Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 98

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100→Archive 105

Appropriateness of a source for inclusion of an entry in a list article

I want to clean up the article List of conglomerates. Would this source be appropriate to verify the conglomerate status of Al-Ghurair Group? It does not explicitly say that Al-Ghurair Group is a conglomerate, but it is clear from the definition of a conglomerate and the information given in this source, that it qualifies as one. Would the inclusion of Al-Ghurair Group in the list based on this source count as original research? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to call Al-Ghurair Group a conglomerate on that basis. It's scarcely OR if Business Week have practically spelt out the definition of a conglomerate in their profile, and this isn't a contentious or ambiguous subject. If you were going to write any more than a list entry (ie. prose comparing AGG to other conglomerates, or using AGG as an example on the main Conglomerate article) then it would be more important to have an explicit source. bobrayner (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds okay to me. We do encounter editors who take a more literal approach (often resulting in those editors getting blocked for WP:Close paraphrasing and other copyright problems), but I think it's acceptable for such a non-controversial fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

European Prostitutes in China

This recently created article is using Scribd with uploaded PDFs of a Master thesis. Not sure if reliable. Phearson (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  • It is a copyvio of Niklas Dougherty (2006) Prostitution in Contemporary China… Lund University, Sweden. Dougherty's thesis may with further evidence of Lund's MA programme be sufficient to assist in supporting articles, but not to establish notability in and of itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Fifelfoo. A thesis is not necessarily inadmissible as a reference, but this article had plenty of other problems anyway. In addition to being mostly plagiarized, it was an unnecessary and unencyclopedic content fork anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

interviews on Wikimedia as a source

There's a user, User:Evan-Amos, who is apparently interviewing folks (example), placing the transcript on Wikimedia, then using that as a source (example). It seems like an odd combination of techniques to use something as a reliable source. I asked the user for feedback and got a brusque answer from a talkpage stalker- what's the general consensus on publishing to Wikimedia and then using that material as a source for a BLP? tedder (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not going to be an RS in any context. It can possibly be used as a source for noncontentious facts in the way that SPS's are permitted to be, but I'll let a more experienced person answer that. I see that a lot of work has gone in to them, but I can't see how it'll work with our sourcing policies. Kevin (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
PRIMARY, non-expert, no guarantee of intact PRIMARY transmission => unreliable. Oral historians, qualitative sociologists, and journalists put (or ought to put) a lot of work into ensuring that the things they record are truly recorded, intact, and representative. Even then, poaching material from an oral history for wikipedia is dodgy on a primary source basis; the commentary surrounding the oral history ought to be used. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a copy/paste from a message that I left on Tedder's page.
It's something that I've kept in mind (compliance issues with Wiki standards) and have read the rules pages to make sure I fall in line, but I've started a series of interviews around the idea of actively cleaning up some articles. The idea and structure is that I read and use as many articles/interviews about a subject as I can to form a year-by-year timeline and write as much of the article as I can using those sources, then I try and get a recorded interview with the actual person to verify the validity of the timeline, while also fitting in a standard interview if possible. I take the interview and transcribe it, and post it. I'm basically trying to make it as clear and transparent as possible.
Calling this original research is a bit different in my mind, at least it seems to me since I've read it a few times. I try to follow all standard journalistic styles for fact-checking on anything that seems iffy in an interview, even getting multiple sources concerning the same subject, though most of it is actually based on published sources that I'm more or less verifying.
I'm hoping that I'm doing all of this within the laws and ideas of Wikipedia. My goal is just to improve a variety of poorly-written or non-existent articles this way. I've already gotten a few interviews with different people recorded that I'm working on, actually. The first page I did is Matt Duke (musician), and now I've started to do Debra Arlyn.
You can look at their two pages, along with these interview transcripts:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Evan-Amos/Interviews/JasonFinkel
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Evan-Amos/Interviews/MattDuke
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Evan-Amos/Interviews/DebraArlyn
reading those will probably give you the best idea of how I'm trying to do it.
Evan-Amos (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
All of that said, I would gladly take any advice or notes about conduct/style, in an effort to improve what I'm doing or in order to fit it better within the rules of the community.Evan-Amos (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Its our definition of original research. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that there's another level to this. The way that I've written the bio articles is just a collection of facts, mostly of where a person was or what they were doing at a certain time. The basis of this is from a collection of sources that I use as citations for the backbone of the article and the guide for the recorded interview, that serve as a link or fact checking of timeline events. If I research a person and see that they went to a certain college, as mentioned somewhere else, then ask them about it in an oral interview to confirm it, which they do, then that should be acceptable, as long as I can link to the original source. Likewise, if something comes up in an interview where I'm speaking with the producer of an album and I ask if there were any songs that were left off of the album, and he names a song, isn't that considered reliable?Evan-Amos (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The interviews are original research. You cannot use them as sources on wikipedia. Even if you publish them reliably instead of uploading them to a media commons—they cannot be used as sources on wikipedia because they are primary sources, and interpreting primary sources is original research. Publish a biography in a reliable source with an editor other than you, which is known for fact checking, and then cite that. I suggest you look at local history magazines, journals, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are those "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Is there any evidence of that for Wikimedia? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand the idea and the need of reliable sources coming from large institutions that have staffs of editors and fact-checkers, and that will always be the best source of information about a subject, but to dismiss something like this as being completely unreliable or not being able to be used a source is absurd. The area that I'm working in for these interviews are music album articles, and basic biographies of low or mid level musicians who fit the notability guidelines. To use the album example again, a lot of information can come from an oral history of the musicians or producers themselves, outside of basic factual things like release date, track listings and liner note information, like what tracks were left off of the album. If you put an artist and a producer alone in a room for a month and have them make an album, their first-hand accounts of what happened are useless? Depending on what information from the interview is used for, there will certainly be merit. Then there are simple questions that can be assumed under good faith and/or having multiple sources, such as where did you go to college, what instruments do you play, or when did you move from LA to Nashville?Evan-Amos (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And it is original research. You can't use it. Publish the facts, not the interviews, reliably elsewhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Stories from our Mothers

Is the book Stories from our Mothers a reliable source for the statement "During Jordanian rule, the Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf ('The Noble Quarter') and was inhabited by Arab refugees from the 1948 war" in the article Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation? I don't consider the statement itself particularly controversial, but I'm unable to verify it from the source (no preview on Google Books), and after digging a bit it looks like only two libraries in the world have the book.[1] The publisher is listed as CADFA, which I believe to be this website. I don't think that constitutes a reliable source, and would like to remove it, requesting a better source for the statement. Thoughts? ← George talk 00:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Can probably disregard this. Through general clean up of that article this source isn't being used anymore. ← George talk 03:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Finnigan

Are Australian newspapers reliable sources to report on charges laid against an Australian politician? There is some debate on whether this is the case. Nevard (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd to raise the issue at this noticeboard. There has never been any question about the reliability of the sources. The issue is soley one of finding consensus for including the material now, as opposed to later, given various concerns. To answer, yes, they are reliable - that's simply not the issue at hand. - 04:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

www.vectorsite.net

Is the site Vectorsite.net reliable enough for use on WP? Its articles, like [2] on the S-3 Viking, has properly-attributed sources. Furthermore, all the articles are released into the public domain. Sp33dyphil Vote! 10:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the site states "All documents have been written by myself and are free for use in the public domain" I would say no per WP:SPS ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."(sic))--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Okery dokery. Sp33dyphil Vote! 23:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

book review

can i use book reviews published in peer-reviewed journals instead of the book when i dont have access to a book. --CarTick (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

For what purpose? If you can give a concrete example that would be even better. Usually a book review would not be usable in a way that can be described as "instead of the book," but it would be helpful to know exactly what you want to use it for.Griswaldo (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
according to the review, the book says that "x is the reason why y happened." now, can i use the book review for that statement? --CarTick (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Please give more details. According to what book, and in what review? Also what is the context on Wikipedia that you want to use this in? Is it an article about the book, or an article on a topic covered by a book and you want to say that the books says X about that topic based on the review? Just explain the exact thing you want to do and it will be much more clear. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Agree that a much more specific question would be helpful. But if you want to quote from the original book by using a quote or excerpt from it that's presented in a high-quality, absolutely non-POV journal, that's usually okay. We have a policy page somewhere that describes the proper cite format to use for the purpose.
My recollection of the normally accepted way to proceed is that you'd make it explicit that you're citing the journal quoting the book; does anyone know where we address that in our policy pages? Or perhaps it was just a previous thread here; anyway it's a customarily-accepted practice, so long as you don't format your cite to make it look like you're quoting the book directly. You have to disclose the "intermediary" source.
Where problems come in, of course, is when the subject area under discussion is at all controversial, and the reviewer writing for the journal ( to continue with your example ) is not neutral, and cherry picks quotes from the book, or presents them out of context, to make a point that's not present in the book he's reviewing. But again, we really do need more information to be able to give an "aye" or "nay" on this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
this is the book and here is the review. quote from the review, "Jeffrey argues that the matrilineal joint family of the Nayars, which was "ill-suited to the de- mands of a cash economy" and to the increasing individualism fostered by reform in education and administration, led to the decline of Nayar dominance in the state". i would like to use this argument in Nair article. that is just one example and there are several such points. --CarTick (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you can use it, but you must cite it to your actual source which is the book review, though the citation should also give the bibliographic specs of the book. If it is something contentious and likely to be challenged, or if the review is evidently hostile to the author, you might cover yourself by writing "According to reviewer, author argues that...". However that would not normally be necessary. Zerotalk 03:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why the review is being cited instead of the book, particularly if a direct quote from the book is being referenced. This is a bad practice and one that should be strongly discouraged unless the original source is unusually hard to find. And if a source is very hard to find it is questionable if it's a reliable source because reliable sources are those that are verifiable by other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

DeviantArt

Would journal entries written on DeviantArt by notable living persons count as a reliable source? Paper Luigi Talk • Contributions 01:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. DA not a reliable source. Unless an RS references DeviantArt or a blog entry within the site, it cannot be cited other than to support claims made by DeviantArt administrators/owners (press release or equivalent). Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Document scan

Is this scan of a WW2-era US government document a reliable source? Is it a secondary source? It's proposed as such at Talk:Prescott Bush#Guardian cite, but I'd say that for the source to be reliable we'd have to know what document that page actually belongs to, especially as secondary sources like the Guardian suggest that the US government changed its stance on the issue, and this may not have been the final investigation result but just an intermediate report. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Note this is only part of the story - the scan is from HNN.US, which is WP:RS. The scan was linked from the main article, and listed as having been provided by John Buchanan. The page links are listed in full on the Prescott Bush talk page. Including an Internet Archive link to the original HNN.US pages. The material had been dscussed on the Prescott Bush talk page in the past, and discussed on RS/N. The current editor seems to think that HNN.US would use a "fake" document, of all things. Or somehow that Internet Archive ("Wayback") is unreliable. [3] shows directly that the documents had been hosted at hnn.us. I fail to see how the fact that we now have to use Wayback suddenly makes the document questionable -- hasn't Wayback been accepted now for some years? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Uninvolved commenters should note that Huon and myself, as involved parties, are arguing with Collect, also an involved party. My own take on the argument is that the document is not a reliable source for this purpose. I also believe that using a primary source document to inject a position into our article that's contradicted by secondary sources which also had access to the document is original research. That's all I'll have to say here, since this board works best when uninvolved editors discuss the case on its merits.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm uninvolved. Archive.org is fine. In fact, it's used by thousands upon thousands of articles.[4] However, the document is a primary source. You can only use a primary source to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify. We are not allowed to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source; instead, we're supposed to refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Given the topic and the length of time that has passed, it sounds like a very, very bad idea to cite that source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The source was provided to HNN.US by John Buchanan. As such, it is RS - a primary source reported on by a secondary source directly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The document is a primary source, and can only be used to report exactly what is stated on the source. Any contextualizing or interpretation requires a secondary source. See WP:PSTS. Also, Collect, do not lie about other editors, Huon specifically says "I don't think it's fake" on the article's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The source is HNN.US. The proper issue is - is HNN.US a WP:RS for the claim that this document was provided by John Buchanan to them, and that it is a reliable copy of a US report? The editor wrote specifically:
If I put some effort to it, I could probably fake such an image in less than a day.
That is substantially different from your assertion that I lied. Saying one "could probably fake it" is a teeny bit different from "I don't think it's a fake." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
However there isn't the teeniest bit of difference between Ian.thomson's recall of what Huon wrote and what was actually written [5]: "I don't think it's fake..." Huon added: "...neither is it reliable." Writegeist (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
As I did not say that, that is irrelevant. What I did say was that an editor wrote If I put some effort to it, I could probably fake such an image in less than a day. I take it that you do not assert that exact quote is wrong,moreover. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
What you said, and what Ian.thomson was drawing your attention to, was that Huon "seems to think that HNN.US would use a 'fake' document" -- an egregious misrepresentation of Huon's stated view ("I don't think it's fake"). "Irrelevant"? Please. Writegeist (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if your retorts would be accurate. The issue was whether HNN.US was a reliable source for the document. Your interpolations to the contrary notwithstanding. And this noticeboard is not the place to engage in persal repartee. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
My reply was entirely accurate. And when one editor's post distorts another's viewoint so egregiously as to make it the factual opposite of what the other actually stated, it is as well to have the sophistry pointed out. I believe this is relevant to the discussion, and to the issue in hand, regardless of how you choose to dismiss my contribution. Writegeist (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
IOW, you are unable to say anything about the actual source, only that you wish to call me a liar as often as possible on this noticeboard <g>. Congrats - I think you are setting a record. Cheers, and enjoy the tea. Collect (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
If I wished to call you a liar here, I would do so. As I haven't, your accusation is rather queer. I simply pointed out that you employed a fallacious argument, which misrepresented another user's view: you said Huon "seems to think that HNN.US would use a 'fake' document" whereas in fact Huon had stated "I don't think [the document] is fake" - ergo Huon does not seem to think HNN.US is using a fake document. An altogether innocent error on your part, I'm sure. Writegeist (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for 12 Gauge album

Hello, I had a couple questions regarding a couple of sources used on 12 Gauge (album). It's an article on the Kalmah album and, at the time when the article was being expanded, sources were pretty scarce, compared to some of the more popular metal bands.

  1. Angry Metal Guy
Because the article is currently under FAC consideration, I removed this source from the Critical reception section of the article because it hasn't had a clear consensus as to its reliability (see below). I figured I'd ask about it here, and if deemed reliable for how it is used, I would reinsert a variation of it. The citation—a direct link to the review included—is as follows:
"Kalmah 12 Gauge Review". Angry Metal Guy. March 3, 2010. Archived from the original on February 9, 2011. Retrieved May 27, 2010.
The paragraph of text that was cited as follows:

Angry Metal Guy considered Kalmah's sixth effort to be generic and straightforward. He stressed the lack of technical playing and "jaw dropping" appeal, but noted that this sometimes worked to the album's advantage. "Sometimes you just want some good melodic death metal to listen to while drinking a beer and banging your head, and that’s what Kalmah delivers in spades". Despite the short length of the album, which kept the album from "overstaying its welcome", the songs were "energetic, fun to listen to and cathartic." He added that 12 Gauge is "definitely superior to For the Revolution," but he still considered The Black Waltz to have more originality.

In May 2010, I asked about this site at WikiProject Albums, and an IP gave his rationale as to why is could be a reliable source, stating that it has been referenced itself by other reliable sites, including SMN News, Metal from Finland, and Blabbermouth. However, I'm still unsure about it.
  1. Source Webzine
This is an interview, so I assume it's reliable, but just to double check, I'd like to run it by this noticeboard. The citation is as follows:
Teles, Falber (March 16, 2010). "Kalmah Interview". Source Webzine Brazil. Archived from the original on May 26, 2011. Retrieved May 24, 2011.
The reference is cited twice:

  1. The title of the album was chosen by Pekka and Antti, who both enjoy hunting. They wanted to draw a comparison between the shotgun shells and the music, which Pekka described as having the same "crushing power".

  2. The songs were developed during rehearsals, where each member added his own ideas.

Please note that both quotes are each augmented by a second reliable citation. Thank you so much! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to use the Angry Metal Guy blog. I'd leave it out. In regard to the webzine, it's hard to say. Generally at RSN we look to see if there's any indication of editorial oversight. (It doesn't seem like the best rule of thumb, but that's all we have to go by at this point.) There's no indication of editorial oversight in the About page. Even though it's an interview, it seems like we should maybe uphold this standard, especially in the case of a featured article. If you have a better source, I'd say prefer that and omit the webzine. TimidGuy (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your response. AMG is out, then. As for Source, you're absolutely right, it looks like it's a one-man show, or at least, there's no editorial staff. I'll look for another source. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 14:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish Week and its failure to fact-check

This isn't in reference to a specific article or statement under contention, but having a concern about the source's reliability, I thought it might be right to establish some sort of position on it before anything becomes contentious.

Anyway, reading as I do The Jewish Week, I've been noticing (for the past few years now) that they don't always fact-check so well. Things that would be easily fixed if they noticed or cared, like writing "Cape of Good Hope" for "Cape Horn." Now the question - particularly since this paper covers difficult (and sanctioned) topic areas, like the I/P conflict - is what to do about it. Is it worth saying "it's RS by default, but if a statement sourced only to the Jewish Week is challenged, it goes until a better source is found"? Other ideas?

Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because a source is accepted as a reliable source doesn't mean we have to throw our common sense out the door as to particular stories within it. Fox News is a reliable source for instance but not everything it says is accepted as gospel, er sorry Torah or whatever. Dmcq (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Roscelese—can you please document The Jewish Week's "failure to fact-check"? What other instances can you provide? Alexander Pope said "To err is human; to forgive, divine." Wikipedia has articles on Erratum and Correction (newspaper). Is there more than your alleged mistaking of Cape of Good Hope for Cape Horn? You may be right—but I think we would want to see a stronger case than you've thus far presented. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Now that I know I'm asked to make a list, I can try and keep closer track. Correction would be relevant if said corrections were made - and other newspapers make them, which is part of why they are reliable. (The issue with "Cape of Good Hope" is that it appears in no historical sources, that it is wildly illogical for a journey from Brooklyn to San Francisco and that, if it had happened, it would stand to reason that some mention would be made of the crossing of both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, not just the rounding of a cape. Assuming an error for "Cape Horn" makes a lot more sense, particularly in a publication with past errors of this kind.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I assume you are right about the newspaper making a mistake by using "Cape of Good Hope" instead of "Cape Horn", but I don't think that an error such as that (which appeared in an article about a musical play, not an article about South American geography) is the kind of thing that would necessarily lead me to believe that the newspaper was unreliable overall. Even newspapers that are generally considered reliable have been known to commit numerous errors (see [6] as an example). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Naturally (though as I mentioned, I would be less concerned about TJW's errors if they did correct them). I really just wanted to bring the issue of the paper's errors up on RSN before it got brought here with tempers raised over an I/P article. ;) I don't read it as regularly as (I realize now) my earlier comment might have given out, but I'll try to keep track, since I do notice something every time I pick it up. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Scans of official documents

A new editor recently uploaded a series of scans of official documents authored by the governments of Timor-Leste, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea showing statements of their respective recognition of the State of Palestine.

I have no doubts whatsoever about the reliability of these sources, but can they be used by themselves to make the claim that these states recognise Palestine?

As the uploader rightly points out, the nature of the countries (being small island-nations) means that records and information on their foreign policies are not widely reported, especially from the time the decisions were made (over a decade ago in the latter two cases). This makes it difficult to locate supportive sources.

The only supporting information found on the web is that they all share the same non-resident Ambassador, Ali Kazak, who is the head of the Palestinian delegation in Australia (see here). And Vanuatu is often included in lists of countries that recognise Palestine (example).

Any thoughts? Obviously it's not ideal, but can we use the scans with what little supportive sources we have available? Nightw 18:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Official documents are intrinsically primary sources. They can not be used to say anything other than what they explicitly state, and that not always in every type of article. Collect (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:RS guideline: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." [7] In this particular case, practical advice from someone better-informed and more experienced than Collect or myself would obviously be useful. Writegeist (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So if the editors involved agree that the documents are explicit in regards to what we wish to claim, leaving no room for interpretation, they can be used given the lack of sources available? Nightw 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I am with Collect on this. Firstly, the documents need to be transmitted invariant, intact, with a known transmission. Scans found on the web aren't suitable. Scans on the TL Government's Foreign Office website are fine. Scans found on Fred's Big East Timor Website, no. Scans on the University of West Wyalong's Timor Studies Centre page under Professor Sue Exampleson would generally be fine. etc. Secondly, the document needs to be unambiguous in its statement of fact. Any requirement for intepretation beyond the simplest semantic use of the words themselves—nope. The fact that the scans were uploaded to commons speaks against them here. Randoms are not archivists transmitting objects invariant and intact. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Primary sources must not be used for any contentious claim—if the official stand taken by a country is at all important there will be multiple reliable secondary sources. Examples of problems with a source such as the proposed scan include the cherry-picking, context, and currency of the statement (by picking particular pages to scan and quote, someone is performing WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH; background to the statement is needed for an encyclopedic understanding; how is it known if the statement was not revoked?). Finally, elaborate hoaxes are possible, and verification of authenticity is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Well the scans aren't the actual source, they're a copy of the sources. Scans are (in theory) able to verify (or not) the source. If there's a dispute over their authenticity then they shouldn't be used, otherwise primary source guidelines apply. Two other potential issues (a) are the original documents otherwise "published", ie available to the public? If not, they fail WP:V, scans or not(b) are they copyright? In which case they fail WP:COPYLINK
Well, the PNG one is a media statement, so I presume that it has been published, but then I can't find any news articles online that back up the statement. The others not so sure about. Nightw 09:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's pretty conclusive. Thank you all for your contribution. If any of you have a spare moment, I've another thread on NPOVN with some sourcing concerns; having trouble garnering a response, so any input would be very much appreciated. Regards, Nightw 09:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

National Center for Science Education

An editor insists on using the National Center for Science Education, an advocacy/activist organization as a reliable source in a BLP (Stephen C. Meyer) to refute a claim of the BLP subject ("that those who oppose 'Darwinism' are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views"):

In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."

Included on the organizations website is the motto: "Defending the teaching of evolution in public schools"; a major section of the website is "Taking Action: resources to help you defend the teaching of evolution," which includes such things as tips in writing letters to the editor; included on the small staff is a "religious community outreach" director; and the organization gives out an annual "Friend of Darwin" award. The organization publishes a journal, which itself may be a reliable source, but I'm having trouble seeing how the other things that this advocacy/activist organization puts out could be considered a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, having a bias doesn't make a source unreliable for use here (what source doesn't have any bias?). Viewing this through a prism of "what can convince a creationist they are wrong" is probably not very productive. Yobol (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Does NCSE have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" when it comes to representing or giving opionions on the positions of the people it exists to refute? If so, let's see some documentation for that. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that is necessary. The passage provided above characterizes the NCSE's view of a movie. Assuming that the passage accurately reflects the source, I see no RS issue, since the NCSE's website is a self published source and reliable as a source of the NCSE's views. That being said, I would advise caution--if the NCSE's website does not specifically mention Meyer, then I would suggest that use of this passage in an article on Meyer might be SYNTH. Meyer says that creationists are persecuted, NCSE says in reference to Expelled that creationists do not bring evidence to the table and are not scientific. Where is the 2ndary reliable source providing the link between these two statements? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The Sternberg peer review controversy, of which Meyer was a part, and in which context the NCSE is mentioned in Stephen C. Meyer, was prominently featured in Expelled, as an example of persecution -- so we're using the information pretty much in its original context. (also Meyer himself appears in the movie, though I'm not sure whether in the context of Sternberg, or otherwise.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The NCSE is clearly a reliable source for its own opinions. But they will need to be clearly attributed. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not just being used to state its own opinions. The sentence says unequivocally that the NCSE was "refuting claims of persecution." Drrll (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not think it is a reliable source for making apparently objective statements of that kind. "Reject" would be appropriate. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Reject. Just as a matter of common sense, I would be extremely surprised if the statement "...those who oppose 'Darwinism' are... prevented from publishing their views" was not true. I mean of course they are prevented from publishing their views in reputable venues, otherwise the editors of those venues are not doing their jobs. Right? The statement is a a subset of the statement "...those who oppose 'Darwinism', submit their work in crayon, or claim that space aliens from the planet Mongo did 9/11 are... prevented from publishing their views". (The question of "persecuted" is more arguable -- no one is burning these people alive, I hope -- but if by "persecuted" is meant "not considered for publication, not considered for employment, not invited to conferences, and generally dismissed with eye-rolling" then it would be extremely surprising also if this was not true.) So, since the statement seems by common sense to be extremely likely to be true, we would want very good, very neutral and disinterested, AAA-level references (probably multiple refs) to refute this. The suggested ref does not meet this standard. Herostratus (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"Persecuted" would generally be considered to mean illegitimately and/or maliciously "not considered for publication, not considered for employment, not invited to conferences, and generally dismissed with eye-rolling". So I don't think that "the statement seems by common sense to be extremely likely to be true". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

National Center for Science Education is an advocacy organization and in-text attribution should be used. The phrase "refuting claims of persecution" should not be used in Wikipedia's voice unless secondary reliable sources also state this as fact.

But here's the thing that everyone is missing: the content in question is in violation of WP:COATRACK. Note that the disputed content is no longer discussing Stephen C. Meyer. Instead, it's discussing Expelled. The material should be deleted or moved into the article about Expelled. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, both Meyer's statement, and the movie Expelled, are part of a long-running ID propaganda campaign claiming persecution. In fact, the specific claims Meyer made in that statement are remarkably similar to the claims that the ID movement has made about Sternberg (unfairly "stigmatize[d] as religious 'creationists'") and Gonzalez ("deprivation of tenure"), two of the 'Expelled' featured in the movie. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Meyer's advocacy of ID and inclusion in the movie Expelled are already explained in sufficient detail in the article. By the time the article gets to the disputed content, it's lost its focus on the article's topic and instead switches over to the debate between evolution versus creationism. This is a clear violation of WP:COATRACK. If you think this information is worth retaining, consider moving it to the article on Expelled or some other article in the creationism topic-space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Possibly, but that discussion belongs at the article talk page. This is the reliable sources noticeboard. Now, which source did you wish to discuss the reliability of? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, this brings up a persistent problem I think. Our policies and guidelines say that they should not be interpreted in isolation with each other. Yet our noticeboards are single issue. When a content dispute such as this involves 3 different policies (verifiability, biographies of living people, and neutral point of view) does it make sense to have 3 separate discussions on the appropriate 3 noticeboards? Or should the editors of the other noticeboards be invited to join the original discussion? I think I will start a separate discussion on one of the talk pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You may well have a point, but when the three problems you mention are verifiability, biographies of living people, and neutral point of view, then the reliable sources noticeboard seems like an odd place to centralise the discussion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Considering that we currently have (counting this one) four BLP issues here it seems what there is a serious problem with editors understanding which noticeboard to bring issues to. Perhaps a chart like the one I suggested a while ago might help.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What's next, disallowing material from avowed round-earth advocacy organizations such as the American Geophysical Union? Or disallowing material from NASA because they refuse to discuss the theory that the moon is made of green cheese? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether NCSE is reliable for discussing the treatment of certain other groups which it exists to oppose. Let's wait for those entertainingly hypothetical cases to arise before we discuss them. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What better source for scientific matters than a group of scientists? To reject this would be absurd. You could pretty much invalidate any scientific source on these spurious grounds. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the assertion about the treatment of their opponents is not a scientific matter. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
How is the statement "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses" not "a scientific matter"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly! Who better to weigh whether or not something meets the standards for appropriate research, evidence, and testability than scientists? Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Because it's a statement about the behaviour of people. An idea and its advocates are different sorts of thing. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The statement quoted by SBHB is a discussion of the science. A claim about why they do not formulate testable hypothesis (fraud, stupidity, etc.) would be a statement about the behavior of people. Gamaliel (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
We clearly disagree about what constitutes "behaviour". The assertions which this organisation's views are called on to support are:
In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."
their website refuting claims of persecution -- that is, they are taken as a reliable source for the way ID advocates are treated
ID advocates have no research and no evidence -- a statement about the behaviour of this group of people, that they have or rather have not done certain things
ID advocates have ... shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses -- again about their behaviour and the reasons for that behaviour
ID advocates ... complain about an imagined exclusion -- again about their treatment and behaviour
Is NCSE a source with a reputation for reliability and fact-checking on these subjects: I doubt it. Is there any evidence? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)From memory, the NCSE's "reliability and fact-checking" provided a significant portion of the evidentiary basis for the plaintiff's (successful) case in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (they lent their library of Creationist materials and some researchers), so I think you'd have difficulty in finding fault with it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no difficulty with evidence. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

NCSE may have been the most important player in the celebrated evolution case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Despite the fact that the ACLU is commonly regarded as the moving force in the suit against the Dover school hoard, the truth is that the ACLU had insufficient staff, litigation funds, and sci- entific expertise to conduct the case, so the ACLU's Vic Walczak called the NCSE before accepting the case.

NCSE provided biologists, paleontologists, philosophers of science, mathematicians, and a host of other consultants and expert witnesses. The NCSE also granted the ACLU full access to its archives, covering more than two decades of creationism cases and Intelligent Design arguments. Most important, NCSE referred Walczak to an attorney, Eric Rothschild, at the prestigious international law firm Pepper Hamilton. After Pepper Hamilton's pro Bono panel endorsed entering the case, Rothschild and his colleague, Steve Harvey, entered the case as lead attorneys, along with the ACLU's Wolczak.

— Toxic mix?: a handbook of science and politics, p225
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that this is also a WP:BLP violation. You can't use an WP:SPS for claims about a third party. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, where opinions are used, they should be specificaly cited as opinions. They may be the "truth" or they may not be the truth - makes no difference. Let readers weigh what is written on their own and not have us state "this is absolute truth" on any topic. Collect (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that the publications of a respected and prominent science advocacy group does not count as "self-published" -- and certainly does not resemble (even by analogy) the types of publications discussed in WP:SPS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The rule about opinions has nothing to do with SPS. WP:SPS has nothing to do with the fact that opinions should always be cited as opinions. Wikipedia is better served by factually identifying opinions as opinions, and not asserting that some opinions are the WP:TRUTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can any supporter of NCSE as a reliable source show from WP:IRS how an advocacy/activist group qualifies as a reliable source? Drrll (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." The NCSE is chock full of specialists and recognized experts on science & science education. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
So therefore something like The Cato Institute's division of Energy and Environment would qualify as a reliable source (which by the way, while an advocacy group, is not an activist group like the NCSE)? Drrll (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The Cato Institute has a reasonable reputation for doing serious scholarship to back up their advocacy, so I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand (and would be more likely to take them seriously than many other think-tanks). As to the Energy and Environment division, I would note that only one of their 'experts' (Patrick J. Michaels) appears to have any particular depth of scholarly expertise, so I might tread a bit more carefully in that particular area. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Cato has a reputation for pushing fringe ideas, so it can be a somewhat dubious source. NCSE has no such reputation. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You may be right on science-related matters -- the positive comments I've seen have been on economic and social issues. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The question that matters: who uses or recommends NCSE or NCSE publications? That's one way to attest to their reliability. Here's one example where the National Academy of Sciences does just that. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
While the NCSE's journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education may be a reliable source, what's at issue is their website Expelled Exposed--not a production of the journal. In addition, the page you linked to simply shows a favorable review article on a page selling a book, not a citation to the NCSE within a NAS publication. Drrll (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
No, the link I gave is a link to the National Academies Press, which allows you to download a National Academy of Sciences book for free. And the book does not use RNCSE as a source, it recommends a website published by the NCSE. Guettarda (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec)The NCSE is a reliable source not because it is an "advocacy/activist" group, but because it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. It is associated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the largest scientific organisations in the world, it has many prominent and respected scientists among its members and supporters, and its publications have generally been favourably received by mainstream science and education organisations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, does their website material actually have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? Drrll (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the NAS book actually recommends an NCSE website. Guettarda (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
And this article in Evolution: Education and Outreach gives the 'Expelled Exposed' website itself positive mention. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Another potential source for the Wishology article

Is this following source from grantt.trigcola.com [9] considered to be a reliable source? I would like to know whether I can proceed adding it to the "Reception" section of the Wishology article, especially when I plan to promote it to FA or GA eventually. Thanks, 89119 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Given WP:SPS's "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."(sic) requirement and what WP:NOT says I really don't understand why this is needed as a reference when clearly better ones exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I completely understand that this reference is indeed not reliable and that better ones exist; it's just for an article I would like to nominate to the FAC, I would like to find as many references as possible. Anyways, thanks for your comment; I will not use that source. Besides, the article has about 30 (more-reliable) references already, which is plenty in my opinion. ;P 89119 (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal

I added a link from the Max Blumenthal website as proof that the Israelis retracted their claim that there were mercenaries aboard the Gaza flotilla.User:Plot Spoiler has deleted that claiming that Max Blumenthal is not a reputable source.Max Blumenthal is an award winning journalist and a best selling author whose articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Beast, The Nation, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, Salon.com, Al Jazeera English and many other publications. He is also writing fellow for the Nation Institute.

This is the piece here where the link was placed.Gaza flotilla raid

Here is the link I added as evidence.Scrutiny, IDF Retracts Claims About Flotilla’s Al Qaeda Links

So does a journalist who has written for many reputable main stream media outlets somehow become an unreliable source because he is writing on his own website?This seems to be part of User:Plot Spoiler argument, here Max blumenthal is not an WP:RS by ANY means. It is his personal blog. and here [10]

Thoughts please.

His personal/website blog does not comport with WP:RS. Neither do his opinion pieces published in reputable sources. Only if it is fact-based news article/analysis published in a reputable source would it be a WP:RS. It is also important to keep in mind that Blumenthal is a highly partisan commentator on issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict as well as U.S. politics. It doesn't matter if he is an award-winning journalist or yada yada yada. His work needs to be vetted in a reliable source, which is not done in his personal website that lacks an editorial board. Please review WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I think his work is fine and being as the story on his website that I linked to is also in the Guardian we can say that it is a reputable story and he was telling the truth.[11]Owain the 1st (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not about him telling the truth... it's about it being a reliable source. Please review WP:RS. You apparently to refuse to do this. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Well this is why we are here and I will let other decide if he is a reputable source or not.Owain the 1st (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna

The discussion at this AFD boils down to gaging the reliability of the few local sources mentioning Marisol Deluna: La Prensa, San Antonio Magazine and North San Antonio Magazine. Are these 3 sources, as currently used in the article, to be considered as stating a fact or expressing their author's viewpoint? To what extent do they establish the notability of Mrs Deluna? Racconish Tk 20:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like she's been covered by at least a couple major Texas dailies[12]. TimidGuy (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, your query returns no hit for me. What did you find that you deem reliable? Racconish Tk 11:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
That's odd. When I click on the link it returns a list of 11 articles in Google News archives. They include articles about her in the San Antonio Express-News and Austin-American Statesman, as well as an item in the NY Times about her wedding. TimidGuy (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Have them now. Really odd I did not before. Thanks, Racconish Tk 11:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The San Antonio Express News, a Hearst Publication and the Austin-American Statesman have covered Marisol Deluna and her charitable designs through editorials, not simply mentions in nine articles from 2002-2010 as shown on the provided link by TimidGuy. Do either of you know how to reference the full articles under "Google-News-Archives" without payment for other Wiki editors to reference? Many of these could be used as sources of verifiable information. However, I have one other question: Why is her hometown of "Alamo Heights" being questioned on her article? It is clearly stated in the Austin-American Statesman in 2002 and the "San Antonio Magazine" as recent as January 2011. San Antonio and Austin, TX are not small news circulations. Additionally, I noticed a Girl Scouts of the USA posting on the "Marisol Deluna New York" FB page that again states "Alamo Heights" a suburb of San Antonio as her hometown. Thanks, NancyB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.252.182.132 (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Often if you go to the website for the newspaper itself you'll find free access to their archives. Also, you could go to a library and access a service such as LexisNexis. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Updated web pages that remove information - still reliable on archive.org?

