUB, and including his opinion as if he were an unbiased observer or scholar breaches NPOV (and also, in some twisted way, self-publishing/self-reference). This must be revised or removed: in any case, the extant statement is not referenced even as-is. JohnChrysostom (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

At the same time this article is full of one man - Martin Gardner – opinions. His opinions are quoted 12 times in various parts of this article WP:UNDUE He had bachelor degree in philosophy but his opinions on the subjects of astronomy, physics, biology etc. are regarded in this article as WP:RS . His findings are 16 years outdated and biased. Because lack of scholarly distance from the subject his book was not recommended to any library. All his biased opinions should be removed from this article except for fact, that he wrote critical book. Jaworski (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

More information about Martin Gardner and his work can be found in Wikipedia article. Most of his articles published in Scientific American are about recreational mathematics.

There are a few web sites related to The Urantia Book including Urantia Foundation, The Urantia Book Fellowship and Jesusonian Foundation. Are these web sites reliable sources for a history of movement, current news and events, readers beliefs? The Urantia Book Fellowship publishes the Fellowship Herald. There are a few articles evaluating scientific information in The Urantia Book. One – Scientific predictions of the Urantia Book part II – was written by Irvin Ginsburgh Ph.D. physicist (Herald 2000), another – The Coming Scientific Validation of The Urantia Book – by Philip Calabrese Ph.D. award-winning research mathematician (Herald 2006) Are these two articles a reliable source?

There is a web site UBTheNews devoted to scientific investigation of The Urantia Book, conducted by group of enthusiasts. Is this web site a reliable source? Can this web site be mentioned in The Urantia Book Wikipedia article? Jaworski (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Herald publication are certainly not RS for any neutral/3rd person description of the urania book. I'd regard Martin Gardner in general as a RS on the issue (for criticism), but the criticism (ideally) should not rely on him alone.

In general however I have to say the notion that the book provides scientific revelation or would matter for science is inherently nuts, so most people/scientist probably won't even bother with it as they don't take it seriously to begin with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Jaworski tried to remove this section (see page history). I restored it, and would like to add that Martin Gardner is very clearly a reliable source on this topic. Most other sources don't take it seriously enough to bother discussing it, so Gardner might be the best source. There may be others also. I get the idea, though, that Jaworski isn't going to particularly like what any of the reliable sources have to say on this WP:FRINGE topic. 05:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Google+

Has Google+ been discussed as a reliable source here? I tried to search the archives, but due to the name the results were less than useful, even for "Google Plus" in quotes. Yworo (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a social network. It would be the same as Twitter or Facebook. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure there wasn't something about Google+ specifically that I was unaware of. Yworo (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I hate to tell you but G+ is being presented as a reliable source. I have just learned at Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites that it can be used, and if "localized consensus approves the inclusion of text" then that apparently is all that is needed. Otr500 (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

External links policy is not the same thing as reliable source policy. We do link to some things that we should never use as sources. DreamGuy (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In that regard it appears that G+ can not be used as a citation or reliable source. Otr500 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ica Stones query about historical material sourced to Skepdic where original source is dubious and in any case challenging its inclusion

I originally brought this up at FTN, partially because I wasn't sure if this was mainly fringe, RS or NPOV, but in the course of the discussion, or at least my thoughts on the matter, I decided it is really an issue about sources and how they are used, so I'm copying it here and will put a note at FTN asking people to move here

The issue is a sentence that says "In the past, a number of engraved stones were uncovered in the context of archaeological excavations, and some engraved stones may have been brought from Peru to Spain in the 16th century." It's sourced to Skepdic.

On the talk page, I've written:

Let's make one thing clear, when we speak of the 'Ica Stones' we are not just referring to any old engraved stones, but to stones "decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing." My concern is that by making a statement that engraved stones were taken to Spain without any evidence that these qualify as 'Ica Stones' we are misleading our readers. I'm also saying that we have problems with the sources for this claim. As another editor wrote recently at RSN, "Sources are not inherently reliable or unreliable simply because they are one type or another. What makes a source unreliable is how we use them."

I've tried to trace where the sources got this from to see if that provided any evidence that any stones that can legitimately be called 'Ica Stones' were found and taken to Spain. I found [39] which says "One student of prehistory, JR Jochmans, claims that a Jesuit missionary, Father Simon who accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast in 1525,". But Jochmans is not what we think of as a typical 'student of prehistory' but someone who among other things claims to have 'ghost co-authored' the book "Secrets of the Lost Races" by Rene Noorbergen and other strange stuff. [40] I can't find anything about this Father Simon. Other sources (eg [41]) use the claim (ie Father or Padre Simon found some engraved stones, Spanish explorers took them to Spain in 1562) but no one has any sources for this.

We have no reliable sources justifying our origins section. The fact that real engraved stones may exist/existed in the 16th century is not sufficent reason to suggest that they are the 'origins' of the Ica Stones or bear any relationship to them.

I've had a response, focussing on my statement that "when we speak of the 'Ica Stones' we are not just referring to any old engraved stones, but to stones "decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing." - the argument is that Ica Stones should refer to any stones "found in or near Ica." and that the sheer volume of stones speaks for them being old. I'm not sure if this is an RS or NPOV question, but it's certainly a fringe one and I strongly disagree that the phrase Ica Stones refers to anything else than these stones decorated with dinosaurs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all very odd. There are only two respectable sources here, Carroll^[1]and Coppens.^[2] The point at issue is simply this: were there any engraved stones known from before 1966, when Javier Cabrera Darquea started his theorising? and if so, should the article mention them?

