Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 129

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131→Archive 135

California Birth Index and WP:BLPPRIMARY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Asked, answered, moving on to disruption. RS/N does not host disruption
  • Source in question: California Birth Index, http://www.familytreelegends.com, particularly the Emilie Fridges record here [1]
  • Article in question: Emilie Autumn, in particular this diff [2] that attempts to add "Emilie Fritzges" as Autumn's birth name and increase her age by two years.
  • Countered by secondary source: Allmusic bio [3]

Background: There's a long-running dispute on whether Autumn's last name at birth is Fritzges; consensus as I understand it is the chain of coincidences is too weak to allow it. The new source added is a record at the California Birth Index, showing an Emilie Fritzges born on 9/22/77.

However, this is contradicted by the Allmusic bio about Autumn, which lists her date of birth as 9/22/79.

On one hand, my concern is still that there is a weak chain of evidence linking Autumn to that birth record. The bigger question is whether the birth record should be used at all, in light of WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

So, before we even try to weigh the merits of the two sources, should the California Birth Index be disqualified as a public record that violates WP:BLPPRIMARY? —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Using the California Birth Index would indeed violate WP:BLPPRIMARY and cannot be used in a BLP. The case is a perfect example of why this rule is needed. Editors are guessing that the birth record refers to the subject of the article, and that guess is based on a further guess at a last name. Even in much simpler situations, anybody who has done any genealogical research knows just how easy it is to get led down false trails of people with similar names and location. Citing this kind of original research is precarious any article but is thoroughly inappropriate in the bio of a living person. This recent post on a similar topic gives a great, much longer explanation of the dangers of using such primary sources. Slp1 (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

California Birth Index as well as the Texas Birth Index are databases related to Ancestry.com and FamilyTreeLegends. These are among the most reliable of sources in regard to accurate birthdates. If these violate WP:BLPPRIMARY then no references should be allowed as reliable sources on Wikipedia, which would obviously not be beneficial. C. Fred mentions allmusic.com as a reliable source. That website as well as other musical artist bio websites are notorious for dubious incorrect information, so if any site should be considered a reliable source it would clearly be CA Birth Index. Kardthrow (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kardthrow, did you read the link I provided where another editor describes the problems of ancestry.com? If you read it you will see exactly why secondary sources are preferred to original research in such repositories of primary source records, especially so in a BLP. Regardless of your opinion of the relative reliability of these sources, WP only allows allmusic, per WP:PSTS and WP:BLPPRIMARY. If you don't agree, you'll need to change the policies in place here. Slp1 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW, Kardthrow, I see you just created your account and immediately came here to comment. Are you the same person as User:Circumfrintz who introduced the material sourced to FamilyTreeLegends? It is okay if you are, but you should be up front about it, per WP:SOCKPUPPET--Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The California Birth Index is an extremely reliable source for the fact that a woman named Emily A. Fritzges was born in Los Angeles on 22 September, 1977. Drawing anything beyond that, such as who this Emily Fritzges went on to become, is original research, and it should be left for secondary sources to draw that conclusion. Respectfully, Kardthrow, I think you have missed the point of Fred's statement. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly I am not Circumfrints. I am a frustrated user of Wikipedia who cannot understand why these accurate websites for adding DOB's to articles are "banned" from Wikipedia. This makes absolutely no sense seeing as throughout Wikipedia there are DOB's added to articles whith much less reliable references and as any regular browser of Wikipedia knows very often dates of birth don't have ANY references attached to them. So basically what some higher-up people on here are doing (who are these "wiki-masters" by the way) is removing completely reliable sources of information to be used for articles.

Respectfully to Someguy you have COMPLETELY MISSED this following point: google "fritzges emilie autumn" and you will find NUMEROUS DIFFERENT websites showing Frizges to be her surname. google "emilie autumn 1977" and far more results show up then "emilie autumn 1979". google "emilie autumn california" and you'll see she was born in that state. then head on over to the CA Birth Index and put in "emily fritzges" (she spells her real first name with a Y). Do you get where I'm going with this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kardthrow (talk • contribs)

I'm getting that you're making a lot of claims and not presenting the sources. You can't add information, shout "GOOGLE IT", and expect everyone to do what you say. If reliable sources for Emilie Autumn's birth name and date are abound on the internet, just link to them. This is not a very high bar. But we're not going to take a birth record with absolutely no context and declare that it belongs to the same person we're hosting an article about. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding Source to Gawain article

Hi I was just reading on a site and a book about Gawain and I just felt it might be necessary to add them, now the preview would be both of these

Gawain in early literature

In the Gesta Regum Anglorum of around 1125,[1] William of Malmesbury records that Gawain's grave had been uncovered in Pembrokeshire during the reign of William the Conqueror, and writes that the great nephew of Arthur had been driven from his kingdom by Hengest's brother, though he continued to harry them severely.[2]

Gawain is a major character in the Arthurian section of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) written in 1136,[3] where he is a superior warrior and potential heir to the throne until he is tragically struck down by Mordred's forces, although, some sources claim it was by Lancelot in a duel. Several later works expand on Geoffrey's mention of Gawain's boyhood spent in Rome, the most important of which is the anonymous Medieval Latin romance The Rise of Gawain, Nephew of Arthur, which describes his birth, boyhood and early adventures leading up to his knighting by his uncle.[Citation | last = Day | first = Mildred Leake | author-link = | contribution = The Rise of Gawain, Nephew of Arthur | editor-last = Wilhelm | editor-first = James J. | title = The Romance of Arthur | volume = | pages = 365–366 | publisher = Garland | place = New York | year = 1994 | contribution-url =}} Cite book| last = Pyle| first = Howard| title = "King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table| publisher = Waldman Publishing Corporation| year= 1993| location = New York City, New York| pages = 238| isbn = 0-86611-982-5]

[cite web |url=http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4186/Arthur/htmlpages/kingarthurlegendpeople.html%7C title=Arthur Man of the Ages |accessdate=August 08, 2012]

An influx of romances written in French appeared in the wake of Chretien’s works, and in these Gawain was characterized variously. He is the hero, sometimes he aids the hero, sometimes he is the subject of burlesque humor. In the Vulgate Cycle, he is depicted as a proud and worldly knight who demonstrates through his failures the danger of neglecting the spirit for the futile gifts of the material world. On the Grail quest, his intentions are always the purest, but he is unable to use God's grace to see the error in his ways. Later, when his brothers Agravain and Mordred plot to destroy Lancelot and Guinevere by exposing their love affair, Gawain tries to stop them. When Guinevere is sentenced to burn at the stake and Arthur deploys his best knights to guard the execution, Gawain nobly refuses to take part in the deed even though his brothers will be there. But when Lancelot returns to rescue Guinevere, a battle between Lancelot's and Arthur's knights ensues and Gawain's two sons and his brothers, except for Mordred, were killed. This turns his friendship with Lancelot into hatred, and his desire for vengeance causes him to draw Arthur into a war with Lancelot in France. In the king's absence, Mordred usurps the throne, and the Britons must return to save Britain. Gawain wages two wars between Mordred and Lancelot. He was mortally wounded in a duel with Lancelot who, it is said, lay for two nights weeping at Gawain's tomb. Before his death, Gawain repented of his bitterness and hatred towards Lancelot and forgave him."Arthur Man of the Ages". Retrieved August 08, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) The Middle Dutch Roman van Walewein by Penninc and Pieter Vostaert, and the Middle High German romance Diu Crône by Heinrich von dem Türlin are both dedicated primarily to Gawain, and in Wirnt von Grafenberg’s Middle High German Wigalois he is the father of the protagonist.


Gawain in English literature

For the English and Scots, Gawain remained a respectable and heroic figure. He is the subject of several romances and lyrics in the dialects of those countries. He is the hero of one of the greatest works of Middle English literature, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, where he is portrayed as an excellent, but human, knight. In The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, his wits, virtue and respect for women frees his wife, a loathly lady, from her curse of ugliness. Other important English Gawain romances include The Awntyrs off Arthure (The Adventures of Arthur) and The Avowyng of Arthur.

These glowing portraits of Gawain all but ended with Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, which is based mainly, but not exclusively, on French works from the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate Cycles. Here Gawain partly retains the negative characteristics attributed to him by the later French, and partly retains his earlier positive representations, creating a character seen by some as inconsistent, and by others as a believably flawed hero. Gawain is cited in Robert Laneham's letter describing the entertainments at Kenilworth in 1575,[4] and the recopying of earlier works such as The Greene Knight suggests that a popular tradition of Gawain continued. The Child Ballads include a preserved legend in the positive light, The Marriage of Sir Gawain a fragmentary version of the story of The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. He also appears in the rescue of Guinevere and plays a significant role though Lancelot overshadows him. Gawain appears in Tennyson’s “Passing of Arthur” as a frivolous figure who is held in contempt by Sir Bedivere.[5] The character appears in a positive light in novels like Gillian Bradshaw's Hawk of May, Thomas Berger's Arthur Rex, Hal Foster's comic strip Prince Valiant, and Stephen R. Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle. He is also the subject of Harrison Birtwistle's and David Harsent's opera Gawain.Pyle, Howard (1993). "King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. New York City, New York: Waldman Publishing Corporation. p. 238. ISBN 0-86611-982-5. "Arthur Man of the Ages". Retrieved August 08, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Now if you read carefully,these two are reliable sources, of how Gawain died and I just wanted to pointed out a claim as there are many claims for Arthurian myths, however, these come from Geoffrey Chaucer's time,

Pyle, Howard (1993). "King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. New York City, New York: Waldman Publishing Corporation. p. 238. ISBN 0-86611-982-5.

and

cite web |url=http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4186/Arthur/htmlpages/kingarthurlegendpeople.html%7C title=Arthur Man of the Ages |accessdate=August 08, 2012.

Although, I believe it was suitable for the article of Gawain, there is one user who believes his/her source was more reliable than any other, and I stated I would share different claims from the mythology, but the user eventually, booted out, but it was reliable, and I wish to use this source and voice the fact, and will not edit on the article. I did edit this back in June as was reliable, and I wish to know I do have the right to use these reliable sources for the article, correct from the notability.--GoShow (...............) 01:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I know there are different stories from a false warrior whether Gawain died from Mordred or Lancelot in later writings, but still there are many tales of him in the article, as well with myths about King Arthur, himself, thanks--GoShow (...............) 01:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what you are asking, but I would not use Howard Pyle - he wrote mainly for children and doesn't seem to have any academic credibility. And definitely not a geocities.com webpage. Mildred Leake Day is a good source. Malory obviously says Gawain was killed by Lancelot at Dover, and there was a story about this skull being on display at Dover Castle.

Geoffrey of Monmouth (HRB) states that Gualguainus was slain in battle agains the forces of Modredus at the port of Rutpi (Richborough). What exactly is the dispute? Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, well alright that's it I was trying to find the name about a source to come up with Lancelot killing Gawain and ok it was Malory, if I could just find a source about Malory's story I'm hoping to use a source for this edit, not Geoffrey, I couldn't figure out the name thanks.--GoShow (...............) 15:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Try [4]. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Definitely!! , and I will hope it will work for the article of Gawain, otherwise, thank you tremendously!--GoShow (...............) 16:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Gosh, are we absolutely positive there's no BLP problem here? Can't be too careful, you know! EEng (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Is a press release a reliable source for an extraordinary claim in a BLP?

Specifically, the WP article on Arnie Zimmerman states,

He has been called "one of the most significant contemporary artists working in ceramics today".

based upon a press release[5] by the Rhode Island School of Design Museum of Art exhibiting his work. I looked for corroborating sources but didn't find any, but it isn't my area of expertise. The source seems somewhat promotional to me, but I don't have a strong opinion so brought it here. Ward20 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "has been called", you should name the source in-line. But it seems to be the wrong way to approach this. The best way is to get a good book about "contemporary artists working in ceramics today" and see what they say about his significance. TFD (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Press releases are not ideal sources and should be noted when used. Furthermore I take it the press release is promotional, and that is also important. If it is the only source you can find we should indicate that the source is a promotional press release. But actually if the promo material says he has been called this, there must be (or should be) a mainstream media source somewhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The press release from The RISD Museum of Art is the source of the partial quote:

The RISD Museum of Art presents Inner City, an epic narrative of urban growth, decay, change, and life itself, realized in clay by one of the most significant contemporary artists working in ceramics today—Arnie Zimmerman (American, b. 1954).

I've never edited this article nor am I familiar with literature about his work. While casually reading the article I noticed the source seemed to be marginal and wondered how to improve it. I agree with TFD above about the best way to deal with it and initially spent about a hour looking for such a source but I failed. Again, this isn't my thing so a better source may exist, I don't know. Another way is to attribute the source as a promotional press release but I'm not sure this meets WP:RS conventions. The third way I see is to tag it with a "better source needed" notation. A fourth way is to remove the material as not having a reliable source. I'm looking for opinions or suggestions about which way to go. Ward20 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Press releases are dignified forms of advertisement, and are promotional in nature; they are not to be considered reliable sources for a claim such as this about anybody, living or dead. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I really like that "dignified forms of advertisement". They are also a serious problem because some newspapers reprint them as though they were stories, and they end up being cited in articles as stories. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that press releases like this are primarily promotional in nature and prone to hyperbole. I wouldn't consider it worth using at all, especially for a puffed-up sentence like the one the OP quoted. Agree with Dougweller about press releases being a serious sourcing problem, especially when they are published by (otherwise reliable) journalistic outlets as "stories" without any significant contribution or, for that matter, afterthought, by the journalist writing the "story". It's really a cheap and lazy way to fill page space on a slow news day. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Press releases are self-published, and unless you have a reason to believe that the BLP wrote and published it (or indirectly did, e.g., a press release by a company introducing a new employee), then it's not useable at all for information about a BLP.
And if the subject did write it, then you treat it just like you would have treated the same words appearing on the subject's website: it would be "reliable" but perhaps not WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tributes.com

Joan Gerber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is tributes.com a reliable source for saying Gerber died? I'm uncomfortable with sites like this, particularly for citing deaths. I looked at the about us page, and it didn't make me any more comfortable. The WP article is essentially almost devoid of references. There's an external link to another dubious source that also says she died. Their about page doesn't reassure me, either. Do two not-very-reliable sources make one reliable source? :-)

It appears there's very little secondary coverage of Gerber, despite her rather prolific career, so I've been unable to find your usual obituary in a mainstream newspaper.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the tributes.com will do. It seems that the page is simply a feed from the US social security index. It is probably her, but this is to all intents and purposes a public record with all the dangers of that, and so per BLP:PRIMARY should not be used. --Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable assessment to me, too. It gets somewhat more confusing because tributes.com doesn't say what index it is using, the official paid index, or one of the unofficial indexes. At least one of those unofficial indexes doesn't appear to corroborate the death date given by tributes.com.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I found this from Legacy.com through its affiliate LA Times: JOANELLEN GERBER Jul 29, 1935 Aug 22, 2011 Last residence: 90046 (Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA). The search is through the SSDI records. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's coming from the same source, though. The US publicly releases this death database to stop fraud etc and then it gets picked up by various sources including these companies. But the problem is that we have no clear idea that Joanellen Gerber is the Joan Gerber of the article. I did a bit of a search around and there are lots of Joan Gerbers in the US (including one who is/was in prison as a Madam!!).Slp1 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The birth date matches the birth date in our article. The problem is that the birth date in our article is also not reliably sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I see your point Bbb23. It is a tough call with all these primary sources etc. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
not related to the reliability of the tributes.com site, but there are just a whole buttload of other voice actor articles of similarly scant reliable sourcing, if anyone is looking for a massive clean up project. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but I didn't have such a project in mind when I got involved in this case. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Subscription-only site sufficient for BLP claim?

I am wondering about this edit to Bryan Alvarez. I keep the article on my watchlist because it is frequently vandalized. A claim was added that his wife cheated on him, she is now pregnant, and they are going to name the baby Jamal after his father. I removed it as unsourced the first time. It was added back with a subscription-only article as a reference. I removed it, as I was concerned about the BLP content, but it was re-added with a note that I was being cheap and should just subscribe to the site. Is the sourcing sufficient for this claim? The free content on the website is used regularly for sourcing in professional wrestling articles, but I have never seen the subscriber-only content used as a reference, let alone for a claim like this. I might be completely wrong here, so I thought I'd see what people had to say. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the "journalists" are the "editors" [6] this looks like SPS to me. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Material like that should definitely not be added to a BLP without rock-solid sourcing. I would say not only to remove it, but notify admins to block the editor if they keep it up and lock down the article if IPs keep trying to add it. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Holy crap, I agree with Cla68 - As far as I can tell, this claim is literally absent from the entire (subscription free) internet. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and trying to cite a potentially libelous BLP claim to a source you know most people have no access to is almost trolling. Demanding that other editors pay a subscription fee before they can challenge you is even closer. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I've watchlisted the article and am happy to protect/block as required. --Slp1 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It was readded so I've now semi-protected the article. Slp1 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Can a BBC documentary be cited as a reliable source?