If a web page is updated and information removed, is the archive.org version of the old site still considered a reliable source? I came across a situation this week where I looked at some references pointing to a website page and when I checked the page it did not support the claims made, so I tagged the references appropriately. Another editor has searched through archive.org and found an earlier version of the website that does support the claims made. Now, if an old page was simply removed, or a website dead, and it was originally indisputably RS I think there's no problem, but I'm curious about this situation, where the website page is still on the same topic, but they've removed a considerable amount of information that was there earlier. One could argue that by removing the information the source no longer necessary supports or agrees with it, ie it may no longer be reliable. On the other hand, when the information was put in the article it was reliably sourced and verifiable. Thoughts? Any precedents on this? --Icerat (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought it was a similar situation to a second edition of a book. If material is dropped in a new edition, one would tend to assume that the author no longer supported the older version. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Good analogy. Is there a reference to that situation in policies or guidelines anywhere? --Icerat (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Actually the analogy is poor as there are many other reasons to remove information on a web page--space limitations and site reorganization are the first that come to mind. Furthermore in the printing world (my parents were printers) many times it is the publisher not the author who decides on content--this why material by the same author has more "weight" in terms of WP:RS when it is printed by Wiley-Blackwell then by Penguin.
The printing analogy further breaks down as the later edition doesn't always have updated information. Weston Price's Nutrition and Physical Degeneration is a prime example as it is on it sixth edition (2003) but the information is for all practical purposes the exact same as it was in the first edition of 1939 and therefore horribly out of date.
Obviously a clear 180 on a position would mean we would go with the later source but without seeing the disputed references we can't tell if that is the case.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I gather from your post that this isn't an abstract question - can you provide the article, statement under discussion, source (and archived version) under discussion? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It was primarily abstract as I can see both sides of the (potential) debate. Based and experience raising the particular edit will likely end up as yet another flame war with the editor involved even though I have no intention of disputing the edit. I was simply after other perspectives and guidance (and, if possible, policy or guideline) for future reference. --Icerat (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that editors generally cannot work without an example (so we can research things like quality of publisher, expertise of author, and so on). Trying to do so without such an example reduces decisions to the level of a Pig in a poke--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I've never felt comfortable with the use of Archive.org. Sometimes content is removed because it's erroneous or libelous. I've seen instances of that. I can imagine, though, instances in which it would be obvious that the page no longer exists for reasons other than having been deliberately deleted or corrected. So it's hard to make a general rule. TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

is widely patented example of Social Network wiki entry (subsection Patents) notable enough to merit an entry?

The Wiki Social Networks entry's Patent subsection mentions that "Only about 100 of these [Social Network] applications have issued as patents, however, largely due to the multi-year backlog in examination of business method patents." This statement unfairly associates legitimate published Social Network patents with the pejorative business-method-patents debate. I invented a Social Network technology during this time and succeeded in patenting it in the US (US Patent No. 7,124,362). I also succeeded in patenting it in Europe (European Patent No. 1 430 409). Europe is more strict than the US Patent Office in that they require that there be an Inventive Step. In the US, to successfully prosecute a patent, one must demonstrate that the technology be 1) Novel (the invention must be new), Useful (in my case solves the problem of group authoring without the need of servers or after-the-fact merging), and Non-obvious (my technology creates a new category, Cooperative Authoring, which is a subtopic of Collaborative Authoring). The European Patent Office rarely issues software patents, but it did so for my technology because I demonstrated that there was an Inventive Step. This is all public record.

Although my patented technology is not widely known, I submit that it is a notable exception to the public perception that all software advances are incremental. Especially in the Social Network topic area. I would like permission/acceptance to submit an entry for review on the Social Network technology and that it be linked, perhaps along with a few other examples of these 100 Social Networks patents the entry authors are referring to. The Social Networks -> Patents entry could then be extended with, "Examples of Social Networks patents are US Patent No. 7,124,362 (Hiveware), '<example 2 needed>' and <example 3 needed>. Refer to each patent for lists of references to prior art that the patent differentiates itself from."

Wikepedia must of course be wary of unnotable self promotion, but perpetuating bias like the "multi-year backlog in examination of business method patents" statement above is equally poor. A patent which always contains references to what an authorized institution determines is the relevant existing prior art, is quite notable in itself. I believe this ranks as knowledge as well. In the very least, if this forum doesn't accept my arguments that patents are knowledge, then I suggest that "in examination of business method patents" be deleted from the entry.

Robert Tischer Inventor of Hiveware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.98.207 (talk • contribs) 09:34, May 31, 2011

I don't think is the appropriate place to discuss your concerns and suggestions. I'll copy them over to the Talk page of the article in question where you may receive relevant responses and help. ElKevbo (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
On the more general question, patents are considered both self-published and WP:PRIMARY for Wikipedia's purposes. (You wrote it, and you paid the publication fee and decided whether and when to publish it: that's wikt:self-publishing; it's primary because it's the first publication of the invention.) That doesn't mean that they can't be used; the inventor is obviously an expert on his invention. But it does mean that you need to be careful about how it is used. It could be used for simple, obvious, descriptive claims, like "Hiveware is patented software".
Whether this particular thing should be done in this particular article depends more on WP:DUE than on WP:Reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamil cinema history...

Would Millennium 3 Chennai be considered a reliable source?

I can't find much information about the site itself (Wikipedia has no article about it, and there is no "about us" section on the website that I can see.

I can't see any indication of who wrote the article on the site (it's under "webmaster") or any indication of whether material is written by professional journalists, etc.

Any advice would be most welcome, as if it is considered a reliable source, it can possibly be used for citations throughout the Tamil cinema article rather than just the one sentence it currently references!

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be more than a personal website, but one has no way of knowing how authoritative this particular anonymous article is. Perhaps be cautious about using it extensively as a source. (Though it's a bit ironic to be giving that advice, since much of the article is completely unsourced.) Thanks for working on this article and for looking for sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Dating Guy

Please see Talk:The Dating Guy. At issue: blogs, forums, and other self-published sources. In particular, are these sources considered reliable for plagiarism claims? And what exactly is the definition of a third party? Are these sources making claims about a third, second, or first party? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The sources provided so far are not enough for me to be convinced that the plagiarism accusations against the show are notable. If this develops into an actual lawsuit, it probably will be covered in more mainstream media sources, and then it can be covered in the article. As John Landis is quoted as saying in the Buchwald v. Paramount article, "Every movie I have been involved with that was a big hit had people suing the studio saying it was their idea. We live in a very litigious society. You can sue anybody for anything here." So I don't think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to seek out accusations of plagiarism from message boards and put them in articles about the allegedly plagiarizing works. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the discussion there? I'll repeat: at issue is whether these self-published sources are acceptable for establishing the facts of the dispute. Also, what is the definition of a third party in the context of WP:SELFPUB? Namely, are Sohmer's claims about Teletoon and The Dating Guy claims about a third party, a second party, or a first party in the context of his self-published websites? I encourage some editor to join in the discussion there because I am basically alone holding back a tide of meatpuppets trying to push their POV with unreliable sources. IMHO of course. Elizium23 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

iTunes sales charts as a reference

There have been a number of discussions here on iTunes but it looks like they were all around using album listings on iTunes as a reference. There is a discussion going on concerning the use of iTunes sales charts in articles (particularly song and album articles). Currently WP:BADCHARTS specifically disallows use of iTunes charts the discussion is on whether this needs to be updated or not. It would be nice to have some more discussion there. See Wikipedia talk:Record charts#iTunes sales vs. WP:Badcharts --RadioFan (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Are these little blue numbers reliable sources?

[13] Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (ducks and runs)

Well... they would probably be reliable if the material was re-written as a statement of opinion, and not as a statement of fact.  :>) (BTW, nice find, Doug.) Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal web site as a reliable source

Discussion [14] centers around whether a web site [15] created and maintained by David Orme Johnson,:[16] is a reliable source for the a TM movement article, and per Wikipedia:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication." Discussion refers specifically to comments about the relationship of Transcendental Meditation Movement and cult. Orme Johnson is a PhD in Psychology, a researcher of the Transcendental Meditation technique, and a teacher of Transcendental Meditation. Some argue Orme Johnson as a highly published Psychologist, a TM teacher and TM insider, is expert in the field of human beahviour and its relationship to TM and the TM movement, relevant to understanding cult and its relationship to TM and TM movement. Others argue Orme Johnson's training and background is not specific enough, and too generic for comments related specifically to cult behaviour, and to the relationship of cult to the TM Movement, the topic of the article.

  • The comment, recently removed in good faith, pending agreement. (third paragraph) [17] is inline attributed.
  • Recent publications:[18]

Input would be appreciated.(olive (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

As a general rule, I think that "relevant field" should be broadly defined. We don't want to limit our "experts" to people who have previously published work on (for example) a specific chemical or car; being a published expert on chemicals or cars in general is good enough. For example, I suspect that for TM, a rather inter-disciplinary subject, being a published expert who has previously written about psychology or religion or social groups (or several other things) would be sufficient.
On the other hand, anyone should feel free to propose even better sources. It's not like there's a distinct shortage of good sources at TM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
As WhatamIdoing suggests, there is a wealth of highly reliable sources which address the issue of "characterizations of TM as a religion, sect, or cult", the issue at hand. There's no need to bring in self-published sources. The proposed source, David Orme-Johnson, spent virtually his entire career at the TM's Maharishi University of Management. Every single scientific study he has conducted has been on the topic of the TM technique, and every single one had a positive outcome. He may be a published expert on the narrow issue of certain aspects of the technique, but he has never published a single paper on the TM movement, which involves many elements and "technologies" besides meditation. He has, however, engaged in political and policy advocacy on behalf of the movement. The website in question, TruthAboutTM.org, is an extended defense of TM and the TM movement. I think that it's perfectly acceptable to use in his biography. However he is not a scholar of religion or cults, and so using his self-published sources to say "TM is not a cult because..." stretches expert exemption to the SPS policy too far.
Olive writes that Orme-Johnson is "expert in the field of human beahviour and its relationship to TM and the TM movement". I'd like to see evidence of that. No one has produced anything published by him about human behavior and its relationship to the TM movement.
It is relevant to note that some of the editors involved in the discussion have connections to the Maharishi University of Management, and it's possible that some are the friends or colleagues of Orme-Johnson. Despite prompting, none of the editors have admitted or denied a conflict of interest in promoting the use of this self-published source by an associate.
We should also note that the material from this source has been very contentious, being the topic of at least 21 talk page threads over more than four years.
Since other sources are available, there's no reason to use this poor quality, contentious source from a biased partisan.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
@Will. I brought this concerns to a notice board so we could have outside input. You are presenting the same arguments here as you did on the article talk page, and if anyone engages you here we will just have another and likely identical muddled discussion with no solution in sight. I have linked to all of the pertinent information so editors commenting here have a compete view of the situation. I will remind you again that the issue is the reliability of the source and not further attempts, which failed during the TM arbitration, to implicate editors of COI who do not agree with your position. I won't engage you further and will let editors uninvolved in this article and in the TM articles and related discussions respond. I am not attached to this source one way or the other, but I am very attached to this and other issues being treated fairly.(olive (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC))
You're presenting the same arguments made on the talk page too yet you didn't link that page, as suggested on this page's instructions. You made what appear to be misleading or incorrect assertions about the dispute and the source. As for the ArbCom case, you misrepresent that too. It specifically called on editors with conflicts of interest to edit carefully in full compliance with the relevant guidelines and policies. WP:ARBTM#Neutrality and conflicts of interest. Pushing the inclusion of a self-published, partisan source written by a friend or colleague is not conservative editing. Anyway, now that both sides of the dispute are fairly represented I agree that we should leave this to uninvolved editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The talk page is linked. No COI was named in the TM arbitration. I described the controversy as carefully and as neutrally as I could. In fact, as you know, I removed the controversial source pending agreement. Your comments aren't accurate, and your attempts to deliberately malign another editor by citing false information on a Notice Board, a public environment, is worrying. Let me explain how this works. You can continue to make things up, but you'll be twisting in a wind of your own making talking to yourself.(olive (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC))
That's not really a civil comment. I'd still like to see evidence that David Orme-Johnson is an "expert in the field of human beahviour and its relationship to TM and the TM movement". If he isn't then there's little reason to continue this thread.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The comment is exactly civil as a response to someone who continues to mischaracterize falsely. You don't own this notice board. The thing is Will, I don't care about the source. I've already supported its deletion pending agreement, and I brought this here to openly and fairly to include other editors. I do care about fair and neutral process. I have to wonder why you are so eager to both remove the source, and to poison the well, and this discussion doing it. (olive (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC))
Again, what is the basis for saying that the author is an "expert in the field of human beahviour and its relationship to TM and the TM movement"?   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see TM movement talk page discussion linked above were you will find that discussion. (olive (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC))
I don't see it there. If it was there this matter might have been settled long ago. Please post it again here.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If folks want to argue about what to say here or how to say it, I would ask that they please pursue the matter at another more appropriate board. In regard to the SPS, it's a hard call, I think, but here are my thoughts. By way of full disclosure, I used to practice a variant of TM during the mid 1970s until the late 1980s regularly, and still do from time to time. The article is on the TM Movement, not the practice of TM by individuals, and in reviewing Johnson's list of recent publications, I note that his work seems oriented only towards the effects the practice of TM have on various medical issues. I do not see anything that qualifies him as an expert on the movement itself, other than than his personal experiences. He does have a psychology degree, but it appears from his publications that his orientation is towards physiology and neurology, not sociology, religion, or psychology of social groups. As he was a long time employee of a group closely associated with the movement, and because he disclaims any authority to speak for the movement, I think his web site should be viewed as a RS for his opinions on the movement only. His published works are primary sources, so even for the medical aspects we'd want to exercise caution, but he's clearly an expert on physiological effects of the practice of TM, even if perhaps a biased one. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn that the purpose of this board is to receive community input on a sources' reliability. Will Beback's assumptions of bad faith and unfounded accusations of COI are not appropriate, and only serve to poison the discussion. Please step away and allow the community to comment on the source in question.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It's appropriate, when using this noticeboard to propose using a disputed source, to disclose one's connections to the source or subject. Nuujinn did so.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is to focus the question of reliability. If you want drama, I suggest ANI. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alarabiya, reliable or not?

On the 2011 Iranian protests article, User:Kurdo777 made this edit, removing information about the secondary protests that the Arab citizens of Iran had started. Kurdo stated in the edit summary that Al Arabiya and this source in particular is not a reliable source. I am disputing this, so i'd like some outside commentary on the subject. SilverserenC 03:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll go notify Kurdo of this discussion. SilverserenC 03:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine they wouldn't be, except perhaps in specific cases where explicit concerns about their coverage has been brought up in other RSes. They're one of the biggest middle eastern news networks, have an editorial board and all that other required jazz. For that matter, one of Obama's first interviews was with them - non-credible outlets don't normally get presidential interviews. Kevin (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the specific concern he brought up - there's no way whatsoever that al-arabiya can be categorically dismissed as a RS simply because they are sometimes accused of pro-saudi bias. In cases where other RS's report that al-arabiya's reporting is biased or influenced by the saudis those concerns should be included in the article, but you can't just categorically dismiss a news outlet simply because sometimes they are biased - if so, fox news and a large number of other outlets would go out the window. Kevin (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Al Arabiya is reporting facts in this instance and should be used to support the text about the "Day of Rage". The text is not trying to analyze or judge, so the bar is not very high in terms of WP:V. Al Arabiya meets WP:V and is not undue weight or fringe as was indicated in Kurdo's edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I have reverted the removal of content from the article. SilverserenC 05:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Binksternet has been blocked previously for stalking me. So he is commenting here just because I am involved, no other reason. The issue should be left to neutral editors. Alarabiya belongs to and is financed by Saudi Arabia. I have seen many editors remove Press TV as a source, for the same reasons, it is an extension of the Iranian regime. This is no different. Also, Alarabiya has a histyory of making up news, and in this case, this supposed news has not been reported by credible news sources. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Press TV and other state sources can be used in articles just fine, they just have to attributed to those sources. SilverserenC 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Can some more people please comment in this section? Kurdo states that Binksternet is involved, so he requires more than just Kevin's comment. I guess. :/ SilverserenC 03:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It has been my experience in the past, and I believe Binksternet's also, that information is often reverted from Iran-related articles no matter how reliably sourced it is. If editors are still having this problem in Iran articles, and it appears that they are, I would suggest taking it to ANI straight away and notifying me so I can weigh-in in the ANI thread. Oh, and the source in this case appears to be reliable. Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Before I looked at the edit, my initial impression was that the news organization met our requirements but tat it is important for editors to not mirror POV. After looking at the edit it is slightly different: It looks like RS but if it isn't available from otheroutlets the it should be questioned. We are allowed some editorial judgement. If something looks clearly then we should not be giving it prominence. Hopefully another RS can be found. Of course, if another RS does not dispute it then seeking its removal will be very challenging and maybe even inappropriate. Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The question of a reliability of the source and the opinion it is expressing is, of course, one of the reasons that an article has an associated talk page, so that editors can discuss it and come to a conclusion. It's harder for that to happen when editors revert war with each other. I hope that the editor who removed the text will in the future seek first to initiate a discussion on the talk page over the material in question. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I have seen this happening very lately on the 2005 Ahwazi unrest article (which was created by me), and i streight ahead noticed some suspicious "organized" acts, which miraculously paralelly happened on the same topic at the 2011 Iranian protests page. Suddenly most sources turned "POV", "UNDUE" and non-reliable, and no matter what source was brought and shown, nothing was enough. I currently have some civil discussion, finally going on on the talk page, but i have an uneasy feeling that there is some deliberate hand standing behind this, and understanding may be lost (hope i'm wrong).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am a sysop on Persian wiki. As Cptnono has pointed out, Alarabiya is not generally considered a reliable source in pan-Arab issues, because its coverage is generally biased on these topics, sometimes outright false. Specially this particular news, which is in question here, and has never been confirmed or reported by other outlets. --Wayiran (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Al Arabya seems to have some issues (like so many other media outlets). That doesn't mean it can't be used as a source at all, but it needs to be used with special care. In particular when sourcing contested/controversial issues it might be a good idea to avoid using it and rely on media outlets with a better track record/reputation for unbiased, accurat, reliable and independent reporting. If something can only be sourced by Al Arabya that usually should already raise a red flag. For topics in the Arab World Al Jazeera often provides a better alternative, in particular Al Jazeera English, which in addition allows non Arabic speakers to review the source as well. As far as the Iranian protests are concerned there is no reason to resort to al Arabya in the first place as there are plenty of more reliable news sources out there that covered it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

menluri.info

Is this source reliable? This website use Bahasa Indonesia. αδζ ψακ φρψερ 02:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In what context? Phearson (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Biography of Indonesia foreign minister. αδζ ψακ φρψερ 03:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to evaluate by someone who doesn't speak the language. But there doesn't seem to be any indication regarding who put the site online or whether there is editorial oversight. Is it an official site of some sort? Given the high standard set by WP:BLP, I guess I'm somewhat wary of this source, since it could be regarded as self-published, hence not allowed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Would this source be considered to be reputable? Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center it is all over wikipedia in the Israel-Palestine conflict articles and I do not really see how it can be a reputable source.It has ties to the IDF and is basically a propaganda mechanism for the Israelis.Reading some of the stuff on their website just makes me feel that it has no ethical editorial at all.All it seems to do is spout dubious things about Syria, Iran, Hamas, Palestinians and Hizbollah.