Coppens says "Cabrera’s private museum includes a collection of stones belonging to his father – Bolivia Cabrera, a Spanish aristocrat – gathered from the fields of the family plantation in the late 1930s." Later on he relates "The Soldis’ interest began in 1961 when, according to Herman Buse, the Ica River flooded and “uncovered in the Ocucaje region a large number of engraved stones which ever since have been an object of commerce for the huaqueros who found them” ". Similarly we have "Santiago Agurto Calvo, then rector of the Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria, who bought many and, in 1966, began excavating pre-Inca tombs around Ocucaje. In an article that year, he described the designs as “Unidentifiable things, insects, fish, birds, cats, fabulous creatures and human beings [..] in elaborate and fantastic compositions.” "

Coppens goes on to say "discoveries of engraved stones in the Ica region go back to Spanish records of the mid-15th century". As to what the older stones showed, he says "While some investigators claim that they were refused permission to see the Calco collection in the Museum of Ica stash, Neil Steede was granted access. He concluded that these “definitely genuine” stones show a finer workmanship and have less deep cuts than Cabrera’s stones. This is a clear indication of a more highly skilled manufacturer than Cabrera’s artisan. Furthermore, they are restricted to depicting conventional humans and existing animals, not extinct animals; nor do they include any examples of the more exotic motifs of the Cabrera stones."

Coppens sums up "It is quite possible for the engraved stones, if authentic, to have a simple anthropological origin." and "It seems increasingly likely that the Ica stones have been fabricated, but it is difficult to believe that they are all – estimates run to 50,000 pieces – made by one poor, uneducated farmer. No independent study has been made, if only to separate any possibly authentic artifacts from the fakes."

Carroll adopts a similar tone, ending with "Are the stones authentic? If by authentic one means that they were engraved by pre-Columbians, then the answer has to be an unqualified 'not all of them.' Some engraved stones are said to have been brought back to Spain in the 16th century. It is possible that some of the stones are truly examples of pre-Columbian art."

All I'm saying is that the article should admit the existence of old stones and appraise them in the same way as the sources. I am at a loss to understand Dougweller's motivation in trying to exclude such content. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

references

^ Carroll, Robert P. (2003). The skeptic's dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. New York: Wiley. pp. 169–71. ISBN 0-471-27242-6.
^ Coppens, P (October 2001). "Jurassic library - The Ica Stones". Fortean Times. Available without registration at philipcoppens.com

I thought you'd decided on my motivation, your edit summary talks about suppression of information. I don't think you've addressed my concerns. One is whether by 'Ica Stones' is meant 'any engraved stones from Ica', or the actual subject of the various fringe publications on what they call 'Ica Stones', ie stones engraved with dinosaurs, high tech, etc. I'm arguing that a badly sourced comment on some engraved stones which may have been sent to Spain is irrelevant and misleading to our readers. I'm also arguing that we have no reliable source for the statement - no mainstream historian, no historical texts we can somehow check, nothing but Carroll and Coppen repeating what a fringe writer said a long time ago. Do you really believe there could possibly be such '15th century' records? Before Columbus? Maybe that's just carelessness on the part of Philip Coppens (who by the way is not Philip Coppens but a fringe writer, eg [42]. He's simply not an acceptable source for an historical claim like that.

I also note that an editor has replaced the passage without discussion on the talk page. Not only that, he replaced other material I removed which concerned a statement that there were collections of these stones at two museums although my edit summary said "This is from the author's personal website, not a reliable source (not just because it's a personal site but also because he isn't a reliable source for this". The reason for replacing the material was "there's nothing unreliable about the report. When I went to the regional museum of Ica, they were there. I'm not sure about the others, but if what it said about that one is true, the others probably are too." which is clearly irrelevant to our policy on sources. Then he removed the descriptions which are key to the article, saying they were obviously fakes. That's a bit confusing - what I gather from that is that he agrees that the dinosaur etc engraved stones are fakes, which I agree with, but then what's the point of the article?

