Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 18

Linux websites

Would these websites be considered reliable sources? Specifically in regards to Linux-related topics? Can they be used to establish notability and critical commentary?

• http://distrowatch.com
• http://linux.com
• http://tuxs.org
• http://osnews.com
• http://reviewlinux.com

Thanks for your input. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia War

Got a question - is this source (http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=86442) reliable? Some folks are alleging it's "Azeri propaganda" and I truly have no idea. Kingnavland (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to mention the context first. The source is alleging that Russian aircraft attacked Georgia from a Russian airbase in Armenia. The source obviously has an axe to grind. See: Nagorno-Karabakh War. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure why that's relevant to the situation at hand. Let's leave Azeri-Armenian politics out of it and just get a ruling.Kingnavland (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you leave that out of it when a non-authoritarian Azeri online publication is making an unsourced allegation against Armenia? Quite frankly that comment just boggles the mind.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Azeri Press Agency is not reliable on this issue because Armenia and Azerbaijan are technically in a state of war with each other. The press agency (read propaganda agency) of Azerbaijan is naturally going to want to sour armenia's relations with it's northern neighbor. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense really.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's start over. I would like to hear from someone who is neither Armenian nor Azeri about whether or not this is a reliable source. Kingnavland (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am neither Armenian nor Azeri. Not that it should matter. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I would completely agree. However, since the Azeris and the Armenians are in a state of war (and from the looks of things, the war extends to Wikipedia edits), it appears that any Azeri would say the source is valid and any Armenian would say the opposite; there's too much bias. Kingnavland (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is irrelevant. Look at the source's source: "Gruziya Online website reports that the aircraft that bombed Vaziani base had taken off from the territory of Armenia." It's not a defense source. It's a website, whose reliability we don't know. I say that until this can be corroborated by independent reporting, it should not be included. --Golbez (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Energy Sites

I have been attempting to edit some of the fringier energy topics including

[[Hydrogen fuel enhancement]‎],Water-fuelled car‎, [[Oxyhydrogen]‎] , Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell‎ , François_Isaac_de_Rivaz.

Editors continually insert references that I consider unverifyable and unreliable and I'd like to get some intervention from an admin. It seems that many have an agenda on fringe energy that they will use any reference no matter how minor, and attempt to use it to continue their cause.

Examples include youtube.com, www.padrak.com, www.waterpoweredcar.com, www.thorionproject.com

An example of a particularly disuptive user is user:gdewilde who has alaready had several blocks under both his current and previous login, and may be sockpuppeting. In fact, I challenge you to find an edit by the user that wasn't objected to by several other editors. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of Op-Eds and Non-neutral sources in Climate change denial

I'm a bit concerned with the reliability of the sources in climate change denial. First, a number of op-eds are used as a basis for the presentation of factual evidence. For example:

8. ^ a b Ellen Goodman (9 February 2007). "No change in political climate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.

9. ^ Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect Peter Christoff. The Age AU.com, July 9, 2007

10. ^ Deniers of global warming harm us Joel Connelly. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2007.

Erm. Correction here. None of these sources are used as a basis. These are given as examples, of media representation. And they are correctly inline described as "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denialism.[5][6][7][8][9][10]". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. My bad. Nevertheless, the op-ed nature of the sources isn't clear from the inline citation. J. Langton (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim is that since these are not the sole citation for the phrases which refer to these, that it's not a problem. My understanding of WP:RS is that these references should nonetheless be deleted.

There are a couple other references which I would maintain are examples of opinion journalism; another editor maintains that they're "investigative journalism" and as such are kosher. They are

28. ^ Hertsgaard, Mark (May 2006). "While Washington Slept". Vanity Fair. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.

40. ^ Dickinson, Tim (2007-06-20). "The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming". Rolling Stone. Retrieved on 2007-07-14.

They are not marked in the magazine specifically as op-eds, but the titles and the actual content of the pieces make it clear, in my opinion, that the articles are advocacy rather than neutral commentary, and as such should be subject to the same restrictions as clearly-marked op-eds.

Also, I'm a bit concerned about the reliability of Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone as sources for this particular issue -- both magazines have pretty clear political leanings, and as such shouldn't be considered more reliable than, for example, National Review or similar political newsmagazines. (Along those lines, if VF and RS are considered reliable, would NR also be fair game?)