I wanted to cite a recent BBC documentary on "Bloody Friday" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kxsxn as a source but another editor has said it can't be used because the BBC have not as yet made it publically available online in a permanent manner. What's the policy in this regard?--feline1 (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Hot Stop 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Sources do not need to be online,(this should be carved in stone) as long as a copy exists somewhere in a library, you can use it. The BBC has a habit of releasing many of their popular documentary series on the video market, has this one appeared in the shops yet? Roger (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Copied for Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

I was editing an article and wanted to use a recently broadcast BBC documentary as source. The documentary was broadcast on the BBC1 channel. It has a page on the BBC website, but it is not currently viewable online via their "iPlayer" service. (It is, however, all over YouTube... these YouTube copies violate copyright, but they are accessible). One editor has taken the stance that it is not permissable to cite this BBC documentary as a source because it is not "publically accessible". What is the wikipedia consensus position on this?--feline1 (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This should really go to WP:RSN. However, what's the name of the documentary, and I'll give you an opinion. Formerip (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It was an hour long political history program about the "Bloody Friday" bombings in Belfast, broadcast on their 40th anniversay http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kxsxn --feline1 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't look verifable, due to not being viewable. The problem with copyright-infringing YouTube clips is that we can't effectively cite them, even if they do verify the content. So someone else who comes along later will not be able to check. However, there is a series of clips on the BBC website. If the material you want is in one of those, then that will pass WP:V (although don't forget that it will also need to pass other policies such as WP:NPOV). See this link. Formerip (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to cite a YouTube link. I cited the the programme itself, and the BBC webpage for the programme. This strikes me as analagous to citing the name, author and publisher of a book. How readers obtain a copy of that book is up to them. The BBC obviously retains an "archived copy" of the programme in their vaults. They have broadcast it on television and on iPlayer. They have not yet released it on DVD. (But even if they had, it might currently be out of stock on Amazon etc etc... just like a book might have gone out of print). It seems to be that it is attested & verifiable that the BBC made and broadcast the programme. It is also very easy for any to google it and find it on YouTube. ... I'm not sure what the practical problem is here with it being a reliable verifiable source.--feline1 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
something being out of stock on amazon or no longer in print is not the same as never having been made public in the first place. Is the content that you wish to include verifiable on the BBC page about its documentary?-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well I don't think "never having been made public in the first place" is a label you could apply to an hour's worth of television broadcast on BBC1 and resyndicated on their iPlayer site! The info I wanted to cite is in the documentary itself, it's not transcribed on the webpage. (Some of it might be on the clips on the webpage, to be honest I haven't checked). Anyways - to cut to the chase: is it a wikipedia policy that a television programme can only be considered a verifiable source if it is available to buy on DVD/VHS/etc? Or is the fact that it was publically broadcast, still held in an archive by the broadcaster, and acknowledged by them as existing sufficient criterea for "verifiability"? I'd have thought wikipedia would have a clear rule on that, but I don't see it unambiguously stated on the policy pages.--feline1 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
As already pointed out feline1, more than once, it isn't verifiable. If a programme is in the BBC public archive it's verifiable, if it's released on video or DVD it's verifiable, but other shows the BBC have broadcast aren't verifiable. 2 lines of K303 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It has not "been pointed out more than once" - it was asserted by you on a talk page, and several other editors expressed a different interpretation of the policy, so I came here to seek clarification. --feline1 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that occasionally <g> the documentaries offer opinion as much as they offer fact - best practice where an opinion is given is to cite it as opinion. Collect (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I know all that. That's not the issue here.--feline1 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
A source has to be "verifiable" - until someone invents a time machine, the contents of a TV broadcast cannot be verified unless the show has somehow been officially recorded and released. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Since the program in question was publicly broadcast at least once, it has been "published". As such its contents are verifiable by anyone who applies for a copy in the manner prescribed to the publisher who is required in law to preserve a certain number of copies.Aghore (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Which specific law are you talking about?Formerip (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: An archive does not need to be on-line, and it does not need to have multiple copies. Even if there is only one copy in a BBC storage locker somewhere, it qualifies as being archived... and as long it is possible for a member of the general public to gain access to that copy and view it (it does not matter how difficult or expensive this may be), then it qualifies as being accessible. I am sure that if you wrote to the BBC and requested a viewing, they would be happy to set it up. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You being sure about that is not quite enough, though. Formerip (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Blueboar, what you say makes sense to me, although we do not appear to have reached "consensus" here, as some editors above appear to have taken a different view. I'm surprised wikipedia doesn't have already have a definitive answer to the question of "Can a television programme be used as a reliable (verifiable) source?" Some above say "no, only if it's been made commercially available on DVD", others are saying "yes, so long as the broadcaster retains a copy in their archive".... Which is the "right" answer?--feline1 (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that at this point in time, anyone in this discussion could have verified the contents of the program by viewing copyright violations off of Wikipedia that are thankfully not listed on the project. We have Template:Cite episode for a reason. To pretend that information does not exist (when it is obvious it does) is not the best way to win a content dispute. And to argue that a copy cannot be obtained now via contacting the BBC or that one will never be made available through DVD is nonsense. Both are logical assumptions.71.35.155.42 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
A copy can't be obtained now by contacting the BBC, if you suggest it can then provide evidence that's the case. If a programme has been released on DVD it can be cited, until then there's no evidence it will ever be verifiable. Template:Cite episode exists for occasions when a copy of a programme is held in an archive accessible to editors, or for DVD releases and so on. 2 lines of K303 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
And I assume otherwise. Have your tried to obtain a copy? Maybe one us should go the extra mile by sending an email. Everything can then be submitted to OTRS.
And just to clarify, is your objection based on the content or is it based on you truly believing that you cannot verify it? What I am trying to get at is that if you have viewed the copyright infringing copies on the Internet and can be reasonable satisfied that they have not been edited, then you should be seeking alternatives or a solution instead of only arguing for removal of content.71.35.154.200 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The community consensus has been spelled out for years at WP:Published#Accessible. Blueboar accurately summarizes it.
It's not good enough for some naysayer to assert that it's inaccessible. If, however, someone in the UK were to phone them and learn that it really is locked away and no one is allowed to see it for some reason, then that would be a good indication that it is not accessible. Given that it's the BBC we're talking about, I suspect that it's not entirely inaccessible, although it's possible (e.g., due to a lawsuit about royalties). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. So, if I assume in good faith that WhatamIdoing is a reliable source with respect to Blueboar having accurately having summarised the community's consensus position on citing a television programme, does this mean I can now revert 303's reversion of my contribution to Bloody Friday without being hauled in front of an ArbComm? :) --feline1 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It's also not good enough for some yaysayer to assert it is accessible without providing evidence it is. It is a verifiable fact that not all the BBC archive is available, see "the great majority of what's been converted is not available for public view". The relevant part of WP:Published#Accessible reads "A radio or television program that is archived by the broadcaster is "accessible" if the broadcaster allows people to visit the studio and listen to the program (perhaps for a fee); it is "inaccessible" if the general public is not allowed to listen to the program", it is up to those claiming this source is accessible in the BBC archive to prove that is the case. 2 lines of K303 09:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the criterea "routinely accessible to the general public", or "accessible to a researcher who applies through the correct channels"? cf. anyone cannot walk in off the street and demand something out of the Bodleian bookstacks or British Library collection - you need to apply to be a member, get permission to access a special collection, etc etc.--feline1 (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Either way, the programme needs to be part of the archive which is accessible to those people in addition. There's no evidence that is the case. WP:BURDEN is clear, up to you to show the source is verifiable. 2 lines of K303 12:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Well I would prefer for some further input from other (neutral) editors, since going by your logic and reading http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/inrrooms/stp/register/keyreginfo/keyreginfo.html it would seem that the British Library is not unequivocably "accessible" either so a work held there can't be a reliable source either. Which seems absurd. The BBC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and I don't see any basis for your assertion that they would deny a researcher access to view one of their documentaries in order to check a source. Particularly when they've broadcast it to the nation, shown it on iPlayer and it's all over YouTube. --feline1 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
On Feline's question: it can't be researcher-only access, or government-officials-only, or members-of-the-religion-only, or anything like that. But it can require application through the proper channels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with WhatamIdoing almost entirely, occasionally "researcher-only access" amounts to an excuse to exclude commercial attempts to exploit public service institutions. The point being: the public must substantially and effectively have access to verifying the content—and it is the substantive, not the formal access that is required. (Substantive access may have costs, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost, an essay I wrote and many other editors improved quite some time ago. It doesn't mention "restrictions against the public," or "access only to those persons who share belief or institutional affiliation.") Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The correct guidance has already been highlighted (thank goodness we have it - I didn't know we did). A radio or television program that is archived by the broadcaster ... is "inaccessible" if the general public is not allowed to listen to the program. Formerip (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the joys of selective quoting! :) The policy guideance you linked to says in full A radio or television program that is archived by the broadcaster is "accessible" if the broadcaster allows people to visit the studio and listen to the program (perhaps for a fee); it is "inaccessible" if the general public is not allowed to listen to the program. ...what evidence have you that the BBC does not "allows people to visit the studio and listen to the program (perhaps for a fee)"? They're subject to the Freedom of Information Act and do cooperate with researchers.--feline1 (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources concerning claim of the "the oldest university"

Hello. There is an ongoing discussion about the claim that the medieval madrasa of Al-Karaouine is the "the oldest continuously operating university" in the world. To support this view, two sources are forwarded which are in my view unreliable and should not be used in Wikipedia to make this claim:

The Report: Morocco 2009

Source: The Report: Morocco 2009, Oxford Business Group, ISBN 9781907065071, p. 252:

... yet for many Morocco's cultural, artistic and spiritual capital remains Fez. The best-preserved ... School has been in session at Karaouine University since 859, making it the world's oldest continuously operating university."

Rationale: The Report: Morocco 2009 is not a scholarly, but a partisan source. It is a commercial handbook for promoting foreign investments into the Moroccon economy. One of the partners who are thanked on the contents page (p.5) "for their help in preparing The Report" is the Moroccan Investment Develoment Agency (MIDA). MIDA, however, is a national agency of the Moroccan government:

MIDA is the national body in charge of the development and promotion of investment in Morocco. Its mission is to establish a welcoming structure and provide guidance for investors. It also constitutes takes charge cooperating and coordinating promotional activities both in Morocco and abroad.

MIDA is therefore not a required third-party source, but one with a strong WP:POV to present the state of Morocco in the most favourable light in order to attract foreign investors.

Guinness Book of Records

Source: The Guinness Book of Records has an entry Oldest University

Rationale: The Guinness Book of Records is a reliable source on quantitative records of all kinds, especially when they have sent their own observers as witnesses to the record-breaking attempt. The most venomous snake, the largest truck and the heaviest alcohol consumption are such quantifiable and empirical records which can be verified.

It is, however, a very inadequate source for all claims concerning qualitative matters, in particular those which have reached a certain complexity. The entry presents no definition of what a university is, it cites no sources, offers no discussion or explanation and no author is named (apart from this, it is also self-contradictory in equating the university with "educational institution" which can be any kind of centre of learning like schools, seminaries, academies, institutes etc.). Guinness Book of Records is no academic, scholarly and peer-reviewed publication and therefore its views are unreliable concerning the qualitative matter of the origin of the university.

Since both sources have been reintroduced multiple times in the course of longish edit-wars, I would request the users to present their views as succinct as possible in order to identify a consensus. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

The sources cited above are a good example of the issue of reliable sources.
  • The UNESCO discussion of Fez provides a single line claiming (without any evidence) that Fez is "home to the oldest university in the world".
  • The peer reviewed journal article deals with engineering education, and in a brief historical introduction makes the claim: "In large cities these mosques were real universities, (Jamiah).... [Later] the mosques reverted to mere centers of worship, with the exception of the great mosques of Fez, Tunis, Cairo, Damascus, Medina and Mecca. Of the numerous universities of the Middle Ages, only three survived.... But even these universities were reduced in status and size to become simple colleges of Arabic language and Islamic law. Of the ancient research activity and scientific schools nothing was left." Note that the author is equating schools at mosques with universities and makes no claims to be an expert in their history.
  • The article from the Journal of African History on Moroccan reform in the 1920s includes a toss away line that Fes, was the "cultural capital of the Maghrib and seat of the oldest university in the Muslim world." again with no documentation.
  • I don't have access to the content of the book, but its title is "The Marketisation of Higher Education and The Student As Consumer" and its description alludes to changing "government policy in the UK." This is hardly the source to provide reliable information on the history of universities in the medieval Arabic-speaking world.
In contrast to these marginal sources, there are a large number of detailed studies by serious historians that describe universities as a product of medieval Europe. The sources Zero cites, despite their appearance in academic presses, are not serious studies of the emergence of universities. The thinness of the historical sources advanced to defend the claims for universities in the Arabic speaking world is a central issue in the ongoing debates. I can only repeat Zero's recommendation to go and look for better sources. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the sources so far are not reliable. I'm not clear why no one seems to have looked at our article University which briefly discusses this debate, with sources. Schooling Islam: The Culture and Politics of Modern Muslim Education pp. 8 & 9 does also[7]] as does A History of the University in Europe: Volume 1, Universities in the Middle Ages p8 [8]. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This has already been done: both sources provide exactly the depth of knowledge and expertise which is welcome and required, but they come to a (very) different conclusion than the above, unreliable sources. Schooling Islam, in its discussion of the views of the notable scholar George Makdisi, does see similarities between madrasas and southern European universities, but ultimately draws a clear line between these two institutions and never makes a case for mosque schools being universities. This is also evident from its terminology where madrasas are consistently referred to as "madrasas" and universities as "universities".
The passage p. 8 of Rüegg in A History of the University in Europe is taken somewhat out of context. Here, Rüegg rather discusses the opinions of other scholars with which he strongly disagrees. His own views which he presents in the editorial are actually exactly the opposite ("The university is a European institution; indeed, it is the European institution par excellence") and have been cited in full here as representative for the standard view of scholars specialised in the history of the university (A History of the University in Europe is the largest and most ambitious undertaking so far in this discipline). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Rüegg rather discusses the opinions of other scholars with which he strongly disagrees - this is the nub of the thing. What we seem to be dealing with is something about which there is no scholarly consensus. It's not an RS issue, but one of NPOV. Formerip (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with FormerIP here, if there are dissenting scholars we need to cover them, if they are in the minority then as per WP:UNDUE they shouldn't get equal coverage, but that does mean their view needs covering. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Gun, surely this has been done to death? We know what the mainstream academic view is, but we also know that there are some lesser dissenters. I don't understand why this in particular needs discussion, surely any inappropriate sources can be removed and information can be backed up to other sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Back to the original question, we can't state as fact that the madrasa is the oldest university in the world. A way to put this belief in an NPOV way is going to have to be found(which means saying something about the debate if only to point out that there are scholars who see a basic difference between a madrasa and a university). Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Dougweller for his reference to Hefner and Zaman's valuable collection on Schooling Islam. I'm especially interested in the essay by Berkey on "Madrasas Medieval and Modern." He sets out a valuable description of medieval Islamic higher education which contrasts significantly with what was going on in the Medieval universities. To this medievalist, medieval Islamic education has resonances of the kind of personal following of a specific teacher that was common in the pre-university Cathedral schools (e.g., the Reims of Gerbert, the Chartres of Fulbert, and the Paris of Peter Abelard). From the references, it looks like Berkey's The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo: A Social History of Islamic Education (Princeton, 1992) would help us understand what's going on there. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Dougweller, this is the current version of the page which currently states both views with the European University one being treated as by far the mainstream one.
Even this version proposed by Nableezy makes it clear there is a debate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Just found another valuable reference: Michael Chamberlain, Knowledge and Social Practice in Medieval Damascus, 1190-1350, Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2002. It looks like some serious scholarship related to our concerns is being done.
I wish I had time to follow up on this, but I have heavy real life pressures until fall. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Despite my commitments, I just did a citation search for the Michael Chamberlain and Jonathan Berkey's books. Berkey has 60 citations (including a few on the history of science); Chamberlain is only cited in reviews. Looks like Berkey is the place to start if you're interested in trying to dig deeper into medievbal Islamic higher education. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Steve, you need to be careful in drawing conclusions from consideration of 9th century madrassa schools, because the dispute revolves around one particular institution which was a jamia, comprised of a number of "faculties", including a madrassa. That collegiate structure is one of the things that supporters of a jamia=university thesis will point to. On the other hand, I think its true to say that qualifications were awarded by teachers on a personal basis. Which raises the question of how much that matters. At the end of the day, I guess it matters as much or as little as you want it to. I'd say there's no right or wrong answer here.
But, I sniff the danger of sliding into original research...Formerip (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Neither of the sources listed above is adequate for such an extraordinary claim. Seek scholarly works on the history of the university as an institution, published by scholarly presses. See WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate standards for historical claims, including extraordinary synthetic claims such as "the oldest X" when what "X" is changes over time. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is only an essay...
If we include both sides of the debate, but make it clear which one is the minority view I fail to see the problem. That follows WP:DUE and means that you don't have to have a tedious argument over and over and over again when someone brings up UNESCO or one of the dissenting scholarly sources.
History isn't mathematics, it is a subject that is generally open to interpretation without a clear right or wrong answer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
"Only an essay" sure, and RS isn't a pillar. Guinness is not an acceptable source for historical opinion. It is that simple. Guinness lacks an appropriate PhD (history, or a related field dealing with the past). Early universities are an exceptional claim, Guinness is not an exceptional source. Guinness's opinion is not relevant, because Guinness lacks the standing to possess an opinion regarding this. (Though scholar's opinions regarding the oldest X would be). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Essays are of a lower class than guidelines which are of a lower class than policies like WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Eraserhead, both views are already long included in WP, namely in university and medieval university. The right place for more extensive discussion is the article Al-Karaouine, not yet another article on the university. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
One more in support of Eraserhead's position. This is an argument of definition, so there can be more than one right answer. Of course we should mention that the Guinness Book of World Records and UNESCO say it's the oldest Uni in the world; one is the first place everyone looks for for "largest, smallest, oldest" whatever, and the other is the UN educational authority, of course their views are important. Since there are opposing views, those should also be mentioned, but that doesn't mean Guinness and UNESCO are irrelevant. In fact, I'd say the current header of University of al-Karaouine has too much opposing the view; the sentence "The first universities were rather all located in Western Europe, with the University of Paris and the University of Bologna often cited as the earliest examples" doesn't even mention UoaK, so certainly doesn't belong in the header of the UoaK article. What was the quote about university politics being so bitter precisely because the stakes were so small? Methinks thou dost protest too much. --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I also believe this is a problem best solved by WP:INTEXT attribution and a fair representation of all significant viewpoints. That might include explaining why some viewpoints hold that this isn't a "real" university, and it certainly includes identifying the Guinness Book of World Records' decision by name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Silly discussion. Some folks seem to want the "absolute truth" in an area where there simply is no absolute truth. What is the "oldest University" will alway depend on how you define "University" and "oldest" in context and there are several reasonable choices, so there will be several reasonable answers. All we can do is say who has made which judgement call, and that should be fairly easy to do. Guinness BWR not a WP:RS? Just check WP:RS, and I think you'll find out that it is, even for really important stuff like this! I do object to folks who want to layer requirement after requirement on a source for it to be considered reliable. Let's not engage in instruction creep. Disagreeing with a source does not make it unreliable. Smallbones (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This question keeps being asked here because why?