So I am asking you to find use of the phrase 'Ica Stones' in a context that is solely about engraved stones that have been authenticated by mainstream archaeologists and do not have dinosaurs, etc., to back up your claim that 'Ica Stones' as a phrase is not specific to such fringe claims. I'm also asking you to explain what makes Carroll or Coppens a reliable source for the claim about 16th or 15th century stones being found and sent to Spain. What I think is necessary to make a claim that similar stones were found in by Spanish explorers is a clearly reliable source from an archaeologist or historian about such stones describing them as having dinosaurs, heart transplants, star maps, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller says "I am asking you to find use of the phrase 'Ica Stones' in a context that is solely about engraved stones that have been authenticated by mainstream archaeologists ...". I am asking Dougweller not to indulge in such silly rhetoric. As he must well know, I am not aware of any proper published study of Ica Stones at all by mainstream archaeologists, and if I knew of such I would certainly cite it. As for "I'm also asking you to explain what makes Carroll or Coppens a reliable source ...", they are certainly imperfect sources, but the best we seem to have. If they're not good enough, Dougweller should be listing this article at wp:afd and have done with it. But if we're accepting Carroll and Coppens, which I think reasonable in the context, Dougweller has no justification in his attempt to cherrypick their testimony as he clearly is trying to do.
One can often see discussions of collections of artistic or historically significant objects where fakes may occur amongst the genuine things. Normally the approach is to try and concentrate on the genuine ones, and ignore the fakes. This is I think the first time I've seen someone say "let's ignore the genuine and concentrate solely on the fakes". If I were to go to Ica, find an andesite stone and scratch a picture of a dinosaur on it, apparently according to Dougweller this will be an "Ica Stone", but if I find one in an ancient tomb, it won't. Weird!
Dougweller asks rhetorically, above, "what's the point of the article?". My answer to that question is that it should be a description of inscribed andesite stones found at or near Ica, with as good as possible an analysis of their probable origin and significance. It would really be illuminating if Dougweller could give us his answer to the question, particularly as he raised it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As I note above, I've moved it here. And I repeat, the phrase 'Ica Stones' is clearly specific to a large set of stones inscribed with dinosaurs, high tech, etc. It is not used by archaeologists to describe 'inscribed andesite stones near Ica'. My question was about another editor removing descriptions of stones on the grounds they were fake, but the point of the article is that it is about a set of stones that fringe sources claim are inscribed with images showing dinosaurs and men together, heart operations, etc, and that mainstream sources say are hoaxes. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So if a stone isn't "inscribed with dinosaurs, high tech, etc." it isn't an "Ica Stone" at all? and they aren't Ica Stones if there are "fringe sources" which don't "claim (they) prove either a YEC perspective or something similar"? I think we need a little attention to our basic logic. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim to understand the last part of your statement/question, but yes, I'm arguing that the reason we have an article called 'Ica Stones' is that there are a body of stones engraved with dinosaurs, high tech stuff, etc with that name. Ah, perhaps the reason I can't understand what you've written is something went wrong with what I wrote and some words got deleted. I've rewritten it leaving out the YEC bit as I can't recall exactly what I wrote (although I do know that one of the fringe writers takes a YEC position on this). And there are no reliable sources saying that such stones were taken to Spain. And even though we can verify that a source, Coppens, claims that there are text saying they were taken to Spain in the 15th century, we also shouldn't use that just because we can verify he said it (in case anyone misses the point, I'm sure Coppens meant 16th century but that's not what he wrote). Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to force you into a ridiculous position, but you seem to have gone there quite voluntarily. You're saying that a stone is only an "Ica Stone" if it has "dinosaurs, high tech stuff, etc" on it. Otherwise we are to deny or ignore its existence. Cabrera's collection has thousands of stones. Only a few have dinosaurs or high tech stuff on them, so we are not to take any notice of the rest. We are to assume that the reader has no interest in the possible anthropological or historical significance of the many stones which are probably ancient. We are, according to you, to be focussed solely on the "set of stones that fringe sources claim" support the strange theories held by a tiny minority. What you are asking for amounts to gross POV-pushing. It lacks common sense or a sense of proportion and is insulting to the intelligence of our readers. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, so all you have to do to show I'm pov-pushing is find some archaeological sources that use the phrase "Ica Stones" but don't use them to describe this fringe view but as a label for a set of stones of general archaeological interest. And maybe you could drop the personal attacks? Find a peer reviewed analysis of these stones, discussion in some books on the archaeology of the area, that sort of thing. Do the work that's needed to back your views. I've looked and couldn't find use of the phrase outside of discussion of this fringe view. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you see my criticism of your position as a personal attack. Perhaps I can remind you that on a previous occasion you were kind enough to describe my request for a source as "repugnant" while also lecturing me on the need to use WP:COMMONSENSE. Now you're demanding I find sources which I would indeed dearly wish to find, but ignoring my suggestions, based on WP:COMMONSENSE, as to what this article should say in the mean time. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so others don't have to bother, what I said was "The suggestion that calling Holocaust denial pseudohistory contentious (and doubting that there is a source saying so) is to me repugnant." I stand by that. Are you really arguing that Skepdic is a good source for such a vague claim about Spanish texts? Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since discussing things with you is neither productive nor pleasant, I shall stop. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Publius Enigma - use of Google Groups and webforums

This should be more fun than my earlier (and unanswered) post above about another article. Here we have an article heavily sourced from Google Groups, a webforum which seems not to exist any more (Enigmapublius.org which I can only find through Wayback [43] and a whole section based on what looks like a private webpage at [44]. I've deleted some of the original research which was either unsourced or where the sources didn't come anywhere near discussing the subject of the article, but is this heavy use of Google Groups and a webforum appropriate? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of what's in Google Groups is actually Usenet posts. Those, like webforums and blogs and private websites, add up to a huge steaming pile of "not reliable sources"! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted also that a great deal of this article is from User:Chinagreenelvis, and the forum discussions are also heavily drawing from a forum user called Chinagreenelvis. This again reeks of WP:NOR violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

celebritynetworth.com

Was added to David Copperfield (illusionist) as a specific source for his "net worth" and I doubt it meets WP:RS. I do note that it is used as a source for about thirty articles, in some cases for no actual apparent reason, and suggest that if it is not RS that it be removed from them. Collect (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks highly questionable: "Neither we nor any third parties provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors to the fullest extent permitted by law". [45]. It gives no indication of how it comes by such figures - I see no reason to see it as anything more than guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My exact view. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the ultimate conclusion, but I do think it's inappropriate to read a perception of unreliability into the presence of legal boilerplate. This sort of standard disclaimer is common and entirely unremarkable. For example, the New York Times offers, in part, the following disclaimer:

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY CONTAIN INACCURACIES AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY FACTS, ADVICE, OPINIONS, VIEWS, STATEMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION DISPLAYED ON OR DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE WEB SITE.

(In all, it runs to four paragraphs of ALL CAPS SCREAMING LEGALESE explaining why we can't hold them responsible for errors or omissions.) You'll find similar terms on the web sites of many of our generally-considered-reliable sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe you're right - but we have no indication whatsoever of where they get their numbers from, or whether they give a damn about their accuracy (not that they define what the figures are supposed to represent anyway...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The terminology strikes me as very odd. If someone claimed to evaluate my net worth based on what they think I have in the bank, I'd be highly offended (and humiliated). Maybe it makes more sense in US English!

Setting that aside, how we could ever claim to report the value of someone's property and investments is a mystery to me. If the total amounts to anything much, internal revenue services spend man-years trying to get it clear, and even they often fail to come up with complete results. How can we possibly claim to have reliable sources on this? This item shouldn't be in the infobox at all. NB. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does indeed insert a figure called "estate" in its biographical articles, but (a) it is dealing with dead people, and (b) the source is specifically post mortem calculations by lawyers etc., and (c) they claim no knowledge beyond that. Andrew Dalby 10:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

YouTube (sort of)

An editor removed the following material from the article: "In January 1976, he enrolled at the university (cite to YouTube]) and earned a Bachelor of General Studies with high distinction in 1977, then a MBA from the University of Michigan Business School with distinction in 1979, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School in 1982." The edit summary read: "YouTube is not acceptable reference". I raised this on the article Talk page, and the editor agreed it wasn't a copyright issue - it would seem that he just has his own blanket "policy" that one can never cite to YouTube.