In any case, I think that the extensive use of op-eds and other slanted sources in this article contributes to a subtle but definite POV problem. I'm posting here because another editor disagrees with my assessment and suggested that I request additional input here. So any comments would be much appreciated! J. Langton (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Guidance on pseudonymous authors

WP:V says "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability."

We have a question at several places on this article's talk page about whether an anonymous or pseudonymous "letter to the editor" or "comment" in a highly respected scientific journal on sexology can be considered a reliable source. The comment criticizes specific aspects of the research behind a psychological conception of transwomen, such as whether the correct kinds of control groups were used. It's (apparently) the only published critique on certain aspects of this idea, as (apparently) no professional has been willing to publicly own these specific critical comments (although various professionals have criticized other aspects of this conception). Some editors feel strongly that the comment should be accepted as a reliable source in the related Wikipedia articles. Others find it weak, even too weak to be accepted. Here's what we know about the three aspects of verifiability:

• the piece of work itself: As a comment, it is not subject to the peer-review process. In this specific instance, the journal promised to publish every comment they received on the topic, so it did not undergo normal editorial review, either.

• the creator of the work: The author's identity is unknown and therefore we simply can't evaluate this aspect. The author claims to be both a developmental psychologist and a transwoman. The author also runs a website under this name. This comment is the only publication under this pseudonym at PubMed.

• the publisher of the work: Worldwide, this is probably the single most important scientific journal for sexology. A normal research paper in this journal is obviously a reliable source.

Is the fact that the journal itself is a reliable source "good enough" to meet WP:V standards? Do you generally accept anonymous or pseudonymous comments as reliable sources? For example, would you cite a letter to the editor in The New York Times if it was known that the author was not writing under his or her correct name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As an example, the Cheryl Chase (activist) article describes the founding of the Intersex Society of North America via a pseudonymous 1993 letter to the editor in The Sciences, a respected publication. Chase used this pseudonym for 15 years and is still cited by that name. Even though Chase has used at least three names and provided inconsistent biographical information, the verifiability of the 1993 letter as concerns Wikipedia is indisputable: it appeared in The Sciences, it can be looked up by anyone, and its contents are even available online. It is thus cited in her Wikipedia article. The same is true in the case of Madeline Wyndzen (the pseudonymous author): the materials in question were published by a top sexology journal (Archives of Sexual Behavior) and are available for purchase just like any other article in their publication. Wyndzen's work is listed in PubMed, Google Scholar, etc.