The answers are still the same. You need to go read the standard for reliable source. I am sorry if I seem impatient, but I spent a couple of weeks on this, twice I believe, more than a year ago. Most of the participants are here again today. RS does not require that a source be scholarly to be reliable. Furthermore, I googled this at the time and posted a list of many many sources that are both reliable and scholarly and who do not consider "university" to mean a school affiliated with the Christian Church, people, so it can't be considered an "extraordinary claim." I mean, AGF and all sure, but c'mon. The article is supposed to reflect the information available. I refer you to my comments the last time this question was raised here. Elinruby (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I note that these are *exactly the same* sources that were asked about the last time. Look it up in the archives. I went through them one by one and a dozen others as well, then found a list of my own without looking past google. There are many good sources out there on this question. Elinruby (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org

This source has been brought up in a thread above[9] An editor wish's to use it to source some very contentious claims[10] about Indian state sponsored terrorism. The webpage the content comes from is cited is here This webpage says "RAW allegedly executed a hijacking of an Indian Airliner to Lahore in 1971 which was attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement." which is pure conspiracy theory stuff. I do not see how a source which cites conspiracy theory's like this can be reliable for such contentious edits. I would like some neutral opinions on the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The website has been discussed multiple times at this board. Here are the three most recent [11][12][13]. The conclusion seems to be that sometimes it is reliable (and significant) and sometimes not. They reprint things mostly, so it depends on the provenance of the material. --Slp1 (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I do not see how it can be good for such contentious edits when the same page being used spouts a conspiracy theory. Here are three academic sources which say it was an act by two young men who founded their own branch of the JKLF. International Air Law and Icao p190 Eleven International Publishing Indian Pakistan and the Secret Jihad: The Covert War in Kashmir, 1947-2004 p113 Taylor & Francis Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts p233 University of Pennsylvania Press. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
So far, you have given no credible argument to discredit the content in the said source apart from your personal opinion on something being a conspiracy theory. Your opinion of an air hijacking incident is irrelevant, the vast majority of the content from that source is related to the India and state terrorism article and there is nothing to prove that it is unreliable. Mar4d (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that they spout conspiracy theory's you mean? Or the fact that they hoover up information form all over the place? It is nowhere near a reliable source for stating the India conducts state sponsored terrorism. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"RAW allegedly executed a hijacking of an Indian Airliner to Lahore in 1971 which was attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement" - Where is the conspiracy theory? The source is saying "allegedly". You are misquoting and taking one statement out of context to render an entire source as non-reliable That is not a valid argument. Also, it should be up to the readers to decide, not you, of what they want to believe. Also, why are you discussing this statement when it is not even part of the content dispute? The content under discussion is related to activities in Pakistan, of which so far you have not proven anything as non-credible. Mar4d (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
And the fact that they plagiarize content from all over is obviously not a worry to you? I shall await a response to my question below. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note for outsiders The content disputed by Darkness Shines is the start of this section. This content can also be found in this Daily Times article: ‘RAW very active against Pakistan’. As I said previously, the newspaper article attributes these statements to Globalsecurity.org, describing it as a Washington-based "authoritative US security and intelligence information group". I suggest we follow the same approach used in the newspaper article; that is, all statements sourced to Globalsecurity should be attributed in the article. So for example, something along the lines of "According to Globalsecurity.org, a US-based security and intelligence information group, India has been alleged of such and such." The readers should have the freedom of what they want to make out of it. Thoughts? Mar4d (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Federation of American Scientists

  • Can anyone comment on whether or not the advocacy group Federation of American Scientists is a reliable source for information on national security matters or state sponsored terrorism? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"Federation of American Scientists is a nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) organization intent on using science and scientific analysis to attempt make the world more secure. FAS was founded in 1945 by scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project to develop the first atomic bombs." I'd say yes. Mar4d (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If the content in question is from Federation of American Scientists, that makes the case even stronger. There is absolutely no reason why the FAS cannot be quoted in articles. Mar4d (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that they know nothing about terrorism? Darkness Shines (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Read this article to refresh your knowledge of this well-known group. Federation of American Scientists. Mar4d (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You don't get it do you? They know nothing about state sponsored terrorism, their website[14] does not even have a program on terrorism of any sort. They are an advocacy group, no different to a million other advocacy groups. Their work is in weapons of mass destruction, they have no specialists in terrorism for christs sake, they cannot be used for statements of fact either. You are so desperate for your edit to stand you will use SPS, advocacy groups and a website that plagiarizes content. I will wait for others to respond, I think the two of us are done talking. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Please maintain civility. Your WP:OR and usual personal opinion is not even one percent relevant to what we're discussing. Mar4d (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Further, the content of that page is approved by Steven Aftergood and John E. Pike, as seen on the FAS page. Aftergood is the FAS Director of Government Secrecy while Pike is the founder of Global Security and worked in FAS from 1982 to 2000. This is an academic source, no matter how you put it. The user above has turned towards incivility now. Looks fine, this thread should be closed. Mar4d (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Lets see the source then. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe you already have the source since you brought it up. Mar4d (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Lets see the source then. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We should wait for input from others to see if this is by Global Security or FAS, as you mentioned above. Whatever it turns out to be, it would be good to have a confirmation. Meanwhile, you still have not explained how Global Security and FAS are SPS. Do you have anything constructive to say or not? Mar4d (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I never said GS was a SPS. I said they are not reliable as they obviously copy and paste content without attributing it. Still waiting on your source from the FAS Darkness Shines (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Why thank you, I think that solves our problem and we should archive this thread. We need a third-party confirmation, but anyway, here is a reliable source: Daily Times, which attributes the content to GS RAW very active against Pakistan. Admins/other users, please note and pass final comments on this issue. Mar4d (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC) [NB - the link has now been corrected. DarknessShines's comment below was correct at the time, but is now out of date. Andrew Dalby]
That source is wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
How is it wrong? We should wait for a third-party response. Mar4d (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I told you already why it is wqrong, the content did not come from GS + your link is wrong :o) [15] Darkness Shines (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone join in? You've both given links to the same page at "Daily Times". What are we supposed to be seeing on that page? Andrew Dalby 11:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Um don't know why DS gave that link, but check my link, it's a Daily Times article attributing content to Global Security, while Darkness Shines is of the opinion that it is by the Federation of American Scientists. We need to firstly know who the author is, so that the citation can be correctly filled in. And also, DS thinks that Globalsecurity.org and Federation of American Scientists are SPS, so we need someone to look into his claims. Hope that clarifies. Mar4d (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That was the link you gave. And I have not said GS or the FOAS were SPS. Do not misrepresent what I said. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you people really want outside opinions ... Luckily, glancing at the page history, I saw that Mar4D has now quietly corrected the link above, so it now links to a page that really does cite "Global Security".

Fine. So the answer is that the Daily Times (in general a reliable source) is not vouching for this information, it is merely attributing it to "Global Security". The Daily Times says that Global Security is "an authoritative US security and intelligence information group" ... well, it may be or it may not. I don't see why a Pakistani newspaper should be a reliable authority on the status of US information groups -- it's not their field of expertise and I would want another source. As to whether the information really comes from some other group, the page gives no information on that, does it? So, based on what I see so far, the only way I would cite this stuff, if we did so at all, would be with inline citation, like this: 'According to the Daily Times, which attributes the information to a US information group "Global Security", ... [add link].' Andrew Dalby 18:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Pakistani press probably aren't the most reliable sources about the reliability of US organizations. The phrasing Andrew Dalby proposes above would probably be the best way to go, if the material is to be included anywhere. I'm not necessarily sure it does merit inclusion, but that would probably best be determined by discussion on the relevant article talk page. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Andrew and John. Btw, the talk page option has been exhausted because the user who started this thread has been engaged in a slow edit war where he keeps reverting out the content, and labelling the source as SPS using unsubstantiated claims. This was the reason that this RSN thread was started. Thanks for clarifying here, I will take your advice into account. The content present in the article will now be attributed to Globalsecurity.org, using the inline citation suggestion put forth by Andrew. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the train wreck of a discussion above (as a tip to the involved editors; drop the bickering when matters are raised on central noticeboards - it's really off putting for the editors you're hoping to attract to provide a neutral opinion and, if taken to extremes, can lead to blocks), Globalsecurity.org is not considered a good quality source by editors in Wikipedia's military history wikiproject. While some of its older material has merit (especially that dating back to before it separated from the Federation of American Scientists), much of its content is copied verbatim from US government reports and (occasionally) media reports and there's no meaningful quality controls or attempts at providing a rounded view of most topics. While it was frequently referenced in media reports from western news outlets during the early years of the Iraq War, it's now almost never cited based on what I've seen. A topic like this is almost certain to have been covered in serious scholarly works, so there's no need to rely on globalsecurity.org or news reports. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Global security is a one man band, it is run by John E. Pike who is not even an academic. The site hoovers up content from all over the web. Nothing is cited nor is attribution given on any of the articles I have seen there. For instance, the article here on LeT[16] seems to be copy and pasted from about five different sources, some are US government, at least one section of it is copy and pasted from here examiner dot com/article/pakistani-terrorists-may-launch-more-mumbai-style-attacks-says-u-s-official It is nowhere near a reliable source, especially for such contentious edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Duncan Campbell (1926) Musician

I would like you to correct an obvious error from your own words, Duncan was married to June Pressley, daughter of "Charlie" NOT Elvis!! We were neighbours in 1966/68 in West Ruislip and enjoyed both their talents, June had her own group.

Godfrey Owen, BURLINGTON ON

Um... the article says June is Elvis's cousin... not his daughter. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic Games

A user is claiming at Olympic Games that they were preceded by the Tailteann Games, which date back to 1600 BC [17]. The source used for this rather exceptional claim is this [18], a social and cultural history of Ireland for the period 1922-1985. Am I the only one who thinks that the source is not sufficient for such an exceptional claim? Athenean (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That reference is probably not an OK source for this edit to the article on the Tailteann Games (as it does not cover the period in question), and is clearly not an appropriate reference to support a claim that these games in Ireland inspired the ancient Greek Olympics as was made in this edit. There are a huge number of good quality histories of ancient Greece and the Olympics, so if this is true it can be expected that they'd cover the connection. More generally, a history of Irish society and culture between 1922 and 1985 is obviously not a good source of information on the classical era of Greek history or prehistoric Ireland. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
After studying lots of sources about this, I'd suggest most modern, scholarly, reliable, peer-reviewed sources claim they were founded in the 1800s, not the 1600s BCE. Most make the suggestion that they predate the Olympics so I suggest Wikipedia reflects this view, not those of certain Hellenic-biased editors without any sources.George B. Kirsch; Othello Harris; Claire Elaine Nolte (30 April 2000). Encyclopedia of Ethnicity and Sports in the United States. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 238–. ISBN 978-0-313-29911-7. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Claudia B. Manley (1 June 2001). Competitive Track and Field for Girls. The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-0-8239-3408-9. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Kristin Wolden Nitz; Andy King (1 October 2003). Play-By-Play Track. Lerner Publications. pp. 7–. ISBN 978-0-8225-3936-0. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Tim Delaney; Tim Madigan (28 May 2009). Sports: Why People Love Them!. University Press of America. pp. 31–. ISBN 978-0-7618-4489-1. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Roger Robinson (1 October 2003). Running in Literature: A Guide for Scholars, Readers, Runners, Joggers and Dreamers. Breakaway Books. pp. 51–. ISBN 978-1-891369-41-4. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Tim Delaney; Tim Madigan (30 April 2009). The Sociology of Sports: An Introduction. McFarland. pp. 42–. ISBN 978-0-7864-4169-3. Retrieved 12 August 2012.William H. Freeman (21 January 2011). Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Science in a Changing Society. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. pp. 80–. ISBN 978-0-7637-8157-6. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Peter Matthews (22 March 2012). Historical Dictionary of Track and Field. Scarecrow Press. pp. 2–. ISBN 978-0-8108-6781-9. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Martin Connors; Diane L. Dupuis; Brad Morgan (1992). The Olympics factbook: a spectator's guide to the winter and summer games. Visible Ink. ISBN 978-0-8103-9417-9. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
None of these are adequate sources. Competitive Track and Field for Girls? Sports: Why People Love Them!? Running in Literature: A Guide for Scholars, Readers, Runners, Joggers and Dreamers?? Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Science in a Changing Society??? You must be joking. This smacks of desperation. And please learn how to present sources on talkpages, and keep the ethnic baiting to yourself, or I will report you. Athenean (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be ignoring the more important sources such as the Encylcopedia Americana, Encylopedia of Ethnicity and Sports in the United States, The Sociology of Sports, Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Science in a Changing Society, Foras feasa ar Eirinn ... The history of Ireland, The Chronology of World History. Here's some more from the Tailteann Games page.Geoffrey Keating (1866). Foras feasa ar Eirinn ... The history of Ireland, tr. and annotated by J. O'Mahony. pp. 301–. Retrieved 1 July 2012.Terence Brown (1985). Ireland: a social and cultural history, 1922-1985, p. 82. Fontana Press. ISBN 978-0-00-686082-2. Retrieved 11 August 2012.H. E. L. Mellersh; Neville Williams (1 April 1999). Chronology of world history, p. 15. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-155-7. Retrieved 1 August 2012.Grolier Incorporated (2000). The encyclopedia Americana, pp. 892 & 905. Grolier. ISBN 978-0-7172-0133-4. Retrieved 1 August 2012.. Apologies if my suggestion of Hellenic bias appeared as ethnic baiting. I did not intend it to be. Without presenting any source for your entirely made-up and exceptional claim that the Olympic games predate the Tailteann, I am simply trying to explain your unreasoned attempts to delete factual information. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, none of these are in-depth scholarly sources into the history of sports or the Olympics. They either trivial or shallow generalist sources. Are you just doing a Google Books search of "Tailteann Games" btw? Bombarding this page with inadequate sources is not going to help you here. It's a question of quality, not quantity. Do you realize how exceptional is the claim you are making is? I am not the one making claims here. I do not need to provide sources, the burden of proof is on you. I should not have to present sources to disprove your claim. And you still haven't answered my simple question: Even if the TGs were held in 10,000 BC, what does it have to do with the Olympic Games? Please stop evading that question. Athenean (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Those obviously aren't appropriate sources to support such claims. There are lots of high quality histories of the Olympics and dedicated histories of prehistoric Ireland, and they're the appropriate sources for this kind of material. Please also stop the personal attacks, or you will be blocked. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The question is so obvious, I had not even noticed it sorry. The answer is that the Tailteann games was a big sporting event. The Olympics is a big sporting event. The origin of big sporting events obviously has lots to do with the Olympics. What isn't obvious is why you are ignoring the high quality histories of the Olympics and dedicated histories of prehistoric Ireland I have mentioned. Please stop evading that question. You are claiming that I am making an exceptional claim, which I am not. Most sources reflect my claim and you haven't got one to disprove it.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"They are both big sporting events"? Seriously? That's the best you can come up with? None of your sources are "high quality histories of the Olympics and dedicated histories of prehistoric Ireland", like both Nick-D and I keep telling you. And none of them connect the Tailteann Games to Olympic Games. You are also starting to repeat yourself, not sure if there is much more to discuss here. Athenean (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I have answered all your questions and you are still not providing any sources for your POV-pushing. Most of mine connect the Tailteann Games to the Olympic Games by saying the Tailteann predates the Olympics. I am not going to waste my time providing more sources, or ripping out all the text you haven't bothered reading. Try searching Google books for "Tailteann and Olympics", which is what I did and you'll find tonnes more. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Remember, this a featured article and for this kind of article it needs exceptionally good sources to make exceptional claims, and any controversial material should be discussed in advance. I share Athenean's reservation about the impossibly precise and early date, about 2000 years actually before the first men on the Irish isle became literate...This is in all likelihood a legend, a product of the modern invention of tradition. In fact, the article Tailteann Games itself calls it a legend, so why don't you start there first trying to build up consensus for your views?
And considering for the sake of the argument its old age turns out true, I still wonder what a reference to these completely unrelated event has to do in the lead to the Olympic Games? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

1940 Census

A perennial issue in Sonny Liston is Liston's year of birth. It has been in doubt for years, as it was never officially recorded. At one point he gave his birth year as 1932, but that has never been confirmed. The article currently says "circa 1932," though in the past he gave his birth year as preceding that. The 1940 Census gives his age as 10, indicating a birth year of 1930 or 1929. Can that be used? See the current talk page discussion. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, as this is interpretation of a primary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Not really. The census form says plainly that Liston was 10 years old. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Which Liston? How are you confirming that this Liston is your Liston? That's interpretation, and that's OR. If you want to become an original publisher of genealogical research then go elsewhere, this is an encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The article lists the name of his mother and father, and so does the census listing. There's really no doubt about that nor any interpretation required. However, I'm not sure if it's OR, which is why I listed it here. I've posted a link to the census page in the relevant talk page discussion. I have your opinion, and I'd appreciate other points of view. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
"There's really no doubt about that nor any interpretation required." If you keep arguing it, you obviously don't "have" it. It is OR, because the interpretation of census results to produce meaningful outcomes is a non-trivial interpretation. See historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not "arguing it." I'm hoping to get more than one person to respond. One reply is inconclusive, especially since your reasoning is weak. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is no genuine dispute that this is the same person (e.g. the address and parents' names are verified), then I don't see a genuine as opposed to a purely theoretical reason not to add the sentence that the census lists his date of birth as X. (Note that that is not the same thing as saying that his date of birth was X, as it's possible for a census to be wrong, though it's probably unlikely in this context.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply on this, as that gets to my concern here. According to the article, his parents were named Tobe and Helen. The address in 1940 is in a county adjacent to the one in which he was born, and the parents are "Tobbie" and "Helen." So I guess my question is whether this crosses over into OR. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Errors in the census are not uncommon, based on my own experience in looking at Census records for relatives. The census should not be treated as gospel. The article acknowledges uncertainty regarding his birthdate; I think it would be worthwhile to mention in a footnote that the 1940 Census record shows a person of this name with these named parents as having been 10 years old in 1940. --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I had a footnote in mind. I've seen census date reflected in other articles in footnotes, but can't recall which ones. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no argument weaker than other stuff exists. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

need WP:RS check.

First of all, I'm a new user in english wikipedia, I am not experienced user, however, I need some help. Second, sorry my broken english. I'm not a navtive english speaker.

Japanese users (including Japanese "administrator" in english wikipedia) keep pushing Japanes POV on Korea-Japan dispute material. They keep deleting all cited material.

August 26, 1954 Another US State Department report seriously questioned their previous view of Liancourt Rocks (including rusk document) was based on legal and historical understading. Even this report mentioned about how wrong "rusk document" was.

This is important document to Korea-Japan territorial dispute. But Japanese Wikipedia users blanking its entire section. There reason are

Excuse me, Citing from 1954 US state department document is unreliable? US state department was personal opinons? (How about rusk document? document itself is entirely based upon personal opinon, no history and legal basis) not related to the topic ? It is hard to me because Japanese administrator deleting it. As a newbie of english wikipedia, it is too risky move against to Japanese administrator's completely biased editing. I need some help here.