The video on YouTube is from a little-known website news source, AmericaJR.com. It is AmericaJR's official channel, so there's no copyright issue. The normal question would then be whether AmericaJR.com itself is a reliable source (that was questioned by another editor). However, as I pointed out on the Talk page, except for a nothing introduction at the beginning of the video, the entire video is just Snyder's speech. We're not citing to any content provided by a reporter from AmericaJR.com. So, the only real issue is whether we can cite to Snyder (WP:SPS) for the material in the article. This has nothing to do with YouTube or even with AmericaJR.com, although both are "providing" the content.

At the moment, as I pointed out on the article Talk page, the YouTube cite is back in the article. It wasn't reinserted by me, but by a bot rescuing the named ref. The original removing editor hasn't commented further.

Assuming Snyder's speech supports the material, does anyone see a problem citing the video of the speech?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

One reason why we do not usually accept Youtube as a reliable source is the difficulty of verifying that the content is what it claims to be. On what authority should we accept that this is an authentic unedited video of this person's speech on that particular day? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely there is a better source for his academic record than the crappy copy of this speech. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. In response to Cusop, although AmericaJR may not be the world's best news source, it is probably good enough to accept the fact that the video has not been edited, and, partly in response to Niteshift's comment, you'd think that if they edited it, they would done a better job. :-) My guess is I can find other sources for his academic record, but the story about what happened when he approached UM would probably be harder. At the same time, it's not terribly important material, more just a cute story.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And you've already answered my next response....."cute stories" aren't important. A solid source that shows where he went to school and when is much better than a crappy recording that makes you waste 10 minutes to find out the info, is from a questionable "news source" and leaves this many questions. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I question if AmericaJR is actually RS. I cannot tell if they have a reputation for fact checking an reliability. But their page attempts to solicit writers on a volunteer basis. The writers appear to be students and not professionals. I'm on the fence. There should not be any issue with using the video as an inline citation if it is RS. As someone else pointed out: How hard would it be to find an alternate source if needed? Cptnono (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Center for Systemic Peace

An editor has questioned the reliability of a country report from the Center for Systemic Peace as a source for human rights. While not as high-profile as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, CSP seems to be fairly widely cited and referenced in both books and scientific publications. --Sander Säde 10:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Taliban

Are the sources used in the below content suitable for the fact that the Taliban use terrorism as a tactic?

They use terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals.^[1] ^[2]

^ Skaine, Rosemarie (2009). Women of Afghanistan in the Post-Taliban Era: How Lives Have Changed and Where They Stand Today. McFarland. p. 41. ISBN 978-0786437924.

^ Shanty, Frank (2011). The Nexus: International Terrorism and Drug Trafficking from Afghanistan. Praeger. pp. 86–88. ISBN 978-0313385216.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs)

Both should be reliable on Taliban politics. I can't get more than a snippet for Skaine so couldn't check if it supports that statement. Shanty, on the other hand, is very clear. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

War Diaries

Hi several articles in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign have War Diaries for references. There have all been made available in there original uncorrected form by the Australian War Memorial site. These are obviously primary documents, filled in by several persons over a length of time. But are they considered reliable? I would suggest not, but was looking for some other opinions. Here is a link to one of the diaries used [46] Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we say Fog of war? I'd consider them reliable for individual experiences, but not for most factual information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I included small numbers of references to a Royal Australian Air Force operations record book (which is the RAAF equivalent of a war diary) and a personal file in the National Archives of Australia in the No. 79 Squadron RAAF and John Treloar (museum administrator) articles with no complaints at all during their FACs. Hawkeye7 also referenced several war diaries in the FA Battle of Sio and (from memory) several articles which have passed A class reviews, so there's no generic problem with using these primary sources in articles. My personal approach is to only use them to add extra details to topics which are explicitly covered in secondary sources and where there's a clear-cut need for this information, and I think that's the approach most other editors take. The official war diaries held by the AWM are one the bedrocks of Australian military history and have been heavily used by virtually all serious Australian military historians, so they can be presumed to be a broadly accurate records of the unit's experiences. They are primary sources though, so they need to be used in moderation and with great care. You might be interested in John Treloar (museum administrator)#World War I for an indication of the kind of effort which went into ensuring that the war diaries were of a good standard. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK if they have been accepted at FAC, will accept that. Jim Sweeney (talk)

That sounds more pompous then I meant. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

They are obviously primary sources. However, they will have been written at the time, as the commanding officer saw the situation: he may not have been able to see the wider picture. Subsequent writing by historians who have been able to compare them with other sources and one war diary with that of the next unit should provide a more balanced synthesis. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are limitations on using smaller units, like regimental diaries to describe the operations of divisions. But description of some complicated operations particularly in the reports often written by commanding officers which are appended to the diaries of divisions and sometimes brigades, can be helpful. Normally the diaries are written by adjutants or intelligence officers so the writing is quite high quality.--Rskp (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking a read of WP:HISTRS and paying particular attention to the section on demonstrative versus illustrative writing. In particularly, I'd suggest only using war diaries when cited by scholarly accounts; and, only then to the extent that they're cited (ie: the section or action cited). I would strongly advise not using them for analysis or context. I would strongly advise using them only where cited in the broader historiography, and only then for material unlikely to be included in a scholarly monograph as lacking interest for the scholarly community, but of interest to the encyclopaedic reader. (ie: movement dates, march orders, times of contact and withdrawal, timing of bombardments, reliefs and changes in staff not of academic interest, etc.). Be cautious, don't interpret them, rely on other's interpretations, only use them for illustration. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thepeoplesvoice.org

Several articles are using the extremely anti-Semitic http://thepeoplesvoice.org as a reference. This site is basically the left-wing equivalent of Stormfront. It should not be confused with The People's Voice organization, whose name it stole. For an example of its unreliability, see this article, which is full of completely fabricated quotes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghuvar5356 (talk • contribs)

Ignoring the rather contentious Israeli-Palestinian conflict (because there are some issues that shove the whole thing in the grey), that they misspelled clique in their own mission statement, and did not bother to look up that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary (not Jesus), and that they engage in the same sensationalism they decry in other sources, such as claim that the recession and militarism are still a problem despite all empirical observation showing that is not the case, all lead me to think that they really don't have much in the way of fact-checking or editorial oversight, and seems more like a large blog.