It is headed by a retired IDF colonel.Thoughts? Owain the 1st (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The source is reliable but should be couched with language such as "according to xyz". Any organization can be biased in their own way, but that doesn't negate them from reliability. As I interpret the RS guidelines I see editorial oversight and accountability as key factors toward a source's use in the wiki, and this source appears to have such oversight. If there is conflicting accounts or study statistics you can always reference sources on both sides of an argument to make the article neutral.--Torchwoodtwo (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OMG Facts

Hello everyone, I've recently read the Akon article here and one thing that made me wonder was the first reference in the article (for his allegedly superbly long name), which goes to "omg-facts.com". The link is not accessible, as the site appears to have been taken down. However, and now I might lump together, but let's say "OMG Facts" doesn't sound like a really reliable source. Furthermore, the section "Early life" each time only around three names. The edit adding these names is this one which makes clear that another reference had been removed. What do experts like you think about this? Cry wolf or really an unreliable source? Thanks for your help, --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The link to the omg-facts.com page works fine for me. That page contains a video interview in which Akon himself is asked to pronounce his own name, and he does so. I'd say that, beyond a birth certificate, that's about as reliable as you can get for what a person claims to be his name. A video interview doesn't validate the spelling of the name, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Son quotes Wikipedia article on father, is this reliable?

This is kinda tricky. Obviously, it generally is not reliable if a blogger chooses to publish a wikipedia article on his blog. However, in this case, we have Luke Ford, a blogger notable enough to have a wikipedia article, publishing a notice about his father, Desmond Ford's new biography and including the wikipedia article in his post. Would the contents of the article at that time now be considered "reliably sourced" through Ford's son posting them? bW 01:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no. Firstly, whatever Lufe Ford cites from Desmond Ford's Wikipedia article should have been sourced there in the first place. Using Luke Ford's posting as confirmation might create a circle where we and Luke Ford each rely on the other to "reliably source" that content. Secondly, Luke Ford's blog is a self-published source, and per WP:SPS we should not use those in biographies of third parties. Luke Ford's blog should thus not be used for information on Desmond Ford. Huon (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but under WP:BLP, self-published sources about themselves are allowed if they are not unduly self-serving. This is about a Father, so how would that play in? bW 15:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Luke Ford is not his father; what he writes about his father is not about himself. Thus, the clause of WP:BLP/WP:SPS you mention is not applicable here. Huon (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a "reliable source", in the sense that the person (rather than the document or the publisher; "source" has three meanings under WP:V, and you only need one of the three to be adequate) is reliable for the information.
However, a blog in which you mention or describe someone else falls under WP:BLPSPS, so it's not actually usable. Perhaps we will chalk it up to the often overlooked phrase at the beginning of WP:V that says material "...must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
We don't seem have a link to the posting? Based on what's said above, it's hardly a reliability question. Given that they are both notable, the son's blog ought to be a noteworthy primary source about his father. The fact that he sources this information to Wikipedia throws his own primary-source status into doubt. Therefore, if the statement we're talking about is notable, the sourcing is notable too. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
In the real world, yes. But Wikipedia has artificially restricted itself on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Notability and reliability are two entirely different concepts: it is entirely possible to be a notable liar (though I'll refrain from giving examples). With regard to this particular issue, I'd suggest that if a son has to reference Wikipedia for information regarding his father, one might doubt the son's qualifications as 'reliable'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OPV AIDS "proponents" RSes?

Are the websites of "proponents" of the OPV AIDS hypothesis RS - if kept explicitly within the bounds of WP:MEDSCI "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field." Both Hooper [19] and Martin [20]are multiply science published.

Additionally and separately; Martin has published on [21] and made available in print "Louis Pascal, "What happens when science goes bad", Science and Technology Analysis Working Paper #9, University of Wollongong, December 1991. This was the first major published account of the theory." [22] Is this now considered published? Pascal's paper was replied to specifically in scientific press. ( "A startling 19,000-word thesis on the origin of AIDS: should the JME have published it?". Journal of Medical Ethics 18: 3-4. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1376075&pageindex=1#page.)

Which, if any of these are RS? 122.151.96.51 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC) SmithBlue (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It would, I think, depend on what their personal websites are used for. Any scientific claims or rebuttals made by the proponents would need to have been published. My feeling is that regardless of the fact that Martin and Pascal may be published experts, any claim they make must itself be published in order to be used as a source. Their websites might possibly be used in a limited way to describe the theory. I'd be cautious about using the working paper as a source. It seems like the JME article could be used, but being careful to use it within the ethical framework. TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - So what they put on their website is not considered published?

I am wanting to know if statements made only their websites can be used in an article as statements of the proponents of the hypothesis especially rebuttals of published mainstream science? Also are claims only on their websites, that are not addressed at science results but at historical, otherwise conflicting or un-evidenced, claims by scientists, RS? As in things like, "Ninane says he didn't use chimps but I have a audio recording of him saying he did use chimps, and that recording is on the "Origins of AIDS" (566) documentary"?

With Pascal - would it be reasonable to cite it only as in something like " In response to a paper(34) which was declined publication, (JME article author) says FJFUTFUVVEIY." Or just leave it unreferenced/uncited altogether? SmithBlue (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Just found WP:RS "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Which MIGHT appear, given their prior publication history on OPV AIDS, to put Hooper's and Martin's websites into RS. And THEN they can be used long as the relevant WP:MEDSCI "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field." is abided by?
However how is "the relevant field" determined? One view is that the article defines the relevant field (OPV AIDS hypothesis) the opposing view is that if Hooper is rebutting HIV phylogeny then the field is "phlyogeny of HIV" in which case Hooper is not a recognised expert. What is your view here? I am increasingly of the view that a field is "phlyogeny of HIV" not "OPV AIDS hypothesis". Execpt in the field of "what is the hypothesis and how is it formulated?" in which case Hooper again seems a recognised expert. SmithBlue (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the controlling guideline here is WP:MEDRS: "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." My feeling is that medical claims are a special case and that rebuttals would need to have been published in order to be cited. Have you checked to see if there were any published responses to the articles in Nature and Science? I don't understand your question about Pascal, but I do think the JME article can be used as long as you are faithful to its main point and conclusions. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content—including that in medical articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." From this it appears that Hooper's self published work on the history of the CHAT trial MAY fall outside WP:MEDRS as it is historical rather than medical in nature?
But Hooper's primary thesis is explicitly medical: namely, that HIV/AIDS was spread by contaminated polio vaccine. MastCell Talk 23:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage and Santorum (neologism)

The article has included an unverified (and probably unverifiable) claim that the definition in question was suggested by a reader of Savage's column. The claim is ultimately sourced to a collection of supposedly anonymous emails to Savage himself, with no means of verifying either the actual source of the proposal or the "outcome" of the "reader vote" that selected it. We don't generally treat satirical columns as reliable sources for factual information, and I've never found a Wikipedia article which has accepted a source of this nature as a reliable source for BLP-related content. When I raised the issue in editing the article itself, the response has been that unverifiable claims are allowed unless there's a source challenging them, which stands WP:V and WP:RS on their heads. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Find a source that questions Savage on this point and quote it. Until then, Savage's own account is accepted by the existing sources. Your concern does not belong here unless you have a question about a specific source. The article's talk page is where to take this concern. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
That's utter nonsense. The question is whether a particular assertion by Savage is a reliable source for a claim about the accuracy of Savage's statements. That is precisely the sort of question this board is for. And how about citing some substantive policy or guideline that says BLP-related content is preserved unless there's a source challenging it, even in the absence of a reliable source supporting it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Binksternet. What we should say is that "Savage says that he got the idea from...." Unless reliable sources specifically state that "(Savage) got the idea from...", we cannot say that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, Liz Spikol wrote in Philadelphia Weekly that "the regular Savage Love readers wrote in to the column" to suggest meanings for the proposed neologism, and that one of the suggestions was voted the winner. Spikol took Savage at his word, accepting his version of events, and no source has challenged him. (A series of Savage Love columns in May–June 2003 shows the evolution of the story: [23][24][25]—all of these are in the article as sources.) Spikol is in the article as a source to support Savage's retelling of the story. No source questions Savage's version of what happened, and no source questions Spikol's support for Savage. The Philadelphia Weekly is reliable as a source, so that takes care of this entry to the RS/N.
Really, I don't see what the BLP question is. Is the concern for Savage or Santorum? There is no change in the BLP problem for Santorum regarding whether Savage really did accept a reader suggestion, and accept a reader vote of the winning entry, or whether Savage made the whole thing up. Either way, Savage promoted the hell out of the issue and Santorum became the victim of a Google bomb, all of which is very carefully documented in the neologism article. If the concern is for harm to Savage, I must return to the Spikol-written story which supports Savage's version of events. Nobody questions whether Savage fabricated the reader entries and the voting, so we don't worry about it. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside the question of whether "Philadelphia Weekly" is an independent source about the accuracy of its own columnists, the article appears carefully written not itself confirm Savage's account. The relevant claims are presented as quotations from Savage, not as the publication's own reporting.
Savage is, in part, a satirical/humorous commentator, and it's a convention of the form that not all of the claims, especially of the an-anonymous-reader-wrote-to-us, are to be taken as literally factual. If David Letterman makes up a "Viewer Mail" letter, if Jay Leno rehearses a "spontaneous" bit with a member of his audience, or supplies them with "questions," it's hardly a sin; it's nothing like fixing a quiz show. Did Savage take this "definition" verbatim from a reader suggestion, or did he soup it up, or concoct it entirely? Was the "reader suggestion" really signed "Wipe Up That Santorum, Anal Pokers"? (For that matter, does everyone whose comment is quoted in Savage's column really come up with a clever acronym for their signature? That's a pretty clear signal of editorial involvement.) Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting material of this sort as unquestionably factual. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Spikol is a reliable source for the assertion that Savage made that claim, not that the claim is true. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Following a bit of editing earlier today, the relevant section of the Santorum (neologism) article says the following: "Savage requested readers to suggest definitions in his column Savage Love, and announced the winning definition to be"... This wording appear to satisfy whatever RS/N concerns we might have had, bringing the matter to a close. If I am missing a further improvement that can be made to the article, let me know. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

With all of this forum shopping, some people must have really huge wallets. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an example of what happens when a controversial article comes under sustained scrutiny from a lot of people. Many aspects are likely to be questioned at various boards. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that 'forum shopping' is an accusation more correctly leveled at a single editor who is consciously trying to get a different answer each time. The mere fact that this issue has been raised in multiple forums by multiple people does not, to me, construe anything like forum shopping. WP:FORUMSHOP speaks to the reader in second person, implying a personal responsibility, not a community requirement. Elizium23 (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What if you are a primary source?

With regard to the sport of kickboxing, I am either a primary or secondary source for the period 1970 through 1989. I ran the STAR System world ratings for professional kickboxing that was published monthly in up to 15 newsstand magazines and was recognized as the official rankings source for both the WKA and KICK, two of the three major sanctioning bodies of the day. STAR collected and archived fight scorecards and outcomes from those organizations, and was supported by approximately 250 eyewitness ring observers and officials around the world.

STAR also reconstructed and documented the ring records of many early champions.

I published magazine articles, wrote a sports column and authored books. Further, the STAR System ratings has a website that provides factual ring record information from that era: http://starsystemkickboxing.net/default.aspx

My published writings and/or the STAR ratings are periodically cited as a source on Wikipedia. Some of those references are out of context or do not reflect the final correct facts. In certain instances, particularly as pertains historic bout outcomes or misunderstandings about what I wrote or said, there are no other corroborative sources available. An example would be factually inaccurate mentions on the entry for Benny "The Jet" Urquidez.

May I contribute to Wikipedia and cite my own writings or the STAR website as a source? Paul Maslak (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest.
I'd advise caution. If you see something you wrote already cited out of context, it should be no problem to make appropriate corrections. Just be sure to explain clearly in your edit summary that you are modifying the article text to reflect what the source actually says. If there's an issue about interpretations or misunderstandings about what you wrote, it would be a good idea to explain your reasoning on the talk page, disclosing the fact that you are the author of the cited source.
For cases where you want to add a source you authored to the article, I recommend proposing it on the talk page first. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I will follow your advice. I will cite alternate sources where I can and will disclose when I cannot on the talk page. Biggest issue concerns two observations by a wiki-editor: 1) that the STAR ratings dropped Benny Urquidez' loss to Billye Jackson, and 2) that the STAR ratings did not reflect Urquidez' muay Thai loss in 1978 to Prayut Srisontob. The implication of the entry seems to be that STAR was involved in a misrepresentation or even a cover-up. What that wiki-editor does not disclose is: a) that the WKA governing body officially transmuted the Urquidez' loss to Billye Jackson five years after the event, and b) that STAR never included muay Thai bouts in our ratings. We regarded muay Thai as a different sport, like boxing or wresting.

68.5.16.74 (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say please make known as many sources as you can. If they are by you or their use would be seen as a conflict of interest then propose them on the talk page for other editors to assess. But don't feel you have to suppress them! Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Good advice. Thank you. I'll give that a try tomorrow.

68.5.16.74 (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I suggest that you go introduce yourself at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts. The page is a meeting place for editors interested in martial arts. I believe you would be very welcome, and WP:WikiProjects are usually a great place to get advice and answers to questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Old source current claim

Is a 60 year old source sufficient for a claim that is made in the present tense (i.e. "is"/"are" not "was").

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Unless the text was specifically altered at some point (for which it appears no claim is made) the present tense is fine. Collect (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC) -

(ec) It can be in a field that does not change quickly. But if editors looking at the evidence and being reasonable do not all agree that the field has not moved on, then such a present tense is probably not worth arguing over, and a vaguer "tense" can be used. I am not sure that we can have any real rule about this though, and I am not really sure it would come under WP:RS if we would.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I did a quick survey of pieces (mostly articles, but also one book) that cite this book that are available online. Two just used the book as a general reference, so just gave the full title. One used the ANET abbreviation, but gave page numbers, not text-numbers, one cited by 'Pritchard' & page number, one cited by full title & text-number. Admittedly a small sample, but not particularly supportive of the continued usage of this "convention". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

See [26] from 1994, [27] from 2004, etc. Collect (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Canadian government whitewashing it's own entries again

IP user who seems to have some connection to Toronto has reversed my edit about Canada's reputation in the world: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

So I ask, what exactly is a reliable source for a nation's reputation in the world? It's not like a GNP number that can be objectively counted. Any comment about the subject must be somebody's opinion, especially when they discus what reasons may lay behind a change in national reputation. Hcobb (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Solid references suggest the point is right. Restored.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

When the reliable source is wrong

This is slightly off topic here; sorry! I'm just inviting interested contributors to weigh in at this little-attended RfC that deals with precisely this issue in a single article: Talk:Phoenix Park#Europe's largest enclosed urban park. Nutshell: Encyclopedia Britannica makes an assertion about this park that is argued to be in error. Only three people are participating, and it is my hope that more contributors there may help resolve the issue. Please weigh in there if you have an opinion. :) (Note: I am standing aside as an uninvolved admin.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

EB is a "tertiary source" and any secondary reliable source should trump it. Collect (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a matter of weight and consensus, rather than a matter of reliability. We need to remember that two sources can both be considered reliable, and yet disagree on specific facts. We deal with this by neutrally presenting what the different sources say, with attribution... applying due weight to each source. For example, we could say that "According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Phoenix Park is the largest enclosed urban park in Europe. However, according to (other source) that honor goes to (other park)." Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I susgested exaclty this a couple of days ago. I agree this is what we should do.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

User:Minphie continues to add material based on the above journal [28]. The ref is described as a "internet sites posing as open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals". Per here [29] it appears that this user has been pushing this agenda for a while. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that DGG investigated this journal a few years ago.[30] And here's an article on Pubmed published by the Canadian Medical Association that gives some info.[31] It seems like it would depend on how it's used. We don't automatically disallow a source because it has a point of view or an agenda. Since there's evidence of editorial oversight, I don't know of a guideline that would proscribe it. We should probably look at a specific instance. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a recent RSN discussion.[32] TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Any extremist advocacy group can get some cronies together, put up a website, and call it a peer-reviewed journal. The group that did so in this case is the Drug Free America Foundation (DFAF) started by Betty and Mel Sembler after their notorious Straight drug-rehab boot camp for kids splintered into pieces to evade being sued out of existence entirely. The Sembler's dispute it, but DFAF is widely described on the web as Straight's successor organization, or one of them. This "journal" is described on DFAF's web site as one of its many "projects", efforts that seem to be nothing more than astroturf web sites, based on my own rather extensive investigation. It's "papers" are no more based on science than the drug-war propaganda of the advocacy group that owns it.
Medical Journals are supposed to be devoted to scientific neutrality, to let the facts speak for themselves, and to be overseen by organizations devoted to science rather than a political agenda. This web site doesn't come close to meeting these requirements: it's pure advocacy, not a medical journal at all, and it's wrong to treat it as if it were in any way legitimate. Having said that, I'll note that I probably spent 20+ hours researching this so-called journal in the weeks after I first saw it come up at its AfD. I have strong opinions about it. With respect, that doesn't mean I'm biased, just very well-informed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Yes thanks Ohio that was sort of my take on the matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere ringing bells to warn colonists