Summary : Pro Japanese Qwyrxian administrator involved on Korea/Japan disputed page. He/She keep deleting entire cited material. He/She claim is does not meets WP:RS because it is opinion.

These sources are completely meet WP:RS.

Check these sources.

--Ejwcun (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor. I know nothing about this subject. However, based on this statement in the wiki page you link to

The Rusk documents (Rusk-Yang correspondence) are the official diplomatic correspondence sent by Dean Rusk, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, to Yang You Chan (양유찬, 梁裕燦), the South Korean ambassador to the U.S at the August 10, 1951.

NO. The documents are not personal opinions. The position of the United States government in 1954 is a matter of historical record. The other editor can add information if he/she wants, though. You may wind up with "The Americans took the position that x, while Japan thought y and the opinion of the Koreans was z."

Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Primary—OR. We are writing an encyclopaedia, not interpreting diplomatic cables. Nor are online newspapers adequate sources for the interpretation of political history. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

www.herbcompanion.com

We have a number of references and external links to the web site of a magazine, "Herb Companion". Each of these links to a short article with the author's name and the date with a sentence or two at the end about the author. Like most popular press articles, few include references. At the bottom of every page is a large advertisement for subscriptions to the magazine. Much of the site is promotion and advertising for products and literature sold on the site. Should we consider this a reliable source? Jojalozzo 03:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In which article[s] for what specific claims? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see the link for "a number of references and external links". Some of these are citations and some are just external links. Jojalozzo 14:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see replies about such impolite references in the archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please explain what impolite references you are referring to. I don't consider any of the references in the list to be impolite. They may be misguided but I don't see anything insulting or inconsiderate in them. And, as I said, some of them are simply external links, not references at all. Thanks. Jojalozzo 15:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see any "impolite"ness. The page of links provided was just what was needed, I thought. Andrew Dalby 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps actually meeting the requirements stated at the top of this page, at the top of every RS/N edit window, and contained in the template above? Source, Article, Claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops. I screwed up here. I thought you were talking about the references I listed on the LinkSearch page but you meant my reference to the LinkSearch page. My apologies not only for inconsiderately posting here without reading all the instructions but for being dense about it, too. Here's what I think you are asking for:
  1. http://www.herbcompanion.com/Health/PATENT-medicines.aspx?page=3 is linked from Hamlin's Wizard Oil to support

    First produced in 1861 in Chicago[1] by former magician John Austen Hamlin and his brother Lysander B. Hamlin, it was primarily sold and used as a liniment for rheumatic pain and sore muscles, but was advertised as a treatment for pneumonia, cancer, diphtheria, earache, toothache, headache and hydrophobia

    and

    It was made of 50%-70% alcohol containing camphor, ammonia, chloroform, sassafras, cloves, and turpentine, and was said to be usable both internally and topically.

  2. http://www.herbcompanion.com/Herb-Profiles/SWEET-DANI.aspx is linked from List of basil cultivars to support

    A vigorous, large-leaved green basil with a strong, fresh lemon scent.

  3. http://www.herbcompanion.com/Herb-Profiles/SWEET-DANI.aspx is linked from Sweet Dani basil to support

    Sweet Dani basil is a hybrid sweet basil cultivar developed at Purdue University by James E. Simon and Mario Morales.

  4. http://www.herbcompanion.com/Projects/Tussie-mussie.aspx#ixzz21KRpO3UM is linked from Language of flowers to support

    “Tussie-mussie” is a quaint, endearing term from the early 1400s for small, round bouquets of herbs and flowers with ­symbolic meanings.

  5. http://www.herbcompanion.com/UnCategorized/Mystery-in-the-Garden.aspx?page=4 is linked from Cadfael to support

    There are differing pronunciations of the name Cadfael; Ellis Peters intended the "f" to be pronounced as an English "v", and suggests it be pronounced CAD-vel

    and

    The name is commonly mispronounced /ˈkædfaɪl/ CAD-file in English, and Peters once remarked that she should have included a guide for this and other names in the series that have uncommon pronunciations.

  6. http://www.herbcompanion.com/gardening/herb-to-know-mountain-mint.aspx is linked from Pycnanthemum as an external link to an article on mountain mint.
  7. http://www.herbcompanion.com/growing/ancient-herbs-modern-uses-myrrh.aspx is linked from Myrrh as an external link to an article on myrhh.
  8. http://www.herbcompanion.com/health/JOINT-RELIEF.aspx?page=2 is linked from Boswellia serrata to support

    In Ayurvedic medicine Indian frankincense (Boswellia serrata) has been used for hundreds of years for treating arthritis.

  9. http://www.herbcompanion.com/health/JOINT-RELIEF.aspx?page=2 is linked from Frankincense to support

    In Indian culture, it is suggested that burning frankincense daily in the house brings good health.

  10. http://www.herbcompanion.com/herbal-living/in-memoriam-thomas-debaggio.aspx is linked from Thomas DeBaggio in support of the date and place of his death

    Died February 21, 2011 Annandale, Virginia

    and

    With Susan Beisinger he co-authored Basil: A Herb Lover's Guide. His work has been featured in the magazine The Herb Companion.

  11. http://www.herbcompanion.com/herbs-in-the-kitchen/in-the-news-angostura-bitters-shortage.aspx is linked from Angostura bitters to support

    Angostura bitters are extremely concentrated and, though 44.7% alcohol by volume, are not normally drunk pure, but used in small amounts as flavouring.

    and

    There was a shortage of Angostura bitters in 2009

    .
Jojalozzo 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much, this is very answerable, and will probably get you a very definitive answer that you can rely upon in future when this potential source's reliability comes up! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Your welcome. I hope my effort is answered in kind. Jojalozzo 16:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The site does have an editor although granted that does not establish fact checking. In one current article, Herbal alternatives to antibiotics, the author cites his sources in the article itself (not at the end) and the article is taken from his published book. Another article about essential oils is written by a woman who breeds essential oils for RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. Fair to say, she might be considered an expert in this field and even her blog might be considered a reliable source if subject to editorial control. Of course, this is an article, not a blog, and there is an editorial presence so the article might be a reliable source depending upon what it is used for. Perhaps, the context rule of WP:RS should be applied so that each article would be considered individually: "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."Coaster92 (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
We can't treat the site as RS. There might be grounds for citing it among external links, but (for me) the advertising pop-up marks it as unprofessional, possibly unsafe, and I would never link to it. Andrew Dalby 09:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Huffington Post

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion has ceased interrogating source reliability, and has consequently been closed to stop non-RS/N related discussions. As always, RS/N welcomes questions regarding specific sources in specific contexts for specific claims, and addresses each on its merits. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like a comment on using the blanket explanation that content from The Huffington Post, which has recently won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting I might add, is considered an unreliable source for all purposes on Wikipedia. There are several articles, most notably Paul Ryan, where information is removed with the reason being only that the Huffington Post is not a reliable source. In 2008, this source was only a blog. In 2012, it is an aggregate news source owned by AOL, as well as the #1 most visited political blog on the web. Politicians, award-winning journalists and stories from multiple news sources appear regularly in the Huffington Post. It is my understanding that when using aggregate news sources such as the Associated Press, the source of the information published needs to be evaluated for notability WP:RS, rather than strictly deleting all edits just because they were published in The Huffington Post. If the information is an opinion piece by a not notable Huffington Post employee, or by Smokey Bear [19], it should be treated as any other potentially not notable source. If the article is written, for example, by Howard Fineman [20], or Robert Reich [21], or Norman Lear [22], or Greta Van Susteren[23], are we to dismiss it as unreliable and not notable strictly because the source started as a blog 4 years ago? Please comment with specific examples of guidelines.OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong question. In the case of aggregated content, the original source is what should be evaluated. As an aggregator, the Huffington Post is only a conduit for the source, and is therefore irrelevant. As in your example above, the source is The Associated Press, which is almost certain to be RS. Additionally, if there is an article written specifically for the Huffington Post by someone such as Greta Van Susteren, it would (depending on the subject) likely be considered an WP:SPS exception under the expert exemption clause. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 02:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
That's the problem, the Huffington Post has both aggregated content and original content. That's the reason why I opened this request for comment. If vice president Joe Biden publishes an article in The Huffington Post, for example, he is the source, and the Post is just the publisher, correct? OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
You would have to take it on a case by case basis. If it's aggregated, go to the source. If it's an original piece, analyze the credentials of the author. Biden would obviously be another SPS exemption for a US politics-based article, for example. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 02:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but we are side stepping the main issue. Every "source" should be evaluated the same way, regardless of the "publisher", unless the publisher itself falls under the tabloid journalism category or the publisher is an SPC. Where is it stated that the Huffington Post isnot a reliable source or is an SPC in the places we are given to look: WP:RS, WP:LSP, and tabloid journalism? Why should there need to be a specific exception to the SPS rule, if each "source" is evaluated the same way with existing Wikipedia criteria? I've checked this noticeboard, and there has never been consensus on this publication, and most of the criticism is from 2008, and certainly before the publication received a Pulitzer prize. Every case should be decided on a case by case basis, regardless of the publication, especially if there is an opinion column. I'm asking if it is acceptable to just delete information that would normally pass all verifiability tests and whose source is notable enough for inclusion, just because the chosen venue was the Huffington Post? I'm not asking for a ruling on a specific case. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
When, and as, someone challenges a source you believe to be reliable, bring it to RS/N. We don't do blankets. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so the answer to the question is that all edits are treated on a case by case basis, and the deletion of content with only an explanation of "huffington post is not a reliable source" would be inappropriate, and might be contested, if no other information was presented, such as how it violated a rule, the BLP, etc.? Since you "don't do" blankets, that applies both ways, correct? OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep. If you're reversing a long term practical consensus, and want it to get wide spread coverage, then bringing a specific issue to RS/N is probably a good idea. It will also help make the edit or reversion of the edit "stick." So if you can think of a specific incident that might have happened recently (hint hint) please feel free to specify. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It's in the Paul Ryan talk page history, this edit. I started a request for comment on the talk page on whether it was appropriate or not to just summarily delete something because it was published in the Huffington Post, regardless of authorship, and there is no consensus. There is an open topic on the talk page. In this specific situation, other sources were available, so the point is at this very second, moot (according to what was said above). However, Wikipedia has taken no official stance, unless someone can point it out. Therefore, I feel more comfortable challenging reverts solely based upon the dismissal of the publication, without particular regard for the source. Thanks. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Given the problems you've faced so far moving this forward, let me help… Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Brian Bakst [Associated Press] (2012-06-16) "Paul Ryan's Future Could Mean Mitt Romney White House Over U.S. House Of Representatives" Huffington Post on Paul Ryan

Is the article: Brian Bakst [Associated Press] (2012-06-16) Paul Ryan's Future Could Mean Mitt Romney White House Over U.S. House Of Representatives Huffington Post reliable for the claim: "Ryan was voted prom king and "Biggest Brown-Noser" by his graduating class in 1988." in the article Paul Ryan? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is reliable for a BLP claim because Associated Press is a long term news-wire of standard reliability, and this is a reprint of a news-wire claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
My concern was on the reason used in the edit summary to revert something, during an edit war; the issue itself is fixed. I believe I have an answer. Thanks for all your help. ;0) OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the other issue concerning whether or not the general community considers The Huffington Post as a reliable source for facts should also be addressed here, if only touched on, as I see this as a little bit of a challenge to standing consensus. Huffington Post (while highly respected and award winning0 is still a very biased politcal source. Basicly, almost all political blogs (opinion peices), many times written by reader/contributors with no journalistic background or expertise in the subject. Identifying who the author is from a Huffingtom Post article is very difficult and this is a requirement for establishing criteria for Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. I have no problem with using HP as a sorce, but the current consensus is that it should not be used to attribute fact. As you see above the fact here is is not attributed to HP. It is from the Associated Press. The current consensus (and I am still looking, once again for all these previouse discussions-if anyone has those handy. There are a great deal to look through to find the specific discussions) is the same as the Gaurdian and that is to attribute the information that is relevent as opinion by attributing the author and the source publication in the prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
As a basic guideline, if a source is controversial amongst editors for being non-neutral, but still a good publication otherwise, and especially if it involves living people, it can be useful to simply insert attribution such as "According to the conservative online journal the Huffington Post..." or whatever involved editors think might be needed to help readers understand the context and work it out for themselves. We are not here to filter what the world of relevant of notable publications say, but as editors we do have to make proper common sense judgements about how to explain the full context with due weight.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew. You nearly paraphrase the basic consensus that seems to have been formed over the years on the HP from what I am reading in the Archives. HP as opinion from a person of note...not about a person of note and for their biographies only. Facts should not be cited from an opinion piece and straight news stories are generaly from other sources to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't see the extensive discussion above regarding "blanket statements" and RS/N. Also, your suggestion that the Guardian is anything less, in its news pages, than one of the few quality newspapers internationally is concerning. If you have a specific concern with a specific use of the Huffington Post in a specific article, then please bring a specific question to RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess it is "the same as the Guardian" in just this one way: the Guardian likewise carries opinion pieces, sometimes by major figures, that are well worth citing but would be cited with inline attribution. As to "news pages", yes, the two publications are poles apart :) Andrew Dalby 08:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't do labels on "Consensus" Fifelfoo. Call it a rose by any other name. Wikipedia does do black lists. Call it a rose by any other name. A blanket statement is not accurate in this situation. Do we wish to have the issue re-addressed? Why not...but we have not done so yet. As for thissue at hand I misread that. You are suggesting that HP is relaible for facts in this instance and that is misleading in that the actual source is the AP. That would be the source to attribute and the HP article, if used (hey, we can ignore the rules if it improves the article), would need to be a straight coverage of the facts with no added editorial from staff.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way...a big issue here is an editor who claims to be reverting anyone who deletes something from HP. That concerns me as a major editor retention problem. I think it is safe to say that no editor should be encouraged to engage in edit warring over any issue. No one is impowering anyone with the right to start reverting all previouse removal of HP content. There may be far more reason for not using the reference then is being stated in the edit summary. An RFC would be appropriate to discuss the isse at length and not suggest that every time an editor sees someone question the use of HP that bringing it here in that manner will change an overall consensus formed over years. Yes, if there are questions they SHOULD bring it here, but not every case about HP requires that. Some can be handles much like this one...use the original source.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)One of Wikipedia's biggest problems has been, and continues to be, the use of "opinion" presented as "straightforward fact."

Especially when used to subvert the clear intent of WP:BLP with regard to presenting conservatively worded biographies. And even "fact articles" can be known to present a reporter's point-of-view, either blatantly or subtly. When in any doubt at all, I suggest that anything remotely viewable as opinion by a third party be cited as opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a generality I would not like to be accused of personally. I know the difference between opinion and fact, and if I didn't care, I wouldn't be using my valuable time to ask the question in a less disruptive place than the talk page of the recently announced vice presidential pick of the presumptive Republican nominee of the presidency of the United States of America. There aren't any rules stating that this conversation can't be kept open more than a day, are there? I feel very rushed. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It has been suggested that this is not the proper way to make a major change of consensus formed over many years through several discussions. Why is this not presented to the larger community as an RFC or a Village pump notification? I don't know how long the discussion is opened here, but if the filer wishes more time and input, then perhaps there should be an attempt to make this known to more editors. The outcome of this single discussion cannot overide long standing, community wide consensus. But remember this isn't about a single editor when it comes to misunderstanding an editorial, blog and opinion peice over a straight news story. Frankly, it is not the best reference for a biography.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
AP wires have long been considered usable. You appear to be heading straight into IDHT. If you have a problem over Huffington Post, then please comment when the source was produced by their own editorial processes, or bring forward to RS/N a recent issue with an illegitimate use of Huffington Post. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you reply as if I am questioning the use of AP. I am not. "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability." The work itself and the author are the AP and The HP was only an outlet that picked up the wire story in full and on its own. Ap is really the publisher in this case as HP is only the outlet. "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source." Ap is the source, not the Huffington Post. When in doubt or if a dispute arises, it is best to use the originating source. In this case it is the wire service Associated Press. There is no specific reason for Huffingtom Post to be used in this instance and the discussion does not appear to be garnering a great deal of support for a change inthe general community consensus of The Huffington post being treated with care and not used to reference facts unless absolutely clear the article originates from the publication, is not an editorial or an op-ed or a member contributed blog, etc. The Huffington Post, like all publications, changes and there is no doubt they are trying to establish a better site, and coverage...however they still have all those same articles with none journalists, directly invovled with situations they are writing about as partisan opinion being confused as journalistic reporting by many editors. I simply don't see this thread as gaining a change in consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
While "Reliable", the content under consideration fails WP:UNDUE in combination with WP:BLP -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
My initial thought was that a journalist called "Brain Basket" is probably not reliable for very much. But then I read it again and decided not to post any comment whatsoever. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