An unsatisfactory number articles read like Alex Jones or Glenn Beck, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I could also argue that this article cites us, which prevents them from qualifying as a reliable source.

I am inclined to say that anything they cover of value would be covered by another site, even an independent one. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, looking through the use of thepeoplesvoice.org on this site, I'm mostly reaching an opposite conclusion as to its use:

It is used in Craig Rosebraugh, to simply establish that he wrote a book. This is more or less equivilant to citing a press release, I guess it could stay.
In Islamic gold dinar, it is used to link to a Russia Today video, in a section discussing Russia Today's claims as their claims. The site is not being used itself, but as a redirect.
In Waziristan, it is used to source "Traditionally, local Waziri religious leaders have enlisted outsiders in their feuds, though it's not always that way, as local Waziris claim they are against the foreign militant presence there," but its simply reprinting this wordpress blog post. It is actually plagiarizing the article, so I removed it completely. There is a link for a Pakistani newspaper, which could be a reliable source, but the link is dead and the only copy of the page on Internet Archive fails to reveal what the article was, except that it was an opinion piece. I have failed to find any other sources, but I've only done a cursory glance over Google.
In Paul Watson, an interview with Paul Watson is used to source the statement "In 1977, Watson was expelled from the Greenpeace's board of directors by a vote of 11 to 1." This is a rather non-contentious primary source.
In Mordechai Vanunu, it is used to reprint a letter by Vanunu to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Seems reasonable to use.
In Matthew Weigman, it is citing something originaly sourced to this apparently dead link, from a site which also carried the story "KID PLAYING VIDEO GAME GETS ATTACKED BY RAPIST DOG LMAO (VIDEO)", "BREAKING Footage of Michael Jackson ALIVE! Back from the dead! Jumping out of the same van his dead body had been in," and "UFO seen hovering over Chongqing, China – Witnesses and Onlookers Amazed." While it will not kill Wikipedia to use the article on thepeoplesvoice until another source is found (as it is otherwise extremely plain), another should be found.
In The Falling Man, it is citing something that was originally sourced to Esquire. I've changed it to cite that instead.
In Hannah Rosenthal, it was citing something for the Israeli The People's Voice, which is a different organization. I have removed this
In Second Vermont Republic, it is being used as a primary source, since the article is by the founder of the Second Vermont Republic.
In Propaganda in Iran, it is citing an interview with the subject of that section, William O. Beeman. It is a primary source.
In Courting Condi, it was being used as refspam for a petition. I have removed it.
In Washington Peace Center, it is in the further reading section, not as a reference. If you feel inclined, you could suggest on the talk page that it should be removed.

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Reprint a letter? I'm not happy about that. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize that some of the places where it's being cited aren't contentious, but we should still replace or remove it where possible (basically for everything except interviews between the subject and the site, like Propaganda in Iran). We shouldn't give the impression that it's an acceptable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tax professor citing Treasury for FairTax

Resolved

– Found original Treasury source (page 216) Selery (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this blog entry a reliable source for the statement, "the U.S. Treasury Department says a revenue neutral sales tax rate would be 64%, or 89% if high evasion is expected," in the FairTax article? Selery (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Caron (the TaxProf) is not the source; Bruce Bartlett is the source, in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. If the statement is used, it should be sourced to Bartlett's writing, not Caron's blog. (Note that I am not addressing the suitability of the statement or the reliability of Caron's blog, only how this statement should be cited.) Horologium (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So we have a blog quoting an editorial citing a statement by the treasury department? I'd say no, from the combination of the editorial and the number of hops required. If you can track down the actual statement by the treasury department, and it does say that, without requiring interpretation, or if you can find a Wall Street Journal article - not editorial - that says the treasury department says that, I'd say OK. From our article on Bruce Bartlett, he seems to be a rather polarizing figure, so I'm leery of taking an editorial from him as strictly reliable for something so obviously controversial. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Costa Concordia disaster

I would be glad if you would read my request for comment at Talk:Costa Concordia disaster#Do these contents constitute original research? and add your input. Thank you. Teofilo talk 14:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Victoria Institute

The early history of this institute is well-documented, particularly in Numbers' The Creationists. However after it falls out of the story of creationism in the 1920s, its history becomes very thinly documented. The only sources turned up to date have been a piece in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith and a less than satisfactory Google books fragment from 'World Evangelical Fellowship, Evangelical review of theology, Volume 15, p. 191'. We now have a representative from VI claiming factual errors in claims from these pieces: (i) that the VI's library and study center were destroyed in WWII (PSCF) & (ii) that its journal, Faith and Thought, ceased-publication/merged (both sources). On the latter point they are able to offer this as evidence that it is still under publication.