He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed. -- Sarah Palin, quoted June 3, 2011, on the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere

Numerous sources[1][2][3] have quoted former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as having said that Paul Revere rang bells to alert colonists during his famous midnight ride; obviously it's a gaffe but several article owners are deleting discussion even on the talk page including pictures. It is a topic of national importance; the article has HUGE readership as a result (55K readers in ONE day). People should look in to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwsulcer (talk • contribs)

  1. ^ Dan Amira (2011-06-03). "Sarah Palin Reveals Fascinating New Account of Paul Revere's Midnight Ride". New York Magazine. Retrieved 2011-06-05. ... yesterday she revealed some heretofore unknown facts about Paul Revere's midnight ride. Did you know that he was actually warning the British, through the repeated ringin' of bells? ... Sarah Palin: by ringin' those bells and, um, by makin' sure that as he's ridin' his horse through town to send those warnin' shots and bells...
  2. ^ "SARAH PALIN GIVES HER VERSION OF PAUL REVERE'S RIDE - WHDH NEWS". WHDH News via YouTube. June 3, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-05. ... by ringin' those bells...
  3. ^ Andrew Malcolm (June 3, 2011). "Sarah Palin claims Paul Revere warned the British". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2011-06-05. He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."
How is all of this "a matter of national importance"? She said something stupid... not the first or the last time a politician has done that. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
She may be president of the US someday.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the reliable sources noticeboard. What are you asking the reliable sources noticeboard to do about this? If people are removing comments from Talk:Paul Revere, they are doing so either appropriately or inappropriately. If it's appropriately, we don't need to worry about it. And if it's inappropriately, then restore the removed comments and give the remover an appropriate warning ({{uw-tpv1}}, {{uw-tpv2}}, {{uw-tpv3}}, {{uw-vandalism4}}), and if they exhaust their warnings, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'm not sure about whether the content deletions on the talk page were appropriate vs inappropriate. Several pictures and captions were deleted which I thought were relevant to the discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One of those warned was the pastor of the church at Lexington, and Revere did cast church bells, so the gaffe is not quite as absurd as made out. [33] states that the bell was tolled at Lexington, so all this is much ado about nothing by political types who do not read quite enough. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with others that this is not relevant to this noticeboard. There is no problem sourcing this stuff, so whether to put it in an article depends upon notability etc. Bad talk page behavior is not for this noticeboard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this topic should be referred to WP:ANI? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Academic Researches in Religious Sciences

Professor Dr. İbrahim Hakkı Aydin (2001), "Avicenna And Modern Neurological Sciences", Journal of Academic Researches in Religious Sciences 1 (2): 1–4

I can not find this journal or any trace of it, can anyone? Thank you J8079s (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I can't. Is the journal published in English? If not, that might explain why it's hard to locate (at least for me). It might be best to submit an interlibrary loan request for this article; ILL librarians are masters at locating hard-to-find resources. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's in Turkish, I think, its probably this article Hakki Aydin I. (1993). Philosopher Avicenna and Modern Neurological Sciences. The Journal of Ataturk University Divinity Faculty, 11 J8079s (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Then I'm afraid I can't help much as I wouldn't even recognize Turkish writing if I saw it much less be able to read it. Perhaps someone who speaks Turkish might be able to help locate the journal and evaluate its reliability.
And if you're correct that it's really an article in a different, older journal, then that raises questions about why we're not citing it. Is the 2001 version a reprint, update, or translation? ElKevbo (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This came up as part of a major clean up. There are better sources on Avicenna and if I can't find this one then we will probable just drop it.J8079s (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nadia Ali references

Hi, I'm working on the article for singer-songwriter Nadia Ali and trying to bring it up to a Good Article status. The article is undergoing peer review at the moment and questions were asked about a couple of references. These are interviews with Nadia Ali but the nature of the websites was in question. Could someone please have a look at these links and suggest what I should do? Thanks! 05:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Richards, Lola (8 January 2010). "Nadia Ali: interview Article". Hipster Overkill. Archived from the original on 31 May 2011. Retrieved 7 May 2011. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Carter, Daniel (February 2011). "Features - Nadia Ali". The House Dan Built. Archived from the original on 31 May 2011. Retrieved 31 May 2011. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

The latter is explicitly a personal website, and therefore questionable.[34] The author seems to view himself as a serious journalist, but there's no indication of any kind of editorial oversight. The first site is difficult to navigate, and I wasn't able to check it out. TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

CNN Poll 2011

A discussion has opened regarding how this poll can be used. My specific concern at the moment is that from the poll data it seems that the 18-49 year old demographic is not included and that only one region (South) is represented. I am also somewhat concerned that though the initial page states that 1,007 people were interviewed, for the subset of questions that the poll is used for in this instance, only half (503/504) of the total candidates were asked, I am not a statistician, though my understanding is that such a sample size is deemed sufficient albeit on pain of sampling error, in this case +/- 4.5%. I tried reading through our pages on statistics but they are utterly and completely opaque to me, so any clarification on what significance +/- 4.5% could actually have would be very welcome.

In any case:

  • Should the above poll be used for statements regarding 'US population', or should the details as we know them (50+ years, living in the South) be stated.
  • Should sampling error be mentioned?
  • Is there reason to call into question the use of the poll in general, with or without in-text caveats.

Thank you for your time and insight, un☯mi 03:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

  • First of all, I don't know what this poll is planned to be used in Wikipedia to say, so I am not going to give it my "blessing" for anything in particular. However, I would like to clarify that the fact that some demographic groups have "N/A" in the results does not mean that they weren't surveyed at all. Rather, it means that the samples of those groups who were surveyed were not large enough to warrant publishing the results for that group. To take an example, see page 14 of this PDF. We can see that the overall sample was 38% "very favorable" to Great Britain and 51% "mostly favorable". Among white respondents, that would be 44% "very favorable" and 46% "mostly favorable". The results for nonwhite respondents are printed as "N/A". We know that there must have been some nonwhite respondents, though, because otherwise the overall sample would have the exact same results as the white respondents, and it doesn't. Similarly, on the next line, the results for the 18-34 and 35-49 age groups are printed as "N/A". We know that there must have been some of them, though, because results for the overall "Under 50" group are printed. We can conclude similarly for other groups whose results are printed as "N/A"; they were included in the survey, but the sample of them was too small to justify breaking out the results for them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it, the artifacts that you point out did not catch my attention. There is a discussion on the talk page regarding presentation of poll results in general - so while the source is currently used to support a specific phrasing I felt that this specific phrasing would be either distracting or unrepresentative of a final wording. I agree with your reasoning regarding missing percentages, but, no doubt due to my lack of familiarity with surveys, I am unable to understand why they would not post those percentages - presumably the demographic distribution of the sample itself is one of the absolute knowns? I can only presume that the demographic distribution stated is also an extrapolation to US-wide demographics based on census data + inferences from the 'actual' demographics of the sample. I hope the previous sentence made at least some sense. Further insight into this would be appreciated. Thanks again, un☯mi 05:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The more I look at the poll data the more confused I get, there are instances where the percentage column contains a * and text which states that * indicates less than 1% and there are examples of 1, 2 and 3% (see page 16 for examples of all of these). Why N/A in lieu of 'less than 1'? And broader, as in the original question posed; if we interpret the N/A as a 'small number', should this survey - which then seems to have minimal representation from those under 50 be used for statements regarding 'Americans' without qualification in light of available census data? un☯mi 11:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So far I have seen no articles which are actually improved by referring to polls. They are, at best, exceedingly fuzzy snapshots taken by a cheap camera with a 10-cent lens through a few layers of gauze. Collect (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm late, but the part that was originally quoted in the actual article (about whether Israel is considered an ally, and which has since been removed and replaced with a Gallup poll elsewhere) showed the categories other than South as N/A, you had Non-Whites as N/A, you had everyone below 50 as N/A, you had people who self-identify as liberal marked N/A, AND you had rural marked N/A (though there probably aren't as many of those in the South these days). Here is a screen capture of that page [35]. As you said the sample size is too small for those groups, though it does kind of lead one to believe that maybe it was targeted poll. Either way, the samples that are expressed make it appear to be an unusually specific group of people, and certainly not representative of the feelings of Americans as a whole. As Collect said, they're not really informative. Normally you are getting the view of about 1.000 people out of a population of over 300.000.000. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Blackbeard

Are the following sources reliable for the claim that Blackbeard used to tie fuses to his beard? [1] [2] [3]

  1. ^ Simpson, Bland (1997). Into the sound country: a Carolinian's coastal plain. University of North Carolina Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0807846865.
  2. ^ Baxter, Kathleen A. (2006). Gotcha for guys!: nonfiction books to get boys excited about reading. ABC-CLIO. p. 4. ISBN 978-1591583110.
  3. ^ Copping, Jasper (28 May 2011). "Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge wreck reveals secrets of the real Pirate of the Caribbean". The Telegraph.

An editor on the talk page of the article has stated none of these are reliable The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] and [2] are non-fiction books from reputable publishers. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking through the article (which I should've done first lol), Lee's book is already cited, including a note with a direct quote of the fuse. Since the article is featured, I'm not sure why any other sources are needed to be added; the fuses are documented as it is. (I've retracted my suggested sources). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the first one is borderline; I'm not convinced Simpson is qualified to make historical observations since he is a professor of creative writing. The second one seems to be a book about books and probably doesn't analyse the material first hand, and in any case Baxter doesn't seem to be a qualified historian. The Telegraph is reliable for reporting news, but I think editors have the right to question its reliability in presenting historical analysis. I think in relaying historical obeservations, it is important for the author to be a qualified historian or a recognised authority in the field since the credibility of the material depends on their expertise in distinguishing fact from folklore. Betty Logan (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Simpson doesn't need to be an expert, because the book is published by a reputable publisher. Source means three things, and the rule is that the publication or the author or the publisher needs to be reputable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. I mean, if Britney Spears made the same claim in her autobiography which is published by a respected publication company, would it still be a reliable source? It possibly would be for the claim itself, but not its treatment as a fact or even a myth in a serious article on the subject. In view of the context in which it is to be used I'm still voting no. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Britney Spears' hypothetical assertions about Blackbeard's beard, or any other passing mentions, would be "reliable" but not usable as an assertion of fact (rather than as an assertion that Spears said something). That hypothetical source fails the content policies for being inappropriate, not for being unreliable. WP:V says, "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question". It is not enough for the source to be "reliable".
By contrast, a source that is about the actual subject in hand is generally taken as an appropriate sort of source. The sources given here are (more or less) reliable and (more or less) appropriate. They may not be WP:DUE, but that's a separate question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not they are reliable, their description of Blackbeard differs from that offered in other rs. Since these sources make only passing reference to Blkackbeard, they can be safely ignored. Note that the picture of Blackbeard in the article follows the description presented by most historians. There is in literature a tendency to exaggerate the appearance of pirates, and it may be that these sources confuse the reality with the legend. Not surprising when someone writes about children's literature. TFD (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
That is not a matter for this board, but for the talk page of the article in question. If reliable sources disagree then there is an editorial issue to resolve. The question here is whether those sources are indeed reliable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So are these reliable? Even to just say that he has been described as also having fuses in his beard? The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course they aren't reliable sources on the alleged fact, unless either of them quotes a real primary source. A reliable source on Blackbeard would be a biography of Blackbeard, documented from primary sources, or a history of his times, documented from primary sources.
They would be reliable on the lesser claim that this statement about Blackbeard has previously been made, if they cite a work in which it has been made. But if they do that, we should preferably check the citation, and, having done so, cite the work that previously made this claim.
If we don't know where the claim was originally made, we can't even judge its notability, let alone its reliability, and we have no reason to repeat it in encyclopedia space. I guess we could mention it on the talk page of the article and see if anyone knows more. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This is wrong. Sources are never required to "quote a real primary source", or even to list the sources in a bibliography. This is another very clear example of Wikipedia not following the standard practice among academic historians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I concur. A book published by the academic press of a major university should be considered a reliable source. An article published in a peer reviewed journal by a professional historian would arguably be a better source, for example, but how much weight to give various sources and how to express the conflict between them is a matter for the article's talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thirded. Andrew, you're applying your academic rigour to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a history textbook. --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
(More's the pity.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe I am :) I concede of course. But it seems to me, if we treat such sources as reliable for 17th century biography, we aren't going to improve on EB yet awhile. (However, on the positive side, we cite our sources, so our readers can judge.) Andrew Dalby 15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
And with any luck, at least some of them will decide that we make bad sourcing choices on occasion.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

hanfordsentinel

We had an IP editor come in to the Talk:Vector Marketing page with several press release links. Two were dismissed as known unreliable press release sites, but we are not sure about this one:

http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/abab04e6-7caa-11e0-95d7-001cc4c002e0.html

I question it, simply because it has no author. And the subject of whether or not vector is Multilevel marketing or Direct Sales or Single-level is hotly disputed on the page. Phearson (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there's no author isn't a problem, since many news articles in newspapers don't carry bylines. But in this case, I don't think it's that strong of source. I appears that it's simply based on a press release. Newspapers will often run press releases nearly verbatim, without any fact checking or scrutiny, especially as it relates to local business. And in such a case there would typically be no byline. I'd say that if the issue is contentious, a stronger source is needed. (If someone continues to argue that this is reportage and that it shows that Vector is Direct Sales, then maybe simply email the newspaper and ask them if they reported this or simply carried a press release.) TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Press releases are reliable self-published sources; that's what {{Cite press release}} exists. You may cite them as evidence, for example, that the company issues press releases, that they held a position, that they announced a product line, that they hired a person, etc. You just shouldn't pay too much attention to them, exactly like you shouldn't pay too much attention to the company's website. Both are written and published by the same company and the only reason either exist is to benefit that company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I am confused by your statement. You say its reliable, yet we should ignore it? Am I reading that correctly...? Phearson (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Editors need to ignore reliable sources all the time; otherwise, we'd never write neutral articles.
You may use these sources, but you are not required to use these sources merely because they exist. You should not give these self-published sources more weight than the WP:Independent sources. You can treat a press release from a company like you would treat a page on their website. After all, both the company's press release and the company's website were written and published by the same people.
If you want a more specific answer, then you need to give us a more specific context: What sentence(s) are these press releases alleged to support? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It's fair to note that I was speculating that it was a press release. The report in the newspaper sounded like a standard press release, but we don't know that for sure. Since the article in the newspaper didn't sound like reportage and didn't carry a byline, and since this is a disputed fact, I suggested that a stronger source is needed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Once it's been published in a regular newspaper, it's no longer a press release. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it attains the same level of reliability as a regular newspaper article by the mere fact of an editor (as in "editorial oversight") choosing to run it. This means that it is not self-published and that it is officially an independent source.
You can still consider whether it's WP:DUE and you can still use WP:Editorial discretion (you aren't required to use absolutely every single reliable source merely because it exists, after all), but it is a reliable source for the facts it contains. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable third party sources and fictional characters

I have to believe that claims such as are being made [36] and [37] attempting to establish "WP:N tells us that independent of the subject excludes self-published work, promotional material and the like. The sources here [published by the franchise that created the fictional character] are thus acceptable because they were obviously not published by [fictional creation] themselves and are not promotional in nature." (ie that because a book was not published by the fictional character it counts as a third party source to establish notablity for the fictional creation) are not at all accepted as official Wikipedia interpretation. Or am I completely off the deep end. Active Banana (bananaphone 15:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • This relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons). "Lamia" are a type of creature in the fictional universe of the Dungeons & Dragons game franchise, which may be half-woman/half-lion, half-woman/half-deer, or other combinations like that. Most of the sources in Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) are to publications from TSR or Wizards of the Coast, the former and current publishers of the Dungeons & Dragons game. Someone is apparently claiming that those publications are independent of the subject because the books were not published by lamia. That's absurd. If we followed that logic, any fictional character or species published in any work would be considered to have independent sources, because the novel/film/videogame/comic/etc. they are described in was not published by the fictional character or species themselves. As I see it, independent sources for establishing the notability of lamia would be published by entities other than TSR or Wizards of the Coast. For example, this article from Salon says, And when you pore over uploads of the endearingly amateurish artwork from the 1977 edition of the "Monster Manual," it's an easy leap to that memory of hours spent in your room, lying on your "Star Wars" bedspread and gawking at pictures of kobolds, owlbears, purple worms and that hot, half-lady, half beast, the lamia. While that brief mention would probably not be sufficient to establish notability, it is, at least, an independent, reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
IMO this is the wrong place to be asking about this. Obviously, the creator of a fictional entity is not an WP:Independent source for information about the fictional entity. But RSN's purpose is to determine whether specific, named sources support specific statements, not to determine whether Wikipedia wants to have an article on a given subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Moconews.net

Naveen Jain had two references for the following:

Jain and his wife Anuradha had accused the defendants of being responsible for language in InfoSpace's initial public offering prospectus that contained errors, which ultimately played a part in the $247 million judgment against Jain.

The first reference is here, and the second, this article at mocoNews.net, was disputed and removed with this edit. I restored the ref, tagging it. The reference has been removed because it duplicates material from the first ref and because mocoNews.net is only used about thirty times across Wikipedia.

Talk page discussion here.