HUGE Question: Why would you ever source the HuffPo re-print version of an original AP story. Can't speak for all the WP:UNDUE, tend to agree with Red, but the original is [[24]]. If you want to war about the substance of something, don't source to HuffPo if it can be avoided.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I didn't use the HuffPo to source anything, and if I did, I would use the same exact method for evaluating the reliability of the source (not the publication) and its direct, objective bearing on the topic at hand as I would with any other publication, including blogs. 2. When I asked for a "community-wide" comment on this board, it was assuming this noticeboard was open to the community, rather than being restricted to a few interested editors perched on this noticeboard at the exact moment. I did not believe 24 hours was enough time to evaluate the entire future notability of a Pulitzer Prize winning news organization, regardless of whether or not at some point in the past it was viewed as a rag, or biased, or unreliable, or without editorial review. Nothing stays the same forever. 3. Amadscientist and I have been on Wikipedia for a comparable amount of time, with a comparable number of contributions. I did my hard time on the AfD and CSD boards, and I feel that I have a fairly decent grasp of the guidelines. I may not apply them the same way as everyone else, but neither does anyone else. 4. I feel that discouraging intellectual debate, even on policies, guidelines and previous consensus is just as impactful to retention of editors on Wikipedia, as any other topic. If we don't adapt, we die. If we can't recruit new talent with new content possibilities, and keep them editing, the encyclopedia is doomed to be run by a few edit-addicted fanatics, pardon my bluntness. 5. I believe it would be completely appropriate to add information to the Huffington Post talk page, that this discussion is underway, taking the excellent suggestion of a previous editor, above. We clearly have not vetted properly the new current structure and reliability of the organization as it now exists, or there would actually be recent consensus. 6. I would like to request that this conversation remain open for at least 3 more days, so that can be accomplished. 7. I would like for Amadscientist to indulge me for a moment, and discuss this potential scenario: Joe Biden writes an opinion piece for the Huffington Post on his stance on marriage equality. The opinion of Joe Biden is then discussed extensively in the media by other sources, although the exact quote in question isn't specifically used. When looking to include quotations of Joe Biden's new stated position on marriage equality in the Joe Biden article, an editor uses the one source available, which is Joe Biden in the Huffington Post, for the quotation. In this instance, Joe Biden is the source, HP is the publisher, and NPOV isn't an issue, because we are discussing a quotation. In this instance, argue for me the opposite position, that an editor could remove this content from the Joe Biden article, with an edit summary of "HP is not a reliable source," and not be subject to review or challenge. Maybe then I will have a better idea of what it is specifically you are trying to say about blanket non-use of the Huffington Post for any content whatsoever. I sincerely appreciate your time taken to discuss this fully, rather than rushing it back to the archives.
And this is just flat out, 100% wrong: By the way...a big issue here is an editor who claims to be reverting anyone who deletes something from HP. Show me where I said, or did anything of the kind. I reverted one edit during an edit war by two other users, because one user was abusing the "undo" button, with edit summaries which were not always appropriate. After that 1 incident, I brought this question here. As the topic of editor retention was already brought up, and aimed toward my general direction, I have an additional comment. A user involved in this discussion has a template on their userpage which discusses user retention problems. 1. That editor assumed I'm a man, based upon my username or perceptions of my comments, and I was addressed as "sir" on an article talk page. When visiting that user's talk page to potentially discuss it, I couldn't help but notice an article in that retention template discussing "why don't women edit on Wikipedia?" The fact that I am male doesn't change the questionable assumption. I actually got the idea for the username from a woman. 2. Upon entry to the discussion on the Paul Ryan talk page, this user dogged virtually every one of my comments, and we are talking more than a dozen. They also posted to my userpage trying to discourage me from pursuing this, and then accused me of denigrating years of consensus. I searched the noticeboards before I even posted here. I've read every comment. We clearly have a different view of the word consensus, and I can live with that. Can you blame me for feeling rushed? Can you really fault me for wanting a broader consensus? Can you understand why I took a year off from editing? Focus on my words, my actions, my questions, and my comments, because your assumptions have led us to this very spot. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah....you do need a cup of tea. Please take a minute to read the following:

Your gender is not an issue. My use of sir is generic. But you state you are a man but are offended by my assumption from a term of respect I grew up with being raised in a military family. Maybe you wish to call attention to my being a gay man and suggest that has some bearing on it? Perhaps my interest and work in musical theatre? I did Oliver last summer, is that it? Comments...what are you suggesting I think female comments look different? This is a WTF moment for me. Sorry. Odd...being able to live with something is a key part of consensus...so we do seem to at least agree on that, as well as the need to get a wider community discussion to form any consensus to change any long standing former consensus. I don't think I was wrong. You stated you don't like it when people revert or disagree with a reference just because it is the HP. Well...deal with it. it happens all the time with all kinds of other sites. See the discussions on "the guardian". I do believe you put in your time and are an experianced editor. I have not doubted that But I do have concerns that you are ignoring the consensus as it stands now to push the envelope. I have no problem discussing this, but please do so with more consistancy, as you asked for these discussions to be posted andwhen I did you just said that people say there is no consensus. I am confounded by your behavior with this over my objections and those of others as I am not the only one, but you take the time to ramble on about me here like...well someone i need to be concerned over.

If Joe Biden wrote a peice on Huffinton it ould be an OP-Ed. I seriously do not know if you understand that, if you do I'll bet you know how that should be handles then. It would be written attribution in the prose to both Biden and the publication that published the article and that is only if the article has the proper context to the subject and consensus agrees with its inclusion. What part of that don't you understand.

Having said all that please keep editing and if you are discouraged by this experiance then maybe you should take a few days away. I do it all the time.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting you avoid using generic comments like "sir" on article talk pages when addressing people you don't know, and read the article again about why more women don't edit on Wikipedia. This entire affair has been locker room behavior. If you find a single reference to any accusation/denigration/mention of your sexual orientation, your personal interests, or any of the above accusations levied at me, please post them here. And you have just agreed with my original interpretation of my original question which was answered days ago, and all the rest of this was bluster. There is no blanket rule against Huffington Post, and you yourself admitted on your talk page that HuffPo should be re-evaluated with regards to V and RS, perhaps at the Village Pump. Again, we are arguing over agreeing. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I will no longer interact with the above user. I will state that there is a formed and long standing consensus on the use of The Huffington Post and that it may be re-addressed at anytime. I have stated that a single thread here on this board is probably not enough to over ride several years of discussion and I stand by that. I also stand by the suggestion that an RFC should probably be made here or at the Village Pump to gain wider input. Editors are encouraged to interact with civility, honesty and consistancy when posting to each other and always in a peaceful manner. There is no need to escalate any other situations but the one at hand. I believe consensus has formed that the AP should be used as the source for this author and article and that The HP in this instance need not be referenced for due weight concerns. The subject of Huffington Post as a reliable source and the current community consensus to treat the publication with extreme caution and not use for referencing facts, has been challenged but no argument given as to why this consensus either is not enforcable, lacks a wide enough community consensus or is not a legitimate community sanction/limitation being imposed within the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. If there is further reasoning we can continue to discuss in either direction.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map as reliable source for name of occupied territory

G'day all,
1. Source. Map at [25]
2. Article. Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

3. Content.

While the official name of the territory was Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia[2][3] (German: Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien; Serbo-Croatian: Teritorij Vojnog Komandanta u Srbiji, Територија војног команданта у Србији), sources refer to it using a wide variety of terms. Serbia, (Srbija, Србија)

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, as it is an undergraduate textbook and not representative of the scholarship of occupations in Europe in WWII. (Paul W Werth (No date), History 464: EUROPE SINCE 1914 at page "Europe under Nazi Occupation" http://faculty.unlv.edu/pwerth/464.html). Go find a scholarly source. Also the source doesn't support the claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Use Tomasevich instead. He extensively uses Serbia (100 times) to refer to that territory.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Antidiskriminator's suggestion, given that Stanford publishes Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-0857-6. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought a undergraduate textbook was a very good reliable source. However if there are more authoritative sources written specifically on the subject that say something different then you just have to argue out if there is an actual mistake or if there is some other reason for the difference, it may come down to documenting a controversy - I don't know what the other sources are like or how they differ or why. Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Undergraduate textbooks fail to reflect the scholarly discourse and simplify for pedagogical purposes major facts into "just so" tales aimed at undergraduates. They are not held to the fact-checking standards in scholarly presses, distort the current historiographical understandings in order to serve pedagogical purposes, and are targeted at the requirements of teaching and not the requirements of disciplinary fact. Undergraduate textbooks aren't acceptable sources in history. (Though some major monographs are suitable for use in undergraduate courses, this differs from textbooks.) In this case the undergraduate textbook is a poorly compiled course reader which hasn't even received the minimal oversight that a textbook press provides. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the map I fail to see how it directly corroborates the statement. Territories can comprise areas. Dmcq (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Use by Tomasevich of the name 'Serbia' for an occupied territory

We're having a dispute over at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia regarding the use of what is clearly a WP:RS to support a disputed name for the territory as used in the article.

1. Source.

2. Article. Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

3. Content. The Names section of the article.

Issue. When Tomasevich introduces this occupied territory for the first time in the book (on p. 64), he uses the term 'Serbia proper' (per the Google Books link). Throughout the rest of the 700 page+ book he uses the terms 'Serbia', Occupied Serbia' and a couple of others to refer to this same territory. The dispute is over whether the whole book (or the first use of the term 'Serbia' on its own ie after 'Serbia proper') can be used as a citation for the use of the name 'Serbia' to refer to the territory. My point about this is that if I wrote Australian Rules Football in a book, it would be standard practice to use the term 'football', not 'Australian Rules Football' from then on. Of course that would cause confusion with football, wouldn't it? But is it only the term he first uses, or can any any other term he subsequently uses also be sourced from Tomasevich. Maybe every version he uses should be listed with specific page citations? Advice appreciated, I may be too close to this issue and straying into WP:OR. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pages 64 and 514 of the text you cite indicate how the author is using the term "Serbia proper." In particular page 64 tells you how you should read "Occupied Serbia." Other uses of Serbia may or may not be referring to Occupied Serbia in the text—given that Serbia as a concept exceeds the German occupation's structuring of what "Serbia" was. This must be read in context, particularly in the context of the difference between German occupational definitions versus personally or collectively held feelings of the construction of the Serbian nation. For instance, on page 64 when referring to the German occupation of Serbia it is obvious that the term "Serbia" as used here refers specifically to "occupied Serbia" or "Serbia proper." It needs to be read in context. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The X-Files Lexicon

I was wondering if The X-Files Lexicon would count as a reliable source LINK. Granted, it is a fan made site, but it is officially affiliated with the LAX-Files location guide, and notable members of The X-Files staff have been interviewed on the site, and Frank Spotnitz (an executive producer) has referenced it several times. I just want an OK before I add it anywhere.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to specify what information from the site you want to add. Interviews with crew *might* be reliable. But it all depends. Formerip (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Interviews are the main bit, but they've started an episode guide I'd like to use. Here's an example page. Usually, for direct quotes they cite their information (and they tell who wrote what), and from what I can cross-reference, all of the information seems to be legitimate and true.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This does not appear to pass reliable sources criteria. Here is the contact page: contact it apears to be run by two people, one who goes by "Red Scully" and I don't believe that is a real name. This looks like a very elaborate, self published site with no true editorial oversite to use in referencing facts on Wikipedia. As a self published source, probably a fan page, it's pretty much useless unless mentioned in another reliable source, and then only for illustrative purposes.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
For the interview, perhaps it might be broadline reliable for the interview. Other than that, I don't really think so, as it looks like a fan page, as stated above, ran by two people. TBrandley 02:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a very important point, HOW is it "Broadline" reliable for the interviews? The authors? The flood of fan pages suddenly posting all sorts of stuff based solely on it having been exclusively posted on their website could be a bit of a problem, but if there is some way this is allowed let us be clear on what the criteria are for it's use in this manner? While I don't see it, perhaps it can simply be pointed out how a fan page run by two people who have no notability, credentials or journalistic background known can be reliable for any use? How is it verifiable with no editorial oversite and how can it pass if self published?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, they are officially affiliated with one of the show's location guides, and executive producer Frank Spotnitz, among others, has mentioned the site and I believe has been interviewed on it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any sources on that? Like a blog or social media post that can be verified as belonging to an individual connected to the show? Siawase (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In order for this to be considered an affiliation for Wikipedia standards for referencing, the website would need to be clearly established as an official affiliation of the copyright owner...not just the producer or an actor from the production. The website itself would need to be marked as "official" and copyright information required on the lower portion of the front page like this: Official Rocky Horror Fan Site would NOT make a statement like this fan page does, which states: "This fan site is not produced, endorsed or affiliated with Ten-Thirteen Productions or Twentieth Century Fox Television." So...no, this has no affiliation with the copyright owner and is not a reliable source for use--Amadscientist (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
If the interviews are located on the producer or actors official sites, they would not need to be affiliated with the copyright owners of the X-Files to be considered a reliable source for the interview. Perhaps you can check their personal sites.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, if the interview subject verifies that the interview is rendered accurately, through say, a verified twitter account, or an interview in a reliable third-party source, then their words in the interview might be usable as a WP:PRIMARY source. It rarely happens, but it's not impossible. Siawase (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I would say that a verification through a twitter account mention may not be enough, but it may well be possible to OTRS verification through e-mail or just contacting the interview subjects if the primary source was reliable, but:
Shortcuts

Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[6] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

There is actually a bit more so I include the short cuts to the different sections. Basicly a primary source has limited use, but still requires the same criteria of determing reliability. There is no doubt the source would be considered primary, but is also no doubt that it has no editorial oversite, official affilation to the copyright owner, or known fact checking. If the interviews are exclusive to this site then you may have to wait until they are published in a form usable on Wikipedia for referencing, but the site really has no value to wikipedia even as an external link because fan sites are excluded from such links in general. A bit of research may provide the same information in published interviews or just contact the fan site and see if they would release the interviews to be used on the producers official site in some form or on the official fan site.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This has veered way into hypothetical territory, so I'll just say if Gen. Quon has an answer to my original question I'd still very much like to hear it. Siawase (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On Frank Spotnitz's production website, he has a link posted to the site Link, so it's affiliated with him. The Lexicon is also affiliated with the location guide The LAX-Files, which Spotnitz references to and was interviewed in. I realize now that the fan-made episode guide is no good, but I'd say the interviews should be OK, as the Lexicon has a relationship with Spotnitz (who was one of the executive producer for the final seasons) and is affiliated with the location book, which has quotes from a myriad of people involved and has been promoted by them too.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I think you might be overstating things a bit with "affiliated with." But to not get bogged down in hypotheticals again, I would suggest if you do find anything specific in one of the interviews that might be worth including, you bring that specific case back here for discussion. It's much more fruitful to discuss specific cases. Siawase (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mick fleetwood

Mick fleetwood is 70 years old. He was born 1942. I checked. His official. Website and several. Others

This is incoherent. Please review the instructions at the top of this page, and in the template contained above. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems that there are sources for both 1942[27][28] and 1947[29]. In 2007 there was a brief discussion of this on the talk page and the participating editors decided to go with 1947, mainly on the strength of that being the year mentioned in his autobiography Fleetwood: my life and adventures in Fleetwood Mac (here is a snippet from Google Books showing that sentence). Mick's official website is a bit hard to penetrate and I didn't find a birthday; maybe someone else can. In any event, I think this would need to be discussed on the talk page before anything is changed.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Published book alleging homosexuality on the part of BLPs

Hi. How do we deal with books like this that are brought up in talk page discussions like this one? The book is published by Bluff Place Publishing. Is that a legitimate publisher that would confer reliability upon that book? Or do we require independent sources to speak about the book in order to treat it as such? The only sources I can find that mention it through a cursory Google search are gossip sites and what appear to be user-generated material like this. I'm inclined to treat it as unreliable gossip, but I'm not sure what the basis would be for this. How do we respond to this? And if it's not RS, should that talk page message be removed for the same reason? Nightscream (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take this to the BLP Notice Board on how to handle the book within the guidelines of the BLP policy. There is a list of publishers that deal with self published (paid to publish) books that wikipedia has banned or blocked from being used but I lost the link to it. The talk page message should be removed as inflammitory.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The list wasn't too hard to find. Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
(Side comment: Amadscientist... Just so you know, that is NOT a list of publishers that are "banned or blocked from being used". Wikipedia allows self-published sources in some situations... however, we also recognize that there are situations where using one would be inappropriate. See WP:SPS for more on those limitations.) Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is some info from Open ISBN. At a glance it seems to be a legitimate publishing company, however it may be a self publishing company from the results during a google search.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what OpenISBN claims to do, but that link shows only this one book coming from Bluff Place Publishing (the others happen to have "bluff" etc. as keywords). Which, if the information is complete, would hint strongly at self-publishing. Andrew Dalby 11:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't going to promote this book by linking directly to the links in that books section on Open ISBN but it details more information to research it. to be clear I believe this is a self published book and soesn't pass reliable sources...but i don't have the facts to make a determination. It has been published in paper back and is not a e-book, so perhaps it maight be something to help find further information about the publisher. I made it clear the inclusion of material should be discussed at the BLP notice board as we are simply trying to determine the relibaility of a the publication...which I still doubt but can't find on the black list of pay-to-publish companies.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
True self-publishers -- people who publish their own stuff -- can never be fully listed. Anyone in a free country is free to do it. Our lists are merely of businesses that do it for you. Ordinary self-publishers wouldn't make it on to our list.
Unless we find that "Bluff Place Publishing" has published some other books as well, there's a very strong likelihood of self-publishing. Andrew Dalby 08:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The 'Book Description' section at the Amazon link reeks of self-publishing - multiple grammatical mistakes, shift from third to first person, etc etc. The "View inside this book" shows similar issues:
* "He also worked the Protective Service Detail for the white house"
* "...to see if there were carried out properly"
* "This is a mere partial list of the accomplishments he has achieved during his long and highly revered career to say the least".
* "...I have had plenty of opportunities to behold these celebrity's penises while they were exposed to me..."
I doubt any of these would have survived editorial oversight. --GenericBob (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This definitely looks self-pub. But, even if it isn't, the material would be extremely unlikely to survive BLPN. We normally require evidence of a living person's self-identification in order to discuss their sexuality in an article. Formerip (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, our policy on sexual orientation of living persons asks for identity, so an "eye-witness" report of JCVD having sex with men would not suffice even were the source a reliable one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Only categorization requires self-identification (WP:BLPCAT.) For the prose in BLP articles on individuals who aren't publicly self-identified LGB, it normally takes a multitude of highly reliable sources to include LGB material.([30][31][32]) This book isn't even in the neighbourhood of being enough. Siawase (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

asian-defence.net is a personal blogger account

Surely asian-defence.net is not a RS for anything and especially not this claim:

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder 

Many other countries have also shown an interest in purchasing the JF-17 Thunder.[7]
  1. ^ hall p.2
  2. ^ Wilhelm, James J. (1994). "Arthur in the Latin Chronicles." In James J. Wilhem, The Romance of Arthur, p. 7. New York: Garland. ISBN 0-8153-1511-2.
  3. ^ hall p.3
  4. ^ Performance artist Captain Cox is described as "hardy as Gawin," and knows the Arthurian romances including "Syr Gawain"
  5. ^ Whiting, pp. 193-194
  6. ^ Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
  7. ^ http://www.asian-defence.net/2011/11/analysis-of-jf-17-thunder-export.html

So replace with CN? Hcobb (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly not a reliable source. I'd suggest removing this entirely from the article unless a reliable source can be found. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Numerous bogus refs for Hoopla Worldwide and Jonathan Hay (publicist)