My own suspicion that the VI's modern history lacks sufficient "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" (to use WP:N's phrasing) -- that any attempt to reconcile the sources would result in inevitable WP:Synthesis and that, due to the VI's reduced profile, we may lack sources with sufficiently intimate knowledge of the topic to be sufficiently reliable (i.e. they may be relying on hearsay and/or imperfect remembrance). If so, we may have to simply leave its modern history unsaid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Gazeta Do Povo

I was wondering if someone familiar with Brazilian sites could tell me whether Gazeta Do Povo is reliable or not. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a major newspaper. Normally reliable, I'd say. Andrew Dalby 18:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

List of books that plagiarize from Wikipedia

Is there a subpage which lists books that include Wikipedia content without attribution? There have been several discussions in the past about publishers such as the Gyan Publishing House (e.g. 1, 2, 3), but people keep re-inserting their books as references. Once in every few months, I've to embark on a cleanup spree to remove these. Utcursch (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think such a list, perhaps even modifying a bot as well, might be a good idea to detect cites to questionable sources. However it's done, though, we can't get carried away since some publishers existed before Wikipedia. Not all of Gyan's publications could have copied Wikipedia, for instance, so a rather detailed list would probably be needed. JFHJr (㊟) 08:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've created a page at User:Utcursch/plagiarism from Wikipedia, linked from WP:PUS. utcursch | talk 06:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Gyan/Isha is a little different, while many of their recent publications are reproductions of WP content, quite a few of the earlier ones are reproductions of other author's/publishing house content. Sitush (I think) had picked up one "recent" book of theirs which was used as a source here but was actually copied from an out-of-copyright work from the UK. While some other publishers (notably Motilal Banarsidass) also republish out of copyright works, they retain the original info (author etc) and do not pass it of as new works. With Gyan there really is no way to tell which one is really a new work vs copied from out of copyright works, copied from copyrighted works, unattributed copy etc. —SpacemanSpiff 06:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Would a wider net, plagiarism by publisher/publication/source be best? I bet there are more, and I assume a single publication might rip off several other sources at a time. If there were a list or chart by plagiarist, it might help editors identify original sources and replace citations instead of simply removing. JFHJr (㊟) 06:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Add Kalpaz to the Gyan/Isha mix - they seem to be the same outfit. Some examples of Gyan weirdness (which includes seemingly plagiarising their own authors!):

Compare [this with [this
This with this

I have come across at least 100 example pairs, and some triplicates. Probably more, but I binned my list in utter disgust. Which is unfortunate given current developments but was based in part on having the support of User:Moonriddengirl regarding the issue. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, SpacemanSpiff is correct in thinking that I've found examples that pre-date WP but were copies from earlier (and still copyrighted) works. I'll see if I can find that darn list ... - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone come across Int'l Business Publications? User:SummerPhD has removed many references to that publisher identified as Wiki "reprints." I thought that user might find this discussion interesting and left a note. JFHJr (㊟) 07:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks includes both print and online sources, but is a list of publishers rather than pages/titles. To get on the list, websites and publishers don't have to be only mirrors and forks, but I wouldn't put a webpage on the list necessarily for a single instance. For instance, if the fan club of Joe Smith copies his bio but has no interest in any other Wikipedia content, I would note the copying on Joe Smith's talk page, but not at Mirrors and Forks. Gyan Publishing is on the list. Int'l Business Publications isn't, JFHJr, but I can't say that I've never encountered it. There are so many. :/ But this conversation seems relevant and the charge seems fair. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Help evaluating reliability of blogs

This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation between WP:RS and WP:N, so I'll take it over there if you guys think I should...

We have an article on Luna The Fashion Kitty. The article's creator is using the blogs Racked, Catster, and Fashionista as sources. Here are links to the specific article/posts: Racked 1 and Racked 2, Catster, and Fashionista. Any comments on the reliability of these sources would be appreciated. If you're a notability expert as well and feel like commenting on those aspects, it would be seriously appreciated (and save me a trip to WP:N/N). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick look at their about pages, Fashionista has an editorial staff and is backed by a publishing company, so likely reliable. Catster is a mix of expert and community posts, so you would have to check if the specific author would be reliable under WP:SPS. Racked I can't really get a handle on. (their about page is here[47]) Siawase (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the person who wrote the article. One of the sources is also a newspaper, if that helps (El Imparcial). Not sure if that's under consideration here or not but just wanted to point that out. I'd like to work on this article more but also don't want to put a lot more time into if it is going to be deleted. So I'm interested to hear the outcome of this discussion and open to specific feedback. Akritenbrink (talk)

Akritenbrink, I think you're OK here. Go ahead with improving the article. Nothing is guaranteed at Wikipedia, but I know I won't be nominating it for deletion based on the coverage shown here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bunt (community)

I need to know is wikipedia the fiefdom of User:Sitush he constantly removes citation on Bunt (community) page from people notable enough to have a wikipedia article like Edgar Thurston saying it is npov but keeps citation of a relatively unknown person called alagodi (which was added by him) who is not even an ethnographer but some christian priest.how can wikipedia allow this to happen.user sitush is too judgemental does not assume good faith when he reverts edits by other contributors please see his edits and comments on talk page.also i think he tries to own articles he edits.look people like me have a life outside so do most editors on wikipedia,so we cannot be on constant vigil and start edit wars.but sitush seems to have got all the time on earth to edit wikipedia.so probably he has assumed that he owns wikipedia.thank god he is not an administrator on wiki.please admins look into the matter.27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have specifically said that Alagodi and Thurston are separate issues. I agree that Alagodi needs to be looked into, but as far as Thurston goes, well, I've had a year of dealing with stuff by him and know what passes and what does not. You are conflating, as I have explained to you previously. - Sitush (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

who the hell are you to discredit Edgar Thurston completely.i need to believe your views on thurston just because you edit wikipedia for a year.so that means you own wikipedia.newbies can't edit !.27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This should be taken to WP:RSN. Where, I expect, short shrift will be made of it given that Thurston was a scientific racist whose views, while of historical interest, cannot in general be used to establish facts for a modern encyclopedia. Not to mention that what he called research wouldn't pass for it today in terms of sample size, sample selection, or measurement. That being said, I'm well-known in some circles as a member of Sitush's cabal, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

why doesn't Qwyrxian comment on sitush's addition of alagodi's views.is he reliable,no wait who the hell is alagodi ?.i haven't even heard of him.and what the hell is this bs thurston views though of historical importance cannot be part of modern encyclopedia but some random fellow like alagodi's can be.27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Because you haven't heard of them that makes them unreliable? As was suggested above, take it to WP:RSN. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