So, is this a reliable source for the information? --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue in my mind was whether it was really an article. Seemed to me to be a retweet of the AP article, but with some sort of narrative, possibly opinion. Not really sure. Question is if the AP article, which arguably ran in dozens or hundreds of papers, needs support as a reference? I don't see why it would. Is it disputed information?
Just noticed this part of that article you're talkin' 'bout: "The Bellevue-based company filed for an initial public offering in January 2008.". That's interestin'. The history of that page around that time is interestin'. For example: this suggests that's about the time this this fella started editing that page. Guess that's neither here nor there though. LinkBender (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is whether or not it is a reliable source for the information. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Tripadvisor

Would comments posted on tripadvisor.com be a reliable in this example- to source whether or not a park, neighborhood, or what-have-you is perceived by the public as being "safe"... ie- "XY park has a public perception of being unsafe to stroll in at night". I ask because for some places like parks in which we have articles there may be newspaper articles on muggings, crime etc in the place but they are individual articles on each event and of course no official source will want to ever go out and say "this park is dangerous" especially if it isnt actually all that dangerous but the public THINKS it is because of high profile cases and the neighborhood's demographics may make it "seem unsafe" to those outside the neighborhood. Would Tripadvisor be reliable as a source for what the public perceives about a place? Or would taking a bunch of people's comments and coming to a conclusion like that also be OR? For the record Tripadvisor.com is considered of great importance to the hospitality industry as a source of feedback, from my own work experience Wyndham hotels (Super 8, Days Inn, Ramada, Travelodge, etc) franchisees/managers for instance are required to respond to comments on the website, at the Super 8 conference I attended in Chicago last month- "Tripadvisor is the new Facebook of travel, this where people will go before planning any trips". So there is precedent for taking the site seriously.Camelbinky (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I love TripAdvisor but they do not do fact-checking of stuff people post there. If you wanted to cite something from there in Wikipedia (IMO you don't) it should be presented as "One anonymous commenter on TripAdvisor said Park X was not safe" rather than "TripAdvisor said..." or "Public perception is ..." betsythedevine (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
My impression is that the bulk of comments on such sites are not from "average" visitors, but mostly from those with complaints. Those who had a wonderful time are rarely motivated to contribute. That's a bias to start with. And the complaints come from two kinds of people, those who genuinely encountered problems, and those who would find something to complain about no matter how good things were. (We've all met such people.) Quite frankly, they're one of the least objective sources around. I say this not as part of the travel industry, but as someone who has looked at such sites AFTER visiting somewhere, and found them to be completely wrong, and useless. HiLo48 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
E-C Thank you for your quick response. I think your right. I'll keep searching for a better source, perhaps if I keep reading more newspaper archives I'll find a story that actually delves into the matter.Camelbinky (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, I am not sure that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should be telling people which parks are or are not "safe" at night. People in need of such information should be looking for it somewhere else, don't you think? betsythedevine (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I meant that I want a source that shows that "public perception is that the park is in an unsafe neighborhood" or "is unsafe at night" or whatever. Not that it IS. And yes there are certain neighborhoods or parks around the world that ARE unsafe and if it has been covered by a secondary source then YES IT MUST be put in a Wikipedia article. If the articles for Detroit or East St Louis do not cover crime and the publics perception of them as the "most dangerous cities" in the US then those articles are severly lacking. (And yes East St Louis has been classified as the most dangerous city in the US in several years by several different organizations, backed by FBI statistics). We dont "cover up" disparanging realities about cities, neighborhoods, or parks even; we report what is reality, our parks/cities articles are not simply advertisements for those cities to gloat about what is shiny and great, we arent a tourist site.Camelbinky (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
My issue is not that we should hide the dangers of Detroit from our readers. I just think that the safety of individual parks is subjective, changeable, and hyperlocal -- but I am no expert on what we write about parks so I encourage you to act on your own ideas and see what others who edit those same articles think. betsythedevine (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User comments posted on websites are never acceptable as a source in Wikipedia. From WP:V: "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Race and Antiracism in Black British and British Asian Literature

Does this source [1] support this edit? [38]

  1. ^ Gunning, Dave (2010). Race and Antiracism in Black British and British Asian Literature. Liverpool University Press. p. 151. ISBN 978-1846314827.
If you have access to the book, maaybe you could quote it and then we'd be able to see. I think the sentence needs editing. What is "the group": does it mean the English Defence League? Is this based on a written document of theirs, or on what a spokesman said, or what? Andrew Dalby 11:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You can see it online at google books [39] By the group yes I mean the EDL. The author took the details from the EDL website I believe. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's definitely wrong to cite that book in this way, because the author goes on to balance this quotation with a different perspective. See the next two sentences, beginning with: "In spite of these claims ...". So the answer's no, the source doesn't support that edit. Andrew Dalby 12:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple reference reliability questions

Are any of the following reliable? All are being used in the article simple:Sniper

Sinodefence.com ([40]) Gizmodo ([41]) Guns.ru ([42]) Militaryfacroty.com ([www.militaryfactory.com]) Ghillie.com ([43]) How Stuff Works ([44]) wio.ru ([45]) grunt.com ([46]) cityofgastonia.com ([47]) hextr.com ([48])

Thanks, Albacore (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Gruevski

Hello I would like some sources under this persons' Wikipedia reviewed, please read the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikola_Gruevski#Gruevski_ancestry_sources

Thank you for the time, ICONFIRMED (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle -- not reliable for Jewish topics?

Over the last several months I've encountered a highly puzzling assertion: the Jewish Chronicle (and other Jewish publications) are not reliable sources for religion-related issues (recent example here). I would have thought it's the opposite: people working at the JC can be expected to be highly knowledgeable about Judaism and Jews. I could get into the substantive issues if anyone likes (i.e., on whether it makes sense for the JC to view birth to a Jewish mother as determining) -- but I'm more interested in the more general notion that Jewish newspapers are not reliable sources on Jewish topics. Would we say that British newspapers are not reliable sources on British topics, or Christian sources on Christian topics? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a ridiculous assertion. The national broadsheets often pick up stories from the Jewish Chronicle. --Dweller (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Jewish sources are just as reliable as those of other religions on most topics. However, as for the topic of whether someone is Jewish or not, the Jewish media uses different criteria (usually birth) rather than self-identification of religion as our BLP policy requires for living people. That is, they are much more likely to err on the side of inclusion where Wikipedia chooses not to err at all in articles about living people. Information that someone is "Jewish" without specifying in what way, ethnic, religious, tribal, etc. is very much useless for Wikipedia, as most of the Jewish categories are part of the religion category tree, while the of Jewish descent categories are about ethnic identification. Wikipedia is more strict in that inclusion in religious categories must be both self-identifying and relevant while the ethnic categories may simply be sourced from reliable sources. Really, ethnic identification should also be strictly via self-identification as well which would resolve the difficulties. Yworo (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Except that that is not actually policy. WP:BLPCAT applies only to categories, and only to religion. Attempts to expand that to other areas (e.g. articles, ethnicity) failed. Since we're talking about ethnicity here, the only thing that matters are the usual sourcing requirements, which is that reliable sources say it, not that the person self-identifies. And the JC is obviously both a reliable (and in this case expert) source. If you want to change WP:BLP to cover ethnicity and article text, please try that again,and then it will be policy - not before. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If I ever stop laughing at this nonsense I will comment again - The Jewish chronicle in a very minor report - see here says Ed Miliband broke a glass at his wedding and User:Nomoskedasticity wants to use it to add to the infobox of his BLP that his religion=Judaism - because he broke a glass at his wedding....yea - lets all add it now.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, lots of other reliable sources took note of it too, so it's hardly trivial. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, so let's be clear on this. The Jewish Chronicle is a reliable source. As such, like all reliable sources, it needs to be used appropriately. WP:OR and WP:COATRACK are not appropriate uses of any source. --Dweller (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and in terms of additional clarification, reliable sources are not reliable for all assertions. I would suggest that the JC article about Miliband is not a reliable source for Miliband's religion. I note that the ceremony was a civil one, the article is a brief piece that does not go into details about how Miliband views his ethnicity or his religion, and while it labels him as Jewish and claims that he honored his religion by smashing a glass at the ceremony, there's no way to tell from the material in the article what his intentions were. For a BLP, our standards are necessarily high, and if there are no sources in which Miliband identifies his religious beliefs, we should not tag him with a particular religion. That he is ethnically jewish is, I think, established in the JC article, since it quotes from a public speech he made. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
There are other 'reliable sources' that (a) quote Miliband as noting his Jewish heritage, descent etc - I don't see any problem in suggesting that he is 'ethnically Jewish', and (b) stating that he doesn't believe in God - so he is clearly not of the Judaic faith. The JC's vague assertions change none of this. It is also woth pointing out that much of this debate over Miliband seems to have its origins on the far side of the Atlantic, and no doubt in Israel too. The British media have hardly commented on his ethnicity or (lack of) faith, and attempts by some contributors to include such matters in the article infobox etc have been pushing WP:WEIGHT beyond reasonable limits. A source may be 'reliable', but that is not in itself reason to include every last detail you can find in it in an article - though I think the evidence suggests that the JC isn't reliable regarding Miliband's faith in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think "self-identification" is required of material for placement in the body of the article. Can anybody show me policy calling for "self-identification" for material under consideration for placement in the body of an article?
TreasuryTag made this edit and Off2riorob reverted it.
The wording added to the article by TreasuryTag is as follows:
"His wedding was a civil ceremony, but he retained the Jewish tradition of breaking a glass."
The source provided, The Jewish Chronicle, contains the following wording:
"Labour's first Jewish leader has paid tribute to his religion by smashing a glass at his wedding."
I think The Jewish Chronicle should be considered a reliable source on material relating to Jewish identity as The Jewish Chronicle is knowledgeable on this topic.
The web site Judaism 101 has this to say: "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do."
The Jewish Chronicle probably uses a definition similar to the above, and as concerns material for placement in the body of a Wikipedia article the above description is often appropriate except when other reliable sources contradict a source such as The Jewish Chronicle. There is only a WP:BLPCAT requirement for "self-identification" for Categories and Infobox statements due to the space constraints of of those parts of an article. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
How to word the article is a content issue. This board is about reliable sources. But FWIW, I think TT's wording is quite appropriate. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Question for Nuujinn, re "the JC article about Miliband is not a reliable source for Miliband's religion". The assertion has been that the JC is not reliable in these matters because it is a Jewish newspaper. Your points about lack of details, etc., would seem to apply to any newspaper (or source), Jewish or not; in other words, it's not the Jewishness of the source that matters here, it's the lack of detail. What I'm getting at is that I think it's incorrect to say that the JC isn't "reliable" (per WP:RS) here -- it is simply not sufficient for e.g. WP:BLPCAT purposes. Is this what you mean to say? I push the point because this notion that the JC isn't reliable for Jewish topics (because it's a Jewish newspaper) really seems absurd and wrong, and I'm hoping that's not what you mean. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I made my edit not to imply that Miliband is a religious Jew, but simply as an illustration of how he chose to bring religious symbolism into his (civil) wedding ceremony. Off2riorob (talk · contribs) has yet to explain why he feels that the JC alone was not an adequate source, but since then I found five or six other references for the fact. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 14:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, no, that's not the reason why, I should have been more clear. JC may be biased in some area, but many reliable sources are biased. I'm sure that JC is extremely reliable in many areas, but it is my opinion is that this particular article in JC is not a a reliable source for a statement asserting the Miliband's religion is Judaism. It calls him a Jew in the opening, but does not specify whether that is meant in the religious sense, or some other sense, eg. ethnically Jewish, Jewish according to Jewish law or tradition, Jewish in some other legal sense, a non-practicing secular Jew, etc. As I tried to point out, perhaps unsuccessfully, that particular article in JC is, in my opinion, reliable for a statement asserting that Miliband is ethnically Jewish, since it represents his statement regarding his parent's background. In that case, Miliband is, in effect, self identifying himself as ethnically Jewish. Other sources may well support a statement that he's religiously Jewish, and it would be worth bringing these here for consideration. One aspect of the problem here is that there are a number of ways one can be Jewish, and we have to be careful to follow what the sources say. I hope that clarifies things, please let me know if it does not. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
From the London Evening Standard:
There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. “Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous".
“My parents' community was the Left community.” [49]
AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That seems reliable for a statement that Miliband's "religion" is atheism. Are there any reliable sources that claim that he is a Jewish in the religious sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Atheism isn't a religion - though Miliband doesn't explicitly describe himself as an 'atheist'. Still, I think that given his own statement on the issue, any 'source' purporting to claim he was Jewish in any religious sense would have to give very strong evidence. Frankly though, I think that the whole issue is rather peripheral to the Wikipedia project. Per WP:WEIGHT, the article probably currently goes into this in greater depth than would be indicated from the coverage given in the British media - his ethnicity and (lack of) faith are basically a non-issue - something that many contributors seem unable to accept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the usual content problem of Judaism is an ethnicity, a culture and a religion and may be regarded as one, many or none of those to anyone who might conceivably be regarded by others in other ways. All of this has nothing to do with sources per se and is not relevant for this board. The JC is as good a source as any other. Take it to another board please. --Dweller (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion about whether the Jewish Chronicle is a reliable source for the wording "His wedding was a civil ceremony, but he retained the Jewish tradition of breaking a glass", or more generally a statement about Miliband's religious beliefs, based on an article saying "Labour's first Jewish leader has paid tribute to his religion by smashing a glass at his wedding." We do not in general class a source as reliable or otherwise based on whether or not we happen to agree with what it says. If there is significant evidence that the source is making a statement egregiously at variance with a preponderance of other, known reliable, sources, then we might assess the specific statement as unreliable, and this might cast doubt over the reliability of the source as a whole. (In the case of significant disgreement between otherwise reliable sources, we proceed differently: this raises editorial, not sourcing, issues.) But in general we assess sources based on their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: mainstream news media like the JC start off with a presumption of reliability. In this case the wording of the JC article is quite easy to understand. As a person of Jewish ancestry, "his religion" is understood as Judaism, because that is the religion of the majority of his ancestors, and that ancestry is actually regarded by some people of that religion as a determining factor. In the given context, it clearly does not positively assert that he is a believing or practising member of that religion (although there might perhaps be a subtext that he ought to be). So, we have a source which is presumed reliable and a statement which is reasonably easy to understand knowing something of the connection between Jewish ancestry and religion. It does not represent a claim so egregiously at variance with other sources as to cast doubt over the reliability of this specific statement, against a background of assumed reliability for the newspaper as a whole: indeed it is not at variance with other sources at all. TT interpreted the statement correctly, and the source amply supports the wording. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not think there is any question that Miliband is Jewish in the general sense. We have an apparently reliable source quoting him as saying he is an atheist. The statement that 'As a person of Jewish ancestry, "his religion" is understood as Judaism, because that is the religion of the majority of his ancestors, and that ancestry is actually regarded by some people of that religion as a determining factor' may be accurate, but it in no way opens the door for us to say that despite his own statements to the contrary, we can characterize his religion as Jewish. This is not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing with what a source says--the JC article does not say his religion is Judaism and it does not claim that he is a practicing Jew, and since we do have at least one source presented here in which he specifically says he is not Jewish in the religious sense. To argue that because we have a reliable source that claims he followed a Jewish tradition at his civil wedding ceremony that he is Jewish in the religious sense is a violation of SYNTH. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that we could characterize his religion as Jewish, in the sense of personal belief: why would you think that I did? I'm trying to expand on the force of the phrase "his religion" as used by the source --- we are in fact in complete agreement on that issue. I'm precisely trying to focus the discussion on the only issue of interest here, namely, the reliability of this newspaper as a source. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The source is reliable in general, it's an expert source when it comes to Jewish matters, including whether or not individuals are Jewish. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the question being asked here is not just about Ed Miliband. I encountered this question in relation to Nikki Yanofsky for instance:

Example one: "Also, Jewish sources are biased and frequently attempt to include famous people in the "tribe" whether or not the person self-identifies as Jewish. Thus the source in this case cannot be considered reliable."

Example two: "If you can find a non-Jewish (i.e. unbiased) source that supports the fact that she identifies as Jewish, that I will accept."

Example three: "Jewish publications are not "mainstream", they are special-interest."

Example four: "Now, if you had some non-Jewish sources that state that she is Jewish and how this relates to her singing career or otherwise contributes to her notability, that would be different. Having the Jewish community note that she is Jewish doesn't really mean anything for the general notability of her alleged Jewishness. The fact that other, non-Jewish, sources don't even mention it means it is not significant to her notability. If it were, it would get mentioned in the non-Jewish sources."

Example five: "They are not reliable source for this particular piece of information because they are sources which have a bias with respect to that particular piece of information. So you have no reliable sources."