There is a determined contributor named Causeandedit who removes tags, doesn't follow rules, bombards articles with bogus references. I'm at 1RR so I can not revert anymore.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed a unproper tag you placed on a page that was already accepted and approved by the WikiProject Articles for creation. For some reason, it seems you have a personal vendetta against the pages I built (and are still working on). But for you to grossly misrepresent that I "don't follow rules", "bombards articles with bogus references" is completley false and uncalled for and is a personal attack. "Please do no bite the newcomers". I've never had any problems on Wikipedia until the last few days, and one person admitted he was wrong and apologized.Causeandedit (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If this discussion has anything to do with this noticeboard, please demonstrate it by linking to examples or something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Most "reliable sources" at the Wikipedia "article" Hoopla Worldwide are bogus promotional links to blogs, online bookstores, dubious websites and such. The same problem with a related article Jonathan Hay (publicist).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again Tomwsulcer this is cleary becoming a personal attack on my work without anything constructive on your part. There are 69 reference links on the Hoopla Worldwide page which granted are too many (and something I'm learning to do), but you call it as "bogus" or "promotional". On the Jonathan Hay (publicist) page, that is being worked on and assited by two other wikipedia users and fixing the article as we speak. It would have been helpful, especially with all your wikipedia expereince instead of jumping all over an article that I was working on with the "in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" tag, you would have tried to "help", not "tear down".Causeandedit (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Unacceptable references include bookstores, blogs, dubious websites, etc. Remove them. Most of the so-called "references" seem dubious to my eyes. Further, remove any information which is supposedly based on these "references". This is how I am trying to help you -- to help you understand Wikipedia's rules. It is not a personal attack. Please see WP:RS for further information about sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I have had a look at the article and its sources and agree that as it exists at present it lacks good sources for the most basic of information. Martinlc (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A quote in aljazeera in regards to two statements

In the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike article, there is a disagreement if a quote of a child can be used to support two statements. The first statement is: "They saw an injured man laying on the street" (in the context: the two were driving). The second statement is: "Mutashar said to "take him to [a] hospital"" (where "him" refers to the person lying on the street). The argument in the talk is that the source is not good because it is a child making it. I do not believe the age makes a difference, and as a primary source, it should be handled as any other primary sources. Thus, I am seeking a third party opinion on matter. Belorn (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is a reliable source and I don't see any problem including the quote if it's attributed (we would also attribute quotes from adult witnesses). Randy2063 seems to be arguing based purely and solely on his personal beliefs, and that's not how WP works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought, I don't think attribution is called for - I misinterpreted your question slightly. If it were a comment about others' activities during the incident - say, if the witness had said they saw the American troops do such and such a thing - attribution would be necessary, but this is not the case here. Unless we have a reliable source which suggests the van was there for another reason. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I am going to let it rest a bit, let more people add their opinion if they want, and also collect my thought. But based on that, the chain of events as being described in the article looks to be as good one can get based on reliable sources. The flow of the text could be improved, but most details of the event looks to be there. Belorn (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion of editor motives, not relevant to the question asked
Back up a bit. Don't say I'm "arguing based purely and solely on his personal beliefs." If you look, I'm not the one introducing content purely for emotional impact.
In this circumstance, everybody already knows that they were rescuing an injured man.
Beyond that, the child knows nothing, and adds nothing other than the emotional appeal.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Randy, all your comments on the talk page are preaching about how the soldiers were right to strike, assuming that every adult victim was a terrorist, blaming the parents for the children's injuries, and asserting that the pilots who wounded the children and killed their father cared more about them than the pilots' critics did. I see no comments in which you refer to Wikipedia policy or practice. Perhaps you are actually thinking about policy and not about politics, but if so, it would behoove you to make this evident in your talk-page behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not assume that every adult victim is terrorist. The two reporters weren't. I don't know what the father of the children was thinking when he stopped there, but he would have been wrong to stop even if hadn't been attacked for it. Civilians had been warned of this before the battle, which makes one wonder why he'd stop there with his children in the car. But I never said that makes him a terrorist.
It was Belorn who brought in the "difference between a person expressing their want to kill someone," thus impugning the pilots. The pilots were legally and morally right to strike -- iaw the laws of war. The critics could certainly say they want something better than the laws of war, but they must first ask that the enemy abide by the ones we already have. Among all the references, we can clearly see that they chose not to.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Your comments about what was right and wrong for people in the situation to do and your speculations about their motives - rather than about policy, practice, or sources - are confirming, not alleviating, the impression formed of your editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You can say what you like about me but that still doesn't change the fact that Belorn wants to add the quote of a child solely for emotional impact when that child doesn't really know what was going on.
I should add that Belorn had initially added this quote as well: "Didn't they see we were children?" This was the main reason I pulled it. It implies that the pilots could have seen them, when that clearly wasn't true. Readers who don't have access to the pictures may not know that.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That part of the quote was added when the quote was copied wholesale, word for word, in unedited form. It was unedited for a reason, which was to avoid any unintended interpretation or editorial bias. Quotes are not easy. Unedited forms can often allow the reader to form an opinion unhindered by the wikipedia editor. I also added to the talk page this it was only the second best solution, and it would be better to bake it in into the article flow, and that would remove the unnecessary emotional tone the unedited quote had. Belorn (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors ought to feel free to discuss this sourcing issue, as detailed above by involved editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am uninvolved. Did I become "involved" the moment I voiced an opinion on the quality of the source? That seems to be a bit of a paradox. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Mentioning the opinions of people who have not previously commented in discussion such as when you say, "Randy2063 seems to be arguing based purely and solely on his personal beliefs, and that's not how WP works." is a dead give away of your involvement. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it unthinkable now that when commenting at RSN, an editor would read over previous discussion on the subject? Look over the talkpage and the article history; it is clear that I have never once edited either. Using MZMcBride's stalk tool, I also see that I've never edited or discussed any of the same content as either of these guys. I'm de-purpling the discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion by [other] uninvolved editors of quotes in an aljazeera article in July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike

It seems to me the discussion above is mixing different issues, such:

  • a) Is the Al Jazeera English (AJE) reporting of the incident (in general) reliable.
  • b) Is the witness observation of the child reliable (not the report on it) and can it be taken literally
  • c) Should the observation of the child be mentioned explicitly or just indirectly in a summary of reporting/witnesses.

The answer to a) is yes, AJE is fairly reliable (as far as the reliability of major news organization goes) and note that AJE significantly differs from the (original) Al Jazeera Arabic. So if you research sources on their reporting and reliability make sure you distinguish those two.

As far as b) is concerned I don't quite see what makes the child's statement/description unreliable in this specific case. In general in some context child's observations may need to viewed with more care, because they may not fully understand a particular situation and hence misread it and are more impressionable than adults. However in this specific case everything looks straightforward and I don't see any convincing reason that might taint the child's description.

As far as c) is concerned, that's more a question of editorial discretion rather than reliability. There is certainly no reason, why the child's description needs to be included explicitly, but on the other hand I don't see right know why doing so would be a policy/guideline violation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some adults, like some children, are not good witnesses. That's a problem for people who use primary sources. Nothing to do with Wikipedia here -- one good reason why we are chary of using primary sources.
I'd say al-Jazeera is a reliable source, but, like all other sources, may have a point of view on controversial issues (e.g. this conflict). This means, not that we eliminate such sources, but that we take care to use inline attribution, balancing citations, etc.
If al-Jazeera quotes a child, on a matter on which al-Jazeera decided the quote deserved to be used, and if we consider the event and the particular viewpoint represented by this quote notable, we have no reason not to use the material. As Kmkmh says, it's not a matter of reliability in Wikipedia terms, but it is up to us editorially to make it clear this was a child's report relayed by a source with a viewpoint. Andrew Dalby 08:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

Thanks all for the input. quotes looks to be tricky to use, so I am thankful for all the help here. The article editing has calmed down, but I think a rewrite of all primary source comments surrounding the van attack could be placed directly below the flow of event, so to add inline attribution to each of them without breaking the flow. Belorn (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

looklex

Is this site, reliable and academic site ? and can i cite it ?--Espiral (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You're supposed to start by telling us on what page, and for what information, you want to cite it.
At my quick glance it appears serious but not peer-reviewed, and the editor also serious but not a published, peer-reviewed expert in the field. Therefore probably you shouldn't, but some of these pages may be useful under external links. Andrew Dalby 17:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

in this article, it says : "the population of Orumiyeh is predominantly Azeri (over 90%), but with Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian minorities." can we cite this article to say over 90% of population of orumiyeh is Azeri ? --Espiral (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest not (others, please comment!) When I last looked into this kind of question, no official ethnic figures were included in the Iranian census, so the source would just have to be an estimate by somebody or other. We would need (as you know) a reliable academic source for such an estimate. I don't think this site qualifies. Andrew Dalby 11:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

glbtq.com as a source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Disruptive continued contributions over a valid closure. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (please note, this was hidden archived. The hidden archiving has been removed to make this discussion searchable Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
RS of source has been
Resolved
Non reliable source for the following reason: Information is not verifiable. Discussion has ceased interrogating source reliability, and has consequently been closed to stop non-RS/N related discussions. As always, RS/N welcomes questions regarding specific sources in specific contexts for specific claims, and addresses each on its merits. --Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this counts as a reliable source. I'm suspicious of its neutrality and I think a scientific source is needed especially for this statement: "Both assumptions were categorically refuted by twentieth-century psychology". I'm not saying that it's wrong, but that an actual psychology source as evidence of this being correct is needed. The article in question is Tomboy. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The entire quote in question is "Throughout their history, tomboys have had to contend with the stigma of presumed lesbianism or the accusation of wanting to be male. Both assumptions were categorically refuted by twentieth-century psychology, which established the normality of the tomboy experience among girls of all identities. However, for many, the tomboy stage is the first manifestation of a gender-fluid life journey."
Like I told Acoma Magic, glbtq.com "is a well-respected LGBT encyclopedia. [N]ot sure what scientific sources you are expecting for historical information." Seriously, this is historical information. I don't see how a scientific source is needed to support information about what twentieth-century psychology found, no more than we need a scientific source to report that some men suffer from erectile dysfunction; there are plenty of scholarly books citing the erectile dysfunction research just as well as the primary sources or secondary scientific sources about it.
Acoma Magic's response was "Add the sources that the website uses then. Content written by editors is original research, no matter what encyclopaedia." I responded with, "[W]hat you state makes no sense. [I]f that were the case, we wouldn't be able to use encyclopedias for sources at all on [W]ikipedia. glbtq.com counts as [a] WP:Reliable source, especially for LGBT content, which is why it's used at all in the article." If we were to bring some editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies in on this to comment, I'm sure they'd agree. I don't dispute that the text would benefit from a better source or sources, but glbtq.com isn't a terrible source or unreliable for this information. 109.123.115.221 (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The editors at this noticeboard will be fine for establishing what is a reliable source. We're more likely to find impartial editors here, rather than at the LGBT project. Acoma Magic (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I hardly think an LGBT encyclopaedia can be relied upon for an impartial assessment of LGBT studies. I certainly accept it as a reliable source but that doesn't mean I wouldn't take practically anything it says as possibly biased. In fact for practically anything related to human psychology I'd attribute things rather than stating them as fact unless there really is clearly a general consensus and that would apply to any original studies as well. Best for getting an impartial view on things like this are secondary sources reviewing various studies but even then you know howpeople will twist anything to do about human nature. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, (no pun intended) you doubt the reliablity of a source based on it being a part of a percieved group of people discussing the academic study of themselves as a group and have yourself dismissed it on only that basis? So then every academic source within a percieved community is unreliable due to bias? Uhm....no. You must show the instance of bias you percieve in the source. If you feel there is some other reason to exclude it please state further reasoning. An expert on LGBT studies can be an LGBT figure and not have bias. If I am misreading this please explain. I see no reason the source cannot be used for the reason presented. Others may not feel the same, but see nothing demonstrated that the source is biased or innaccurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the original question. The actual psychology source would be a primary source and would require secondary sourcing to make the claim. The claim does not require a primary source as they are mainly illustrative. Sure, you can use a actual psychology source that is secondary and passes RS criteria, but it is not a requirement. An expert in psychology is not required to make this claim, only that it be a published reliable secondary source.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

[I'm the same IP as above.] Thank you, Amadscientist. If we were talking about research that hasn't yet been reported in other reliable sources and/or isn't a general consensus matter, I know that we can't report the research without specifically attributing the text to that source. But that isn't the case here. I was typing up a response to Dmcq, but you beat me to it. Although...I'm going to go ahead and state it anyway:
Acoma Magic, WikiProject LGBT studies consists of editors who specialize in this area. That's what they are there for. They don't just go by any LGBT source; they go by reliable sources, whether those sources are LGBT (as in produced by LGBT people in this case) or not. As such, they are likely to know what constitutes a reliable source for LGBTQ information. And on that note, I don't think that all contributors to the encyclopedia in question are LGBTQ people. Maybe not even most of them are.
Dmcq, stating that "I hardly think an LGBT encyclopaedia can be relied upon for an impartial assessment of LGBT studies" is like saying "I hardly think a historical encyclopedia can be relied upon for an impartial assessment of historical studies." Or "I hardly think the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) can relied upon for an impartial assessment of what is a mental disorder." And so on. You are talking about a source that specializes in that area, a source coming from academic contributions that are very likely not only composed by LGBTQ people. We go by sources that specialize in the topic they are being used for all the time. Religious topics, such as Christianity, are mostly supported by reliable religious sources (including religious encyclopedias). Sexual topics are often, though not only, supported by reliable sexology sources, reliable sources citing sexological research, or reliable anatomy sources (although if the topic also has to do with some type of sexual offense, like child sexual abuse, legal sources are also mixed in). And it goes on and on. Yes, psychology topics are usually mostly covered by psychology sources, but the tomboy topic is also a LGBT topic. And so there isn't a lot of (though there is some) validity in stating that a psychology source would be more reliable for this information than the well-respected glbtq.com encyclopedia. But glbtq.com has no doubt based its information on historical sources and has a fact-checking staff like any other reliable source. Like the Wikipedia article on it says, "It was named one of the 'Best Free Reference Web Sites' in 2005 by the American Library Association." That's big praise for "an LGBT encyclopedia that can hardly be relied upon for an impartial assessment of LGBT studies." And you agree that it's reliable, so I fail to see any problem on this matter. That the text would benefit from better sourcing has no bearing on whether or not this source is reliable, and especially for this information. I have no issue with the wording being amended so that it begins with "glbtq.com states." And I prefer that to adding "According to glbtq.com," which can give the impression that only glbtq.com states this. This information isn't even coming from them directly, but rather through them. 37.123.114.52 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You know people involved in studies of intelligence or gender or suchlike things very often do studies to try and buttress their pet views rather than find the truth and they'll defend their ideas stronger than any climate change denier. I said a secondary source explicitly checking the point would be far better for stating something as a fact rather than attributing it to a source. And no I have absolutely no confidence that an encyclopaedia devoted to LGBT will be safe from such influences especially as no sources seem to be given in the articles. Why should I accept it as less biased than a toe rag site like conservapedia.com? All I can really accept is that it is written by experts in the field and so by that measure is a reliable source. Being a reliable source does not mean one should accept the contents uncritically. Their views are theirs and that's about all one can say, their views should be attributed to them. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
People involved in "studies of intelligence or gender or suchlike things" also very often do studies to try find the truth. The fact that tomboys are associated with masculinity, "girls wanting to be boys" and lesbianism is well-known anyway. I find your argument faulty for reasons I and Amadscientist have already gone over. 66.85.128.186 (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The site appears to include material from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons - and has a large amount of strongly worded blog/forum material as well. As for meeting WP:RS - on the simple fact of using Wikipedia, it fails. And it appears on its face to plagiarize liberally -- its article on Halston has Halston was a master of cut, detail, and finish which is also found in a 2009 magazine article, [33] a 2005 forum post [34], etc. We have a source which uses Wikipedia, plagiarizes other sources etc. - it simply fails the criteria we have. Collect (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, if its authors are experts and they recycle our stuff does that mean that it is then reliably sourced? I think there may be a case to accept such stuff in some circumstances but I certainly would look at it very askance. Dmcq (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The rule has always been that under no circumstance should Wikipedia be in the position of being ots own source - no matter how indirectly. In the case at hand, I found in 10 seconds secveral articles which are clear and blatant borrowing from other sources - their "experts" seem among the laziest plagiarists around <g>. And if my tiny sample shows it is a problem, imagine what a large sample might show? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Before we make that claim we must remeber that we need to be assured that Wikipedia did not get the information from them. According to what I understand about the policy the encyclopedia is a tertiary source, still considered an RS and not yet proven to be using Wikipedia information as a source. I am not seeing the commons images and wonder what stood out to Collect in text and in images that concerned them? The articles are not user submitted and the fact that it has a forum does not disqualify from RS either. Here is the press kit of directly pertinent info About GLBTQ.COM. It appears to have editorial oversite, the articles are signed and attributable and link directly to the author Biography to check notablity.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The plagiarised articles antedate the "encyclopedia" by a dozen years or more in some cases -- I rather doubt that claim (that the arlier places plagiarized te later article) passes the laugh test. Collect (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Using the site as a source for LGBT content isn't the same as using a history encyclopaedia for history. For an encyclopaedia to be devoted to a very small subject area, such as LGBT content, means it isn't going to be impartial. It'd be like using a Christian encyclopaedia for Christian content. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There's also no point in attributing the content to the encyclopaedia because people will just dismiss it. If I saw: "According to Christiantity.com...." I would dismiss it immediately. The best choice is to remove it. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
These are content and editorial decisions for the talk page of the article. We are only concerned with whether the source is truly a reliable source per Wikipedia policy. Use of it is a matter of consensus if deemed RS. But that has yet to be determined.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Aside from what User:Collect is stating, use of the Chistian encyclopedia is indeed used widely for content on articles about christianity so there is no reason an LGBT encyclopedia (That is a RS) could not be used per policy or guideline. If I am mistaken please link the relevant policy. Just being confined to a small subject matter is not exclusionary for reliablity. I am going to take a look at the actual source as an editor has raised serious concerns about reliablity.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this the encyclopaedia that Wikipedia regards as a reliable source? [35] Acoma Magic (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
No. The one I refer to is a book reference and is about 100 years old and has been updated in some versions. I know nothing about the RS of that site.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked, out of curiosity and its an open source encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. It is not a relaible source for that reason. Heck...even Wikipedia is not a reliable source to reference a Wikipedia article for that reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't use this source. It's strength as a RS is unclear from posts above as issues being raised have not been resolved. It is possible that individual authors have used Wikipedia. It happens more often than the reverse in the circular referencing situation that this concerns. BUT...I actually see something missing. It does seem a little dubious that with 350 authors that the site has no references to the claims it makes. While attrubuted to each author of the "text" in the encyclopedia, it has NO references at the article which isn't normal practice and makes the information impossible to verify. This is what seems to make it unreliable as a source.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

109.123.115.221 is now trying to drum up support from Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies.[36] Acoma Magic (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And you are claiming WP:Consensus without understanding what WP:Consensus is. I already suggested contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, because, like I stated, it "consists of editors who specialize in this area" and "they are likely to know what constitutes a reliable source for LGBTQ information." Was my post there neutral? Yes. And saying "Using the site as a source for LGBT content isn't the same as using a history encyclopaedia for history. For an encyclopaedia to be devoted to a very small subject area, such as LGBT content, means it isn't going to be impartial. It'd be like using a Christian encyclopaedia for Christian content." is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, for reasons already gone over by me and Amadscientist. A lot of LGBT content on Wikipedia comes from LGBT sources like Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and The Advocate. Dismiss it all you want, but they, like religious sources generally count as reliable for religious information (see God and the debates on that talk page), generally count as reliable for LGBT content and generally know more about LGBT content than non-LGBT specific sources. I believe that you're biased anyway, as seen by some of your edits regarding LGBT topics, such as trying to get homosexuality listed on the main list of List of paraphilias. 66.85.128.186 (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like consensus to me. You're the only one that is supporting the previous language. It's not ridiculous. It's the same as using the Christian encyclopaedia I linked to above. The encyclopaedia can't be used for these claims, whereas content from GLAAD also can't be used unless it references the claims it makes to support it, or it is just reporting on an event, or delivering their opinion. This is the reliable source noticeboard, this is the place to decide what is a reliable source, whereas a bunch of editors involved in the LGBT project page are less likely to be impartial. I'm trying to get it back on the table, with it being considered a former paraphilia. You already knew that though. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Acoma, don't make inflammitory statements about entire projects, especially when one of its members (me) is here being impartial and agreeing that the source is not reliable, but for exacting reasons...not just because of perceptions. Good luck editing and be careful. I am closing this discussion as resolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure most editors there would be neutral, however I'm just saying that we're more likely to find impartial editors here. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

blogs.marketwatch.com

I have seen http://blogs.marketwatch.com cited on a number of pages. Would this be a good candidate for a large scale cleanup? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondary source quote

The title was changed to "Can Conservapedia be a reliable source about itself?" but another person has said that is inaccurate and I agree so I have reverted to the original "Secondary source quote". Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The following was removed from the lead of Conservapedia by this edit by User:aprock with the comment 'content still sourced to open wiki, secondary sources quoting it does not make it any more reliable'

According to the site's operators, the site "strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts".
cited to: Jane, Emma (January 8, 2011). "A parallel online universe". The Australian. Retrieved January 9, 2011.