also thurston has been cited on wiki articles related to ethnicties like Iyer,Velama (caste),Paraiyar,Billava,Vadama,Koraga(which was ironically created by sitush) Vanniyar,Toda people,Kamma (caste) and the list goes on and on and on.now tell thurston can't be part of modern encyclopedia 27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, when I pointed you here it was because you appeared to want to complain about me - my methods etc. As others have said, you should take this to WP:RSN if your issue is merely the sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

issue is you sitush and your gang.not letting others edit.27.4.218.66 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the issue is that you want to use a source that violates our guideline on reliable sources (of course, that's my opinion, and I would accept a consensus at WP:RSN that goes in an opposite direction). I know nothing about Alagodi. I do know that Sitush has told you, rightly so, that these are two totally separate issues. If you think Alagodi is bad, take that to WP:RSN as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

thurston can't be cited only on the bunt page.other wiki pages can use him as a source? what logic.27.4.218.66 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thurston died in 1935. This is very out of date scholarship and shouldn't be cited as fact on any articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Paper with no indicated publisher

http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/mai/alexanderlugg.pdf

This academic paper says that it was double blind peer reviewed and presented at a conference. I can't tell if it was published by an academic journal, but it's still an RS, right? It is on the Monash University Faculty of Arts page. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What do we know about the author? Was the paper written by an undergrad student? a PhD candidate? A faculty member? Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The paper's author is Alexander Lugg. I'm going to check the university site to see who he is. The first page says "This paper was presented to the 17th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in Melbourne 1-3 July 2008. It has been peer reviewed via a double blind referee process and appears on the Conference Proceedings Website by the permission of the author who retains copyright. This paper may be downloaded for fair use under the Copyright Act (1954), its later amendments and other relevant legislation" WhisperToMe (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, what information is it intended to cite it for? --FormerIP (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun. The author has a personal belief that the entertainer's career is limited, and he has an explanation of why in the paper. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the staff directory at says: http://directory.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/staffsearch/staffsearch

"Mr Alexander Lugg Org. Unit: School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, Faculty of Arts Email: Alexander(dot)Lugg(at)monash(dot)edu No telephone details recorded in the Monash Directory Service"

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also it is a part of a larger event. http://arts.monash.edu.au/mai/asaa/proceedings.php says that it's the "Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Conference of the ASAA" WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think generally conference proceedings are treated like journal articles because they still have to be reviewed and accepted, provided it can be certain that the paper was actually presented at the conference. If it wasn't then I'd say it's not RS; the reliability of academic research comes from the peer review process. Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Above, the conference paper says "It has been peer reviewed via a double blind referee process and appears on the Conference Proceedings Website by the permission of the author who retains copyright." WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

At the time of the conference (2008), the presenter was a student (a Ph.D. candidate): [48]. "Double blind" is a weird (bordering on nonsensical) construction to use to describe a peer review process; perhaps the author simply meant that there were two referees, per the description of the proceedings? I'm a little concerned that the review was a straight yes/no decision—reviewers were not permitted to conditionally accept a submission, nor could authors revise their submission in response to reviewer feedback. This topic and conference are out of my area of academic experience, so I can't comment on how usual that sort of review is in that area; my fear would be that it would set a "not egregiously bad" minimum standard for papers.

Looking at the paper itself, it appears that the statement "[Qian's] future career prospects are limited" represents an inference or conclusion drawn by the paper's author, based on his own reasoning and opinion. It's a relatively small part of the overall paper, and I would be reluctant to believe that that particular statement was the subject of rigorous review. I would also hesitate to include it in our article unless the author has established a professional reputation for studies in this area beyond a single conference presentation. Finally, it seems a bit dubious for us to use a 2008 paper to describe the career prospects of a minor celebrity here in 2012. Such predictions are generally not required in a Wikipedia article. Not only can we provide a concise, neutral summary of the actor's film and television credits – thereby allowing our readers to reach their own conclusions about his career and prospects – but we now have four more years of hard information about the subject's career (including a 2010 feature film, which might seem to call into question the paper's glib conclusion). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. In that case I'll leave the citation out. Thanks for your help! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this particular conference but (a) double-blind peer review is the standard form of peer review, indicating that the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa, and (b) it would be very unusual in my experience for a conference to allow "revise and resubmit" decisions by reviewers, likely because of the time commitment necessary for such decisions (by reviewers and authors). So those particular issues don't seem like issues at all and that they've been raised at all is a bit troubling to me. ElKevbo (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ElKevbo: Some details of the conference are located at http://www.conferenceworks.net.au/asaa/about.php and http://www.conferenceworks.net.au/asaa/about2.php WhisperToMe (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's too far outside of my own discipline and academic interests for me to give an accurate evaluation beyond a general "Yeah, it seems to be a legitimate academic conference." You really need someone with relevant disciplinary knowledge and experience to give you a good answer. ElKevbo (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty - Where do you think I should look? Do you know anybody on here who might be able to answer the question? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that you've got enough here to satisfy WP:N which is the purpose of this noticeboard. If you want to go beyond that to find expert help on the content of the article, maybe you could start by looking for relevant Wikiprojects and asking for help there. Surely we have a few that focus on Asia. ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And as a general reminder: The next step is usually to consider WP:DUE; just because a source is reliable doesn't mean we should include it in an article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The paper mentions that Qian appears in some other videos that are not currently listed at the Qian Zhijun article. The paper says that one of them heavily promoted the company Google WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I work in the Australian humanities system. The paper is reliable. Australian humanities conferences regularly require resubmission, in this case, the following standards applied, 3rd reviewer on 2 reviewer conflict. The conference paper is reliable. The author, as an academic expert in Chinese memes, seems appropriate to make a judgement on the enduring nature of the Qian meme. Reliable for use. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike Royko columns on LaRouche

At Talk:LaRouche movement the following was cited as proving that Royko's columns concerning LaRouce are RS for the claims made in that article: [49]

Have the standards regarding BLPs been strengthened with regard to opinion columns being cited as "fact"? Has RS been changed regarding use of opinion columns as fact when dealing with named individuals, and named small groups? Does the earlier discussion become stare decisis as apparently claimed [50] ? If we were to discuss the issue ab initio, what would the opinions here from other editors state? Are the Royko columns presented not "opinion columns" at all, but straight factual reportage? (Example follows)