One aspect of this debate worth noting is that Wyndzen is critical of key personnel at the Archives of Sexual Behavior, where her paper was published. One of those people is an editor here (User:James Cantor), who is leading the push on Wikipedia to expunge any materials published by Wyndzen. Further, in the paper in question, Wyndzen specifically mentions Wikipedia articles that she feels cite psychologist Yolanda Smith erroneously. This has led the Wikipedia editor who cited Smith (User:Hfarmer) to push for expunging any materials published by Wyndzen. In other words, they wish to claim that the Archives of Sexual Behavior is reliable for the purposes of materials with which they agree, but unreliable for the purposes of articles critical of them. I believe this case is less about who Wyndzen is and more about what she says, which is disliked by the editors seeking to expunge her. In the links provided by User:WhatamIdoing, you can see that some are even calling for determining Wyndzen's real name. I see this as part of an ongoing attempt to suppress and discredit criticism of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, where most key personnel from Archives of Sexual Behavior work, including User:James Cantor. As a matter of disclosure, I have cited Wyndzen in my own published work, so I consider her reliable and her publications verifiable. Jokestress (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It presumably matters to neutral editors how the source is being used. "Somebody wrote a pseudonymous letter" can be trivially supported by a ref to the letter itself: if a letter exists, then it was very clearly written. However, this pseudonymous source is being used to support "The following serious scientific charges have been made:", which requires a more robust source. I'm open to any outcome. I am, however, specifically seeking the opinion of experienced Wikipedia editors that are not involved in this issue in their real lives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Just giving context. Jokestress (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording and sourcing in question above would seem to give majorly undue weight to a source of no known reliability. I don't think the existence of a letter to the editor alone, anonymous or otherwise, indicates "serious scientific charges". Lots of journals print letters to the editors from cranks that they do not support. "Scientific" charges, to me, should either be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal by one or more scientists (not merely a peer-reviewed journal discussing science, as the bar is much lower there) or by a highly reputable scientist in another source. "Serious" scientific charges would need to additionally prove that they are "serious" in some way -- like multiple reputable RS scientists making the charges and not just some off the cuff hasty letter to the editor. 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record I merely wish to establish the authority of Dr. Wyndzen or the lack thereof such as the case may be. If this requires "vectoring and exposing" her ( no less than Jokestress's own words in relation to other anonymous parties in this debacle) so be it. As for the seriousness of her scientific charges...If she is genuine then those charges have some weight. A journal need not publish a critique of a theory for that critique to be valid. If she as one single individual scientist points out flaws in Dr.'s Smith and Blanchard's research that is enough to cast some doubt. Her opinion could at least be considered a minority opinion and mentioned with due weight. I would not object to this. I just object to the true double standard being applied by Jokestress and those who think like her. The supposed "Dr. Wyndzen" says things that agree with her pov therefore she is believed uncritically.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy's response to this question has been criticized as not being repeated by enough other editors here to properly establish consensus. If you could oblige us by posting your views, even if it seems like a "vote" instead of a rational discussion, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• In general, I would say that pseudonymous and anonymous letter to the editor of a scientific journal should be regarded with suspicion as sources. In some cases (where a journal makes no promise about publishing all letters and selects among letters) some bare minimum of editorial control can be assumed. However this is not sufficient in most cases. In the case of scientific disputes one of the critical elements in ascribing reliability to published work is the reputation economy behind publication. If a scientist publishes a patently false or misleading paper, we expect that the scientific community will "punish" (or at least not reward) him or her. This strong reputation economy (along with the long training time and presumably selective PhD process) allows us to give a wide latitude to scientific sources. An anonymous letter circumvents this economy and prevents the scientific community from rewarding or punishing the scientist for making claims. As such, the normal incentives for a scientist to speak tentatively are removed. that needs to be considered when looking at the source itself. So even if the author is a respected scientist (which we could assume for the sake of argument), the authority of the comment cannot be derived from the presumed expertise of the commenter. If the scientist wants to publish a critique of the study, that may be done. alternately, if the scientist wants to stake their reputation on an unpublished critique of the study, that is possible, too. But in this case, we can't judge a pseudonymous letter to the editor as a reliable source, even as the opinion of the author. The fact that this particular letter was published following a promise from the journal to publish all letters makes it even more suspect. Tl;dr=no. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Letters to the editor, and similar non-vetted commentary, should be treated like self-published sources and op-ed pieces. In this instance, that would lean towards the exclusion of the source. Additionally, there are due weight concerns present here, as we should not be presenting extreme minority views of a topic. If a pseudonymous letter to the editor is the only source of the criticisms, it's unquestionably a violation of our policies and principles to present such a view in the mainspace. Vassyana (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana on almost every point. My only quibble would be that letters to the editor, and authors' responses, in a high-quality medical journal normally would be given greater weight than a random self-published source or op-ed piece. I have found these letters to be quite helpful in pointing out limitations in studies, particularly when acknowledged by the authors. A lot of it depends on the case, of course, and in this particular case from the evidence presented above (which is all I've read) the source sounds a bit dubious. Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also agree with Vassyana. It should not be used.Momento (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with this discussion is that it was framed in such a way as to hide the bias and agenda of those who seek to suppress the source. While User:WhatamIdoing is typically less extreme that User:James Cantor, he follows pretty much the same agenda and POV. Cantor is on the editorial board of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which published the long commentary by Dreger that the editor Zucker characterized as "controversial" and "peer reviewed", along with 23 commenataries to it, and Dreger's response to those commentaries. Fourteen of the 23 commentaries have been counted as strongly critical of Dreger's article, conclusions, or methodology. Wyndzen's pseudonymous comment is one of these; she has also published other articles and a web site under this assumed name, to protect her identity as a transwoman and academic from those academic sexologists who in this dispute seem to be teamed up against poeple of her POV. The wiki tactic of the sexologists such as Cantor is to push the Dreger piece as reliable and authoritative, while arguing that the other side of the argument published in the same journal is unreliable, just "letters to the editor." There needs to be a way to balance Dreger whenever she is cited by talking about the other side as published there and commented on by her. I think that this can be easily achieved by being clear in the article about what opinion is being cited, and then referencing the journal for the letter that is the source of that opinion. Treating these letters as reliable sources for opinions is not the same as treating them as reliable sources for facts. So, with appropriate edits to the article, it should be possible to represent the opinions of Wyndzen and other commentators. Wyndzen's commentary is actually one of the most thoughtful and insightful and non-polarized of the lot, as it concerns the underlying scientific controversies, but is extremely critical of Dreger's approach and pro-Bailey conclusions; email me if you'd like a copy of the whole lot. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