They have put in loads of policy quotes into Talk:Conservapedia#Self description to justify removing this quote. The quote appears in The Australian and comes from [37] on Conservapedia.

So what do people here think about that? Was it included properly or are we wrong to include a quote from an unreliable source talking about itself even if a secondary source quotes them? Do you agree with their 'You are clearly unaware of, disregarding and/or misusing WP:RS/QUOTE, WP:RSOPINION,WP:USERGENERATED, and WP:SELFPUB". Or would it in fact have been okay per WP:ABOUTSELF even if we didn't have the secondary source? Dmcq (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If the quote was never published on Conservapedia, there would be no question using it (assuming that it keeps the NPOVness of the article in question). Just because the line was quoted in Conservapedia has no impact on the actual use of the quote on en.wiki. Even the non-quoted stuff in the text seems completely neutral. So its removal would appear to be wrong, and the cited policies don't apply here. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The quote would have to have been published somewhere to use it. I suspect it might help if there was a specific policy referenced which supported inclusion of the quote. If WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply, then it's not clear why we would include it. I've been looking for an reliable source for parallel content, like an interview with Schlafly, and have yet to find anything usable. aprock (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you disputing the Australian's fact checking? Anyway the provenance of it is pretty clear from the history on Conservapedia. Aschafly is the founder of the site, and AddisonDM and Conservative are administrators. The site keeps tight control over its content and especially pages like the original for the quote! Exactly which part of ABOUTSELF would you say fails? That is part of WP:V. Dmcq (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No one is disputing that the quote appears on Conservapedia. Your claims about the state of the quality of particular pages on an open wiki are interesting, but not particularly relevant. It would be much better to quote Schlafly directly instead of presuming to quote him thorough an open wiki. In an interview [38] Schlafly states "The reason people are coming to us [Conservapedia] is we're concise, no gossip, and we have no liberal bias." Using direct quotations from interviews and published sources would seem to be a much better route in a case like this. aprock (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You are wrong. For one, quoting the primary source (Conservapedia) would be fine to describe their approach, but its even better that the RS The Austrialian (as a secondary source) quotes it for us, as to "set" that line in stone. The Austrialian article does not appear to attempt to vilify or praise Conservapedia, just pointing out that it's not Wikipedia due to its origins. There is absolutely nothing wrong here with that quote. (Heck, we as the Wikipedia editors could say According to the site's operators, the site "strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts"., using the appropriate page on Conservapedia's help pages as a source, without violating any OR or POV issues, as explicitly allowed by ABOUTSELF. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The Australian source is an editorial, and per WP:RSOPINION isn't reliable for anything but the author's views (It seems silly to me that we should include something like "In characterizing Conservapedia as even less reliable than Wikipedia, Ellen Jane sardonically quotes the site's operators statement that the site 'strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts'".)
It's not at all clear to me that any page on an open wiki can be used as a source for anything beyond the fact that the content exists on the open wiki. The most direct policy statement regarding this is from WP:SPS: For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. There are exceptions spelled out in WP:ABOUTSELF, but open wikis generally violate provisos 2 (as a single open wiki editor cannot in general speak for the community), 3 (claims about the wiki are not about the editor), and 4 (who is using the account to make the edits is unverifiable). Again, it seems that the preferred approach would be to quote the founder directly from a sourced interview. aprock (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You perhaps may have had a point if we sourced Conservapedia directly on that quote, though arguably it is a non-contentious fact about the site itself if you know why it was created; this is where the ABOUTSELF exceptions would be allowed. But we're saved from that. We have a secondary source (the Australian) that has written about it and cemented the statement, alongside other details of Conservapedia. We don't know care if the author of the Australian article got the "wrong" version when they took that quote off the website, it's still a valid quote about the website that falls in line with every other detail about the website (though there should be little doubt that fact was likely true). So anything about SPS and ABOUTSELF immediately go away as soon as we rely on the source quote from the Australian, as long as we're sufficiently assured of the paper's RS nature (which we are). --MASEM (t) 20:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, The Australian source is an editorial, and as such can only confer reliability to statements about the author's views. It cannot confer reliability to any of the facts presented, or sources used. To the extent that this content is non-contentious, it is precisely because similar content can be sourced directly to Schlafly in interviews. Those sourced interviews are the reliable sources that should be used and cited here, not pages on the open wiki or third party op-eds. aprock (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You still have not said which part of WP:ABOUTSELF you dispute. Plus we are not discussing an opinion but whether the Australian checked the fact that the quote can be attributed to conservapedia. What the secondary source provides is the same sort of thing all secondary sources provide, the justification that it it is an interesting thing about Conservapedia to put in the article. Dmcq (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You still have not said which part of WP:ABOUTSELF you dispute: Oh good grief. See above: [39].
... whether the Australian checked the fact ... It's an op-ed. Fact checking isn't relevant here. It can only be used as a source for the views of Ellen Jane. That's it. aprock (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I will grant that there's probably an interview that can be sourced that is better to use to state the purpose of Conservapedia's founding that doesn't otherwise rely on wiki text. But just because it happens to be an editorial doesn't make it unreliable. The author appears to be a regular writer for the work. The work is under editorial control. This doesn't mean 100% accuracy all the time, but at the same time, for journalistic integrity, we should assume that when they say "Site X says "Y"", they aren't purposely lying - otherwise, they'd be prone to libel/slander. That's why we label things as reliable sources that we have good reason to expect what they say to be true, even if it is part of an opinion or editorial piece. So using the Australian quote is absolutely in no violation of any policy. But I still agree on the point that we at en.wiki can likely get a better statement of Conservapedia's intent. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But just because it happens to be an editorial doesn't make it unreliable. On the contrary, from WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact... A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." aprock (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But it's not a controversial fact - I even just searched on that quote in google and its right there on Conservapedia's page on itself. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But it's not a controversial fact... no one said it was controversial. It does however have to be cited to a reliable source. An open wiki is not a reliable source, even about itself. aprock (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
So the complaints about WP:ABOUTSELF is basically as far as I can see a denial that there is such a thing as consensus or that it has any meaning. Would that be correct? You do not believe that for instance WP:5P can speak for the community as a whole under consensus? As for Conservapedia you discount the history as meaningless so the fact that the statement has been there for years and the pages has been edited by the founder and that there is very strong editorial control all count for nothing? ABOUTSELF sys 'there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity', are you really saying what you are employing is common sense and that there is a reasonable doubt that it is an accurate statement about them? I am having a very hard time assuming good faith about what you say. Dmcq (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I never mentioned WP:5P. In fact, if you review Wikipedia, you'll see that the article is explicit about the shifting nature of policies under an open wiki model: "Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors as a community write and revise the website's policies and guidelines." What we are dealing with in Conservapedia is a known unreliable source, which is also an open wiki. The idea that we should take it's content at face value, even content about itself, is preposterous. To the extent that claims are made about the vision of Conservapedia, they should be directly sourced to Andy Schlafly (as opposed to presumptively indirectly) since: (1) it is clear who is making the statement (2) It is clear that it is what he says about Conservapedia (3) that the project vision is not one which comes from community consensus, but from Schlafly himself. Given that there are sources for explicit Schlafly quotes here which generally mirror the current content, it seems especially odd to insist on using the unreliable open wiki as the source. aprock (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The title you've changed this section to is not the issue that you are raising. As long as the quote is filtered throug the RS of the Australian, we presume that at the time they citing the information, it was what Conservapedia said.
Again, you are absolutely correct that we would be much better off gaining the perspective of what Conservapedia's goal is from an interview with Schlafly, the founder, himself. But the removal of the Australian quote on the basis of SPS claims is just wrong. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
[40] aprock (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thgat is talking about opinion. The bit in the Australian that was being used is not an opinion of the author. Such material refers to the title of the section 'statements of opinion'. I really wish you would stop misusing your references like that. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The policy is talking about sources, not views from the source, and is explicit about sourcing facts to op-eds. Opinion pieces can be used to source view, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". In this case the Author in question is Ellen Jane. aprock (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But it's not her opinion that is quoted at Conservapedia. All that Ellen Jane is saying in her reliable source article is what Conservapedia says about itself, which is all we are saying here. Ellen Jane, nor Wikipedia is stating it as fact, all that Wikipedia and Ellen Jane are saying is what Conservapedia says about itself.--JOJ Hutton 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have an opinion piece by Jaybe and it says "I asked Lord Rodney about the rioters and he said they were rats. I think he is stuck up" The bit "I think he is stuck up" is opinion and we'd say "Jaybe thought Lord Rodney was a snob". However for the other bit we'd just say "Lord Rodney said the rioters were rats", we don't say "Jaybe is of the opinion that Lord Rodney thinks rioters are rats". In fact that would be wrong - we don't know Jaybe thinks that about Lord Rodney though it is probably true. The bit about reporting things as the sources opinion is about when they are their opinion. Dmcq (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
However for the other bit we'd just say "Lord Rodney said the rioters were rats": No, we wouldn't include it. Facts sourced only to opinion pieces are not worthy of inclusion. aprock (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Schlafly would be okay for Conservapedia about it as he has such tight control, but Jimbo for instance would not be a good source about Wikipedia. A version of Wikipedia chosen by a secondary source would be better I believe. I also think the title has been changed very wrongly. We're not talking about Conservapedia being a reliable source. What we were using was WP:ABOUTSELF which is directly after WP:SPS and qualifies its applicability. As to Wikipedia I believe it would be reasonable for third party to use it as what people here think about Wikipedia. The shifting nature of policies has no bearing on anything any more than saying something about a person is invalid because it only described them up to a certain age. The citation has a date on it and in fact the stuff is still valid in this case but we are not obliged to change things immediately the world changes. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I note Aprock above says that we can't directly use things reported as facts in an opinion piece in a reliable source by a journalist. Aprock says we must attribute them as the journalists opinion. Thus when they say 'Lord Rodney said rioters are rats' we have got to say something like The journalist Jaybe said that Lord Rodney said rioters are rats. Do people agree with that? Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The current guideline may be found at WP:NEWSORG, which essentially says opinion pieces are rarely reliable for statements of facts. So the guideline is tolerant of using opinion pieces to support facts in rare cases, and I think it should be a little more tolerant. A writer who is published by a reliable source, especially on the editorial page rather than the op-ed page, isn't just some letter-writer; the writer has a certain amount of credibility. In some cases, the writer has a reputation for reliability in his/her own right, apart from the publisher. One would expect a good writer to marshal relevant facts in support of his/her opinion, and often the writer can be trusted to convey those facts accurately. Of course, it would be better to source those facts to a non-opinion piece if possible, but that may not be practical if it involves interviews by the writer. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think what that guidance is about is wherei n my example if journalist Jaybe says in an opinion piece in a newspaper 'Lord Rodney said "Rioters are rats". He is a snob'. The 'he is a snob' has to be taken as opinion of the writer Jaybe rather than a fact even though it is written as a fact. The other thing that looks like a fact though is a straight reported fact of a reliable source. That section WP:NEWSORG says "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact", the section is primarily talking about anything which might be the authors opinion even though presented as fact. Quoting somebody else with quote marks is not opinion, the most opinion that can enter there is if the quote has been selected in a misrepresentative way. As to the Conservapedia quote in the opinion piece in The Australian one can look at the actual source in Conservapedia and its provenance and I don't believe anyone has denied that the quote correctly represents the source intent. Dmcq (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Why can we not simply cite Conservapedia for its own statement about itself? We have no absolute ban against primary sources for such purposes. Reliability is always relative to what is being sourced, and in some cases primary sources can be just what we need. It seems to me that to argue about a weak secondary source when we know the primary source is taking the policies the wrong way and creating a false dilemma. If the primary source itself is considered misleading (for example if it is self serving) we can always attribute it. I think most readers will be suitably cautioned by wording such as "X describes itself as..." so why not just do something like that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Given some of the reviews of Conservapedia, the claim that it, "strives to keep its articles…true to the facts" may in fact be an extraordinary claim; which would mean that an non-involved, preferably secondary source would be required regarding the factuality of Conservapedia. I'd suggest library and archival science reviews as the starting point—I'd suggest them as a better way to begin authoring an article on the subject rather than searching newspapers. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In the diff that is cited at the beginning of this discussion, the text removed by Aprock contains one misleading phrase and one unnecessary risk. The misleading phrase is "the site's operators" (unless we are able to show that these words were said by the site's operators). The risk, as with any wiki, is that the text we're quoting may change (although only admins can edit the page in question, and this text has been stable for a long time).
Well, this text is worth quoting: it really does encapsulate Conservapedia. (I don't think Fifelfoo's point changes this, because what we are talking about is a self-description, and, as such, exactly what anyone would expect.) So what do we do? In our text we use Andrew Lancaster's phraseology ("Conservapedia describes itself as..."'). In our footnote we cite a version of the Conservapedia page history that includes these words (primary source but not controversial), and we add a citation to "The Australian" (reliable secondary source), because that'll be handy when Conservapedia goes the way of all flesh. Andrew Dalby 12:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
We could make it closer to what the The Australian said I suppose which is "Conservapedia writes trustworthily in its entry on itself" but that was obviously said sarcastically. A quick look at the history will confirm that Andrew Schafly contributes to the page, that the page was originally written by and is dominated by administrators and really is it at all likely that the page Conservapedia on the Conservapedia site does not reflect the site operators when that has been in for a few years and the site is so heavily controlled? What WP:ABOUTSELF requires is "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", is there any reasonable doubt or are people just indulging in wikilawyering? As to it being an exceptional claim, yes the Australian is a bit sarcastic about it and that's why we don't state it as fact. but as their opinion. When Muhammed Ali said "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" we don't go around the place saying he dis not actually go around floating like a butterfly and he actually used gloves instead of stinging. We attribute it to him and it is a major item in the lead not something to have suppressed as an exceptional claim. Dmcq (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Andrew asked, "Why can we not simply cite Conservapedia for its own statement about itself?" I agree, using this format.... "According to X, they do Y.(cite1)" If there is a reliable source of sufficient weight, this could be followed by "However, others criticize X saying X instead does Z.(cite2)" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Looking deeper, I have revised my opinion. I now believe that the statement that
"(Conservapedia) strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts"

is an unduly self-serving and exceptional claim. Therefore, it does not qualify for the exception to the rule on self-published sources talking about themselves. See WP:ABOUTSELF sub-paragraph #1. I also think that the dearth of reliable secondary sources calls into question the notability of Conservapedia in the first place, and even if others think it is notable enough to have an article here the site still has a very high percentage of articles that would have to comply with our policies regarding WP:FRINGE. Therefore its own unduly self-serving claim about being "true to the facts" is particularly unacceptable under our policies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it unduly self serving? It has "According to the site's operators," before that bit so it is attributed to Conservapedia rather than expressed as a WIkipedia opinion. They don't work to our standards but to their own religious nutter standards and that is described very well in the following paragraph. That is a straightforward statement in a description of themselves, a self serving one would be one from their Conservapedia:About page "Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here." which is more of a sales talk. Personally with a suitable attribution to them and keeping it to a one liner like that and with the various descriptions of what they actually do have in their articles I can't see why even that sales pitch in the about page is so hard for people to stomach. I think some people on Wikipedia must have trouble coping with other people having different opinions and keeping that clear in their minds. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia rather than have people trying to clean it of anything which they don't agree with. Do you actually feel comfortable about describing that a person has an opinion and distinguishing it from the opinions of other people? Do you think it is somehow wrong to describe someone else's opinion if you think it is wrong? Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
In what way is it unduly self serving? Oh, I don't know... in what way is "trust me, I'm the most honest guy around" unduly self-serving when you're shopping for a used car? Besides self-serving, even if it is true it is gratuitous fluff. Everyone we report on strives to stay true to the facts, even the liars among them, or so they want you to believe.
It has "According to the site's operators," before that bit.... If that really makes a difference as you seem to suggest, then all the stuff in the policies and guidelines regarding self-published sources could be reduced to a single sentence. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Argue with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV on the NPOV noticeboard if you want but attributing a POV does make a difference and is the standard way in Wikipedia for dealing with stuff that should be in but isn't generally agreed with. Are you really unable to understand the difference an attribution makes? Different people think different things and have different value systems. Nobody has said that they lie on that site. A religious person is not lying when they say something like Jesus rose from the dead or the earth was created only a few thousand years ago. The fact given by an attribution is that somebody says something, the fact isn't the something itself. We do have rules about not sticking in too much attributed opinion as being self serving advertisement of opinion but a short self description is quite correct in a description of a topic and explicitly provided for in WP:V. Even you show some sign of understanding the difference because you put the statement about being an honest guy in the context of shopping for a used car. Attribution means saying something like Joe the used car salesman said he is the most honest guy around, rather than Joe the used car salesman is the most honest guy around. Can't you see the difference about what fact is being asserted by each? One is a statement about what Joe says or thinks and the the other about what he is. The or thinks there is very probably wrong for a used car salesman but for religious people it is far more likely to be true and one should not be then saying they are lying, just that it is their belief. Dmcq (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want attribution to be a determinative factor in the evaluation of WP:ABOUTSELF statements, please start by advocating the appropriate edit to that policy page. Meanwhile, I believe I have found a way to add Australian wording to the article. Please post your response, if any, on that talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Misha B

The is an ongoing NPOV:N

but are these ok

http://www.dlpublications-lart.co.uk/2011/12/misha-bs-f64-continues-to-get-fans.html

http://www.imediamonkey.com/2012/07/16/review-misha-b-home-run-single/

YouTube in context.