To fully appreciate LaRouche and his followers, you have to have had dealings with them. Which I have. A few years ago, something that called itself Citizens for Chicago took a frenzied dislike to Jane Byrne and began selling posters of her that bordered on the pornographic. I became curious and looked into Citizens for Chicago. Its leader lied and lied, but I established that it was one of the many LaRouche front organizations. When I wrote a column exposing it, their response was to distribute handbills and posters claiming that I had undergone a sex change operation. That didn't bother me, since I had evidence to the contrary. But they somehow tracked down the address of my assistant, a female reporter. They managed to get into her high-rise building and find her apartment. And on the doorknob they left one of their handbills. On it was drawn a bull's-eye. And there was a message. "A warning," they said. "We will kill your cat." So let us hope that the primary is the last election this crowd wins. If not, no cat will be safe 2 WINNERS FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE; Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune : Mar 20, 1986. pg. 3

Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously reliable. Review Mike Royko. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As fact? As opinion? For BLP purposes? No one is saying Royko is not known - but are his columns to be accepted as reportage in the usual sense of the word? what? Collect (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the reliable source noticeboard. You've asked if a source is reliable. It is. I'm sorry that's not the answer you were looking for. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, unless you are discussing Royko's opinion of the LaRouchies. Royko was a columnist, not a reporter, and he was expected to have a point of view, rather than simply report the facts. LaRouche is still alive, and WP:BLP still governs his article, and using an opinion column to assert facts is not appropriate. Horologium (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Royko was, in addition to being an opinion columnist, an experienced journalist, biographer, and Pulitzer winner and his work is backed by a reliable, long-standing institution with experienced factcheckers. It seems reasonable to rely upon his work for statements of fact. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider the excerpt posted above thus to be absolutely and simply a recitation of fact? Or might one reasonably assert Royko placed opinions therein quite notably? I would note Will is asserting that this discussion has reached a decision that Royko is a reliable source for "fact" about LaRouche utterly and that he "was not an opinion columnist". Collect (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction: I was referring to the last RSN thread on this exact same issue. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Mike Royko. Will Beback talk 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hermann's rendering of Ebert's colorful Windy City colleagues and friends-particularly legendary print journalists Mike Royko and Studs Terkel-are especially engaging.
- Audio Reviews Publishers Weekly 258. 48 (Nov 28, 2011).
It's still easy to get lost on Lower Wacker, a street under streets that still boasts the Billy Goat tavern, a favorite hangout for journalists of old (including Mike Royko), though I never did find the third level known as Lower Lower Wacker or the Lowest Wacker.
- IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN Fishman, Jane. Savannah Morning News [Savannah, Ga] 07 Aug 2011: F.1.
The late Chicago journalist Mike Royko used to run and judge a rib-cooking fest at the end of summer in Grant Park.
- Full Slab Epstein, Joseph. The Weekly Standard16. 12 (Dec 6, 2010): 5.
City News was organized a century ago by several newspaper publishers and closed in 2005. It was known for rigorous training of young reporters, including Mike Royko and Seymour Hersh.

Six counties in 60 seconds Anonymous. Daily Herald [Arlington Heights, Ill] 04 Sep 2009: 21.

A dimly lit cheeseburger joint may not be everyone's choice, but fans of that dwindling medium known as the newspaper will love the old photos and the memorials to legendary journalists like Mike Royko.
- Seeing Chicago by Taxi, With a Venetian Twist: [Travel Desk] Working, Russell. New York Times [New York, N.Y] 30 Aug 2009: TR.8.
I published a book about the great Chicago journalist Mike Royko, who was an authority on Chicago hot dogs.
- WHAT'S IT TAKE TO GET A GOOD CHICAGO DOG? Moe, Doug. Wisconsin State Journal [Madison, Wis] 24 Dec 2008: A.2.
For Driscoll, 51, Royko remains the archetype of the acerbic, hypercritical "Western" journalist. "I grew up reading Royko and how he was always giving Mayor [Richard J.] Daley a hard time," Driscoll said. "That, to me, was the way journalism was supposed to be. That was it at its best."
- Royko fan fights for free Iraqi press Hood, Joel. Chicago Tribune [Chicago, Ill] 21 Feb 2008: 2SSW.1.

And so on. I could post a hundred more citation in which Royko is called either a "journalist" or a "legendary journalist". Will Beback talk 18:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice - but "opinion columnists" are indeed "journalists." 1.The activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television. covers a very broad range. Royko did assuredly write for newspapers, and wrote a syndicated column labeled "commentary" by others. A journalist contributing regularly to a newspaper or magazine is a "columnist". Being a "journalist" does not make the person's opinions into "fact". Collect (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC) [51] Mike Riyko, Opinion columnist. Etc. Collect (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. Royko is indeed reporting facts here, not opinion. As a very experienced investigative journalist, he is a reliable source for the facts he reports. In fact, I'd go so far as to label him one of the most reliable sources there is for the seamy side of Chicago politics. Personally, I didn't care for Royko, his opinions and his politics, but I trust his journalism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Royko material should stay. He's a perfectly reliable source for the statements made. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

[Skepdic-1] Carroll, Robert P. (2003). The skeptic's dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. New York: Wiley. pp. 169–71. ISBN 0-471-27242-6.

[Fortean-2] Coppens, P (October 2001). "Jurassic library - The Ica Stones". Fortean Times. Available without registration at philipcoppens.com

[Skaine-3] Skaine, Rosemarie (2009). Women of Afghanistan in the Post-Taliban Era: How Lives Have Changed and Where They Stand Today. McFarland. p. 41. ISBN 978-0786437924.

[Shanty1-4] Shanty, Frank (2011). The Nexus: International Terrorism and Drug Trafficking from Afghanistan. Praeger. pp. 86–88. ISBN 978-0313385216.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]