www.fungitecture.com

I noticed recently that an editor O8TY (talk · contribs) has been adding text and an external link since May to Doric order.[1] It has problems to my eye with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:QS, and WP:SPS. They are editing against consensus using multiple ips (see Doric history), and now spreading it to other articles.[2] I've already reverted so I can't block or protect, but I think they are being disruptive and spamming this link, and unreliably sourced theory. Not sure where else to post this. dvdrw 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I just checked out the site, and I can confirm that it miserably fails the requirements for a reliable source. I don't even see room for discussion on it, honestly, and this extends to the content it's being used to source. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. I protected the page since they are using proxies. dvdrw 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Labouring under such trivial arguments, it is no wonder Wikipedia is such an incredibly long way behind FungiTecture.com. O8TY (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, dvdrw. Wikipedia needs to stay free of this kind of road-company discordianism. --Wetman (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the book Cosmopolitanism published by Duke University Press a reliable source for the claim "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations"?

Is the book Cosmopolitanism published by Duke University Press a reliable source for the claim "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations"? Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs) is blanking cited material in the article Sangh Parivar [3][4]. The book is written by Sheldon Pollock, Dipesh Chakrabarty and Homi K. Bhabha. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's reliable, but there's a legitimate question of whether or not using it is a weighting concern. Is the subaltern view significant enough in relation to the topic for inclusion? That is the question that's at hand, rather than any questions of reliability. Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The book is written by highly reputed writers. How will it be undue, especially while dealing with a highly controversial organization like the Sangh Parivar. It is common knowledge that the SP is a Hindu chauvinist organization which seeks to establish Hindu hegemony and destroy other religions, if not destruction, then assimilating other religions within Hindu tradition. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good gracious. That's not "common knowledge". I certainly do not know any such thing. We do not put POVs into articles, we cite sources for what they say, if they are significant enough to mention in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right we do not put POV, we put reliable sources, and this is what going on here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope so, but your phrasing makes me skeptical. As described below, the statement as quoted in this section heading is not just citing reliable sources, it's advancing a POV. Cite what the reliable sources say, do not try to make he article say that what those people say is a fact. You need to understand the difference. DreamGuy (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I have made a mistake, I should have said "anyone who has a good knowledge on Politics of India knows that the SP is a Hindu chauvinist organization". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify an important point people seem to miss all the time: Nothing is a reliable source for "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations" *If* the book is reliable (which I haven't looked into), it could be a reliable source for the statement "The authors of the book Cosmopolitan have described Sangh Parivar as a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations." Do you see the important distinction there? The existence of a reliable source saying something (again, not saying this one is reliable) does not mean that that something is true, just that they SAID that. Wikipedia does not take sides in such issues, we just report what reliable sources say and let the readers decide for themselves. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's completely and utterly untrue, and a comprehensive mis-interpretation of WP:NPOV. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, you are the one who is wrong. NPOV doesn't mean a thing at all if you present mere opinions as if they were facts. We report what the sources are and what they say, not try to declare that sources are right. We do not take sides, period. You need to go reread policies here if you don't understand that. DreamGuy (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions about political orientation that are generally held are presented as fact. I frankly don't think you know what you're talking about. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point that you seem to miss: if all reliable sources agree, a statement like "Sangh Parivar is a coalition of Hindu chauvinist organizations" is just fine. Just like Mars is the fourth planet from the sun, instead of Mars is widely considered by astronomers to be the fourth planet from the sun. There's nothing wrong with a bald statement of fact if there isn't any credible controversy. Gray areas occur when there is controversy that only some editors consider credible.
Kww (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn;t miss any point. The point here is that some reliable sources can make a a claim, but that's only a claim unless it can be objectively verified. Mars is objectively verified. Chauvinism, etc., are labels and not as objective. If any reliable sources dispute the claim then it's not an objective fact but merely an opinion. Explain who says what and leave it at that. Picking one side as right is a violation of NPOV in a major way. DreamGuy (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to know something more about the Sangh Parivar, this google search [5] will be helpful. Everyone, who has the minimum knowledge on Hindu politics, knows Sangh Parivar is a chauvinistic organization with a quasi-fascistic ideology and methods. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