(And possibly any other citation on the page)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 09:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Supply the wikipedia page and the specific claim these will be used to support. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that was a bit silly of me.

The Page is Misha B

Quantity wise the article is very well sourced, with Circa 100 citations (I have bundled them, but another editor, who helps keep me in check, does not like bundling. I dont know if you can give an opinion on bundling? )

Article F64 and Why Hello World

Citation: http://www.dlpublications-lart.co.uk/2011/12/misha-bs-f64-continues-to-get-fans.html

About the Source: (Welcome to L'ART Magazine. We are an Oxford based publication of the arts, bringing you news and features on talented individuals. DL Publications is a brand name we have created. After studying English, Journalism, Magazine Journalism and Feature Writing at University, as sisters we thrived on the thought of starting our own media company.)

  • A brand name created by unnamed sisters/Journalism(?) students at an unknown date. No editors/contributors listed. Only contact details are a gmail email address. There's no evidence at all this is an reliable expert source. The piece about Misha B seems gushing and ..well, just gushing. There are plenty of sources with a better repute. Why use this one at all? Have I missed something? Sionk (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Nope you have not missed something, apart from the authors being journalism graduates, you have investigated deeper and most probably correct....Zoebuggie☺whispers 08:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: Removed from article all citations and content from this source....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


Article: Debut single iMediamonkey praised the song: "Home Run is a promising offer and is one that is not lacking in personality, attitude and style...

Citation: iMediamonkey http://www.imediamonkey.com/?s=misha+B (link had changed)

Source: Just discovered this is actually amedia website my fellow editor believed it to be a blog

  • Your 'fellow editor' does not necessarily believe what people say about themselves on the web. imedia monkey say they started as a blog in 2009 and subsequently became a "trusted media news provider". Granted they list a named editorial team and a small number of reporters, which helps their credibility (in my view). I'd also be interested to here another opinion. Sionk (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Again I agree, the page rank is pretty low etc, I think as I am new, I maybe a little gullible....Zoebuggie☺whispers 08:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: Removed all citations and content from this source

Unless Anyone objects I consider the above two questions closed....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

_____________________________


Using Youtube

Q. For admin. I have split the article in two, the top half is mostly resolved, but the question/s below are still open. Should the lower halve move to the bottom of the part of the page?

Some Youtube refs to give me an idea when they are acceptable, as the main other editor deletes them out of hand

1. Youtube as an reference of a song being discussed

Article: F64 and Why Hello World A couple of weeks after the X-factor series finished, Misha performed a live freestyle F64 for SB.TV on the December 24: directed by Jamal Edwards, 2011, ...

Citation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UlWJxY_49Y |title=SB.TV F64 Source: (SB.TV is a new, innovative and exciting ‘Music and Lifestyle’ media platform specialising in UK Grime and Rap music)

2. Youtube showing of something physical/in junction with other sources

Article: Public image For instance, on Home Run she wears extravagant monogrammed eyelashes which spelled out Misha B and Home Run....

Cit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaOw35GBPQw | (plus http://pappzd.com/2012/03/misha-b-eyelashes-holly-silius)

Source:The singers Official Video Site

3. Youtube Interview with subject (actually what is the policy around citing from interviews from any source)

Article: Early life Before Misha B defeated her stage fright at 18

Cit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUZurHnFChE&list=UUCeXvzNSI3drukdd0gNyC_Q&feature=plcp (also http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/x-factor-2011-misha-b-prays-before-going-on-stage/ )

Source: A video interview by Gaydar Radio a leading LGBT media organisation

4. Youtube showing a style of performance .

Article: Musical style and influences and Jay-Z and Kanye West’s No Church in the Wild

Cit: http://sbtv.co.uk/2012/07/misha-b-covers-jay-z-and-kanye-track/

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • If the 'main other editor' is me, I removed the Youtube sources because they (a) were generally Misha B talking about herself, therefore not an independent secondary source (b) in some cases, simply examples of Misha B singing/performing. Interpretation by you is WP:OR, as far as I understand (c) in most cases they were part of groups of 6+ sources citing single words. Why not just use the secondary sources, where they exist? Sionk (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I would be very interested to here opinions here. Apart from interviews I have used the music you videos as supportive media illustrations to secondary sources, as primary sources I believe they are reliable. I have done no separate interpretation. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." I am relatively new here, so still trying to grasp what is acceptable and what is not. Interviews are an area I am not sure about and would like some direction. I have used multiple citations, sometimes to cover different parts of a sentence or because to many she is a controversial person or statement possibly contentious or to preserve against link rot or the citations support each other, plus I admit I am a little obsessive....Zoebuggie☺whispers 08:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Also I think I put more citations up as I got over defensive, as new contributor, seeing and not fully understanding why things got removed. However, as long as the remaining sources are of good quality the is no harm in having multiple sources for the reasons in my passage above....Zoebuggie☺whispers 13:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot link to copyright violations and so most links to you tube fail that criteria. the videos have to be to officially sanctioned channels that have the right to post the images.
even if the video is not a copyright violation, if it merely consists of her performance, you cannot use it for evaluative comments, such as "she sings with heart-wrenching sincerity" or "she has an 8 octive range" those types of analytical/interpretive assessments must be specifically made by professionals, and generally attributed to the person whose opinion it is. "Johnny Musiccritic, a judge on the show, called her peformance strong as an ox and graceful as a hummingbird". If all the you tube "source" is being used for is to verify that "she sang X song" then its encyclopedic worth is very questionable.
if it is an interview type segment, then her statements can be used for statements about herself that are not unduly self-serving "I was inspired to write X song by watching the sunset over Los Angeles" (but not "The two timing man in the song is [Real Person]" as that would be controversial information about another living person) -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks :) that has helped me understand it more. None are copyright violations.
The info extracted from interviews on camera have been solely about her personal history or about her music with no BLP issues etc.
But...
I am guilty of using the official videos as a verification that she released songs, I thought it be undeniable/clear reliable NPOV fact/proof?
I have also used the videos to illustrate music critics comments, that where not not part of the original critic's comments? Does this fail?

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 07:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

According to WikiRank 70,611 Wikipedia pages link to youtube.com http://webempires.org/wikirank/youtube.com...Zoebuggie☺whispers 12:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Making it Wikipedia's 4th biggest source.... but I do understand the advice given above :)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
that other articles fall short of our best intentions is not a good reason to allow additional articles to do so! :) -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep :) and the our other sources that may have only been used a couple of times, but are reliable and authoritative in their field ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the Holy See

Within this webpage, the heading "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City" is claimed by User:Fry1989 here et passim to be a reliable source for declaring that the coat of arms of the Holy See is that illustrated on the right:

(While "www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/sp_ss_scv_stemma-bandiera-sigillo_en.html#Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano" is a direct link to the heading, it does not display in Wikipedia.)

User:Bellae artes maintains here et passim that the same heading proves that the coat of arms of the Holy See is that illustrated on the left

For my part, I don't see this heading (which is not a statement) as a reliable source for either claim. I see the contrasting claims as further proof of their lack of firm foundation. The Italian version of the same source says nothing of the "coat of arms" (stemma) of the Holy See: it speaks of the "coat of arms" of Vatican City, but mentions only an "emblem" (emblema) of the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The conflict between the Italian and the English version of the page renders this source doubtful, even though it's official. The fact that on the English page the textual description of the coat of arms is not in correct heraldic English suggests that the page has not been professionally translated.
Your right-hand illustration here can hardly be called a coat of arms, since it lacks the central feature of any usual coat of arms -- the shield or escutcheon. What we see on the left can be called a "coat of arms", although a full achievement normally consists of more than just a shield: see the arms of the two popes, illustrated on those same Web pages, for examples.
I'd suggest looking for an alternative source. Andrew Dalby 11:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If the source produces trivial and directly conflicting interpretations like this, it is hardly a reliable source, as original research is required to produce a claim of fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote in DR on Commons: «It is clearly an emblem not a coat of arms, is obviously a small translation mistake». For me the question is closed. Moreover, I really don't see the point of it: what is the question? We have now correct images and correct nouns for them. --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know if it is a true coat of arms in that way, just because it is refered to as such. Really, the claim should have a stronger source so here is what I am finding: "The Next Pope" By Anura Gurugé and "The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism" By Richard P. McBrien.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Stronger that the Vatican itself? Mhmm, please... ;) The description of the images is not heraldic, why it should be? Indeed it is not mandatory that it is.
It's funny that my image goes around in so many books (I have found several in the book shops)... --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not your image. That is another thing. You are listed on the page as the author, source and copyright holder who relesed the image into the public domain. (the last part is due to the license chosen) That is innaccurate. As the artist you never held the copyright to the derivative work because faithful renditions of public domain images cannot be copyrighted. You are the author of the svg file. The vatican and an unkown artist are the true attribution as even public domain images retain all attribution rights. One can never claim to own attribution of the originating design. You should be sharing authorship in some form and you are not the source. The source is where you obtained the image for use to make the file. That should be a book reference or a website and is always a good idea to link directly to that page if possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Also since you were not the originating artist and borrowed another svg to make the key emblem used in the red shield image...you would need to share attribution with user:Hautala (as the originating uploader/author and Open Clip Art Library listed as the originating site the image comes from, as well as the Vatican and artist. I am a little concerned with the number of versions of this image...since one is a featured image but there are slight differences. At any point the two files above need a great deal of work.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Finally I got it! I see the light!! :D
The question of Esoglou was: «Have the Holy See a coat of arms or only an emblem?» (My! Someone need to know to get to the point!). Now I understand. My answer is: I don't know. But as far as I can see, if it has a coat it is not used in any part of the Vatican web site. When we have prove of a coat of arms, we can do it. So... --F l a n k e r (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe several editors have expressed direct concern with the Vatican Website's strength as a reliable source in this instance, or at the very least added referencing is needed. It isn't that the red shield coat of arms is not legit, but if you are maintaining it is the official one used for any reason, without a reference to how and when it is used, it is just extrapolation. Clearly the vatican webiste shows both emblems. All other sources seem to point to the keys without the shield but what does it hurt to keep looking. So far, no other source shows the shield and the Vatican site doesn't appear to distinguish the two..and for what its worth the one without the shield is on top. And, shouldn't the image on the right be combined with the images on the left like the vatican page for the use on the left if it uses the vatican site as reference?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I should add that neither image is actually referenced at their commons page to allow verification of the images themselves and should have some reference added to show the public domain images are an accurate depiction from the sources in order to use them on Wikipedia. Having the images referenced properly to meet MOS and image use policy to begin with is a good start.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answers, but I know a little about heraldry and can point out a few things to look for:

  • In modern times, heraldry is regulated by the sovereign power for each state (or in many countries, ignored by the sovereign power). Since the Pope is a sovereign, the Pope can defy the conventions of heraldry if he wants to.
  • Conventionally, a coat of arms is described in words; this description is a blazon. There is one exact blazon, but each artist is allowed to interpret the blazon and all the various interpretations are valid armorial achievements
  • Conventionally, the main element of a coat of arms is the shield. Usually the blazon does not specify the shape of the shield, in which case the shape is at the discretion of the artist, within certain conventions. For example, shields for men usually resemble actual combat shields, while shields for clergymen are usually oval. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • In view, among other things, of the remarks made here, I have made bold to revise the article so as to present neutrally three different views, giving sources for each. Perhaps more numerous valid sources could be added. Esoglou (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Which brings us back to what I already told: when we have a prove that the Holy See uses a coat of arms instead of an emblem, we can draw it. --F l a n k e r (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Whether it uses the coat of arms or not, the Holy See does have one, as stated in the pre- and post-1929 heraldic sources cited in the article on the subject, which is where you should discuss your doubt. What is discussed here is the source on whose Italian version you base your argument that the Holy See has an emblem but perhaps no coat of arms, while Bellae artes bases on the same source in the other languages in which the Holy See Press Office issued it his argument that the Holy See does have a coat of arms and that this coat of arms is identical with that of Vatican City. The consensus here is that this source cannot be considered a reliable source for those contrary conclusions. Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Esoglou, maybe you have your personal version of the Vatican laws, but the 1929 and 2000 versions of the Foundamental Law don't mention at all Holy See's symbols (coat of arms, emblems, logos, whatever!) (see: Leggi_Vaticane.pdf). So, for the millionth time, want we to stick to what is shown on the official websites of the Vatican? (see: http://www.vaticanstate.va and http://www.vatican.va). --F l a n k e r (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
So then go find even older sources. This may well be one of those times as discussed in another thread about age of sources where an older source may help clear this up. And no, we do not stick to just what is shown on the Vatican website.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Vatican State law establishing the state's coat of arms, not the Holy See's, has not been cited here by anyone but Flanker. What has been discussed here is the interpretation Flanker is imposing on Holy See Press Office documentation on the Holy See's website, and the contradictory interpretation that Bellae artes is imposing on the same documentation. That documentation, it is agreed here by all but Flanker, is not a reliable source either for Flanker's interpretation or for that of Bellae artes. And, as Amadscientist has hinted, there are authoritative heraldic sources that disagree with both interpretations. Esoglou (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is really a content dispute and should be discussed on the talkpage of the article. If the dispute is between two editors I suggest requesting a third opinion as the reasonable next step and suggest an uninvolved editor close this as a simple content dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Both of you are wrong: I see that the Vatican web site has a coat of arms as official symbol, and that the Holy See has got an emblem as official symbol (if it is used on a web site, it is accordingly official). Not more, not less: never, I say never, in this discussion I staded more. Moreover, also the State's secretary uses the only the emblem (you can find an example here: Da Segreteria di Stato.jpg).
As you can see I alwais show the source of my arguments. But you instead, have you a shred of evidence that there ever was a coat of arms of the Holy See?
If yes: good, let's draw it! I'll draw it, if you want.
If not: then stop accusing me of unilateral behavior and go find it (if it ever existed). --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Italian version of the link Esoglou supplied is quite straight forward: it states that there is both an Emblema della Santa Sede and a Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano. These are shown immediately underneath, the emblem without the shield and the Stemma with the red shield. This is also noted in the Italian Wiki article, Stemma del Vaticano. here is a description: Lo stemma araldico è l’emblema dello Stato della Città del Vaticano. È di colore rosso e all’interno compaiono i due simboli della Chiesa Cattolica (The heraldic coat of arms is the emblem of the Vatican State. It is red and within it appears the two symbols of the Catholic Church.) This article clearly separates the Holy See from the Vatican State, the symbol is of the Holy See and the shield is of the Vatican State: L’emblema della Santa Sede Apostolica e quello dello Stato della città del Vaticano non coincidono (the emblem of the Holy Apostolic See and that of the Vatican State don't coincide). The coat of arms is for the political entity, while the religious entity uses the emblem without the shield (l’emblema della Santa Sede però non è inserito in uno scudo). -- spincontrol 05:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Doktorspin's citation of the website Araldica Civica "on the coats of arms of the communes, provinces and regions of Italy" is already given, with similar information, at the section of the article Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City devoted to the "emblem only" view of the coat of arms of the Holy See.
The "identical with that of Vatican City State" view (based on a contradictory interpretation of the same documentation of the Holy See Press Office) is also given in the same article, together with a statement in another Italian website, that of Giorgio Aldrighetti.
What seems to be the best-documented section of the same article also gives the evidence of authoritative scholarly works on papal heraldry that state not only that the Holy See has had a coat of arms but that it now has a coat of arms with the gold key in bend. Flanker can find there more than "a shred of evidence that there ever was a coat of arms of the Holy See".
Here, on the other hand, the question is neither the Araldica Civica nor the Aldrighetti website, nor the scholarly works of papal heraldry, but a particular documentation (in four languages) on which two contradictory statements were claimed to be based. Discussion of other websites and books should certainly, as Amadscientist said, be carried on not here, but at the talk page of the article as a content dispute. Esoglou (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh men, we are stick on the same point again! The Vatican site (Holy See official web site, I remember) is not contradictory, there is only a marginal mistake: it names an emblem "coat of arms". Period. You can find the same error in the image name: santa-sede_stemma.gif... see? Stemma, i.e. coat of arms.
I think we can divide the problem in two parts: present day and historical. For the present day I think that the sources are clear:
  • Symbol of the Vatican City
    Symbol of the Vatican City
  • Symbol of the Holy See
    Symbol of the Holy See
For the historical symbols I don't know, maybe something different. Maybe they have Santa on the symbol!
So, for the millionth time, where's the evidence of a coat of arms? And no, please, don't link a Wikipedia article, we need a book or an historical representation, or... a Vatican official web site. --F l a n k e r (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Click on this link for the answer, and then discuss your ideas on the talk page associated with that information about books (plural) and other sources indicated in the answer. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you don't give sources, so this discussion is closed for me. --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_129&oldid=1178474524"