I mention the above examples to show the arguments presented against the sources involved. The two publications being referred to in all of the above comments are The Jewish Tribune and the Canadian Jewish News. What is the reliability of those two publications on questions relating to an individual (Nikki Yanofsky) being Jewish? It has to be pointed out that no other sources have come to light casting any doubt on the assertions of the two publications mentioned above. Bus stop (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sergeant Cribb, I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but this is the phrase I'm disagreeing with: 'As a person of Jewish ancestry, "his religion" is understood as Judaism, because that is the religion of the majority of his ancestors, and that ancestry is actually regarded by some people of that religion as a determining factor.' My opinion is that as an avowed atheist, he has no religion per se, even through he is ethnically Jewish. I understand that in the Jewish tradition, he will be viewed by many as Jewish, even in the religious sense, despite his atheism, because his mother is Jewish, but we do not follow the dictates, whims, predilections, desire or beliefs of religious or ethnic groups of any flavor. And we do not bless a source as inherently reliable on all topics--it is always best to determine whether a source is reliable for a given statement. See WP:NEWSORG, which states "whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis". The JC article makes no statement about Miliband's religious views, and thus is not a reliable source for any statements concerning same. It is a fine and reliable source for a statement that Miliband is of Jewish ethnicity, and that he honored Jewish tradition by breaking a glass in a civil marriage ceremony. So in short, my position is that while the Jewish Chronicle is a reliable source in general, but that the particular article brought up here is not a reliable source for any statement regarding Miliband's religion because it does not address that question directly.
Bus Stop, it is probably best to focus on one issue at a time, but I will say that I disagree with the notion that because a source is biased, it is inherently unreliable. My suggestion would be to start a new section here for issues of sources for assertions related to Nikki Yanofsky. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Though I share some concerns expressed by others about Bus-Stop's editing in this area, he is correct in saying that my concern in starting this section has to do with the fact that people have been arguing that Jewish sources are not reliable in relation to Jewish issues. I'm not trying to get "Jewish" added to Miliband's infobox, as some have alleged. I raised the question in the terms I intended, and I really think we need to put a nail in this notion that Jewish sources are not appropriate for use in relation to Jewish topics. It's absurd, and at times it has been pretty offensive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I have seen some of that myself, and I agree that it is a problem. I have also seen groups of various types "appropriate" famous people to their group. Ethnicity and religion are touchy subjects and can be difficult to work through, and I think the only way to handle such issues in BLPs is to be very carefully to accurate attribute statements to the sources, and take into account the bias of the sources in terms of editing with due weight on a case by case basis. But yes, the notion that a source is biased and thus inherently unreliable is not supported by any policy of which I am aware. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, though I agree that it would be offensive to argue that "Jewish sources are not reliable in relation to Jewish issues", I don't think that is what was said. Instead, the point was made that the Jewish Chronicle seems in this case to apply a broader definition of what constitutes being of the Judaic faith than seems reasonable, given the evidence: this may or may not be a more general trend, but in the circumstances people have every right to question its reliability in this particular case. We also need to bear in mind that this is not a 'Jewish issue'. Miliband's ethnicity does not make him somehow subject only to Jewish opinions etc when it comes to determining how he is to be identified. Indeed, I think the notion that because he is of a particular ethnic background, his identity is somehow 'fixed' by this is possibly more prejudicial than comments about the reliability of the Chronicle are. Wikipedia is a project open to people of all ethnicities, faiths etc, and the appropriate standards to apply regarding reliability of sources cannot be determined by the belief systems of one, simply because they see an article etc as referring to 'one of their own': this would be absurd. If it should apply, would it not then be open for the 'Left community' (in which he states he was raised) to claim 'ownership', and insist that they decided what was applicable. No, of course this is untenable: the only proper course is to apply the same standards to all. The fact that Miliband is ethnically Jewish does not make the Jewish Chronicle any more of an authority on his faith than other sources. He says he has no religion, so by the only standards that Wikipedia can apply (those which give no special recognition to particular groups based on claims of allegiance), he has none. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Andy, you keep talking about Miliband -- but I have said repeatedly this is not primarily about Miliband. The reason the JC is relevant in this context is not that Miliband is ethnically Jewish; the point is only that the JC ought to be considered reliable in relation to Jewish topics -- it not ought to be considered less reliable in relation to Jewish topics simply because it is a Jewish newspaper. This doesn't mean it trumps everything else (your ownership point is fine), but it shouldn't be discounted for being Jewish. You say you don't see that, but there are rather obvious examples in Bus-stop's list above. Anyway I think it's clear there is consensus here that the JC is a reliable source, and it's also clear that no-one here is actually saying Jewish sources are not reliable for Jewish topics -- so perhaps that's sufficient for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes - though the problem is that people tend far too often to use the phrase 'reliable source' as if it is a simple yes/no question, whereas, as the Miliband example illustrates, the real question should be 'should we consider source X reliable for statement Y?'. Particularly in regard to contentious issues (i.e. ethnicity, faith etc in BLPs) it is probably best to err on the side of caution and avoid using a single source, no matter how reliable in general it is. After all, if it is the only source to report something, one has to question whether WP:WEIGHT would indicate we shouldn't add it at all, and if it is of real significance, it will presumably get reported elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you are saying that there are "contentious issues" but the only contentious issue is when two sources are in contradiction with one another—there is nothing inherently contentious about Jewish identity, and it wouldn't matter if a Jewish source supported that an individual was Jewish except if another source supported that the individual was not Jewish. No source—a Jewish source or a non-Jewish source—can be found saying that either Miliband or Yanofsky are not Jewish. News organizations are in competition. They would not hesitate to contradict one another if they had good quality information at variance with what their competitors were reporting. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Just trying to make sense of this, but if this is a case of two competing sources it does not seem like much of a contest. Please check my understanding:-
  • Comment to be sourced must specify being Jewish by "religion"?
  • Person concerning who this must be sourced is on record saying he is not religious.
  • The source which is supposed to disagree with him does not actually say he is religiously Jewish.
Are these three points a correct summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yup - though there is a broader issue of whether the Jewish Chronicle uses a loser definition of 'religion' than we should necessarily accept. A lot of the difficulty comes down to people using words (i.e. 'Jewish') without making clear what they mean. As our What is a Jew? article indicates, this is a complex question, hence the confusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how that particular broader issue can be a relevant issue, if the JC does not actually give a clear statement about Milliband being religiously Jewish? If there really was a competition between two sources saying clearly opposed things, which apparently there is not, then I would still find it a bit weird that any normal media, Jewish or whatever, is going to trump the individual concerned as a source about something this personal. But let's say we had the New York Times and the JC (two reasonable media sources) saying two clearly opposed things about something personal, then yes, that would be a difficult case of how to get the wording of the article right. But if my 3 points above are correct I see no WP:RS question worth discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree entirely. The problem is that some contributors seem to want the Chronicle declared an automatic 'reliable source' for each and every Jewish-related article, contrary to policy. Others have suggested (perhaps not using the best phraseology) that the JC is inherently unreliable when it comes to statements about ethnicity, faith etc. Again, this isn't what policy states. Instead, we should be looking at each case on its merits, while acknowledging that (a) the Chronicle probably has more knowledge on the subject than other sources, but (b) it also has an inevitable tendancy to support the perspective of its readership - which is 'inclusionist', and tends to emphasise Jewish links where other sources may not see them as particularly significant. That the Chronicle suggests that Miliband is 'religiously' Jewish seems to be an indication of this 'inclusionist' tendancy. There may be very good reasons for this within a Jewish cultural context, but that can't really be the measure by which we determine things - we can only use terms like 'ethnicity' and 'religion' in their more conventional sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
See, I think this amounts to the view that the JC is not a reliable source when it comes to this particular Jewish topic. You disagree with their perspective -- but that does not make the source unreliable, not even on this topic. At this point, though, I think it's time to say "whatever", since you are the only person actively expressing that idea in a general way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
O.k. - "whatever" - nothing really settled here.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary -- you are the only person trying to make a general point about Jewish sources not being reliable for Jewish topics. Clear consensus here is that the JC is a reliable source, and one editor's objections don't stand in the way of that. I agree that this doesn't make things automatic -- there can still be disagreement about whether a particular use of a source is appropriate for a particular claim (including this Miliband business) -- but I see no one else arguing here that the JC is anything other than a reliable source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
If that general point is truly being argued by anyone then I agree it would be wrong. But it does not appear relevant to the sourcing question here, which is (if I am following correctly) concerning a specific claim about "religion" which the JC does not even make? I get the impression that many people posting here, on both sides of the discussion, do not want to focus on the one real case at hand? I think other JC related cases need to be discussed separately, case by case, if there are real RS questions. But this one seems like a red herring because the JC does not actually make a clear statement about "religion"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, read WP:NEWSORG, and then explain how an unequivocal assertion can be made that 'newspaper X is a reliable source for Y' can be made? It clearly cannot: "whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis". And furthermore, your claim that I am proposing "Jewish sources not being reliable for Jewish topics" is totally misleading. I am not referring to 'Jewish sources' in general (whatever they are...), but the Jewish Chronicle, a particular publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—when you use the term "conventional", as in "we can only use terms like 'ethnicity' and 'religion' in their more conventional sense", how have you determined what is "conventional"? I'm sure that you do not wish to introduce bias, but just how have you determined conventionality as concerns these topics? If this is merely your hunch I think such presumptions would be something we would want to be cautious of. So can you please explain to me how you have determined what is "conventional"? Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: I am ignoring Bus stop's postings, per WP:SHUN. I advise others to do likewise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump references, in his above post, the policy language found at WP:NEWSORG. I find at WP:NEWSORG the following 2 sentences:
"For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports."
"Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic."
Religious identity is not similar to "science". It is not generally considered an "academic topic". I think that news sources can quite competently note a person's religious identity. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Whatever you mean by "religious identity", to describe Miliband's as anything other than 'none' or 'atheist' would be an outright lie. Stop trolling the forums with your pointless blather, this issue has already been settled - Miliband is not Jewish by faith, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a general question being discussed. The question is whether Jewish sources are up to the task of ascertaining attributes of identity. You cited WP:NEWSORG, which contains language that only curtails the competence of news sources in matters involving specialist studies. It mentions "science" and "academic topics", which are quite different from attributes of personal identity, such as those we have been discussing. The attributes of identity being discussed can adequately be ascertained by news sources, therefore I do not think the language found at WP:NEWSORG supports the premise that Jewish news sources cannot be relied upon for these purposes. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. Attributes of "personal identity" are at the core of the social sciences: notably sociology and anthropology. And no, a source (Jewish or otherwise) that ascribes a 'religious identity' to an atheist isn't 'reliable' for this statement, by definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(od)(ec)@B At this point, WP:DEADHORSE applies. Collect (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you are overlooking the differences between religions. They are not all the same. In fact they are all probably different. Consider the following:
"A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do."
"It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." There are many Jewish atheists. We have an article on Jewish atheists. We have a Category called Category:Jewish atheists. Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

RSN very rarely supports blanket statements in general. RSN works best when faced with "Is source X reliable for statements of fact regarding Y" - There are cases where individual sources are deemed not to live up to our requirements for RS, outlined at WP:RS - but that is generally as wide a net as is cast here. The question asked in the section heading is flawed and the resulting discussion seems to have suffered from that. I would suggest this discussion is abandoned and a new one phrased "Is Jewish Chronicle reliable for ...specific statement..." is opened in its stead should that issue not be deemed resolved. un☯mi 17:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy—please don't edit my posts. In fact we both posted at the exact same time, as indicated by the time stamps. Bus stop (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


So what? We aren't discussing what (some) Jews believe about 'who is a Jew', but about what an objective, neutral encyclopaedia ought to assert as a fact. This is not something that can be delegated to a particular ethnoreligious group, just because they claim somebody as 'one of their own. And I note that once again you are confusing the issue here - we are talking about faith, not ethnicity (or at least, everyone else is). Does the site you link claim that everyone who's mother is Jewish is automatically a believer in the Judaic faith? I doubt it.
And BTW, do you accept that the sciences of sociology and anthropology are the appropriate 'specialists' when it comes to general issues of 'personal identity', or not?
Regarding me reverting you - if you would stop endlessly rewording your posts, the problem wouldn't arise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—I think you need to show that a specific source has a predisposition to identifying notable individuals as Jewish. I don't think it is sufficient to simply identify all sources with the word "Jewish" in their title as problematic in this way. I think the onus would be on you (or others) to show, one source at a time, that a particular source has in the past designated notable individuals as Jewish when other sources have questioned or outright contradicted such designation. There are a huge number of sources out there and they contradict one another with regularity, but only when warranted and when such claims are defensible. I believe that you would need to demonstrate some sort of a track record displaying the bias that you are claiming for sources that otherwise are merely distinguished by containing the word "Jewish" in their title. That would not be an indicator of bias in and of itself, which if I understand correctly, is the argument that you and others are making. Bus stop (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Bus stop, have you tried reading other peoples' posts before replying to them? I've already stated that I was referring specifically to the Jewish Chronicle in this instance, and that policy dictates that each source should be looked at on its own merits when being used as a source for a particular statements. In any case, this particular horse is not only dead, it has been dead for some time, and flogging it further is a total waste of time unless you are intent on turning it into bone-meal fertiliser. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

is astro databank reliable?

Would appreciate a second opinion on what can be considered reliable sources for articles on astrologers. We currently have a problem with that on Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer). A source I am questioning is astrodatabank. Other editors correctly pointed out that it is not an open wiki and on a reputable website, but does that make it reliable? I am contending that it is only a tertiary source and secondary sources are more reliable. Also there is a problem that articles on ADB have not rarely copied materials from WP (sometimes without mentioning it). I can see the possible case where unreferenced material from WP got used into ADB, and later this material on ADB gets cited as a source on WP. How is this being avoided? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

From their mainpage: "We are now forming a community of volunteer data collectors and maintainers, who will expand and maintain this uniquely valuable collection of astrological information in the future", so almost certainly not. jorgenev 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
As a source of astrological data it's not just an acceptable source but a preferred one. Astra databank is an industry standard, trusted within astrological fields. Indeed, references to the databank, and the Rodden ratings it gives, are usually required by astrological journals and magazines, as an indication of properly sourced data. This is because the Rodden rating it includes gives an indication of how reliably sourced the data is. So it shows whether the data can be trusted or to what extent it needs to be held in suspicion. It seems bizarre that someone who is a member of the WikiProject Astrology should by questioning this.
Another editor has already commented on this saying:
In the first instance as stated before Astrodatabank is not an open Wiki. It has become a surprisingly well established resource. It was originally created by Lois Rodden as an online progression from a series of books (not self-published) containing chart and biographical data... (Also see that editors comments here: Diff)
I suppose, now that Wikipedia is getting more and more influential, there is the concern that the published sources we cite have gathered some of their research information from Wikipedia to begin with, but no reason to suspect Astrodatabank of this more than any other. Bottom line, it's treated as a reliable source in published works off-Wiki, so has to be accepted as a reliable source here too.Clooneymark (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) There is a difference between the astrological information (birth place,date and hour) given on that site, and the biographical part that comes with it. It is the latter that cannot be considered reliable unless it gives reliable sources (and in that case we better use those sources). Many articles on that wiki have not been changed for years, even for living persons. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and a striving for accuracy. Astrodata has such a reputation which is why it is a recommended source for astrological publishers. Unfortunately the same criticism could be said of many articles on Wikipedia; that they have not been updated sharply and remain unchanged for years. In general terms academia accept references from internet sources provided the date of access is included in the reference. I think that is the solution here.Clooneymark (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As one of the maintainers of Astrodatabank at www.astro.com, I can confirm that the birth data information (date, place, time) is researched and documented meticulously. Each entry has its 'Source Notes' where details about the origin of the information are given. We employ a rigid classification system, called the Rodden Rating and developed by the late founder of Astrodatabank, Lois Rodden. For the biographical information the same CANNOT be said. It often contains judgment by the writer, and does not name the source of the biographical information. Aloist (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Aloist, can you confirm that is the situation too for astrologers. I was under the impression that those entries are not able to be edited by others. Or would you say that all bio information is unreliable, even for astrologers - thanks for stepping in to give clear guidance on this.Clooneymark (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Guys, it would be helpful to know what sentences you're trying to support here. If the sentence is something like "Astrodatabank published a biography of Elwell", then the Astrodatabank biography of Elwell is a perfectly acceptable, indisputably authoritative, primary source for the existence of the bio. If the sentence is something like "Albert Einstein was born the same year as the Greek philosopher Aristotle", then it's not okay. Presumably your goal is to support a statement somewhere between these two extremes.
As for reliability in general, we don't actually require "meticulous" checking or a bibliography of sources used by the source; we require a basic level of fact-checking and a basic level of editorial oversight. It is possible that Astrodatabank meets this minimal standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Astrobank "added" a biography of Elwell, however the site says it has now turned itself into an open Wiki. When this transformation occurred, and if Elwell was added before the transformation, cannot be established. The burden of proof must lie with anyone adding Astrobank as a viable source for Elwell, that Astrobank authenticates anything it states about Elwell as "official", otherwise sources from the site should be considered as unsound. The comment of Aloist (talk) who claims to be "one of the maintainers of Astrodatabank" cannot be authenticated, the user being a very timely, convenient, effectively anonymous new one edit contributor with no proof that they are associated with the site - any assertion based on this user's comment should therefore be treated as erroneous. Caution must be taken over such comments as the article has been the target of sockpuppetry on its talk page. Acabashi (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
page is here Dennis Elwell (astrologer) Thanks Panderoona (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Good points by Acabashi. Aloist is indeed a first time contributor, so we have to be very carefull. But anyway, even this new editor thinks that the biography part on astrodata is NOT reliable.
So at best, it can be used as a source for the birth date of a subject. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
For goodness sake cease the negative speculation. Although it is against WP policy to speculate on the off-wiki identity of an on-wiki contributor, the new user is clearly (and easily) recogniseable as the user name of the very well known person who is known for his association with that database. Since he runs the site, and since it has attracted attention regarding its reliability, with a request for clarification, he should be thanked for taking the time to input and inform us; not subject to speculation that his account and activity here might have a sinister motive. (Point of fact - I already alluded to how easy it was to check who owned the site when I responded to cease Acabashi's earlier (equally unecessary) suggestion, on the Elwell discussion page, that perhaps the person who owns another well known astrology site I have quoted is the secret registrant of this site too. It is not only unpleasant but also foolish to speculate like this - just do a bit of easy research and check a few easy facts first.
What he has said so far - and this is very useful - appears to be that astrodatabank is focussed upon the reliability of the astrological data with regard to the information concerning time of birth information. The biographical information it offers is secondary to that, and may have been gathered from other sources, which may, for example, include Wikipedia. So if a piece of biographical information hinges on this site's commentary, then it is possible that some error of reporting could have occured somewhere along the line (which I guiess is hte case for most secondary sources anyway). This isn't a problem for the Elwell page, because nothing there hingers on the astrodatabank reference. I was interested in getting clarification of what I believe to be a different sitution with regard to the biographies of astrologers. Since the site provides a service for astrologers, I believe there are stricter measures to ensure that astrologers are not writing or editing their own entries. But this was mainly a point of interest, that's all. It's unlikey that people will contribute here to answer follow up questions if their first input is met with such suspicion.Clooneymark (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about the dates for those who oppose this source:
  • The conversion to an open wiki was announced in March 2009.
  • The relevant page was imported from the original, non-any-kind-of-wiki, with zero changes since 2002.
Is it your belief that becoming an open wiki in 2009 somehow made in be an open wiki in 2002, i.e., before MediaWiki software even existed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Is unaccredited school's handbook sufficient sourcing for extraordinary claim of transferability of credits?

This is in regards to Weimar Institute which operates an unaccredited bible college as part of its organization. A number of editors have insisted on including the following information following the standard boilerplate text from the template for unaccredited schools: 

However, college-level courses taken at Weimar College can be cross-transferable to other
accredited Adventist colleges, which gives students who start at Weimar a method for
earning credits towards an accredited degree.