While this information can be presented as criticism in a separate section. And it will be also good to add some more information by using pro-Hindutva writers. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Google Book search, this source refers to "moderate voices within the Sangh Parivar [that] acknowledge the plurality of Hinduism and its non-partisan character. The one-time militant proponents of Hindutva [...] currently spare no effort in highlighting the accommodative and 'melting pot' nature of Hinduism ..." This source appears to speak of a "Hindu chauvinist wing of the Sangh Parivar", so it's perhaps overstating the case that all sources equate the Sangh Parivar as a whole with Hindu chauvinism. The Sangh Parivar also includes the BJP, one of India's mainstream political parties (though it is explicitly right-wing and Hindu), which formed a recent government in India. For more background see Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#Sangh Parivar; the RSS does have historical links to Hitler and fascism going back to the 1930s. Jayen466 21:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a very "quick and dirty" Google Scholar analysis:

• "Sangh Parivar" nationalist: 768 matches
• "Sangh Parivar" fundamentalist: 378 matches
• "Sangh Parivar" "Hindu fundamentalist": 64 matches
• "Sangh Parivar" chauvinist: 60 matches

Jayen466 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Toll Roads News, again

This was discussed above and determined to be self-published, which I agree with. However, might it still be a reliable source? It has apparently been published by Peter Samuel (we have an article about him, but I'm not sure if he's actually notable) for 13 years. He does seem to be recognized as an expert - and of course as a pro-toll road advocate. Would it be acceptable to use facts about specific roads, such as from [6] in Adams Avenue Parkway? --NE2 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like proper use of a self-published acticle by an expert, for basic facts about roads. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. the books he has written or contributed to change the issue a little bit. I was the quick respondent before. I made by suggestion on the basis of information on the website by itself. This is probably a good case for the exceptions listed at WP:SPS. Protonk (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

CombinedFleet.com

CombinedFleet.com [7] is an oft-used reference for Wikipedia articles related to the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Pacific War of World War II. During the FAC for the Battle of Tassafaronga, someone questioned the reliability of the site as a source. Since the same concern may come up again, as I'm using the site as a source in another article that I plan on nominating for FAC once it's ready, I thought that I should get some other opinions on it in advance.

I believe the site is reliable because the site owners are Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, authors of the book Shattered Sword, a source used in a variety of Wikipedia articles, especially the Battle of Midway which is a featured article. Perhaps more important, though, is that the site lists its sources of information here and here. Those two lists represent a definitive work of English Pacific War literature. If the site's operators are reputable, published authors and they clearly list the sources of their information, and those sources are valid primary and secondary sources, does that make the site a reliable, secondary source? Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thirty books cite it, which is quite a lot. One could check how they use it, as far as possible, but together with the above info, it seems quite good.John Z (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe that answers the question. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia useable as a source

This small section of a much larger dispute contains the assertion that Wikipedia rules are flexible enough to allow using Polish Wikipedia as a source if your goal is to create articles about every Polish village. Anybody care to comment on that assertion?
Kww (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not RS, it is a self-reference. You need to use the source used at pl.wiki. --Soman (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Soman has it right. You can link to the polish Wikipedia article (I am not sure if it would go in the External Links section or the See Also section... probably the former), but you can not use another Wiki as a source. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I wouldn't want to canvass for support over in the linked discussions, because that would be against the rules.
Kww (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Query about four websites

Following some feedback I offered at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Screaming Trees discography, I would like some assistance here in figuring out if the following sites are considered reliable or not:

• [8]
• [9],
• [10] and [11], and
• CKB

I have opposed the FLC based on these sources, because they appear to be fansites and stat sites built by someone in their bedroom with too much time on their hands. The FLC nominator insists they are Reliable though. My issue with clipland.com is the fact that Firefox blocked two pop-ups for me, and because uses pop up ads, it shouldn't be used. Additionally, it is being used to reference the director of a music video, and it does this by linking to a YouTube-hosted video. It was my thought that YouTube does not meet WP:RS.

Any help that can be given on this is appreciated. Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)