Is a college bulletin from a unaccredited school sufficient to make an implausible claim that accredited schools would accept all credits from a specific unaccredited school? bW 03:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing I have learned having transfered between two colleges is that it's the school you're transfering to that you check with. The school you're transfering from will lie even when presented with the other school's list of accepted credits. A source from Weimar.edu is only enough to say that they claim their courses are accepted elsewhere, however, it'd be wise to phrase it as "only they claim their credits are accepted elsewhere" unless some other university can be found to accept their credits. Even still, accredited schools accepting credits from an unaccredited school doesn't make the unaccredited school accredited. My high school had some classes that could be transfered as college credit, but this did not make my high school a college. I could also have taken private Spanish lessons off-campus and tested for credit at USC, but that would not have made those private lessons into an accredited college. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
To answer the question as a matter of principle: no, of course not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
You have to understand the context here. Whoever originally posted this, did so with very poor context. The claim is not that "any schools will take the credits". The claim is rather than the school has an affiliation with Griggs University which then provides credits transferable to other colleges within this specific denomination (Seventh-day Adventist). It is only the SDA schools that will accept the credits as far as I know, but Weimar does have a relationship with Griggs and they even have a policy document where they spell this out where Griggs provides credits which are accredited towards a a college degree. This can be confirmed by speaking to any person who has transferred from Weimar or speaking to the admissions officials at accredited SDA institutions. There is also a letter from the dean of Weimar College which spells out the situation in detail. Fountainviewkid 10:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Then the phrasing in the article (as quoted above) is too vague. If it can be documented that Griggs has agreed to provide credits, the article could say exactly that, and cite a document. If that fact can't be documented, it isn't (yet) reliable information. "Speaking to any person" and "speaking to the admissions officials" is no use in the Wikipedia context. Andrew Dalby 10:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I know a number of people who transferred credits from an unaccredited college to accredited universities. Typically the universities would look at curricula and syllabi and make a decision on a case-by-case basis. The way the text s worded seems appropriate: "can be cross-transferrable to other accredited Adventist colleges..." (Though it seems like "other" should be deleted.) Perhaps add attribution: "However, according to the Weimar Institute bulletin, college-level courses taken at Weimar College can be cross-transferrable to accredited Adventist colleges..." TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stick to WP:RS issues. There's no way we're going to accept a document from the school itself as a WP:RS for claims about accreditation. If nothing else, it falls foul of WP:SELFPUB. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any "claims about accreditation" in this discussion, merely claims about some institutions "can" accept credits from this institution. In the absence of contradictory information, this claim doesn't seem extraordinary. I don't see a problem including it in the article provided it is worded and attributed correctly. ElKevbo (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I can say that "X can jump 100 miles" and that says nothing about the abilities or proclivities of X. We should not accept claims from a SPS for anything the least bit controversial, and the value of credits earned at one institution to another institution is far from clear and a source of some contention in other articles. The statement as presented is too vague, and should be tightened up and attributed in line to the source if nothing else. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it needs to be tightened and attributed as already discussed. But in the absence of contradictory information the idea that specific religious colleges often accept some transfer credits from a particular bible college of the same religion doesn't seem extraordinary. ElKevbo (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Weimar's stated (in their Bulletin) affiliation with Griggs University is important to the article on Weimar. This affiliation provides a means for students to attend Weimar and earn credits transferable within the Adventist university network. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
BW asked:
Is a college bulletin from a unaccredited school sufficient to make an implausible claim that
accredited schools would accept all credits from a specific unaccredited school?
bW 03:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I heard once that Harvard is unaccredited. I wonder. Note that the Weimar College Bulletin does not make such an implausible claim. They are very careful in their counsel about transferability of credit from Weimar to another institution. They also are very strong on the expectation of transfer of Griggs credits. Griggs provides the reliable link, it seems. Further to the Bulletin of Weimar College. I am impressed with their careful, rational stance. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
See here for Harvard. They're on the accredited list, right after Hampshire College and before Hebrew College. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see any claim in the Weimar catalog that "accredited schools would accept all credits" from Weimar College. The information about transferability can be found in the catalog, pages 47-48 (pages 59-60 of the PDF). The college says that some (but not all) of Weimar's courses are accepted for credit by Griggs University, which has some accreditation but not regional accreditation. (Regional accreditation is the "mainstream" kind of college accreditation in the U.S.) Weimar also says that "units earned at Weimar College may not necessarily be transferable" to other Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities, and "[t]hese units are less likely to be transferable to non-Adventist colleges or universities." The Weimar catalog also says that "you may still be a freshman if you enter another non-Adventist college or university at some time in the future even though you earned units here at our school. In addition, if you earn a degree, diploma, or certificate at Weimar College it may not be recognized as a basis for obtaining a higher-level degree at another college or university." So the only "extraordinary" claim here is that Weimar's courses are accepted for credit by Griggs. And for that, as Ian.thomson implies, we would want to have a source from Griggs for confirmation of that. If Griggs says that they accept some Weimar credits, we can be pretty sure that that is true, whereas if Weimar says that Griggs accepts some Weimar credits, that is less certain to be true (because it is self-serving). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I note that someone apparently wants to put in Weimar's article that credits from Weimar "can be cross-transferable to other accredited Adventist colleges". That's a stronger statement than Weimar claims for itself -- what Weimar says is that their credits "may not necessarily be transferable" to other accredited Adventist colleges. Wikipedia should not make a stronger statement about the transferability of Weimar's credits than the college is willing to make itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
What about saying that some credit "may transfer as Griggs credits". Weimar seems to make that claim and I think it's appropriate. I also know that people have been able to transfer some credits. Fountainviewkid 15:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV, don't give a positive tone to the rewording of the source when it isn't there in the original. The original says "may not". The word "not" should be in the rewording, not simply "may" or "can" without "not". Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point but I think you're wrong. In this instance, saying that credits "may transfer" is actually a weaker statement than saying that credits "may not transfer" given the underlying assumptions that each statement makes. It's not really a big deal but it is a bit frustrating that some editors go too far in crusades against unaccredited institutions. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason for us to repeat information at this level of detail available in an institution's publications that are not discussed in reliable independent sources, but that's an issue for the talk page of the ariticle. Weimar's publications are not, IMO, reliable sources for what other institutions may or may not accept in terms of credits. If Griggs makes a statement that they accept Weimar's credits as transferrable, that would be an appropriate source for that assertion, but not the other way around. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression that a school's bulletin is a reliable source for itself when discussing academic issues. Yes it is good to have secondary sources, but not EVERYTHING had to be cited in that manner, especially something like this seeing as it relates only to the institution. The original does not just say "may not", Birk. It also says that there is a deal with Griggs, therefore we should stick with the original wording. It's not so much what other institutions may or may not accept. The point is that the institution says in a reliable source that it has an agreement with Griggs that may allow for "SOME" transfer of credits. I say use the wording of the source, rather than continue the crusade as ElKevbo rightly noted. Fountainviewkid 17:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The references for the credit situation can be found in these 2 places. The first [50] is a sheet prepared by the school under guidance from the State of California education department. The second [51] is a letter/information sheet from the Dean also describing the credit situation.Fountainviewkid 17:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I found a reliable source linking Weimar and Griggs which is secondary. It's a Word document that can be accessed online [education.gc.adventist.org/documents/directory2004.doc]. This document details the whole SDA education system. The source website demonstrates that it comes an official organization. Once you open this document go to page 43 where it says "GRIGGS UNIVERSITY(Higher Education Division of Home Study International)". Scroll down to "Extended campus locations:" and you will see #13 is "Griggs University - Weimar, Weimar College, California". This demonstrates that Griggs & Weimar do have some type of affiliation. Fountainviewkid 15:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You must go outside of the school for your sources when discussing matters that are outside of the school's hands, such as whether the school's credits are accepted. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I did. I went to the official website for the SDA church's education department. They have listed Weimar under Griggs University. This is in line with what Weimar said. And yes if it can be backed up we can use what Weimar says. This demonstrates that a connection between Weimar and Griggs exists. Fountainviewkid 15:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We also have this source fresh from the SDA official church paper the Adventist Review. This news story is about when Weimar was going to close. It did not as another church organization was able to connect with it and keep it open, however the article notes that "Though not a Seventh-day Adventist Church entity, the college is certified by the state of California and affiliated with Griggs University." The entire source can be found here [52]. Also we still have this source which is also secondary and reliable [53]. Fountainviewkid 15:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore we have this source which updates Griggs University under Andrews University which it recently came under [54]. This is from the SDA Yearbook, the official directory of the church. Scroll to the bottom where it says "Griggs University" and you will see "Griggs University--Weimar Center" followed by the address of the college and the name of the Director of the center who happens to be the VP of Education for Weimar College. Fountainviewkid 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also this note which while written by the VP of Education for Weimar is located in a secondary source (the Loma Linda University Alumni Journal). On page 6 it says "The college has also had an articulation agreement with Griggs University that allows many of our classes to be listed on a Griggs transcript, easing transfer of credits for students moving to a non-Adventist institution". The source can be found as a PDF here [55]. Fountainviewkid 16:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Another good source on Weimar's "credit situation". This is courtesy of State of California Board of Registered Nursing. This is an update on Weimar's feasibility study to get licensing. This it as recent as May 18,2011 and is Agenda Item 9.6.2. Here is the PDF [56] The board notes that "Currently, two Adventist universities (Southern Adventist University in Tennessee and Andrews University in Michigan) accept Weimar College credit units. Both of these universities have BSN and graduate level nursing programs. Further, these two universities are part of the North American Division (NAD) of the Adventist Church which consists of 10 accredited SDA universities. A task force has been established in the NAD to explore mechanisms of transfer of units form Weimar College to all ten universities". Griggs University is under Andrews University as any credits with Griggs are transferable with Andrews and vice versa. Fountainviewkid 16:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 21:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - from the discussion above, it appears that those that who would like to make the claim that credits from this unaccredited "school" will transfer are grasping at straws. They have also engaged in canvassing in an attempt to force their interpretation of the source into the article. I realize that this is irrelevant to a question of reliable sourcing, but I spoke to someone at one of the schools that supposedly accept credits, and they clearly stated that they would not accept unaccredited credits. I also happen to have a brochure in my possession at the moment from another of these schools. They also clearly state that they would accept no credits from unaccredited institutions. bW 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
First, this was NOT canvassing. I informed as many people as I could find who commented on the Weimar Talk Page or edited the main article. There were a couple I didn't post this on, just because there was only one small formatting edit or something like that. If you want I will try and find even more to post it on. And no this is not grasping for straws. These are reliable and secondary sources just as you requested. You should be happy that we were able to find some references. As for whoever you spoke to, I will remind you that those conversations are supposedly irrelevant to this discussion much as I was told. To quote from above ""Speaking to any person" and "speaking to the admissions officials" is no use in the Wikipedia context." I have spoken to people at Southern, Andrews, and even Union College who were able to transfer Weimar credits. I have also spoken to staff at Weimar, though I have no official connection there. There are certain schools that don't accept Weimar credits and there are those that do. Also you have to remember that pretty much every SDA school (actually I think all of them) accept Griggs University credits. The problem comes with the Weimar credits not by Griggs. Some schools accept those, others such as the ones you noted BW have not. And remember Weimar is unaccredited but Griggs is accredited. The credits would be Griggs not Weimar. Fountainviewkid 21:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
So then the relevant portion to the Weimar article would be that Weimar credits are not transferable. You can add that Griggs credits are to the Griggs article if you have sourcing for it. It is dishonest of you to concede that "there are certain schools that don't accept Weimar credits" and at the same time argue for saying that "Adventist schools accept Weimar credits." Do you have sources from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Spectrum or Adventist Today would be good. I can give you a Spectrum article commenting that Weimar is unaccredited. bW 21:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Self published sources can only be used to support non-controversial claims about themselves in their own article - i.e. that they offer credits for classes or that they (the subject of the article) accept credits from somewhere. It cannot be used to support claims OR implications about any other institution's willingness to accept those credits. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
And we cannot be using WP:SYN to cobble together a chain of documentation that "proves" that Instituation A accepts credits from Institution B. And Institution B accpets credits from Institution C ergo Instition A accpets credits from Institution C. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Did either Active Banana or BW read the sources I posted? Some of the credits taken at Weimar are transferable. That is very clear from the sources, therefore it is not wrong to say that Weimar has a relationship with Griggs AND that some of the credits do transfer. It is not dishonest to say that some schools accept the credits while others do not. I gave several WP:RS. I don't need Adventist Today and Spectrum sources either. Oh and Active Banana, these are not self-published sources. They are the Official SDA yearbook, the Official SDA Education Directory, the Official SDA magazine (Adventist Review), the official reports of the CA Board of Nursing, and the official journal of LLU Alumni. Oh and it's not WP:SYN either. I merely provided the different links because they provide increased weight for the evidence of the relationship between Griggs & Weimar and Weimar's "credit situation". The facts from the sources are twofold. A- Weimar has a relationship with Griggs University. B- Some of the credits taken at Weimar transfer to other SDA accredited institutions. Fountainviewkid 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just attribute the quote and move on. A lot of energy and time is being expended on something that just isn't that important or controversial. ElKevbo (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but there are a number of important issues here. Fountainviewkid, most all of the sources you have brought here are SPS for various organizations or primary sources, none of which seem appropriate sources for the statement presented by the OP. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Nuuj, you've got to understand the Adventist system. The only articles you will pretty much have on Weimar are from with the Adventist system itself, which is actually more diverse than you might realize. These are not SPS. I mean how can the CA Board of Nursing be SPS, seeing as it has no direct connection to the school other than serving as a reviewer? And the SDA Yearbook simply catalogs information relating to all it's schools. These are not primary sources. The primary sources are from Weimar's website or it's published materials. The fact that Weimar has some association with the SDA church does not mean that every SDA source is a primary source. That would be like saying that every right-leaning media outlet is a primary source for Republicans and vice versa. The claims are well documented in reliable secondary sources. Fountainviewkid 23:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Question - Fountainviewkid says we have to "understand the Adventist system." Perhaps he would be so kind as to point out the policy or guideline that creates an exemption from usual policy for Adventist sources? bW 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not arguing for an "exemption". I am merely saying that several of the critics on here are making assertions based on not understanding certain parts about a church organizations and it's relationship with sources and education institutions. I only ask that you understand that the church paper is not a "primary" source on Weimar college, especially since the college isn't even directly under the official church (hence the accreditation dispute). It's funny that some want to say that the Official SDA church paper is a "primary" source for the college, and argue that it is separate from the church officially. Fountainviewkid 23:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not "owned" by the church but it is affiliated with the church. Hence, church published sources are "affiliated" with the school. It is however, not owned by the church, making it "independent" legally from the church. bW 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Either way the church publications are not a primary source for Weimar. Weimar's website is. Church publications are different, as is the CA Board of Nursing. Fountainviewkid 23:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Numerous editors have taken positions in opposition to yours. Get over it. bW 23:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
And vice versa. I agree with El Kevbo that we just attribute the quote and move on. Interestingly many who have taken opposite positions don't understand the relationship between the subject and the sources. That is why we need neutral and knowledgeable editors such as Donald or El Kevbo. Fountainviewkid 23:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Fountainviewkid's definition of a "neutral" editor: one who agrees with him. Apparently, those of us who disagree are simply not-knowledgable (uninformed, dumb, etc.) and not neutral to him.. bW 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually my definition of "neutral" is one who can see both sides and judge objectively. I've seen that Donald and Kevbo. I have yet to see that in you.Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Goodwill is important here. Weimar is unique and creative. Griggs University, now part of Andrews University, plays an important role at Weimar. This is obvious according to the sources. There are two ways to implement Wikipedia's guidelines: with grace and charm or with technical obstruction. Goodwill is important here. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt one can refute a claim of credit transferability without doing original research. When an affiliated party (i.e. primary source) makes a dubious claim like this one, what I'd ideally like to see is the phrase "According to" in the text of the article. With a footnote, of course. —Stepheng3 (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the article is attributed and sourced. And I still don't see what is dubious about the statement. ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's not an exceptional claim. Colleges and universities often accept transfer credit from institutions that aren't accredited. In fact, a criterion for accrediting a new college is whether other schools have accepted its courses as transfer credit. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree its not a exceptional claim, and its the norm for college-level courses taken at Adventist colleges such as Weimar College to be cross-transferable to other accredited Adventist colleges, so this is not exceptional...Simbagraphix (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Dubious Claim? (Perhaps this should be on Weimar's Talk Page)In its Bulletin, Weimar states clearly that it is not accredited; It describes the transfer of credits as complicated; It points to Griggs University as the bridge to other Adventist institutions of higher learning; It quotes the North American Division Working Policy of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists to assert the reliability of Griggs' credit transferability within the Adventist system. Now that Griggs is part of Andrews University, the inter-connectedness of the various SDA institutions of higher learning, including Weimar via Griggs, is interesting to say the least. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of the participants here need to go read WP:Secondary does not mean independent. An organization's publication about its product (e.g., Weimar on the utility of its college credits) is a reliable, non-independent, self-published source. Such sources are reliable, although care must be taken to stick tightly to the extremely minimal claim here, which is much closer to "it is possible than under certain circumstances some portion of credits might be accepted by some schools" than "yes, you can transfer the credits".
    Also, the State of California does not certify schools, full stop. It registers degree-granting institutions that want to reduce their odds of being hauled into court on charges of fraud, but that's it. The abuse of this registration process to pretend that the schools are somehow endorsed by the government is endemic and deplorable. The city that issued Weimar's business license probably paid more attention to the org's activities than the BPPE does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • How can we assume that a college's claims about whether other colleges will accept its credits are reliable? In the case of Weimar, I think it's likely that the claims are accurate because they are very modest claims; still, there is no guarantee of that. But if another college, which I will call XYZ College, were run by unethical people, the XYZ College handbook might make grandiose, untrue claims about how lots of colleges will accept credits from XYZ College. Hence, I wouldn't consider the XYZ College handbook to be a reliable source about how other colleges will treat credits from XYZ. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
      • We can't, and it is not uncommon for degree mills to make exaggerated claims about transferability of credits, which is one reason we should exercise caution here. Weimar seems like a decent school, but I concur that we should not use publications from Weimar to source statements about what other schools will or will not do. I am also concerned with OR issues underlying linking facts from various sources relating Weimar, Griggs, and Andrews. I appreciate the desire to promote goodwill, but we should be governed by policy. WP:Secondary does not mean independent is an essay, and does not trump the policies regarding use of reliable sources such as SPS, but I agree with WAID that we can use Weimar as a source for what Weimar claims. That should be attributed inline to make it clear that it is Weimar's claim, and not a statement of fact--for the latter, we would require a better source. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
      • As Nuujinn points out, we don't accept a self-published (and therefore potentially self-serving) source as the absolute Gospel truth on the matter. But we do accept it as a reliable source for the facts we have in hand: Weimar says that some credits might be accepted elsewhere.
        (Nuujinn, there isn't any conflict between the essay and the policy, so there's no possibility of one trumping the other. You might also like to read about the minimal difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. WP:Use common sense, WP:BRD, and WP:TE are also "just essays".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_98&oldid=1223145256"